Bulwark Takes - BREAKING: Jobs Report Show MAJOR Miss; Warning Signs for Economy

Episode Date: March 6, 2026

JVL and Catherine Rampell are going live to discuss the disappointing new jobs report.

Hello, everyone. This is JVL here with my bulwark colleague, Catherine Rampel, author of the receipts newsletter. And we have economic news. It's Friday and we have jobs reports and, oh, America lost jobs. Not job growth. We went backwards. So lost 92,000 jobs in February, Catherine. not something that happened a lot in the Biden administration. No. But here we are. And just to clarify, jobs numbers are not like golf lowest score wins. You want them to be positive, right?

Yes. You want them to be positive, ideally positive enough to keep up with population growth and reduce unemployment and all of the hopefully obvious things. Instead, I think we have net job losses since May of 2025 because this is not the first time we've lost jobs under the Trump administration. Yeah, I think we have a chart actually showing job losses. Yeah, exactly there. So you can see, look at that. Boy, look at all those blue lines back in 2022 and 2023 and 2024 and 23 and 24. Wow.

I guess America really hated that. Yeah, well, they didn't. I guess America just didn't like those blue lines, huh? America was really mad about the economy in those years. I mean, not because of the job market per se, because of other stuff happening in the economy. But, yeah, this was not sufficient at the very least to stoke a lot of enthusiasm about the Biden economy. Whereas, as you can see here, we now have six months of job losses, not consecutive, but, you know, over the course of Donald Trump's second term. So not great.

I should clarify that the job. job losses in February were partly about the fact that there was a big strike in health care at a hospital system. But like the economy should be resilient enough to still show job growth without, you know, even with some doctors and nurses at one hospital being on strike. And actually, healthcare had been basically the only reliably bright spot. in the economy. So we are going to talk about the job stuff. We're going to talk about Iran and the economic ramifications of the new war. And we're going to try to tie it all altogether for people. But I just want to go back. Again, expectations, very important. This jobs report seems to have come a little bit out of nowhere. Nobody seems to have expected job numbers this week. Wall Street

kind of having a little bit of a minor freak out this morning. And the administration's response seems to be, yeah, but it's because of all the immigrants were deporting. Yeah, it's funny. That's part of the line. I think we actually have Kevin Hassett saying a version of that. Can we play that? Asterisks in Jim's words to make this number make more sense.

Well, I think, you know, Jim. We had some sound. Yeah, there we go. There's so many strong indicators this month that it's something of a surprise, but there are some weather. There are strikes on the West Coast. And I think that we also have this birth death model, a change in the procedure at the BLS.

And so I think what we need to start doing with these jobs numbers, at least on the payroll side, is take the average over a few months. And if you take the average over a few months, we had a surprisingly positive one last month than a surprisingly negative one, this one. But on average, it's about what we expect to be seeing because immigration has gone down by so much that break-even employment is probably in the sort of 30 or 40,000 jobs a month

range. And so, yeah, I think it's consistent with everything else we're seeing, which is that the economy is really strong. Okay, so let me decode this a little bit. Yeah, can you unpack that for us? Sure. So aside from like the technical stuff that he talked about, which there's some truth to it, birth, death model, I won't get into all of that.

That would be the case in any administration. The immigration thing. So we had been hearing for years by Trump and from Trump and from his allies that if you pulled immigrants out of the economy, then you would have a lot more job openings for Native-born Americans. that immigrants were stealing all of the jobs that should have gone to, you know, red-blooded Americans. And therefore, if you just yanked them out of the labor force, maybe yanked them out of the country, that would create, you know, an abundance of riches in terms of job opportunities for native-born Americans. Heritage. American.

