Trump Economic Disaster https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com Daily economic accountability Wed, 16 Sep 2026 13:30:25 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1 https://i0.wp.com/trumpeconomicdisaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/cropped-gasprices.webp?fit=32%2C32&ssl=1 Trump Economic Disaster https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com 32 32 245212694 The Dow Has Lost More Than 2,300 Points Since Its August Record. https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/dow-decline-since-august-5-record-high/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dow-decline-since-august-5-record-high Wed, 16 Sep 2026 13:27:40 +0000 https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/?p=553 The post The Dow Has Lost More Than 2,300 Points Since Its August Record. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]>

Markets & Economy

The Dow Has Lost More Than 2,300 Points Since Its August Record. Here’s What Changed.

A 4.24% pullback is not a crash. But with oil above $100, Treasury yields around 5% and a Federal Reserve rate increase expected, the pressures facing stocks are becoming harder to ignore.

Afternoon edition 6-minute read Dow snapshot: 2:24:55 p.m. CT
August 5 record close54,349Exact closing record: 54,349.12. This is the main comparison baseline.
September 15 snapshot52,046Exact quote: 52,045.87 at 2:24:55 p.m. CT. Intraday, not a closing price.
Points below record close−2,303A decline of 2,303.25 index points from August 5’s closing record.
Below record close−4.24%TED calculation. The decline from the higher intraday peak is 4.93%.

On August 5, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at a record 54,349.12. In the verified September 15 afternoon quote, it stood at 52,045.87—a decline of 2,303.25 points, or 4.24%, in roughly six weeks. [1, 2]

That is not a stock-market collapse. It is also not a number that disappears simply because the index recently set a record.

The more consequential story is what has changed around it: oil has become substantially more expensive, borrowing costs have climbed, and investors are confronting the likelihood of another Federal Reserve rate increase. Those pressures can hit both corporate profits and the prices investors are willing to pay for them. [5, 6, 8, 9, 12]

First, measure the decline correctly

There are two different August 5 records, and they should not be mixed together.

The closing record was 54,349.12. The intraday record was 54,744.33. Against the closing record, the September 15 snapshot represents a 4.24% decline. Against the higher intraday peak, it represents a 4.93% decline, or 2,698.46 points. [1, 2]

Observation Dow level Change from Aug. 5 record close
August 5, 2026 — closing record 54,349.12 —
September 14, 2026 — closing level 52,421.20 −3.55%
September 15, 2026 — 3:24:55 p.m. ET 52,045.87 −4.24%

Sources: historical index observations and the timestamped intraday quote. Percentage changes are TED calculations. September 15 is not a closing price. [1, 2, 3]

The retreat has not been a straight line. The Dow rebounded 509.19 points on September 11, rising from 52,064.10 to 52,573.29, before slipping again the following Monday. A meaningful recovery day can occur inside a larger pullback. [3]

The Dow also measures just 30 price-weighted blue-chip stocks. Its point loss is not a dollar measure of wealth destroyed, and its percentage change is not the return of every retirement account. [4]

August’s relief has given way to more expensive energy

The contrast with the record-setting day is striking.

On August 5, Reuters reported progress toward an Iran peace agreement. WTI crude was $75.22 a barrel, Brent was $79.45, and the 10-year Treasury yield was approximately 4.615%. [5]

By September 15, separate intraday reports put WTI at $106.41 and Brent at $109.35. These were market snapshots, not final settlements or perfectly synchronized quotes. [6, 7]

For businesses that consume fuel, that change creates an unwelcome choice: absorb higher costs, pass them to customers, or find savings elsewhere. For a household with a fixed budget, more spending on necessary transportation means less money available for other purchases. The Federal Reserve has documented how Middle East disruptions, higher fuel prices and transportation expenses are feeding business cost pressures. [13]

Higher prices can benefit energy producers. That does not eliminate the pressure on businesses and consumers buying the energy.

The broader concern is a squeeze on both sides of corporate earnings: higher operating costs and customers with less spending room. That is an economic mechanism—not proof that oil explains every Dow point lost.

Higher bond yields change the math for stocks

The Financial Times reported that the 10-year Treasury yield reached 5.04% during September 15 trading, its highest level since 2007. [8]

A yield near 5% does not automatically cause a stock-market selloff. It does change the investment comparison. Higher bond yields offer investors more income outside the stock market, while higher discount rates reduce the present value of a given stream of future corporate cash flows. [9, 17]

Businesses face a related problem. As debt matures or new financing is required, higher interest expenses can leave less revenue available as profit. The effect depends on each company’s debt, refinancing schedule and ability to increase earnings; it does not hit every business equally or immediately. [16]

Strong profit growth can offset those pressures. But that is the point: companies have to deliver more to justify the same valuations when financing and competing investment returns become more demanding.

This is not simply investors becoming nervous. It is a less forgiving financial calculation.

Inflation is narrowing the room for relief

The August Consumer Price Index rose 0.4% for the month and 3.4% over the year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. [10]

That report arrived before the latest rise in oil prices could fully work through the economy. It cannot tell us what September’s inflation reading will be.

Reuters reported Tuesday morning that traders were assigning roughly a 93% probability to a Federal Reserve rate increase. The policy decision is scheduled for Wednesday, September 16, at the conclusion of the September 15–16 meeting. [11, 12]

An expected increase is not an announced increase. Nor would an increase guarantee another decline in stocks: markets respond to the difference between expectations and the decision, as well as what policymakers signal about the future. [18]

For equities, the difficulty is the combination. Persistent price pressure can limit the prospect of cheaper financing just as higher costs make earnings growth more challenging. [9, 16]

A record high is a snapshot—not a guarantee that the economic conditions underneath it will remain favorable.

Where Trump’s policies fit—and where causation stops

It would be wrong to attribute all 2,303 points to Donald Trump.

Company results, investor positioning, technology expectations and global events also matter. Reuters’ September 15 reporting identified concerns about a potential slowdown in AI development as a separate source of market anxiety. [12]

But acknowledging multiple causes does not make policy irrelevant.

The Federal Reserve’s July Monetary Policy Report said tariff increases had contributed to the rise in consumer-goods inflation. It also described higher fuel and transportation costs associated with the Middle East conflict. These are identifiable channels through which trade and geopolitical policy can affect business costs and household purchasing power. [13]

Neither finding provides a formula for assigning a particular share of the Dow’s decline to the administration. They do establish why policy consequences belong in the discussion.

TED’s judgment: An administration should not be allowed to treat record stock prices as proof of economic success while treating the costs associated with its policy choices as unrelated to subsequent market pressure. Accountability requires following the mechanisms—not inventing a single-cause explanation.

Not a crash. Not nothing.

The counterweight to the decline is important: the Dow was still 8.29% above its December 31, 2025 close of 48,063.29 at the September 15 snapshot. It had surrendered part of this year’s advance, not all of it. [2, 14]

The pullback also remained below the roughly 10% decline conventionally associated with a market correction, and well short of the 20% bear-market threshold. Those definitions are useful context, not guarantees about what happens next. [15]

For scale, a hypothetical $100,000 position that exactly matched the Dow’s price change from the August 5 close would be worth approximately $95,762 at the quoted September 15 level. That illustration excludes dividends, fees, contributions and withdrawals; a real portfolio could perform very differently. [1, 2]

A decline need not qualify as a crash to matter. But the record-to-current comparison should not be presented as evidence that all investors have lost money this year.

The verdict

The Dow’s retreat is real. So is its remaining year-to-date gain. Both belong in any honest assessment of the market. [1, 2, 14]

What deserves scrutiny is the environment surrounding the retreat: substantially more expensive oil than on the record-setting day, Treasury yields around 5%, and inflation that has investors preparing for tighter rather than easier monetary policy. [5, 6, 8, 10, 12]

None of that proves a recession is coming or that stocks must keep falling. The more useful questions are whether energy costs ease, inflation loses momentum and earnings can keep growing despite more expensive financing.

Until then, August 5 cannot serve as a permanent certificate of economic health.

There is no need to exaggerate the decline. More than 2,300 points is a meaningful retreat. The larger concern is an economy giving businesses, households and policymakers less room for error.

Primary documentation and reporting

  1. Yahoo Finance — Dow historical prices — August 5, 2026 closing level of 54,349.12 and intraday high of 54,744.33.
  2. Google Finance — Dow Jones Industrial Average — 52,045.87 at 3:24:55 p.m. Eastern on September 15, 2026. This is a dated intraday observation; the linked quote updates.
  3. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis — FRED DJIA series — Daily closing observations sourced from S&P Dow Jones Indices, including September 10, 11 and 14.
  4. S&P Dow Jones Indices — Dow Jones Industrial Average — Index description: a price-weighted measure of 30 U.S. blue-chip companies.
  5. Reuters — August 5 global markets report — Record closing high, Iran negotiations, WTI at $75.22, Brent at $79.45 and the 10-year Treasury yield at 4.615%.
  6. Barron’s — September 15 market coverage — Tuesday intraday report of WTI futures at $106.41; this is not a settlement price.
  7. Associated Press — September 15 stocks, oil and bond report — Tuesday intraday Brent quote of $109.35 and the continuing Middle East supply-risk backdrop.
  8. Financial Times — 10-year Treasury yield reaches highest since 2007 — September 15 report of an intraday 10-year Treasury yield of 5.04%.
  9. Federal Reserve — How monetary policy works — Interest rates, asset prices, spending and the transmission of financial conditions.
  10. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — August 2026 CPI — September 11 release: headline CPI rose 0.4% in August and 3.4% over 12 months.
  11. Federal Reserve — September 2026 calendar — September 15–16 FOMC meeting; policy announcement scheduled for September 16.
  12. Reuters, via GV Wire — September 15 morning market report — Morning market-implied probability of a Wednesday rate increase and separate concerns about AI development and demand.
  13. Federal Reserve — July 2026 Monetary Policy Report — Tariff-related consumer-goods inflation, Middle East input-cost pressures and other contributing forces.
  14. Associated Press, via KING 5 — December 31, 2025 market close — Dow closing level of 48,063.29 at year-end 2025, used to calculate the year-to-date change.
  15. Charles Schwab — Market correction definition — Conventional correction and bear-market thresholds.
  16. Federal Reserve — Interest expenses and corporate profit growth — The relationship between interest expenses, earnings and equity returns.
  17. Federal Reserve — Monetary transmission research — Discount rates, asset values and investment channels.
  18. Federal Reserve — Monetary policy and the stock market — Why anticipated policy moves and policy surprises can produce different market reactions.

Publication note — September 15, 2026: The Dow comparison uses the Google Finance observation timestamped 3:24:55 p.m. Eastern (2:24:55 p.m. Central). September 14 values are closing observations; September 15 values are intraday and may change before the close. Oil and bond observations come from separately timed reports and are not presented as a synchronized market screen. Futures benchmarks may change contract months. Index changes are nominal price changes, not dividend-inclusive total returns. Calculations use (later level ÷ comparison level − 1) × 100. Policy analysis is distinct from verified observations. This article is not individualized investment advice.

The post The Dow Has Lost More Than 2,300 Points Since Its August Record. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]> 553 WTI and Brent Surge. China Connection Real—but Complicated. https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/wti-brent-surge-china-oil-supply-shock/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wti-brent-surge-china-oil-supply-shock Tue, 15 Sep 2026 16:54:11 +0000 https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/?p=549 The post WTI and Brent Surge. China Connection Real—but Complicated. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]>

Energy & Prices

WTI and Brent Surge. The China Connection Is Real—but Complicated.

Disrupted supply routes are driving the latest oil shock. China’s refinery rebound, inventory drawdowns and trade in Iranian crude explain its role—not a simple claim that Beijing caused the surge.

Evidence & Analysis 5-minute read Midday update · checked 12:46 p.m. EDT
WTI futures · indicative$106.00+$4.61 / +4.55%. Midday quote; checked 12:46 p.m. EDT, September 15. [11]
Brent futures · indicative$108.87+$3.19 / +3.02%. Same midday quote display; not settlement. [11]
China refining−6.9%August year-over-year change in official crude processing data. [5]
Implied stock draw≈640kBarrels a day in August. Reuters estimate; not an official reserve release. [7]

Oil prices extended their gains into midday trading on Tuesday, September 15. Investing.com’s quote display, checked at 12:46 p.m. EDT (11:46 a.m. CDT), showed West Texas Intermediate at $106.00 a barrel, up $4.61, or 4.55%, and Brent at $108.87, up $3.19, or 3.02%. These are indicative intraday quotes, not closing prices. [11]

China belongs in this story. But understanding its role requires separating three questions: what disrupted supply, how Chinese refiners are responding, and how U.S. policy affects the oil available to buyers.

The Immediate Problem Is Disrupted Supply

Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline was shut after drone attacks on September 11. The route carries crude toward the Red Sea, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. Losing that alternative makes an already constrained export system more vulnerable. The duration of the outage remained uncertain. [2]

On Tuesday, Reuters also reported that loadings at Yanbu had been suspended. [1]

A separate disruption hit Libya: its National Oil Corporation said three fields had stopped operating after protesters closed a pipeline valve. The company warned it might declare force majeure, rather than announcing that it already had. [3]

This is not a supply problem that began Tuesday. In its September outlook, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that Middle Eastern crude production shut-ins averaged 6.7 million barrels a day in August, up from 5 million in July. That forecast was completed September 3—before the latest Saudi pipeline attack. [4]

China’s Refinery Rebound Is Not a Consumer Boom

China’s National Bureau of Statistics reported Tuesday that refineries processed 59.07 million metric tons of crude in August. Despite the improvement from July, processing remained 6.9% below August 2025. That is a rebound from July—not evidence, on its own, of booming domestic consumption. [5]

Reuters calculated the monthly rebound at 11.2% and reported that stronger fuel exports helped support refinery activity after China eased export restrictions in July. [6]

Those distinctions matter. A refinery can process more crude to sell fuel overseas without Chinese households consuming more gasoline. Refinery throughput, crude imports and domestic fuel consumption are related—but they are not interchangeable measures. An increase in the first does not, by itself, establish a boom in the third. [5] [6]

The Inventory Connection Cuts Both Ways

In a Reuters commentary, Clyde Russell estimated an implied Chinese crude inventory draw of about 640,000 barrels a day in August, comparing refinery processing with imports and domestic production. This is a calculated residual, not a published measurement of strategic reserves. It does not establish how the draw was divided between commercial and government stocks. [7]

Evidence distinction

Using stored oil is not the same as buying extra oil. Stocks can cushion a supply shortfall. A drawdown should not be presented as evidence of a simultaneous buying spree.

The forward-looking risk is conditional. If refinery operations and domestic production stayed unchanged, and China chose to draw less from storage, it would need more imports to close the gap. That would mean competing for additional available cargoes. Lower refinery activity, continued stock use or a recovery in external supply could produce a different outcome. [9]

That is a supply-balance scenario—not an announced Chinese decision or a forecast that prices must keep rising.

