Global Economy

The Double-Edged Sword of U.S. Economic Power

Published

2 months ago

December 8, 2025

The United States has increasingly utilized its economic might as a tool of statecraft in the twenty-first century.

The United States has increasingly utilized its economic might as a tool of statecraft in the twenty-first century. Washington has employed tariffs, sanctions, and military force to influence the actions of its adversaries. Two of the most significant instances of this tactic are the tariffs placed on China during the trade war and the sanctions placed on Russia after it invaded Ukraine.

The goals of both actions were to safeguard American interests and exert influence overseas. However, the ramifications of their actions have been far more intricate than Washington policymakers may have expected. They have expedited the disintegration of the international order, tested relationships, and changed global markets.

In 2022, the United States and its allies imposed an unprecedented set of sanctions in response to Russian tanks rolling into Ukraine. Energy corporations were subject to restrictions, Russian banks were shut out of the global financial system, and the assets of oligarchs were frozen. The objective was clear: to put pressure on President Vladimir Putin to alter the path of the war and to make it harder for Moscow to finance it.

The sanctions have produced a range of economic outcomes. Although Russia’s GDP shrank precipitously in the immediate aftermath, the nation turned out to be more resilient than many had anticipated. Moscow was able to lessen the impact by shifting oil exports to China, India, and other ready consumers.

Despite its volatility, the ruble did not completely collapse. But there is no denying the long-term harm. Russia has been compelled to rely on Beijing, denied access to cutting-edge technology, and shut out of Western financing markets. In order to preserve cash flow, its energy industry, which was formerly the foundation of its worldwide dominance, is now selling at a discount. The largest trading bloc in the world, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), provided China with new ways to counteract American pressure.

However, there have been notable global consequences. Europe’s severe reliance on Russian gas led to an energy crisis and a sharp increase in costs. Developing countries, already struggling with post-pandemic inflation, saw increases in the cost of food and petrol. The world was also affected by sanctions meant to punish Moscow, raising questions about whether the West had underestimated the collateral damage.

Russia’s resolve has been diplomatically reinforced by sanctions. Instead, the Kremlin has stepped up its depiction of Western hostility. For many in the Global South, the sanctions regime has reinforced perceptions of a divided international order, where Western values are selectively implemented.

Tariffs on China were the result of rivalry, whereas sanctions on Russia were the result of conflict. Citing unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft, and a widening trade deficit, Washington levied broad duties on Chinese goods starting in 2018. The purpose of the tariffs was to safeguard American industries and restore economic equilibrium. The immediate result was a dramatic rise in hostilities between the United States and China. Beijing responded by imposing tariffs of its own on American manufacturing and agriculture.

Customers suffered at the checkout counter, supply networks were interrupted, and business expenses increased. Although the tariffs hindered China’s economy, they also encouraged adaptation. By making significant investments in domestic technology and extending commercial relations with ASEAN countries, Beijing strengthened its commitment to independence.

China now has additional ways to counteract pressure from the United States thanks to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the largest trading grouping in the world. The trade imbalance was not significantly reduced by the tariffs for the US.

Rather, they emphasized how closely the two economies are interdependent. Farmers that depended on Chinese markets suffered from retaliatory actions, while American businesses that relied on Chinese production had to pay more.

Above all, the tariffs possibly sped up the decoupling process. As Beijing and Washington started to reconsider their mutual dependence, global supply chains gradually changed. Reshoring and diversification helped some industries, but overall, the impact was increased costs and more unpredictability.

Both measures disrupted global markets, imposed costs on both allies and adversaries, and produced mixed results in terms of changing behavior. China has not fundamentally changed its industrial policies, and Russia has not withdrawn from Ukraine. Instead, both countries have adapted, finding ways to mitigate the pressure while strengthening ties with alternative partners.

At first glance, tariffs on China and sanctions on Russia may seem like different tools aimed at different problems; one targeted geopolitical aggression, the other economic competition. However, both measures reflect a broader U.S. strategy: using economic leverage to achieve political ends without resorting to military force.

But the distinctions are just as significant. Global manufacturing has changed as a result of tariffs on China, while global energy markets have changed as a result of sanctions on Russia. Tariffs are transactional and competitive, whereas sanctions are punitive and isolating. When taken as a whole, they demonstrate the flexibility—and constraints—of economic pressure.

The indirect effects of U.S. sanctions and tariffs on the global system may be more important than their direct effects on China or Russia. Washington has made it clear that political alignment is required to gain access to its markets and financial networks by weaponizing economic interdependence.

This has caused competitors to look for other options. While China is establishing alternative organizations like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and encouraging the use of the yuan in international trade, Russia is becoming more and more dependent on China. To avoid getting caught in the crossfire of great-power conflict, even allies of the United States are hedging.

As a result, the liberal economic system that the US helped establish is gradually being undermined. We might be heading towards a fractured world of rival blocs rather than a single, cohesive global organization. This results in increased expenses and uncertainty for firms. Governments will have to make more difficult decisions between conflicting areas of power.

The lesson is not that tariffs and sanctions don’t work. They have the power to signal resolve, inflict actual costs, and influence rivals’ calculations. However, they are not panaceas. Economic coercion has the risk of turning into a blunt tool that emboldens adversaries and alienates allies in the absence of diplomacy, coalition building, and long-term planning.

Additionally, Washington needs to understand the boundaries of its power. Although the dollar still holds sway, excessive use of financial sanctions may hasten the development of substitutes. Tariffs might shield some industries, but they can’t undo decades of globalization in a single day.

The United States must ultimately find a balance between engagement and pressure. Instead of being the toolkit itself, sanctions and tariffs ought to be a component of a larger one. If not, the United States runs the risk of eroding the same framework of free markets and partnerships that has long served as the basis for its dominance.

