Why is the economy shrinking?

You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox.
Americans are fearful that President Donald Trump's hefty tariffs will cause a recession. The U.S. economy shrank in the first quarter by an annualized rate of 0.3 percent — the first negative growth in three years. What caused this downturn? And is this the start of a Trump recession? I'm joined by my fellow columnists Eduardo Porter and Natasha Sarin to break down what these numbers signal for the rest of 2025.
💬 💬 💬
Heather Long Why did the U.S. economy shrink in the first quarter? And how alarmed should we be?
Eduardo Porter This is just arithmetic: To get gross domestic product, you subtract imports from the data on investment and consumption, which includes spending on both domestic products and imports. Businesses and consumers stocked up on imports — which was expected in anticipation of Trump's promised tariffs.
Heather Okay, if we strip out the import craziness, how was the U.S. economy doing in Q1?
Eduardo The underlying economic performance was pretty stable: consumer spending plus gross private fixed investment increased 3 percent in the first quarter, up from 2.9 percent in the previous quarter. This report is perhaps the last picture of an economy before getting walloped by Trump's barrage of unorthodox policymaking.
Natasha Sarin Yeah, it's what I call the 'Before Times' print. The economy was pretty strong!
Eduardo BTW, I share the general sense of alarm. It's just not in the Q1 data.
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
Heather Is this -0.3 percent GDP in the first quarter the potential start of the Trump recession? Or should we ignore Q1 and focus on Q2 (and beyond)?
Natasha I am wary of what is on the horizon for the economy, but I don't think the headline number here is that meaningful. Harvard economist Jason Furman has been focusing on what he's calling 'core GDP': the consumer spending and investment number. And it was at a pretty strong 3 percent in Q1. So I'd look to Q2, which will have more months of Trump's policy environment reflected in it.
Eduardo Right. What isn't included in Q1 is the massive uncertainty, the plummeting consumer confidence and the shrinking 401(k) balances.
Natasha And the tariffs! April 2! So-called Liberation Day.
Eduardo Yeah! And the sticker shock from tariffs. Add that, and it spells recession. Of course, Trump would say this had 'NOTHING TO DO WITH TARIFFS.' If it's IN CAPS, it must be true. (He has also said he already cut 200 trade deals in a world of 195 countries.) Q2 is when we start to experience headspinning from Liberation Day.
Natasha 💯. JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon now thinks that a recession is the best case outcome. It is wild that we are on the precipice of a man-made recession.
Heather 'Man-made recession' is a good term, Natasha. Talk us through this: How exactly would a recession (or worse — stagflation) occur? How would we get from a mostly okay Q1 to a downturn?
Natasha General Motors pulled its 2025 profit guidance this week citing the tariffs. They know what's coming. You get there by imposing the highest tariff rates in a century that are going to drive up inflation and cost consumers $5,000 annually in higher prices.
Eduardo I think that a big part of the problem is that nobody really knows what's coming.
Natasha It's just totally bonker bananas 🍌. Where are we going?! Are we near trading deals with India and Japan? That means less tariff revenue. But Stephen Miran, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, says the tariffs are going to produce lots of revenue for deficit reduction. So that must mean they're staying high? It's a constant yo-yo that is impossible to plan around and is leading to investors being down on America, and with good reason.
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
Heather I think the key to watch is jobs. For now, over 159 million Americans are still employed and getting paychecks. People are clearly nervous (over 70 percent expect a recession soon), and we are starting to see some layoffs. If that picks up, then people will really start to cut back on spending. And that's how we could easily end up in a recession.
Eduardo Tariffs (reasonable tariffs) do not necessarily produce recessions. They just make the economy less efficient. I think the main cause for a recession in the coming months will be the massive uncertainty.
Natasha In any given year, the chance of a recession is like 15 percent. We, in this chat, are talking about it like a foregone conclusion, but to be clear, it isn't. The odds have gone way up because of the policy uncertainty.
Heather Let me ask it another way: Can we still avoid a recession? If Trump pulls back some more on tariffs, can we avoid the worst case?
Eduardo Maybe. If Trump decides to pull all the tariffs back to where they were in December, we might just avoid a recession. He has to backtrack on the tariffs and promise never to touch economic policy again.
Natasha The reality that is so devastating is Trump inherited a strong economy! He just had to watch it be strong and claim credit.
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
Eduardo And we haven't talked about what happens if Trump really messes with the Fed …
Heather Good point. I was glad to see the strong market reaction (we saw the same thing in late 2018 when Trump first threatened to fire Fed Chair Jerome H. Powell), and it looks like Trump backed down again. I think at this point Trump won't fire Powell. He's better off trying to blame Powell for any downturn.
Natasha I hope you are right (not about blaming Powell of course). But I'm worried, because the same market discipline that we saw in the first Trump administration isn't governing here.
Heather Last question: Trump loves tariffs. Do tariffs ever make sense in your view?
Natasha Targeted tariffs in certain sectors. For national security, for supply chain resilience, sure. Broad based tariffs at the highest rate in a century that are pushing our allies straight into China's waiting arms? No, those don't ever make sense.
Eduardo There is a role for targeted tariffs. But that has nothing to do with what is going on now. In Trump's worldview, tariffs are to punish an unfair world that has somehow brought misery to the U.S.
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
Post Opinions wants to know: How has your economic outlook changed since the beginning of the Trump administration? Share your responses and they might be published as letters to the editor.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