There Is Also a Documented China–Iran–U.S. Policy Link

The clearest policy connection is in the U.S. Treasury Department’s own record. In an August 24 sanctions announcement, Treasury identified QUANTUM HOPE and VOYAGE ELITE as vessels it said had transported millions of barrels of Iranian oil to China during 2026. It described their owners as Hong Kong- and China-based, respectively. [8]

The administration presented the measures as an effort to deny financial resources to Iran’s regime. That is its stated security rationale. The announcement documents a targeted trade relationship; it does not establish that Beijing caused the latest pipeline attack or engineered Tuesday’s rally. [8]

EIA separately linked constrained Middle Eastern exports in August partly to the renewed U.S. blockade of Iranian oil exports and new Treasury sanctions. It said those policies were expected to restrict Iranian exports and reduce production. It also identified regional attacks and shipping constraints—not U.S. policy alone. [4]

The accountability question for Donald Trump is therefore not whether every dollar of the oil rally is his fault. It is whether the administration acknowledges the economic trade-off when policies designed to restrict an adversary’s revenue also restrict supply.

A security objective can be argued on its merits. It does not make the associated economic costs disappear.

American Production Does Not Guarantee American Price Insulation

Oil is traded in a global market. As EIA explains, prices reflect buyers and sellers competing across that market. Producing oil domestically does not create a separate pricing system that ignores shortages elsewhere. American buyers still face the value that available barrels can command internationally. [9]

For households, however, a daily crude-price jump is not an automatic, identical increase at every gas station. EIA identifies crude costs, fuel availability, inventories, refinery operations and demand as important influences on gasoline prices. A sustained disruption is more consequential than a brief spike that reverses. [10]

The household arithmetic is straightforward, even though the future pump price is not. Illustratively, a 25-cent-per-gallon increase would add $20 to the monthly bill of a household buying 80 gallons. That is an example of exposure—not a prediction of the increase this oil move will produce.

What the Evidence Supports

The defensible China angle is not “China caused the oil surge.” It is that China’s refining decisions, use of inventories and access to Iranian crude affect how a disrupted market adjusts. The sources reviewed here do not quantify China’s contribution to Tuesday’s price change. [5] [7] [8]

The economic question is not which country makes the most convenient headline. It is how policy and disrupted supply change the price consumers ultimately pay.

For TED, that is the standard worth applying: identify the policy, trace the mechanism, distinguish evidence from inference—and do not turn an uncertain allocation of blame into a certainty.

Sources & Documentation

  1. Reuters — September 15 oil-market report and supply-disruption context
  2. Reuters — Saudi pipeline outage and uncertainty over restoration, September 13
  3. Reuters — Libyan production interruptions and possible force majeure, September 15
  4. U.S. Energy Information Administration — September Short-Term Energy Outlook; released September 9, forecast completed September 3
  5. China National Bureau of Statistics — August 2026 energy production; primary statistical release, September 15 (Chinese)
  6. Reuters — August Chinese refinery throughput and fuel exports, September 15
  7. Reuters / Clyde Russell — Commentary estimating China’s implied inventory draw; not an official inventory release
  8. U.S. Department of the Treasury — August 24 sanctions announcement; Treasury’s stated findings and policy rationale
  9. U.S. Energy Information Administration — Oil prices and outlook: global supply, demand and pricing
  10. U.S. Energy Information Administration — Gasoline price fluctuations: crude costs, inventories and refining conditions
  11. Investing.com — Midday quote display checked September 15, 2026, at 12:46 p.m. EDT; indicative prices

Midday price update: Investing.com’s indicative quotes were checked September 15, 2026, at 12:46 p.m. EDT (11:46 a.m. CDT). This is the retrieval time, not an exchange trade timestamp. Quotes may differ from live feeds and are neither official settlements nor dashboard spot observations.

Evidence note: China’s processing figures cover August, not September 15 trading. The inventory draw is a third-party residual estimate. EIA’s September outlook was completed September 3 and does not incorporate the September 11 pipeline attack. Supply-balance scenarios and the household-cost example are analysis, not announced outcomes.

Sources reviewed September 15, 2026. Later prices, production updates and revised data may differ.

The post WTI and Brent Surge. China Connection Real—but Complicated. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]> 549 Markets Expect a Rate Hike. Trump won’t be happy. https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/markets-expect-a-rate-hike-trump-wont-be-happy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=markets-expect-a-rate-hike-trump-wont-be-happy Tue, 15 Sep 2026 13:50:47 +0000 https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/?p=542 The post Markets Expect a Rate Hike. Trump won’t be happy. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]>
Markets Expect a Rate Hike. Trump won't be happy.

Federal Reserve · Inflation · Who Pays?

Markets Expect a Rate Hike. Trump won't be happy.

A quarter-point increase is widely expected Wednesday. The deeper issue is whether Americans will face more expensive borrowing before they see meaningful relief from rising prices.

News & AnalysisDecision pending

Timing matters: The meeting begins Tuesday, September 15. The decision is scheduled for Wednesday, September 16, at 2 p.m. Eastern / 1 p.m. Central. This article is a preview; no September rate increase has been announced.[1]

The Federal Reserve opens its September meeting with markets expecting a rate hike, not a cut. Reuters reported Tuesday morning that markets assigned a 93% probability to a quarter-point hike. Morgan Stanley now forecasts increases in September and December. Those are expectations, not decisions.[2]

For households waiting for cheaper credit, that is an uncomfortable prospect. The question is not simply whether borrowing costs rise again. It is whether inflation will force another round of financial restraint before families experience the relief they have been waiting for.

What is actually on the table?

The Fed’s target range remains 3.50%–3.75%, following its July 29 decision. A quarter-percentage-point increase—25 basis points—would move that range to 3.75%–4.00%. July’s vote was already divided: three officials preferred an increase rather than a hold.[3]

The distinction between an expected hike and an announced hike matters. A market probability is not a Fed commitment, and a bank’s forecast for December is not the central bank’s policy schedule.

Inflation explains the pressure. It also complicates the decision.

August consumer prices rose 0.4% month over month and 3.4% year over year. Gasoline increased 3.9% during the month; energy prices were 16.3% above a year earlier. But the picture was mixed: annual core inflation, excluding food and energy, eased to 2.4% from 2.5%, even as its monthly increase accelerated to 0.3%.[4]

That is not evidence that every inflation measure is getting worse. It is evidence of renewed monthly pressure alongside some improvement in the annual underlying measure.

In his August 28 speech, Fed Chair Kevin Warsh argued that underlying inflation needed to move toward the goal clearly and fast enough. He also emphasized that the Fed’s formal 2% objective applies to the PCE price index, not directly to CPI. His remarks did not commit the committee to a particular September decision.[5]

Higher rates are a tool—not a cure for every price shock.

Higher interest rates work partly by making borrowing more expensive and restraining spending and investment. That can reduce inflation pressure, but it can also slow hiring and economic activity.[6]

It cannot repair damaged energy infrastructure or repeal an import tax. The Associated Press reports that renewed fighting in the Iran war has been pushing up oil and gasoline prices.[7]

The policy dilemma is real: respond too aggressively to a supply shock, and the Fed risks weakening demand without fixing the original disruption. Respond too timidly to persistent inflation, and price instability can become harder to contain. Neither choice makes the household cost disappear.

Trump’s demand for cheaper money does not erase policy costs.

Trump has continued demanding lower rates, arguing Sunday that the United States should pay the world’s lowest interest rate.[7]

But his tariff policy belongs in the discussion, too. Minneapolis Fed researchers estimated that tariffs contributed 0.2–0.4 percentage points to annual core PCE inflation as of July. Their analysis also identified other influences, including AI-related demand.[8]

That is an estimate for a particular inflation measure and period—not proof that tariffs explain all inflation, and not a calculation of how much they would contribute to a September rate decision.

TED’s assessment is narrower: a president cannot reasonably demand that the Fed ignore inflation while declining responsibility for policies that add to price pressure. Scrutinizing monetary policy is legitimate. Pretending trade policy has no domestic cost is not.

Making borrowing more expensive does not make the original price shock disappear. It asks households and businesses to absorb part of the adjustment.

TED analysis

Who could pay more—and who would not?

People carrying variable-rate debt. Credit cards can use a benchmark such as the prime rate plus a lender’s margin. Banks set prime, but it is influenced by the federal funds rate. Borrowing costs can therefore rise after a hike, subject to the account’s terms and repricing schedule.[9] [10]

For perspective, a full 0.25-percentage-point increase applied to a constant $10,000 balance would add about $25 a year in simple interest. On $100,000, it would add about $250. These are illustrations, not estimates of a typical bill; they exclude compounding, fees and balance changes.

Existing fixed-rate mortgage borrowers. A Fed increase does not change the interest rate on an existing fixed-rate mortgage. Adjustable-rate loans are different: their terms determine when and how rates can reset.[11]

New homebuyers and people refinancing. Mortgage pricing depends heavily on longer-term bond yields, expected inflation and mortgage-market spreads—not a mechanical, one-for-one response to the Fed’s announcement. An expected move can be reflected in prices before the meeting.[12]

That also means a Fed hike would not guarantee higher mortgage rates the next day. A decision that strengthens confidence in inflation control could ease some longer-term pressure. A decision that disappoints investors could do the opposite. That is a possible market response, not a forecast.[12]

Businesses and workers. More expensive financing can make expansion less attractive. The consequence may show up not only in an interest bill, but in an investment postponed or a job not created. Some savers may benefit from better deposit yields, although banks need not pass through the full increase.[6] [9]

Wednesday’s message matters beyond the quarter point.

The decision is scheduled for September 16 at 2 p.m. Eastern / 1 p.m. Central, followed by the press conference at 2:30 p.m. Eastern. The meeting also includes updated economic projections.[1] [13]

The important questions are whether officials see inflation pressure broadening, whether they describe any increase as a limited adjustment or the beginning of additional tightening, and how they weigh the risks to employment.

Even a widely expected hike would leave those questions open. Forecasts and projections are conditional assessments, not guarantees of the next move.

The bottom line

A rate hike would not, by itself, prove that every Trump policy has failed. Nor would it automatically mean the Fed was making the wrong decision.

But the prospect exposes the weakness of treating cheaper money as something a president can demand rather than something economic conditions must support.

For families, the issue is not who wins an argument with the Fed. It is whether bringing inflation under control will require making their financial lives harder first.

Sources and primary records

  1. Federal Reserve — September 2026 calendar
  2. Reuters — September 15 rate expectations
  3. Federal Reserve — July 29 policy statement
  4. Bureau of Labor Statistics — August 2026 CPI
  5. Federal Reserve — August 28 remarks by Kevin Warsh
  6. Federal Reserve — How monetary policy affects the economy
  7. Associated Press — Rate expectations and Trump’s demands
  8. Minneapolis Fed — Tariff pass-through research, August 28
  9. Federal Reserve — The prime rate
  10. CFPB — Variable-rate credit card disclosures
  11. CFPB — Fixed-rate and adjustable-rate mortgages
  12. Fannie Mae — What determines mortgage rates
  13. Federal Reserve — Meeting calendar and economic projections

Publication note: Prepared September 15, 2026, before the September 16 decision. Market probabilities can change. Inflation figures refer to their stated observation periods; tariff contributions are research estimates, not an attribution of the entire inflation rate. Recheck the official statement before republishing this as post-decision coverage.

Trump Economic Disaster · One policy. The latest data. The people who pay.

The post Markets Expect a Rate Hike. Trump won’t be happy. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]> 542 A Putin-Linked Oligarch Helped Pay for Trump Jr.’s Wedding. Americans Deserve Answers. https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/a-putin-linked-oligarch-helped-pay-for-trump-jr-s-wedding/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-putin-linked-oligarch-helped-pay-for-trump-jr-s-wedding Tue, 15 Sep 2026 12:13:57 +0000 https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/?p=535 The post A Putin-Linked Oligarch Helped Pay for Trump Jr.’s Wedding. Americans Deserve Answers. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]>

Power & Accountability

A Putin-Linked Oligarch Helped Pay for Trump Jr.’s Wedding. Americans Deserve Answers.

The question is bigger than who paid for a celebration. It is what separates private generosity from access to presidential power—and whether the public can see that boundary.

TED Editorial Desk Analysis & commentary 7-minute read
Wedding festivities May ’26 Bahamas celebration. Reported background.
Couple’s acknowledgment 2 nights Hosted as a gift. September 14 statement.
Appeal to the president Jan. ’25 IBA sought attention to Olympic boxing. Published letter.
Public cooperation Sep. ’25 IBA promoted further joint initiatives. Published account.

ProPublica reports that Putin-linked oligarch Umar Kremlev paid hundreds of thousands toward Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding festivities.

The story deserves scrutiny for a reason that has nothing to do with judging someone’s taste in wedding venues. When expensive personal benefits intersect with proximity to the presidency, the public is entitled to ask where friendship ends and potential influence begins.

That question should be asked without jumping to conclusions. It should also be answered without treating scrutiny itself as an insult.

The Couple Has Acknowledged the Gift

Trump Jr. and Bettina Anderson married in May, with celebrations in the Bahamas. The reported expenses included an island rental and fireworks, according to Forbes’ account of the investigation. This is a story about substantial outside support—not evidence that one person paid every wedding bill.

In a statement signed by the couple, Bettina acknowledged that Kremlev hosted two celebration nights as a gift. She distinguished those festivities from their private family ceremony and rejected the suggestion of political motives. The Associated Press reported the statement Monday.

Trump Jr.’s spokesperson described Kremlev as a personal friend, not a business associate. Kremlev’s office said the two had not discussed political matters, according to the responses reported by Forbes.

Those explanations belong in the record. So does the distinction between a private ceremony and the surrounding celebrations. Neither distinction, however, settles whether accepting the benefit was prudent or what safeguards protected the public interest.

Friendship may explain why a gift was offered. It does not, by itself, explain how the public interest was protected.

Evidence boundary

A large gift does not, by itself, prove bribery, a Kremlin-directed operation or a policy concession. Those are separate allegations requiring separate evidence. This article makes an argument for disclosure and accountability, not a finding of criminal guilt.

The Public Record Goes Beyond a Private Friendship

Before the wedding, Kremlev’s organization had already appealed to the president. In a January 22, 2025 open letter, the International Boxing Association asked Trump’s team to examine boxing’s position ahead of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics while criticizing the International Olympic Committee.

Then, in its September 29, 2025 account of an Istanbul forum, the IBA promoted Trump Jr.’s appearance alongside Kremlev and described plans for further joint initiatives. The organization’s own language presented their relationship as more than two men privately enjoying the same sport.

A promotional announcement is not a commercial contract. An appeal to a president does not prove that a subsequent gift bought a response. But the combination supplies a concrete reason to ask what cooperation followed, who participated and whether any requests reached administration officials.

The relevant question is not whether friendship is possible. It is whether friendship is the complete explanation for a relationship that an organization also publicly promoted as a partnership.

Why the Putin Connection Matters

Kremlev’s connection to Russian power is not merely an inference from his nationality. In April 2026, the IBA announced that Putin had awarded him the Order of Friendship.

Russian citizenship is not evidence of wrongdoing. A state decoration is not evidence that a recipient acts on government instructions in every private transaction. The legitimate concern is the combination of political connections, substantial generosity and access—not someone’s passport.

There is also a financial history to distinguish from today’s allegations. The IBA announced a Gazprom partnership in 2021. Kremlev’s office now says that arrangement has expired, according to Forbes’ follow-up reporting. Historical sponsorship does not establish that Gazprom or the Russian government supplied the wedding money.