Both the potential and the danger of economic statecraft are demonstrated by the tariffs on China and the sanctions on Russia. They show that without firing a shot, the United States can nevertheless influence world events. However, they also demonstrate that, similar to military might, economic might has unforeseen repercussions.

Washington needs to use its economic powers more accurately, modestly, and strategically if it hopes to survive this new era of great-power competition. Otherwise, America itself could be harmed by the two-edged sword of tariffs and sanctions, not only its enemies.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Related Topics:Economy Finance news opinion US

Up Next

Global Inflation Trends: Is the World Entering a Post-Inflation Era?

Don't Miss

The rot beneath the bailout

Click to comment

Banks

The Great Decoupling: Can ‘Anti-Woke’ Banks Survive a Post-ESG Regulatory Era?

Published

12 hours ago

January 23, 2026

Abdul Rahman

The death of reputational risk as a regulatory standard has unleashed something unexpected in American banking: not innovation, but a fundamental identity crisis that pits fortress-grade financial institutions against nimble, mission-driven challengers operating on thinner capital cushions.

The Debanking Reckoning

The numbers tell a stark story. All nine of the nation’s largest banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC, TD Bank, and BMO—maintained policies that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency found to be inappropriate restrictions on lawful businesses, particularly in digital assets and politically sensitive sectors. This regulatory finding, released in December 2025, confirmed what crypto entrepreneurs and conservative activists had alleged for years: systematic exclusion from basic banking services based on non-financial criteria.

Federal regulators eliminated reputational risk considerations from supervisory guidance following President Trump’s August 2025 executive order on fair banking. The pivot was seismic. For the first time since the 2008 financial crisis, regulators are refocusing examinations on material financial risk rather than governance formalities, with the FDIC and OCC proposing joint rules to define unsafe practices more precisely under Section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

This isn’t regulatory tweaking. It’s a philosophical revolution that collapses the post-crisis consensus around stakeholder capitalism and replaces it with a narrower mandate: safety, soundness, and shareholder primacy.

The De Novo Mirage

Conservative states anticipated this moment. Just four new banks opened in 2025, down from six the previous year, though eighteen bank groups now have conditional charters or applications on file with the FDIC. Florida has emerged as ground zero for this movement—Portrait Bank in Winter Park expects to open first quarter 2026 with capital commitments exceeding initial targets, while similar ventures proliferate across conservative-leaning markets.

Yet the enthusiasm masks structural realities. In 2025, the OCC received fourteen de novo charter applications for limited purpose national trust banks, nearly matching the prior four years combined, with many involving fintech and digital-asset firms. These aren’t traditional community banks. They’re specialized vehicles designed to capture market segments abandoned by major institutions—a niche strategy vulnerable to the same liquidity constraints that devastated regional banks in 2023.

The capital requirements remain punishing. Even with proposed three-year phase-ins for federal capital standards under pending legislation, new institutions face the reality that regulatory openness to novel business models doesn’t translate to profitable operations in a compressed-margin environment where deposit competition remains fierce and loan demand uncertain.

The Strive Paradox

Consider the trajectory of Strive Asset Management, the anti-ESG investment firm that co-founder Vivek Ramaswamy positioned as the vanguard of shareholder capitalism. Strive surpassed one billion dollars in assets after less than one year of launching, propelled by conservative state pension funds seeking alternatives to BlackRock and Vanguard. The firm’s proxy voting strategy—opposing ESG proposals at shareholder meetings—became its primary differentiator, since its passive equity index ETFs offer nothing investors can’t find elsewhere.

But Strive isn’t a bank, and that distinction matters profoundly. Asset managers can stake ideological positions without bearing credit risk or maintaining deposit insurance. Banks cannot. The regulatory decoupling that empowers anti-ESG rhetoric simultaneously exposes institutions to traditional banking risks that have nothing to do with politics: duration mismatches, commercial real estate exposure, operational complexity, and wholesale funding volatility.

The irony runs deeper. Analysis found Strive’s funds aren’t substantially different from those offered by BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, with many top holdings in its Growth ETF overwhelmingly supporting Democratic politicians and PACs. Marketing proved more innovative than methodology—a viable strategy for asset management, less so for deposit-taking institutions where balance sheet composition determines survival.

Fortress Versus Mission: The Capital Chasm

Global Systemically Important Banks operate in a different universe. The 2025 G-SIB list maintains twenty-nine institutions, with Bank of America and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China moving to higher capital requirement buckets. These behemoths hold Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity buffers, maintain enhanced supplementary leverage ratios, and undergo stress testing regimes that dwarf anything contemplated for de novo institutions.

JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and their peers possess what market participants call fortress balance sheets: robust liquidity reserves, conservative leverage ratios, diversified funding sources, and capital structures engineered to withstand systemic shocks. Such institutions prioritize cash flow, manage debt prudently, and maintain the flexibility to acquire distressed assets when competitors struggle.

Mission-driven conservative banks lack this architecture. They’re smaller, concentrated in specific geographies, often dependent on particular industry exposures, and critically, reliant on retail deposit bases that proved alarmingly mobile during 2023’s regional bank stress. When Silicon Valley Bank collapsed in March 2023, depositors fled not because of ESG considerations but because uninsured deposits exceeded FDIC coverage and alternative options existed one smartphone click away.

The regulatory pivot toward financial risk actually intensifies this vulnerability. Supervisory transparency is likely to be a dominant theme in 2026, with agencies reviewing the CAMELS rating system to align it more closely with financial risk rather than governance formality. For institutions built around opposition to ESG principles rather than superior risk management, this creates a cruel paradox: victory in the culture war coincides with heightened scrutiny of precisely those competencies where specialized, politically-aligned banks may lack comparative advantage.

