The Market’s Reaction to Trump 2.0

Introduction

The atmosphere of both hope and trepidation surrounding Trump’s entry into the Oval Office was hard to go unnoticed. With a flurry of 100 executive orders and actions signed on his first day (Baker), it made a clear point that the Trump administration would bring great change - a new ‘Golden Age’ for America (Baker). Whether this change to actuate Trump’s vision of the ‘ideal’ America was positive or negative is still open for interpretation.

Prior to his inauguration, experts began their speculation into what a Trump 2.0 would spell for the health of the American markets. Tariff wars; hostility toward China; deregulation - specifically a relaxation of antitrust measures and capital bank requirements; slight inflation; fewer FED rate cuts; but an overall growth in the US economy (Global Macro Research).

The positive expectations for a second Trump term were mirrored by the support of major players including the majority of Wall Street and most Big Tech pioneers. Apple’s Tim Cook, Nvidia, Blackstone, KKR, Eliott Management, Citadel’s founder Kenneth Griffin, World Quant, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Blackrock were all donors to Trump’s campaign (Massoudi et al.). At his inauguration, the presence of Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Sundar Pichai in the front row signalled Big Tech’s approval and backing of the President.

Reality paints a less optimistic picture: Magnificent 7 Stocks are down 22% (Reiter); global trade bell alarms are ringing at Trump’s ‘retaliatory tariffs’ even against allies of the US; US stocks remain down 11% (Morrow and Egan); nearly $7 Trillion USD have been erased from the S&P 500 since record highs at Trump’s candidacy win in November 2024 (Morrow and Egan); and investors are turning to more liquid investments such as Gold - a typical safe haven which may signal times of economic turmoil, which has risen by 25% (Goldman).

If the US markets were a patient lying in the emergency room, all its symptoms point toward a possible recession and definite shrinkage in US growth - at least for the short term. In this paper, we aim to analyse all the different wounds it is bleeding out from: the US markets, Big Tech, mergers and acquisitions (M&A), and private equity (PE) to uncover the difficulties each segment is facing and what it might mean for the future.

The Market’s Reaction

The implementation of tariffs sparked a lot of controversy, besides the economicburden, in fact the formulas and the rationale on which the tariff is based lacks solid foundation. For instance let’s briefly analyse the formula used to calculate the tariffs to be imposed:

∆ 𝑡(𝑖) = 𝑥(𝑖)− 𝑚(𝑖) : ε*φ*𝑚(𝑖) (cbc)

The formula presented is used by the White House to assess the tariffs burden on a country, the numerator represents the trade deficit of the US, which is divided by the imports by the same country. This means that if the US has a trade deficit with a country equal to 250 billion USD and the same country exports goods in the US for 400 billion USD, the tariff imposed should be 62.5%.

The main country targeted was China, who immediately replied with tariff bidding behavior, by increasing the rate each time the US modified their disposition, altering the public opinion and the costs of several US products, in fact 40% of goods from China were intermediate goods, or goods that go into other US products. Higher tariffs on China, and a higher effective tariff rate overall, could raise prices in the short-term meaningfully, particularly for US manufacturers. A growing rift with China could raise longer-term inflation, too (Apollo Academy).

Another reason why the tariffs seem controversial is due to their scope, in fact not only affects commercial rivals but also US most loyal allies such as Israel, which is currently under the burden of 17% (Times of Israel), but also some “innocent” States such as Norfolk Island (29%) and Christmas Island (10%), which are known to not be large economic players or competitors with other much larger states, especially against the biggest economic system in the world (nbcNewYork) . Therefore, calculations reveal that the administration's new tariffs are based entirely on eliminating trade deficits, rather than countering measures enacted against the US. This type of formula has never been used before for trade matters. Surprisingly, the entire process was reportedly backed by world experts in both trade and policy making. The instability from these tariffs rippled through overseas markets, disrupting supply chains, investment decisions, and economic growth. Countries that relied heavily on U.S. exports had to reimagine their trade strategies—either by finding new markets or strengthening regional agreements—to compensate for their diminished competitiveness in American markets. Emerging economies were hit particularly hard, as higher U.S. tariffs reduced the appeal of their goods, leading to decreased foreign investment and slower economic growth.