Follow the Payment Records, Not the Assurances

The payments reportedly passed through an IBA-affiliated entity in Dubai, as The Independent reported. Kremlev’s representatives said the IBA itself incurred no wedding expenses, while not addressing the reported affiliate payments, according to International Business Times UK’s account of their response.

That distinction is exactly why documentation matters. The person credited with a gift, the company sending a payment and the ultimate source of the funds need not be identical. Naming a generous friend is not a substitute for identifying who paid each invoice and who authorized the expenditure.

The White House directed The Independent to Bettina’s statement when asked for comment, the outlet reported. That supplies the family’s explanation; it does not supply an itemized financial accounting or an explanation of administrative safeguards.

TED has not independently inspected the underlying bank records or invoices. The financial details described here remain attributed reporting. The request for those records should not be confused with an assertion that they would necessarily reveal an improper exchange.

Influence Is Not Limited to an Official Job Title

Trump Jr.’s political relevance does not rest solely on his last name. During the 2024 transition, Reuters reported his influence over his father’s Cabinet selections. That is documented historical involvement, not proof that he controls any particular decision today.

Former U.S. counterintelligence officials have raised concerns about the access such financial generosity can create, as The Independent reported in its coverage of the investigation. Their warnings are assessments of risk—not findings that a favor was requested or delivered.

That distinction should strengthen oversight, not weaken it. Waiting for proof of a completed transaction before examining an apparent conflict would leave the most useful questions unanswered until after the potential damage.

The same standard should apply to any presidential family. Personal access should not become an unexamined route around the scrutiny that official dealings deserve.

Why This Is an Economic Accountability Story

The economic issue is not the extravagance of the celebration. It is the integrity of decisions that shape market access, enforcement, investment and public spending.

Consider the incentive that would exist if a business believed helping a powerful family was a better route to favorable treatment than competing on merit. Money would be directed toward cultivating insiders rather than improving products or lowering costs. That is a conditional risk—not a finding that this wedding changed a contract, a sanction or an investment decision.

Americans should not have to choose between inventing a conspiracy and accepting an assurance. There is a third option: insist on enough disclosure to test whether public decisions remained separate from private benefits.

What Would Actually Answer the Questions

Start with an itemized accounting: the expenses covered, the paying entities, the source of the funds and any reimbursement. That would establish the benefit more clearly than a general description of generosity.

Then explain what became of the publicly advertised cooperation. Were projects launched? Were introductions requested? Were any proposals conveyed to the White House or federal agencies? These are questions to investigate, not facts to assume.

Finally, explain the safeguards. Who would identify a potential conflict if an issue involving the benefactor or an affiliated organization reached the administration? What records would show that the decision was made on its merits?

None of that requires publishing private vows or inviting the public into every family conversation. It requires addressing the transactions and official interactions that create the public-interest concern.

Documented context

The linked public statements and organizational records are distinct from the financial records described by journalists.

Unresolved question

The full funding trail, the scope of subsequent cooperation and any connection to official requests require further evidence.

Editorial judgment

The appropriate response is disclosure and scrutiny—not a presumption of guilt, and not a demand that the public stop asking.

The Bottom Line

Friendship may be genuine. Generosity may be personal. Neither possibility makes public accountability unnecessary.

The presidency is a public trust. Families retain private lives, but benefits that intersect with access to that office deserve an explanation capable of withstanding scrutiny.

A wedding gift may belong to the couple. The integrity of American government belongs to everyone.

Documentation and reporting

  1. ProPublica — Original investigation, September 14, 2026
  2. Associated Press — The couple’s acknowledgment and explanation, September 14, 2026
  3. Forbes — Reported expenses and representatives’ responses, September 14, 2026
  4. Forbes — Follow-up coverage and response concerning Gazprom, September 14, 2026
  5. The Independent — Reported payment route, White House response and counterintelligence concerns, September 14, 2026
  6. International Business Times UK — IBA expense denial and affiliate-payment distinction, September 14, 2026
  7. IBA — Open letter to President Trump, January 22, 2025
  8. IBA — Istanbul forum and proposed joint initiatives, September 29, 2025
  9. IBA — Announcement of Putin’s state award to Kremlev, April 23, 2026
  10. IBA — Historical Gazprom partnership announcement, April 6, 2021
  11. Reuters — Trump Jr.’s influence during the presidential transition, November 24, 2024

Published September 14, 2026, incorporating the couple’s response that day. This is TED’s original analysis, not a republication of another outlet’s article. Linked news coverage is credited for reported financial details and responses; organizational announcements are primary records of those organizations’ statements, not independent verification of every claim they make. TED has not independently reviewed the underlying financial records. Questions and conditional risks are not allegations of established misconduct.

The post A Putin-Linked Oligarch Helped Pay for Trump Jr.’s Wedding. Americans Deserve Answers. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]> 535 Trump Wants the World’s Lowest Rates. The Bond Market Is Pushing Toward 5%. https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/trump-wants-the-worlds-lowest-rates-the-bond-market-is-pushing-toward-5/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=trump-wants-the-worlds-lowest-rates-the-bond-market-is-pushing-toward-5 Mon, 14 Sep 2026 16:12:04 +0000 https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/?p=529 The post Trump Wants the World’s Lowest Rates. The Bond Market Is Pushing Toward 5%. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]>

Public Cost

Trump Wants the World’s Lowest Rates. The Bond Market Is Pushing Toward 5%.

The president is demanding cheaper money. Borrowers face a market that wants more compensation for lending it. The consequences reach well beyond Wall Street—to homebuyers, business investment and the cost of financing the federal government.

Morning edition 9-minute read Market observation times noted below
10-year Treasury 4.98% Monday morning quotation. Not a closing yield.
Recent increase +17 bp Daily constant-maturity series: Sept. 4–10.
30-year mortgage 6.76% Freddie Mac weekly average. Released Sept. 10.
Fed decision Sept. 16 Scheduled announcement: Wednesday, 2 p.m. ET.

On Sunday, September 13, Donald Trump said the United States should pay the lowest interest rate in the world, regardless of what the Federal Reserve’s data indicates. On Monday morning, the 10-year Treasury yield was 4.981%, versus 4.974% Friday, in Tradeweb figures reported by The Wall Street Journal.

The contrast is striking, but it needs to be explained correctly. The Federal Reserve’s overnight policy rate and the yield on a ten-year government security are not the same instrument. A president demanding that one fall does not establish what investors will accept on the other.

That is the affordability problem behind the bond-market headline. Lower borrowing costs are desirable for borrowers. They are not created simply by declaring that the United States deserves them.

The president can demand cheaper money. He cannot order investors to ignore the risks of lending it.

The Surge Is a Trend, Not a Claim About One Morning

The Federal Reserve’s daily 10-year constant-maturity series rose from 4.78% on September 4 to 4.95% on September 10. That is an increase of 17 basis points, or 0.17 percentage point. A basis point is one-hundredth of a percentage point.

Separately, Reuters’ Monday market report identifies an intraday high of 4.9915% reached on Friday, September 11. That high belongs to Friday—not Monday. The live benchmark quotation and the official constant-maturity series are also different measurements, so they should not be spliced together as though they were a single identical data feed.

The difference between 4.99% and 5.00% is not an economic cliff. The important development is the repricing that brought borrowing costs into this neighborhood, and whether those costs remain there long enough to affect financing decisions.

Evidence label: what a rising yield means

Treasury yields move inversely to the prices investors pay for existing bonds. A higher market yield does not mean the government has increased the coupon on every outstanding note. Treasury notes pay a fixed rate of interest until maturity; the price at which an existing security changes hands can still move.

The Fed Sets an Overnight Target, Not Every Loan Price

The New York Fed’s explanation of the federal funds market describes overnight lending among eligible institutions and the target range set by the FOMC. The Federal Reserve’s broader monetary-policy explanation traces how changes in short-term conditions affect other rates and economic activity.

Long-term lending involves more than today’s overnight rate. A buyer must think about future short-term rates, the purchasing power of the payments it will receive and the risk of committing funds for years. The extra compensation associated with holding longer-term debt is commonly called a term premium, as explained in the Federal Reserve’s discussion of long-term rates.

This creates a possible conflict between immediate relief and lasting relief. A policy change that lowers short-term rates but increases doubts about future inflation can leave longer-term borrowing expensive. Conversely, a credible approach to containing inflation could improve longer-term conditions even if it is uncomfortable for borrowers initially. Neither response is automatic.

Investors interviewed by Reuters disagree about this week’s decision: some fear that leaving rates unchanged would undermine inflation credibility; others argue that another increase would hurt rate-sensitive sectors without solving the economy’s underlying problems. That disagreement is more informative than pretending every bond investor is delivering the same political verdict.

Energy Adds Pressure. The Inflation Data Still Need Nuance.

The August CPI report showed consumer prices up 0.4% for the month, with annual headline inflation at 3.4%. But the annual headline rate was unchanged from July, and annual core inflation eased from 2.5% to 2.4%. The monthly core increase was 0.3%.

Those distinctions matter. The report does not support saying that every inflation measure accelerated. It does show why a renewed energy shock could complicate the outlook: investors must judge whether an initially narrow price increase stays narrow or becomes embedded in broader costs and expectations.

There is no contradiction in acknowledging some disinflation while worrying about the next shock. The mistake is to treat either favorable or unfavorable components as permission to ignore the rest of the evidence.

A further caution: the Fed’s longer-run 2% inflation objective is framed in terms of the personal consumption expenditures price index, not a rule that mechanically triggers a decision whenever CPI crosses a particular threshold.

For Homebuyers, This Becomes a Monthly Payment

Freddie Mac’s September 10 survey put the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate at 6.76%, compared with 6.71% the previous week and 6.35% a year earlier. That is a weekly survey, not a promise of the rate available to a particular borrower today.

Consider a $400,000 loan repaid over 30 years. At 6.35%, principal and interest are approximately $2,489 per month. At 6.76%, they are approximately $2,597. The difference is about $108 a month, or $1,297 a year, for the same loan balance and repayment period.

Illustrative calculation—not a mortgage quote

TED calculated those payments using standard monthly amortization over 360 payments. Taxes, homeowners insurance, mortgage insurance, closing costs and fees are excluded. The comparison changes only the interest rate; it does not assume any change in the home’s price or a guaranteed future refinancing opportunity.

That is how a rate discussion becomes a housing decision. The borrower must find more room in the monthly budget, put more money down, buy less house or postpone the purchase. None requires an immediate collapse in home prices to make affordability worse.

An existing fixed-rate borrower’s contractual principal-and-interest payment does not rise merely because Treasury yields rise. New purchases and refinancing face the new financing environment. Keeping those groups separate prevents a genuine affordability problem from being exaggerated into a claim that every mortgage payment resets overnight.

Businesses and Taxpayers Face the Same Arithmetic

A business does not have to borrow at the Treasury rate for the bond market to matter. Its borrowing price also reflects credit risk, loan terms and the lender’s funding conditions. A higher underlying cost of money can make a planned expansion less attractive even when sales prospects have not changed.

As a simple illustration, an extra percentage point on a $1 million interest-only borrowing balance means $10,000 more in annual interest. That is not a forecast for every loan or an estimate of job losses. It shows why a relatively small-looking rate change can alter a real investment decision.

The federal government faces a related timing issue. Existing fixed-rate notes retain their stated interest rate. Higher market rates affect the cost of new borrowing and the terms available as maturing debt is refinanced; they do not instantly reprice the entire outstanding debt stock.

For scale, a one-percentage-point increase applied to $1 trillion of newly issued or refinanced debt would add approximately $10 billion in annual interest, holding that amount and rate difference constant. That is illustrative arithmetic, not an estimate of this week’s budget impact.

Fiscal choices therefore matter to the discussion, but this article does not claim that the latest yield move identifies a precise fiscal-policy premium. Bond yields are market prices shaped by multiple expectations, not an accounting statement assigning each basis point to a particular president.

The Strongest Counterargument Deserves to Be Heard

Higher yields do not necessarily mean investors expect a recession or doubt that the government can pay. They can also be consistent with expectations of stronger growth or a higher path for short-term rates. A yield alone cannot distinguish those explanations.

There is also a legitimate concern about using interest rates to respond to an energy supply shock. Raising borrowing costs cannot repair a damaged pipeline. It can restrain demand, but that can place additional strain on borrowers who are already paying more for essential fuel.

The answer is not to assume that a rate hike is always wise, or that a cut is always irresponsible. The relevant questions are whether the shock persists, whether it spreads and whether policy remains credible. Demanding the lowest rates regardless of the evidence is not a substitute for answering them.

What to Watch This Week

The Federal Reserve meets September 15–16, with its announcement scheduled for 2 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday. At this article’s morning publication point, that decision is still in the future. Market expectations are not an announced policy action.

The immediate decision will matter, but so will the explanation of what comes next. A headline rate change without a convincing account of inflation, employment and future policy may leave the longer-term uncertainty unresolved.

Afterward, watch actual Treasury trading and newly quoted borrowing terms rather than assuming that every rate moved in the same direction. The test for borrowers is the cost they can obtain, not the label attached to the announcement.

What Can Be Concluded on September 14

Observed repricing

The reported daily series and market quotations document elevated long-term financing costs. They are identified separately rather than mixed into a false single-day change.

Policy distinction

An overnight policy target is not a ten-year yield or a mortgage quote. Changes in one influence, but do not mechanically determine, the others.

Real exposure

New borrowers and refinancing borrowers face a different decision from owners of existing fixed-rate debt.

Competing explanations

Inflation expectations, growth, prospective policy and compensation for longer-term risk can all influence yields. The latest reading does not isolate their individual contributions.

Unresolved decision

The September Fed announcement has not happened at this article’s cutoff. This article does not present market probabilities as a policy decision.

Editorial judgment

Sustained affordability requires confidence in the economic outlook. Political demands for cheap money cannot replace the conditions that make lenders willing to provide it.

The Bottom Line

America does not have to experience a dramatic financial crisis for higher borrowing costs to do damage. A home purchase can be delayed. An expansion can be shelved. More of a future public budget can be committed to interest rather than other priorities.

None of that proves that every rate increase is a policy failure. It does mean that affordability cannot be evaluated only at the checkout counter while ignoring the cost of financing a home, a business or the government itself.

The useful question is not whether Trump wants lower rates. It is whether the policies and economic conditions confronting lenders give them a reason to accept them.

Primary documentation and reporting

  1. Reuters — Trump’s interest-rate remarks on Sunday, September 13
  2. The Wall Street Journal / Tradeweb — Monday morning 10-year Treasury quotation
  3. Reuters — September 14 market report identifying Friday’s 10-year yield high
  4. Federal Reserve / FRED — Daily 10-year constant-maturity Treasury series, DGS10
  5. Freddie Mac — Primary Mortgage Market Survey, September 10, 2026
  6. BLS — August 2026 Consumer Price Index, released September 11
  7. Federal Reserve Bank of New York — The overnight federal funds market
  8. Federal Reserve — How the FOMC and monetary policy operate
  9. Federal Reserve — September 2026 meeting and announcement calendar
  10. Reuters — Competing investor views on the September Fed decision
  11. Federal Reserve — Long-term yields, expectations and term premiums; background explanation, March 1, 2013
  12. Federal Reserve — Definition of the longer-run inflation objective
  13. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — Fixed-rate versus adjustable-rate mortgages
  14. TreasuryDirect — Fixed interest payments and maturities of Treasury notes

This September 14, 2026 morning edition distinguishes Monday’s reported benchmark quotation, Friday’s intraday high, the dated Federal Reserve constant-maturity observations and Freddie Mac’s weekly survey. None is presented as Monday’s closing value. Financing examples are calculations, not personalized quotes or forecasts. The September 16 Fed decision remains prospective.

