Trump’s Tariff Strategy Could Slash US Budget Deficit by $4 Trillion Over a Decade

Economic

Summary:

The US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that if President Trump’s sweeping tariff increases remain in place, they could reduce the federal deficit by up to $4 trillion over the next 10 years through increased revenue and lowered interest payments....

Projected Fiscal Impact of Trump’s Tariff Expansion

On August 22, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released updated fiscal projections indicating that President Donald Trump’s proposed global tariff hikes could generate substantial fiscal consolidation. If these measures are sustained throughout the next decade, they may reduce the baseline federal deficit by $3.3 trillion and cut federal interest expenses by another $700 billion, resulting in a combined reduction of approximately $4 trillion.

This projection represents a significant revision from the CBO’s June estimates, which had forecast a $2.5 trillion deficit reduction and $500 billion in interest savings. The updated figures underscore how deeply tariffs despite their controversial economic effects may influence long-term fiscal arithmetic.

The CBO clarified that these estimates are conditional on the continuation of current tariffs, which could change based on evolving trade negotiations or international legal challenges. Nonetheless, the tariff revenues could help offset the roughly $3.4 trillion in additional deficits expected from recent Republican-led tax and spending cuts.

Rising Tariff Revenues and Policy Trade-offs

Tariff revenues have surged, reflecting the intensity of US trade protectionism. According to Oxford Economics, the average US import tariff rate reached 16.7% in August, up from 15.1% in June. The US Customs and Border Protection agency collected over $26 billion in tariffs in the current fiscal year an exponential increase compared to the few hundred million dollars collected in earlier years.

This rise in tariff revenue introduces a causal effect: increased trade taxes directly bolster federal income, which in turn moderates the need for debt issuance and lowers debt-servicing costs. However, this fiscal benefit coexists with a series of correlational risks, such as import inflation, strained global trade relations, and retaliatory tariffs from affected countries.

Trump’s broader tariff campaign also reflects a strategic redirection of US industrial policy. On the same day as the CBO announcement, the president launched a new investigation into imported furniture a sector already strained by previous counter-tariffs. Trump suggested the inquiry could lead to new duties aimed at reshoring production to US states like North Carolina, South Carolina, and Michigan, where the domestic furniture workforce has fallen from 1.2 million in 1979 to just 340,000 in 2024.

Sectoral Investigations and National Security Arguments

Trump’s use of tariff-based investigations has extended beyond furniture. His administration has initiated similar probes into imported pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, strategic minerals, and other critical sectors often citing national security justifications. While broad-based tariffs are frequently challenged in international courts, those based on industry-specific investigations typically have stronger legal foundations under US trade law.

These investigations often take several months to complete, delaying both the economic impact and any legal backlash. Still, their cumulative effect creates policy inertia toward reshoring and de-risking global supply chains, which aligns with Trump’s broader political message of economic nationalism and industrial revival.

Structural Considerations for Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability

While the CBO’s projections highlight the potential fiscal upside of Trump’s trade agenda, economists remain divided on the net macroeconomic impact. Critics warn that tariffs function like consumption taxes, disproportionately affecting lower-income consumers and disrupting complex global value chains. Others argue that their short-term inflationary impact may offset some of the benefits from deficit reduction.

Nevertheless, the analysis illustrates a direct causal chain: tariffs increase federal revenue, which narrows deficits and reduces debt-servicing obligations. Whether these outcomes are sustainable depends on political stability, enforcement mechanisms, global retaliation, and domestic inflationary responses.

In conclusion, Trump’s tariff policy, though divisive, may offer a short-term fiscal lifeline to a federal budget under increasing strain. Yet the strategy remains entangled with geopolitical tensions, domestic price pressures, and legal ambiguities, casting uncertainty over whether fiscal gains can outweigh the broader economic trade-offs.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

India–US Trade Talks Continue Under Strain

On August 23, Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar publicly confirmed that trade negotiations with the United States remain active. However, he made clear that New Delhi will not compromise on certain key national interests. During a public address in the capital, Jaishankar underscored that India has "red lines" in negotiations that must not be crossed, particularly concerning the livelihood of Indian farmers and small-scale producers.

This statement comes amid heightened tensions, as Washington prepares to escalate punitive tariffs on Indian goods. The US has already imposed a 25% tariff and plans to double that to 50% starting August 27, citing India’s continued importation of Russian crude oil. This would represent one of the most severe tariff regimes the US has ever enforced on a trading partner and could significantly impact India’s export competitiveness.

