Trump softens on China and Jerome Powell.

I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today's read: 15 minutes.

Correction.

In yesterday’s reader question, we wrote that Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III is a district judge in Texas. In fact, Wilkinson is a federal appellate judge, not a district judge, and he sits on the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, VA, not Texas. Wilkinson was misidentified by some news outlets and with so many ongoing challenges, we had gotten the location of Wilkinson’s case confused with a ruling from the southern district of Texas affirming a challenge under habeas corpus, then missed the error in editing.

This is our 135th correction in Tangle's 298-week history and our first correction since April 22. We track corrections and place them at the top of the newsletter in an effort to maximize transparency with readers.

New YouTube video.

On March 30, Elon Musk held a town hall in Green Bay, Wisconsin. About an hour into the town hall, Antonio Gracias shared a chart that claims over 5 million noncitizens not only had Social Security numbers, but were receiving government benefits and illegally voting in our elections as a result. Are the claims true? Executive Producer Jon Lall dug a little deeper in a YouTube video here.

Quick hits.

1. President Donald Trump criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky after the latter rejected a U.S.-proposed framework for a peace deal with Russia. Trump said Zelensky's decision was “very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia,” while Zelensky said Ukraine would not accept the deal’s recognition of Russian control of Crimea. (The comments)
2. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), 80, announced he would not seek reelection in 2026. (The announcement)
3. President Trump signed an executive order removing “diversity, equity, and inclusion” requirements from the college accrediting system, intending to put a greater focus on intellectual diversity among faculty and students. The order also makes it easier for schools to switch accreditors and for new accreditors to gain federal approval. (The order)
4. India closed its main border crossing with Pakistan and ordered some Pakistani visa-holders to leave the country a day after suspected militants killed 26 tourists in Kashmir. (The closure)
5. Elon Musk will reportedly scale back his leadership role with DOGE and his time at the White House in the coming weeks. (The report)

Today's topic.

Trump, Jerome Powell, and China. While answering questions in the Oval Office on Tuesday, President Donald Trump made a series of remarks that appeared to soften his previous criticism of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and stated that he intended to reduce U.S. tariffs on China. The comments sparked a stock market rally, though Trump did not indicate whether a trade deal with China was imminent. 

Back up: President Trump has repeatedly pushed Powell to lower interest rates, arguing that the United States’s inflation concerns have subsided. Conversely, Powell recently said the U.S. could face a “challenging scenario” of rising inflation and slowing economic growth due to Trump’s tariffs. The Trump administration has levied 145% tariffs on Chinese imports to date, which has prompted retaliatory measures from the Chinese government, including 125% tariffs on U.S. goods. 

We previously covered Trump’s tariffs here. 

In a Truth Social post on Monday, Trump called Powell “a major loser” for his resistance to a rate cut, writing, “Powell has always been ‘To Late,’ except when it came to the Election period when he lowered in order to help Sleepy Joe Biden, later Kamala, get elected.” This post followed National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett’s comments that the White House was exploring legal avenues to fire Powell, whom President Trump nominated during his first term. The Federal Reserve chair is appointed by the president but is an independent position that does not report to the chief executive; legal precedent holds that Federal Reserve members (including the chair) can only be removed by the president “for cause,” often interpreted as malfeasance or impropriety. Trump said on Tuesday that he has “no intention” of firing Powell, though he added, “I would like to see him be a little more active in terms of his idea to lower interest rates.”

On Tuesday morning, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reportedly told investors in a closed-door meeting that he expects “a de-escalation” with China in the “very near future,” adding that neither side “thinks the current status quo is sustainable.” Later that day, President Trump said he expects to reach a "fair deal" with China and that he was not seeking to play “hardball” in negotiations. Trump further suggested the tariffs on China would come down substantially, reportedly to between roughly 50% and 65%. 

Major stock indexes rose sharply on the news, but the rally eased on Wednesday after Bessent suggested a trade resolution could be years off. Separately, 12 Democratic state attorneys sued the Trump administration, arguing the president does not have the constitutional authority to impose “arbitrary” tariffs.

Today, we’ll cover the response to Trump’s comments on Powell and China, with views from the right and left. Then, my take.

Agreed.

• Commentators on the left and right both support Trump’s statements saying he would not fire Powell.
• Both sides also commend the decision to lower tariff rates on China.

What the right is saying.