The post Trump Wants the World’s Lowest Rates. The Bond Market Is Pushing Toward 5%. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]> 529 Diesel Hits a Record. Trump’s Energy Problem Is Becoming Everyone’s Bill. https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/diesel-record-energy-prices-trump-september-14-2026/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=diesel-record-energy-prices-trump-september-14-2026 Mon, 14 Sep 2026 14:02:02 +0000 https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/?p=525 The post Diesel Hits a Record. Trump’s Energy Problem Is Becoming Everyone’s Bill. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]>

Energy & Prices

Diesel Hits a Record. Trump’s Energy Problem Is Becoming Everyone’s Bill.

A new oil rally is arriving on top of an already painful fuel bill. The danger is not just another expensive fill-up: it is the pressure that higher energy costs can put on businesses, household budgets and the next round of price increases.

Morning edition 8-minute read Market observation times noted below
Regular gasoline $4.32 Per gallon. AAA national average, Sept. 14.
Diesel · record $6.23 Per gallon. AAA national average, Sept. 14.
WTI crude $102.82 Per barrel. Sept. 14, 8:18 a.m. ET.
Brent crude $107.82 Per barrel. Same intraday observation.

There are two different energy stories this morning, and neither offers much comfort to an American household trying to keep its budget intact.

The first is already on the pump: AAA’s national diesel average has reached its highest recorded level. The second is another move higher in the oil market. At 8:18 a.m. Eastern on Monday, WTI was up 2.8% and Brent was up 3.1%, according to Reuters’ market report.

Those are related developments, but they are not interchangeable. Today’s retail averages do not represent an instant pass-through of today’s crude trading. The concern is that another sustained increase in input costs could make an existing affordability problem harder to reverse.

The economic damage is not confined to the price on the gas-station sign. It is the money that cannot be spent anywhere else.

The Household Bill Is Already Larger

Using AAA’s current and year-ago national averages, a 15-gallon purchase of regular gasoline costs about $64.74 today versus $47.63 a year earlier—an additional $17.12. For diesel, the same comparison adds $253.78 to a 100-gallon purchase. These are TED calculations at fixed quantities, not estimates of every household’s or company’s actual spending.

The practical question is what gives way. A driver who cannot reduce a commute has to absorb the cost elsewhere. A business that must keep vehicles running can accept a smaller margin, try to raise its prices, find efficiencies or reduce other spending. None of those choices makes the underlying expense disappear.

That does not mean every extra dollar of fuel becomes a dollar of grocery inflation. Contracts, competition, profit margins and customer demand determine how much a business can pass along. It means higher fuel costs create a distribution problem: someone has to carry the bill.

Evidence label: price levels versus price forecasts

The pump figures above are observed national averages. The crude figures are timestamped market quotations, not Monday’s settlement prices. The spending examples hold gallons constant. None is a prediction that every consumer will pay the same price or that prices must keep rising.

The Supply Problem Is About Routes, Not Just Wells

The Wall Street Journal reports that a drone attack disabled Saudi Arabia’s East–West Pipeline, threatening a route that moves crude toward Red Sea export facilities while bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. The significance is not simply another damaged asset. An alternative route is less useful as insurance when it becomes vulnerable too.

A temporary shutdown is not proof of a permanent loss of the pipeline’s full capacity. The duration of repairs, available storage and actual export loadings will determine the physical shortage. A price reaction can occur before those questions are resolved because buyers are also paying for the risk that replacement supply will be harder to obtain.

The EIA’s September global oil assessment had already identified constrained Middle Eastern flows. It links part of the disruption to the renewed U.S. blockade of Iranian oil exports following Iranian tanker attacks, alongside additional Treasury sanctions. It also describes attacks on Saudi export routes and the difficulty of substituting longer, costlier shipping arrangements.

That record does not support blaming every lost barrel on Washington. It does support rejecting the opposite fiction: that American policy choices are economically irrelevant to the conflict’s supply consequences.

Diesel Has Its Own Supply Squeeze

Crude oil is only the starting point. In its September petroleum-products outlook, the EIA forecasts U.S. distillate inventories below 100 million barrels during September, with stocks remaining below the seasonal five-year range through the rest of 2026. Distillates include diesel and heating oil.

The agency identifies a difficult combination: disrupted international product supply, export demand for U.S. fuel, autumn refinery maintenance and seasonal agricultural demand. Strong American production can coexist with a tight domestic fuel market when overseas buyers are competing for the same refined products.

The distinction matters. Additional crude production is helpful only to the extent that the whole chain can turn it into the products buyers need and get those products to them. A promise about drilling is not, by itself, a solution to every refinery, inventory or shipping constraint.

Forecast caution: the model predates the latest shock

The EIA released this outlook on September 9, but completed its forecast on September 3. The inventory figure is a forecast, not a confirmed September closing balance. Its projections cannot be treated as a fresh assessment of every attack reported since the model was completed.

Why American Production Does Not Create an American Price Bubble

The EIA forecasts U.S. crude production of 13.8 million barrels per day in 2026. That is substantial supply, and it is a reason not to describe the United States as powerless. But a domestic production forecast is not a guarantee of cheap retail fuel.

As the EIA explains in its gasoline-price guide, crude costs are only one part of the retail price; refining, distribution, marketing and taxes also matter. Oil and petroleum products trade across borders. A domestic seller’s alternatives influence what it will accept from a domestic buyer.

More supply can make prices lower than they otherwise would have been. That is a defensible economic argument. Claiming that domestic production should prevent a global disruption from affecting American consumers is a much stronger claim—and one that the market structure does not support.

Retail prices also adjust through a supply chain rather than a single national switch. A one-day move in crude does not establish the size or timing of the next change at the pump. Persistent increases matter more than a fleeting quotation, and local market conditions can produce different outcomes.

The Inflation Risk Is Real, but It Should Not Be Exaggerated

The August CPI report, released September 11, shows gasoline up 3.9% for the month, accounting for more than one-third of the monthly increase in the overall index. That is evidence of an existing inflation contribution—not a forecast about this week’s events.

It is also important not to treat every form of energy as the same market. The same report showed monthly declines in electricity and utility natural-gas prices. An oil shock does not mean every utility bill rises simultaneously or by the same percentage.

The forward-looking concern is persistence. If expensive fuel remains expensive, companies have longer to adjust contracts and selling prices. If the shock fades quickly, the wider consequences may be smaller. Neither outcome should be announced as a certainty before it happens.

The Strongest Case for the Administration—and Its Limit

The administration can argue that sanctions and military pressure serve security goals that cannot be judged solely by gasoline prices. Treasury’s explanation of its Iranian sanctions campaign emphasizes weapons procurement, attacks, cyber activity and networks financing the regime. Those are the government’s stated objectives, not a promise of immediate consumer savings.

It can also argue that domestic energy development improves resilience. The reasonable test is whether policy reduces vulnerability over time, not whether a president can personally prevent every foreign attack.

But those arguments do not eliminate the tradeoff. A policy can have a claimed security rationale and still impose a measurable economic cost. The public deserves an explanation of both. Treating higher fuel bills as unrelated background noise while taking political credit for any decline is not an honest accounting standard.

What Can Be Concluded on September 14

Observed condition

The reported retail and crude readings describe an expensive starting point, not a guaranteed future path. Sources and observation times are identified above.

Documented mechanism

EIA identifies disrupted export flows and tight refined-product supply as contributors to the energy squeeze.

Policy connection

The blockade and sanctions are part of the documented supply picture. They are not the only causes, and this article does not estimate a Trump-specific share of each gallon’s price.

Household and business exposure

Holding fuel use constant makes the added expense unavoidable. How households or firms offset it is a separate behavioral question.

Open question

The duration of infrastructure outages and the volume of fuel actually delivered will matter more than a single dramatic market quotation.

Editorial judgment

Energy policy should be judged by delivered supply, resilience and costs—not by assuming that more drilling automatically insulates consumers from conflict.

The Bottom Line

The defensible criticism is not that Trump personally sets a price at every gas station. It is that energy policy must be evaluated as a whole: production, trade, conflict, infrastructure and the costs passed through to the public.

A household cannot pay its bills with a claim about how much worse prices might have been. That counterfactual may matter to an economic evaluation, but the actual expense still has to be paid.

The administration is entitled to defend its choices. It is not entitled to discuss their benefits while asking Americans to ignore the bill.

Primary documentation and reporting

  1. AAA — National gasoline and diesel averages, September 14, 2026
  2. Reuters — Monday oil prices; observation at 12:18 GMT on September 14
  3. The Wall Street Journal — Saudi pipeline attack and export-route risks, September 14
  4. EIA — September Short-Term Energy Outlook: global oil markets
  5. EIA — September Short-Term Energy Outlook: petroleum products
  6. EIA — September outlook overview; forecast completed September 3
  7. EIA — Factors affecting gasoline prices
  8. EIA — Gasoline price fluctuations and market transmission
  9. BLS — August 2026 Consumer Price Index, released September 11
  10. U.S. Treasury — Stated rationale and targets of its Iranian sanctions campaign

This September 14, 2026 morning edition uses the dated readings identified above. Crude quotations are intraday, not closing prices. Later changes to dynamic source pages do not change this article’s recorded observations. Analysis and conditional risks are distinguished from observed data; no precise attribution of the retail increase to one policy is claimed.

The post Diesel Hits a Record. Trump’s Energy Problem Is Becoming Everyone’s Bill. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]> 525 Saudi Oil Escape Route Shut Due to Iranian Drone Attacks. https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/saudi-oil-east-west-pipeline-attacked/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=saudi-oil-east-west-pipeline-attacked Fri, 11 Sep 2026 19:10:20 +0000 https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/?p=518 The post Saudi Oil Escape Route Shut Due to Iranian Drone Attacks. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]>

Energy & Prices

Saudi Arabia’s Oil Escape Route May Be Shut. Oil’s Backup Plan Is Now at Risk.

Satellite imagery shows smoke near the East-West Pipeline after reports of drone strikes, but Saudi Arabia has not confirmed a shutdown. If flow is materially interrupted, a route capable of moving 7 million barrels a day around Hormuz is compromised while Bab el-Mandeb is also under Houthi pressure.

September 11, 2026 Breaking afternoon edition 14-minute read Source cutoff: 1:55 p.m. CT
East-West maximum capacity 7.0M bpd Aramco’s stated maximum; capacity is not the same as current throughput or lost supply.
Saudi August crude supply 6.0M bpd IEA estimate—the kingdom’s lowest market supply in more than three decades.
Brent / WTI at 11:33 a.m. ET $105.17 / $100.04 Both remained on course for weekly gains above 9% despite Friday’s pullback.
U.S. gasoline / diesel $4.2950 / $6.0556 AAA national averages on September 11; diesel is at a record nominal high.

Verification status

As of the 1:55 p.m. Central source cutoff, Reuters had verified satellite imagery showing smoke in the vicinity of Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline south of Medina. Saudi Arabia and state oil company Aramco had not confirmed an attack, shutdown, damage level or reduction in flow. Reports describing drone strikes and a shutdown should therefore be treated as unconfirmed. This article analyzes the market consequences if a material interruption is verified.

A pipeline can be repaired. Redundancy is harder to replace.

Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline is not merely another piece of oil infrastructure. It is the kingdom’s principal escape route around the Strait of Hormuz—the system designed to move crude from the eastern oil-producing region across the country to the Red Sea port of Yanbu.

That role has become critical during the six-month U.S.-Iran war. Traffic through Hormuz has collapsed from its prewar norm, forcing Saudi Arabia to rely heavily on the westbound route. Aramco said earlier this year that the pipeline reached a maximum capacity of 7 million barrels per day and called it a critical supply artery.

Now the backup route itself may have been hit.

Reuters verified satellite imagery showing black smoke near the pipeline on Thursday. At the same time, Iran-aligned Houthi forces advanced to Perim Island in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait—the maritime exit from the Red Sea that many Yanbu cargoes need to reach Asian buyers.

If the pipeline is operating normally, some of Friday’s fear premium can unwind. If a pumping station or line segment is damaged but repaired quickly, storage and reduced throughput may bridge the interruption. If the route is materially shut for weeks while Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb remain constrained, the market loses the redundancy that has prevented an already serious oil shock from becoming a much larger physical shortage.

The danger is not simply losing one pipeline. It is losing the pipeline built to replace the shipping route already under attack.

What Is Confirmed—and What Is Not

The verified facts are serious enough without converting uncertainty into certainty.

Reuters confirmed that satellite imagery from September 10 showed smoke rising near the East-West Pipeline south of Medina. It also reported that the Saudi government media office and Aramco did not respond immediately to requests for comment.

That means four crucial facts remained unknown at the source cutoff:

  • Whether the pipeline itself was struck or the smoke came from nearby infrastructure.
  • Whether drones, missiles, sabotage or an industrial accident caused the fire.
  • Whether any pumping station or pipeline segment was shut.
  • How much crude flow, if any, was interrupted and for how long.

The distinction matters because oil prices respond to both physical supply and the probability of future loss. Traders do not need a confirmed outage to add a risk premium. A confirmed shutdown determines whether that premium is supported by missing barrels rather than fear alone.

A responsible article therefore should not say that seven million barrels per day have disappeared. That would confuse the pipeline’s maximum capacity with its actual current flow—and assume a complete shutdown that Saudi Arabia has not acknowledged.

Evidence classification

Verified: smoke was visible near the pipeline; Saudi Arabia had not confirmed an incident; Aramco states the route can reach 7 million barrels per day; Saudi market supply fell to 6 million barrels per day in August; Brent and WTI remain above $100. Reported but unconfirmed: drone strikes, pumping-station damage and a shutdown. TED analysis: the seven-day loss scenarios and their likely market implications. Unknown: current pipeline throughput, repair time, available storage and whether exports from Yanbu are continuing.

Why This Pipeline Is the Market’s Backup Plan

The International Energy Agency estimates that nearly 20 million barrels per day of oil and petroleum products moved through the Strait of Hormuz in 2025. That represented roughly one-quarter of global seaborne oil trade.

Saudi Arabia alone moved approximately 6.23 million barrels per day of crude and products through Hormuz during 2025. When the strait became severely constrained during the current war, that volume needed another route.

The East-West system connects Abqaiq in eastern Saudi Arabia with Yanbu on the Red Sea. Aramco reported that the line reached its maximum 7 million-barrel-per-day capacity during the first quarter, supporting exports from the west coast.

The IEA is more cautious about what that number means operationally. It describes the original design capacity as 5 million barrels per day and notes that sustained operation at 7 million had not been robustly tested at the time of its February factsheet. In early 2026, it estimated that approximately 2 million barrels per day was being used, leaving 3 million to 5 million barrels per day of spare capacity depending on conditions.

The war changed those conditions. Aramco later said it had pushed the line to its maximum, and Reuters reported that roughly 5 million barrels per day was being exported from Yanbu during part of the first quarter.