Multinational companies faced a double bind: rising input costs on one side and falling consumer demand on the other. This squeeze forced them to restructure their manufacturing bases and supply networks. Even countries typically uninvolved in trade disputes, like smaller island nations, felt the impact as tariff policies disrupted their niche industries.

This broad, deficit-focused tariff strategy has fractured global trade patterns, pushing overseas markets to reduce their dependence on U.S.-centric trade. Long-term, these changes threaten to weaken U.S. influence in international commerce, creating opportunities for other economic powers—especially in Asia and Europe—to fill the leadership vacuum in global trade.

Impact on Big Tech

The consequences of the tariffs are well-known in the consumer market. The electorate is furious—there is a general sentiment that the president-elect, who extensively promised to fix a struggling economy, is not fulfilling any of his past claims. The market has crashed, prices are rising, and the job market is shrinking. More specifically, unemployment rose by 0.2 since January (Tradingeconomics). As a result, the average American consumer feels lost as the market is increasingly driven by fear and doubt. However, it's important to note that the Trump administration is supported by world-class specialists who are fully aware of their actions' consequences—nothing in international politics happens by chance.

To gain a clearer picture of the situation, we must also examine the Business-to-business (B2B) market. Unlike the consumer market, the business sector experiences less volatility due to predictable demand, long-term relationships, and higher customer lifetime value. This is particularly true regarding social hysteria, except in extreme scenarios. The 2008 housing crisis serves as a prime example of how widespread panic significantly worsened an economic crisis. The US economy heavily depends on Big Tech—the IT companies that rose to prominence in Silicon Valley. The main seven players are Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, NVIDIA, and Tesla or also known as ‘The Magnificent 7’. Yet even these giants are struggling. According to Yahoo Finance, none of them has performed better than -24% since the start of the year, and to date, their combined stocks are down 22% (FT). Meanwhile, the defense/military industry is thriving (usfunds). Given the tense geopolitical environment/sentiment, Trump is likely to push strongly for militarization of both the US and its allies. This may forecast interesting developments from the tech world, which is becoming increasingly integrated into the military sphere.

Tesla's net income fell 71% in the first quarter amid mounting competitive pressure overseas and fallout from Chief Executive Elon Musk's polarizing role in the Trump administration. The company reported adjusted earnings per share of $0.27, missing analysts' expectations of $0.41. Tesla's core automotive business faces significant challenges, with global vehicle deliveries down 13% in the first quarter (WSJ).

Apple's stock price plunged 5% on April 8, 2025, as broader market concerns about a potential trade war with China intensified. The sell-off erased $638 billion of market value over three days. Investors fear that Apple, which heavily relies on Chinese manufacturing, would face higher production costs and disruptions from tariffs (Fortune).

Amazon, however, used its substantial financial resources to stockpile inventory before the tariffs took effect, CEO Andy Jassy revealed in a recent CNBC interview. The company's stock has experienced significant volatility since Chinese tariffs increased on April 2, dropping 12% since that day's close. It now trades at 26 times forward earnings—its lowest premium to the S&P 500's multiple in a decade, down from 38 times. Amazon, which generates about 50% of its sales from North America, competes directly with Walmart. The company currently trades at a 23% discount compared to Walmart, according to FactSet data. Despite the tariffs, the retail giant recently reaffirmed its quarterly revenue guidance, demonstrating the advantages of its scale. Meanwhile, Walmart continues to strengthen its e-commerce business to compete more effectively with Amazon (WSJ).