24 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Pakistan condemns Trump for bombing Iran a day after recommending him for a Nobel Peace Prize

ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan condemned U.S. President Donald Trump for bombing Iran, less than 24 hours after saying he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for defusing a recent crisis with India. Relations between the two South Asian countries plummeted after a massacre of tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir in April. The nuclear-armed rivals stepped closer to war in the weeks that followed, attacking each other until intense diplomatic efforts, led by the U.S., resulted in a truce for which Trump took credit. It was this 'decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership' that Pakistan praised in an effusive message Saturday night on the X platform when it announced its formal recommendation for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Less than 24 hours later, however, it condemned the U.S. for attacking Iran, saying the strikes 'constituted a serious violation of international law' and the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, in a phone call Sunday with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed his concern that the bombings had targeted facilities that were under the safeguards of the IAEA. Pakistan has close ties with Iran and supports its attacks on Israel, saying it has the right to self-defense. There was no immediate comment on Monday from Islamabad about the Trump Nobel recommendation, which also followed a high-profile White House lunch meeting between the president and Pakistan's powerful army chief, Asim Munir. Thursday's meeting, which lasted more than two hours, was also attended by the Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, the U.S. Special Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs. According to a Pakistani military statement, a detailed exchange of views took place on the 'prevailing tensions between Iran and Israel, with both leaders emphasizing the importance of the resolution of the conflict.' While Pakistan was quick to thank Trump for his intervention in its crisis with India, New Delhi played it down and said there was no need for external mediation on the Kashmir issue. The Himalayan region of Kashmir is divided between Pakistan and India but claimed by both in its entirety. India accuses Pakistan of backing militant groups in the region, which Pakistan denies.

Bloomberg

39 minutes ago

• Bloomberg

What Does the US Strike on Iran Mean for Israel?

Live on Bloomberg TV CC-Transcript 00:00Walk us through how the Israeli public has responded to the US military intervention over the weekend. Good morning, Joumanna. Yes, well, this was a dramatic weekend, one of historic proportions in Israel as elsewhere in the region and in the world, especially countries that have a stake in this part of the world. And Israelis, I would say this is to judge by everything from television panelists to the people I've shared bomb shelters with during the Iranian retaliatory missile attacks appear to be relieved, jubilant, astonished at the fact that the world's great power, the United States, did intervene finally, and using its firepower for what appears to have been a knockout blow, at least as described by President Trump and by his staff to the Iranian nuclear program. Of course, the question is whether it was a knockout blow. And I think what you're going to see today is the discourse shifting to one of BDA. That's the refrain you'll be hearing a lot of battle damage assessments, whether indeed it was a knockout blow, whether indeed the damage was enough to end any credible work at those sites and effectively allow Israel to pack up and say that the war is over. The main threat, what it's described as the main threat to its existence going back decades has now been dealt with conclusively. I thought it was interesting. The Israeli prime minister gave a televised address yesterday where he said Israel is very close to reaching goals in Iran but will also avoid a war of attrition. How should we be reading those comments, Dan? Well, it's worth keeping in mind that the two countries are separated by something like a thousand miles of territory. I think three international borders, Iran is something like 70 times the size of Israel. There really is an asymmetry here in terms of disposition, geography, military standing. So for all the virtuosity of Israeli forces here, I don't think they could afford to sustain fighting in the long run, something akin to what we've seen in the last 20 months in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, which are neighboring countries or neighboring territories. So the Israelis are looking logistically at this. I think they're also signaling to the American public, those Americans who are wondering whether this is a repeat of 2003 in Iraq, that this was a one time deal for Israel and for the United States, that perhaps the US role has begun and ended with this airstrike and that Israel, the country most involved in this, the U.S. ally, is really also trying to wrap things up as soon as it believes that its goals have been achieved and those goals may be achieved very soon.

CNBC

an hour ago

• CNBC

NATO allies will pledge to hike defense spend – but will they deliver?

