Executive changes are on the horizon as Donald Trump prepares to take office for a second term as President of the United States on January 20, 2025. Following his recent electoral victory over Vice President Kamala Harris, there’s palpable optimism among business executives and Congress members about how Trump's administration will shape economic policies and broader societal impacts. Recent surveys highlight how the so-called 'Trump Effect' could potentially lead to increased hiring and domestic investment. A survey by Teneo, revealed last week, indicated 43% of CEOs plan to boost their domestic investment spending post-election.
This sentiment among chief executives is echoed across various sectors. More than 64% of surveyed CEOs believe tax cuts and deregulation introduced under Trump's platform will favorably influence their business strategy. Despite the prevailing optimism, there are certain voices among corporate leaders who foresee potential challenges associated with changes to tariffs, which could hurt large-cap companies but may bolster mid-cap firms according to the same survey. Rumblings of displeasure are particularly directed at the proposed increases on tariffs on foreign imports, which 80% of mid-cap CEOs view positively. Teneo notes this divide highlights the dual effects such policies might inspire across differing sectors.
Meanwhile, Trump’s allies within Congress, such as Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), are advocating for greater presidential power over federal spending frameworks. Clyde is set to introduce legislation aimed at repealing existing measures, particularly the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which currently restricts the President's unilateral spending authority. He emphasized, “The authority is very, very important for the president to exercise... Ever since Congress introduced [the Act], you’ve seen spending literally spiraling upwards.” This move, discussed among GOP circles and mirrored by support from figures like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, suggests early efforts to consolidate control before Trump officially takes office. The anticipated policy shifts signal not just political control, but potentially, economic realignment.
The ergative shift not only marks legislative efforts but poses risks to social safety nets as well. A ruling issued by November 2024, appointed by Trump’s previous administration, eliminated expanded overtime pay protections put forth under the Biden administration, reverting the threshold to $35,558—significantly lower than prior measures. The rollback particularly detracts from protections for vulnerable populations, including workers predominantly occupied in low-wage sectors. Transitioning back, Trump’s priorities signal troubling directions for American workforce conditions.
The fate of veterans appears similarly perilous as Trump appoints loyalist Doug Collins as secretary of Veterans Affairs. Collins, favoring privatization, has been criticized for proposing “streamlining” of regulations under the guise of choice, which advocates warn may dismantle myriad benefits currently enjoyed by veterans. The potential privatization approach intensifies disquiet among those advocating for equitable healthcare access, particularly for marginalized groups.
Simultaneously, federal workers face threats under the incoming administration. Trump’s proposed shifts include strict back-to-office mandates and the reintroduction of the controversial Schedule F executive order, which could make it easier to dismiss federal employees. Ramaswamy and Musk, set to lead the new Department of Government Efficiency, aim to reduce federal bureaucracy significantly. The threat looms largest for Black employees, who comprise approximately 19% of the federal workforce, as job security appears increasingly volatile under the forthcoming directive.
Health care policies are projected to dissolve key protections offered under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as well, with looming expirations to health insurance subsidies impacting millions. It’s feared up to 4 million may lose health coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office. These detrimental impacts will likely hit Black Americans the hardest, particularly as states poised for potential funding cuts continue to rely on ACA provisions.
Additional cultural policies promise drastic changes directed toward systemic equity as Trump has signaled intentions to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives within workplaces. With Stephen Miller assuming key roles within the administration, potential ramifications for workplace equity are concerning to many advocates. Analysts worry these changes not only endanger decades of progress on social equity but could actively roll back institutional accomplishments gained through tireless advocacy.
Attention also turns toward broader economic agendas as Trump’s new administration will likely roll back Biden-era energy policies, refocusing on traditional energy sources. Executive orders promoting higher fossil fuel reliance signal both economic and environmental shifts as the administration prepares to operate primarily within the bounds of domestic energy security. Enactment of policies reflective of Trump's 'drill, baby, drill' mandate indicate pronounced economic pivots exposing tighter links between energy policies and company gains.
Market analysts assert the repeal of initiatives like the Inflation Reduction Act remains on the Republican agenda. Many of the incentives supporting renewable energy are expected to face reductions or eliminations. This awakening disbelief echoes through the sustainable energy industry, as stakeholders voice fears the ensuing market rollout will falter without cohesive federal backing.
Throughout, tensions with major trading partners like China are poised to escalate, especially surrounding policies targeting climate accords and energy production limits. Speculations also reign around how Trump’s expected exit from the Paris Climate Agreement might reshape U.S. involvement on the global energy stage. Should the anticipated withdrawal materialize sooner than expected, pressure surrounding global climate measures could intensify, prompting adaptational responses from surrounding nations.
The upcoming term promises immense ramifications for economic landscapes as well as social frameworks. With control shifting to Republican values, scrutiny over Trump’s decisions will be pivotal for evaluating American socio-economic resilience. Through collaborative efforts among diverse stakeholder groups, the fight against potential regressive impacts from these changes will require unwavering vigilance. Observers remain forewarned: the implications of who leads and how they lead can reverberate across generations.