Impact on Private Equity (PE) and Mergers and Acquisition (M&A) Markets

On announcement of Trump’s re-election, interested parties flocked to publish their speculations on what this could mean for firms in the PE and M&A sector. Expectations included (FINEX Hong Kong)(Husisian)(Martinez-Pogue):

1. An acceleration on deal making

2. Lower interest and corporate tax rates

3. Reduction in regulation on mergers by the Federal Trade Commission

Overall, pretty positive outlooks on M&A’s health, with hopes even for a 1980s-like deal bloom. The reality in the past 4 months, however, painted a different picture.

1.1 An acceleration on dealmaking

Buying and selling of companies through M&A is like oxygen to the PE industry. However, the prospect of fresh air seems to have been extinguished by the very administration they thought would open the windows. Corporate takeovers are at their lowest in the last 10 years, and most consulting giants have lost their government contracts (Massoudi et al.). Advisors to M&A firms reported bidders “walking away” from negotiations and dealmakers being “pens down” as the industry holds its breath. Big fish such as JP Morgan, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley cut down on high-yield bond and loan deals that investors are unwilling to support (Massoudi et al.). Apart from a few late stage deals such as Silver Lake’s acquisition of a large stake in Altera (Intel Press Release) and KKR’s acquisition of Karo Healthcare (KKR Media), most deals are off the table or postponed until further

notice. Examples include 3i’s auction of Audley Travel (3i Press Release) and Boeing’s navigation unit’s postponement.

On an international scale, Chinese state-backed funds are pulling out of US PE markets, which predicts a further downturn in M&A rates since China was a cash pipeline for the world's largest US-based finance firms such as Blackstone, the Carlyle Group, and TPG.

The most disappointed by the reality of the past four months is, however, the Trump-backers who were hoping to gain the President’s favour to bless their deals through donations to his candidacy. An example is Broadcom, who donated 1 million to the campaign, but its takeover of Qualcomm was nonetheless impeded by the White House. On the other hand, luckier players such as Capital One donated the same amount, and its highly scrutinised 35 billion takeover of Discover Financial was approved. While a correlation between supporting the administration and favourable rulings is questionable, these examples show that the prophesied M&A revival is still shaky.

On a positive note, M&A has been struggling for a revival since Covid-19, with 2024 showing “revival” growth of 12% from 2023 (Henry and Van Oostende). This means that despite short-term choppy waters, we may still see a small overall growth since deal volume is still low after the pandemic. Additionally, a larger volume of M&A deals occured in non-US geographies in 2024 (although 54% of the value of total deals belonged to US-related deals). This may mean that despite the US’ petering deal scene, we may see more lower-value, yet steady deals in non-US markets (Toomey). Again, this optimism must be managed as global tariffs may curb investor excitement.

1.2: Lower interest and corporate tax rates

Prior to the beginning of his term, there was a superstition that the incoming administration would be focused on lowering the corporate tax rates from 21% to 15% (Michel and Loucks) which would encourage productivity and encourage investment. Lower FED interest rates also means making borrowing cheaper and encouraging business growth, issuing new bonds, and increasing the value of existing bonds. Unfortunately, optimists may be downtrodden by the result so far.

Most significantly for PE, Trump told lawmakers he wanted to close the ‘loophole’ of special tax treatment for PE and hedge fund profits known as ‘carried interest’ (Rogers et al.). The way the legislation loophole works is by taxing PE and hedge fund profits at long-term capital rates, which are typically lower than ordinary income rates (20% versus 37%). This elimination would save the US government $14 billion over 10 years (McGregor), but enrage and further diminish PE activity in markets.

On the other hand, such a significant reform appears unlikely given the resistance from business-aligned republicans and with many high-level officers drawn from the PE world (Husisian). Other limited corporate tax cuts would eliminate uncertainty but unlikely alter investment strategies or confidence. Additionally, personal tax rate cuts could boost consumer spending, but would ultimately have minimal impact on PE (FINEX Hong Kong).

1.3: Reduction in regulation on mergers by the FTC

Under the Biden administration, The Federal Trade Commission chaired by Lina Khan voraciously pursued perceived monopolies such as Meta and Google. Both companies, in the hopes of a fresh start under the Trump administration, donated toward the President’s campaign. Yet, their cheques have not paid off: Meta is back in suit for an antitrust trial that could force the conglomerate to split (Kang), while Google was ruled to have illegally acquired and kept a monopoly in digital advertising which may also force them to break up (Diaz).