• Many on the right argue Trump should resist any impulse to fire Powell, suggesting it would work against his overarching goals.
• Some express optimism that Trump is headed toward a trade deal with China.
• Others say the White House must learn from investor reactions to its economic moves.

National Review’s editors wrote about “Trump’s war on the Fed.”

“If Donald Trump is upset about higher interest rates, he should stop doing just about everything he can to undermine the U.S. economy in the eyes of the world. As the U.S. becomes a riskier place to do business because of tariffs and fiscal uncertainty, and the independence of the central bank comes under threat from the president, people will demand higher yields to make buying U.S. sovereign debt worth their while,” the editors said. “Maybe you think Trump’s trade policy has merit or the Federal Reserve needs to be brought more firmly under the president’s control. That’s a separate question from how real investors with real money in the real world are really reacting to Trump’s decisions.”

“The Fed still makes plenty of mistakes. It stayed in emergency mode for too long during Covid, overshooting the increase in the money supply and contributing to the inflation that occurred. It did so, however, by keeping interest rates too low, the exact thing that Trump is now encouraging,” the editors wrote. “Voters want economic stability, and firing Powell would only create more instability. The market consequences are dire, and not just for ‘Wall Street’... Manufacturing firms in the middle of the country are warning about higher prices, and some are announcing layoffs. Millions of Americans at or near retirement age are seeing their savings disappear.”

In Hot Air, Ed Morrissey suggested Trump’s tariffs rollback could “kick-start trade talks” with China.

“Is this a blink? Or is it a nudge? Since Liberation Day, the White House has spent considerable effort recalibrating its tariff rates and applications as the markets responded — largely and significantly negatively. Donald Trump has hit China particularly hard, and after the first few days of the tariff rollout, appeared to make China his primary target for tariffs. Talks with other trading partners immediately opened up and reportedly focused on using tariffs as part of a strategy to isolate Beijing,” Morrissey said. “Now it seems that Trump will back down on the rates first. Why? Earlier today, China signaled that it would engage with Trump on trade, but not under ‘continued threats from the White House.’”

“If that's the case, then this leak might be a strategic signal to Xi Jinping that we can make a gesture to allow him to save face before entering into talks… That's all well and good, but then that complicates the idea that this has been a grand strategy to isolate China,” Morrissey wrote. “This looks more like an effort to shore up the markets and support from key constituencies… There is still plenty of opportunity for successes, but the White House has to decide what it's actually trying to do with its tariff policies — and stick to the plan.”

In his newsletter, Erick Erickson called Trump’s comments on Powell “a very good thing.”

“Treasury Secretary Bessent let it be known that the White House knows the situation with China is unsustainable and the White House expects a trade deal there. That calmed the markets. The President rejecting his advisors’ thinking on firing Powell should help more too,” Erickson said. “I understand the desire of the Administration to move quickly so any recession might be recovered before the midterms. But also, a number of people in the President’s orbit think the GOP House Majority is toast next year anyway, so a realignment that takes longer is fine. That thinking, unfortunately, could have spillover effect down ballot into state races.”

“The go hard and fast approach is impeded by investors and bond purchasers who cannot be prodded into a quick realignment of the global economy. It’s not that the President’s economic team is herding cats, but herding two-legged cats — they won’t go where you want and they won’t go fast,” Erickson wrote. “The go hard and go fast approach has added too much uncertainty and instability into an economic climate that requires more certainty and stability than is presently being offered. Scott Bessent suggesting a deal will come with China and the President taking off the table that he would fire Powell will both help provide stability and calm investors. More of this, please.”

What the left is saying.

• The left welcomes Trump’s softening on Powell, saying firing the Fed chair would be disastrous. 
• Some say Trump is backing off his China tariffs because the U.S. is not equipped to win a trade war. 
• Others worry that Trump’s threat to the Fed has not subsided. 

The Bloomberg editorial board said “the White House is right to back off the Fed.”

“The White House has recently been ratcheting up the pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, causing further rounds of financial-market turbulence. Yesterday, this growing alarm appeared to call forth a clarification. Commentators were getting this wrong, said the president: There’s no plan to terminate Chair Jerome Powell. If this amounts to a ceasefire, it’s more than welcome,” the board wrote. “Challenging the Fed’s independence adds greatly to economic uncertainty, which is already acute. In particular, it risks destroying confidence in the dollar, which could push prices and long-term borrowing costs sharply higher, whatever the Fed does.”

