Why Trump blinked

President Donald Trump speaks on the South Portico of the White House on April 9, 2025, in Washington, DC. | Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

After a week of intensifying market turmoil, President Donald Trump stepped back from the brink of financial crisis Wednesday, announcing a 90-day “pause” on the exorbitant tariff levels he’d imposed on dozens of countries.

It was not a total climbdown: Trump intensified a trade war with China by hiking its tariff level up to 125 percent. And he is also keeping in place a 10 percent tariff for other countries. (Details on exactly which countries remained murky as of mid-Wednesday afternoon.) 

But it was a significant step back.

So why did he do it? Why make such a dramatic announcement last week, and walk it back so relatively soon?

Though Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent initially claimed this pivot was part of Trump’s “strategy all along,” many outside observers saw this as market-driven, both because of the timing and because of remarks Trump himself later made (he said he shifted because people were “getting yippy” and “a little bit afraid”).

Since Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement last week, stocks had lost 10 percent of their value. Even more concerning: US treasury bond yields were spiking. Trump’s team had been trying to drive bond yields lower, both so the US government would pay less interest on its debt and so the Federal Reserve would cut rates and lower borrowing costs for Americans. 

Instead, yields went up, in ways that some feared could ripple outward and cause a financial crisis. This wasn’t what the Trump team had expected, so many speculated it was the reason for Trump’s sudden cave. (“The bond market is very tricky,” Trump said Wednesday afternoon. “Last night, people were getting a little queasy.”)

Investors were overjoyed at Trump’s partial walkback, as stocks quickly surged — though not all the way back to their pre-Liberation Day levels (they made up about half of their losses since then). 

This relief may be largely about the seeming confirmation that, contrary to appearances of the past week, Trump is not totally heedless to market reaction and lobbying, disconnected from reality, and willing to wreck the business environment. The shift also suggests that Wall Street-aligned advisers like Bessent have gained the upper hand over anti-trade fanatics like Trump adviser Peter Navarro — for now, at least.

But there will likely be more tumult ahead. Trump’s trade war with China is still on. And though Trump’s team purportedly intends to work out deals with every other country he targeted, it is far from clear how such deals could realistically meet Trump’s (bizarre) goal of bringing the US into trade surplus with every major trading partner.

Furthermore, the chaos and uncertainty Trump caused may have a lasting effect, chilling businesses’ planning and doing damage to the economy. Because if he caused such a mess once, how do we know he won’t do it again?

Related articles

Laughter erupts as James Comer blanks in House hearing: ‘I wasn’t paying attention’



A hearing room for the House Oversight Committee erupted into laughter Wednesday after the committee chair, Rep. James Comer (R-KY), blanked on a question asked by a Democratic committee member.

Wednesday’s hearing saw the committee fiercely debate whether to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for defying a congressional subpoena to testify about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. Challenging the measure was Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), who pressed Comer on whether the committee had already been informed that the Clintons were willing to testify on the record.

“It's my understanding that you guys have received correspondence by phone, email and a written letter from the attorneys from the Clintons offering to [testify] on the record, with you, with the staff... is that correct?” Stansbury asked.

“I didn't... I wasn't paying attention to your question,” Comer admitted, sparking an eruption of laughter in the room, including from Stansbury, who moved to ask her question again, albeit more slowly.

“Okay – we're pursuant to a motion you brought for contempt, and the claim is that you have made reasonable accommodations and that [the Clintons] have not been responsive,” Stansbury repeated.

“But they have transmitted correspondence to all of the members of the committee – including yourself – including a letter from their attorneys stating that they have offered by phone, by email to meet with you, on the record, to give sworn statements. Is that correct?”

Comer’s first reaction was to speak of how the Clintons had been given “five months” to appear before Congress before being pressed by Stansbury again: “yes or no,” she asked.

“You all are trying to create a false narrative!” Comer fired back. “You've had five months, you should have gotten to the Clintons before the contempt vote!”

Stansbury asked once more for Comer to answer her question, but was met with silence as Comer’s aides could be seen speaking with him quietly.

“Just to be clear for the public, his staff are advising the chairman to not answer that question,” Stansbury alleged.

Comer fired back at Stansbury once more.

“No, the staff said they couldn't understand what the hell you were saying because you blabbered for three minutes!” Comer said.

The Clintons have, in fact, refused to testify before Congress, and despite having been issued congressional subpoenas. Both have challenged Comer’s authority to demand they testify, and have accused the lawmaker’s request of being politically motivated.


VIDEO: Josh Marshall and David Kurtz on What the Heck the DOJ Is Up to in Minneapolis

We’re just days out from our first Morning Memo Live event on the weaponization and politicization of the Justice Department...

Celebrating 100 Years of Shea’s Buffalo

It was christened Buffalo’s “Wonder Theater” by its founder...