Additionally, the new chair of the FTC Andrew Ferguson told an audience that he does not think corporate America should expect an “open season” for M&A, and that his job is to ensure big firms (tech firms in particular) do not “inflict injuries on ordinary [people]” (Thomas). This shows that the chilling effect of M&A in the US may continue despite Lisa Kahn’s departure. On the other hand, PE firms could possibly capitalize on dislocations by finding acquisition opportunities with fewer large strategic competitors in the market due to strict antitrust scrutiny.

What The Future May Hold

In a country where rule of law is paramount, with the dollar in a position of power as the main trading currency and petrodollar, American firms can only hope to avoid the worst possible outcome. While markets may eventually recover - as shown after Trump put a pause on some retaliatory tariffs this month, consumer sentiment will continue to be driven by doubt and fear as the US’ international credibility has taken a hit with the back-and-forth tariffs.

Overall, the crystal ball signals weakening vitals - especially for the PE market. Public markets are doing what they always do - they react. In 2022 the market was down 25% because of inflation panic; 33% in 2020 after Covid-19, and down 20% in 2018 Q4 for ‘no apparent reason’ (Armstrong). In comparison, the current 18% drop since its February peak does not seem that intimidating, and, if you squint, you can hope that it will pass with the administration's progress in the next few years. However, the outlook on private markets is more difficult to spin into a rosy picture. There is a sort of dichotomy between the health of publicly traded PE companies and ETFs representing private credit. A sign of these weakening vitals is shown by Harvard and Yale Universities selling bonds, particularly private equity investments ($6 billion worth of them in Yale’s case) on the secondary market (Armstrong). The fact that the two largest US universities are seeking liquidity tells us more than the fact that they are being squeezed by the administration.

Ultimately, however, we are not divinators, we are navigating unpredictable waters, and can only hope for the best. As BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink said in his last Chairman’s letter: “... we have lived through moments like this before. And somehow, in the long run, we figure things out” (Fink).

The isolationist trend

Why be isolationist in a globalised world? The United States initially pioneered the trend of Globalisation, which historians commonly trace back to 1945 during President Harry Truman's influential speech. This perspective is thoroughly documented by Wolfgang Sach in his renowned book, The Development Dictionary, where he explores how the US, through its substantial political and economic influence, emerged as the primary beneficiary of globalization, as nations worldwide adopted similar economic models and practices. In the contemporary landscape, although the United States maintains considerable global influence, its dominance has somewhat diminished due to the rise of formidable economic powers such as India, China, and other emerging markets. This shift in the global economic balance has created a more complex and multilateral international environment, where power and influence are increasingly distributed among multiple centers. In response to this evolving dynamic, the US appears to be attempting to replicate its earlier strategy of economic leadership, albeit in a markedly different global context. Their current approach suggests an expectation that, as much of the world's economic landscape gravitates toward more conservative, right-leaning policies, other nations will naturally align with their vision of a more autonomous, self-sustaining state structure. This perspective, however, seems to overlook the deeply interconnected nature of modern global economics and the practical impossibility of true economic isolation in today's world. The rather antiquated concept of complete economic self-sufficiency has historically proven problematic when strictly implemented, as evidenced by various historical examples, particularly the economic policies of Fascist Italy during the 1920s, which demonstrated the significant limitations and potential dangers of extreme economic nationalism.

