US Politics

Arlie Russell Hochschild’s Strangers in their own Land, which explored the motivations and resentments of working-class conservatives in Louisiana, was named one of six books to help understand Donald Trump’s win by the New York Times when he was first elected president, in 2016. (Another was Hillbilly Elegy, by now vice president JD Vance, published just a few months earlier.)

Since then, Californian progressive sociologist Hochschild has been struggling to understand the appeal of Donald Trump: particularly to white, working-class men, once a strong Democratic constituency. No writer has worked harder to grasp the gut-level appeal that saw Trump win two elections – and in the process, convert the Republican Party into his personal fiefdom.

Review: Stolen Pride: Loss, Shame and the Rise of the Right – Arlie Russell Hochschild (The New Press)

The puzzle is greatest when one contrasts the current billionaire cabinet with the fact much of Trump’s support comes from people who are objectively worse off under his policies – including tariffs. Last week, Oxfam America called them “an attack on the global working class” that will harm working-class families in the United States and “inflame inequality”.

Much of Trump’s support comes from working-class people objectively worse off under his policies – including tariffs.
Michael Arellano/AAP

In Strangers in their own Land, Hochschild called this “the Great Paradox”. Stolen Pride returns to many of that book’s questions, but in a different era – and a US that seems more fragmented, and far angrier than it was in 2016.

Hochschild explores the world of Pikeville, Kentucky, a poor, overwhelmingly white, Trump-supporting city in the heart of Appalachia: in the “whitest and second-poorest congressional district in the country, a region that had rapidly shifted from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party”.

The American dream’s broken promise

One of Hochschild’s subjects is James Browning, a recovering drug user whose hands are tattooed and covered in rings. “There you have it” he says, “I have a shame hand and a pride hand.” This sums up the basic argument of Stolen Pride.

Arlie Russell Hochschild.
Mark Leong/New Press

“Pride and shame,” she writes, “signal the juncture between the identity we hold out to the world, and how the world responds to our identity.” The men she speaks to desperately need a sense of pride, but too often find their failures are the cause of deep shame. The American Dream, after all, teaches them every individual can make it, inherently implying failure is due to individual weakness.

Many of the men she speaks to have experienced unemployment, domestic breakups, jail, alcoholism and drug abuse. (She even manages to speak to one current jail inmate.) Kentucky has one of the highest rates of opioid addiction in the United States – and despite Trump’s attacks on Mexico and Canada, the doctor-prescribed drugs some were addicted to appear to be domestically manufactured.

So many of the men Hochschild interviewed talk of the balance between shame and pride, I began to wonder if they were prompted. On reflection, I suspect this represents Hochschild’s careful selection from a series of very extensive interviews, conducted over roughly six years.

Her emphasis is almost entirely on the men in Pikeville, though a majority of white women also voted for Trump. I would love to see Hochschild explore this further. That so many women can support a convicted sexual predator in a country obsessed with sexual behaviour is one of the mysteries of contemporary American politics.

Hochschild interviewed residents of Pikeville, Kentucky, a poor, overwhelmingly white, Trump-supporting city in the heart of Appalachia.
Howder Family/Flickr, CC BY-NC

By 2021, many Americans – and most Republicans – believed Trump’s claims that he had really won the 2020 election. They saw the rioters at the Capitol on January 6 as heroes defending American democracy. In Trump’s claim the election was stolen, many of those Hochschild interviews saw parallels to what they believed had been stolen from them, by economic and cultural upheavals.

Importantly, many of her respondents saw Trump as a bully — but a bully who stood up for them, against what they perceived as urban liberal elites. When Hillary Clinton spoke of his supporters as “a basket of deplorables”, she reinforced the grievances of people consistently looked down on as “hillbillies” and “rednecks” by people they identified as Democratic elites.

Many saw themselves in Trump’s stolen election, which mirrored what they felt had been stolen from them.
Ross D Franklin/AAP

How ‘deep stories’ inform politics

For Hochschild, there are underlying emotional narratives, which she calls “deep stories”, that inform our political positions.

In Strangers in their Own Land, these were identified as a sense of being overtaken by groups, usually educated women and Black people, who benefited from programs of affirmative action. The second Trump administration’s crusade against “DEI” is playing directly to these grievances. In Stolen Pride, this feeling is strengthened by the sense liberal elites are undermining both traditional values and the ability for individuals to succeed.

Eastern Kentucky is coal country, and Clinton’s ill-worded election-trail claim she would “put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business” was a major factor in swinging voters towards Trump. For men who took pride in their work, the collapse of the coal industry produced a sense of shame: strengthened by a strong belief individuals are to blame for their own misfortunes.

Pikeville was also the site of a neo-Nazi march in April 2017, the forerunner of the tragic Unite the Right march in Charlottesville later that year, which resulted in one death and multiple injuries.

