Where is the Economic Doomsday We Were Promised?

If you had followed the economic forecasts at the start of 2025, you’d have been tempted to hide under the stairs with a blanket and a survival kit. The narrative was clear: the return of Donald Trump and his aggressive tariff regime would signal the end of the global economy as we knew it.

Experts predicted the largest trade shock in history, with some warning that a global recession was almost a mathematical certainty.

Yet, as we reach the end of the year, the wreckage is surprisingly hard to find. The world is still turning. While growth has slowed, the much feared recession hasn’t materialized. Global trade has undergone massive shifts behind the scenes, but it has neither halted nor collapsed. This raises a fundamental question: are our economic models broken, or has the global trading system proven far more resilient than anyone dared to hope?

Uncertainty as a Tool

One reason the dire predictions missed the mark is that they took initial announcements at face value. It has since become clear that the “April shock” of sky-high tariff announcements was a deliberate strategy of injecting uncertainty into the market to gain leverage. The goal was always to start high and negotiate down.
​While journalists and analysts were asking what the direct impact of a 27% tariff would be, the reality on the ground was a moving target. By November, after rounds of intense negotiations, the effective average tariff had dropped to 17%. While this is still significantly higher than the pre-2025 average of 2.5%, it is a far cry from the “total trade war” originally envisioned. Most major economic blocs managed to negotiate their way down, leaving China as the only player facing extreme rates above 40%.

Restraint and Resilience

The second reason we avoided a total meltdown was a surprising display of global self-discipline. The catastrophic scenarios relied on a domino effect of retaliatory tariffs. However, most of the world chose not to strike back in kind. Because the primary burden of a tariff falls on the country imposing it (as a tax on its own importers), the rest of the world avoided much of the pain by simply refusing to escalate. It was a calculated choice of restraint over ego.

Furthermore, global trade proved to be remarkably agile. We often think of international commerce as a slow-moving tanker, but this year showed it can pivot like a speedboat. When routes to the U.S. became too expensive, fleets redirected, and trade intensified within other regions. While exports from Europe to the U.S. have dipped, they haven’t cratered. Meanwhile, global trade in goods actually rose by over 6% this year. The old adage that “when America sneezes, the world catches a cold” no longer seems to hold true; we are moving toward a more balanced, less U.S. centric global economy.

The Hidden Toll

Does this mean the tariffs were a victimless policy? Far from it. While the “doomsday” didn’t happen, a slow erosion is visible beneath the surface.

The pain is currently being masked by corporate buffers. To avoid losing market share, exporters are slightly lowering their prices, while U.S. importers are eating into their own profit margins or cutting costs elsewhere rather than passing the full cost to the consumer immediately. Additionally, many companies stockpiled goods before the tariffs took effect, allowing them to sell older, cheaper inventory throughout the year.

However, these buffers are not infinite. Inflation in the U.S., which had been trending downward before the inauguration, has begun to creep back up. The promised manufacturing boom has yet to materialize, and job growth has stalled. Perhaps most tellingly, the tariff revenue is nowhere near enough to replace income tax, as was once claimed.

The real test will come in the next six months. As stockpiles empty and profit margins hit rock bottom, businesses will be forced to pass costs onto the public. This won’t just affect imported goods, but will trickle down into services like healthcare and hospitality. The economic “hell and damnation” didn’t arrive with a bang in early 2025, but for the American consumer, it may yet arrive with a whimper just in time for the midterm elections.

U.S. Special Prosecutor’s Report Released: ‘Trump Lied to Stay in Power’

Donald Trump committed an “unprecedented criminal attempt” to remain in power. That is the conclusion of Special Prosecutor Jack Smith in a long-anticipated report on the outgoing U.S. president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, which he lost. The report was released today.

AFP

Since Trump won the most recent presidential election, the charges against him have been dropped. The U.S. Department of Justice does not prosecute sitting presidents. The report concludes that there was sufficient evidence to convict Trump, but his upcoming presidency makes that impossible.

The Justice Department submitted the report to Congress early this morning. “The common thread in all of Trump’s criminal activities was deceit,” the report states. “Knowingly and willingly, he made false claims of election fraud. The evidence shows that Trump weaponized these lies to obstruct a federal government function that is fundamental to the U.S. democratic process.”

Although many details of Trump’s attempts to overturn the election were already well known, the document contains, for the first time, a detailed assessment from Smith regarding his investigation. It also includes Smith’s response to Trump and his allies’ claims that the investigation was politically motivated.

Smith argues that his actions against Trump were in defense of the rule of law. He also addressed ongoing criticism from the newly re-elected president. “Trump’s claim that my prosecutorial decisions were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in one word, ridiculous,” Smith wrote in a letter to the Attorney General about the report.

Quiet Resignation

Smith also intended to indict Trump for illegally storing sensitive national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida after leaving the White House in 2021. However, the Justice Department has pledged not to release that part of the investigation publicly, as legal proceedings are still ongoing against two Trump associates charged in the case.

Over the weekend, it was announced that Jack Smith had resigned. His departure had been expected ever since Trump won the election in November. Jack Smith (55), who previously prosecuted war criminals at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, was appointed in 2022 to prosecute Trump.

Trump himself responded in his typical fashion to the report’s release. On Truth Social, he called Smith a “dumb prosecutor who failed to get his case heard before the election.” He did not mention that his own legal team had filed numerous procedures to delay the trial.

Former US Top Diplomat Paul Bremer: “Europe Underestimates Trump, Just Like They Did with Reagan”

Paul Bremer was the face of the neoconservative foreign policy of the U.S. Now that Trump is in power, there is no longer room for neocons among the Republicans. Yet he remained loyal to the party. Why? “Europe frustrates us.”

Photo: Stephen Voss

Republican Lewis Paul Bremer III had never before voted for Donald Trump. In the previous presidential election, he wrote “Nikki Haley,” Trump’s former UN ambassador and challenger, on the ballot.

He wanted nothing to do with Trump. But this time, Bremer was convinced and chose Trump. “I didn’t have great options on the ballot,” he says by phone from his home just outside Washington. “I have serious reservations about Trump, but I hope he surrounds himself with the right advisors. Maybe it won’t be so bad, and his election could actually be good news, even for Europe.”

Paul Bremer (83), who was the U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands in the 1980s, is a Republican of a fading kind. His name is forever linked to the era when neoconservatives held sway in the party in the early 2000s. It was the time of hawks, advocates of aggressive interventionism. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). After the capture of Iraq, Bremer was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush as the head of the coalition authority in Baghdad. It was he who announced the capture of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein on December 14, 2003. (“Ladies and gentlemen, we got him.”)

But the neocons no longer hold power in the Republican Party in the Trump era. Trump called the Iraq War a mistake and labeled the interventionists of that time as warmongers. “Wars cost money,” Trump said, and the neocons’ ultimate goal—to spread democracy on American terms—does not fit his “America First” doctrine. Dick Cheney, Bush’s vice president, and his daughter Liz switched to the Democrats.

Bremer, who took up painting after his return from Iraq, just like Bush, remained loyal to the party, despite his reservations about Trump. And there are many like Bremer: those who haven’t left the party have either converted to Trumpism or kept quiet.

Do you, as a neoconservative, still feel at home in your party?

“Yes, but you need a thick skin. By the way, I always call myself an ‘old con,’ not a ‘neocon.’ I believe in Henry Kissinger’s ideas on foreign policy.” Former Secretary of State Kissinger, who passed away late last year, believed in an active American role but with stability as the goal, not creating a better world.

But the time of Kissinger is truly over in your party.

“The Republican Party has changed, just as society has changed. The party is traditionally internationally oriented. But there has always been a countercurrent. When NATO was founded in 1949, a faction led by Senator Robert Taft opposed it fiercely. I hope that faction doesn’t regain control.”

Is Trump part of that faction?

“If that’s the case, then we’re really in trouble. But it’s not just about Trump; it’s also about the people around him. That became evident during his first term. They will shape the policy. And I know that parts of his entourage see no role for America abroad, especially the incoming Vice President J.D. Vance.”

Vance said that the time of America actively shaping foreign policy and remaking the world in its image is over. That’s not what you stand for.

Measuring his words: “He has said controversial things, yes.”

Do you have confidence that Trump will listen to the right people, in your opinion?

“No, I’m not very optimistic. In his first term, the sensible people in his administration all left. He increasingly listened to family and close friends.”

Yet you voted for Trump. Why was that?

“It’s still my party. And the Democrats have become so radically left. They make various statements attacking Supreme Court justices, want to abolish the filibuster in the Senate [a tactic that allows the minority to delay legislation]. That’s an attack on the foundations of American democracy.

And the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, wasn’t?

“It was clear that same day that it was a hopeless mission. The rioters had no way to overthrow or permanently change democracy. If you change the rules of the game in Washington, as the Democrats wanted, then you do.”

What will Europe notice about a Trump administration?

“Trump believes Europe should do more, and he’s right. In a certain way, I think he can shake up the discussion with Europe. European countries need to fairly contribute to NATO and be much more assertive, for instance, in Ukraine.”

In Europe, there’s concern that Trump might scale back support for Ukraine.

“I don’t know if that concern is justified. He says contradictory things. But if Trump’s election serves as a wake-up call for Europe, then let it be. The entire world order is shifting, and Europe should also think critically. We can’t afford a war with Russia. Plus, we also have China and Taiwan to consider; we can’t do it all.”

What should European countries say if they sit down with Trump?

“Something like: ‘Congratulations, Mr. Trump. Well done. Like you, we believe we need to do more for our security. And here’s our plan to drive the Russians out of Ukraine.’”

Do you see that as a realistic scenario?

“Europe frustrates us. Kissinger once asked, ‘Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?’ It’s only gotten worse. Leaders of prominent countries, like Germany and France, are weakened by internal divisions. There has also been little respect for what Trump achieved in his first term. He helped create the Abraham Accords in 2020 [an agreement Israel signed with Gulf states Bahrain and the UAE], but no one congratulated him. He ordered the killing of [Iranian General] Qassem Soleimani, which was a bold decision. But the European countries were only angry about the relocation of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.”

Do you see parallels between Reagan and Trump?

“Reagan, like Trump now, was underestimated, also in Europe. They saw him as a B-movie actor. And they ignored the fact that he already had substantial political experience. He also used a style of tough language intended to intimidate opponents. Once, when asked about his strategy against the Soviet Union, he said, ‘We win, they lose.’ I see a similar style in Trump. Reagan followed a weak Democrat, Jimmy Carter, just as Trump must now solve Biden’s problems.”

Do you still believe in a dominant America on the world stage?

“After the fall of communism, we missed the chance to create a new, stable world order. I still wish for that. But for that, America needs the help of European allies, even if it’s done quietly. As long as we don’t lecture each other on how to do it.”

CV

Former diplomat Lewis Paul Bremer III (1941) is best known as the American head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein. From May 2003 to June 2004, he was the highest-ranking American in Iraq.

Between 1983 and 1986, Bremer was the U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands, appointed by President Ronald Reagan. He previously worked for former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Interview (originally published in Dutch) by Guus Valk for NRC.