How a Full-Term of Today's Policies Would Change America
By Goldsea Staff | 14 Sep, 2025

Polling the least political minds we know suggests an entire term of Trump policies would make the US slower-growing, poorer and less influential globally.

To entirely remove charges of political biases from our analysis of how Trump policies would impact US fortunes over the next four years, we polled great minds largely free of personal political biases and are known to diverge in their thinking on various issues.  Yes, we mean our four favorite AI chatbots.

The question we asked them:  

How would the US economy, standard of living and global power change if Trump policies were maintained through the end of his term?

We did find some minor variations in their analyses but not much in their conclusions.  In essence another three and a half years of Trump policies would cause slow US growth, lower living standards and erode US influence around the world.   Of course this begs the question, how can we reverse these trends — a topic we will cover in a future discussion.

COPILOT:

If Trump’s current policies were maintained through the end of his term, the U.S. economy, standard of living, and global power would likely experience a mix of short-term volatility and long-term structural shifts. Here's a breakdown of the potential impacts based on recent analyses:

🇺🇸 U.S. Economy

1. Tariff-Driven Protectionism

• Trump’s sweeping tariffs—up to 46% on some countries—aim to reindustrialize the U.S. and reduce reliance on foreign goods.
• While this could boost domestic manufacturing and generate up to $600 billion in annual revenue, it risks triggering inflation and supply chain disruptions.
• The Consumer Price Index rose from 2.35% to 2.92% in just three months after tariffs took effect, suggesting rising costs for consumers.

2. Legal Uncertainty

• The Supreme Court is reviewing the legality of Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs. If overturned, the U.S. may need to refund billions in duties, destabilizing fiscal planning.

3. Investment Hesitation

• Business leaders face uncertainty around long-term growth, which could freeze hiring and capital investment. Asset values and consumer confidence have also been shaken.

🏡 Standard of Living

1. Rising Consumer Prices

• Tariffs on imports increase costs for everyday goods, disproportionately affecting lower-income households.
• Inflationary pressure could erode purchasing power, especially if wages don’t keep pace.

2. Job Market Volatility

• While some sectors (e.g., manufacturing) may benefit from reshoring, others reliant on global supply chains could suffer layoffs or stagnation.

3. Tax Cuts vs. Public Services

• Trump’s plan to use tariff revenue to fund tax cuts might boost disposable income for some, but could also reduce funding for public services if revenue falls short.

🌍 Global Power & Alliances

1. Erosion of Trust

• Trump's “America First” approach has strained relationships with allies like Canada, the EU, Japan, and Australia.
• Canada, for instance, is actively pivoting away from U.S. dependence, seeking deeper ties with Europe.

2. Strategic Isolation

• The U.S. is perceived as less predictable and cooperative, weakening its leadership role in global institutions and multilateral efforts.

3. Economic Leverage vs. Retaliation

• Tariffs have been used as leverage in negotiations, but retaliation from countries like China and Mexico could hurt U.S. exporters and global influence.

🔮 Summary Outlook

If Trump’s policies persist:

• Economy: Short-term gains in manufacturing and revenue may be offset by inflation, legal challenges, and investment uncertainty.
• Standard of Living: Could decline for many due to rising prices and uneven job growth.
• Global Power: Likely to diminish as allies recalibrate and trust erodes.

Will, given your interest in international affairs and nuanced storytelling, this scenario offers rich terrain for exploring how economic nationalism reshapes not just trade, but identity, diplomacy, and domestic resilience. Want to sketch out a character navigating this shifting landscape?

**

ChatGPT:

Short answer up front: if Trump-style policies were kept through the end of his term (high, sustained tariffs and trade barriers; tighter immigration/enforcement; continued tax cuts / big spending pushes; “America First” diplomatic posture; energy/industrial-first regulatory rollbacks), the most likely outcome is slower trend GDP growth, higher prices for consumers, larger deficits and debt, mixed effects on wages, and a measurable erosion of U.S. influence with allies. The effects would be uneven across sectors and time—some manufacturing output and “onshore” investment would rise, but overall real incomes and living standards would likely be weaker than under a lower-tariff, more open-immigration policy. Below I sketch the channels, the likely magnitudes, and the biggest risks — with sources for the main claims.