Much of the book skilfully explores the preparations for and reactions to the Pikeville march, which seemingly passed without incident. Some 100 white nationalists turned up and were outnumbered by counter protesters, As Hochschild writes, “Very few Pikeville locals were involved on either side”.

Much of the book explores the 2017 Pikeville forereunner to the tragic Unite the Right march in Charlottesville, later that year.
Tasos Katopodis/AAP

Perhaps the most fascinating figure in Hochschild’s book, and evidence of her skill in persuading the most unlikely people to open up in interviews, is Matthew Heimbach, who led the 2017 Pikesville march, identified as a proud Nazi and co-founded the now-defunct neo-Nazi party, Traditionalist Worker Party.

He also co-planned the Charlottesville march, where he railed against “white genocide” and was sued (with other members of the TWP) for his role in it on behalf of Charlottesville victims. He was found guilty on charges of civil conspiracy in 2021.

“Some years later”, he reveals some of his core beliefs are shaken, especially his attitude toward Black Americans, whom he recognises as often sharing the same sense of dispossession that had fuelled his own anger. “I love Russia and I love Putin,” he told Hochschild, “so I looked into moving there.” As Hochschild remarks: “It seemed that Adolf Hitler was to be replaced in his pantheon by Vladimir Putin.”

Transcending the gulf?

Pikesville is also the home of America’s most famous family feud, between the Hatfields and the McCoys. The feud, which lasted many decades from the late 19th century, “began as a dispute over a stolen pig” and “ended as the longest and fiercest clan fight in the nation”. It has been the basis for a dozen movies, virtually all unmemorable. In 2017, a member of the reconciled clans said if they could settle their differences, “there has to be a way for Americans to get back together as one”.

In the last section of the book, Hochschild looks for ways to transcend the apparent gulf that separates blue and red America. Reading the book after Trump’s return to power, this felt sadly inadequate. Yes, as she points out, most voters are more moderate than the politicians on either side. Sadly, this is not sufficient protection against the rise of the authoritarian plutocracy that now seems to have a firm grip on Washington.

Hochschild wrote this book during the Biden administration and the lead-up to the 2024 elections. I assume she finished it before Trump named Vance as his vice president: a man who first came to prominence with his own account of Appalachian pride and shame. Hochschild doesn’t discuss his Hillbilly Elegy, though it is listed in her references.

Hochschild brilliantly captures the pain of men who feel left behind and conveys something of life in rural Kentucky that goes beyond easy stereotypes. I could feel empathy for many of the people she comes across. But I was unpersuaded there is much room for optimism that the appeal of Trump, and those who follow him, will easily be defeated. More

While Australia was busy defending the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme against threats from the United States in recent weeks, another issue related to the supply and trade of medicines was flying under the radar.

Buried on page 19 of the Trump’s administration’s allegations of barriers to trade was a single paragraph related to Australia’s access to generic medicines. These are cheaper alternatives to branded medicines that are no longer under patent.

The US is concerned about how much notice their drug companies have that Australia will introduce a generic version of their product. Once a single generic version of a medicine is listed on the PBS, the price drops. The US argues that lack of advance notice is a barrier to trade.

There is pressure for Australia to emulate aspects of the US system, where drug companies can delay generic copies of their medicines by 30 months.

If the US plays hardball on this issue, perhaps in return for other concessions, this could delay Australia’s access to cheaper generic drugs.

It would also mean significant pressure on Australia’s drug budget, as the government could be forced to pay for the more expensive branded versions to ensure supply.

What’s the current process?

Drug companies use patents to protect their intellectual property and prohibit other manufacturers from copying the drug. The standard patent term in Australia is 20 years, but the time a product is protected by patents can be extended in a number of ways. When patents expire, other companies are able to bring generic versions to market.

A generic manufacturer wanting to market its drug in Australia must apply to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for regulatory approval. Before approval is granted, the generic company must provide a certificate to the TGA that states either:

a) that the product will not infringe a valid patent, or

b) that it has notified the patent-holder of its intention to market the product.

The certificate can be provided after the TGA has evaluated the generic – before it grants approval.

If the generic company chooses option “a”, the manufacturer of the patented product may not find out the competing product is going to be launched until after the TGA has approved it.

The patent-holder can then apply for a court order to temporarily stop the generic from coming to market, while legal battles are fought over patent-related issues.

However, if the first generic has already launched and been added to the PBS, it triggers an automatic 25% price drop. This affects all versions of the drug, including the patented product.

In Australia, patented drug companies that try to delay generics by taking legal action without good reason can face penalties and be required to pay compensation.

Patented drug companies don’t like this system. They want to know as early as possible that a generic is planning to launch so they can initiate legal action and prevent or delay generic entry and the associated price reductions.

Is Australia’s system consistent with our trade obligations?