The safest conclusion is not that exactly 7 million barrels per day was flowing on Thursday. It is that the system had become the most important Saudi alternative to Hormuz and had been operated far above its peacetime use.

Capacity Is Not the Same as Lost Supply

The most misleading number in a pipeline emergency is often the largest one.

Seven million barrels per day is a maximum-capacity figure. It does not tell the public how much oil was in the line before the incident, which pumping stations were active, how much could be rerouted inside the system or how much crude is already stored at Yanbu.

It also does not mean Saudi production falls instantly by the same amount. A producer can temporarily send crude into storage, reduce field output, redirect some barrels through another route or use cargoes already loaded outside the affected system.

Seven-day flow-loss scenarios

April-scale partial loss 700,000 bpd 4.9 million barrels over seven days Material but potentially manageable with storage and rapid repair.
Illustrative current-flow loss 2 million bpd 14 million barrels over seven days Large enough to tighten prompt supply and support a sustained risk premium.
Major operational disruption 5 million bpd 35 million barrels over seven days Would make a retest of recent highs near $110 more likely if other routes remain constrained.
Maximum-capacity scenario 7 million bpd 49 million barrels over seven days A ceiling illustration—not a claim that this volume is currently flowing or lost.

The final row is deliberately labeled a ceiling illustration. A complete seven-million-barrel-per-day loss for seven days would remove 49 million barrels from potential movement. It would not prove that 49 million barrels of production vanished, because storage and alternative logistics could preserve some deliveries.

The scenario table is useful because it converts an abstract capacity number into time. Even a 700,000-barrel-per-day reduction accumulates to nearly 5 million barrels in one week. A multi-million-barrel interruption quickly becomes too large to dismiss as a local maintenance issue.

The April Attack Shows Both the Risk and the Repair Capacity

Saudi Arabia has already faced a version of this problem during the current war.

An April attack reduced East-West Pipeline throughput by approximately 700,000 barrels per day, according to the Saudi Energy Ministry. Other attacks simultaneously reduced production capacity at fields and facilities.

Saudi authorities subsequently said the pipeline’s full seven-million-barrel-per-day pumping capacity had been restored by April 12.

That precedent argues against assuming a long shutdown before engineers assess the damage. Aramco has extensive redundancy, spare equipment, repair crews and domestic storage. A damaged pumping station can sometimes be bypassed or repaired faster than a damaged export terminal.

It also shows that attacks can reduce flow without destroying the entire system. A partial outage matters when the pipeline is carrying a large share of national exports, even if the physical damage is repaired within days.

The April experience cannot determine the current repair time. The location, number of strikes, equipment damaged and security environment may differ.

Saudi Arabia Now Faces a Two-Chokepoint Problem

The pipeline solves only the first geographic problem.

It moves crude around the Strait of Hormuz to Yanbu. The oil still has to leave the Red Sea.

For cargoes headed toward Asia, the direct route runs south through Bab el-Mandeb. Houthi forces reached Perim Island on Friday, giving them a stronger position near the narrow passage. The group has said Saudi-linked vessels remain subject to its blockade.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that Yanbu exports fell by about half in August compared with July as attacks made the Red Sea route less reliable. Saudi Arabia increased shipments north through the Suez Canal, but that is a longer and more expensive route for Asian customers.

The resulting geometry is extraordinary:

  • Hormuz, the normal eastern outlet, remains severely impaired.
  • The East-West Pipeline, the overland bypass, may have been damaged.
  • Yanbu, the western export terminal, depends on Red Sea shipping.
  • Bab el-Mandeb, the southern exit toward Asia, is under intensified Houthi pressure.

A pipeline outage by itself is manageable if tankers can move normally elsewhere. A shipping disruption is manageable if the overland bypass is secure. The risk becomes nonlinear when the backup route and its maritime exit are threatened at the same time.

What the Pipeline Threat Could Do to Oil Prices

Friday’s market already demonstrated how sensitive crude has become to incomplete information.

Brent fell to $105.17 and WTI to $100.04 at 11:33 a.m. Eastern after reports that regional officials might discuss a temporary shipping arrangement with Iran. Both benchmarks had reached their highest levels since May earlier in the session and remained on course for weekly gains above 9%.

The pullback did not mean the pipeline concern was irrelevant. It showed that potential diplomacy at Hormuz briefly outweighed one unconfirmed infrastructure threat.

Scenario 1: No material shutdown

If Aramco confirms that the smoke came from nearby infrastructure or that pipeline flows continued normally, part of the newest risk premium could unwind. Prices would still reflect the broader Iran war, Houthi control near Bab el-Mandeb, depleted inventories and refinery shortages.

Scenario 2: A short, partial outage

An April-scale reduction repaired within days would be disruptive but potentially manageable. Saudi storage could keep some cargoes moving, and the market might treat the incident primarily as proof that the route remains vulnerable. Brent would likely remain volatile and supported above pre-escalation levels.

Scenario 3: A multi-million-barrel interruption lasting weeks

This is the scenario that would materially tighten the physical market. A two-million-barrel-per-day loss for two weeks equals 28 million barrels. A five-million-barrel-per-day loss equals 70 million barrels.

Under that condition, a retest of this week’s near-$110 highs would become more plausible, and bank tail-risk scenarios around $120 Brent would deserve more weight. Goldman Sachs has described prices near or above $120 as possible if attacks broaden and Gulf flows remain several million barrels per day below normal. That is a scenario analysis—not a forecast that this pipeline event will produce $120 oil.

Scenario 4: Prolonged loss of the bypass while both straits remain constrained

A sustained near-full outage would force Saudi Arabia to reduce production as storage fills, ration available export capacity or accept much longer and more expensive routes. At that point, the market would be dealing with a physical shortage rather than a temporary security premium.

Prices would rise until supply increased, inventories were released, the route reopened or demand fell. The last mechanism—demand destruction—means consumers and businesses reduce fuel use because the price becomes unaffordable. It is how an undersupplied oil market eventually balances, and it is economically painful.

The Market’s Buffers Are Already Thinner

The same pipeline incident would have a smaller effect in a well-supplied market with rising inventories.

That is not the market today.

The International Energy Agency now expects world oil supply to decline by 5.7 million barrels per day in 2026. Global inventories fell at a record pace of 3.1 million barrels per day in August, according to the agency.

Saudi crude supply fell by 2.3 million barrels per day in August to 6 million—the lowest level in more than three decades. The IEA uses “supply” to describe barrels reaching the market plus domestic use, and its estimate differs from figures Saudi Arabia reported to OPEC. The direction of the disruption is not in dispute.

Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said Friday that the stockpile and floating-storage buffers that restrained prices earlier in the war have largely been used. He said the near-term risks remain tilted toward higher prices.

The IEA’s warning is similar: inventories have balanced the market, but those inventories are shrinking while the global refining system is stretched.

A pipeline interruption therefore arrives after the first layers of protection have already absorbed months of disruption.

Storage Can Buy Time, Not Replace a Route

Aramco has domestic and international storage, and crude already positioned at Yanbu could continue loading even if inbound pipeline flow stopped temporarily.

That creates an important lag. A pipeline can be shut today without export cargoes falling by the same amount today. The visible effect appears as tanks are drawn down, scheduled cargoes are delayed and field production is reduced to avoid overflowing storage upstream.

Saudi inventories were already declining by an estimated 400,000 barrels per day in August, according to the IEA. That does not mean the country has no buffer. It means the buffer has already been doing work.

Other workarounds exist: limited Hormuz transits, Suez routing, ship-to-ship transfers, the UAE’s pipeline to Fujairah and additional non-OPEC production. Each workaround has a capacity, security, timing or cost limit.

The East-West route matters because it concentrates several million barrels per day of optionality inside one system. Replacing that optionality with dozens of smaller workarounds is slower and more expensive.

The U.S. Price Effect Would Arrive Through Brent

American crude production does not insulate American consumers from a global supply shock.

U.S. gasoline prices are more closely linked to Brent than to West Texas Intermediate because crude and refined products trade across global markets. When a Saudi export route is threatened, the replacement value of available barrels rises—including barrels produced in the United States.

AAA’s September 11 national averages were $4.2950 for regular gasoline and $6.0556 for diesel. Diesel was at a record nominal high.

EIA’s general rule of thumb is that a sustained $1-per-barrel change in crude creates about 2.4 cents per gallon of gasoline pressure, all else equal.

A sustained additional $10 increase in Brent would therefore imply roughly 24 cents per gallon of gasoline pressure under the historical relationship—about $3.60 on a 15-gallon fill-up. Refinery margins, regional inventories, taxes and distribution can make the actual result larger, smaller or slower.

Diesel may react even more sharply because the global distillate market is already tight from Gulf disruptions and attacks on Russian refineries.

Today’s CPI Report Does Not Include Today’s Threat

The August Consumer Price Index rose 0.4% during the month and 3.4% over the year. Gasoline rose 3.9% and accounted for more than one-third of the monthly all-items increase. Energy rose 2.1%.

Those figures are already difficult for households and the Federal Reserve. They are also backward-looking.

A September pipeline interruption cannot appear in August CPI. It would first affect September wholesale and retail prices, then appear in later inflation data according to the timing and duration of the shock.

The Federal Reserve meets next week with inflation already above target, oil above $100 and diesel above $6. A confirmed Saudi pipeline shutdown would strengthen the case that the energy shock is broadening rather than fading.

Responsibility Should Be Assigned Carefully

If drones struck the pipeline, responsibility for that attack belongs to the force that launched them. The Houthis are aligned with Iran, but Saudi Arabia had not officially identified an attacker or confirmed the incident by the source cutoff.

The broader economic environment also has a policy history. The East-West route became indispensable because the U.S.-Iran war severely constrained Hormuz. The Trump administration controls the American side of escalation and de-escalation, even though it does not control Iran, the Houthis or every regional actor.

That does not make Trump the author of every drone strike. It does mean the energy cost belongs in the assessment of the war he chose to enter and continue.

The administration can argue that its security objectives justify the cost. It cannot describe the resulting oil, diesel, gasoline and inflation pressure as an unrelated market accident.

What to Watch Next

  • An official Saudi Energy Ministry or Aramco statement confirming whether the pipeline was hit.
  • The location and number of damaged pumping stations or line segments.
  • Actual throughput before and after the incident—not only maximum capacity.
  • Tanker loadings from Yanbu and Saudi use of domestic storage.
  • Vessel traffic through Bab el-Mandeb and Hormuz over the weekend.
  • Whether Monday’s proposed regional shipping talks produce a verifiable arrangement.
  • The reopening timeline if a shutdown is confirmed.

The first official throughput number will matter more than the most dramatic social-media claim. Repair time will matter more than the initial fire image. And tanker loadings will matter more than statements about nominal capacity.

The Verdict

Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline may have been damaged and may be shut. That was not officially confirmed by the source cutoff.

The uncertainty should narrow the claim—not the concern.

The line is the kingdom’s primary oil bypass around an already-impaired Strait of Hormuz. It can move up to 7 million barrels per day to the Red Sea. Houthi forces are simultaneously increasing pressure near Bab el-Mandeb, the maritime exit used by many Yanbu cargoes.

A short partial outage could be managed with storage and repairs. A multi-week interruption measured in millions of barrels per day would tighten a market already drawing down inventories at record speed. It would keep Brent’s risk premium elevated, make another move toward $110 more likely and give $120 tail-risk scenarios greater credibility.

A confirmed full shutdown would not automatically mean seven million barrels per day disappeared. Capacity is not flow, and pipeline flow is not identical to production.

It would mean something almost as important: the market’s most important Saudi backup route could no longer be treated as reliable.

Oil prices rise not only when barrels vanish, but when the system loses confidence that the next barrel can reach the buyer.

That confidence is now under attack.

Primary Documentation and Reporting

  1. Reuters: Verified satellite imagery showing smoke near the East-West Pipeline, lack of Saudi confirmation and the Houthi advance to Perim Island.
  2. Reuters: September 11 Brent and WTI prices, weekly gains, pipeline concern and the market reaction to possible Hormuz talks.
  3. Saudi Aramco: Official first-quarter statement that the East-West Pipeline reached a maximum capacity of 7 million barrels per day.
  4. International Energy Agency: Hormuz flows, Saudi alternative-route capacity, East-West design and operational caveats, and potential market impact.
  5. U.S. Energy Information Administration: September outlook on Yanbu exports, Suez rerouting, Middle East shut-ins, inventory drawdowns and price volatility.
  6. Reuters: IEA forecast for a 5.7-million-barrel-per-day global supply decline and record August inventory depletion.
  7. Reuters: Saudi crude supply at 6 million barrels per day, the distinction between supply and production, and falling loadings.
  8. Reuters: Chevron CEO Mike Wirth’s assessment that earlier oil-market buffers have been depleted and near-term risks remain upward.
  9. Reuters: Record Middle East tanker rates and the added shipping-cost effect from attacks near Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb.
  10. Reuters: April 2026 Saudi pipeline attack and the initial assessment of damage and route importance.
  11. Reuters: Saudi Energy Ministry report that April attacks reduced East-West Pipeline throughput by approximately 700,000 barrels per day.
  12. Saudi Press Agency: Official April statement that affected facilities and the East-West Pipeline returned to full operating capacity.
  13. AAA: September 11 national averages for gasoline and diesel, including the record nominal diesel price.
  14. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: August CPI, gasoline and energy changes, and gasoline’s contribution to the monthly inflation increase.
  15. U.S. Energy Information Administration: General relationship between sustained crude-oil changes and U.S. gasoline prices.
  16. Reuters / Goldman Sachs scenario reporting: Bank scenario that broader Middle East shipping attacks could push Brent toward $120, presented as tail risk rather than a base forecast.

This breaking edition was prepared from public information available by 1:55 p.m. Central Time / 2:55 p.m. Eastern Time on September 11, 2026. Reuters had verified smoke near the East-West Pipeline, but Saudi Arabia and Aramco had not confirmed an attack, shutdown, damage estimate or reduction in flow. The seven-day barrel-loss figures are scenario calculations, not observed losses. Brent, WTI, gasoline and diesel prices change continuously. Update the headline, verification note, fact cards, throughput discussion and verdict immediately if Saudi Arabia confirms or denies a shutdown.

The post Saudi Oil Escape Route Shut Due to Iranian Drone Attacks. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]> 518 Mortgage Rates Just Hit 7%. Trump’s Promise of Cheaper Housing Is Moving Backward. https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/mortgage-rates-today-hit-7-trump-housing-affordability-moving-backward/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mortgage-rates-today-hit-7-trump-housing-affordability-moving-backward Fri, 11 Sep 2026 13:22:14 +0000 https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/?p=513 The post Mortgage Rates Just Hit 7%. Trump’s Promise of Cheaper Housing Is Moving Backward. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]>

Housing & Public Cost

Mortgage Rates Just Hit 7%. Trump’s Promise of Cheaper Housing Is Moving Backward.

Mortgage News Daily’s benchmark reached 7.07%, while Freddie Mac’s lagging weekly average was 6.76%. On a $400,000 loan, the move from February’s 5.99% rate adds about $284 a month and cuts borrowing power by more than $42,000.

