Over the weekend, Donald Trump’s reassurance of a more generous approach to tariffs was reversed again, apparently returning to draconian across-the-board 20% tariffs. The president’s imminent Rose Garden “Liberation Day” announcement of universal tariffs on everything coming into the U.S. from everyone—accompanied by the Trump-driven 10% decline in the stock market over the last month—is just the latest example of how Trump’s capricious tariff tantrums are steering the U.S. economy straight off the cliff. Given the near unanimous chorus of business leaders and economists, one must wonder what motivates Trump’s destructive decrees. As Trump himself confessed this weekend on NBC, “I couldn’t care less if car prices go up!”
The problem is not tariffs—the problem is Donald Trump, plain and simple. Per our Yale CEO Caucus survey results, 90% of CEOs actually support tariffs, when they are used strategically and selectively. These business leaders support the use of selective tariffs to rectify genuine trade imbalances and constrain foreign dumping into the U.S., undermining U.S. producers in sectors such as steel.
But these worthy goals often seem to be subjugated to Trump’s personality-driven vendettas, such as punishing longtime nemesis Justin Trudeau; and even more importantly, Trump’s idiosyncratic, capricious rollout of tariffs has made it all but impossible for companies to invest at all, hampering Trump’s own stated goal of bringing investment and jobs back to the U.S.
Already, there is a confusing array of 12,500 tariff categories across 200 trading partners. We tallied up Trump’s tariff pronouncements over the last two months and found no less than a head-spinning 107 instances of paradoxical flip-flops on tariff policy, often with same-day reversals. That does not even account for often contradictory guidance from Trump’s deputies, which are then subsequently overruled by Trump himself.
Businesses need predictability and stability; no company can authorize billions in capital spending to build new plants or hire new workers when trade policy changes not day by day, not hour by hour, but in some cases, literally minute by minute. During our Yale CEO Caucus this month,CEOs groaned and cringed each time CNBC’s Eamon Javers read off a new tariff policy reversal, with seven flip-flops over our three-hour event.
On March 11, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute founder and president Jeffrey Sonnenfeld discussed the strategic opportunities and challenges of Trump 2.0.
Trump’s defenders argue this is all part of his “art of the deal”—to punch counterparties in the face so hard that they are knocked off balance and are all but begging for a deal. But the reality is, Trump is getting snookered in these deals, as companies merely repackage existing and preplanned capex spending into gauzy, headline-drawing “announcements” of “new investments” in the U.S. The veneer of glitz and glamour of fawning Oval Office press conferences announcing these new investments hides a much seamier reality, as much-ballyhooed new “investments” such as Foxconn’s planned $10 billion electronics factory in Wisconsin turn into abandoned shadows and idled plants. Meanwhile, foreign leaders and companies offer token concessions with little genuine benefit to the U.S., while racing to evade tariffs by rerouting supply chains through neutral countries, brazenly and openly defying Trump while paying lip service to his whims. That is why 90% of CEOs polled at our Yale CEO Caucus said that Trump’s tariffs are backfiring on the U.S.
These CEOs, like everyone else, are looking at ample data pointing to the widespread havoc wrought by Trump’s tariff tantrums. Not only have Trump’s botched tariff tantrums helped chop about $7 trillion in value off the stock market since his inauguration—enough to fund the government for an entire year—but the costs are being felt in the real economy. Far from bringing manufacturing and jobs back to the U.S., Trump is killing American manufacturing, hurting U.S. workers, and bringing the entire U.S. economy down with him. Inflation expectations have jumped to 32-year highs; consumer confidence has plunged 25% across both the University of Michigan and Conference Board surveys as consumer spending falls the most in five years; NFIB Small Business confidence has plunged 50%; the labor market is deteriorating as the number of new layoffs quadrupled over the last three months; capital spending and investments have come to a standstill; and GDP growth forecasts have come down by 1%—a head-spinning reversal of economic fortune as the initial euphoria of Trump’s pledges of tax cuts and deregulation morphed into the Frankenstein monster of all tariffs, all the time.