The Cross-Border Complications

For high-net-worth individuals who view banking as portable infrastructure, the political realignment carries hidden costs. International correspondent banking relationships depend on standardized risk frameworks that facilitate cross-border payments, foreign exchange transactions, and trade finance. Major institutions maintain these networks because their scale and capitalization make them acceptable counterparties to foreign banks operating under different regulatory regimes.

Smaller, mission-driven institutions face systematic disadvantages in this ecosystem. Foreign banks conducting enhanced due diligence on U.S. counterparties evaluate capital adequacy, liquidity management, and operational controls—not political positioning. A conservative bank in Florida seeking to establish euro clearing relationships confronts the same skepticism as any under-capitalized institution, regardless of its proxy voting record on climate proposals.

This matters enormously for internationally mobile wealth. Private banking clients with European business interests, property holdings in multiple jurisdictions, or complex family office structures require seamless integration with global financial infrastructure. Political alignment provides zero utility when transferring funds to Monaco, maintaining Swiss custody accounts, or executing currency hedges through London markets. Fortress balance sheets do.

The lifestyle implications extend beyond mechanics. Travelers discovering their politically-aligned regional bank cannot process payments in Southeast Asia or provide competitive foreign exchange rates confront the gap between cultural affinity and operational capability. Premium credit cards, international wire transfers, and currency exchange services all depend on institutional relationships that smaller banks struggle to maintain economically.

The Liquidity Labyrinth

Changes to bank capital and liquidity rules may impact cost structures, while non-financial risks such as operational resilience, cybersecurity, third-party risk management, financial crime, and AI are expected to remain priorities. This regulatory environment creates a double bind for challenger institutions: they must demonstrate financial robustness while competing against incumbents whose economies of scale spread compliance costs across vastly larger asset bases.

Liquidity management presents the most acute challenge. Conservative banks targeting crypto-adjacent businesses, firearm manufacturers, or energy companies inherit concentrated exposures that amplify funding volatility. When retail depositors perceive risk—whether from negative news cycles, social media panics, or genuine financial stress—the velocity of withdrawals in the digital age overwhelms even well-capitalized institutions lacking access to diverse wholesale funding markets.

The Federal Reserve’s discount window provides emergency liquidity, but borrowing there carries stigma and requires eligible collateral. Commercial real estate loans, crypto custody assets, and specialized industry exposures may not qualify or may haircut severely. G-SIBs maintain standing repo facilities, swap lines, and capital markets access that function as perpetual insurance against liquidity stress. De novo banks enjoy none of these advantages.

The Stablecoin Gambit

The GENIUS Act requires federal banking agencies to adopt a comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers by July 18, 2026, with the FDIC issuing proposed rules in December 2025 previewing its supervisory approach. This creates an opening that mission-driven institutions view as transformative: becoming regulated issuers of dollar-backed digital currencies.

The opportunity is real but treacherous. Stablecoin issuance demands reserve management sophistication, cybersecurity infrastructure, and operational controls that exceed traditional banking requirements. Issuers must maintain one-to-one backing for digital tokens while processing redemptions instantaneously, managing cyber threats continuously, and satisfying regulators that reserve assets remain genuinely segregated and liquid.

Fortress institutions like JPMorgan Chase already operate blockchain settlement networks (Onyx, JPM Coin) with institutional-grade controls and balance sheets capable of absorbing operational losses. Conservative challengers proposing stablecoin strategies enter markets where technological complexity intersects with regulatory uncertainty—precisely the environment where under-capitalization proves fatal.

The regulatory framework will determine viability. If capital requirements for stablecoin issuers approach G-SIB standards, de novo institutions cannot compete. If requirements relax substantially, systemic risk migrates from regulated banks to specialized issuers lacking safety nets. Neither outcome favors the mission-driven model.

The Verdict: Survival Requires Scale

The post-ESG regulatory era doesn’t doom conservative banking ventures, but it eliminates the cultural arbitrage they anticipated. When reputational risk governed supervisory decisions, politically disfavored institutions could claim persecution and attract capital from aligned investors willing to accept below-market returns. That premium evaporates when regulators refocus on balance sheet fundamentals.

Three scenarios emerge. First, successful de novo institutions abandon political differentiation and compete as traditional community banks serving local markets—viable but ideologically diluted. Second, they merge rapidly into regional networks achieving economies of scale necessary for modern banking infrastructure—consolidation that replicates industry trends they ostensibly oppose. Third, they persist as undercapitalized niche players serving narrow customer segments until liquidity stress triggers failures that validate regulatory skepticism.

The fortress institutions, meanwhile, benefit twice over. They escape reputational risk criticism while maintaining capital advantages that insulate them from competitive threats. Banking agencies signaled openness to revising capital frameworks in 2026, with initial steps including the November finalization of enhanced supplementary leverage ratio rules for U.S. G-SIBs. Every regulatory concession that lowers barriers for challengers applies equally to incumbents whose existing infrastructure leverages relief more efficiently.

The great decoupling is thus paradoxically a great convergence: all banks, regardless of cultural positioning, confront identical capital requirements, liquidity pressures, and technological demands. Politics may determine marketing strategies, but mathematics determines survival. In that equation, fortress balance sheets trump mission statements every time.

The Geopolitical Factor

Banking sector exposure to geopolitical risks is multifaceted, including direct impacts through correspondent banking and cross-border payments, as well as indirect impacts via client losses and credit impairment and operational impacts through supply chain disruption and talent mobility constraints. For smaller banks with concentrated client bases in specific sectors, these exposures create vulnerabilities that large, diversified institutions can better absorb.