Fireworks could kick off during NATO's annual summit this week, as the U.S. pushes its allies to sharply increase their defense spending to 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP). The 5% figure is made up of 3.5% of GDP that should be spent on "pure" defense, with an extra 1.5% of GDP going to security-related infrastructure, such as cyber warfare capabilities and intelligence. While some member states they're happy to hit that milestone, and some countries are not too far off that mark, others don't even meet the 2% threshold that was agreed over a decade ago. While they might pledge to increase defense spending, whether these promises materializes will be the key question. Talk is cheap and timelines can be vague — but concerted action is what the U.S. and President Donald Trump, who's attending a NATO summit for the first time since 2019, will want to see. "The U.S. is looking for everybody to say, 'Yeah, we mean it. We have a plan. 5% is real. We're going to get there'," Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO and distinguished fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), said Wednesday. "But one thing to watch for is if the messaging is actually on point. Some of the messaging from some of our European allies, at least when they back brief their own media and their own parliaments is, 'Yeah, 5% but it's really 3.5% and 1.5%, and that can be pretty much anything' ... So there's going to be a whittling down [of defense spending pledges] almost immediately," Volker noted at a CEPA briefing ahead of the NATO summit. "And if that is over emphasized, you're going to have a clash with the U.S.," Volker added. The stakes are high as allies meet in The Hague in the Netherlands on June 24-25, given ongoing conflict in Ukraine and war in the Middle East threatening to destabilize the global economy. Defense analysts say this year's meeting could be the most consequential in the alliance's 77-year history, with the U.S.' spend-pushing heavily forewarned before the summit. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was emphatic as he said 5% "will happen" at a separate NATO gathering earlier this month, with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also widely plugging that message to allies too. Defense spending has been a thorny subject for NATO members for years, and a persistent source of annoyance and anger for Trump, who was demanding that allies double their spending goals from 2% to 4% of GDP all the way back in 2018. NATO defense expenditure has nevertheless sharply picked up among NATO members since Trump was last in power. Back then, and arguably at the height of the White House leader's irritation with the bloc, only six member states met the 2% target, including the U.S. Times have changed, however; by 2024, 23 members had reached the 2% threshold, according to NATO data. While some greatly surpassed that target — such as Poland, Estonia, the U.S., Latvia and Greece — major economies including Canada, Spain and Italy have lagged below the contribution threshold. No NATO member has so far reached the 5% spending objective, and some are highly likely to drag their feet when it comes to getting to that milestone now. The U.K., Poland and Germany have already said they intend to increase defense spending to the requisite target, but their timeline is unclear. The UK is also reportedly trying to delay the spending rise among by three years, according to the i newspaper. CNBC has reached out to Downing Street for comment. Spain and Italy are seen as major holdouts against the 5% target, after only committing to reach the 2% threshold in 2025. Canada meanwhile spent 1.3% of GDP on defense in 2024, NATO estimates suggest, even less than Italy, Portugal or Montenegro. Spending 5% on defense is a target, but not a given, Jason Israel, senior fellow for the Defense Technology Initiative at CEPA, said Wednesday. "Every single country ... is trying to figure out how they're going to thread that needle of being able to make the commitment, but also make the accounting work when every single nation has to make trade offs against what is generally unpopular, massive increases in defense spending," he noted, stressing it's a "long way from commitments ... to actual capability," European aerospace and defense companies are following NATO spending commentary and commitments closely, but say they're stuck in limbo between pledges and action by way of concrete government procurement. The leaders of Leonardo, Embraer and Saab told CNBC last week the continent needs to act decisively and collectively to make long-term commitments to defense spending and investment contracts to enable companies like theirs to scale-up their production capacity and manufacturing capabilities. "If we go for 3.5% [of pure defense spending] across the European part of NATO, that will mean a lot, and more will be needed in terms of capacity. But we need to understand the capability targets better," Micael Johansson, the chief executive of Swedish defense company Saab, told CNBC. "We can do more, and I think we need to come together in Europe to create more scale, also in what we do to align demand, align requirements, so we can actually be competitive player in internationally. So there's a lot to do still," he said. Roberto Cingolani, CEO of Italian defense firm Leonardo, agreed that "there's a lot of work to be done." "Leonardo has a capacity boost program at the moment because we are quite aware of the fact that we have to increase the production of specific platforms, defense systems, electronics and technology solutions. It is not only matter of money, it's matter of priority. It's matter of reducing the fragmentation among countries in Europe," he told CNBC's Charlotte Reed at the Paris Air Show. Defense companies needed to know what will be expected of them ahead of time, Cingolani said, given the complex nature of global supply chains that underpin the defense industry. "We have approximately 5000 companies in the supply chain, and we are in 160 countries in the world. So it's very complicated," he noted. "You have to invest in supply chain. You have to make investments. You have to protect the supply chain. But of course, we also have to face a shortage of raw materials ... There is no no simple solution. If there were a solution, we would have done it already," he said.