September 11, 2026 Second morning edition 13-minute read Source cutoff: 7:15 a.m. CT
Daily 30-year mortgage 7.07% Mortgage News Daily’s September 10 index—the highest since May 2025.
Freddie Mac weekly average 6.76% A prior-days average, not a contradiction of the newer daily reading.
$400K payment increase +$284/mo Difference between 7.07% and February’s 5.99%, principal and interest only.
Existing-home sales 3.98M Seasonally adjusted annual rate in August, the lowest in 14 months.

The 30-year mortgage rate crossed 7% Thursday afternoon.

Mortgage News Daily’s daily index reached 7.07%, up from 6.97% one day earlier and 6.89% two days earlier. It was the highest reading since May 21, 2025 and the first time the benchmark had moved above 7% in more than a year.

That number is not the rate every borrower will receive. Individual offers depend on credit score, down payment, loan size, property type, occupancy, discount points and the lender’s pricing. It is a national benchmark for a top-tier conventional borrower, not a universal quote.

It is still a major reversal.

The same daily index reached a 52-week low of 5.99% earlier this year after President Donald Trump announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy mortgage-backed securities to push borrowing costs down. By Thursday, the entire decline had been erased.

On a $400,000, 30-year loan, the principal-and-interest payment rises from approximately $2,396 at 5.99% to $2,680 at 7.07%. That is about $284 more every month, before property taxes, homeowners insurance, mortgage insurance, association fees or maintenance.

The housing-affordability crisis is often discussed as though it is a future problem requiring a future solution. For a household trying to lock a loan today, the cost is present.

Trump briefly pushed mortgage rates below 6%. The market has now repriced the war, inflation, debt and strong economy back above 7%.

Why One Source Says 7.07% and Another Says 6.76%

Freddie Mac released a different number on the same day.

Its Primary Mortgage Market Survey put the 30-year average at 6.76%, up from 6.71% one week earlier and 6.35% one year earlier.

The two figures do not mean one survey is false.

Freddie Mac’s figure is a weekly average based on mortgage applications submitted by lenders during the prior Thursday-through-Wednesday period. Mortgage News Daily publishes a weekday index around 4 p.m. Eastern and adjusts its comparisons for the effect of discount points.

Mortgage News Daily specifically warned that the Freddie number lagged Thursday’s market. The average lender moved approximately one-eighth of a percentage point higher during the day, after the weekly Freddie collection window had largely closed.

The proper description is therefore precise: the latest daily benchmark reached 7.07%, while the latest Freddie Mac weekly average was 6.76%.

Friday’s final daily mortgage index was not yet available at this article’s source cutoff. Mortgage-backed securities were trading somewhat better early Friday, which could pull some lender quotes lower. The 7.07% figure is the latest completed daily reading, not a prediction of where every lender will finish today.

What the payment math assumes

The article’s $284 monthly difference assumes a $400,000, 30-year fixed-rate loan with equal monthly principal-and-interest payments at 5.99% and 7.07%. It excludes taxes, insurance, points, fees and refinancing. If held for the full 30 years, the difference would total about $102,388—but many borrowers sell or refinance before maturity.

Seven Percent Removes More Than $42,000 of Borrowing Power

The monthly payment is only one way to measure the damage.

A buyer who could afford the $2,396 principal-and-interest payment on a $400,000 loan at 5.99% can finance only about $357,551 at 7.07% while keeping the same payment.

That is a loss of approximately $42,449 in loan capacity, or 10.6%.

With a constant 20% down-payment structure, the buyer’s maximum home price falls from approximately $500,000 to $446,939—a reduction of about $53,061.

That is how an interest-rate move becomes a housing-market move. Buyers do not merely decide whether to accept a larger payment. Many must bid on a smaller home, bring more cash, leave a more expensive neighborhood or stop shopping.

The effect is even clearer against the latest national price.

The median existing-home price was $429,100 in August. With 20% down, the loan would be $343,280. Principal and interest would be approximately $2,300 per month at 7.07%, compared with $2,056 at 5.99%—a difference of about $244 each month.

A real buyer may put down far less than 20%, which can add mortgage insurance and increase the financed amount. The illustration is conservative in the sense that it excludes those additional costs.

The Housing Market Was Already Stalling Before 7% Arrived

Existing-home sales fell 2% in August to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 3.98 million, the lowest level in 14 months. Sales declined in the Northeast, Midwest and South and were unchanged in the West.

Those closings largely reflect contracts signed in June and July, before Thursday’s 7.07% daily rate. The newest financing shock will appear, if it persists, in later contract and closing data.

Inventory is no longer moving in only one direction. The number of existing homes for sale rose to 1.62 million, the highest since November 2019. Supply reached 4.9 months at the current sales pace, the most in more than a decade.

More listings ordinarily help buyers. But the median price still rose 1.6% from one year earlier to $429,100. Higher inventory has not yet produced a national price decline large enough to offset the financing increase.

First-time buyers represented 30% of sales. That was better than the prior month, but below the 40% share the National Association of Realtors considers consistent with a robust market.

The housing market is therefore experiencing a peculiar freeze: more homes are available, sales are falling, prices remain elevated and new borrowers face financing costs near a 15-month high.

Trump’s Mortgage-Bond Intervention Worked—Briefly

Trump can point to one housing-policy action that had an immediate market effect.

In January, he directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase $200 billion in mortgage bonds. The goal was explicit: push mortgage rates and monthly payments lower.

The announcement helped narrow the spread between mortgage rates and Treasury yields, and the daily mortgage benchmark fell to 5.99%. The policy deserved credit for helping produce that short-term movement.

Economists warned that the scale was unlikely to overpower the much larger mortgage market or solve affordability without additional housing supply. The market has now demonstrated the limit of the intervention.

Mortgage-backed-security purchases can affect the spread lenders charge above Treasury yields. They cannot permanently suppress the Treasury benchmark when investors are repricing inflation, Federal Reserve policy, oil, fiscal deficits and competing demand for capital.

The policy did not necessarily fail because rates later increased. It addressed one component of the price. The administration’s broader economic environment overwhelmed it.

The 10-Year Treasury Is Driving the New Increase

Mortgage rates do not directly follow the federal-funds rate. They tend to move with mortgage-backed securities and longer-term Treasury yields, particularly the 10-year.

The 10-year Treasury yield rose as high as 4.979% early Friday, its highest level since late 2023. The 30-year Treasury reached its highest level since 2007.

Investors are demanding more compensation for several reasons.

Oil is above $100

Brent crude approached $110 during the week as attacks around key Middle East shipping routes intensified. Higher energy prices increase the risk that headline inflation remains elevated and that transportation costs spread into other categories.

Producer inflation was hotter

The Producer Price Index rose 0.4% in August and 5.4% over the year. Energy goods rose 4.2% during the month, while diesel producer prices jumped 24.1%.

PPI is not a direct forecast of consumer inflation, and one month does not establish a trend. It was strong enough to increase concern that the Federal Reserve may need to raise rather than cut rates.

The labor market was stronger than expected

Payrolls increased by 162,000 in August and unemployment remained 4.1%. Strong employment is good for workers and household income. It also reduces the urgency for the Fed to provide monetary support.

Federal borrowing remains heavy

Large deficits require the Treasury to sell more securities. The amount of debt is not the only factor determining yields, but investors must be willing to absorb the supply at a price they find attractive.

Reuters described the current move as a combination of oil-driven inflation fears, expected central-bank tightening and persistent concern over government borrowing. No one factor explains the full mortgage rate.

The Federal Reserve Cannot Simply Announce a 5% Mortgage

Trump has repeatedly demanded lower interest rates. Homebuyers may share that demand.

The Federal Reserve sets a target range for an overnight interbank rate. The current federal-funds target is 3.50% to 3.75%. The Fed does not set a retail 30-year mortgage rate.

A Fed rate cut can reduce expected future short-term rates and help lower Treasury yields. It can also fail to lower mortgages if investors conclude that the cut will allow inflation to remain higher.

That distinction is why presidential pressure can backfire. If markets believe the central bank is being pushed to prioritize election-year affordability over price stability, lenders may demand more compensation for long-term inflation risk.

Before Friday’s CPI report, futures markets placed a roughly 72% probability on a quarter-point Fed increase at the September 15–16 meeting. That probability is volatile and may change sharply after the inflation data.

The point is not that a hike is certain. It is that Trump’s demand for an immediate cut is colliding with market expectations moving in the opposite direction.

Seven Percent Is Not Historically Unprecedented

A 7% mortgage is not the highest rate in American history. Rates exceeded 8% in 2023 and were far higher during the inflationary decades before the modern low-rate era.

Historical comparison does not settle affordability.

A mortgage rate interacts with the home price, down payment, income, taxes, insurance and other debts. A rate that was manageable when homes cost much less relative to income can be punishing when the median existing home costs $429,100.

The relevant question for a buyer is not whether a parent once paid a higher nominal interest rate. It is whether the current household income can support the current home price at the current rate.

Lower Rates Alone Would Not Solve Housing

The administration’s desire for lower mortgage rates is understandable, but financing is only one side of the market.

Housing supply depends on land use, permitting, infrastructure, labor, materials, insurance and local construction economics. A lower mortgage rate can stimulate demand more quickly than builders can add homes.

If supply does not expand, cheaper financing can be capitalized into higher sale prices. Buyers may obtain a lower monthly rate while competing more aggressively for the same limited number of desirable homes.

When Freddie Mac’s weekly rate fell to 5.98% in February, economists warned that the decline alone was unlikely to create a housing boom without more supply. The warning remains valid now that rates have moved in the opposite direction.

A durable affordability program requires both cheaper, stable financing and more housing where people need to live. Neither can substitute completely for the other.

What Buyers Can—and Cannot—Control

A national benchmark is not a personal mortgage offer.

Borrowers can compare multiple lenders, negotiate fees, improve credit, increase a down payment, evaluate FHA or VA eligibility, and decide whether paying discount points makes sense for the expected holding period.

Mortgage News Daily’s September 10 page listed lower benchmark rates for FHA and VA loans than for top-tier conventional loans, though those products include different eligibility rules, insurance charges and funding fees.

Adjustable-rate mortgages and temporary buydowns can reduce the initial payment. They can also shift risk into later years. A temporary subsidy is not the same as a permanently lower rate, and an adjustable loan can become more expensive if market rates remain high.

Shopping can save money. It cannot restore the national rate environment to February.

The Verdict

Mortgage rates have crossed 7% on the latest daily benchmark.

The weekly Freddie Mac average is lower because it measures a different period with a different methodology. The two figures describe the same direction: borrowing costs are rising.

For a $400,000 loan, the increase from 5.99% to 7.07% adds approximately $284 per month and removes about $42,449 of loan capacity from a payment-constrained buyer.

Trump deserves credit for an intervention that helped lower mortgage rates earlier this year. He does not get to treat the reversal as an unrelated market accident.

Strong jobs are part of the pressure—and strong jobs are good. The other forces include producer inflation, oil above $100, federal borrowing and concern that the Fed may need to tighten again. Trump’s war, tariff and fiscal choices do not explain every basis point. They are part of the environment investors are pricing.

The president promised mortgage rates and monthly payments would move down.

At 7.07%, they have moved the other way.

Primary Documentation and Reporting

  1. Mortgage News Daily: September 10 daily mortgage-rate index, methodology explanation, prior daily readings and loan-type comparisons.
  2. Freddie Mac: September 10 weekly Primary Mortgage Market Survey and explanation of its prior-days averaging method.
  3. The Wall Street Journal: Report that the daily 30-year mortgage benchmark reached 7.07%, the first reading above 7% in more than a year.
  4. Reuters: August existing-home sales, inventory, median price, first-time buyers and mortgage-rate context.
  5. Associated Press: Freddie Mac weekly mortgage-rate increase and national housing-affordability context.
  6. Reuters: Global bond selloff, 10-year Treasury yield near 5%, oil prices and market-implied Fed expectations.
  7. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: August producer-price increase, annual PPI, energy prices and diesel-price detail.
  8. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: August employment report, including payroll growth and unemployment.
  9. Federal Reserve Board: Current federal-funds target range and July statement on employment and inflation.
  10. Federal Reserve Board: Official September 15–16, 2026 FOMC meeting calendar.
  11. Reuters: Trump’s January direction for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase $200 billion in mortgage bonds.
  12. Reuters: February mortgage rate below 6% and the warning that lower rates alone would not solve limited supply.
  13. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Official September 11 release schedule for the August Consumer Price Index.

This morning edition was prepared from information available by 7:15 a.m. Central Time / 8:15 a.m. Eastern Time on September 11, 2026. The August Consumer Price Index had not yet been released. Mortgage News Daily’s 7.07% figure is its completed September 10 daily index; Friday’s final daily reading was not yet available. Mortgage rates, mortgage-backed securities, Treasury yields and Federal Reserve probabilities can change throughout the day. The payment and purchasing-power examples assume 30-year fixed-rate loans and exclude taxes, insurance, points, fees, mortgage insurance and refinancing.

The post Mortgage Rates Just Hit 7%. Trump’s Promise of Cheaper Housing Is Moving Backward. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]> 513 Diesel Just Broke $6. Trump’s Energy Shock Is Moving Through the Price System. https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/diesel-just-broke-6-trumps-energy-shock-is-moving-through-the-price-system/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=diesel-just-broke-6-trumps-energy-shock-is-moving-through-the-price-system Fri, 11 Sep 2026 12:17:45 +0000 https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/?p=509 The post Diesel Just Broke $6. Trump’s Energy Shock Is Moving Through the Price System. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]>

Prices & Inflation

Diesel Just Broke $6. Trump’s Energy Shock Is Moving Through the Price System.

Producer prices rose 5.4% in August as diesel jumped 24.1% in one month. Retail diesel has since reached a record $6.0556, freight and air-travel costs are rising, and the IEA now expects global oil supply to fall 5.7 million barrels a day this year.

September 11, 2026 Pre-CPI morning edition 13-minute read Source cutoff: 6:55 a.m. CT
Producer prices +5.4% Annual final-demand PPI in August; the monthly increase was 0.4%.
Wholesale diesel +24.1% August monthly increase; the producer-price index was nearly 78% above last year.
Retail diesel $6.0556 AAA’s September 11 national average and a new nominal record.
2026 global oil supply −5.7M bpd IEA forecast, a decline of about 6%, with Gulf recovery delayed into 2027.

The most important inflation number this morning may not be the Consumer Price Index.

It may be the price displayed on a diesel pump.

AAA’s national diesel average reached $6.0556 per gallon on September 11, the highest nominal price in the organization’s series. Regular gasoline reached $4.2950. Diesel is now $2.3503, or approximately 63.4%, above the same day last year. Regular gasoline is $1.1001, or approximately 34.4%, higher.

The government’s latest producer-price report shows how that energy shock was already moving through the economy before diesel crossed $6.

The Producer Price Index for final demand increased 0.4% in August and 5.4% over the year. Wholesale diesel prices jumped 24.1% in one month and were nearly 78% higher than one year earlier. Transportation and warehousing prices rose 2.3%. Truck-freight prices rose 2.0%. Airline passenger services rose 4.2%.

Those figures do not prove that every grocery item, package or plane ticket will rise by the same percentage. Businesses can absorb costs, reduce margins, renegotiate contracts, improve efficiency or delay increases. Producer prices and consumer prices measure different transactions.

They do show that the energy shock is no longer confined to the oil market or the gas station.