Final Plan

What are the key elements and potential implications of Trump's proposed economic plan? The comprehensive plan aims to fundamentally restructure the United States economy with the primary objective of establishing greater oversight and control over business operations and supply chain mechanisms. However, it's important to note that this increased control would not necessarily emanate from a centralized governmental authority—the United States continues to maintain a robust private sector that operates through a sophisticated network of lobbying organizations, which themselves emerged from and operate within a complex oligopolistic system. The plan's principal economic advisors, Stephen Miran and Scott Bessent, who both built their careers as hedge fund managers and are well-known for implementing aggressive investment strategies, have specifically identified the ongoing process of deindustrialization as the most significant threat to American economic dominance. This concern is particularly evidenced by two parallel developments: China's remarkable economic ascendancy in global manufacturing and the persistent decline of the American Rust Belt region, where Trump has consistently found some of his strongest political support. This pattern of deindustrialization can be traced back to two pivotal historical moments that shaped modern American economic policy: the establishment of the Bretton Woods monetary system and the subsequent implementation of Reagan's neoliberal economic policies. To express these complex objectives in more accessible terms, the MAGA economic team appears to be pursuing a delicate balancing act: they aim to strategically weaken the dollar's relative strength while simultaneously preserving its crucial status as the world's primary reserve currency, thereby potentially making it even more indispensable in global financial markets. However, this strategy comes with significant risks—they must carefully navigate potential economic bottlenecks, as any substantial decrease in consumer confidence could lead to a significant contraction in domestic market activity, potentially undermining the entire economic strategy.

Conclusion

Could the implementation of tariffs have been anticipated? Yes, without a doubt. During his presidential campaign, Trump displayed clear signs of protectionist policies. His campaign slogans "America First" and "Make America Great Again" revealed an emerging isolationist stance in American politics. These catchphrases, along with his campaign rhetoric, signaled a clear shift toward protective trade policies. The issue of negotiating leverage proved significant—when tariffs are implemented across multiple countries, circumventing trade barriers becomes much harder. China's response to the 2016 trade conflict illustrated this clearly. They attempted to bypass US tariffs by routing exports through Mexico before final shipment to the United States. While this strategic move aimed to avoid direct tariffs, it ultimately sparked discussions about currency valuation and trade agreements. Chinese social media accounts then began exposing luxury brands that manufacture in

China and offered alternatives to purchase goods directly from manufacturers. This move, which undercut Western conglomerate producers like LVMH, significantly impacted the consumer market. It led consumers to question the real value of official retail items and the integrity of the fashion industry, particularly the practice of marking up prices by an average of 250% (Vogue). While this markup was not shocking news, these social media accounts' popularity helped raise awareness among consumers who were previously unfamiliar with the scale of such markups.

Additional Insights

Triffin Dilemma

A reserve currency country faces a fundamental trade-off. It must run trade deficits to supply the global economy with necessary liquidity in its currency. However, these deficits can weaken its domestic economy and erode confidence in its currency. If the country tries to strengthen its economy by reducing deficits, it risks creating a global liquidity shortage and hampering international trade, potentially destabilizing the world economy (Silver Bullion).

Mar-a-Lago Accord

Some believe the tariffs represent the initial phase of a broader strategy to transform global trade, strengthen U.S. manufacturing, reduce the U.S. budget deficit, and require allies to contribute more for U.S. security protection (abc).

Bibliography

3i. “3i to Invest £159m in Audley Travel.” 3i.com, 2024, www.3i.com/media/news/2015/3i-to-invest-159m-in-audley-travel/.

Agnew, Harriet, et al. “China Pulls Back from US Private Equity Investments.” @FinancialTimes, Financial Times, 21 Apr. 2025, www.ft.com/content/478c1c64-8923-4ec2-858d-670b30ae44f9.

Armstrong, Robert. “Private Equity in the Time of Trump.” @FinancialTimes, Financial Times, 24 Apr. 2025, www.ft.com/content/07a16127-a029-4c7e-bf82-0db644670ef2.

Baker, Peter. “For Trump, a Vindication for the Man and His Movement.” The New York Times, 20 Jan. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/01/20/us/politics/trump-inauguration.html.

Berman, Lazar. “Stressing the “Billions” US Gives in Aid, Trump Refuses to Commit to Removing Tariffs on Israel.” Timesofisrael.com, 2025, www.timesofisrael.com/stressing-billions-in-aid-trump-refuses-to-commit-to-removing-tariffs-on-israel/.

