By PAUL WISEMAN and CHRISTOPHER RUGABER, AP Economics Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) — Looking back on the first year of his second term, President Donald Trump boasts that he has resurrected the American economy by imposing big import taxes on foreign products.

He made his case in a recent opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, chiding the paper and critics, including mainstream economists, who predicted that tariffs would backfire, raising prices and threatening growth. “Instead,” the Republican president wrote, “they have created an American economic miracle.”

But the proof he offers is often off-base or wrong altogether.

Here’s a look at the facts around Trump’s assessment of tariffs:

CLAIM: “Just over one year ago, we were a ‘DEAD’ country. Now, we are the ‘HOTTEST” country anywhere in the world!’ ’’

THE FACTS: This is a standard statement from Trump. But the U.S. economy was hardly “dead’’ when Trump returned to office last year. And in Trump’s second term, it’s performed strongly — after getting off to a bumpy start.

In 2024, the last year of the Biden presidency, American gross domestic product grew 2.8%, adjusted for inflation, faster than any wealthy country in the world except Spain. It also expanded at a healthy rate from 2021 through 2023.

The numbers for all of 2025 aren’t out yet. But during the first three quarters of the year, Trump’s tariffs — or the threat of them — delivered mixed results for the American economy.

From January to March, U.S. GDP actually shrank for the first time in three years. The main culprit was easy to identify: a surge in imports, which are subtracted from GDP, as American companies rushed to buy foreign products before Trump could impose tariffs on them.

But growth rebounded in the second half of the year. From April through June, the economy expanded at a healthy 3.8% pace. And from July through September, it grew even faster — 4.4%. A big part of the surge was a drop in imports, likely reflecting Trump’s tariffs as well as the fact that importers had already stocked up at the start of the year. Strong consumer spending also drove economic growth.

Trump also likes point to solid gains in the U.S. stock market. He noted that stocks hit new highs 52 times in 2025. It’s true that the American stock market did well last year. But it underperformed many foreign stock markets. The benchmark S&P 500 index climbed 17% — a nice gain but short of a 71% surge in South Korea, 29% in Hong Kong, 26% in Japan, 22% in Germany and 21% in the United Kingdom.

CLAIM: “Annual core inflation for the past three months has dropped to just 1.4% — far lower than almost anyone, other than me, had predicted.”

THE FACTS: The president is using cherry-picked data to vastly exaggerate where inflation stands.

His figure for annual inflation in the past three months — which excludes the volatile food and energy prices — is low, but reflects data distorted by the government shutdown in October and November, which disrupted the government’s data collection and forced the agency that compiles the figures to plug in rough estimates in some categories that artificially lowered overall inflation.

Annual core inflation for the final six months of 2025 is higher at 2.6%. That is down from January 2025’s level but about where it was in October 2024. Overall, inflation has leveled off this year, and was 3% in September before the government shutdown, the same as it had been in January 2025.

It’s true that inflation hasn’t been as high as many economists worried it would be when Trump started rolling out tariffs last spring, but that is partly because many of the “Liberation Day” tariffs were withdrawn, reduced or riddled with exemptions. When Democrats won some high-profile elections last year by highlighting “affordability” concerns, the administration rolled back existing or planned tariffs on coffee, beef and kitchen cabinets, for example, a backhanded acknowledgment that the duties were raising prices.

The impact of tariffs can be more clearly seen in core goods prices, which also exclude food and energy. Before the pandemic, core goods costs typically barely rose — or even fell — each year, but last December they were 1.4% higher than a year earlier. That was the largest increase, outside the pandemic, since 2011.

Alberto Cavallo, an economist at Harvard and the author of a study on the impact of tariffs cited by Trump in his op-ed, has found that Trump’s tariffs have boosted overall inflation by roughly three-quarters of a percentage point.

CLAIM: “The data shows that the burden, or ‘incidence,’ of the tariffs has fallen overwhelmingly on foreign producers and middlemen, including large corporations that are not from the U.S. According to a recent study by the Harvard Business School, these groups are paying at least 80% of tariff costs.”

