The Economy Is Not Collapsing — And Trump Is Not the Cause of Every Problem

There is a familiar argument that Donald Trump caused today's inflation, drove interest rates higher, and somehow destroyed the American consumer. I don't buy it. The numbers tell a very different story, and we should be willing to look at them rather than repeat political talking points.

Start with inflation

Start with inflation. Under President Biden, annual inflation reached 9.1% in June 2022—the highest in four decades. The September 2026 reading is 3.7%. That's a dramatic difference. At a sustained 9.1% annual rate, prices would double in roughly eight years. At 3.7%, the doubling time is about nineteen years. People remember what happened to the cost of groceries, cars, housing, and everyday life during the Biden years. That history shouldn't disappear from the conversation whenever Trump is criticized. [2] [1]

Have Americans stopped spending?

Now consider the claim that Americans have stopped spending. The Federal Reserve described economic activity as expanding at a solid pace and domestic spending as resilient. September restaurant sales rose 7% from a year earlier, including approximately 3.4% growth after inflation. Consumer confidence also rebounded sharply in October. That's not the picture of a consumer who has given up. Frankly, try getting a table at a popular Fairfield County restaurant—even on a Monday night. The local anecdote isn't the proof; the spending numbers are. [3] [4] [5]

Interest rates and commercial real estate

Interest rates and commercial real estate are another matter. Higher borrowing costs push investors to demand higher returns. As capitalization rates rise, the value of a building can fall even if its net operating income stays exactly the same. That's commercial real estate 101. I don't dispute that some Fairfield and Westport retail rents have softened. I dispute the leap from softer rents to 'Trump killed consumer spending.' Financing costs, tenant economics, space requirements, and local supply all influence leasing decisions. Declining rents by themselves don't prove a collapse in shoppers or restaurant customers.

Energy and the Strait of Hormuz

Energy is central to this argument. The Iran war has put real pressure on oil markets. But the United States is also producing crude oil at historically high levels, and the bulk of crude shipped through the Strait of Hormuz serves Asian markets. The U.S. is less directly dependent on that route than China and other Asian buyers. We still pay globally influenced prices, of course; that's exactly why restoring global supply matters. Gulf producers have shifted substantial export volumes to routes that bypass Hormuz, even while traffic through the strait remains disrupted. [6] [7]

Oil isn't diesel: the refining gap

There's also a fact too often missing from the discussion: pumping crude is not the same as refining gasoline and diesel. America lost conventional refining capacity over the past several years. Environmental compliance costs, permitting hurdles, regulatory uncertainty, and the economics of building or upgrading plants have all made the system harder to expand. Policies have consequences. A country can be rich in oil yet still face tight diesel supplies when refining capacity and distribution are constrained. The answer is to make it easier to produce, refine, transport, and sell the fuel the economy needs.

Why the diesel deal makes sense

This is why Trump's willingness to pursue additional diesel supply—even through a narrow agreement involving Vladimir Putin—makes practical sense. The objective is to get more product into the market and relieve the price of a fuel that moves goods, powers machinery, and feeds through to the price of almost everything Americans buy. It's possible to oppose Putin's invasion of Ukraine and still recognize that a limited energy arrangement can serve American consumers. The same supply-minded approach helps explain the administration's push to restore Venezuelan oil flows. Energy policy should be judged by whether it adds supply, improves security, and lowers costs—not by whether every diplomatic conversation wins applause. [8]

Iran

And then there's Iran. For decades, leaders in both parties said a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable. The International Atomic Energy Agency documented extensive uranium enrichment and serious limits on inspections. This is a regime with a long record of supporting armed groups across the Middle East and openly threatening the United States and Israel. When challenged, Iran launched strikes across the region, underscoring the danger it poses. [9]

Compared with what?

So here's the question critics of the military action should answer: what, specifically, would they have done instead? We can't prove the counterfactual—we can't rewind history and observe what would have happened if America had stood aside. But we can weigh the documented threat against the risks of inaction. Would the world be safer if Iran eventually possessed nuclear weapons? Would waiting indefinitely have made Americans, Israelis, or Iran's neighbors more secure? Those are questions worth answering before calling the decision to confront Iran a mistake.

A fair reading

None of this requires pretending every policy works immediately. It requires giving the economy—and the president's decisions—a fair reading. Inflation is far below the Biden-era peak. Consumers continue to spend. High financing costs explain a great deal about commercial property pressure. Refining constraints are real. And a president seeking more energy supply while confronting a serious nuclear threat is addressing problems, not merely creating them.

The bottom line

That's why I reject the easy claim that Trump has wrecked the economy or killed the consumer. The evidence points to a stronger American consumer than his critics acknowledge—and to an administration making consequential choices about energy, security, and economic resilience. Those choices deserve debate. But the debate should start with facts, perspective, and a serious answer to the question: compared with what alternative?