“The threat to the Fed hasn’t been confined to shouting from the sidelines. The administration is intent on securing firmer control of so-called independent agencies. The law makes special provision for the central bank; Powell has emphasized that its independence is a matter of law and that its officials are ‘not removable except for cause,’” the board said. “If that threat really has been withdrawn, it’s good news for the economy — and for the administration itself. Destroying confidence in the central bank and achieving steady growth with low inflation becomes vastly harder. If this is indeed a ceasefire, everyone should hope it sticks.”

In The American Prospect, Robert Kuttner wrote “Trump blinks.”

“It’s not clear whether the China policy had already changed when Bessent spoke to the JPMorganChase meeting, or whether Trump followed Bessent’s lead. What is clear is that market anxiety gives Bessent special powers as the Trump whisperer,” Kuttner said. “Meanwhile, the China grand bargain remains in the realm of wishful thinking. Trump and Chinese President Xi still have not spoken, and the Chinese are now bragging that Trump blinked first—which indeed he did.”

“Trump blinked first because his tariffs were doing far more damage to the U.S. economy than to China. Tariffs of 145% are the equivalent of a total boycott. A wide range of consumer and producer goods reliant on Chinese supply were abruptly shut down. And China’s retaliatory tariffs were on the verge of devastating American agriculture,” Kuttner wrote. “In the next few days, we are likely to see some kind of handshake deal in which China agrees to buy more stuff from the U.S., Trump cuts the super-tariff on China, and a joint task force is announced to address structural issues. The problem is China’s entire mercantilist system, whose revision does not lend itself to a quickie grand bargain. Even with a less mercurial president, China is far better positioned to play the long game than the U.S.”

In MSNBC, Ryan Teague Beckwith called Trump’s attacks on the Fed “his riskiest yet.”

“Of course, everyone wants — or thinks they want — lower interest rates. Lower rates make it cheaper for people to buy cars or take out mortgages. They boost investment in the stock market and stimulate the economy overall. Lower interest rates are especially attractive to real estate developers like Trump who typically borrow money to finance their projects,” Beckwith said. “But when done at the wrong time, they can also give the economy an artificial high that leads to a headache later. And since reducing interest rates is the major way that the Federal Reserve fights a recession, lowering them too much in the good times can leave it without a valuable tool when that downturn inevitably comes.”

“Powell's term ends in May of 2026, at which point Trump can appoint another Federal Reserve chair, subject to confirmation by the Senate. Powell has said he would not step down if Trump asked him to resign, noting that the Fed's independence is ‘a matter of law’ and that members serve ‘very long terms,’” Beckwith wrote. “Trump's desire for total control over every aspect of the government has already damaged American democracy. But if he gains power over the Federal Reserve, it would damage the U.S. economy, too.”

My take.

Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• I think we all tend to forget recent news that helps us understand the current moment.
• Going through the timeline of tariff events makes it clear how chaotic this all has been.
• I’m less optimistic than ever that we’re in a good place.

I have a theory about American journalists and news consumers that applies in moments like this: We’re all goldfish. No offense. You, me, the whole lot of us — our mental hard drives are always at capacity from constantly consuming so much news that we struggle to remember the full picture, even for stories that started just a few weeks ago. But actually remembering recent events can be illuminating (imagine that).

As I was thinking about how to make my point today — to illustrate that, regardless of your opinions on tariffs as an economic tool, this rollout has been disorienting and unpredictable — it occurred to me: Would making a timeline help? I think it would help. 

The Peterson Institute for International Economics and The New York Times have provided some useful dates to work around, so let me give it a shot:

On Inauguration Day, January 20, Trump announced he would levy 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico to take effect on February 1. A few days later, Trump threatened tariffs on Colombia — whose president briefly said he would respond in kind before backing down, which drew cheers from the people confident Trump could force good deals from our trading partners. 

Trump, perhaps feeling emboldened, cited emergency presidential powers and then signed the 25% executive order on February 1, adding a 10% tariff on China. All three countries retaliated with tariffs of their own, and the trade war was on. But then… off. Two days later, Trump put a 30-day pause on his tariffs on Mexico and Canada. 

Four days after that, on February 7, Trump for the first time promised “reciprocal” tariffs on every country — an expression that would soon be fully in the public’s lexicon — but did not provide details of the plan. 

On February 10 Trump announced a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports, resurrecting a policy from his first term. Over the next couple weeks, Trump continued to threaten reciprocal tariffs and promised that his tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada would go into effect on March 4 (except those on steel and aluminum, which would go into effect March 12).

