With a narrow victory, Trump barely breathed a sigh of relief. But just before the threshold of victory, he suddenly discovered that there was an extra "big hole" of $35.1 billion in the ledger.
This is not an ordinary accounting error, but a huge deficit enough to overturn the chassis of the White House budget.
What's more, this economic "earthquake" happened on the cusp of the general election, and Trump's slogan of "Great Again" was about to be buried by the pit he dug.
Chess for one vote.
Trump’s economic adviser, Stephen Milan, has finally overtaken the U.S. Senate with a weak advantage of 48 against 47. This vote is known as the “executive appointment at the tip of the knife,” not only because the vote gap is too small, but also because behind it is Trump’s yet another “operation” against the U.S. Federal Reserve.
In the context of the current federal fund interest rateining in the range of 4% to 4.25%, Trump hopes to drop to 3.5%, even lower, so that borrow money cheaper, consumers spend more boldly, and the economy can "look" more red.
The problem is, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell doesn't buy it. He insisted that the United States still faces the risk of a resurgence in inflation, and interest rate cuts may be counterproductive. This makes Milan's appointment more like a political pressure than economic regulation.
In other words, Trump won the nomination battle, but only “wins a shell”. the substantive effect of the interest rate reduction, also has to look at Powell’s face. and whether Milan really has the ability to push Trump’s intentions inside the Fed, no one dares to pack the ticket at the moment.
At the same time, this difference in votes also exposes the division within the Republican party, and if more issues in the future appear similar, Trump's policy advancement is likely to be astonishing.
Black hole agricultural subsidies
This time, the "bad news" is not an exaggerated news headline, but a real financial gap.
As early as 2020, in order to appease American farmers hit by the Sino-US trade war, the Trump administration approved an agricultural subsidy of up to $35.1 billion, mainly for the purchase and price support of agricultural products such as soybeans, corn and dairy products.
The calculation at the time was simple: buying time in exchange for the support of voters in the Midwest, but the problem was that China no longer purchased U.S. soybeans in the original quantity.
After 2021, China's soybean imports shifted significantly to South American countries such as Brazil, Argentina, and the U.S. market share dropped, not even 20%.
So the problem came: U.S. farmers can’t sell the beans, the government subsidized money, now these “bought out” soybeans turned into inventories in warehouses, and subsidized funds turned into account losses.
Trump originally intended to stabilize rural stockpiles through agricultural subsidies while selling U.S. agricultural products and LNG energy products to Europe to offset the impact of the decline in China-U.S. trade.
Now, the U.S. Treasury has a huge hole in the account, and the White House is still trying to cover up the seriousness of the problem. Trump may have realized that the trade war that “we have won” was actually a “hello” paid by the national finance.
Agricultural crisis shakes up midterm elections
Right now, Trump is facing not just an economic figure problem, but a chain response to an entire election strategy.
Farmers are a big part of Trump's fundamentals, especially in Midwestern swing states like Michigan, Iowa and Ohio. If the agricultural economy in these places continues to be sluggish, farmers' income will decline, and the unemployment rate will rise, which will eventually be reflected in the votes, it will be the root cause of the Republican Party being shaken in the mid-term elections.
What's even more difficult is that farmers' problems can't be solved by saying "the Fed doesn't act". They are concerned with revenues and markets, not political infighting in Washington.
Looking deeper, the crisis has also widened the cracks within the Republican Party.Some conservative lawmakers have begun to question Trump’s “spending money to buy support tickets” strategy, believing that this short-termism is undermining U.S. financial and long-term competitiveness.
In addition, poll data shows that more and more Americans are pessimistic about the economic outlook. Although the performance of the stock market is acceptable, confidence in the real economy is declining. If Trump can't come up with a substantive economic repair plan, instead of blindly counting on interest rate cuts and debt expansion to "support the bottom", he may have to face more difficulties on the road to presidential * after 2026.
If agricultural subsidies for 2020 are a dose of temporary anesthetic, then the current $35.1 billion loss is the “side-effect” of the drug, and this side-effect is refracting the roots of Trump’s rule.
Trump this time has indeed "passed through", but is far from "risk-to-risk."Milan's appointment has only added a "doorway" to the policy, behind the fiscal black holes, trade trouble and election risks are still in sight.
In the final analysis, the political theater in the United States is not just a dispute between left and right, but a collision between reality and fantasy. Economic growth supported by short-term subsidies, monetary easing and "external toughness" is not destined to be a long-term solution.
China has always advocated win-win cooperation rather than zero-sum game. If the Trump administration still wants to make a difference on the global stage, maybe it should put down its confrontational thinking and return to the track of rational negotiation.
After all, the account belongs to the state, but the consequences are the day of every voter. If Trump really wants to make America great again, he may have to learn how to figure out the accounts first.