Heritage Americans. Thank you. many of us argued at the time like that's not really true. The jobs that immigrants disproportionately fill are different from those that native-born Americans disproportionately fill. For example, like immigrants are more likely to be in the construction sector, food services, healthcare for that matter. It's not really tallied in this report, but agriculture. So there are a lot of sectors that if you take the immigrants out there,

There's not like a cue of American, native-born heritage Americans who are willing to fill those jobs, willing and ready to fill those jobs. And it's not just about like what are the jobs that people are interested in. It's also just like how many are how many people are there because you have native-born Americans being much, skewing much older, skewing more likely to drop out of the labor force because they're approaching. or in retirement age. So part of the reason why we did see this, what looked like an increase in immigrant employment, such a big increase in immigrant employment versus for a while, it would look like a decrease in native born employment. I'm not actually sure that that bears out after all the revisions, but at the time at least, this was the case. It was because Americans were retiring and immigrants were coming into the country, yes, and in,

Definitely higher than historical numbers, but also they were working age. So they were coming here and they were working. So anyway, so that's the backdrop for all of this. Today we are hearing from Kevin Hassett, your favorite economist, I know, that actually when you pull those immigrants out of the labor force, maybe you don't get as much job growth. So like, what is it? Is it that we should have expected more job growth for native-born Americans? or it's like, no, obviously we would have expected less job growth overall. So, you know, they kind of want it both ways.

And either way, they're just trying to cope, I guess, with the fact that the numbers are not great. And I do want to say, like, you should never read too much into one month's report. Pass it is right on that. Every economist will tell you that. But it's not just one month's report. we've seen, again, six months now under Trump's tenure in which we've had job losses. And when there's been growth, it's been really slow. Yeah.

And it's very, very low growth. It's been low growth. And it's, again, it's been really lopsided. Can we pull up the chart actually of industries? Do we have that? So this is over the past 12 months. And I'm sorry, it's a little bit ugly as a chart. but you can see that this is every major sector, and most sectors have lost jobs.

The ones that have not are private education and health services, and if you break that down, it's almost entirely health. Leisure and hospitality has done okay. Other services have done okay. Construction, I guess, is modestly up. I don't know what that looks like in the past few months, but my guess is it's not great, given, again, that we've been deporting much of the workforce. So, yeah, the manufacturing, mining and logging.

Those are like real alpha male department of labor, you know, Aryan picture type stuff jobs. Yeah. Not making a lot of those, are we? We're going backwards on those. Exactly. The blue collar sector has been doing pretty badly. You know, I think this is supposed to be Trump's people, like right, right? He cares about these macho jobs, these white, excuse me not white color, blue collar.

color, hyper masculine jobs, white people jobs. White color, white person, blue collar jobs. Yeah, so those are the jobs that he's supposed to be most devoted to that he said he would bring back. And instead, those are struggling. And those are struggling in part because of Trump policies like tariffs, right? So like when he tariffs, steel and aluminum, you have. have a whole bunch of other downstream manufacturing companies that rely on purchasing steel and aluminum to make cars and appliances and other stuff.

So unemployment ticks up to 4.4%. Just as a reminder, that would be 10% higher than it was for almost the entirety of the Biden administration when unemployment was below 4% for something like 36 consecutive months. I don't have the exact count, but it was, you know, it was pretty good. Wow, look at that. So this is, just to clarify, this chart that we're showing is long-term unemployed, which I wanted to emphasize because it's like it's the case that unemployment itself has ticked up a little bit. As you point out, you know, it's like 10% higher.

But it's still, you know, it's not super high, 4.4%. Not yet. Not yet. And look, and I'm not rooting for it to get a lot worse because it's disproportionately, it's disproportionately, the most vulnerable in the population who bear the front of job losses and recessions and everything. But the reason I wanted to show this chart is that it shows that if you get unemployed, your chances of getting re-employed have gotten a lot worse. That's what this is showing. So this is how many people, of those who are unemployed, how many people are long-term unemployed,