The war premium entered through the barrel. It is leaving through the freight bill, the airfare, the grocery aisle and the interest rate.

What the Producer Price Index Actually Measures

The Producer Price Index measures changes in the selling prices received by domestic producers for goods, services and construction. It is not a direct measure of household living costs.

That distinction matters. A producer price can rise without the full increase reaching consumers. A retailer may accept a smaller margin. A manufacturer may use a cheaper material. A carrier may lock in fuel under an earlier contract. Competition may prevent a business from raising its final price.

The reverse can happen too. A consumer price can rise for reasons not captured by a specific producer input, including rent, retail markups, taxes, insurance or changes in demand.

PPI is therefore not a mechanical preview of CPI.

It is still economically important. The final-demand index tracks prices for products sold for personal consumption, capital investment, government purchases and exports. The intermediate-demand indexes track prices for goods and services sold to businesses as production inputs.

When producer and intermediate prices rise broadly and persistently, businesses must decide who absorbs the increase. Consumers are one possible answer. Workers, suppliers and shareholders are others.

Evidence classification

Verified: final-demand PPI rose 0.4% in August and 5.4% annually; wholesale diesel rose 24.1% for the month; retail diesel reached $6.0556; the IEA expects global supply to fall 5.7 million barrels per day in 2026. TED calculations: retail diesel is 63.4% above last year, regular gasoline is 34.4% higher, a 100-gallon diesel purchase costs $235.03 more, and a 15-gallon gasoline fill-up costs $16.50 more. Uncertain: how much of the producer-price increase businesses pass to consumers and how long the current oil disruption persists.

Diesel Drove the August Increase

Final-demand goods prices increased 1.1% in August after falling during the previous two months. More than three-quarters of that broad increase came from energy, which rose 4.2%.

Diesel alone accounted for more than one-third of the final-demand goods increase. BLS’s detailed table shows producer diesel prices up 24.1% in August and 77.8% from one year earlier.

The shock was not isolated to diesel. Wholesale gasoline increased 4.2% in August. Jet fuel increased 21.3%. Home heating oil and related distillates increased 22.8%.

Processed energy goods used as business inputs rose 7.3% during the month. Processed goods for intermediate demand increased 1.8% and stood 11.5% above one year earlier.

That is the inflation pipeline in a more literal sense. A finished consumer good may require diesel to harvest a crop, transport raw materials, power equipment, deliver a component, move the final product to a warehouse and restock a store.

The same gallon can affect several stages of production before a shopper sees a price.

The Freight Effect Has Already Begun

The PPI for transportation and warehousing services rose 2.3% in August. Truck transportation of freight increased 2.0%, and prices for courier, messenger and U.S. postal services used as business inputs rose 1.5%.

Those increases are consistent with what companies have been telling customers. Amazon, UPS, FedEx and the U.S. Postal Service have added or adjusted fuel-related charges during the Iran conflict.

The final consumer effect depends on the product. A high-value item that is cheap to transport may barely change. A bulky, low-margin product or a perishable food item requiring refrigeration and frequent delivery can be much more exposed.

The Independent Grocers Alliance told the Associated Press that fuel can account for roughly 15% to 30% of total food costs. That is an industry estimate, not a universal formula for every grocery item. It explains why meat, produce, seafood and other frequently replenished goods can feel the effect sooner.

At today’s price, 100 gallons of diesel costs approximately $235.03 more than it did one year ago. Commercial trucks consume far more fuel than that over time. The cost is too large for every carrier, farm or contractor to absorb indefinitely.

This Was Not Only an Energy Report

Energy was the largest driver, but removing volatile categories does not produce a 2% inflation story.

The index excluding food, energy and trade services increased 0.3% in August and 4.7% over the year. Final-demand goods excluding food and energy increased 0.4% during the month.

Airline passenger services increased 4.2%. Truck freight increased 2.0%. Legal services, hospital inpatient care and automobile retailing also rose.

Electronic components were another source of pressure, partly reflecting investment in artificial-intelligence infrastructure. Steel mill products increased as well. Those increases cannot honestly be assigned to the Iran war alone.

Strong investment demand can raise prices when chips, electrical equipment, construction capacity, specialized labor and power infrastructure are scarce. Tariffs can raise the domestic price of imported goods and protected American substitutes. Hospital and legal prices follow their own labor and market structures.

The balanced conclusion is not that energy caused every increase. It is that energy was the largest monthly accelerator inside a price system that already contained other sources of pressure.

Tariffs Remain Part of the Core-Price Story

The current producer report arrives while Trump is expanding or threatening trade barriers against Canada and other partners.

Tariffs are not the principal explanation for August’s diesel increase. They are relevant to the cost of metals, machinery, electronics, components and consumer goods moving through the same supply chain.

Federal Reserve researchers estimate that tariffs implemented through November 2025 raised core-goods PCE prices by 3.1% through February 2026 and increased the overall core PCE price level by 0.8%.

Those are cumulative price-level effects, not claims that tariffs added 3.1 percentage points to the current annual inflation rate. The researchers also concluded that pass-through from the tariff changes they studied was largely complete by February.

The qualification matters. A tariff can create a one-time increase rather than an endlessly accelerating inflation rate. The higher price level remains, and new tariffs or retaliation can create new effects.

Trump’s policy mix therefore places businesses between two cost shocks: energy disruption from war and trade disruption from tariffs.

The Supply Outlook Is Getting Worse, Not Better

The International Energy Agency’s latest report undermines the assumption that the current fuel spike will quickly disappear.

The IEA now expects global oil supply to decline by 5.7 million barrels per day in 2026, approximately 6%. That is a larger decline than the agency previously projected.

Global inventories fell at a record pace of 3.1 million barrels per day in August, reaching a level last seen in 2023. Saudi crude supply fell by 2.3 million barrels per day to 6 million—the lowest level in more than three decades—after attacks disrupted facilities and shipping routes.

The IEA expects normal Gulf oil flows to recover only in 2027.

Demand is falling too. The agency expects world oil demand to decline by 2.5 million barrels per day this year, more than it forecast previously.

Falling demand may sound like relief. In this context, it is partly demand destruction: households and businesses reducing fuel use because prices and supply constraints make normal activity more expensive.

A carrier driving fewer miles, a household canceling a trip or a factory reducing output can balance an oil market. That is not the same as solving the supply problem without economic damage.

The $6 Record Needs a Qualification

Diesel at $6.0556 is the highest nominal national average in AAA’s series.

It is not the highest inflation-adjusted diesel price Americans have ever faced. The Associated Press reports that the 2008 peak would equal approximately $7.20 in 2026 dollars, while the 2022 peak would equal about $6.56.

That distinction protects the analysis from exaggeration. It does not make today’s invoice smaller.

Businesses pay current dollars with current revenue. Households fill vehicles with current wages. A nominal record is economically meaningful even when an earlier inflation-adjusted episode was worse.

The same principle applies to regular gasoline. The current $4.2950 average remains below the 2022 nominal record of $5.0165. It is still $1.1001 above one year ago. A 15-gallon purchase costs approximately $16.50 more.

Today’s CPI Cannot Fully Capture Today’s Shock

BLS is scheduled to release the August Consumer Price Index at 8:30 a.m. Eastern today.

Whatever that report says, it will describe prices collected for August. It cannot fully reflect a retail diesel record reached on September 11, oil near $110 this week or supply conditions revealed after the August measurement period.

A cool August CPI report would be good news. It could show that shelter, goods or other underlying prices continued to moderate before the latest escalation.

It would not prove the current energy shock is harmless or that September inflation will be equally favorable.

A hot August report would be more concerning because it would combine existing inflation pressure with an additional energy shock that is only beginning to appear in consumer data.

This timing distinction is essential. Political statements frequently treat a backward-looking statistical release as a live description of every price in the economy. The report is accurate for its measurement period. The measurement period is already behind the pump.

The Federal Reserve Is Being Forced Toward a Harder Choice

The Federal Reserve’s preferred PCE inflation measure was 3.7% in July, with core PCE at 3.3%. The central bank’s long-run inflation objective is 2%.

The Fed meets September 15–16. Investors now assign approximately a 72% probability to a rate increase next week, according to Reuters.

The 10-year Treasury yield reached 4.979% in early trading Friday, just below 5%. Higher sovereign yields flow into mortgages, corporate debt, municipal borrowing and federal interest costs.

A rate increase cannot produce diesel or end a war. It can reduce demand, slow borrowing and prevent a temporary cost shock from becoming embedded in wages, expectations and other prices.

That creates the central policy dilemma. Raising rates may make housing and investment more expensive while the energy shock is already reducing household purchasing power. Holding rates steady risks allowing above-target inflation to persist.

Trump has repeatedly demanded lower rates. His administration is simultaneously pursuing military, tariff and fiscal policies that increase the inflation and borrowing risks the Fed must consider.

Trump’s Election-Date Promise Is Not an Energy Plan

Trump acknowledged this week that oil prices may not decline until after the November midterm election. He predicted that they would then fall rapidly.

Markets do not contain an automatic election-night switch.

Prices could fall after November if fighting de-escalates, Gulf exports recover, refinery capacity returns or demand weakens. They could fall before November for the same reasons. They could remain high afterward if the supply disruption continues.

The IEA’s current forecast delays full Gulf recovery into 2027. That forecast can change, but it is based on physical production, shipping and inventory conditions—not the U.S. electoral calendar.

The administration may have intelligence or diplomatic plans that support a more optimistic view. It has not publicly demonstrated a mechanism guaranteeing cheaper oil after ballots are counted.

What Would Actually Reduce the Pressure

  • A durable de-escalation with Iran and fewer attacks on Gulf and Red Sea energy infrastructure.
  • A sustained recovery in tanker traffic, Saudi output and regional refinery operations.
  • Rebuilding commercial and strategic inventories rather than continually drawing them down.
  • Temporary logistics measures that increase diesel availability without disguising the underlying shortage.
  • Trade policy that reduces avoidable input costs while businesses are already absorbing an energy shock.
  • Credible fiscal and monetary policy that prevents the supply shock from becoming a permanent inflation premium.

None is an overnight solution. That is precisely why declaring the problem solved is so damaging. It delays the honest discussion of costs, tradeoffs and timelines.

The Verdict

The August producer-price report is not proof that every wholesale increase will reach consumers.

It is proof that the inflation problem extends beyond one headline gasoline price.

Producer prices are 5.4% higher than one year ago. Wholesale diesel jumped 24.1% in one month. Freight, air travel, hospital care and electronic-component prices increased. Retail diesel has now crossed $6, and the IEA expects global oil supply to fall 5.7 million barrels per day this year.

Trump did not create every refinery outage, tanker attack or price increase. Iran, Houthi forces, Russia, Ukraine, OPEC+, private firms and global demand all affect the market.

His administration does control the U.S. side of the Iran conflict. It controls current tariff decisions. It controls whether it acknowledges the price consequences of those policies or promises that the bill will disappear after an election.

Diesel at $6.0556 is not simply a transportation statistic. It is a production cost, a delivery cost, a food cost and an inflation risk.

The price shock is no longer waiting at the border of the economy.

It is already moving through it.

Primary Documentation and Reporting

  1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: August Producer Price Index: final demand, goods, services, energy, transportation and annual inflation.
  2. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Detailed August commodity prices for diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, heating oil, freight and airline services.
  3. AAA: September 11 national averages for regular gasoline and diesel, including daily, weekly, monthly and annual comparisons.
  4. U.S. Energy Information Administration: Official weekly gasoline and diesel prices through September 7, including regional figures.
  5. International Energy Agency via Reuters: September oil-market outlook: 5.7-million-bpd supply decline, record inventory draw and delayed Gulf recovery.
  6. Reuters: Saudi crude supply falling to 6 million barrels per day, the lowest in more than three decades.
  7. Associated Press: Record diesel price, freight and grocery transmission, surcharges and inflation-adjusted historical context.
  8. Associated Press: August producer-price analysis, broader price categories and the relationship to Federal Reserve policy.
  9. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis: July PCE inflation of 3.7% and core PCE inflation of 3.3%.
  10. Federal Reserve Board: The Federal Reserve’s 2% PCE inflation objective and explanation of the PCE measure.
  11. Federal Reserve Board: Estimated consumer-price effects of tariff changes implemented through November 2025.
  12. Reuters: September 11 Treasury yields near 5%, oil near $110 and market-implied odds of a Federal Reserve increase.
  13. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Official September 11 release schedule for the August Consumer Price Index.
  14. Federal Reserve Board: Official September 15–16 Federal Open Market Committee meeting calendar.
  15. The White House: February administration statement declaring that Trump had defeated the inflation crisis.

This morning edition was prepared from public information available by 6:55 a.m. Central Time / 7:55 a.m. Eastern Time on September 11, 2026. The August Consumer Price Index had not yet been released. If publishing after 8:30 a.m. Eastern, add the actual headline and core CPI figures and update the Federal Reserve probability and Treasury-yield discussion. The September 11 AAA prices are daily averages and may change. The 63.4%, 34.4%, $235.03 and $16.50 comparisons are TED calculations from AAA’s published current and year-ago averages. The IEA figures are forecasts and estimates rather than guaranteed outcomes.

The post Diesel Just Broke $6. Trump’s Energy Shock Is Moving Through the Price System. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]> 509 Trump Promised Every Adult $5,000 If Republicans Win. The “Dividend” Has No Surplus Behind It. https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/trump-promised-every-adult-5000-if-republicans-win-the-dividend-has-no-surplus-behind-it/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=trump-promised-every-adult-5000-if-republicans-win-the-dividend-has-no-surplus-behind-it Thu, 10 Sep 2026 12:09:45 +0000 https://trumpeconomicdisaster.com/?p=505 The post Trump Promised Every Adult $5,000 If Republicans Win. The “Dividend” Has No Surplus Behind It. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]>

Public Cost

Trump Promised Every Adult $5,000 If Republicans Win. The “Dividend” Has No Surplus Behind It.

The campaign pledge would cost roughly $1.15 trillion to $1.35 trillion, require Congress and dwarf projected tariff revenue. If borrowed and spent quickly while PCE inflation is 3.7%, it could turn an affordability promise into another inflation and interest-rate risk.

September 10, 2026 Morning edition 14-minute read Source cutoff: 6:50 a.m. CT
Promised payment $5,000 Per adult U.S. citizen if Republicans retain both chambers of Congress.
Estimated one-time cost $1.15T–$1.35T Lower estimate assumes an illustrative exclusion for high-income households.
Projected FY2026 deficit $2.1T CBO’s current full-year estimate before any such payment.
Cost versus customs revenue 6.9–8.1× Compared with CBO’s implied current projection of about $167 billion for 2026.

Donald Trump did not unveil a budget Wednesday night. He unveiled a number.

Speaking at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, the president promised every adult U.S. citizen a $5,000 payment if Republicans retain control of both the House and Senate in November.

“If the Republicans win, you win with us, and you get $5,000,” Trump said, branding the proposal the “Trump Dividend.”

The promise arrived without a bill, funding source, eligibility definition, payment date, tax treatment, delivery mechanism or inflation estimate. Trump said only that the money would have to be spent in the United States. Vice President JD Vance later suggested wealthy people would be excluded and floated tariff revenue as a possible source.

The missing details are not technical footnotes. They are the proposal.