Australia introduced its patent notification system at the request of the US, to comply with the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). The World Trade Organization doesn’t require patent notification.

Australia’s system is different to that of the United States. But it’s consistent with the rules negotiated between the two countries.

US drug companies have long argued Australia’s system is a barrier to trade. They want Australia to change it to be more like the US system.

Why is the US arguing this is a barrier to trade?

The Trump Administration’s 2025 report on foreign trade barriers states “US and Australian pharmaceutical companies have expressed concerns about delays” in the patent notification process.

The report also mentions US concerns about the potential for penalties and compensation when a patent owner takes legal action against a generic company.

This report reflects long-standing concerns of the US pharmaceutical industry. In March, its drug makers trade association wrote to the US trade representative complaining that “lack of adequate notification” is an unfair trade practice. It argued this creates uncertainty for patent-holders, prevents resolution of patent challenges before generics enter the market, and penalises patented-drug companies for trying to protect their rights.

Medicines Australia, which represents the Australian subsidiaries of many big patented drug makers, echoes these concerns.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says he won’t use the PBS as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations with the US.
Lukas Coch/AAP

What does the US want instead?

The US patent notification system is much more favourable to the patented drug companies than Australia’s.

In the US, the generic company must notify the patented drug company within 20 days of filing an application for approval.

Then, within 45 days of receiving the notification, the patent-holder can ask the regulator to impose a 30-month delay on approval for the generic.

This means there is an automatic 30-month delay on the launch of the generic, unless patents expire in the meantime or the court decides earlier that valid patents aren’t being infringed.

What could happen if Australia bowed to pressure from the US?

Changing Australia’s system to be more like the US would delay generics entering the market in Australia and keep the price of drugs higher for longer.

The quicker generics can be added to the PBS, the less the government pays. When the first generic is listed on the PBS, a 25% price cut is applied to all versions of the product, including the patented version.

Over time, as more generics get added, prices continue to fall. Having plenty of generic competition can eventually result in prices lower than the PBS co-payment, resulting in savings for consumers.

In the longer term, lost savings from timely listing of generics on the PBS would reduce value for money and add cost pressure.

In time, it could also delay savings for consumers from drugs priced below the PBS co-payment.

Both major parties are saying they won’t use the PBS as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the US over tariffs. They also need to resist pressure to slow down access to generic drugs. More

Family and friends of the former US congresswoman Mia Love gathered Monday in Salt Lake City to honor the life and legacy of the first Black Republican woman elected to Congress after she died of brain cancer last month aged 49.The former lawmaker from Utah, a daughter of Haitian immigrants, had undergone treatment for an aggressive brain tumor called glioblastoma and received immunotherapy as part of a clinical trial. She died on 23 March at her home in Saratoga Springs, Utah, weeks after her daughter announced she was no longer responding to treatment.Hundreds of mourners entered her service from a walkway lined with American flags at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Institute of Religion on the University of Utah campus. Long tables displayed framed family photos and bouquets of red and white flowers.Love served only two terms in Congress before suffering a razor-thin loss to Democrat Ben McAdams in the 2018 midterm elections as Democrats surged. Yet she left her mark on Utah’s political scene and later leveraged her prominence into becoming a political commentator for CNN.She was briefly considered a rising star in the GOP, but her power within the party fizzled out as Donald Trump took hold. Love kept her distance from the US president and called him out in 2018 for vulgar comments he made about immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and some African nations.Jason Love, her husband, drew laughter from the somber crowd at Monday’s service when he told stories of his wife’s “superpowers”.View image in fullscreenHe described discovering her influence after he tried to return the many toasters the couple received as wedding gifts and failing because he didn’t have receipts. His wife then entered the store and came out three minutes later with cash in hand.“I thought: ‘Wow, I have married a Jedi knight,’” he said with a laugh.Her motherhood, he said, was her greatest superpower.“She was an extraordinary mother, and she believed that the most important work she would do within her life was within the walls of her own home with her children,” Jason Love said. “She always made it a special place for each of them to feel loved and to begin to achieve their full potential.”A choir of Love’s friends sang some of her favorite hymns, as well as Ed Sheeran’s Supermarket Flowers. Her children, Alessa, Abigale and Peyton, read an op-ed their mother published in the Deseret News shortly before she died in which she shared her enduring wish for the country to become less divisive.Love’s sister Cyndi Brito shared childhood memories, including how Love used to rehearse all day and night for starring roles in her school plays. She was always the best at everything she did and made everyone around her feel important, her sister said.Brito read an excerpt of a speech her third-grade daughter gave at a recent school assembly for Black History Month honoring Love’s legacy.“Mia Love played many roles and had many titles, but the most important role and the most important title that Mia Love played in my eyes was auntie,” Brito recalled her daughter, Carly, telling classmates.Love did not emphasize her race during her campaigns, but she acknowledged the significance of her election after her 2014 victory. She said her win defied naysayers who suggested a Black, Republican, Mormon woman could not win a congressional seat in overwhelmingly white Utah.On Sunday evening, state leaders and members of the public visited the Utah capitol to pay their respects at Love’s flag-covered coffin behind ropes in the building’s rotunda.Love, born Ludmya Bourdeau, was diagnosed with brain cancer in 2022 and said her doctors estimated she had only 10 to 15 months to live, which she surpassed. With aggressive treatments, Love lived for nearly three years after receiving her diagnosis.Her close friend, Utah’s lieutenant governor, Deidre Henderson, told the audience on Monday that Love had asked her friends and family to rally around her like a campaign team when she was diagnosed.“‘I’m in fight mode,’ she told us, ‘and what I need from you all, more than anything, is to help me fight it. This is a campaign, and we are going to win,’” Henderson recalled.Love entered politics in 2003 after winning a city council seat in Saratoga Springs, 30 miles (48km) south of Salt Lake City. She was elected as the city’s mayor in 2009, becoming the first Black woman to serve as a mayor in Utah.In 2012, after giving a rousing speech at the Republican national convention, she narrowly lost a bid for the US House against the Democratic incumbent. She ran again two years later and won. More