Then March 4 came, and the promised tariffs went into effect. Canada responded with a 25% tariff on an estimated $155 billion of American imports, and the next day the carveouts began. Trump — after a phone call with heads of major U.S.  automakers — announced a one-month exemption on car imports compliant with the United States–Mexico–Canada trade agreement. 

On March 6, Trump paused most of the tariffs placed on Canada and Mexico until “Liberation Day” on April 2, denied he was reacting to the market sell-off, and promised (again) to impose 25% tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum on March 12. Then, Canada and China retaliated again. China imposed tariffs targeting U.S. farm products, and Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced tariffs on electricity imported to the province from Michigan, Minnesota, and New York. Trump called Canada’s actions an “abusive threat” and then issued a threat of his own: He would double tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum. Both sides puffed their chests out, yelled a lot, then blinked and backed down. The next day, the European Union slapped billions of dollars worth of retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, but said they would not enact them until April 1, hoping to give the U.S. a chance to change course. 

Trump responded on March 13 by threatening a 200% charge on all alcoholic products — like wine and Champagne — from the European Union (now I’m getting upset). He then threatened tariffs on Venezuelan oil on March 24, and then a blanket 25% tax on all cars and car parts shipped into the U.S. (including from American brands that assemble their vehicles overseas) on March 26. 

Then, we had about a week of rumors, innuendo, and signaling about what Trump was going to do — if he’d really follow through on his “Liberation Day” promise. 

Finally, Liberation Day arrived. Freedom. Economic promise. On April 2, Trump put a 10% tariff on all the remaining nations importing goods into the U.S. that had not yet been tariffed, and — using the emergency powers he’d leaned on throughout his series of pronunciations — he unveiled additional “reciprocal tariffs” that varied by nation. It was pure chaos. Some of Trump’s biggest boosters started criticizing him for the first time. Elon Musk went to war with Peter Navarro, Trump’s top trade advisor. Members of Congress introduced bills to try to stop him. The markets tanked, bond yields fell, questions started flying about how the administration even calculated the reciprocal tariffs, and the administration offered mixed (and often mutually exclusive) explanations for its actions.

Over the following week, some countries (like Vietnam and Bangladesh) asked for pauses. China escalated, slapping more retaliatory tariffs on us. On April 9, Liberation Day tariffs started to go into effect. The real Liberation Day was finally here. The European Union and China implemented more tariffs. The market went absolutely haywire (again). In a surprising and perhaps frightening turn, bond yields did not drop but instead continued to rise — the opposite of what the White House said it wanted and expected to happen. The entire global economy was knocked off its axis by the weight of the U.S. tariffs. And then… Trump backed down. 

On April 9, in an abrupt, surprising reversal, the president announced a 90-day pause on all the bespoke “reciprocal” tariffs, bringing them down to the global baseline 10% level that would remain in effect. By this point, I’d lost count of how many times tariffs had been turned on and off or paused or restarted — but it was a lot. Trump said people were getting “yippy.” His fans heralded “The Art of The Deal” (though no deals had been struck). 

A week later, The Wall Street Journal would report that Trump made his decision after his Treasury Secretary and Commerce Secretary got him alone without pro-tariff trade advisor Peter Navarro in the room. That reporting seems detailed and believable to me, but you can be the judge. Anyway: China was not included in the pause. Instead, they got hit harder. The White House announced a 125% tariff on China, which it clarified was on top of an existing 20% tariff, resulting in a 145% effective tariff on all Chinese imports (how high can we go? Anyone’s guess).

Then, on April 11, one day after clarifying we have 145% tariffs on China, we… created a massive list of tariffs exemptions for Chinese imports, including products like smartphones, computers, and semiconductors. The White House denied this was a list of exceptions, despite having literally announced the order in a memorandum titled “Clarification of Exceptions.” Meanwhile, in response to Trump backing down, the European Union suspended all of its countermeasures on U.S. goods until July. 

The White House, on April 13, then said the exceptions on China are temporary and new tariffs on computer chips are coming — so I figured the trade war was back on.

That gets us to last week, which was… quiet. Too quiet. The trade war stopped warring. I had a vision of trade advisors from all across the globe in some scene straight out of an old Western after a massive gunfight, looking around a bullet-ridden saloon with broken glasses and bodies strewn across floor, nudging various arms and legs with their boots to see who’s still alive and quietly listening for a creak in the floorboard or another shot to ring out. But instead, we just got the (now typical) market volatility paired with bond yields continuing to rise and threats to the U.S. dollar. 