Strategic Energy Ties with Russia at the Core

Despite US pressure, India is resolute in maintaining its energy trade with Moscow. Jaishankar defended the decision by linking it to national energy security and global price stability. He reminded observers that during the oil price surge in 2022, the international community had implicitly supported India’s decision to purchase discounted Russian crude to help stabilize global oil markets.

India’s current imports from Russia stand at approximately 1.6 million barrels per day for the first half of 2025, a steep rise compared to 2020. This volume places India as the second-largest buyer of Russian oil after China, which imports around 2 million barrels per day. India’s reliance on Russian oil is not only a cost-effective strategy but also a hedge against geopolitical energy shocks.

Allegations of Unequal Treatment and Underlying US Strategy

In his remarks, Jaishankar also called attention to what he described as unfair treatment from the US, questioning why Washington’s sanctions are disproportionately targeting India while sparing China from equivalent measures. The American response has been to classify China’s actions as “less egregious,” asserting that China was already a significant customer of Russian oil before the Ukraine conflict escalated.

This differential treatment has raised concerns about whether the US is leveraging the tariff threat not only to punish India's oil sourcing decisions but also to gain negotiating power over both India and Russia. Reports from CBS News suggest that the US administration under President Donald Trump may be using the tariff tool as part of a broader geopolitical strategy simultaneously seeking a trade agreement with New Delhi and pressuring Moscow into ceasefire talks regarding the Ukraine war.

Balancing Sovereignty, Trade, and Geopolitics

India’s position reflects a calculated balance between asserting sovereignty over its foreign policy and energy decisions, while still engaging in pragmatic diplomacy with the United States. Jaishankar’s statement reaffirms that New Delhi is willing to negotiate trade terms but will not do so at the expense of critical domestic sectors or its diversified energy partnerships.

This situation illustrates a causally linked policy dilemma: Washington’s economic sanctions on India are not merely punitive responses but tools designed to coerce strategic behavior in multiple arenas. The tariffs, while economically motivated on the surface, are correlated with broader US geopolitical objectives especially those tied to containing Russian influence and aligning India closer to Western strategic interests.

As negotiations unfold, India’s dual commitment to defending domestic economic actors and upholding ties with Russia could continue to challenge the trajectory of its relationship with Washington. The outcome of these discussions may not only reshape India–US trade relations but also recalibrate power dynamics across the Eurasian energy and security landscape.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Repurposing Plutonium: From Warheads to Reactors

The Trump administration is preparing to revive a controversial nuclear fuel strategy by repurposing approximately 20 tons of weapons-grade plutonium originally pledged for disposal under a 2000 arms control treaty with Russia into reactor fuel. This initiative, disclosed by Reuters and under evaluation by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), marks a shift in nuclear material strategy to support domestic energy needs.

The plan would draw on material from the 34-ton plutonium stockpile the United States previously committed to destroy. These warhead remnants, stored under tight security at sites like Savannah River (South Carolina), Pantex (Texas), and Los Alamos (New Mexico), are now being reconsidered not as waste, but as a potential fuel source for next-generation reactors.

Energy Demands Driven by AI and Digital Infrastructure

This nuclear pivot is framed by rising national electricity consumption, which has increased for the first time in two decades. The growth is largely attributed to the energy-intensive demands of expanding data centers driven by artificial intelligence development and digital infrastructure.

Trump’s executive order issued in May 2025 called for advanced nuclear fuel technologies, including plutonium conversion, to enhance America’s energy security and technological leadership. The DOE confirmed it is exploring multiple strategies, including plutonium fuel options, to strengthen the domestic nuclear supply chain.

This effort comes in parallel with declining enthusiasm for plutonium disposal. The original Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) program, launched under the 2000 US–Russia agreement, sought to transform weapons-grade plutonium into fuel suitable for commercial nuclear power. However, the MOX project was canceled in 2018 after costs ballooned to over $50 billion. Since then, the default strategy has been to mix plutonium with inert material and dispose of it underground at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico a method that DOE estimates will still cost $20 billion.

A Controversial Reprise of a Failed Program

While proponents frame the new plan as an innovative solution to both nuclear waste and energy security, nuclear experts remain skeptical. Edwin Lyman, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, strongly criticized the initiative, stating that trying to repackage weapons plutonium as fuel is akin to reliving the failed MOX project with no guarantee of success.

He emphasized that plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years and poses persistent security and environmental risks. From his perspective, the safest and most cost-effective approach remains dilution and disposal methods already in place prior to Trump’s executive order. Lyman warns that transforming plutonium into commercial reactor fuel could increase proliferation risks, complicate reactor operations, and add to waste-handling burdens.