Extreme volatility plagued global stock markets on Monday, with Wall Street swinging in and out of the red as Donald Trump defied stark warnings that his global trade assault will wreak widespread economic damage, comparing new US tariffs to medicine.A renewed sell-off began in Asia, before hitting European equities and reaching the US. It was briefly reversed amid hopes of a reprieve, only for Trump to threaten China with more steep tariffs, intensifying pressure on the market.On Wall Street, the benchmark S&P 500 dropped by as much as 4.1% – entering bear market territory after falling more than 20% from its most recent peak, in February – before launching an extraordinary reversal to turn positive.While markets were fleetingly boosted after Kevin Hassett, director of the White House national economic council, signaled that Trump was open to considering a 90-day pause on tariffs for all countries but China, the relief did not last long.After hours of turbulent trading, the S&P closed down 0.2%. The Dow Jones industrial average finished down 0.9%.“We’re not looking at that,” Trump told reporters, when asked about the prospect of a pause. Pressed on whether the tariffs set the stage for negotiations with countries, or were permanent, he replied: “Well, it can both be true. There can be permanent tariffs, and there can also be negotiations.”The FTSE 100 closed down 4.38% in London at 7,702.08 – the lowest close in more than a year – after the Nikkei 225 slumped 7.8% in Tokyo. Other major European also ended the day sharply lower, including Germany’s DAX and France’s CAC which both fell more than 4%.Trump, who has previously used market rallies as a barometer of his success, tried to brush off the sell-off this weekend. “I don’t want anything to go down,” the US president said on Sunday. “But sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something.”He stood firm on Monday. “The United States has a chance to do something that should have been done DECADES AGO,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “Don’t be Weak! Don’t be Stupid!”As China prepares to retaliate, Trump threatened to further increase US tariffs on the country – an additional rate of 50% – if it hits back. All talks with Beijing over potential meetings have been “terminated”, he said.Major share indices have fallen dramatically since he unveiled his controversial plan to overhaul the US economy last week. The Trump administration imposed a blanket 10% tariff on imported goods this weekend, and is set to follow with higher tariffs on products from specific nations from Wednesday.While senior figures in corporate America have been reluctant to criticize Trump since his inauguration in January, a handful have started to sound the alarm in recent days.Larry Fink, CEO of the investment giant BlackRock, expressed concern on Monday over the threat of a downturn. “The economy is weakening as we speak,” he said at the Economic Club of New York, according to Bloomberg. “Most CEOs I talk to would say we are probably in a recession right now.”The JPMorgan Chase boss, Jamie Dimon, one of the most influential executives on Wall Street, warned that Trump’s tariff plan was “likely” to exacerbate inflation. “Whether or not the menu of tariffs causes a recession remains in question, but it will slow down growth,” he wrote in his annual letter to shareholders.Dimon added: “The quicker this issue is resolved, the better because some of the negative effects increase cumulatively over time and would be hard to reverse.”The billionaire fund manager Bill Ackman, who backed Trump’s campaign for the presidency, has also demanded the administration reconsider its plan. “We are heading for a self-induced, economic nuclear winter,” he wrote on X, formerly Twitter.Even Elon Musk, a close ally of Trump, currently leading the so-called “department of government efficiency” inside the government, appeared to break with the administration on the issue. Peter Navarro, Trump’s top trade adviser, “ain’t built shit”, Musk wrote on X, which he owns, this weekend.Navarro, for his part, insisted in a television interview on Monday morning that the stock market would find a bottom. Less than hour later, when New York opened for trading, the search continued.The technology-focused Nasdaq Composite started the day down 4.3%, before switching in and out of the red. It ended the day broadly flat, up by 0.1%. The VIX “fear index” of volatility rose as high as 60 for the first time since August.Oil prices also came under pressure, with Brent and WTI benchmarks stooping to their lowest levels in four years, as growing economic tensions between Washington and Beijing stoked fears that a global downturn would challenge demand.Sir Richard Branson, co-founder of Virgin Group, argued the “predictable and preventable” market chaos would have “catastrophic” implications for people in the US and around the world, and claimed companies were already going bankrupt as a result of the weaker dollar and higher costs.“This is the moment to own up to a colossal mistake and change course,” Branson wrote on X. “Otherwise, America will face ruin for years to come.” More