which is like approximately six months, 27 weeks. And that has been growing pretty fast. And that's concerning because it used to be like every, every month, like even when we have gangbusters job numbers, a lot of people lose their jobs too. You know, it's like there's just tremendous churn. Exactly. There's tremendous churn in the economy. And the hope is that if people lose their jobs, there are still lots of openings for them to find. You know, you lose a job at McDonald's. Maybe you can get a job at Burger King. Or you lose a job on one construction site. You can find another one. And so that doesn't seem to be happening. And I think this is partly, again, about the trade wars and about the fact that there's just this paralysis in the economy that companies are actually, they're not firing in huge numbers, but they're also not hiring. So if you are one of the unlucky people to have lost your job, getting back into, you know, gainful employment has gotten a lot harder recently. So I want to walk us then into the trap that America seems to be sleepwalking into. So we have, we're going backwards in terms of job creation. It is getting harder for people to find jobs once they've been unemployed. There is a real hesitancy in the business community to spend money because of all the uncertainty.

these are signals that traditionally would say to the Federal Reserve, hey, we got to cut rates to stimulate the economy, correct? Usually. Yes. Yes, usually. The problem is that at the same time, we have oil prices jumping by, like, I don't know what the percentage is. I think we had a 25 cent per gallon increase this week alone in price of gas. And we have a war in the Middle East.

which is about to mess up huge swaths of the global economy. Not just oil, not just energy, but trade and commodities like aluminum. You mentioned aluminum already. We'll talk about that. Fertilizer, which is a precursor for food production. And so it sure seems like in the short run, we are headed towards a bunch of inflationary pressures. And so, again, I'm just a. just a guy on YouTube, but it seems like a moment in which the economy is slowing and moving

backwards and the Fed wants to stimulate things in order to get businesses to invest a little bit more money in order to hire people. The Fed is going to feel a little bit handcuffed if there are also a bunch of inflationary pressures pushing up against them. Yeah, I mean, the Fed is in the worst possible position and it is almost entirely Donald Trump's doing. I was talking with a friend earlier today about like, can you imagine how different the economy would be if Donald Trump had just come into office and done nothing? Just gone golfing. Gone golfing. As some of us advised him to do, I literally wrote a column way back in the day before we got into office saying, just please go play golf and don't do anything on the economy.

He inherited an economy with great tailwinds. We were very close to that coveted soft landing, meaning we would ring inflation out of the economy without crashing it, without having a recession. Job growth was still strong. And instead, pretty much every economic policy or even non-economic policies like bombings have made stuff worse. I mentioned the tariffs. Yeah. So you wrote a great newsletter yesterday about this. People should go to the bulwark.com and subscribe to it.

But I think people need to hear this and understand that there are a bunch of second and third order economic effects, which stem from war, which do not seem to have occurred to anybody in the administration. Nope. No, they do not. Yeah. We can blow stuff up. Explosions, dude. Yeah. Chug.

Chug. Without any understanding, like, oh. Oh, maritime insurance? What's maritime? insurance. How does it work? How do gas prices work, apparently? Like, this should have been totally obvious. This is probably obvious to most Americans, but like, you know, normies who are not paid to pay attention all of these things. And look, I want to start by saying it always feels a little icky and crass to be talking about the economic fallout of a war. The most important thing

about the war is the loss of life and other casualties, including of our service members, and the children's school that was destroyed and all of those things. I hope that is obvious. Okay. I'm sorry. I have to interrupt you here to say that the reason we do have to talk about the stuff is not to be callous, but because wars are about political will, right? This is what bombs do not win wars.

Political will is what determines the outcome of wars. And in America, it is well established that our political will largely follows economics. And that's why- And gas prices in particular. Yes. Yes. There is a strategic reason why we have to talk about the economics of this as it relates to war.

So don't feel like you need to apologize for this. This is all very much. I just, well, I'm not apologizing. I'm just trying to put stuff in context because I don't want people to think like that's the only calculus that we should care about. Sure. In any event, sorry for that throat clearing. It also matters, by the way, because I'm not sure a lot of like most Americans have heard all that much about the war. And they may be dimly aware of it. There's some polling, I think,

from Ipsos that showed that I forget what the share was, but it was only like a quarter of Americans had heard a lot about the war. And, you know, it's going to come home to them. Like, they may not be aware of what's going on in the world. They may not be aware, even of service members who have died, but they will notice when they go to their local gas station and gas is a lot more expensive. So, yes, gasoline, the most obvious disruption here, I think S&P Global had said that this could very well turn into the largest disruption of oil markets in history, because about 20% of global oil supply goes through the Strait of Hormuz, which is on Iran's southern coast. And if you look at what has happened to traffic on Iran's southern coast, on Iran's southern coast, in the Strait of Hormuz, it has rapidly declined. I think we actually have a chart showing how it's, yes.

So this is, you know, another chart. Wow. So that blue line, you can see like that's how much the daily ship crossings have plummeted. I think they're not quite at zero, but they're pretty close. And would you want to go through this straight, given that you're probably uninsurable? I think like nine different ships of various kinds have been attacked. act at this point, mostly by Iran, but I'm not sure all of them have been attributable to one side or the other. So it's very dangerous. And the results of all of that is that, as you can see,

the shipments have been coming to a virtual standstill. And also production has been cut back a lot. So like in Iraq, they have dramatically cut back oil production because they can't ship it and they're running out of storage. And you have a bunch of refinery. in the region in I think Bahrain, maybe UAE, Saudi. Kuwait. I don't remember. There are a bunch of them. I feel like every day there's another one that, again, have either been shutting down entirely or have been having to scale back because there's nowhere to send the oil to. So that's going to trickle down to gasoline prices. You also have liquefied natural gas, which is used to power factories, among other. things. Industrial. Yeah. It's hugely important for industrial-based manufacturing. Exactly, including in that region. I mean, a lot of the LNG that comes from the Middle East goes to China

and goes to Europe, but it's also used for production just in the Middle East. And so you've had aluminum, I think you mentioned this, an aluminum smelter has been shut down. You've had disruptions in production of various kinds of chemicals, including fertilizer or, or, you know, an aluminum smelter has been shut down. You've had disruptions in production of various kinds of chemicals, including fertilizer or component ingredients that go into fertilizer. So you have this cascading effect from the energy markets getting massively disrupted. And then you have all of the downstream companies that don't have energy or otherwise would ship stuff through the straight. And they can't produce. They can't ship it. So you're going to have all of these effects throughout the world, not just on energy prices, but also on fertilizer, which as you point out is a feedstock

into literal food. You're going to see food prices go up probably, not immediately, but, you know, probably in the next term, right? That's a longer term. Right. And then you also have lots of other products that people may not realize that use. Yep. Here we go. Thank you. This is a measure of fertilizer prices, urea is a very common fertilizer ingredient. You can see prices have gone way up, and that's, I think, as of yesterday, I think that chart is. I don't know what it looks like today. But in any event, so fertilizer prices are going to go up. That's going to get passed along to food prices.

You have a lot of other products, as I was about to say, that include oil and gas or the sort of cast off products from oil and gas refineries that will also get more expensive in the longer term. So it's amazing like how many products I was looking through this list that the Department of Energy put out. But it's like shampoo, shaving cream, footballs, almost anything made out of plastic. Anything with petroleum? All petroleum products. This is everything every bad. So I just want to. And then just the last thing, sorry, is that of course, anything that gets shipped, even if it doesn't include petrochemicals in it, freight uses energy. So that stuff's going to get more expensive, too.

When energy costs go up, that is an underlying inflation for everything. Correct. And so this is when, you know, when oil prices go up, it pushes up inflation because anything that needs to get shipped, then has increased costs. I just want to explain to people a little bit about the insurance problem. Yeah. So for people who don't maybe think about this a lot about shipping and maritime, big ships, super tankers, cargo ships, they are enormous capital investments. They're incredibly expensive. And the stuff they carry is also incredibly expensive. You know, a fully laden oil tanker is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. if you are the owner-operator of the ship or you are the owner of the cargo and are paying to have it move from one place to another,

losing an entire shipment of something can be economically catastrophic, which is why you insure it. And when maritime insurers come in and say, no, we will not write policies for a ship going in this area. that makes it so that it is just not viable for you to do. You simply can't tolerate that risk. And this is, again, just jumping back, when the Pentagon was planning this war, they seem to have said to themselves, we believe we can prevent the Iranians from militarily closing the strait. And so what they mean was, we can stop them from getting their capital boats out there and undergoing a mining operation. So they were concerned with the Iranian Navy mining the strait and making it literally impassable.