Financial institutions grappling with military conflicts, tariff structures, international diplomatic shifts and trade rule changes face challenges that scale exponentially for under-resourced compliance departments. When European regulators increase scrutiny of correspondent banking relationships or U.S. sanctions designations expand, mission-driven banks must allocate precious capital to compliance infrastructure rather than competitive differentiation.

The financial system rewards resilience, not rhetoric. Conservative banking challengers have won the culture war precisely as the battlefield shifted to terrain where cultural victories provide no competitive advantage whatsoever. That may be the cruelest irony of the post-ESG era: the freedom to operate without reputational constraints arrives simultaneously with the obligation to compete on pure financial merit against institutions engineered for exactly that contest over decades.

For high-net-worth individuals navigating this landscape, the calculus is stark. Political alignment with banking partners offers psychological satisfaction but operational limitations. International mobility, sophisticated wealth management, and crisis resilience all favor institutions whose balance sheets reflect fortress principles rather than ideological commitments. The question isn’t whether mission-driven banks can survive—some will. It’s whether they can deliver services that justify the hidden costs their structural disadvantages impose on clients who discover too late that politics makes poor collateral when liquidity vanishes.

Additional Resources

For deeper analysis of regulatory trends shaping the banking landscape in 2026:

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Exclusive

What Trump Said About the U.S. Economy at Davos — and What the Data Reveals

Published

17 hours ago

January 23, 2026

Abdul Rahman

The alpine air in Davos was brisk on January 23, 2026, but the atmosphere inside the Congress Centre was even icier. President Donald Trump, addressing the World Economic Forum via video link for the second time in his current term, delivered a characteristically bold assessment of the American economy—one that painted a portrait of roaring industrial revival, plummeting energy costs, and imminent housing affordability.

His tone was triumphant, his claims sweeping. Yet in the ornate hall where global elites gathered, the reaction was notably muted. Polite applause punctuated pauses, but skeptical glances were exchanged among finance ministers and CEOs who’ve been parsing the actual trajectory of U.S. economic indicators since Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs took effect last April.

Trump’s Davos economy speech in 2026 was vintage political theater—part victory lap, part sales pitch to international investors. He touted a manufacturing renaissance driven by his tariff regime, pledged to make America a “nation of owners, not renters,” and criticized European energy policy while boasting of American dominance at the pump. These proclamations resonated with his domestic base watching from home, but they landed awkwardly among an audience acutely aware of contradictory data emerging from U.S. federal agencies, independent research institutions, and global markets.

This disconnect between rhetoric and reality isn’t merely academic. As the world’s largest economy navigates an era of protectionist trade policy, elevated interest rates, and geopolitical volatility, understanding what Trump actually said at Davos—and how it compares to verifiable economic data—matters profoundly for investors, policymakers, and citizens alike. What follows is a rigorous examination of the president’s key claims, measured against the latest available evidence from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Federal Reserve databases, energy markets, and housing sector analytics.

Key Highlights From Trump’s Davos 2026 Address

President Trump’s virtual address touched on several core economic themes that have defined his second term. Here are the most significant quotes and policy assertions from his speech:

On tariffs and manufacturing: “We’ve unleashed the greatest factory boom in American history. Companies are pouring back into our country because they know tariffs mean business stays home. The Liberation Day tariffs are working exactly as planned.”
On housing affordability: “We’re going to make America a nation of owners again, not renters. Homeownership is the American Dream, and my administration is cutting through red tape and bringing down costs so every family can achieve it.”
On energy dominance: “American energy is the cheapest in the world. While Europe pays through the nose for inefficient green policies, Americans are filling up their tanks for less than they have in years. We’re producing more oil and gas than ever before.”
On trade negotiations: “Countries that have ripped us off for decades are finally coming to the table with fair deals. We’re not backing down. America First means America wins.”
On global competitiveness: “Investment is flooding into the United States. The world knows we’re the safest, strongest economy on the planet, and that’s not changing under my watch.”

These talking points were delivered with Trump’s characteristic confidence, designed to project strength and economic competence to both domestic and international audiences. But each claim invites scrutiny against measurable outcomes.

Tariffs and Trade Policy: Manufacturing Boom or Industrial Backfire?

Perhaps no aspect of Trump’s economic agenda has been more contentious than his aggressive use of tariffs. The “Liberation Day” tariffs announced on April 2, 2025, imposed sweeping levies on imports from China, the European Union, and other major trading partners—ostensibly to protect American manufacturing and force better trade terms. At Davos, Trump framed this policy as an unqualified success, claiming it sparked a “factory boom” that’s bringing industrial jobs flooding back to American shores.

The data tells a markedly different story. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. manufacturing employment has declined in seven of the nine months following the April 2025 tariff implementation. The sector shed approximately 43,000 jobs between April and December 2025, with particularly steep losses in auto parts manufacturing, electronics assembly, and metals fabrication—industries heavily dependent on integrated global supply chains that tariffs disrupted.

More revealing still is the trajectory of factory construction spending, a leading indicator of long-term industrial investment confidence. Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) from the St. Louis Fed tracks this metric closely through its TLMFGCONS series, which measures total manufacturing construction spending in millions of dollars. This data shows factory construction spending peaked in mid-2024 at approximately $225 billion annually, then began a steady decline through October 2025 (the most recent data available), falling to roughly $198 billion—a drop of about 12% that coincides almost precisely with the tariff rollout and subsequent supply chain reconfiguration costs.

The disconnect between Trump’s triumphalist rhetoric and these government statistics isn’t easily explained away. Economists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics have noted that while some reshoring announcements made headlines in 2025, many represented planned investments predating the tariffs, while others were subsequently canceled or scaled back as companies confronted the reality of higher input costs and retaliatory measures from trading partners.