The government of South Sudan said on Monday that an individual at the centre of a deportation row with the US, which South Sudan refused to allow into the country at the weekend, is a citizen of neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).South Sudan said the individual was a man named Makula Kintu, not Nimeiri Garang, as his paperwork claimed and had been using travel documents which were not his. “In accordance with our immigration protocols, we returned him to the sending country for further processing,” the foreign ministry spokesperson, Apuk Ayuel Mayen, said.Footage released by the authorities in South Sudan’s capital, Juba, showed a man speaking to immigration authorities at Juba international airport, saying he was born in North Kivu, in the eastern DRC. He identified himself as Kintu and said he had been deported from the US against his will.On Sunday, the US announced that it had revoked the visas of all South Sudanese passport holders in reaction to the refusal by immigration authorities at Juba international airport to repatriate the man, accusing the east African country of “taking advantage of the United States”.Mayen, the foreign ministry spokesperson, said that South Sudan “deeply regrets” the blanket measure against all of the country’s citizens based on “an isolated incident involving misrepresentation by an individual who is not a South Sudanese national”.She added that the government of South Sudan was open to receiving its citizens, whether they voluntarily leave the US or are deported, and had maintained open communication with the US, despite claims by Washington that it had been rebuffed.Trump administration officials have said the individual’s documents were verified by South Sudan’s embassy in Washington DC and that South Sudan had “violated” its obligation “by refusing to accept one of their nationals certified by their own embassy in Washington and repatriated to their country”.In a post on social media, the US deputy secretary of state, Chris Landau, said: “Specifically, on February 13, 2025, the South Sudanese Embassy issued the individual an emergency travel letter certifying his nationality as South Sudanese and giving his date and place of birth (in what is now South Sudan, which then was part of Sudan).”Landau added that it was “unacceptable and irresponsible” for South Sudanese authorities to then reject a decision made by their embassy and “as far as we’re concerned, the Embassy’s certification is conclusive and the matter is closed”.Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said a visa and entry ban for South Sudanese citizens would go into immediate effect and would be reviewed once South Sudan, in the US government’s eyes, began cooperating again.Jok Madut Jok, an academic specialising in South Sudan at Syracuse University, in upstate New York, said if the mistake was made at South Sudan’s Washington embassy, that doesn’t “get the US off the hook for this measure”. “On humanitarian grounds, this needs to be rolled back because it is too broad,” he said, adding that many people attempting to come to the US could be refugees fleeing conflict.South Sudanese passport holders have enjoyed “temporary protected status” (TPS) in the US since 2011 which affords them legal protections against deportation due to instability and fighting in their country of origin. The Department of Homeland Security believes 133 people from South Sudan were on the US TPS programme last year.Donald Trump wanted to end TPS during his first term and the US president has attempted to do so again, targeting nationals from Nicaragua, Haiti, Venezuela and Cuba.TPS was renewed for South Sudanese nationals last September but is set to expire in May, which comes as South Sudan faces an escalating risk of renewed fighting by leaders from its two largest ethnic groups.South Sudan, the world’s youngest country, gained independence from Sudan in 2011, and has since struggled with armed conflict and poverty. Between 2013 and 2018, fighting between factions loyal to the current president, Salva Kiir Mayardit, and his vice-president, Riek Machar, killed nearly 400,000 people.Alexandra Ribe, an immigration attorney who specialises in humanitarian issues, said it is too early to tell what impact the measure would have on South Sudanese in the US as it was not clear what enforcement action immigration authorities would take, but described it as “punitive”.Ribe said the measure would “send a chill down the spines of nationals from the targeted country who have nothing to do with the issue at hand”. More

In his speech to the Labour party conference in 2005, Tony Blair used a seasonal analogy to make the case for embracing disruptive but inevitable change. “I hear people say we have to stop and debate globalisation,” Mr Blair told delegates. “You might as well debate whether autumn should follow summer.”Twenty years on, to quote the billionaire US hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, it is the threat of a self-inflicted “economic nuclear winter” that haunts the global economy. Donald Trump’s imposition of swingeing US tariffs has unleashed mayhem on stock markets across the world, upending assumptions governing the world trade order since Bretton Woods. As Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Treasury, said at the weekend: “Globalisation as we’ve known it for the last couple of decades has come to an end.”What that means for the Labour government he serves and for Britain is both fraught with consequence and, to a significant degree, beyond Whitehall’s control. Second-guessing Mr Trump’s ultimate intentions – and the political and economic risks that he is willing to take, as consumers suffer the consequences of a trade war – is a futile exercise. But as the White House seeks to bully, intimidate and coerce its way to a new settlement between the US and the rest of the world, the risk of a global recession is clear.What Sir Keir Starmer described on Monday as a “new era” will require strategic boldness from an habitually cautious prime minister. Sir Keir should, for example, now go further and faster to reset relations with the EU, the UK’s biggest trading partner by far. That may involve an uneasy balancing act if EU countries decide to retaliate against Mr Trump, as the government seeks a trade deal with the White House and related tariff mitigation. But the alternative is unsplendid and impotent isolation, and a future “special relationship” with the US that approximates ever more closely to vassal status.Domestically, a reset is also required. Speaking in the West Midlands, Sir Keir announced modest measures to assist the UK car industry, hammered by 25% tariffs on exports at a time when it is also dealing with the pressures of the green transition. The prime minister described this as a “downpayment” on future support. But supply-side plans to relax electric vehicle targets for manufacturers send the wrong environmental message, when what is needed are radical measures to turbocharge consumer demand.The problem, paradoxically for a prime minister who defines himself as a pragmatist, is ideology. As the UK faces potentially huge economic headwinds, Labour’s industrial strategy will need to be bigger, more interventionist and less constrained by the redundant economic orthodoxies to which it continues to pay obeisance. Aspirations to drive significant growth through a combination of budgetary conservatism and deregulation were already looking doomed prior to Mr Trump’s act of sabotage last week. Following “liberation day”, Sir Keir’s ongoing insistence that the government will stubbornly persist with its fiscal rules begins to look like an act of national self-harm.Mr Blair’s old message on globalisation, addressed to post-industrial regions suffering the effects of unleashed market forces, used to be to adapt or face the consequences. As Mr Trump gambles on the fate of the world economy, making up the rules as he goes along, Labour will need to do precisely that, and at pace.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

It’s less than a week since Donald Trump’s sensational announcement that he was unilaterally ending the world’s trading system with the imposition of a 10% minimum tariff for trading with the US – and a very much higher rate for those countries unfortunate enough to have the US as a major export partner. Long-term allies such as Japan and South Korea have been hammered with tariffs of around 25%, while export-dependent poorer countries such as Vietnam, which sells about a third of its exports to the US, have been hit with tariffs in excess of 45%. A further round of global debt crises is possible as heavily indebted countries face the sudden loss of export earnings.Global stock markets have tumbled as panicked investors dump shares, and political condemnation has been near-universal. China has already retaliated with 34% tariffs, threatening an escalating trade war. Right now, it looks and feels like disastrous overreach by a uniquely erratic administration at the behest of a president with a terrifyingly limited grasp of how the modern economy works.Trump has talked about imposing tariffs on the world since he first rose to prominence in the 1980s, when his target was Japan. In a political career notable for its jack-knifes in policy and direction, tariffs – “the most beautiful word in the dictionary” – have been a constant. But this is about far more than his long-cherished whims. However inconsistent or even confused Trump may sometimes appear to