Diaz, Jaclyn. “Decades Later, the Microsoft Antitrust Case Casts a Shadow over the Google Trial.” NPR, 24 Apr. 2025, www.npr.org/2025/04/24/nx-s1-5374024/microsoft-antitrust-case-google.

Farra, Emily. “What Is the Right Price for Fashion?” Vogue, 29 June 2020,

www.vogue.com/article/what-is-the-right-price-for-fashion.

FINEX Hong Kong. “Trump 2.0: What Private Equity, Markets, and Policy Can Expect | Finex Hong Kong.” Finex Hong Kong, 13 Jan. 2025, finexhongkong.com/trump-2-0-what-private-equity-markets-and-policy-can-expect/.

Fink, Larry. “Larry Fink’s Annual Chairman’s Letter to Investors.” BlackRock, 2025, www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-annual-chairmans-letter.

Fitch, Asa, and Dan Gallagher. “Amazon Is Better Prepared for the Trade War than Investors Think.” WSJ, The Wall Street Journal, 18 Apr. 2025, www.wsj.com/finance/amazon-tariff-trade-war-china-f2707c7e .

Global Macro Research. “What Is the Impact of Trump 2.0 on the Global Economy?”

Aberdeeninvestments.com, 2025, www.aberdeeninvestments.com/en-us/investor/insights-and-research/what-is-the-impact-of-trump-2-0-on-the-global-economy.

Goldman, David. “We’re Suddenly Talking about the Great Depression When Discussing Trump’s Stock Market.” CNN, 22 Apr. 2025, edition.cnn.com/2025/04/22/investing/dow-great-depression-sell-america-trade/index.html.

Henry, Jake, and Mieke Van Oostende. “M&a Annual Report: Is the Wave Finally Arriving?”

McKinsey & Company, 19 Feb. 2025, www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/m-and-a/our-insights/top-m-and-a-trends.

Holmes, Frank. “Trump’s Golden Dome Could Spark the Biggest Defense Boom in Decades.” USFunds, 25 Apr. 2025, www.usfunds.com/resource/trumps-golden-dome-could-spark-the-biggest-defense-boom-in-decades/.

Accessed 27 Apr. 2025.Husisian, Gregory. “Private Equity and the New Trump Administration: Your Top Ten Questions Answered | Foley & Lardner LLP.” Foley & Lardner LLP, 18 Apr. 2017, www.foley.com/insights/publications/2017/04/private-equity-and-the-new-trump-administrati

on-yo/.

Intel Press Release. “Intel Corporation.” Intel Corporation, 14 Apr. 2025, www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1736/intel-announces-strategic-investment-by-silver-lake-in.

Jones, Alexandra Mae. “Digging into the “Insane” Formula the White House Used to Calculate Its Tariffs.” CBC, 4 Apr. 2025, www.cbc.ca/news/business/trump-fake-tariff-rates-1.7501604.

Kang, Cecilia. “U.S. Prepares to Challenge Meta’s Social Media Dominance.” The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/04/13/technology/meta-ftc-trial-whatsapp-instagram.html.

KKR Media. “Press Releases.” Kkr.com, 2025, media.kkr.com/news-details?news_id=7ecc4159-5c35-4da0-b794-ae0027659b8f.

Martin, Patrick, and Will Jackson. “What Is the Mar-a-Lago Accord and Could It Explain Donald Trump’s Tariff Chaos?” Abc.net.au, ABC News, 10 Apr. 2025,

www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-10/what-is-the-mar-a-lago-accord-donald-trump-tariff-policy/105153862utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_share d&utm_source=abc_news_web.

Martinez-Pogue, Jade. Chaotic but PE-Friendly Enviro Expected as Trump Returns. 27 Nov. 2024.

https://www.stblaw.com/docs/default-source/publications/chaotic-but-pe-friendly-enviro-expected-as-trump-returns.pdf?sfvrsn=d9097921_2.