Reuters estimates that paying approximately 270 million adults would cost around $1.35 trillion. Kent Smetters of the Penn Wharton Budget Model told Business Insider the cost might fall to about $1.15 trillion if wealthy households were excluded using an illustrative $400,000 income cap. Neither Vance nor the White House specified that cap.

The United States does not have a surplus from which to distribute that money. CBO projects a $2.1 trillion federal deficit for fiscal 2026, and the national debt has already crossed $40 trillion.

The word “dividend” suggests shared profit. The federal government is borrowing to cover existing promises before it writes a new check.

The Arithmetic Comes Before the Applause

A $5,000 payment is large enough to matter to a household. Two eligible adults would receive $10,000. Four eligible adults living in one household would receive $20,000. For families facing high gasoline, food, rent, insurance and borrowing costs, that money could provide meaningful relief.

The national cost is equally meaningful.

The estimated $1.15 trillion to $1.35 trillion price tag is equivalent to approximately 54.8% to 64.3% of CBO’s projected fiscal 2026 deficit. That comparison does not mean the payment would occur in fiscal 2026; Trump did not provide a date. It shows the scale of one round of checks relative to the government’s current annual shortfall.

If the payment were enacted without new revenue or spending reductions, almost every dollar would have to be borrowed. If Congress paid for it through taxes, the plan would be a redistribution rather than a fiscal dividend. If Congress offset it with spending cuts, lawmakers would have to identify more than one trillion dollars of programs, benefits or investments to reduce.

Each path is possible as a matter of arithmetic. None is painless.

Evidence classification

Verified: Trump promised $5,000 per adult citizen if Republicans retain Congress; no detailed financing plan was announced; Congress controls federal appropriations; CBO projects a $2.1 trillion fiscal 2026 deficit. Independent estimate: the proposal could cost $1.15 trillion to $1.35 trillion. TED calculations: that equals roughly 55% to 64% of the current annual deficit and 6.9 to 8.1 times CBO’s implied 2026 net customs-revenue projection. Unknown: eligibility, timing, offsets, tax treatment, delivery rules and the economic response.

This Is Not a Corporate Dividend

Trump compared the payment with a successful corporation distributing cash to shareholders.

The analogy is political branding, not federal accounting.

A corporation may distribute accumulated earnings to owners because those owners hold equity in the company. A corporation can even borrow to pay a dividend, although investors would recognize that as additional leverage—not proof that operations produced enough cash.

Citizens do not own transferable shares in the Treasury. Federal taxes are not corporate earnings, and customs duties are not profit. A government payment to households is a tax rebate, refundable credit, transfer or expenditure, depending on how Congress writes the law.

The label matters because it hides the central fiscal fact. The government is not deciding how to divide a surplus. It is deciding whether to borrow, tax or cut something else in order to finance a new benefit.

CBO estimates that the federal government ran a $1.8 trillion deficit during the first ten months of fiscal 2026. Net interest costs increased by $117 billion, or 14%, over the comparable period because the debt was larger and long-term rates were higher.

Calling another trillion-dollar obligation a dividend does not change who eventually pays it.

Trump Cannot Write the Checks by Himself

The president can propose the payment. Congress must authorize the money.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and provide for the general welfare. It also states that no money may be drawn from the Treasury except through appropriations made by law.

That means a presidential announcement is not a payable obligation. The House and Senate would have to pass legislation or otherwise enact an appropriation, and the president would then sign it.

Republican Senator Bernie Moreno said he would prepare a bill after the election. That is evidence that the legislative requirement is understood inside Trump’s own party.

The legal distinction around the campaign promise should also be stated carefully. AP quoted an election attorney who said the proposal, as described, would be a campaign promise rather than a direct payment for a particular vote because eligibility would not depend on whether a person voted or how that person voted.

That is an important distinction. This article is not alleging criminal vote buying.

The political conditionality remains extraordinary. Trump is not merely arguing that Congress should send relief because households need it. He is making the benefit contingent on his party winning both chambers.

The Election Does Not Create the Money

Republicans currently control Congress. Nothing in the government’s fiscal capacity appears on November 4 that does not exist on November 2.

An election changes who holds legislative power. It does not create a Treasury surplus, reduce the debt or increase customs collections.

If the payment is sound policy now, the administration could submit a detailed proposal now. If the policy is unaffordable now, a Republican victory does not make it affordable.

The electoral condition therefore serves a political purpose rather than an economic one: it turns a future public benefit into a reason to preserve partisan control.

Voters are capable of judging that offer. They should be given the full price tag before they do.

Tariff Revenue Does Not Come Close to Covering It

Vance suggested tariff revenue could help finance the payment. The scale does not work.

CBO says its current projection for all tariffs and customs duties collected in fiscal 2026 is $250 billion—or 60%—below its earlier forecast. That statement implies an earlier projection of approximately $417 billion and a current projection of approximately $167 billion. Those figures are TED calculations from CBO’s published dollar and percentage shortfall.

At that implied annual level, a $1.15 trillion payment would equal about 6.9 years of all net customs revenue. A $1.35 trillion payment would equal about 8.1 years.

That assumes every dollar of customs revenue is reserved for the checks rather than used to finance the rest of the government or reduce borrowing. It also assumes collections remain at the implied 2026 level. Future tariffs and trade volumes could change.

The comparison nevertheless defeats the idea that one round of $5,000 payments can simply be taken from a current pot of tariff money.

The revenue outlook has also weakened. CBO’s August update says tariff-policy changes through July 31 increased projected 2027–2036 deficits by $900 billion relative to its February baseline, largely because replacement tariffs are expected to raise less revenue and because debt-service costs increase.

That does not mean current tariffs collect nothing. It means the administration’s earlier revenue claims have already been overtaken by court rulings, refunds and repeated policy changes.

Tariffs Are Not Free Money From Foreign Governments

Even sufficient tariff revenue would not make the payment free.

Customs duties are legally paid by U.S. importers. The economic burden can be divided among foreign suppliers, American importers, retailers, workers, shareholders and consumers depending on bargaining power and market conditions.

New York Federal Reserve researchers found that nearly 90% of the economic burden from the 2025 tariffs fell on U.S. firms and consumers. Foreign exporters absorbed part of the cost, but not most of it.

A tariff-financed check can therefore resemble a tax-and-rebate system: importers and consumers pay higher costs through the trade barrier, while selected households receive cash later.

That arrangement may redistribute money in ways lawmakers consider desirable. It should not be sold as a foreign-funded windfall.

There is also a timing problem. Tariff revenue arrives gradually as goods enter the country. Trump’s promise sounds like a discrete payment. To send the checks quickly, the government would likely have to borrow against future collections unless a large fund had already been accumulated and appropriated.

The Strongest Case for the Payment

The proposal has an economic appeal that should not be dismissed.

Households are dealing with high fuel prices, expensive food, elevated rents, insurance increases and mortgage rates that have moved toward 7%. A $5,000 payment could allow a family to pay down credit-card debt, repair a car, catch up on rent, replace an appliance or build an emergency fund.

Direct payments are simple relative to complex tax deductions. They reach people who may not itemize, own a home or have access to an employer benefit. A targeted transfer can provide rapid relief to households with little cash.

Cash can also support demand during a recession. When businesses are losing customers and workers are losing jobs, government transfers can prevent a downward spiral.

The pandemic response demonstrated both sides of that mechanism. Fiscal support helped families survive an extraordinary shutdown and supported a rapid recovery. San Francisco Fed researchers estimated that U.S. income transfers may also have contributed about three percentage points to inflation by late 2021, while emphasizing substantial uncertainty and noting that less support could have produced deflation and slower growth.

The lesson is not that government should never send checks. It is that the economic effect depends on the size, targeting, financing and condition of the economy.

The Current Economy Is Not a Pandemic Shutdown

The United States is not currently facing 14% unemployment or a legally mandated collapse in consumer activity.

Payroll employment increased by 162,000 in August and unemployment remained 4.1%. Labor-force participation improved, manufacturing added jobs and involuntary part-time employment declined.

The labor market is not uniformly booming. Job growth remains concentrated, participation is below its year-ago level and some sectors are weak. Those conditions can justify targeted support.

They do not create an obvious macroeconomic case for sending every eligible adult $5,000.

The Federal Reserve’s preferred PCE inflation measure was 3.7% in July, with core PCE at 3.3%. Oil has moved above $100, and the bond market has already pushed long-term borrowing costs higher.

A broad, rapid, deficit-financed transfer would increase household purchasing power without directly increasing the supply of housing, food, energy, medical care or other constrained goods and services.

Some of the money would be saved or used to pay debt. Some would be spent on imports. Some businesses would expand output. The inflation effect would therefore be smaller than the face value of the checks.

But a payment explicitly required to be spent could produce more immediate demand than unrestricted cash, depending on how the rule is enforced. That is an inference, not a scored estimate, because the administration has not described the program.

“Spent in America” Is Not the Same as “Made in America”

Trump’s only announced condition was that the dividend be spent in the United States.

That phrase sounds straightforward until someone must administer it.

A Treasury check deposited into a bank account becomes fungible with the recipient’s other money. The government cannot know which dollar paid the rent, reduced a credit-card balance or bought groceries.

Congress could create restricted debit cards, merchant-category rules, geographic limits or an expiration date. Each option adds administrative cost, exclusions and opportunities for error.

Spending at a U.S. retailer also does not guarantee the purchase of an American-made product. A phone, television, shoe or appliance bought in Texas may contain imported components or be assembled abroad.

If the actual objective is domestic production, lawmakers would need origin rules. Those rules would have to define how much American content qualifies, how services are treated, whether rent and debt payments count and what happens when a product contains parts from several countries.

The condition is therefore not a funding source and not yet an industrial policy. It is a slogan waiting for a compliance system.

There Are Only Four Basic Ways to Pay

1. Borrow the money

This is the default if Congress creates the payment without matching revenue or cuts. Federal debt would rise by the program’s cost, and future taxpayers would service the additional interest.

Borrowing is defensible during an emergency when the cost of inaction is greater. It is harder to justify as a campaign-conditioned payment in an economy with 4.1% unemployment, above-target inflation and a $2.1 trillion deficit.

2. Finance it with tariffs or another tax

Current projected customs revenue is far too small to finance one round quickly. Congress could impose much higher tariffs or another tax, but the burden would then appear through higher prices, lower profits, reduced wages or direct tax payments.

The government would be collecting money from one set of economic actors and distributing it to another. That may be a policy choice, but it is not a costless dividend.

3. Cut other federal spending

Lawmakers could offset the program through reductions elsewhere. The scale would require specificity. More than one trillion dollars cannot be found through canceled leases, administrative efficiencies and isolated grants alone.

A credible proposal would identify the programs, benefits, contracts or investments to be reduced and who would bear the loss.

4. Narrow the eligibility

Excluding high-income households lowers the cost. Limiting payments to lower- and middle-income households, unemployed workers or people facing documented energy burdens could reduce it further and target more relief toward those likely to need it.

Targeting would also contradict the simplicity of Trump’s stage promise to every adult citizen. That contradiction is not a reason to reject targeting. It is a reason not to announce the universal number before designing the policy.

What a Real Proposal Must Disclose

Congress should not vote on a branding concept. A serious bill would answer at least these questions:

  • Who qualifies: all adult citizens, tax filers, residents, Social Security beneficiaries or households below an income cap?
  • What date determines age, citizenship, residence and income?
  • Is the payment taxable, refundable or excluded from federal-benefit eligibility tests?
  • Is it one-time, annual or recurring if Republicans continue to control Congress?
  • What appropriation or revenue source pays for it?
  • What spending cuts, tax increases or tariff changes offset the cost?
  • How is the requirement to spend the money in the United States enforced?
  • Can recipients use it to pay debt, rent, taxes, utilities or medical bills?
  • What is the expected effect on inflation, interest rates, imports, output and employment?
  • How much will administration, fraud prevention and dispute resolution cost?

Without those answers, there is no proposal to score—only a payment amount attached to an election result.

The Verdict

A $5,000 payment would help many households. Direct relief is not inherently reckless, and the pandemic proved that well-timed government support can prevent a deeper economic disaster.

Trump has not presented a targeted emergency program. He presented a trillion-dollar campaign promise conditioned on Republican control of Congress.

The estimated cost is $1.15 trillion to $1.35 trillion. Congress must authorize it. The government is already projected to run a $2.1 trillion deficit. Tariff revenue is nowhere near sufficient, and tariffs themselves are largely borne by American firms and consumers.

If the checks are borrowed and required to be spent quickly, they could add demand while inflation remains above target and energy prices are rising. If they are offset, the administration must disclose the taxes or spending cuts that replace the borrowing.

The promise may be legal as a campaign pledge. It is not funded, enacted or operational.

Trump called it a dividend because dividends sound like prosperity.

The federal balance sheet shows something else: no surplus, no appropriation and no arithmetic capable of turning an election-night promise into free money.

Primary Documentation and Reporting

  1. Reuters: Trump’s Dallas announcement, the electoral condition, the approximate adult population and the $1.35 trillion cost estimate.
  2. Associated Press: Congressional-approval requirement, Vance’s tariff-revenue suggestion, legal commentary and the absence of White House details.
  3. Business Insider: Penn Wharton Budget Model faculty estimates of $1.35 trillion for all adults and $1.15 trillion under an illustrative high-income exclusion.
  4. Congressional Budget Office: Fiscal 2026 deficit estimate, current customs-revenue projection changes and year-to-date interest costs.
  5. Congressional Budget Office: Full July Monthly Budget Review PDF stating that 2026 tariffs and customs duties are projected $250 billion, or 60%, below the prior estimate.
  6. Congressional Budget Office: August update showing that revised tariff policy increased projected 2027–2036 deficits by $900 billion relative to the February baseline.
  7. National Archives: Constitutional text assigning taxing and borrowing powers to Congress and requiring appropriations made by law.
  8. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco: Research on the uncertain inflation and growth effects of pandemic-era fiscal transfers.
  9. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: August 2026 employment, unemployment and labor-force data.
  10. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis: July PCE inflation of 3.7% and core PCE inflation of 3.3%.
  11. Federal Reserve Bank of New York: Estimate that nearly 90% of the 2025 tariff burden fell on U.S. firms and consumers.
  12. U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data: Federal debt definitions, totals and historical context.
  13. Reuters: Treasury data showing total federal debt crossing $40 trillion in August 2026.
  14. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Official September 10 release schedule for August producer prices.
  15. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Official September 11 release schedule for August consumer prices.

This morning edition was prepared from public information available by 6:50 a.m. Central Time / 7:50 a.m. Eastern Time on September 10, 2026. The White House had not published detailed eligibility, financing, timing or enforcement language. The $1.15 trillion lower estimate uses an illustrative $400,000 household-income cap supplied by Penn Wharton Budget Model faculty—not an announced administration threshold. The approximately $167 billion customs-revenue figure and the 6.9-to-8.1-year comparison are TED calculations from CBO’s statement that its current 2026 projection is $250 billion, or 60%, below its earlier forecast. August producer-price data are scheduled for 7:30 a.m. Central today and CPI for September 11; update the inflation discussion if those releases materially change the backdrop.

The post Trump Promised Every Adult $5,000 If Republicans Win. The “Dividend” Has No Surplus Behind It. appeared first on Trump Economic Disaster.

]]> 505