be, those around him have a clear-eyed view of what they want to achieve.His Treasury secretary, hedgefund billionaire Scott Bessent, has spoken of a “global economic reordering” that he intends to shape to the benefit of the US’s elite. Trump’s new chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Stephen Miran, wrote a lengthy paper, A User’s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System, shortly before his appointment. The latter is particularly ambitious – detailing how the US should use not only tariffs but also the threat of withdrawing its security support to compel its friends and allies to accept cuts in payments due from the Federal Reserve on their US Treasury bills. This would be a potentially massive loss to them, akin, in reality, to a US debt default. But it is tariffs that are the cutting edge of the plan – leveraging the US’s power as the world’s largest consumer and greatest debtor to compel other countries into a negotiation on terms.After decades winning in an international trading game it wrote and refereed the rules for, the US is now facing serious competition – primarily from China, but with Europe as an expensive irritant. The response of this administration is to kick over the table, and demand everyone starts again. What it ultimately wants is a cheaper dollar to revive US manufacturing and Chinese competition held off, all the while keeping the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. And the rest of the world will pay the price.There are precedents. In October 1979, Paul Volcker, newly appointed as chair of the Federal Reserve, drove up interest rates to a remarkable 13% in a bid to tackle inflation, later raising them to 17%. Soon the US was in recession. Millions lost their jobs over the next two years, notably in manufacturing, where soaring interest rates had driven up the value of the dollar, making US exports less affordable on the world market. After a light easing of interest rate hell by the Fed, Volcker applied a second dose of the medicine, driving interest rates up to 19% and forcing the economy back into a double-dip recession. Unemployment peaked at around 10% in late 1982.View image in fullscreenBut by mid-1983, inflation had come down to 2.5%. For the rest of the 1980s, the US economy boomed. The “Volcker shock” appeared to have worked. Volcker is today a folk hero among central bankers: Ben Bernanke, chair of the Federal Reserve during the 2008 crisis, praised Volcker’s “independence” and willingness to brazen out the political storm.More decisive than lower inflation, however, was the reshaping of the US economy Volcker’s interest-rate shock accelerated: with manufacturing in freefall, investment flooded into finance and property, firing up what became the great credit bubble of the 1990s and 2000s. The world economy was reordered around a US that acted as a giant sink for its output – swallowing exports from the rest of the world on seemingly limitless borrowing. China’s extraordinary boom was the flipside of US debt and deindustrialisation. The Volcker shock, more than any other single action, created the globalised world system that Trump is now bent on destroying.Few would have bet on Volcker’s world-shaping capacity at the time. The stock market response to the shock was immediate and unanimous. US shares plunged by a record 8% in the two days after his announcement. The S&P 500 lost 27% of its value before August 1982 – two years of grinding decline. Manufacturers and unions hated it, understandably: they were on the wrong side of an epochal reconfiguration of US capitalism. But they were not the only losers: rising interest rates in the US meant less developed countries had to spend more on servicing debts, just as recession squeezed their major export markets. The result was the so-called “third world” debt crisis, as heavily indebted countries across the global south plunged into spirals of economic decline and soaring indebtedness.Over the weekend, Bessent and commerce secretary Howard Lutnick were doing the media rounds, insisting that there would be no climbdown on the tariffs. Trump is not for turning on what is clearly for him a personal crusade. Already, countries such as Vietnam are promising to cut all their tariffs on US goods – a clear and brutal demonstration of the US’s continuing economic power. The administration has claimed 50 other countries have also asked to open negotiations. By the end of the week, expect Trump to be triumphantly announcing more such concessions from economies in the global south. His real target – China – will be a far tougher nut to crack, if it breaks at all.Perhaps the rolling market chaos will become too much. Perhaps the administration will blink first. There is no guarantee this extraordinary gamble will work, not even for those in the clique around Trump. But it would be a mistake to assume it cannot work – and however the pieces now land, they will not return to their old places.

James Meadway is the host of the podcast Macrodose More

Lisa was eating takeout at a friend’s place when the email from her university landed. She clicked into her inbox and skimmed the message:“ISS [International Student Services] is writing to inform you that your SEVIS record was terminated …”The wording felt unfamiliar. She read it again, but it still sounded like a scam – absurd and unreal.Lisa is an international student at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, just one month away from graduation. She asked to use a pseudonym due to concerns about retaliation and an ongoing legal case.Before going to bed, she found someone posted a similar notice on social media. It was through these posts that Lisa understood what the email had actually meant: with her Student and Exchange Visitor Information System record terminated, she was now considered out of status in the US. Staying could mean violating immigration laws.The Department of Homeland Security maintains the Sevis database that tracks international students and scholars on F, M and J visas. Once a Sevis record is terminated, a student’s legal status becomes immediately invalid. They must either leave the US within the grace period, typically 15 days, or take steps to restore their status. Otherwise, they risk deportation and future visa restrictions.She dug through comment sections. Joined group chats. Searched for patterns. One emerged: most of the affected students had been fingerprinted. Some had been cited for non-criminal offenses, but the messages they received said they had criminal records.That’s when she remembered: a year ago, she was driving home when she got two speeding tickets: one for speeding and another for failing to stop. She hadn’t seen the police car behind her until it was too late. To get the charges dismissed, she showed up in court, where she was fingerprinted.Lisa is one of several students across states who found their legal status revoked by the US government on 4 April, without prior notice or clear explanation. University statements show that at least 39 students have been affected, including UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC San Diego, Stanford, Ohio State, the University of Tennessee, the University of Kentucky, Minnesota State University and the University of Oregon.An online self-reported data sheet created by affected students suggests the issue may be more widespread. Students from 50 universities reported their visas were canceled around 4 April, with many noting that they had prior records, some limited to citations or non-criminal offenses.View image in fullscreenThis secret wave of revocation came a few days after the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, announced the revocation of 300 or more student visas. “We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas,” he said at a news conference on 27 March, referring to students he described as national security threats.Lisa’s university had included a screenshot of her Sevis record in the message. Termination was logged on 4 April by a system administrator, with a note: “Individual identified in criminal records check and/or has had their VISA revoked.”Shenqi Cai, a California immigration attorney and managing attorney at Lashine Law, said she got the first call from a student on 3 April. “At the time, we thought it was a one-off. It seemed strange.”But by Friday, more cases kept coming in. She contacted designated school officials at several partner universities and confirmed that the terminations were visible in the Sevis system.Cai said this round of Sevis terminations appeared to be unprecedented. “Students weren’t given any chance to explain their situation. As long as the system flagged them, what we believe is a kind of criminal screening trigger, they were terminated under one broad directive.”Based on the information collected so far, Cai said about 90% of the affected students had been fingerprinted. But she explained that the criteria used to flag students can vary by state. “Each state defines these triggers differently. The thresholds are inconsistent. A student may be arrested in one state, but that doesn’t mean they’ll be convicted, because the power to decide guilt or innocence lies with the judge.”David, a Chinese student who completed his undergraduate degree, was immediately unable to continue working. He requested a pseudonym due to fears of retaliation and an ongoing legal case.In 2024, David was reported to police after a verbal argument with his partner. When officers arrived, they were still arguing, but there was no physical contact, he said. Because of a language barrier, his partner couldn’t clearly explain what had happened. David was detained overnight and later ordered to appear in court.“My partner wrote a statement to the prosecutor explaining it wasn’t domestic violence,” he said. The charge was eventually dropped. Court records show the case was dismissed with prejudice, and the judge ordered the arrest record and biometric data to be destroyed.Three years later, David received a Sevis termination notice.Unlike enrolled F-1 students, David is working under Optional Practical Training, a work authorization linked to the Sevis system. Once a Sevis record is terminated, that authorization ends and is nearly impossible to recover.David was nearing the end of his first year of employment when he got the notice on Friday. He scheduled a lunch meeting with his manager, who said the company would try to help him relocate to Canada. But because the termination took effect immediately, he was subjected to the 15-day departure rule.“I told my family, and they felt just as powerless,” he said. “But we don’t come from wealth, and there’s not a lot they can do.”Bill is facing the same dilemma. He graduated in December 2024 and is currently job-hunting. He asked not to use his real name due to a pending case.In early 2025, Bill hit another car while making a turn. At the time, his driver’s license had just expired. Police cited him for driving with an expired license. After renewing it, he followed the instructions and appeared in court.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I went with a temporary license. The court staff were friendly,” he said. “One even joked, ‘This is no big deal, handsome,’ while taking my fingerprints and photos. It felt like a scene out of a movie.”His initial appearance only involved ID verification. When he asked if the hearing could be held that day, a staff member told him it was scheduled for May and suggested he come back then.“I thought it was fine. My license was updated, I just had to show up again.” But on 3 April, he suddenly received a notice from the school that his Sevis record had been terminated.Now, Bill has no idea what to do. Legally, he should leave the country immediately, but his case is still open and he’s required to appear in court in May. He doesn’t know whether showing up would put him at risk of detention.On 4 April, he met with his university’s international office. Staff there were willing to help, he said, but had few tools. They asked him to write a personal statement, which they promised to pass along to university leadership. The only formal support offered was a referral to a discounted lawyer – $150 an hour.View image in fullscreen“The dust of history falls on me, and it becomes a mountain. That’s all there is to it,” he said.By Sunday evening, the panic had spread. Three hundred students joined a Zoom info session hosted by Brad Banias, a federal court immigration litigator and former justice department trial attorney. Questions poured into the chat box: “Should we leave our apartments right now in case ICE shows up?” “Will an unpaid parking ticket be a problem?”Banias called the terminations a political move, not a legal one. “It makes me angry to see 19-year-olds just trying to study, and suddenly a parking ticket they didn’t even know about shows up on a criminal background check,” he said. “Don’t let them convince you it’s reasonable to leave the country over a parking ticket.”For Lisa, the future was just starting to take shape. She is about to graduate in one month, with a job offer and grad school acceptance. But now, she said she wasn’t even sure if she should go to class on Monday.Back in April 2024, she was pulled over in Madison for speeding. She hadn’t noticed the patrol car behind her right away, and by the time she stopped, two officers approached. One told her not to worry – it was her first offense, and all she needed to do was pay the fine. But the other issued two citations: one for speeding, the other for failing to stop.They told her it was just a miscommunication, something she could clear up in court.But that never really happened.“My first court date was just for ID,” she said. “They fingerprinted me, took a photo, measured my height. The judge barely said anything. No hearing, just a new court date.”She asked if the case could be resolved sooner and was told to schedule an online meeting. She did. During that meeting, the case was dropped. No record. They asked if she accepted. She said yes.Everything after that went smoothly: her work visa was approved, the company background checks cleared, and she had no trouble leaving and re-entering the country. She thought it was behind her.Then the email came.“I don’t know if I’m still allowed to graduate,” she said. “If I don’t get my degree, does the grad school still take me? Does the company push back the offer? Worst case, I don’t graduate. I go home and start college again. Four more years. And then what?” More