Massoudi, Arash, et al. “How “Magic Circle” Firm Freshfields Won Big in the US.”

@FinancialTimes, Financial Times, 16 July 2024, www.ft.com/content/d39ce84c-0389-4e1b-bed5-16f24de243a3.

Massoudi, Arash, et al. “Why I’m Leaving London, Billionaire Edition.” @FinancialTimes, Financial Times, 22 Apr. 2025, www.ft.com/content/1253f56d-3ca4-43fd-8993-d3c5718ac35f.

McGregor, Grady. “Trump Wants to Kill Carried Interest. Wall Street Will Fight to Keep It.” The New York Times, 8 Mar. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/03/08/business/dealbook/trump-carried-interest.html.

McLain, Sean. “Tesla Earnings: Net Income Slid 71% in Q1, Hurt by Political Backlash.” WSJ, The Wall Street Journal, 22 Apr. 2025, www.wsj.com/business/autos/tesla-tsla-q1-earnings-report-2025-f7120a39?st=XDKxw9. Accessed 27 Apr. 2025.

Michel, Adam N., and Joshua Loucks. “The Case for Trump’s 15 Percent Corporate Tax Rate.” Cato.org, 8 Jan. 2025, www.cato.org/blog/case-trumps-15-percent-corporate-tax-rate.

Morrow, Allison, and Matt Egan. “Trump Chaos Has Already Damaged the Economy. It May Be Too Late to Fix It.” CNN, 23 Apr. 2025, edition.cnn.com/2025/04/23/business/trump-tariffs-fed-damage/index.html.

Reinicke, Carmen, et al. “Apple’s Historic Selloff Has Bulls Balking from Tariff Risks.” Fortune, 8 Apr. 2025, fortune.com/2025/04/08/apple-stock-selloff-trump-tariffs-economy-tech-markets-china-vietnam-india/.

Reiter, Aiden. “Does the Market Need to Be Concerned about AI Adoption?” @FinancialTimes, Financial Times, 18 Apr. 2025, www.ft.com/content/3c3977cd-e503-4d71-aa3b-7b2f23591d55.

Rogers, Alex, et al. “Donald Trump Seeks to Close Tax Loophole Enjoyed by Private Equity Groups.” @FinancialTimes, Financial Times, 6 Feb. 2025, www.ft.com/content/3487e2b5-d18e-4f49-b45f-44eede3dd4c9.

Sawdah Bhaimiya, CNBC. “These Bizarre Locations Have Been Hit by Trump’s Tariffs — Including an Uninhabited Island.” NBC New York, 3 Apr. 2025, www.nbcnewyork.com/news/business/money-report/trumps-tariffs-spare-no-country-5-bizarr e-locations-hit-by-levies-including-an-uninhabited-island/6210919/?os=httpbing.1eye.us&ref =app.

Thomas, Lauren. “Dealmakers Are Struggling to Make Sense of Trump’s Antitrust Policy.” WSJ, The Wall Street Journal, 22 Apr. 2025, www.wsj.com/business/deals/dealmakers-are-struggling-to-make-sense-of-trumps-antitrust-p olicy-2d9bf77c.

Tie, Vincent. “Triffin Dilemma: The Curse of Reserve Currencies?” Silver Bullion.com.sg, Silver Bullion, Dec. 2023, www.silverbullion.com.sg/Articles/Detail/Triffin-Dilemma-The-Curse-of-Reserve-Currenci/10621.

Toomey, Joseph. “Global M&a by the Numbers: 2024 in Review.” S&P Global Market Intelligence, 21 Jan. 2025, www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insights/research/global-ma-by-the-numbers-2024-in-review.

Torsten Sløk. “How Are Imports from China Used in the US? - Apollo Academy.” Apollo Academy, 22 Apr. 2025, www.apolloacademy.com/how-are-imports-from-china-used-in-the-us/.

Trading Economics. “United States Unemployment Rate.” Tradingeconomics.com, 2025, tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate.