Trump’s record was explored in the previous post, showing a significantly negative impact on the US economy and nation in general. Those are simply the facts. However, facts without context can be used in any way by anyone with the rhetorical skill to spin the story, and so I have included a part 2 here to explore how one could, legitimately, see things differently using the same set of facts.

This differs mightily from the typical MAGA response to facts, which is to ignore them entirely. Instead, I will use the facts as they exist to make the case in defense of Donald Trump’s economic record.

Let’s get started:

The Counter-Argument:

“The 2025 economic slowdown cannot be fairly attributed to Trump’s policies—and some indicators actually support his approach.”

Argument 1: Economic trends lag behind policy changes

This is the most common argument made in defense of any political leader of a nation. One must, inevitably, deal with the impact from your predecessor, and so cannot be solely held liable for the outcomes as if you started with a blank slate.

In this case, the argument would attempt to show that most of the 2025 outcomes reflect pre-existing global and domestic forces, not Trump’s actions. This is supported by multiple facts in general, such as monetary policy like interest rates, operating with around 12–24 month lag time. This means we would not yet see the impact of this until sometime in 2026.

Furthermore there is a global slowdown in general, still lagging from the market response to the Covid Pandemic. This includes weak growth in the EU and even Chinese stagnation, both reducing demand on products.

Lastly, labor and GDP trends were not at optimal prior to Trump’s inauguration, including some significant deceleration in late 2024.

Argument 2: Tariffs are a deliberate long-term trade strategy

Supporters of the Trump approach on tariffs are quick to point out successful uses of tariffs in previous administrations, which while inducing short term pain led to greater revenue in the long run as well as improved economic benefits for the USA. Tariffs are meant to reduce dependencies, especially on international rivals, and they help force “re”-shoring of significant elements of the supply chain. They also play a role in national security if the product in question is a vital one there.

This argument does acknowledge consumer price increases as a temporary adjustment cost, but one that is worth it in order to build up domestic manufacturing.

Argument 3: Unemployment remains historically low

Historically, long-term U.S. average unemployment is 5.7%. We are currently sitting at 4.6%, which is significantly below that average and thus is not a crisis indicator.

We’re not seeing a loose market either; the US labor market is still tighter than most of the past 50 years. And while the unemployment rate is ticking upwards, rising unemployment may reflect labor force normalization, not collapse, in the wake of the waves made by COVID.

Argument 4: Federal layoffs improve efficiency

This is a big one for Trump administration defenders, and was a key part of his election pitch. By gutting the federal workforce, the US did see around 300,000 people enter the unemployment statistics, but that is a natural part of reducing waste and long-term deficits caused by a bloated federal labor system.

We have seen government payrolls expanded significantly in prior years, and this has not in turn led to noticeable major economic benefits for Americans. We also know that private sector efficiency exceeds public sector efficiency in almost all cases, and this has been the cornerstone of Republican policy since Reagan.

Even ignoring that, short-term job losses are offset by long-term productivity gains, which uplifts all Americans.

Argument 5: Debt growth is overstated or unavoidable

This is probably the hardest argument to make from the standpoint of a Trump supporter, because hammering Democrats on debt and spending is core to the Republican campaign approach for decades now, and was center to his campaign specifically. However, this argument does come up and on its own is not an invalid one just because of hypocrisy, and so we will make it here.

Basically, deficit increases reflect structural realities, not Trump policy alone. We need to pay for the things we use, buy, and maintain. The dominant driver of our debt is our interest payments, which is something that you cannot lay at the feet of the incoming president. And social program costs, what conservatives refer to as Entitlement spending, continues regardless of who is president.

Meanwhile, defense and security costs are rising due to global instability, and ignoring that is not an option. Serious issues are ongoing in the world, and so any president would have to spend this money, regardless of political party or policy.

Argument 6: Consumer pessimism is political, not economic

Lastly, economic analysis is often tinged with political bias, as even the most objective facts can be woven to make a particular narrative. Political parties out of power often use this to paint the US economy as bleaker than it actually is, such as the lead up to the 2024 election where objectively the US economy was well into recovery and had a high GDP growth rate (for modern times, anyway).

In any case, confidence surveys often reflect media bias and polarization rather than statistical fact. Democrats report pessimism under Republican presidents and vice versa. As noted above, consumer spending data often contradicts sentiment surveys anyway, with people continuing to spend as they did before regardless of their emotions.

Additionally, the stock market resilience suggests underlying confidence is still there; we continue to break records and increase in value.

Summary:

The economic challenges of 2025 largely reflect inherited conditions, global headwinds, and necessary trade-offs from a strategy focused on long-term national resilience. Short-term discomfort does not imply policy failure, and many indicators remain historically strong and even better than before Trump took office. Impatience and feelings should not overrule strategic economic moves.

What do you think? I will put my own thoughts in the comments, but I welcome a good faith debate from all sides.