On Monday, April 21, some big-time executives from major retailers like Walmart, Target, and Home Depot — apparently worried about the tariffs — decided to bend the president’s ear. The executives insisted that prices were about to spike as the tariffs began to have a deep impact on our supply chain. That apparently did the trick. The next day, at a closed-door investor summit that was not immediately reported to the public, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told investors that the China tariffs will ease very soon. The markets, defying expectations, then rallied on Tuesday morning, which — you know — might reasonably raise more questions about insider trading. Finally, Tuesday afternoon (now April 22), Trump and his economic policy team began signaling trade talks with China were imminent (potentially explaining the previously inexplicable market rally).

And, scene! For now. Until, well, yesterday, when (not kidding) Secretary Bessent said a deal with China could be years away, sending the market back into a sell-off.

What can one make of all this, when laid out end-to-end? I’m not really sure. It seems… not great? Disorganized. Spurious. Without a plan. Personally, I do not see The Art of the Deal, and neither do manufacturers or farmers or most ordinary Americans whom this was supposed to help (Trump is now experiencing his worst polling on the economy ever). Peter Navarro, who a few weeks ago insisted the administration could use the 90-day pause to make a trade deal a day, has not announced a single trade deal. Even Art Laffer, one of the economists who has most staunchly backed Trump, seems worried. 

I’ve stated this theory before, but it bears repeating: Trump is almost always most compelled by the last argument he hears. If true, that theory would explain a lot about U.S. policy. So, maybe that’s it — Trump loves tariffs, his team has mixed feelings on how to use them, and our ever-changing economic policies are the manifestations of all that infighting.

My optimism — my desire to “wait six months to a year and see how this all turns out” — it’s waning. After compiling all of the above, I’m more convinced than ever that we’re not in a good place. I’m less hopeful than ever that things will work out fine and dandy, and I don’t think things are going to plan — if there even is one.

Take the survey: Do you think Trump should impose tariffs on China? Let us know!

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

We're skipping the reader question today to give our main story some extra space. Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

This week, Vice President JD Vance visited India — a country whose largest trading partner is the United States — to discuss a bilateral trade deal. During Vance’s trip, the countries announced they had agreed to the terms of negotiation for a deal, with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative saying the U.S. would seek increased market access, lower tariffs, decreased trade barriers, and a “robust set of additional commitments.” Vance remarked that a failed relationship between the U.S. and India would darken the 21st century and outlined plans to increase co-production of defense equipment, boost energy exports, and help the Indian government explore its own offshore natural-gas and critical-mineral supplies. The Wall Street Journal has the story.

Numbers.

• 2017. The year President Donald Trump nominated Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve chair.
• 2026. The year Powell’s term expires (he was confirmed by the Senate for a second term in 2022 on President Joe Biden’s nomination).
• 4.25–4.50%. The Federal Reserve's current borrowing benchmark rate, the highest since 2007.
• 3.5%. The increase in the year-over-year consumer price index in March 2024.
• 2.4%. The increase in the year-over-year consumer price index in March 2025.
• 21% and 77%. The percentage of Americans with a favorable and unfavorable view of China, respectively, in 2025, according to Pew Research.
• 3.1%. The tariff rate on all Chinese imports to the United States on January 1, 2018.
• 20.8% The tariff rate on all Chinese imports to the United States on January 1, 2025.

The extras.

• One year ago today we covered the campus protests.
• The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was once again the explanation for why Isaac abbreviates “G-d.”
• Nothing to do with politics: The Pudding presents their proof for why middle school sucks.
• Yesterday’s survey: 4,330 readers answered our survey on Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth with 94% saying he should resign. “Trump should have fired him after the first Signal episode,” one respondent said. 

Have a nice day.

Approximately half of all fresh fruits and vegetables go to waste worldwide, a problem Apeel Sciences is tackling by attempting to make fresh produce last longer. Recently, Apeel found that applying an edible compound coating helps reinforce the natural, protective peel on produce, increasing its shelf life. So far, the innovation has prevented 166 million pieces of produce from being wasted, saving more than 29,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions and almost seven billion liters of water. Good Good Good has the story.

Don't forget...

📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.

🎧 We have a podcast you can listen to here.

🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here

💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.

🎉 Want to reach 370,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.

📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).

🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!