Evelyn Reynolds

The administration is positioning itself to clamp down on Chinese investment and access to technology. But the wild card may be the president himself.President Trump’s tough talk on China typically centers on tariffs. But a closer look at the decisions he has made since taking office shows that the president is considering a far wider set of economic restrictions on Beijing, ones that could hasten America’s split from a critical trading partner.The Trump administration has so far proposed expanding restrictions on investments flowing between the United States and China. It has appointed officials who, because of national security concerns, are likely to push for more curbs on Chinese investments and technology sales to China. And Mr. Trump has ushered in a 10 percent tariff on Chinese imports, a move that he called an “opening salvo.”After years in which officials from both parties gradually pared back America’s economic relationship with China, Mr. Trump’s moves suggest that he is prepared to sever ties more aggressively.Samm Sacks, a senior fellow at Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center, said the investment memorandum that the administration issued on Friday read like “a call to finish the unfinished task of fully unwinding commercial ties with China.”“So far, pragmatists have prevailed in getting a more narrow version of decoupling,” Ms. Sacks said.The pronouncements could be “a bargaining tool” for Mr. Trump to kick off negotiations with the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, Ms. Sacks said. “But should that fall apart or not work out — which is probably most likely — I see this as the blueprint to finish the job of decoupling.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Many government workers being cut are those with fewer protections. They are relatively new in their current jobs, but often have years of experience.In news about the Trump administration’s job-slashing effort, one class of federal workers comes up repeatedly: “probationary” employees.At the Internal Revenue Service, 6,700 people with that status are being let go. At the Department of Health and Human Services, reports indicated the total could be 5,200. The Pentagon announced last week that it would terminate 5,400. At the Forest Service, 3,400 may be cut.These workers, who generally have less than one or two years of service in their current positions, are particular targets among civil servants because they have the weakest protections. Here’s what else we know about the people being shown the door.What does being on ‘probation’ mean?Under the federal code, civil servants remain on probation for one year after they are hired, promoted, demoted or otherwise reassigned. Those in the “excepted” service, meaning they don’t go through normal competitive selection processes, can be on probation for two years.While on probation, a federal employee can essentially be fired at will, although the person’s superiors need to show that the employee’s “work performance or conduct fails during this period to demonstrate his fitness or his qualifications for continued employment.” (Many termination notices included language about the employee’s supposedly inadequate performance, typically without evidence.) Probationary employees may also appeal if they believe they were fired for partisan political reasons or on the basis of unlawful discrimination.After employees have completed their probation period, they gain more rights to appeal a termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Under those rules for due process, the agency must show that an employee wasn’t doing the job, or that the job was no longer necessary.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Fresh off the worst inflation shock in decades, Americans are once again bracing for higher prices.Expectations about future inflation have started to move up, according to metrics closely watched by officials at the Federal Reserve. So far, the data, including a consumer survey from the University of Michigan and market-based measures of investors’ expectations, does not suggest that price pressures are perceived to be on the verge of spiraling out of control.But the recent jump has been significant enough to warrant attention, stoking yet more uncertainty about an economic outlook already clouded by President Trump’s ever-evolving approach to trade, immigration, taxation and other policy areas. On Tuesday, a survey from the Conference Board showed that consumer confidence fell sharply in February and inflation expectations rose as Americans fretted about the surging price of eggs and the potential impact of tariffs.If those worries persist, it could be a political problem for Mr. Trump, whose promise to control prices was a central part of his message during last year’s campaign. It would also add to the challenge facing policymakers at the Fed, who are already concerned that progress against inflation is stalling out.“This is the kind of thing that can unnerve a policymaker,” Jonathan Pingle, who used to work at the Fed and is now chief economist at UBS, said about the overarching trend in inflation expectations. “We don’t want inflation expectations moving up so much that it makes the Fed’s job harder to get inflation back to 2 percent.”Most economists see keeping inflation expectations in check as crucial to controlling inflation itself. That’s because beliefs about where prices are headed can become a self-fulfilling prophecy: If workers expect the cost of living to rise, they will demand raises to compensate; if businesses expect the cost of materials and labor to rise, they will increase their own prices in anticipation. That can make it much harder for the Fed to bring inflation to heel.That’s what happened in the 1960s and 1970s: Years of high inflation led consumers and businesses to expect prices to keep rising rapidly. Only by raising interest rates to a punishing level and causing a severe recession was the Fed able to bring inflation fully back under control.

.dw-chart-subhed {
line-height: 1;
margin-bottom: 6px;
font-family: nyt-franklin;
color: #121212;
font-size: 15px;
font-weight: 700;
}

Expected rate of inflation in the next five years, by political party
Source: University of Michigan Survey of Consumer SentimentBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The next German government faces calls to loosen borrowing rules, slash energy costs and spur innovation. It won’t be easy.Friedrich Merz and his center-right Christian Democrats emerged victorious in Germany’s election on Sunday, but the celebrations may be short. The next government, almost certainly led by Mr. Merz as chancellor, faces a stagnant economy, President Trump’s threat to put tariffs on the country’s crucial export industries and a fourth year of war in Ukraine.What’s more, the ability to address these issues is hamstrung by strict limits on government debt and deficits, making it difficult to finance higher military spending, update crumbling infrastructure and carry out other initiatives that economists say are crucial to spur growth.A dispute over this rule, known as the debt brake, brought down the government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz of the center-left Social Democrats, paving the way for Sunday’s early election. But relaxing the rule would require a two-thirds majority in Parliament to amend the Constitution, and the election outcome suggests it would be difficult to muster that much support.Already on Monday, Mr. Merz was facing calls from other politicians, economists and even the traditionally conservative central bank for the new government to find a way to adjust the spending limits to fit the country’s urgent economic demands.“In principle,” the Bundesbank wrote in a report on Monday, “it is entirely justifiable to adapt the debt brake’s borrowing limit to changing conditions when the public debt ratio is low.” German government debt is just over 60 percent of gross domestic product, far lower than in countries like Britain, France and the United States, where debt is near or above 100 percent of G.D.P.But after Sunday’s election, the two-party coalition that Mr. Merz hopes to form between his Christian Democrats, which won 208 seats, and the Social Democrats, with 120, will have to rely on other parties to achieve the two-thirds majority in Parliament necessary to change the Constitution.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The federal budget debate has big implications for the economy. Businesses are betting that tax cuts will be extended and the math will work out.Even by Washington standards, the second Trump presidency has begun in frenetic fashion: mass firings at federal agencies, tariff threats against allies and foes alike, and haggling over how to get a Republican budget through a narrowly divided Congress.Business leaders and corporate investors are confident that things will turn out fine, at least for them. “Markets aren’t showing all that much concern,” Jason Pride, chief of investment strategy and research at the Glenmede Trust Company, noted.But that could change, with high-stakes implications for the markets and the U.S. economic outlook.Investors fully expect the tax cuts from President Trump’s first term, which mostly benefited businesses and the wealthy, to be fully extended before the end of the year. Trade groups including the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors are confident the extension will be taken care of — especially since not doing so “would impose, effectively, a tax increase,” Mr. Pride added.Still, the arithmetic remains tenuous. The cost of extending the tax cuts may total $4 trillion over 10 years. That means Congress is being left to barter over what else can save or raise money, and whose federal benefits might be cut.The bond market — where traders price the risk of both inflation and an economic downturn — has, for its part, shimmied off moments of worry brought on by Mr. Trump’s boomeranging style of negotiation over tariffs. The bet is that the threats of an import tax are more a geopolitical tool than a key revenue raiser, as the administration has portrayed the tariffs in budget discussions.Some of the underlying calm stems from Wall Street’s confidence in Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. A billionaire hedge fund manager before assuming his new position, he has convinced many analysts that the ultimate suite of policies coming from the White House will be beneficial once it coalesces, and he “has also added to some optimism around lower deficits” in future budgets, according to Matt Luzzetti, the chief economist at Deutsche Bank.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Friedrich Merz, the Christian Democratic Union’s candidate for chancellor, has not shied away from blasting Olaf Scholz’s economic policies and linking them to the lackluster state of Europe’s biggest economy.
But experts say a Merz-led government may also not give the German economy the boost it needs.
The German economy contracted in both 2023 and 2024.

Production at the VW plant in Emden.
Sina Schuldt | Picture Alliance | Getty Images

The struggling German economy has been a major talking point among critics of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’ government during the latest election campaign — but analysts warn a new leadership might not turn these tides.
As voters prepare to head to the polls, it is now all but certain that Germany will soon have a new chancellor. The Christian Democratic Union’s Friedrich Merz is the firm favorite.

Merz has not shied away from blasting Scholz’s economic policies and from linking them to the lackluster state of Europe’s largest economy. He argues that a government under his leadership would give the economy the boost it needs.
Experts speaking to CNBC were less sure.
“There is a high risk that Germany will get a refurbished economic model after the elections, but not a brand new model that makes the competition jealous,” Carsten Brzeski, global head of macro at ING, told CNBC.

The CDU/CSU economic agenda

The CDU, which on a federal level ties up with regional sister party the Christian Social Union, is running on a “typical economic conservative program,” Brzeski said.
It includes income and corporate tax cuts, fewer subsidies and less bureaucracy, changes to social benefits, deregulation, support for innovation, start-ups and artificial intelligence and boosting investment among other policies, according to CDU/CSU campaigners.

“The weak parts of the positions are that the CDU/CSU is not very precise on how it wants to increase investments in infrastructure, digitalization and education. The intention is there, but the details are not,” Brzeski said, noting that the union appears to be aiming to revive Germany’s economic model without fully overhauling it.
“It is still a reform program which pretends that change can happen without pain,” he said.

Geraldine Dany-Knedlik, head of forecasting at research institute DIW Berlin, noted that the CDU is also looking to reach gross domestic product growth of around 2% again through its fiscal and economic program called “Agenda 2030.”
But reaching such levels of economic expansion in Germany “seems unrealistic,” not just temporarily, but also in the long run, she told CNBC.
Germany’s GDP declined in both 2023 and 2024. Recent quarterly growth readings have also been teetering on the verge of a technical recession, which has so far been narrowly avoided. The German economy shrank by 0.2% in the fourth quarter, compared with the previous three-month stretch, according to the latest reading.
Europe’s largest economy faces pressure in key industries like the auto sector, issues with infrastructure like the country’s rail network and a housebuilding crisis.
Dany-Knedlik also flagged the so-called debt brake, a long-standing fiscal rule that is enshrined in Germany’s constitution, which limits the size of the structural budget deficit and how much debt the government can take on.
Whether or not the clause should be overhauled has been a big part of the fiscal debate ahead of the election. While the CDU ideally does not want to change the debt brake, Merz has said that he may be open to some reform.
“To increase growth prospects substantially without increasing debt also seems rather unlikely,” DIW’s Dany-Knedlik said, adding that, if public investments were to rise within the limits of the debt brake, significant tax increases would be unavoidable.
“Taking into account that a 2 Percent growth target is to be reached within a 4 year legislation period, the Agenda 2030 in combination with conservatives attitude towards the debt break to me reads more of a wish list than a straight forward economic growth program,” she said.

Franziska Palmas, senior Europe economist at Capital Economics, sees some benefits to the plans of the CDU-CSU union, saying they would likely “be positive” for the economy, but warning that the resulting boost would be small.
“Tax cuts would support consumer spending and private investment, but weak sentiment means consumers may save a significant share of their additional after-tax income and firms may be reluctant to invest,” she told CNBC.  
Palmas nevertheless pointed out that not everyone would come away a winner from the new policies. Income tax cuts would benefit middle- and higher-income households more than those with a lower income, who would also be affected by potential reductions of social benefits.

Coalition talks ahead

Following the Sunday election, the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be left to find a coalition partner to form a majority government, with the Social Democratic Party or the Green party emerging as the likeliest candidates.

The parties will need to broker a coalition agreement outlining their joint goals, including on the economy — which could prove to be a difficult undertaking, Capital Economics’ Palmas said.
“The CDU and the SPD and Greens have significantly different economic policy positions,” she said, pointing to discrepancies over taxes and regulation. While the CDU/CSU want to reduce both items, the SPD and Greens seek to raise taxes and oppose deregulation in at least some areas, Palmas explained.
The group is nevertheless likely to hold the power in any potential negotiations as it will likely have their choice between partnering with the SPD or Greens.
“Accordingly, we suspect that the coalition agreement will include most of the CDU’s main economic proposals,” she said. More

The Federal Reserve’s independence from the White House has long been enshrined in the law. But an executive order that President Trump signed this week seeking to extend his administration’s reach over independent agencies is prompting concerns about how much further he will go to challenge that separation.Mr. Trump’s directive took aim at regulatory agencies that had typically operated with limited political interference as authorized by Congress.The order partly shielded the Fed by exempting the central bank’s decisions on interest rates. Those are voted on at every meeting by seven presidentially appointed members of the Board of Governors, who typically serve 14-year terms, as well as a rotating set of five presidents from the regional reserve banks.But the order sought to exert authority over how the Fed oversees Wall Street, decisions that are ratified with majority support by the board.The order was the president’s latest attempt to centralize the executive branch’s power over the government. It requires independent organizations to submit proposed rule changes to the White House for review and gives the Office of Management and Budget oversight of how these institutions spend funds and set priorities. It also asserts that the president’s and the Justice Department’s interpretations of the law are binding and that alternative interpretations require authorization.The expansive nature of the order has raised questions about whether Mr. Trump’s decree is legally applicable to an institution like the Fed. It has also fueled speculation that the president — who has a history of trying to influence the central bank’s decision on interest rates — may eventually turn his scrutiny to monetary policy decisions.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Tech start-ups typically raised huge sums to hire armies of workers and grow fast. Now artificial intelligence tools are making workers more productive and spurring tales of “tiny team” success.Almost every day, Grant Lee, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, hears from investors who try to persuade him to take their money. Some have even sent him and his co-founders personalized gift baskets.Mr. Lee, 41, would normally be flattered. In the past, a fast-growing start-up like Gamma, the artificial intelligence start-up he helped establish in 2020, would have constantly looked out for more funding.But like many young start-ups in Silicon Valley today, Gamma is pursuing a different strategy. It is using artificial intelligence tools to increase its employees’ productivity in everything from customer service and marketing to coding and customer research.That means Gamma, which makes software that lets people create presentations and websites, has no need for more cash, Mr. Lee said. His company has hired only 28 people to get “tens of millions” in annual recurring revenue and nearly 50 million users. Gamma is also profitable.“If we were from the generation before, we would easily be at 200 employees,” Mr. Lee said. “We get a chance to rethink that, basically rewrite the playbook.”The old Silicon Valley model dictated that start-ups should raise a huge sum of money from venture capital investors and spend it hiring an army of employees to scale up fast. Profits would come much later. Until then, head count and fund-raising were badges of honor among founders, who philosophized that bigger was better.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More