THE FACTS: The study Trump cited appears to conclude the opposite of what Trump claimed. Authored by Cavallo and two colleagues, it finds that “U.S. consumers were bearing roughly 43% of the tariff-induced border cost after seven months, with the remainder absorbed mostly by U.S. firms.” Cavallo said by email that import prices hadn’t fallen much, “which suggests foreign exporters did not reduce their pre-tariff prices enough to shoulder a large share of the burden.″

CLAIM: “We have slashed our monthly trade deficit by an astonishing 77%.”

THE FACTS: This claim involves more cherry-picking, reflecting the percentage drop from a very high trade deficit in January 2025, when the president took office, to a super-low deficit in October.

The story is more complicated than the president makes it. The trade deficit — the gap between what the U.S. sells other countries and what it buys from them — has actually risen since he returned to the White House.

From January through November in 2025, the U.S. accumulated a trade deficit of nearly $840 billion, up 4% from the same period of 2024. In the first three months of 2025, importers rushed to buy foreign products — before Trump could slap tariffs on them. After that, monthly trade deficits came in consistently lower than they were in 2024. But the January-March import surge was so big that the 2025 year-to-date trade deficit still exceeds 2024’s.

CLAIM: “I have successfully wielded the tariff tool to secure colossal Investments in America, like no other country has ever seen before. … In less than one year, we have secured commitments for more than $18 trillion, a number that is unfathomable to many.’’

THE FACTS: Trump did, in fact, use the tariff threat to pry investment commitments from America’s major trading partners. The European Union, for instance, pledged $600 billion over four years.

But Trump hasn’t said how he came up with $18 trillion. The White House has published a figure of $9.6 trillion, which includes private and public investment commitments from other countries.

Related Articles

Trump’s aggressive tactics force a reckoning between local leaders and Washington

Vance attends Olympic skating, then meets with Italian Prime Minister Meloni

Trump shares a racist video that depicts the Obamas as primates in a jungle

Iran and US hold indirect talks in Oman. America’s military leader in the Mideast joins the talks

Newly obtained emails undermine RFK Jr.’s testimony about 2019 Samoa trip before measles outbreak

Researchers at the Peterson Institute for International Economics last month calculated the investment pledges at $5 trillion from the EU, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and the Persian Gulf states of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.

And they raised doubts about whether the money will actually materialize, partly because the agreements are vague and sometimes because the countries would strain to afford the commitments.

But all the numbers are huge nonetheless. Total private investment in the United States was most recently running at a $5.4 trillion annual pace. In 2024, the last year for which figures are available, total foreign direct investment in the United States amounted to $151 billion. Direct investment includes money sunk into such things as factories and offices but not financial investments like stocks and bonds.

Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck.

By STAN CHOE, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) — Wall Street is bouncing back from big losses taken earlier in the week, as technology stocks recover some of their losses on Friday and bitcoin halts its plunge, at least for now.

Related Articles

How to start saving — even if you’re starting from scratch

Securian, Bush Foundation invest $30M in downtown St. Paul fund

EU accuses TikTok of ‘addictive design’ that harms children, seeks changes to protect users

Hims & Hers launches copy of Wegovy pill, prompting legal threats from drugmaker Novo Nordisk

St. Paul: Owner of Grand/Fairview site — former Grandview Grill — courts developers

The S&P 500 rose 0.9% and was heading for just its second gain in the last eight days. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 776 points, or 1.6%, as of 10:15 a.m. Eastern time, and the Nasdaq composite was 0.5% higher.

Chip companies helped drive the gains, and Nvidia rallied 4.9% to trim its loss for the week, which came into the day at just over 10%. Broadcom climbed 3.8% to eat into its drop for the week of 6.3%.

They were the two strongest forces lifting the S&P 500, and they benefited from hopes for big spending on chips by companies to drive their forays into artificial-intelligence technology. Amazon, for example, said late Thursday it expects to spend about $200 billion on investments this year to take advantage of “seminal opportunities like AI, chips, robotics, and low earth orbit satellites.”

Such heavy spending, similar to what Alphabet announced a day earlier, is creating concerns of their own, though. The question is whether all those dollars will prove to be worth it through bigger profits in the future. With doubt remaining about that, Amazon’s stock dropped 8.5%.

Even with Friday’s rebound, the S&P 500 is still heading toward its third losing week in the last four. Besides worries about the big spending on AI by Big Tech companies, whose stocks are the most influential on Wall Street, concerns about AI potentially stealing customers away from software companies also hurt the market through the week.

Bitcoin, meanwhile, steadied itself somewhat following a weekslong plunge that had sent it more than halfway below its record set in October. It climbed back to $68,000 after briefly dropping around $60,000 late Thursday.

Prices in the metals market also calmed a bit following their own wild swings. Gold rose 2% to $4,986.20 per ounce, while silver slipped 0.3%.

Their prices suddenly ran out of momentum last week following jaw-dropping rallies, which were driven by investors clamoring for something safe to own amid worries about political turmoil, a U.S. stock market that critics called expensive and huge debt loads for governments worldwide. By January, though, prices were surging so quickly that critics called it unsustainable.

On Wall Street, the recovery for bitcoin helped stocks of companies enmeshed in the crypto economy. Robinhood Markets jumped 11.7% for the biggest gain in the S&P 500. Crypto trading platform Coinbase Global rose 7.3%. Strategy, the company that’s made a business of buying and holding bitcoin, soared 15.9%.

Stocks of smaller U.S. companies also helped lead the market, along with companies whose profits depend on U.S. households spending more money. They benefited from potentially encouraging data on how U.S. consumers are feeling.

A preliminary report from the University of Michigan suggested sentiment among U.S. consumers is improving slightly, when economists were expecting to see a drop. The improvement was strongest among households who own stocks, which are benefiting from the S&P 500 setting a record late last month.

To be sure, sentiment “remained at dismal levels for consumers without stock holdings,” according to Surveys of Consumers Director Joanne Hsu.

Airline stocks were strong with hopes that more confident customers will translate into more spending on trips. That included gains of 5.4% for United Airlines, 4.6% for American Airlines and 4.4% for Delta Air Lines.

The smaller stocks in the Russell 2000 index, meanwhile, jumped 2.3% to more than double the gain of the S&P 500. Smaller stocks can be more dependent on the strength of the U.S. economy for their profits than their big, multinational rivals.

In stock markets abroad, indexes rose across much of Europe.

That was even though Stellantis, the auto giant whose stock trades in Milan, lost nearly 26% after saying it would take a charge of 22 billion euros, or $26 billion, as it dials back its electric vehicle production. The automaker acknowledged “over-estimating the pace of the energy transition” and said it was resetting its business “to align the company with the real-world preferences of its customers.”

Stocks fell across much of Asia, but Japan’s Nikkei 225 rose 0.8%. It benefited from a 2% climb for Toyota Motor, which said CEO Koji Sato will step down in April and will be replaced by the company’s chief financial officer, Kenta Kon.

In the bond market, Treasury yields held relatively steady. The yield on the 10-year Treasury erased an earlier modest loss and was holding at 4.21%, where it was late Thursday.

AP Business Writers Chan Ho-him and Matt Ott contributed.

A company that helps passengers receive compensation for flight cancellations and delays, AirHelp, has come out with a ranking of U.S. airports most afflicted by disruptions in 2025.

It shows that New Jersey continues to earn its reputation as the travel wasteland of the East Coast, whereas — surprise! — California is doing pretty dang good.

Last year, 248 million U.S. passengers ran up against flight disruptions, according to AirHelp. These were concentrated most heavily at airports along the Eastern Seaboard. On the flip side, the 10 airports with fewest disruptions include Los Angeles International Airport, San Francisco International Airport and San Diego International Airport (though Honolulu took top place).

The company also determined the worst months of the year for disruptions. It’s all about summer misery, with July and June being the worst.

AirHelp’s biggest airport disruptions in 2025

1 Newark Liberty International Airport: 29.1% of passengers disrupted in 2025

2 O’Hare International Airport: 29%

3 New York LaGuardia Airport: 29 percent

4 Ronald Reagan National Airport: 28.8%

5 Denver International Airport: 27.5%

6 Philadelphia International Airport: 27.3%

7 Miami International Airport: 27%

8 John F. Kennedy International Airport: 27%

9 Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport: 26.1%

10 Orlando International Airport: 26%

Source: airhelp.com

Residents of the Yorkville development will be the first NYCHA tenants of the year to vote on whether they want to abandon their traditional public housing model for one of two options that would ensure more funding, but could change how their buildings are managed.

“At the end of the day, you know what you have with Section 9,” said resident Saundrea Coleman, who co-founded a tenant group that opposes the switch the Section 8. (Adi Talwar/City Limits)

Residents of Yorkville’s Stanley Isaacs Houses will be the first NYCHA tenants of the year to vote on whether they want to abandon their traditional public housing model for one of two options that would ensure more funding, but could change how their buildings are managed.

Starting Feb. 13, each resident over the age of 18 will have the opportunity to vote between three choices: to lease their buildings to private developers and switch to Section 8 as part of the Permanent Affordability Commitment Together (PACT) program, to switch to the state-managed Public Housing Preservation Trust that also utilizes Section 8, or to remain as Section 9, the federal government’s public housing program. 

At its core, the vote is a choice of how to deal with the decades-long, chronic underfunding of public housing—slated to only be exacerbated throughout Trump’s presidency. Both of the new choices move residents to Section 8, a federal voucher with more guaranteed funding than Section 9 that would allow residents to keep paying 30 percent of their income towards rent. 

With the buildings guaranteed a more consistent future revenue source, their managers would borrow money to fund large-scale renovations. But making the switch requires tenants to sacrifice the stability of Section 9, leading many to question if it’s worth tolerating temporary relocations—and in the case of PACT, higher eviction rates and increased surveillance—that they’ve heard about at other NYCHA developments that have converted. 

“We all want repairs. That’s our goal. We all want to live in healthy homes, but there’s other ways to get it done,” said Saundrea Coleman, a resident who co-founded the Holmes-Isaacs Coalition, a tenant group opposing PACT and what she calls the “Preservation Distrust.”

“At the end of the day, you know what you have with Section 9,” Coleman said.

Isaacs Houses is the eighth NYCHA development where residents have been asked to vote on how to fund repairs. In previous elections, four campuses have voted to join the Trust, two to remain in Section 9, and one voted for PACT (though NYCHA has converted thousands of other units to private management without a vote, which is only required when the Trust is on the table). 

NYCHA’s Stanley Isaacs Houses campus on Jan. 13, 2026. (Adi Talwar/CIty Limits)

If residents choose PACT, the buildings will be leased to developers who will receive private financing the government can’t access to renovate them. Developers will then pay back this loan and earn some profit with rents they collect as the buildings’ new managers. In the Public Housing Preservation Trust, bonds are floated to fund the renovations, which NYCHA, which maintains control of the buildings, also pays back with the Section 8 revenue stream.

While PACT has delivered significant renovations—raising $13 billion for capital repairs across 146 NYCHA developments, according to the latest tally—converted sites have seen higher eviction rates compared to Section 9. Residents don’t know which companies will take over until after the vote, and different companies have had vastly different records. Tenants at some privately managed developments have complained of eroded transparency and persistent repair issues. 

Unlike PACT, which was created in 2016, The Public Housing Preservation Trust was only established in 2022, and there has not yet been time for buildings to vote, convert, and be fully renovated. For this reason, residents don’t yet have concrete examples to look at when considering the Trust.

“A lot of us have decided to move forward with Section 9 just for fear that PACT wouldn’t be a fit for us,” said Maribel Mejia, an Isaacs Houses resident of 25 years who also doesn’t want to vote for the Preservation Trust. “It seems like there’s a lot of nice developments that are happening through PACT, but it also seems like it’s a high risk for us because, god forbid, things don’t go as planned as far as construction goes.”

The Isaacs Houses are three buildings pressed alongside the FDR highway, lined by the East River on one side and The Holmes Towers, a different NYCHA development, on another. The more than 600 units have had an anomalous last decade, scoring an 86 out of 100 in their 2015 inspection from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development—one of NYCHA’s highest scores—then falling to a 25 in 2017, one of the lowest, before immediately moving up to a 79 the following year. In its 2024 inspection, the Isaacs Houses earned an 80.

A view of NYCHA’s Stanley Isaacs Houses campus and its surrounding neighborhood. (Adi Talwar/City Limits)

Neither public records nor resident experiences explain why the score was so low for that year, but it is used by NYCHA as an explanation for why it selected the Isaacs Houses for the vote. Officials say they select developments based on a combination of building conditions and resident interest, primarily gauged through Tenant Associations.

Residents at the Isaacs Houses report inconsistent heating, frequent leaks and broken locks, as well as persistent rodent infestations. However, the buildings are in better shape than other public housing properties, with an estimated $400,000 in repair needs per unit, about $100,000 below NYCHA’s average.

“I don’t need any repairs because I’m happy, but they said because the buildings are old, they have to fix the system,” said Gladys Muñiz, who has lived at Isaacs Houses since it first opened in 1965. She plans on voting for the Trust. 

Latasha Pryce, an English teacher who has lived in the buildings for 12 years, said the vote brings up a lot of unknowns. “I agree that you have to sacrifice some things. I think I’m just worried about, are we going from a not so great situation into a worse situation?” said Pryce. 

“Who’s gonna take over the buildings? How will we go about repairs? What’s the process to switch over to Section 8? Some developments kick you out of your apartments temporarily and everyone’s kind of juggled around until they fix your apartment. Are they going to do that here?” Pryce added, in reference to the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses.

Those Lower Manhattan developments, part of PACT, are slated to be demolished and replaced by whole new buildings, part of a massive redevelopment plan that will also build 3,500 mixed-income homes, both market-rate and affordable units. While the majority of residents will remain in their current apartments until the replacement ones are built, an estimated 120 households have to temporarily move to other NYCHA-provided apartments during renovations. 

The plan has split residents, and opponents have resisted demolition with protests and lawsuits. Their experience has resounded across the NYCHA community—for some, as a worst case scenario for what PACT could bring (though full demolitions have not happened at any of the other dozens of PACT developments, and there is no indication they would at the Isaacs Houses.)

NYCHA flyers in the hallway at the Isaacs Houses looking to dispel “myths” about Section 8. (Adi Talwar/CIty Limits)

“What I’m hearing is if you switch over they’re gonna fix up the place. But I’m also hearing that you can lose your apartment,” said Alex Beasley, who raised six children and three grandchildren in the Isaacs Houses, in reference to higher eviction rates at PACT developments and rumors that the program is a way for private developers to seize control of city-owned housing. “This is prime real estate right here. We’re on the Upper East Side.”

NYCHA, which hosted four informational meetings in recent months ahead of the vote, has pushed back against those rumors. “Neither the Trust nor the PACT plan results in privatizing public housing,” reads a set of flyers recently hung throughout the Isaacs Houses informing residents about the upcoming vote. NYCHA retains ownership of the land and buildings in both scenarios, the flyers note, and still has oversight over the developments.

The posters also emphasized the necessity of switching to Section 8 due to NYCHA’s funding needs, and said that tenants won’t lose rights and that evictions won’t increase because of the shift (in contradiction to reports from Human Rights Watch and the New York City Comptroller’s Office that found more eviction filings at PACT sites, findings which NYCHA previously disputed).

With these factors in mind, Isaacs Houses residents are still parsing through the different information they’re receiving from groups promoting all three options who are canvassing tenants about why their choice is the best path for the buildings.

“I need to do more research,” said Lissette Santos. She’s lived in NYCHA’s Stanley Isaacs Houses with her husband and four children for the past eight years. (Adi Talwar/City Limits)

“Part of me would like to see the projects be under better conditions, like repairs, cleaner, newer implements such as piping and stuff like that. However, at the same time, I’m scared because I do see a lot of things of how other projects have been privatized and how there are more evictions going on than the usual evictions under NYCHA,” said Lissette Santos, who lives in the development with her husband and four children. 

“I need to do more research than what we’ve been provided. I feel like there should be more either meetings or something informing, but sometimes it can be biased.”

Voting at the Isaacs Houses can be done by mail or online from Feb. 13 through March 16, or in-person starting on March 12. More information can be found here. 

To reach the editor, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.

The post Isaacs Houses Residents Weigh Ditching Public Housing for Section 8 appeared first on City Limits.