What measurable policies have caused long-term harm to the United States economy or democracy?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Several measurable policies from 2024–2025 critics say have harmed the U.S. economy and democratic institutions center on large, across‑the‑board tariffs and an agenda dubbed “Project 2025.” Independent economic models estimate tariffs announced in early April 2025 reduce long‑run GDP by between about 0.4%–6% (Yale/Budget Lab and Penn Wharton range) and impose household losses of roughly $1,100–$58,000 depending on model and horizon [1] [2] [3]. Civil‑society trackers and legal advocates say Project 2025’s day‑one proposals and enabling executive actions would weaken voting protections, limit agency independence, and concentrate executive power [4] [5] [6].
1. A trade shock with quantifiable pain: tariffs and GDP hits
Analysts measured the macro effects of the Liberty/Liberation Day tariff package and related levies: Yale’s Budget Lab finds all 2025 tariffs and retaliation lower 2025 GDP growth by 0.9 percentage points and leave the long‑run US economy about 0.6% smaller (roughly $160 billion per year in 2024 dollars) with exports down 18% [1]. Penn Wharton’s model projects bigger long‑run losses from the announced tariff regime—roughly a 6% long‑run GDP decline and a 5% fall in wages in some summaries, and other estimates in their brief go as high as an 8% GDP and 7% wage drop under certain assumptions—plus large lifetime household income losses in some scenarios [2]. Tax‑foundation style modeling focuses on distributional effects and finds the policy looks like a near‑term per‑household tax hike—about $1,100–$1,400 per household in 2025–26 under its tariff scenarios [3].
2. Channels of harm: prices, investment, and trade retaliation
Multiple centers explain how tariffs translate into measurable damage: higher import prices passed to consumers (raising measured inflation), disrupted integrated supply chains that reduce productivity and investment, and foreign retaliation that dents exports and employment [7] [8] [1]. The OECD and Deloitte highlight elevated policy uncertainty and market volatility tied to tariff announcements; the OECD projects slower growth and stickier inflation if mid‑May tariff rates persist, with unemployment rising modestly in 2026 and headline inflation accelerating [9] [10].
3. Competing estimates and model sensitivity
Economists disagree on magnitudes. Penn Wharton and PIIE scenarios emphasize large long‑run costs and scenarios where asset‑risk shifts (capital flight) amplify losses [2] [7]. Yale’s Budget Lab presents smaller but still durable long‑run losses [1]. The differences reflect model assumptions about supply‑chain reoptimization, how quickly policy uncertainty fades, retaliation depth, and whether revenue raised offsets other distortions—so numbers vary materially by method [2] [1] [7].
4. Democracy costs framed as policy and institution changes
Separate from economics, watchdogs and advocacy groups document measurable institutional changes and legislative activity tied to Project 2025 and allied campaigns. Human Rights First and Democracy Watch trackers list state and federal bills, executive orders, and agency directives that target education, DEIA programs, immigration enforcement, and voting protections; they argue these moves concentrate power in the executive and erode safeguards for civil rights and voting access [4] [5] [6]. These organizations quantify activity (e.g., dozens to hundreds of bills/actions tracked) as evidence of measurable democratic erosion [4].
5. Two narratives: national‑security framing vs. governance risk
Proponents frame tariffs and rapid policy moves as reclaiming reciprocity, protecting supply chains and sovereignty; the White House described a 10% baseline reciprocal tariff to address trade deficits and national security concerns [11]. Critics—academic and institutional—frame the same measures as creating policy uncertainty, higher inflation, lower investment, and erosion of institutional checks [12] [13]. Both sides point to measurable outcomes (tariff rates, EPU spikes, executive orders issued) but differ on whether short‑term disruption is justified by long‑term strategic gain [11] [12] [13].
6. What is clearly supported and what is not in available reporting
Available sources document concrete economic projections linking 2025 tariffs to smaller long‑run GDP, wage declines, household losses, higher inflation, and reduced exports [2] [1] [3] [9]. They also document trackers and reports cataloguing Project 2025 policy proposals and state/federal legislative activity that critics say threaten democratic checks and civil rights [4] [5] [6]. Available sources do not mention quantified, consensus metrics tying every Project 2025 proposal to a single aggregate economic cost or an agreed‑upon numerical “democracy index” decline—assessments of democratic harm are presented through compilations of actions, bills, and legal risks rather than a uniform metric [4] [5].
7. What to watch next—measurable indicators
Track GDP levels vs. counterfactual forecasts, export volumes, headline inflation and wage growth, foreign asset flows and dollar risk premia, and Economic Policy Uncertainty indices to monitor economic harm [2] [7] [9]. On democracy, follow counts of enacted laws or executive orders that alter agency independence, voting‑related legislation tracked at state and federal level, and litigation outcomes challenging day‑one directives—these are the empirically traceable signals cited by watchdogs [4] [6] [5].
Limitations: this piece uses the provided reports and trackers; it does not substitute for the full primary datasets or alternate modeling not included here.