They do not seem to have considered the fact that by simply presenting a threat profile to shipping, that would make insurers unable to take on the risk of issuing insurance, which would then prevent the shipping from happening just as a matter of economics, which is stunning to me. It is stunning to me that they thought that the only consideration they had to take into account was like the bomb stuff. But can we stop them from laying sea mines? If the answer is yes, then shipping will be fine. There are so many obvious things that they didn't consider.

There was this almost comical story in Politico a couple of days ago that said that Chief of Step, Susie Wiles, had tasked everyone in the White House with brainstorming ideas for how to get gasoline prices. down. And it's like, did you consider not starting a war in the Middle East? Here's one. Don't start a war. That would have been brilliant. I mean, whatever the other considerations they may have had militarily, geopolitically, like maybe if you really care about gas prices, which, by the way, kind of sank Democrats in the 2022 midterms. And then again, the Democrats in 24, you know, Biden inflation was was still a major issue. But I remember talking with the Biden White House in 2022 about how they were also like leaving no stone unturn to try to figure out how to get gasoline prices down. How do we get companies to pump more oil? And at the time, people like myself were writing

things like, look, presidents don't control gas prices, you know, voters think that, you know, This is very salient for voters and voters always blame the president, but the president doesn't really have control over gas prices per se. They wish they had a dial here. Planizing starts a war of choice. And then it turns out they do have a lot of upside control for gas prices. They can do upward pressure. Yeah.

Hard to do downward pressure. And it's been interesting to see what their solutions, such as they are, for dealing with the very predictable energy market fallout, of their war of choice is, right? So Donald Trump said that he was going to have naval ships, like, escort these tankers through the strait. Good luck with that. I mean, think about how much fuel.

There aren't enough. Think about how much fuel it would use just to have, like, a fleet of naval warships escorting what had been, whatever it was, like 40 different tankers every day prior to this war. He said that he was going to provide insurance. It's not clear what that means. I saw that today, I think it was Scott Besson. I don't know if we have this tweet. But if we do, I'd love to pull it up. Scott Besson basically said, yeah, to enable oil to keep flowing to the global market, the Treasury Department is issuing a temporary 30-day waiver to allow Indian refiners to purchase Russian oil. So again, to decode this, because they did not think about it. what the fallout would be for oil prices, for gasoline prices. We are now rolling back our sanctions on Russia, which is supporting Iran in order to deal with the fallout, the economic fallout from our war in Iran. I mean, there are a lot of consumers. Yes. So, I mean, let's just again, I'm going to underline this. So we have a report today that Russian intelligence is provided,

all sorts of assets to the Iranian government, including targeting information on U.S. forces and positions and information about U.S. air defenses. And so the Trump administration's solution to the war they started is to ease sanctions on a country which is helping our opponent target American military assets. Yes. Yeah, it's insane. It's totally insane. And as much as voters and consumers and businesses in the United States may be, you know, sort of the losers in terms of the effect on gas prices, there are some definite winners.

Some of them will be oil and gas producers in the United States. But another big one is Russia because Russia is still a petro state. I mean, they are less so than they used to be in part because of sanctions. But they're going to get a lot more money now for their war in Ukraine for their other kinds of military operations, including apparently providing guidance to the Iranians. Because we are driving up oil prices, which in and of itself would be a windfall, and because we are loosening our sanctions for other countries to buy Russian oil. So Putin is just like licking his chops here. While we're also messing up our relations with India, which are already sort of in the toilet anyway, that's another. We don't have to do that. But go look up the Indian naval exercises and Iran, if you guys are interested in a little bit of trivia about what's happened in the last week.

All right. So, Catherine, I want to paint a picture for you and then you tell me, you poke holes in it. Okay. Or not. My operating theory is that there are lots of outcomes which are possible from where we sit, but that the most likely of these outcomes is probably that Trump sees things going south economically declares victory and just walks away. And it doesn't matter what's broken. It doesn't matter what humanitarian crises are left behind, et cetera.

But he's just like, we won. We won the biggest war that anybody's ever won. One strong Alpha America man with tears in his eyes told me that he saw a bald eagle mating with a ram pickup truck. And it's so great. It's huge. It's so strong. At which point, the hope would be like, okay, things can kind of go back to normal. But what?

And so this would avoid, like, catastrophe. So you do not wind up with 20,000 American troops stationed in Iran and, you know, on the ground fighting in Iran for a year or anything like that. The Strait of Hormuz gets basically opened back up, global commerce basically restart. And so like, you know, it's not great, but it's not terrible. The problem is that there are a bunch of lag effects that happen here. And so, for instance, refineries, as you mentioned, in places. are getting shut down because they don't have places to store the oil which is coming off of the line. Well, it takes time to restart these things. It isn't like flipping a switch. And the best example of this

is the aluminum smelter. So I am simply reporting something I learned three days ago. It's not like I am an expert in smelting processes. But a smelter is such a complicated piece of equipment. And the the heat requirements needed for it are such that it takes almost a full year once you have gone into shutdown on a smelter to make it fully operational again. Everything has to happen really, really slowly. And there are a bunch of things in the system like that, right? So you've got a gap in the supply that you normally get of precursor chemicals for fertilizers. And so the people who normally make the fertilizers are going to be late in delivering the

fertilizers to the people who are the end users. And there's just going to be like 150 things like that. That even if we end the war in two weeks and everything goes back to normal, you do have these economic disruptions, which are just going to have like ripple effects that are going to last for a while. Yeah, that's that's crazy. Yeah. I mean, again, I'm not really equipped to assess like whether we're better or worse off from a

national security standpoint. If this scenario you mentioned were to transpire, I will leave that to some of our colleagues. Just pretend that it goes back to what it was before, but like 15% messier. But there are other geopolitical consequences, including that we will have pissed off so many of our allies in the Middle East and elsewhere, many of whom had, besides like probably buying a whole bunch of crypto, Trump crypto, had promised to make investments in the United States. States, if any of those were real, some of that stuff gets, you know, paired back. And I think there was reporting in the FT about that specifically today. We have, again, quadruply pissed off our allies in Europe by driving up their energy prices. They've actually seen a lot more pain already than we have. So our relationships are hurt in addition to the sort of like,

logistical nuts and bolts of cascading supply chain disruptions. And what does that mean for us going forward? So yeah, there's a ton of fallout. It's not like, you know, Donald Trump's specialty is always repackaging the status quo as a victory. And so like this is what he, this is what he does with trade wars and negotiations like, oh, we're just going to go back to the way things were. What a victory. We can't go back to the way things were. And it's partly because of these domino effects that you mentioned. It's partly because we will have irreparably destroyed or frayed at the very least many of our relationships with allies in the region, which will have national security consequences, but also economic consequences.

So, yeah, there are just so many reasons why, again, I'm not commenting on like the military strategic wisdom of all of this, just from a like obvious things that they did not account for perspective when it comes to energy markets, when it comes to fertilizer markets, when it comes to our relationships with all of what had been our friends in the region and elsewhere, it is very clear that none of this was been thought through, has been thought through. Yeah. And again, I, you know, we're not, we're not Dumers, I don't think. You're a little bit of a Dumeers. You're a little bit of a I'm a little bit of a dumer. But what I'm saying is I think like the, the doomy scenario here is on the very low probability end of the spectrum. And that the most likely outcome is like, yeah, things are like 10 or 15% crappier than they would have been otherwise. And they're like that for the next several months. Like, you know, maybe four months, maybe 10 months, maybe 14 months for forever because supply chain disruptions do work themselves out over time. But, critically, there is a political set of elections coming during what that would time.

And so this is where I, again, projecting a little bit forward with the rising unemployment, with the inflationary pressures, with the Fed being a little bit handcuffed then and what it can do, with an election now, what it's March, so eight months out. it doesn't seem like there's a lot of economic upside available. Like, even if everything works out, the best case scenario seems to be like, uh, like maybe things could get 5% better. Like, you know, if we're born under a lucky star or something like that. And maybe they can get a lot worse.

Or maybe they'll just like continue sort of like they are and get marginally worse, even if we leave Iran in two weeks. And that's political danger, I think, for the Trump administration. I guess this is what I'm sort of building up to here is that all of this is good for Democrats in the midterms. Yes. That doesn't mean Democrats won't still screw it up. But yes, the prospect of higher gas prices alone is usually a major problem for the incumbent

party. and the idea that actually voters might be correct in attributing those higher gas prices to the president or to actions taken by the president seems especially dangerous for the president's party. You know, lots of things could change between now and then, but there are vulnerabilities in the job market. There are vulnerabilities in what I will call warflation that are, you know, caused by this president. and it's not obvious to me that any, the things will be calmer or that they will not make more enforced errors. I guess this is how I should put it. Like the problems that we have with the economy right now are mostly of Trump's doing. If he had done nothing but go and play golf, he could have just coasted economically anyway. On Joe Biden's economy. On Joe Biden's economy.

Which America hated. Which America did hate. Yes. He would have been in a much better position, certainly, than he is now. And instead, you know, I ask like, I don't think he's trying to raise prices. But if he were, I'm not sure what he would be doing differently at this point. It's like the Russian asset thing. I don't think Donald Trump is a Russian asset. But if he were, if he were a Manchurian candidate style, what would he have done differently? I don't know. Exactly. Exactly. So he, yeah, and affordability is, I think, not just among his major political vulnerabilities or the GOP's major political vulnerabilities. It is the political vulnerability on top of Epstein, on top of people being upset about being promised no foreign wars and all of the other reasons why people might not be super enthused with this president, things that are dragging down his approval ratings. If you look at the number one reason why people who had been Trump supporters say that they have defected, it is about inflation. It is about prices, cost of living, and the economy. And he seems to be doing his darndest to drive him away further. Yeah. 53% of voters now say that they think Trump has made the economy worse than Joe Biden, who could possibly have worn them. I mean, I don't blame these voters.

They, you know, they saw this guy from television and he put. promise that he would impose deflation and it would be good for everybody and how are they supposed to know. All right. Catherine, thank you for coming. We're going to probably try to do this every Friday. We're going to try to do this around 1230 on Friday, sit and have a little bit of economy nerd talk about the world around us. I am super excited to talk with Catherine about repaying tariffs that the government now seems to be saying, we don't know where the money is. I know we took all the money.

We had the money. But it might be in the couch cushions or something. I don't think we can give it back. It's been used to give bonuses to our troops or pay for the other tax cuts from last year. Or what were the other things? Pay for child care or pay for our military. Like there are so many things that it has paid for.

We may need to bring in a more. I'm talking about that with us. Because one of the things that I, whatever, not to send us out of here on a tangent, but I am fascinated by the question of, okay, the court says you have to give it back, you, the government, and you, the government says, well, we can't because it's gone. What is the law's response to that? You can't send the legal, man, right? Like, how does that work?

Anyway, we'll be back. We'll do this next Friday. And I, you know, I bet you, Gatherine, things won't be much better. See, there's that demerism again. No, no, it's optimism because it means we'll have a lot to talk about. Fair enough. Guys, thanks for hanging with us. Do me a quick, solid.

Hit like, hit subscribe and follow the channel that helps us a lot. The algorithm needs to see your signal that you enjoy it. Otherwise, it punishes us. Good luck, America.