Of course, many business leaders wonder what motivates Trump’s destructive tariff tantrums. On one hand, Trump has obsessed over tariffs since at least the 1980s; and he has long, reductionistically viewed the U.S. balance of trade as if he were still running the Trump Organization, which tries to sell more than it buys every year. But the sheer, avoidable, intentional chaos of Trump’s tariff rollout, and his willingness to ignore significant stock market drawdowns, suggest there may be other explanatory factors. Some CEOs have privately suggested that Trump may be trying to induce a recession early in his term to “clear the deck” well before midterm elections—though that assumes a greater facility for long-term strategic foresight than is usually associated with Trump. More likely, perhaps Trump has no plan and is just making things up on the fly, with arbitrary megalomaniacal impulses unconstrained by yes-men staff.
In Trump’s tantrums, psychoanalysts might find strong resemblance to what Sigmund Freud called the “death drive” pathology of entrepreneurs, or what psychiatrists term the self-destructive impulse—akin to a child on the beach who builds a beautiful castle and kicks it down.
Forty-two years ago, Abraham Zaleznik, a psychoanalyst management scholar at the Harvard Business School, explained that many times, such entrepreneurial leaders as Trump and Musk are driven by an ultimately self-destructive megalomania, rooted in a bad relationship with a parent who disparaged them but is no longer around to be proven wrong. Zaleznik stated, “In their climb to the top, they have certain fantasies having to do with creating a new world. There is a search for restitution—to remake the world, remake their childhood, remake a relationship with a parent. They fall prey to the Midas theory. Everything they touch will turn to gold, and if it doesn’t they go bonkers. I think if we want to understand the entrepreneur we should look at the juvenile delinquent. I think there are a lot of similarities. They both have an under-developed super-ego. And so they don’t understand right from wrong.”
Trump’s “Liberation Day” has turned into a nightmare for U.S. businesses. The real liberation the U.S. economy needs is a more orderly, strategic approach to tariffs, liberated from Trump’s idiosyncratic whims.
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld is the Lester Crown Professor in Management Practice and president and founder of the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute. Steven Tian is the director of research at the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute. Stephen Henriques is a senior research fellow at the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute and a former McKinsey & Co. consultant.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
Good morning! U.S. will host the 2031 Women’s World Cup, David’s Bridal has a new strategy, and Mexico’s president is the winner of tariff week.
– Almost unscathed. T-day hit the global economy like a ton of bricks. President Donald Trump announced the details of his tariffs—a 10% “baseline” tariff on all imports to the U.S. plus additional tariffs ranging between 20% and 54% for countries Trump called the “worst offenders.” The president says tariffs are intended to return manufacturing jobs to the U.S., a declaration of “economic independence.” Yet stocks, in one day, lost $3.1 trillion in market value. Major indexes dropped 6%. Recession odds have reached 35%.
But two countries were spared the brunt of Trump’s retaliation. Canada and Mexico saw no additional tariffs imposed—and Mexico has President Claudia Sheinbaum to thank for that.
Claudia Sheinbaum, President of Mexico, presents Plan Mexico to mitigate Donald Trump’s tariffs at the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City, Mexico, on April 3, 2025. (Photo by Gerardo Vieyra/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
The Washington Post anointed Sheinbaum “the world’s leading Trump whisperer” in early March after she negotiated two delays of tariffs on her country. The relationship-driven U.S. president seems to have grown to respect Sheinbaum, even as relationships with other world leaders have fractured. In March, Trump said he decided to delay the tariffs “out of respect for President Sheinbaum.” He has called her a “very wonderful woman.” Mexicans appreciated Sheinbaum’s deft negotiation, with thousands gathering in March to cheer for her; she told them “we cannot cede our sovereignty.” Her domestic approval rating soared to 85%.
Yesterday, Sheinbaum credited her relationship with Trump for Mexico’s emerging, not quite unscathed, from Trump’s new tariff regime. “This has to do with the good relationship we have built between the Mexican and U.S. government, which is based on respect,” she said on Thursday. (Trump negotiated a trade agreement with Canada and Mexico during his first term.) Mexico’s trade minister called the lack of additional tariffs on Mexico a “major achievement.”
Of course, Mexico has trading partners besides the U.S. and will feel the impact of tariffs as part of the global economy. Some companies have already paused production at facilities in Mexico while they reassess global supply chains. Taking a cue from the U.S. playbook, Sheinbaum has debuted “Plan Mexico,” to promote the country’s domestic production. Still, Sheinbaum’s ability to navigate the dangerous waters of Trumpworld has made her stand out—just six months after taking office as Mexico’s first female president.
The Most Powerful Women Daily newsletter is Fortune’s daily briefing for and about the women leading the business world. Today’s edition was curated by Nina Ajemian. Subscribe here.
Bank economists estimate Trump’s tariff increase would cost U.S. households $700 billion, equivalent to the largest de facto tax hike levied since LBJ’s Revenue Act of 1968 financed his war in Vietnam.
President Donald Trump’s package of tariffs to be levied starting next week could plunge not just the United States into recession but the entire world along with it.
That’s the simple conclusion reached by the top economic minds at JPMorgan. In a research report published on Thursday titled “There will be Blood”, the Wall Street investment bank argued other global markets would not be resilient enough to escape the gravitational forces of a shrinking U.S. economy weighted down by tariffs.
Revising its 2025 forecasts for the second time in five weeks, JPMorgan said it was caught off guard by the Trump administration’s “extreme” agenda symbolized by the raft of hefty import duties announced during Trump’s so-called ‘Liberation Day.’
As a result of the White House’s attempt to convert its trade deficit into a problem for America’s trading partners, JPMorgan has now ratcheted up the probability of a global recession to 60% from 40% previously.
Yet far from making America wealthy again as Trump has promised, JPMorgan calculates taht the tariffs will cost U.S. consumers roughly $700 billion—a de facto tax hike nearly as painful relative to the size of the economy as Lyndon B. Johnson’s Revenue Act passed to finance America’s war in Vietnam.
“If sustained, this year’s ~22%-point tariff increase would be the largest U.S. tax hike since 1968,” the bank said, estimating its impact at 2.4% of domestic GDP.
The latest actions lift the average tariff rate higher than even those seen during the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, an act that many economists argue played a key role in exacerbating the Great Depression.
“A strong case can be made that the latest tariffs are more damaging given that the share of imports and broader globalization are considerably larger now than in the 1930s,” JPMorgan continued.
$3 trillion wiped off U.S. equity markets
The Trump administration has argued a healthy manufacturing base is important to national security, worth the short-term pain to claw back heavy industry that was hollowed out over many years and moved offshore. And indeed, the pandemic did reveal globalization had its flaws, as the lack of certain $1 commodity semiconductors made in Taiwan prevented the manufacture of a $40,000 passenger car stateside.
However, due to the dimensions and arbitrary nature of the tariffs—determined not through reciprocal tariff rates but trade imbalances—their imposition risks sparking a retaliatory trade war where other countries erect their own protectionist walls in a tit-for-tat escalation.
Here JPMorgan analysts admit it becomes almost impossible to predict the outcome given the many variables at play. Business sentiment and supply chain disruption could either mitigate or exacerbate the effects of the tariffs.
As a result, on Thursday the markets suffered their worst day since the COVID outbreak five years ago, with $3 trillion worth of value wiped off U.S. equities.
A key factor could be upcoming negotiations, in which the Trump administration is expected to seek concessions from partners that could reduce the trade deficit in exchange for the U.S. lowering its tariff rates.
Comparative advantage can sometimes trump tariffs
There are some fundamental economic realities that most likely will not change no matter what tariff is charged.
Take the semiconductor industry as an example. Fabricating chips is a capital-intensive business that requires specialized knowledge, critical mass and economies of scale.
Taiwan didn’t simply become the world’s foundry—it aggressively invested in this specialization. Its grip on third-party chip production makes it a critical partner for the U.S. and acts as a strategic deterrent against Chinese aggression.
By comparison, U.S. chip companies like AMD that once made their own chips hived off this side of their operations to focus on the more lucrative and less risky design and distribution. So called “fab-less” peers like Nvidia outsourced their production to foreign chip fabs from the very beginning.
JPMorgan raises this issue as a potential stumbling block and source of friction during negotiations, limiting the room for manoever and raising the risk of a protracted trade war.
“Importantly, existing bilateral trade imbalances are linked to comparative advantages that promote efficiencies and are generally independent of barriers to trade,” it said.