The European Union’s counter-tariffs on American agricultural exports, for instance, have devastated Midwest soybean farmers—a politically sensitive constituency that Trump carried heavily in 2024. China’s pivot toward Brazilian and Argentine suppliers for industrial commodities has cost U.S. producers an estimated $18 billion in lost export revenue since mid-2025, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

What Trump didn’t mention at Davos were these unintended consequences: rising input costs for American manufacturers who depend on imported components, retaliatory tariffs hammering export-oriented sectors, and investment hesitation as companies await clarity on whether tariff rates represent permanent policy or negotiating theater. The National Association of Manufacturers—hardly a liberal advocacy group—issued a cautious statement in December 2025 noting that while some tariff protections benefited specific industries, the overall impact had been “mixed at best” with supply chain disruptions offsetting gains.

Financial markets have reflected this ambiguity. The S&P Manufacturing PMI has hovered around the 50-point threshold separating expansion from contraction for most of late 2025, suggesting an industrial sector treading water rather than surging forward. For context, the manufacturing PMI averaged 52.8 in 2023 and 51.6 in 2024—both higher than the current reading, despite those years preceding Trump’s “factory boom” tariffs.

Housing Affordability: Bold Promises Meet Stubborn Market Realities

Trump’s pledge to transform America into “a nation of owners, not renters” resonated emotionally at Davos, tapping into a deep anxiety about housing affordability that transcends partisan divisions. The president pointed to regulatory rollbacks his administration has pursued, including attempts to streamline federal environmental reviews for residential development and pressure on local zoning boards to permit higher-density construction.

Yet housing affordability in January 2026 remains stubbornly elusive for most American households. The median existing home price stands at approximately $412,000 according to the National Association of Realtors—up 4.8% from January 2025 and nearly 47% higher than pre-pandemic levels in early 2020. Meanwhile, mortgage rates, while down slightly from their 2023 peaks, remain elevated at around 6.7% for a 30-year fixed-rate loan as of mid-January 2026, according to Freddie Mac’s Primary Mortgage Market Survey.

This combination—high prices plus high borrowing costs—has crushed affordability for first-time buyers. The monthly payment on that median-priced home with a standard 20% down payment now exceeds $2,200, compared to roughly $1,400 in early 2020. Real wage growth, while positive in some sectors, hasn’t kept pace. The result: homeownership rates have actually ticked downward slightly since Trump took office in January 2025, from 65.7% to 65.4% as of Q4 2025, per Census Bureau data.

The core challenge Trump’s rhetoric glosses over is supply. The United States has underbuilt housing for more than a decade relative to household formation, creating a structural deficit economists estimate at 3-4 million units. Regulatory streamlining—while potentially helpful at the margins—cannot quickly overcome labor shortages in construction (a sector that lost workers during the pandemic and hasn’t fully recovered), elevated materials costs (partly driven by tariffs on imported lumber and steel), and local political resistance to density that federal policy struggles to override.

Trump’s housing proposals have focused heavily on demand-side interventions—tax credits for first-time buyers, pressure on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates—while offering less concrete action on supply constraints. The Federal Reserve, notably, has maintained its benchmark interest rate in the 4.25-4.50% range through early 2026, citing persistent inflation concerns partly related to tariff-driven price increases, effectively limiting how much mortgage rates can fall in the near term.

At Davos, Trump criticized rental markets and institutional investors purchasing single-family homes, rhetoric that polls well but doesn’t address why those investors find the market attractive in the first place: insufficient supply creates pricing power. Without a credible, large-scale plan to accelerate homebuilding—particularly affordable starter homes—the homeownership dream Trump invoked remains out of reach for millions.

Energy Dominance: Low Pump Prices and the European Contrast

On energy, Trump’s Davos messaging was characteristically combative. He contrasted what he described as America’s energy abundance and low consumer prices with Europe’s expensive, unreliable renewable transition—a critique designed to validate his administration’s “drill, baby, drill” philosophy and continued support for fossil fuel production.

Here, Trump’s claims align more closely with observable reality—though not quite as cleanly as his speech suggested. The average price of regular gasoline in the United States in mid-January 2026 sits at approximately $3.18 per gallon, according to AAA data. This represents a meaningful decline from the $3.85 average a year prior and is well below the peak of nearly $5.00 reached in summer 2022. American consumers are indeed paying less at the pump than most European counterparts, where taxes and carbon pricing keep fuel costs significantly higher.

U.S. crude oil production has remained robust, averaging about 13.2 million barrels per day in late 2025—near record levels—according to the Energy Information Administration. Natural gas production similarly continues at historic highs, supporting both domestic consumption and liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports that have made the United States a major global supplier, particularly to Europe following the disruption of Russian pipeline gas.

However, Trump’s portrayal omits crucial context. First, much of America’s oil and gas production boom predates his current term, accelerating during the 2010s shale revolution under both Obama and first-term Trump policies. Current production levels largely reflect long-cycle investments made years ago, plus market dynamics (higher global prices incentivizing drilling) rather than specific Trump administration actions since January 2025.

Second, while pump prices have fallen, this owes considerably to global crude oil market conditions—including OPEC+ production discipline weakening, demand growth in China slowing, and mild winter weather in the Northern Hemisphere reducing heating fuel consumption. The president’s energy policies, which primarily involve expanding federal leasing for drilling and rolling back emissions regulations, contribute at the margins but don’t singularly determine prices set in global markets.

Third, Trump’s critique of European energy policy ignores the rationale driving it: long-term energy security and climate mitigation. European leaders at Davos—while diplomatically refraining from direct rebuttals—have argued consistently that initial transition costs will yield strategic independence from volatile fossil fuel suppliers and position Europe competitively in clean technology manufacturing. Whether that bet pays off remains uncertain, but dismissing it as mere inefficiency oversimplifies a complex strategic calculation.

The energy picture Trump painted is thus partially accurate—Americans benefit from abundant domestic resources and relatively low prices—but his framing omits market complexities and overstates his administration’s causal role in outcomes substantially shaped by factors beyond presidential control.

Broader Implications for the U.S. and Global Economy in 2026

Stepping back from individual claims, Trump’s Davos appearance reflected a fundamental tension in his economic approach: confidence-building narratives aimed at sustaining business and consumer sentiment versus tangible policy outcomes that frequently disappoint the rhetoric’s promises.

From a global investor perspective, the United States retains substantial advantages—deep capital markets, technological leadership in AI and biotech, rule of law, and demographic dynamism relative to aging competitors like Japan and much of Europe. These structural strengths mean capital continues flowing into dollar-denominated assets despite policy uncertainties. U.S. equity markets have performed reasonably well through early 2026, with the S&P 500 up modestly year-to-date, suggesting investors see growth continuing even if not at the torrid pace Trump advertises.

Yet risks are accumulating. The tariff regime has introduced unpredictability into supply chains and raised costs that companies are increasingly passing to consumers, contributing to inflation persistence that constrains Federal Reserve flexibility. Manufacturing weakness, if sustained, could ripple into broader labor markets. Housing unaffordability threatens to become a generational crisis, with implications for wealth accumulation and social mobility. Trade partners are diversifying away from dollar dependence and U.S. supply chains where possible—a slow-moving but significant shift.

Economists surveyed by the Financial Times in early January projected U.S. GDP growth of 2.1% for 2026—solid but unspectacular, and down from 2.5% in 2025. Inflation is expected to remain around 2.8-3.0%, above the Fed’s 2% target, partly due to tariff effects. Unemployment, currently at 4.1%, is forecast to edge up slightly as labor demand softens. This is hardly a crisis scenario, but neither is it the “greatest economy ever” Trump routinely invokes.

The Davos audience—sophisticated actors who allocate capital based on probabilities, not slogans—likely digested Trump’s speech with professional detachment. They understand political leaders must project optimism. But they also track hard data, and that data suggests an economy of contradictions: resilient fundamentals shadowed by self-inflicted policy wounds, rhetorical confidence masking sectoral stress, and a president whose economic promises consistently outpace deliverable results.

Conclusion: Parsing Rhetoric From Reality in an Election Season

Trump’s Davos economy speech in 2026 was quintessential political communication—designed to shape perception, rally supporters, and project American strength to global elites. For those inclined to support the president, it offered reassurance that his policies are working. For skeptics, it provided fresh evidence of a widening gap between political messaging and economic fundamentals.

The reality, as data demonstrates, is more nuanced than either Trump’s boosters or critics typically acknowledge. Manufacturing isn’t booming, but neither has it collapsed. Housing affordability remains a serious challenge, yet homeownership rates haven’t cratered. Energy production is strong, though not uniquely attributable to current policies. Tariffs have created winners and losers, with aggregate effects tilting negative but not catastrophic.

What matters most for Americans trying to navigate this landscape—whether as workers, investors, or voters—is maintaining clear-eyed assessment grounded in verifiable information. Presidential speeches at global forums like Davos will always blend aspiration with salesmanship. The antidote is rigorous engagement with data from non-partisan sources: the Bureau of Labor Statistics for employment, the Federal Reserve for construction and monetary policy, the Census Bureau for housing, and the Energy Information Administration for production and prices.

As 2026 unfolds and another election cycle looms, these numbers—not political rhetoric—will determine whether Trump’s economic legacy is ultimately judged as successful stewardship or overpromised underdelivery. The Davos speech offered a preview of the narrative he’ll run on. The data provides the standard against which that narrative must be measured.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

ASEAN

Can Improving Corporate Governance Help Asian Markets Finally Challenge US Stock Market Exceptionalism in 2026?

Published

2 days ago

January 21, 2026

Abdul Rahman

The narrative looked unassailable twelve months ago. As 2025 dawned, the mantra of “US stock market exceptionalism” echoed through trading floors from Manhattan to Mayfair—superior returns underpinned by legal clarity, shareholder empowerment, deep liquid markets, and the innovation juggernaut of Silicon Valley. Yet as the calendar now flips to 2026, that certainty has fractured. The S&P 500 delivered a respectable 17.9% total return in 2025, impressive by historical standards but thoroughly eclipsed by emerging markets. The MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index surged 32.11%, while international markets delivered a 29.2% gain that left American indices in the dust.

The question vexing asset allocators globally is whether this represents a temporary aberration or the early tremors of a tectonic shift—one powered not by macroeconomic tailwinds alone, but by something more structural: a quiet revolution in Asian corporate governance that is narrowing the longstanding institutional advantage of US markets.

The Crumbling Foundations of American Exceptionalism

For decades, US stock market exceptionalism rested on several bedrock principles: corporate transparency enforced by the SEC, robust minority shareholder protections, liquid capital markets that could absorb shocks, and a legal framework that treated property rights as sacrosanct. These advantages translated into a persistent valuation premium—the S&P 500 trades at a forward earnings yield of around 4.5%, compared to over 6.5% for Europe and 7.5% for emerging markets.

Yet the events of 2025 exposed vulnerabilities. President Trump’s April tariff announcement triggered the biggest one-day decline since the COVID-19 pandemic, shedding approximately $3.1 trillion in market value. While markets rebounded as tariffs were suspended and renegotiated, the volatility signaled something deeper: the weaponization of trade policy had introduced an unpredictable variable into what was supposedly the world’s most stable investment destination.

State Street Global Advisors identified several forces undermining American outperformance: fading fiscal stimulus, the conclusion of ultra-low interest rates, “America First” policies eroding trust in the US as a reliable global partner, and rising competition in innovation from China and Europe. Louis-Vincent Gave of Gavekal Research went further, declaring bluntly that 2025 marked the year the US-China trade war effectively ended—with China, having successfully de-Westernized its supply chains, emerging as the victor.

The dollar’s trajectory confirmed the sentiment shift. The US dollar index fell approximately 9.4% in 2025, its worst year since 2017, and analysts project a further decline in 2026 driven by expectations of lower interest rates and a broader shift away from the dollar’s role as an invincible reserve currency.

Asia’s Governance Renaissance: From Form to Substance

While US advantages atrophied, Asian markets embarked on an accelerating governance transformation that moved beyond box-ticking compliance toward genuine structural reform. The shift is most pronounced in the region’s three largest markets: Japan, South Korea, and India.

Japan: From Deflation to Shareholder Value

Japan’s corporate governance journey represents perhaps the most dramatic reversal. Long derided for cross-shareholdings, entrenched management, and capital inefficiency, Japanese companies have undergone a metamorphosis driven by regulatory pressure and investor activism.

The Financial Services Agency’s revised Stewardship Code (Version 3.0), released in June 2025, marked a philosophical pivot from prescriptive rules to principles-based frameworks that prioritize substance over form. The code emphasizes moving beyond “box-ticking” approaches, promoting collective engagement between institutional investors and companies, and improving transparency around beneficial ownership.

The Tokyo Stock Exchange’s March 2023 directive urging companies to implement “Management that is Conscious of Cost of Capital and Stock Price” has yielded tangible results. J.P. Morgan Asset Management reported a significant increase in share buybacks in 2024, with some companies officially committing to reduce balance sheet cash and return excess capital to shareholders. Japan’s three largest insurance companies pledged to entirely unwind their cross-shareholdings.

The results speak volumes. South Korea’s Kospi index soared almost 76% in 2025, posting its best year since 1999, while shareholder activism in Asia reached record highs, with 108 campaigns advanced in Japan alone—a 74% increase from 2018.

South Korea: Legislative Momentum and Minority Rights

South Korea demonstrated that political will can accelerate governance reform dramatically. In August 2025, the National Assembly passed amendments mandating cumulative voting for large listed companies with assets exceeding KRW 2 trillion and expanding audit committee independence requirements. These amendments, effective September 2026, override exclusion clauses that previously allowed companies to opt out of cumulative voting.

The reforms empower minority shareholders by allowing those holding at least 1% of voting shares to request cumulative voting six weeks before shareholder meetings without first amending articles of incorporation. Combined with earlier July 2025 legislation ending single-gender boards and requiring pre-AGM annual report disclosures, Korea has constructed a robust framework for minority shareholder protection that rivals developed markets.

Challenges remain. Asian Corporate Governance Association analysts note that implementation obstacles—including board size caps, shareholder meetings called on short notice, and defensive practices by some managements—may constrain practical impact. Yet the directional momentum is unmistakable, particularly when amplified by 78 public activist campaigns in 2024, a stark increase from just eight in 2019.

India: Judicial Evolution and Activism

India’s governance story combines legislative foundations with evolving judicial interpretation. The Companies Act 2013 established comprehensive frameworks for minority shareholder protection, including sections 241 and 244 addressing oppression and mismanagement. What has changed dramatically is enforcement and interpretation.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has expanded remedies available to minority shareholders, with recent rulings establishing structured buy-out mechanisms to resolve shareholder deadlocks. The landmark Escientia Life Sciences case in March 2025 demonstrated the tribunal’s willingness to propose definitive solutions rather than simply issuing directives for parties to negotiate.

Shareholder activism has surged, with minority shareholders defeating resolutions on executive remuneration hikes, related party transactions, and director reappointments at companies including KRBL Limited, Max Financial, and Sobha Realty. In September 2023, shareholders of Godfrey Phillips India rejected a related party transaction worth up to INR 1,000 crore.

India’s evolving governance framework now mandates that the top 500 listed companies have at least two female directors, promotes independent director oversight of audit and risk management, and strengthens disclosure requirements around related party transactions. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has imposed significant penalties for governance failures, including heavy fines and director disqualifications for related-party transaction manipulation at companies like E-Tech Solutions.

Valuation Gaps Create Compelling Entry Points

The divergence in valuations between US and Asian markets has widened to levels that make a purely quantitative case for reallocation. The S&P 500’s forward price-to-earnings multiple stands at approximately 24x, while the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index trades at 15.39x forward earnings. Measured against ten-year averages, J.P. Morgan research indicates that India’s relative P/E ratio versus the S&P 500 sits one standard deviation below its long-term mean.

Goldman Sachs Research predicts earnings from emerging market companies to grow 9% in 2025 and accelerate to 14% in 2026, compared with S&P 500 earnings growth forecasts of approximately 13-14% for 2026. The combination of lower valuations and comparable growth trajectories presents a risk-reward calculus increasingly favorable to Asian equities.

Currency dynamics amplify the attractiveness. With the US dollar projected to continue weakening amid Federal Reserve rate cuts and narrowing yield advantages, dollar-denominated returns from Asian markets should benefit from both local currency appreciation and equity gains. As Goldman Sachs strategists note, the dollar has recently behaved more like a cyclical currency—appreciating with economic growth and declining during slowdowns—rather than maintaining its traditional safe-haven status.

Persistent Challenges: The Governance Gap Remains Real

Acknowledging progress should not obscure enduring structural disadvantages that continue to favor US markets. The depth and liquidity of American capital markets remain unmatched. When volatility strikes, investors can enter and exit positions at scale with minimal price impact—a critical consideration for large institutional allocators constrained by daily redemption requirements.

Legal recourse in the United States, while imperfect, operates with greater predictability and speed than in most Asian jurisdictions. The class action mechanism, despite its flaws, provides a credible deterrent to management malfeasance. By contrast, the NCLAT in India faces backlogs, and enforcement remains inconsistent across different tribunal benches.

Family ownership and controlling shareholders—ubiquitous across Asian markets—create principal-principal agency conflicts that differ fundamentally from the principal-agent problems addressed by US governance frameworks. In markets where promoters control board composition and related party transactions remain common, minority shareholders face structural disadvantages that regulatory reform can only partially address.

Geopolitical risks, particularly around Taiwan and the South China Sea, introduce binary outcomes that have no parallel in developed markets. China’s economic slowdown and its implications for regional supply chains represent a systemic risk that governance reform cannot ameliorate. J.P. Morgan’s 2026 Asia Outlook notes that while Chinese earnings estimates have stabilized, domestic demand remains weak, with industrial overcapacity extending beyond traditional heavy industries into higher-end sectors.

2026 Outlook: Broadening Beyond Big Tech

Looking ahead, the investment case for Asian markets in 2026 rests on three pillars: earnings momentum, policy support, and the diffusion of AI-related capital expenditure beyond a narrow cohort of hyperscalers.

J.P. Morgan Private Bank forecasts Asian earnings growth to reaccelerate to 13-14% in both 2026 and 2027, compared with approximately 11% in 2025. The September 2025 earnings season witnessed 13% year-over-year earnings growth, 4% better than expectations at the reporting period’s outset. This fundamental improvement, combined with valuations at reasonable levels, supports a constructive outlook.

Monetary policy provides a tailwind as Asian central banks near the conclusion of their easing cycles, having implemented steady rate cuts throughout 2025. With interest rate cuts largely priced in, fiscal policy will play an increasingly important role in supporting growth. Taiwan’s semiconductor sector, Malaysia’s data center buildout, and Singapore’s position as a regional AI hub should benefit from continued global technology investment.

The democratization of AI returns represents perhaps the most significant medium-term catalyst. While 2025 witnessed remarkable concentration—with seven stocks accounting for 52% of the S&P 500’s total return—the diffusion of AI capabilities across sectors creates opportunities for companies outside the Magnificent Seven. Asian industrial companies, logistics providers, healthcare systems, and financial services firms implementing AI-driven efficiency gains should see margin expansion and earnings growth that current valuations fail to reflect.

Investment Implications: The Case for Deliberate Diversification

The question confronting investors is not whether to maintain US equity exposure—the innovation ecosystem, rule of law, and depth of capital markets ensure America’s continued relevance in global portfolios. Rather, the question is whether the traditional overweight to US equities (often 60-70% of global equity allocations) remains justified when Asian markets offer comparable earnings growth at substantially lower valuations, supported by accelerating governance reform.

Goldman Sachs Research forecasts global equities to return 11% over the next 12 months, with diversification across regions, styles, and sectors potentially boosting risk-adjusted returns. For the first time in years, investors who diversified across geographies in 2025 were rewarded, and strategists anticipate this trend continuing in 2026.

Tactical positioning could emphasize:

Quality over momentum: Focus on Asian companies demonstrating concrete governance improvements—independent directors, transparent capital allocation, minority shareholder engagement—rather than chasing market beta. Japan’s corporate transformations at companies reducing cross-shareholdings and Korea’s firms implementing cumulative voting deserve premiums.

Secular themes over cyclical bets: The AI infrastructure buildout, data center proliferation, and semiconductor supply chain realignment represent multi-year themes with clear Asian beneficiaries. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Korean memory manufacturers, and Malaysian data center developers align with these irreversible technological shifts.

Active over passive: The dispersion within Asian markets—between reformers and laggards, between sectors benefiting from AI and those facing disruption—creates alpha opportunities that passive index strategies cannot capture. With stock correlations having fallen and governance quality diverging, manager selection matters more than market allocation.

The Verdict: Evolution, Not Revolution

US stock market exceptionalism is not ending in 2026; it is evolving. The American advantages of innovation capacity, entrepreneurial culture, and institutional depth remain formidable. Yet the gap has narrowed meaningfully, driven by governance reform in Asia that addresses long-standing concerns about shareholder rights, board independence, and capital allocation discipline.

The outperformance of Asian markets in 2025—with the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index surging 32% versus the S&P 500’s 18%—reflects both cyclical factors (dollar weakness, AI-related export demand, fiscal stimulus) and structural improvements (cumulative voting in Korea, stewardship code revisions in Japan, activist-driven change in India). Whether this performance persists depends on three variables: the continuation of governance reform momentum, the stability of the global macroeconomic backdrop, and the avoidance of geopolitical shocks that could derail investor confidence.

For 2026, the probability-weighted case favors selective increased allocation to Asian equities within diversified global portfolios. The valuation discount, governance tailwinds, and earnings growth trajectory create asymmetric risk-reward. American exceptionalism is not dead—but it now faces legitimate competition from markets that have spent two decades addressing their institutional shortcomings while the United States grapples with its own vulnerabilities around trade policy uncertainty, fiscal sustainability, and political polarization.

The investment world is moving toward a multipolar equilibrium where no single market enjoys uncontested superiority. That transition, accelerated by governance reform across Asia, represents the defining portfolio construction challenge of the decade ahead.

Suggested Meta Description (150 chars): Asian corporate governance reforms in Japan, Korea, and India challenge US stock market exceptionalism. 2026 outlook favors selective diversification.

Target Keywords:

Primary: US stock market exceptionalism, American exceptionalism markets, US exceptionalism 2026
Secondary: Asian corporate governance improvements, emerging markets challenging US dominance 2026, Asian stocks vs US stocks 2026 outlook, end of US market exceptionalism, Japan corporate governance reforms, Korea shareholder rights, India minority shareholders, MSCI Asia performance 2025

Sources Cited: