Now that the stock market has surpassed where it stood on liberation day, will that change how elites and the MSM talk about Trump's tariffs? Are those who condemned Trump's tariffs changing their tune with the stock market rebound and the prospect of the US getting better trade deals? How can they keep arguing that Trump has destroyed the American economy?
If a falling stock market demonstrates Trump's incompetence, than a rising stock market demonstrates his competence.
Grok says:
The stock market surpassing its level from Trump’s “Liberation Day” (April 2, 2025, when he announced sweeping tariffs) reflects a complex interplay of investor sentiment, policy shifts, and economic expectations. Based on available information, here’s an analysis of how this might influence elite and mainstream media (MSM) narratives about Trump’s tariffs, whether critics are softening their stance, and how they might continue to argue against his economic policies.
Will the Stock Market Rebound Change Elite and MSM Narratives?
The stock market’s recovery, particularly after Trump’s 90-day tariff pause on most countries (except China) announced on April 9, 2025, has shifted some of the immediate panic that dominated headlines. The S&P 500’s 9.5% surge on April 9, its best day since 2008, and subsequent rallies (e.g., after Trump signaled flexibility on China tariffs and Fed Chair Powell’s job security) suggest markets are responding positively to perceived de-escalation. This has forced a recalibration in how elites and MSM discuss Trump’s tariffs.
- Softening Rhetoric in Some Quarters: Certain outlets and figures have acknowledged the market’s relief. For instance, a Washington Post editorial praised Trump for signaling he might cool the tariff fight, indicating a rare alignment with his strategy. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s comments about de-escalating the China trade war, coupled with Trump’s own remarks about being “very nice” to China, prompted market rallies and some positive coverage. This suggests that when Trump appears flexible, some MSM outlets and elites are willing to give him credit, especially if it aligns with market stability—a key concern for financial elites.
- Persistent Skepticism: However, the rebound hasn’t universally changed the narrative. Many MSM sources and economists remain critical, emphasizing that the 10% universal tariff and 145% tariffs on China still pose risks. The initial market turmoil, which wiped $4 trillion from the S&P 500, and warnings from firms like Goldman Sachs (estimating a 5% hit to S&P 500 value) and Bank of America (an 8% earnings hit) continue to fuel arguments that tariffs are reckless. Elites, particularly those tied to globalist trade frameworks, view the tariffs as disruptive to supply chains and inflationary, even if markets have stabilized temporarily.
- Political Framing: Critics, including Democratic figures like Gov. JB Pritzker and Gov. Tim Walz, have branded tariffs as a “tax on working families” and accused Trump of “bankrupting the country.” These narratives persist because they resonate with voters facing higher prices, regardless of market performance. The MSM often amplifies these voices, focusing on consumer impacts over stock market gains, which are seen as less relevant to the average American.
Are Critics Changing Their Tune?
Some critics have softened their stance, but it’s conditional and limited:
- Market-Driven Optimism: Investors and financial analysts, like those cited in Reuters and CNN, see the tariff pause as a pragmatic move, with some hoping it signals better trade deals. Former Trump economic advisor Stephen Moore has argued on Fox News that Trump’s evolving strategy could yield results, reflecting a shift among pro-Trump elites. Even hedge fund managers like Bill Ackman, despite earlier concerns, have framed Trump’s tariffs as a bold negotiating tactic.
- Reluctant Praise: The Washington Post’s editorial is a notable example of a typically critical outlet acknowledging Trump’s flexibility. Similarly, financial journalist Ron Insana on PBS noted that Bessent’s de-escalation comments and Trump’s softer tone on China suggest responsiveness to market signals, which could temper the harshest criticisms.
- Persistent Criticism: Many critics haven’t budged. Economists like Lawrence Summers, who called Trump’s tariff rhetoric costly, and JPMorgan’s Marko Kolanovic, who warned of a market correction, remain focused on long-term risks. Companies like PepsiCo and Pulte have warned of supply chain disruptions and higher home prices, reinforcing the narrative that tariffs hurt consumers. China’s retaliatory 84% tariffs and comments about fighting “till the end” keep the specter of a prolonged trade war alive, giving critics ammunition.
How Can Critics Continue Arguing Trump Has Destroyed the Economy?
Critics can sustain their arguments by focusing on areas where the stock market rebound doesn’t negate broader economic concerns:
- Consumer Price Increases: Tariffs, even with the pause, are expected to raise costs for businesses and consumers. The 10% universal tariff and high China tariffs could add $5,000 to new home prices and disrupt supply chains, as warned by Pulte and retail analysts. Critics will argue these costs hit working-class Americans harder than stock market gains benefit them, aligning with Democratic talking points.
- Global Trade Tensions: The ongoing trade war with China, with tariffs at 145%, and retaliatory measures from other nations (e.g., EU’s tariffs on U.S. goods) signal continued uncertainty. The IMF’s forecast of slower global growth and warnings from Fed Chair Powell about inflation and slower growth provide credible backing for claims of economic mismanagement.
- Volatility and Uncertainty: Despite the rebound, markets remain volatile. The S&P 500 is still down 3.7% from April 2, and the Nasdaq is down 2.7%. Analysts like Michael Arone from State Street Global Advisors warn of more volatility as Trump’s trade policy evolves. Critics can argue that this unpredictability undermines long-term investment and growth.
- Selective Metrics: Critics can downplay the stock market’s significance by highlighting other indicators, like the declining dollar (hitting a three-year low) or rising bond yields, which signal waning confidence in U.S. assets. They can also point to corporate warnings—75% of S&P 500 companies reporting earnings have flagged tariff impacts.
- Political Narrative: For partisan critics, the “Trump destroys the economy” argument is less about data and more about mobilizing opposition. The Quinnipiac poll showing 70% of Americans believe tariffs will hurt the economy in the short term provides a public sentiment to leverage. Democrats’ success in special elections and protests against Trump suggest a broader anti-Trump narrative that transcends economic metrics.
Critical Perspective
The MSM and elite narratives often reflect ideological biases. Pro-globalization outlets and economists may overstate tariff risks to protect the post-WWII trade order, which benefits multinational corporations but not necessarily American workers. Conversely, Trump’s base and supporters, as seen in posts from
@dogeai_gov
, view tariffs as a tool to revive manufacturing and secure better deals, pointing to the USMCA’s success. The stock market rebound undermines the most hyperbolic claims of economic collapse, but critics can still cherry-pick data to fit their narrative, ignoring that markets often overreact initially and stabilize as policies clarify.The truth likely lies in the middle: tariffs carry risks (inflation, supply chain issues) but also potential benefits (reshoring jobs, leverage in trade talks). Critics who refuse to acknowledge the latter may lose credibility if trade deals materialize, but they’ll keep the pressure on by focusing on short-term pain for consumers and global instability.
Conclusion
The stock market’s rebound has prompted some MSM and elites to soften their tone, with outlets like the Washington Post and financial analysts praising Trump’s flexibility. However, many critics remain steadfast, citing ongoing China tensions, consumer price risks, and market volatility. They can continue arguing Trump’s policies harm the economy by emphasizing impacts beyond stocks—like inflation, trade wars, and public sentiment—while downplaying market gains. The narrative will likely evolve as trade negotiations progress, but partisan divides ensure critics won’t fully abandon their opposition unless tangible economic wins (e.g., major trade deals) emerge.