Strategic Motives Versus Safety Trade-Offs

At its core, the plan reveals a tension between strategic ambition and operational feasibility. On one hand, repurposing plutonium could reduce reliance on imported uranium, stimulate domestic reactor innovation, and address long-term waste management backlogs. On the other hand, this direction may reintroduce the same cost, safety, and technical challenges that derailed the MOX strategy.

There is no confirmed timeline yet for implementation, and the DOE plans to seek proposals from private industry in the coming days. As the draft framework circulates, officials have stated that final details are still subject to modification based on technical consultation and public feedback.

A Costly Gamble With Uncertain Returns

The Trump administration’s plutonium reuse strategy presents a bold, yet contentious approach to revitalizing the U.S. nuclear sector. While it addresses rising electricity demand and attempts to close the loop on plutonium disposal, the plan also resurrects unresolved issues surrounding cost overruns, engineering complexity, and national security.

If the project proceeds, it may redefine America’s nuclear materials strategy. But for now, it stands as a policy experiment caught between geopolitical ambition and deeply entrenched concerns about nuclear safety, proliferation, and fiscal prudence.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Short-Term Lift From Front-Loading Activity

The second quarter of 2025 brought unexpectedly positive GDP figures for several major ASEAN economies, largely due to accelerated exports to the US ahead of impending tariff changes. Thailand’s GDP rose by 2.8% year-on-year in Q2, slightly lower than Q1’s 3.2% but above analysts’ forecast of 2.5%. This expansion was driven by a 12.2% jump in exports comprising around 60% of Thailand’s GDP as firms rushed shipments before the 19% US import tariff came into effect.

Similarly, Malaysia maintained its Q1 momentum with a stable 4.4% GDP growth rate in Q2, supported by resilient domestic consumption and a steady labor market. Meanwhile, the Philippines posted a higher-than-expected GDP increase of 5.5% in Q2, marginally outpacing Q1’s 5.4%, boosted by a rebound in agriculture and solid household spending.

These robust performances, however, were heavily front-loaded. Much of the export growth was the result of American importers stockpiling goods to avoid tariff hikes a pattern that does not reflect underlying demand strength and cannot be sustained into the latter part of the year.

Erosion of Growth Momentum Expected in H2 2025

Despite the Q2 surge, projections for full-year growth have been revised downward across the board, reflecting both internal fragilities and external trade uncertainty. The Thai NESDC now anticipates annual GDP growth of just 1.8% to 2.3%, citing signs of cooling in key sectors like tourism. With international arrivals projected to drop from 35 million to 33 million this year, and government fiscal support amounting to $116.6 billion, Thailand’s policy focus has shifted toward cushioning the economy. The Bank of Thailand has also slashed interest rates to 1.5%, the lowest in two years.

Malaysia, too, has been forced to recalibrate. The Central Bank revised its 2025 growth target from 4.5–5.5% down to 4.0–4.8%, responding to weakening export performance particularly in electronics and semiconductors and broader global trade uncertainties. In a rare move, Malaysia also opted to cut interest rates, marking its first such action in five years, to bolster domestic demand.

In the Philippines, despite a strong Q2 print, the government lowered its full-year growth forecast to 5.5–6.5%, well below the initial 6–8% range. The revision reflects caution over potential trade shocks and a dimming global outlook. Monetary policymakers have hinted at further easing if inflation continues to decline, signaling a readiness to stimulate demand should external conditions deteriorate further.

Structural Trends and Correlated Risks

The short-lived export surge in Q2, primarily caused by front-loading activities ahead of the US tariff implementation, represents a temporary uplift rather than a structural improvement. Analysts widely view this as a correlational phenomenon, where US importers’ behavior triggered by policy uncertainty temporarily elevated ASEAN economies’ output. However, it lacks the causal foundation required for sustained growth.

The region now faces a convergence of correlated external risks: a weakening global demand environment, tighter financial conditions in advanced economies, and volatility in commodity and currency markets. These conditions could constrain exports, private investment, and consumer spending across ASEAN in the coming quarters.

Forecasts Point to Average Growth at Best

According to Focus Economics, ASEAN GDP growth in 2025 is likely to revert to a decadal average, with signs of stagnation across consumption, investment, and exports. While the Q2 results offered a temporary boost, the absence of structural demand improvements and the increasing unpredictability of the global trading environment may limit recovery potential.

In conclusion, although Q2 showed promise, the growth observed was more the result of tactical shifts in global supply chain behavior than a reflection of real, underlying economic strength. Without stronger global demand or new drivers of domestic productivity and investment, ASEAN economies may be approaching a more tepid phase of their post-pandemic recovery.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Tightening the Net: Washington Escalates Iran Oil Sanctions

In a major policy development, the United States Treasury and State Departments have issued a new wave of sanctions aimed at dismantling Iran’s clandestine oil export network. The latest measures include blacklisting a prominent Greek shipping executive, Antonios Margaritis, along with his extensive maritime business network, several vessels, and a chain of operations linked to Iranian oil flows. Margaritis, described as a veteran in the shipping industry, was accused of leveraging decades of sector experience to facilitate the illegal movement of Iranian crude.

The scope of this enforcement action, however, stretches far beyond the Mediterranean. For the fourth time this year, US sanctions now extend deep into mainland China, underscoring Beijing’s entrenched role as the lifeline of Iran’s oil economy. Two strategic oil infrastructure entities in China were specifically designated by the US State Department: Dongjiakou Port in Shandong Province and Yangshan Shengang International Oil Storage and Transportation Company in Zhejiang Province. These facilities are believed to have enabled the offloading and processing of millions of barrels of Iranian crude through previously sanctioned tankers.

Sanctions Strategy and Its Underlying Objectives

These actions form part of a broader “maximum pressure” framework intended to curtail Iran’s access to international financial resources and disrupt its ability to fund weapons programs, including its nuclear development. By targeting both the logistical facilitators (such as port operators) and the transport intermediaries (like Margaritis and his ships), the United States aims to neutralize the supply chain mechanisms that allow Iranian crude to reach global markets despite longstanding restrictions.

The choice to target Chinese operators reflects not only their central role in the physical receipt of Iranian oil but also a strategic calculus. Given China’s massive energy consumption needs and its robust bilateral trade relations with Tehran, Beijing remains Tehran’s most important customer. Current estimates suggest that up to 90% of Iran’s total crude exports are now directed to China a striking figure that signals not just economic reliance but political defiance in the face of American pressure.

Persistent Oil Flows Despite Pressure

Despite repeated rounds of sanctions, China’s appetite for Iranian crude has remained resilient. Independent Chinese refiners, often referred to as “teapots,” have played a key role in processing these imports. These small, flexible plants are adept at circumventing supply chain bottlenecks and have become a favored destination for sanctioned oil flows. Prior sanctions earlier this year also targeted some of these refiners, yet the volume of trade between China and Iran has not meaningfully declined.

The nature of this relationship suggests more than a casual correlation. China’s dependence on stable and discounted energy sources, coupled with Iran’s geopolitical isolation, creates a mutually reinforcing partnership. While the sanctions create legal and financial friction, they have yet to sever the underlying supply-demand dynamic that links the two nations. This interplay is not merely correlated it is structured around deeply aligned interests in trade resilience, strategic defiance, and energy security.

Implications and Outlook

Analysts believe the US’s latest moves are designed not only to penalize specific entities but also to signal a broader deterrent to other actors in the oil trade supply chain. However, the ultimate effectiveness of such sanctions remains uncertain. Given the scope of China’s energy needs and its ability to shield domestic firms from Western legal frameworks, Beijing is unlikely to alter its strategic alignment with Tehran.

In conclusion, this latest escalation in US sanctions policy illustrates a cause-and-effect sequence rooted in geopolitical rivalry. As Iran remains dependent on Chinese demand, and China remains willing to challenge US sanctions to secure energy flows, the confrontation over oil is likely to intensify. For Washington, cutting off Iran’s revenue will require more than designations it may demand a reshaping of global enforcement architecture. Meanwhile, Iran and China appear poised to continue their oil trade, defying pressure through quiet coordination and logistical ingenuity.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Cautious Stance Amid Unresolved Inflation Dynamics

Alberto Musalem, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, publicly stated on August 22 that he would not support a decision to cut interest rates at the upcoming September 16–17 FOMC meeting without first reviewing more economic data. He emphasized that inflation remains closer to 3% than the Fed’s 2% target and may persist at elevated levels for longer than initially anticipated. This elevated inflation trajectory represents a more tangible and immediate risk than the yet-to-materialize threat of labor market weakness.

While labor market deterioration remains a hypothetical concern, Musalem noted that the current policy framework is appropriately calibrated for a still-robust job market and inflation levels that exceed the Fed’s target. However, he did not rule out adjustments should labor conditions deteriorate more rapidly than expected. His decision will be finalized only 2–3 days before the meeting, following updates on inflation forecasts, unemployment rates, and other macroeconomic indicators.

Contrasting Signals Between Powell and Musalem

Musalem’s reserved outlook comes in contrast to earlier comments made by Fed Chair Jerome Powell at the same policy research conference. Powell had opened the door to a possible September rate cut, suggesting that inflation caused by tariff effects may be transitory, and that risks to the labor market were increasing. Powell emphasized that a shift in the risk balance could compel the Fed to alter its policy stance.

However, Musalem pushed back, stressing that any forward-looking policy decision must consider whether the inflation risk already materialized and persistent outweighs labor risks, which are not yet evident in the data. His repeated use of cautious qualifiers such as "may" and "not my baseline scenario" suggests a correlation between recent tariff-driven inflation and future monetary policy shifts, but not necessarily a direct causal path to rate cuts.

Key Data Points to Watch Before September Decision

The upcoming labor report for August and the Fed’s updated macroeconomic projections will be instrumental in shaping the policy decision. These data releases will help determine whether the inflationary pressures are rooted in structural factors such as prolonged supply disruptions or sticky wage growth or if they reflect short-term volatility from recent tariff changes. Musalem also acknowledged reduced uncertainty in the fiscal, trade, and immigration policy landscape, suggesting that clearer macro policy conditions now permit a more grounded analysis of inflation’s drivers.

His comments imply a conditional framework in which policy will only pivot if hard data confirms either a slowdown in employment or further resilience in inflation, reinforcing the Fed’s data-dependence. He underscored this by stating that for him, the focus is not confined to September alone, but extends to how trends evolve in the longer term.

Market Implications and Investor Takeaways

Wall Street’s optimism for imminent rate cuts may have been premature, given Musalem’s reluctance to endorse easing without substantial new evidence. The Fed appears divided, with some officials like Powell more attuned to forward-looking risks and others like Musalem anchored to the present inflation metrics. This divergence highlights the importance of interpreting Fed commentary in context and recognizing whether statements signal correlation with current economic indicators or an actual causal commitment to action.

Investors should brace for volatility in the coming weeks, as policy remains in flux. Unless incoming data shows clear labor market weakness or a sharp inflation retreat, the Fed’s stance may remain restrictive well beyond September.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Logistics as a strategic growth engine

At the 6th Regional Logistics Forum held in Hue on August 22, experts and policymakers emphasized that logistics will play a decisive role in boosting the competitiveness of North Central and Central Coastal Vietnam. Positioned at the crossroads of the North-South axis and the East-West Economic Corridor, the region has the natural advantage of deep-sea ports, expanding airports, and a developing rail network. These factors collectively create the potential for Central Vietnam to evolve into a national and regional logistics hub.

The linkage here is causal: the expansion of logistics infrastructure directly lowers transportation costs, enhances trade connectivity, and improves the efficiency of supply chains. In turn, this facilitates regional economic growth, particularly in marine economy and cross-border trade.

Regional development vision and economic ambitions

According to the regional planning framework for 2021–2030 with a vision to 2050, Central Vietnam aims to become a fast-growing and sustainable region, spearheading the country’s marine economy. By 2030, the region’s per capita income is projected to reach the upper-middle level, and by 2050 logistics alone is expected to contribute more than 6% of Vietnam’s total logistics revenue.

This reflects a correlation between logistics expansion and overall regional competitiveness. While logistics alone may not cause broad-based growth, its efficiency correlates strongly with the ability of industries such as fisheries, manufacturing, and trade to scale up exports and integrate deeper into global supply chains.

Infrastructure challenges and investment needs

Despite its vast potential, logistics infrastructure in Central Vietnam remains fragmented. The lack of seamless connections among seaports, railways, highways, and airports has resulted in transportation costs that remain higher than regional averages. Modern multimodal logistics centers are scarce, limiting the ability to optimize flows of goods.

Moreover, institutional bottlenecks persist. Special policy mechanisms to attract large-scale infrastructure investment are still limited, while small and medium-sized logistics enterprises often lack resources to adopt advanced technologies, making them less competitive. Human resource development also lags behind demand, with insufficient training and retention of high-quality logistics professionals.

Policy responses and future pathways

Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade Nguyen Sinh Nhat Tan outlined seven solutions to unlock the region’s logistics potential. These include maximizing geographical advantages, accelerating infrastructure investment, reforming administrative procedures, and deepening international cooperation. The correlation between these reforms and regional integration is significant: better infrastructure and simplified procedures make the region more attractive for trade and investment, while international partnerships broaden access to global markets.

Central Vietnam’s ambition to become more than a domestic transit point underscores a strategic shift. If logistical bottlenecks are resolved and supportive policies implemented, the region could rise as a “strategic link” in both regional and global supply chains. This transformation would not only enhance Vietnam’s economic resilience but also strengthen its positioning in the increasingly competitive Indo-Pacific trade landscape.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites