"The April 2nd tariffs" are the largest tax increase in the United States since 1968, and this is behind the White House power struggle.

According to CCTV news, Trump's "self-harming" tariffs have led to a bloodbath in the US stock market. On Thursday, all three major stock indexes marked their biggest single-day decline in nearly five years. The "Magnificent 7" giants saw their market value evaporate by about $1 trillion in a day, hitting their lowest value since early August last year. The small-cap Russell 2000 index fell into a bear market. In fact, not only is the market in turmoil, but behind the tariff plan, there is also great confusion and internal contradictions. According to media reports on the 4th, Trump's trade plan had been brewing for years, and key advisers had disagreements on which legal authority to use and whether to use uniform tariffs or tailored tariffs. Major decisions about the tariff structure were almost finalized at the last minute. Trump's unilateral vision has also received warnings from various sectors. The White House received calls from industry and labor officials warning not to take a maximalist approach; many business leaders expressed dissatisfaction with not being informed about tariff details in advance; and members of both parties have condemned these tariffs. JPMorgan Chase recently raised the risk of a global economic recession from 40% to 60%, stating that tariff impacts could be amplified by retaliation, supply chain disruptions, and emotional shocks. The White House's tariff decision fog: Trump's will versus staff struggles According to media reports on the 4th, in the final stages of Trump unveiling his tariff policy, White House staff faced a daunting task. They needed to reconcile the president's seemingly conflicting goals: increasing government revenue significantly through new tariffs and providing a lasting signal for businesses to invest in the United States. A senior government official likened the discussion on comprehensive tariffs to a "ping-pong match." On one hand, Trump believed that comprehensive tariffs were simple and easy to understand; on the other hand, advisers including Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross believed that the American public understood the logic behind reciprocity. Analysts suggest that this trade policy was largely formulated by an internal circle loyal to Trump, eager to cater to the president's impulses. This small group includes Commerce Secretary Ross and senior adviser Peter Navarro. In the weeks leading up to the announcement, senior officials discussed a series of proposals with the president, with key advisers disagreeing on which legal authority to use and whether to use uniform tariffs or tailored tariffs. In the hours leading up to the announcement, aides were still working around the clock to finalize key details, including scale, scope, and how to communicate the primary goals to the American public. Major decisions about the tariff structure were almost finalized at the last minute. Ultimately, after intense internal debate within the White House, the Trump administration decided on a mixture strategy, imposing higher reciprocal tariffs on some countries while imposing a universal 10% tariff on all countries not specifically targeted. After the tariff decision was announced, Trump's aides tried to defend the president's actions in the media, but the results were not always satisfactory to the White House. According to insiders, on Thursday morning, discussions were still ongoing within the White House to ensure consistency on television. Warnings from all sectors: Do not play with fire The Trump administration's tariff actions have sparked strong reactions in Washington, with Republican Senator Jerry Moran from Kansas stating that he had initially expected a "more moderate approach," with "more targeted tariffs" mainly aimed at countries taking advantage of the US. It was reported that some export-dependent farm states like Kansas were more vulnerable to retaliatory tariffs, leading to stronger concerns about the escalation of a trade war. This week, other Republican senators had also come out to criticize Trump, aligning with Democrats to support the termination of previous tariffs imposed on Canada. In the midst of market turmoil, bipartisan senators, including Chuck Grassley from Iowa, introduced legislation to require Congress to approve the new tariff policy. Earlier in the week and in the days leading up to Trump's tariff announcement on Wednesday, the White House received calls from industry and labor officials warning not to take a maximalist approach. Even labor leaders and businesses supporting the tariffs warned Trump not to rush into things. Many business leaders expressed dissatisfaction with not being informed about tariff details in advance. According to sources involved in White House tariff discussions, prominent corporate executives were not invited to the Rose Garden, nor were they informed beforehand about what would happen next. Insiders revealed that many tried to persuade Trump to abandon tariffs, despite his long-held belief in tariff policies. Market turbulence, White House "calmness" The tariff plan that was ultimately announced shocked the stock market, but Trump remained "calm," stating during the midday trading session on April 3rd Thursday that the market response was progressing very well. He stated, "You've never seen a situation like this. The market will prosper. The stock market will prosper. The country will prosper." One senior government official even said that despite the massive impact of the tariff announcement, "we only dropped 3%," using it to indicate the stock market's reaction. The struggle and uncertainty triggered by the "April 2nd tariffs" will undoubtedly have far-reaching effects on the US economy and global trade dynamics. JPMorgan Chase recently raised the risk of a global economic recession from 40% to 60%, stating that tariff impacts could be magnified by retaliation, supply chain disruptions, and emotional shocks. The bank warned, "Continued restrictive trade policies and reduced immigrant flows may bring about enduring supply costs, which in the long run would lower US growth." This article is taken from "Wall Street SeeNews," written by Zhang Yaqi, GMTEight editor: Li Cheng