1) Macroeconomy: growth, inflation, and the budget

• GDP and growth: Multiple official and academic studies find that broad tariff increases and trade barriers reduce U.S. real GDP over time. Tariffs raise input costs, push up consumer prices, and provoke retaliatory actions that reduce exports — the net effect in most estimates is modest-to-material negative GDP impact (roughly a few tenths of a percent to ~1% of GDP depending on size and scope). The CBO’s recent analysis and independent groups find tariff packages implemented in 2025 lower real GDP and output relative to a no-tariff baseline. Congressional Budget Office+1

• Inflation / prices: Tariffs are effectively taxes on imports and are passed to consumers and firms as higher prices. That raises the cost of living directly (electronics, clothing, intermediate inputs) and can keep consumer price pressures higher than otherwise — particularly harmful to lower-income households. Yale’s Budget Lab and other studies show tariffs can noticeably raise poverty and reduce real incomes. The Budget Lab at Yale+1

• Public finances (deficits & debt): Extending large tax cuts or adding big tax-cut/spending packages without offsets raises deficits and long-run debt. CBO analyses projecting the fiscal impact of recent legislation show multi-trillion dollar increases to deficits over the coming decade; high deficits raise interest-rate risk and constrain future policy flexibility. Some proponents point to short-term revenue gains (tariff receipts, capital gains) but those are volatile and often concentrated among higher-income taxpayers. Congressional Budget Office+1

Net macro effect (likely): slightly lower trend growth, higher short-to-medium term prices, and materially higher federal deficits — i.e., slower real income growth for most households over time even if some industries expand.

2) Standard of living — who wins and who loses

• Household purchasing power: Tariffs and trade frictions disproportionately hit consumers with low incomes because they spend a larger share of income on goods whose prices rise (clothing, electronics, some foodstuffs). Studies estimate meaningful increases in costs per household and modest increases in poverty under large tariff expansions. PBS+1

• Wages and jobs: Reduced immigration (enforcement, fewer new arrivals) shrinks labor supply, which can raise wages for some lower-skilled occupations in the short run — but it also raises labor costs and labor shortages in construction, agriculture, child care, and other sectors, reducing output and raising prices. Many researchers find immigration contributes to long-run growth, innovation, and fiscal revenues, so sustained low immigration tends to slow GDP per capita growth. Paris School of Economics+1

• Inequality and distribution: Tax cuts targeted at higher incomes combined with tariff-driven price increases create a distributional squeeze: wealthy households benefit from tax cuts and asset gains, while many middle- and low-income households face higher everyday prices and weaker public services over time (if deficits crowd out spending or raise debt service). Tax Policy Center+1

Net standard-of-living effect: real purchasing power likely falls for many households, especially lower-income ones; some workers in protected sectors or specific occupations may see wage gains, but overall living-standard growth is weaker.

3) U.S. global power and alliances

• Alliances & credibility: An “America First” posture that reduces burden-sharing, imposes large trade penalties on partners, and treats allies transactionally erodes trust and willingness of allies to coordinate on security, trade, and technology standards. That makes it harder to mount collective responses to strategic competitors. Analysts at CFR and Brookings document strained alliances under this style of policy and warn about long-term credibility costs. Council on Foreign Relations+1

• Economic leverage vs. diplomatic costs: Tariffs provide short-term leverage but also encourage partners to diversify suppliers, accelerate onshoring in other countries, and form alternative trading blocs — over time the U.S. can lose the integrated economic relationships that underpin influence. Sectoral effects (e.g., on semiconductors) can be important: some tariffs and export controls reduce imports but also raise domestic input costs and prompt partners to build capacity elsewhere. USITC and industry studies show examples where tariffs cut imports but raised domestic prices and prompted supply shifts. USITC

• Military/security implications: Weakened alliances mean higher burdens on the U.S. to maintain security guarantees, or less coordinated action (intelligence sharing, joint deployments), increasing costs and strategic risk. Over time, erosion of multilateral institutions and partnerships reduces U.S. soft power and ability to set global rules. Council on Foreign Relations

Net geopolitical effect: short-term leverage in select negotiations, but a higher long-run risk that U.S. influence and alliance networks are degraded — reducing effective global power and increasing strategic costs.

4) Sector winners and losers (quick sketch)

Winners: protected domestic producers in steel, some heavy manufacturing, select energy producers (if deregulation favors fossil fuels), and some defense contractors.
Losers: exporters hit by retaliation, import-dependent manufacturers, consumers of imported intermediate goods (electronics, apparel), service sectors dependent on immigrant labor (construction, hospitality, child care), and industries sensitive to global supply chains (auto, semiconductors). USITC, trade-impact studies and sectoral analyses document these patterns. USITC+1

5) Upside scenarios and uncertainties

• If tariffs successfully induce rapid reshoring and domestic firms invest heavily in productivity-raising capital, there could be a modest rise in manufacturing employment and some localized growth — but evidence suggests reshoring is costly and slow, and gains are partial. CEPR
• If deficit financing spurs short-term demand (big tax cuts plus spending) while capital markets stay calm, growth could see a temporary bump — but at the cost of higher long-run debt and sensitivity to rising interest rates. Congressional Budget Office

6) Bottom line (concise)

If Trump-style policies were maintained through the end of his term, the most likely path is:

• Real GDP growth modestly lower than it would be under lower-tariff, more open policies (CBO and independent studies put the drag in the range of tenths of a percent to ~1% over time). Congressional Budget Office+1

• Higher consumer prices on many imported goods, hitting lower-income households hardest — with measurable increases in poverty risk in tariff scenarios. The Budget Lab at Yale+1

• Bigger federal deficits and debt if large tax cuts / spending are extended without offsets, increasing fiscal vulnerability. Congressional Budget Office

• Erosion of allied trust and U.S. influence over the medium term, even if short-term bargaining power increases in some bilateral deals. 

  **

Gemini:

If current policies were maintained throughout the end of the presidential term, the US economy, standard of living, and global power would likely undergo significant changes.

US Economy

• Tariffs and Trade: A central tenet of the administration's economic policy is the use of tariffs.1 These measures, while intended to protect domestic industries, are projected to have a notable impact on the broader economy.2 Analyses suggest that tariffs have already begun to push up prices for consumers and could lead to slower economic growth, potentially contributing to a state of "stagflation" where both inflation and unemployment increase.3 The new tariffs, combined with other policy changes, are projected to reduce the US GDP.4

• National Debt: The current fiscal policies, including tax cuts and new legislation, are expected to significantly increase the national debt.5 Projections indicate a substantial rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio, which could slow economic growth and increase borrowing costs for the government.6

• Fiscal Policy: The administration's fiscal policies, including the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," are projected to decrease average incomes for all Americans except the top 1% by 2027.7 By 2029, even the wealthiest Americans may see a slight decrease in income, and middle-class households are projected to experience a notable net income decrease.

Standard of Living

• Consumer Costs and Wages: Tariffs are expected to function as an indirect tax on American households, raising the cost of imported goods and leading to higher prices for consumers.8 This, coupled with a projected slowdown in wage growth, could reduce the purchasing power of the average American.9

• Labor Market: The administration's immigration policies, including large-scale deportation efforts and stricter work visa requirements, are expected to affect labor-intensive industries like agriculture and construction.10 This could lead to a reduction in the available workforce, increased hiring costs for businesses, and potentially higher prices for goods and services in those sectors.11

• Public Services and Social Programs: Planned cuts to federal spending programs, such as Medicaid, could lead to a reduction in social assistance.12 This could be particularly impactful for lower-income households. Additionally, efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce could affect the efficiency and availability of key public services.13

Global Power

• International Relations and Alliances: The emphasis on an "America First" foreign policy is expected to continue to strain relationships with traditional allies and international partners.14 The administration has indicated a desire to review and potentially withdraw from international organizations and treaties, which could weaken multilateral institutions and lead to a more isolationist US foreign policy.15

• Trade and Geopolitics: The sustained use of tariffs and a protectionist trade stance could disrupt established global supply chains and lead to retaliatory tariffs from other countries, further harming US exports.16 This approach could be seen as a retreat from the post-war rules-based international order, which could empower other nations and create a new geopolitical landscape.

• International Development: Proposed cuts to US contributions for international development assistance and global health initiatives could have significant implications for aid-dependent nations.17 These changes could also affect US influence in promoting human rights and democratic norms abroad.

  
  **
  GROK:
  

  ### US Economy Under Maintained Trump Policies (2025-2029)

  As of September 2025, eight months into Donald Trump's second term, the US economy has shown mixed signals: modest growth inherited from 2024, but early policy implementations—particularly aggressive tariffs—have introduced headwinds like higher inflation and supply chain disruptions. Key policies include a 10% universal tariff on imports (effective April 2025), 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico (March 2025), escalated duties on China (up to 60%), and energy sector deregulation via Bureau of Land Management rule changes. Immigration enforcement has ramped up deportations, while tax cut extensions from the first term are under consideration, alongside proposals to reduce the federal workforce. If these "America First" policies—emphasizing protectionism, deregulation, and fiscal expansion—are maintained through January 2029, projections indicate a slowdown in growth, rising deficits, and potential recession risks in 2025-2026, followed by uneven recovery. Tariffs alone could shave 0.5-1% off annual GDP growth, per models, while boosting government revenue by $250-300 billion annually but at the cost of higher consumer prices.
  

  Economic forecasts vary, but consensus points to sub-2% average annual GDP growth over the term (down from 2.5% in 2024), with unemployment ticking up and inflation averaging 2.5-3%. The federal deficit, already at 6% of GDP, could exceed 7% by 2029 due to tariff offsets failing to cover spending and debt service costs. Stock markets have gained ~9% year-to-date, buoyed by deregulation, but volatility from trade wars persists.
  

  Key projected metrics, based on current trends and policy continuity:
  

  
  

  | Metric                  | As of Sept 2025 (Current) | Projected End of Term (Jan 2029) | Change Notes |

  |-------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------------|--------------|

  | Real GDP Growth (Annual Avg.) | 1.4% (2025 full year est.) | 1.5-1.8% avg. 2026-2028 | Slows sharply in 2025-2026 due to tariffs reducing imports/exports and consumer spending; recovers modestly post-2026 via energy production boosts (e.g., "drill baby drill" adding 1-2M barrels/day oil). Long-run GDP 4-6% smaller than baseline without tariffs. Recession probability ~40% in 2025. |

  | Unemployment Rate      | 4.3%                     | 5.0-5.5%                       | Rises from deportations shrinking labor force (e.g., agriculture/construction sectors) and tariff-induced slowdowns; low-wage jobs hit hardest, but manufacturing gains ~200K jobs from protectionism. |

  | Inflation (CPI)        | 2.9% (year-over-year)    | 2.5-3.0% avg.                  | Edges up to 3.1% in late 2025 from tariff pass-through (adding 0.5-1% to prices), then stabilizes; energy deregulation keeps gas prices low (~$3/gallon), offsetting some grocery hikes. |

  | Federal Budget Deficit | 6.0% of GDP              | 6.5-7.5% of GDP                | Widens from $1.5-2T annually; tariffs generate revenue but tax cuts (e.g., extending TCJA) and stimulus add $2-3T to debt over term. Debt-to-GDP hits 140%+. |

  | Trade Deficit (Goods & Services) | ~$900B (Q1 2025 annualized) | $1.0-1.1T                     | Narrows slightly vs. China ($200B reduction) but widens overall due to retaliatory tariffs from allies; universal tariffs act as $100-200B consumer tax yearly. |

  | S&P 500 Index          | Up 8.8% YTD (from Jan)   | +20-30% cumulative from Jan 2025 | Gains from corporate tax relief and deregulation, but trade volatility causes 10-15% corrections; benefits skewed to investors. |

  Positives include energy independence (US oil production at record highs) and manufacturing resurgence in Rust Belt states. Negatives: Supply disruptions from immigration curbs (e.g., food prices up 3-5%) and stalled infrastructure from federal cuts.

  ### Standard of Living

  Maintained policies would likely erode standards for most households through higher costs and reduced social supports, though upper-income groups benefit from tax relief. As of mid-2025, median household income stands at ~$81,600 (up 2% from 2024), but poverty affects 43.7 million (10.4% rate), flat from prior year. Tariffs have already raised living expenses (e.g., +2-3% on imports like electronics/clothes), while the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (OBBBA)—a sweeping 2025 omnibus bill—cuts Medicaid/SNAP by 10-20%, pushing ~650,000-1 million more into poverty by 2026. Deportations exacerbate labor shortages in low-wage sectors, potentially boosting wages short-term (+1-2% for remaining workers) but increasing prices. Inequality widens, with the top 1% capturing 40% of gains via stock appreciation and tax breaks, while the bottom 20% sees real incomes fall 3-5% by 2029.

  - **Income and Poverty**: Poorest quintile incomes drop $2,500 (5%) by 2029 from policy mix; middle-class households lose ~$2,000 (1.8%) annually due to tariff costs outpacing wage growth. Poverty rate rises to 10.7-11% by term end, hitting families of color hardest (e.g., +1M in supplemental poverty measure). 6 in 10 families report skipped meals or debt spikes, blaming cost-of-living pressures.
  

  - **Health and Housing**: Uninsured rate climbs to 12% with Medicaid cuts (adding 5-7M uninsured); life expectancy stalls amid opioid/fentanyl focus via border tariffs. Housing affordability worsens (rents +5-7%) from construction labor shortages and urban migration.

  - **Wages and Access**: Real wages grow 1-2% annually pre-tariff effects but stagnate post-2026; low earners gain from tight labor markets but face 10-15% higher grocery/energy bills initially. Overall human development metrics (e.g., HDI) dip 1-2%, with rural areas faring better from energy jobs.

  - **Inequality**: Gini coefficient rises to 0.43-0.44; policies like Project 2025-inspired cuts eliminate middle-class supports, deepening divides.

  Net, standards decline modestly for 60-70% of Americans (e.g., -1-2% real disposable income), with gains limited to high earners and asset owners; pandemic-era resilience fades under fiscal austerity.

  ### Global Power and Influence

  Trump's second-term foreign policy, if sustained, amplifies "America First" unilateralism, using tariffs as leverage for bilateral deals while straining multilateral alliances. By September 2025, actions like the April national emergency declaration on trade have sparked retaliatory measures from Canada (reassessing US ties), Mexico, and the EU, tanking global markets briefly and raising consumer costs. Withdrawals from climate/trade pacts continue, with focus on personal diplomacy (e.g., summits with adversaries). Military spending holds at ~$900B, emphasizing efficiency (e.g., Space Force expansions), but troop reductions in Europe/Asia signal retrenchment. This erodes US soft power (global approval ~30-35%), fostering a multipolar world where China/Russia fill voids, but secures targeted wins like energy export deals.

  - **Alliances and Leadership**: NATO cohesion frays further with burden-sharing demands; Europe pursues autonomy (e.g., EU trade bloc with Asia). Canada-Mexico relations cool over tariffs, decoupling North American supply chains. Asia allies (Japan, South Korea) hedge with China ties.

  - **Trade and Economic Power**: Universal/reciprocal tariffs reshape global flows, reducing US export share to 9-10% but extracting concessions (e.g., Phase Two China deal by 2027?). WTO remains paralyzed; trade wars cost $50-100B in lost exports yearly but boost domestic leverage.

  - **Military and Security**: No new wars, but "maximum pressure" on Iran/North Korea via sanctions/tariffs; Abraham Accords expand (e.g., Saudi normalization). Drone strikes and cyber ops maintain edge, but ally distrust limits joint ops.

  - **Diplomatic Wins and Setbacks**: Personal summits yield short-term de-escalations (e.g., Ukraine aid tied to NATO spending), but chaos from 100+ executive actions erodes credibility. China advances in Global South via Belt and Road.

  By 2029, US hard power endures as top military/economy, but influence shifts to transactional, reducing global leadership role and accelerating rival gains (e.g., China's GDP surpassing US by 2030). Proponents see restored sovereignty; critics warn of isolation.

  **