Trump’s victory was as much about the political context as it was about the media moment.
Donald Trump’s shock victory in the United States election this week revealed fundamental flaws with the Democratic Party establishment, the news outlets in its corner and how they approach the voting public.
Contributors:
Adolfo Franco – Republican Strategist Natasha Lennard – Columnist, The Intercept Omar Baddar – Political Analyst Osita Nwanevu – Contributing Editor, The New Republic
On our radar
As Israel continues its campaign of mass killing and ethnic cleansing in northern Gaza, Israeli correspondents there have exposed the army’s intentions. Tariq Nafi has been tracking their reporting.
The Kenyan ‘manosphere’
Populated by loudmouths, shock artists and unapologetic chauvinists, the Kenyan “manosphere” is promoting an influential – and at times dangerous – take on modern masculinity.
Featuring:
Audrey Mugeni – Co-Founder, Femicide Count Kenya Awino Okech – Professor of Feminist & Security Studies, SOAS Onyango Otieno – Mental Health Coach & Writer
US Vice President Kamala Harris delivered a televised concession speech to the nation after a whirlwind campaign that failed to stop Republican Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
“While I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fuelled this campaign,” she told supporters on Wednesday at her alma mater, Howard University, a historically Black college.
Harris pledged to continue fighting for women’s rights and against gun violence and to “fight for the dignity that all people deserve”.
Harris addressed a crowd that included former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, aides in President Joe Biden’s White House, and thousands of fans who listened to a soundtrack that included Beyonce’s Run the World (Girls) and Tye Tribbett’s We Gon’ Be Alright.
Her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, also joined the crowd.
Harris rose to the top of the Democratic ticket in July after Biden stepped aside and brought new-found enthusiasm and cash to the Democratic ticket, but struggled to overcome voters’ concerns about the economy and immigration.
She was handed a resounding loss, with Trump winning a greater share of votes across most of the country compared with his performance in 2020, and Democrats failing to secure key battleground states that decide elections.
Thousands had gathered at Howard University on Tuesday night for what they hoped would be a historic victory for the first woman to become president. They came back on Wednesday to show their support after her.
Early voting is under way across the United States ahead of Tuesday’s presidential election. Republican candidate Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris have both made last-minute efforts to court union voters – a core voting bloc, especially in swing states like Michigan, where groups like the United Auto Workers (UAW) have significant sway among the electorate.
Vice President Harris has garnered endorsements from important unions across the country, including the UAW, AFL-CIO and Service Employees International Union.
Harris also has the support of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the union behind the latest Boeing strike, which is now entering its eighth week. Boeing picketers say that if she hits the picket line with them, it could help her win more votes.
Meanwhile, former President Trump has also solidified union support, limited though it may be. Members of the Teamsters union have shown stronger support for the Republican nominee. Although the International Brotherhood of Teamsters opted not to endorse either candidate, the union’s president, Sean O’Brien, has campaigned with Trump and appeared on conservative-friendly media outlets in support.
Trump also received an endorsement from the International Union of Police Associations. It comes despite Trump’s false claims about the high rate of crime in American cities, his 34 felony convictions and his campaign owing cities across the US hundreds of thousands of dollars, much of it for police overtime pay.
While Harris has wider support among union members – a 7 percent lead on Trump as 50 percent of union members say they believe Harris’s policies would be better for unions than Trump’s – the latter has garnered support among union members by tapping into issues that are top of mind for the broader electorate like immigration.
“Union members who are likely or could support Donald Trump are really not focused on collective bargaining or economic power but issues that have to do with immigration, issues that have to do with a sense of danger because of levels of crime,” Bob Bruno, professor of labour and employment at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, told Al Jazeera.
Despite Trump’s success in stoking fear about “migrant crime”, violent crime in the US has steadily declined during the administration of President Joe Biden. The most recent FBI data shows a 10.3 percent decline in reported violent crime compared with last year.
Al Jazeera analysed where the candidates stand on key issues important to union workers like collective bargaining and wages. Here’s what we found:
On organising
Harris has a pretty consistent record of being pro-union and was an original co-sponsor of a key workers rights bill – Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act.
The PRO Act, which originally was proposed in 2019, would prevent employers from interfering with union elections, allow for the National Labor Relations Board to hand out financial penalties to companies that violate labour laws and expedite reinstatement of work if workers lose their jobs as a result of a strike.
The bill was reintroduced in 2023 but has not passed the US Congress. Harris said she would sign it into law if elected.
“The Harris campaign is by far the more supportive of organised labour and collective bargaining, and the Trump campaign is outwardly hostile to the idea,” Bruno said.
JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, voted against the PRO Act and has been a vocal critic of the legislation. Vance also rejected several Biden administration nominees to the National Labor Relations Board. In 2020, then-President Trump threatened to veto the PRO Act if it made it to his desk.
The Trump White House also made it harder for workers to organise, including in 2019 when it got rid of a protection implemented during Barack Obama’s presidency that allowed workers to use company email to organise.
“When it comes to Trump, his presidency was an absolute disaster for working people and for union members. His entire term was doing the bidding of corporate CEOs and big corporations from the massive tax giveaways that he bestowed upon them to making it more difficult for workers to organise as a union,” Steven Smith, deputy director of public affairs for the AFL-CIO, told Al Jazeera.
In her capacity as vice president in the Biden administration, Harris spearheaded the White House Task Force on Worker Organizing and Empowerment, which aimed to help better communicate workers rights throughout federal agencies.
On the other hand, Trump has been openly hostile towards workers who are pushing for better working conditions.
In a recent interview with billionaire supporter Elon Musk on X, the social media platform Musk owns, Trump floated the idea of firing workers who are on strike, which would violate federal labour law.
The claim led the UAW to launch a formal complaint with the National Labor Relations Board to investigate Trump and Musk for interfering with workers rights.
On wages
Harris has said that if elected, she would try to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour – an important issue for workers in the service industry and their respective unions because the minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 an hour since 2009. Since then, its purchasing power has declined by almost 30 percent.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump works behind the counter during a visit to a McDonald’s restaurant in Feasterville-Trevose, Pennsylvania [File: Doug Mills/Pool via Reuters]
When he was asked about whether he would raise the minimum wage at a campaign event at a Pennsylvania McDonald’s franchise, Trump dodged the question.
In 2020, he said he would prefer minimum wages to be decided by the states.
“I think it should be a state option. Alabama is different than New York. New York is different from Vermont. Every state is different. It should be a state option,” Trump said at the time.
Thirty-four of the 50 US states have raised their minimum wages above the federal minimum.
That means the remaining 16 still have a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. So for people who work full time at 40 hours per week at those wages, their annual pay would be only $20 higher than the poverty line for a single person household.
When Biden first took office, he pledged to raise the federal minimum wage for all workers. But his efforts to get Congress to pass the legislation were blocked by Republicans and a handful of Democrats. However, Biden did what the administration could do unilaterally and raised the federal minimum wage for federal workers.
Both Trump and Harris have pledged to end income taxes on tips if elected.
Harris has long fought to improve wages across the economy. During her time as attorney general in California, she launched a task force that was intended to crack down on wage theft in the state.
However, it’s not clear how well those efforts performed. By 2022, it was reported that even when workers won wage theft cases against their employers, only one out of seven were paid out those lost wages within five years.
Trump, however, has repeatedly argued against raising wages.
In 2015, he said wages were “too high”. During that time, he also said auto manufacturers should move operations to the southern part of the US to “lower-wage states”.
Despite these policy positions, Trump won the union-heavy state of Michigan in 2016. Biden won the state by 2.8 percentage points over Trump in 2020, and now it’s a dead heat between Harris and Trump in the state. An aggregate of political polls compiled by the poll-tracking website FiveThirtyEight shows Harris has a small lead in Michigan but well within the margin of error.
The Biden administration, however, has fought to improve wages for middle class workers. In several job creation programmes, the administration included a prevailing wage clause that requires companies bidding for contracts to pay a living wage to their employees.
“The middle class is going to earn prevailing wage on all of those construction and factory-related jobs that come with that large federal subsidy,” Bruno said.
On overtime pay
At the end of Obama’s second term, the Department of Labor said any full-time workers making less than $47,476 qualified for automatic overtime pay.
A judge in Texas blocked the rule before it could take effect. When the plan threshold came up for re-evaluation in 2019, the Trump administration slashed it. The cuts meant employers only needed to pay overtime for salaried workers making $35,358 a year or less.
When the rule was up for reconsideration again this year, the Biden-Harris administration raised the threshold to $43,888 on July 1. It will increase again on January 1 to $58,656. The plan will likely continue if Harris is elected next week.
As for Trump, his allies at the Heritage Foundation think tank want him, if he wins, to reverse the rule.
Trump has a long history of failing to pay overtime during his time in the private sector. A 2016 report from USA Today found that his companies violated overtime and minimum wage laws 24 times.
He echoed that sentiment in a campaign speech this month. The Republican nominee told supporters in Michigan he “used to hate to pay overtime”.
“People are shocked and they’re scared because if Trump takes away their overtime, they’re not going to be able to make their rent at the end of the month. That’s the kind of thing that’s at stake here,” Smith said.
Trump, however, has said he wants to end taxes on overtime pay as part of a bigger tax plan if he is re-elected.
“It’s time for the working man and woman to finally catch a break, and that’s what we are doing because this is a good one,” Trump said at a campaign rally in Arizona in September.
Neither campaign replied to Al Jazeera’s requests for comment.
In the US, presidential elections are decided by a state-based vote allocation system. Here’s what you need to know.
It’s at the heart of how presidential elections in the United States are decided. But for many, the Electoral College is a mystery, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in an enigma.
It doesn’t have to be confusing, though.
To understand the Electoral College system, you first have to know that US presidents are not elected by the national popular vote: the total number of votes each candidate receives.
Instead, a group of 538 so-called “electors” select the president. These electors make up the Electoral College.
So who are these electors?
Before the election, the political parties in each state choose a slate of electors: real people who ultimately cast a vote for the president. Very often, the electors are party officials or supporters.
Each state gets the same number of electors as it has representatives in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate.
For example, Michigan gets 15 Electoral College votes. That corresponds to the two senators and 13 House members that represent the state in Congress.
Now that we know who these electors are and how many represent each state, how are their votes allocated? Here’s where it gets fun.
In nearly all the states across the US, the presidential candidate who gets the most votes wins all that state’s electors: It’s a winner-takes-all system. Even if a candidate wins a state narrowly, they still get all the electors.
The outliers are Maine and Nebraska, which allocate their electors based on a more complicated system that reflects the popular vote on the state and congressional district levels.
The District of Columbia — which is not a state but encompasses the country’s capital — also gets three Electoral College votes.
But here is the most important part: To win the White House, a presidential candidate must win the support of a majority of the electors.
So out of a total of 538 Electoral College votes, they need at least 270 to win.
The electors ultimately cast their votes in December, about a month after the election.
Their votes are then certified by Congress in early January, when the president is confirmed and takes office.
So what does this all mean?
Effectively, to win the US presidency, a candidate has to win support in enough key states to reach that magic Electoral College number of 270.
Under this system, a candidate who wins the popular vote — the most votes in total across the US — may not actually win the White House.
One recent example came in 2016, when Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the election to Republican Donald Trump. His victory was buoyed by wins in states like Florida and Pennsylvania, each of which offered at least 20 Electoral College votes.
The Electoral College system was designed, in effect, to ensure the political power of the states.
Some Americans say the Electoral College should be scrapped in favour of the popular vote. Others argue the system ensures highly populated states do not overshadow smaller ones, thereby encouraging minority representation in US democracy.
It started as a last-minute effort in February: Organisers in Michigan hoped to use the state’s Democratic primary to send a message to President Joe Biden to end his support for Israel’s war in Gaza.
Six months later, Biden is no longer the Democratic presidential candidate. But the US’s “ironclad” support for the war continues. And so has the “uncommitted” movement, the protest effort born in Michigan.
Initially, the aim was to encourage primary voters across the country to cast their “uncommitted” ballots in protest of the war. But now that the primary season is over, the “uncommitted movement” has set its sights on a new platform: the Democratic National Convention.
Next week, 30 delegates from eight states, representing some 700,000 voters who cast “uncommitted” ballots, will be heading to the convention in Chicago. Though they have been denied an official platform to speak at the proceedings, they hope their presence will still send a strong message.
“We’re the first delegation ever to be representing Palestinian human rights. And I think that that’s really important. We’re a small but mighty group,” said Asma Mohammed, who organised for the “uncommitted” movement in advance of Minnesota’s primary.
Mohammed acknowledged the “uncommitted” delegates will be a minority at the convention. Still, she emphasised the voter base they represent could be decisive in November’s general election.
“There’s 30 of us, and there’s over 4,000 delegates nationally. So we’re less than 1 percent of the delegates,” she told Al Jazeera.
“But inside the convention hall, we will be representing the Palestinians that were massacred, representing the almost million voters nationwide who said that they want a ceasefire right now and that they want an arms embargo.”
Activist Natalia Latif tapes a ‘Vote Uncommitted’ sign on the speaker’s podium during an election night gathering in Dearborn, Michigan [File: Rebecca Cook/Reuters]
The group had requested for Dr Tanya Haj-Hassan, a pediatric intensive care physician who has worked in Gaza, to speak at the convention. Their appeal was denied, Mohammed said.
Still, the delegates, under the banner of the Uncommitted National Movement, will hold a programme of events on the sidelines of the convention. There, they will meet with various caucuses and seek to rally other delegates pledged to Kamala Harris, the new Democratic nominee for president.
‘Fighting for human rights’
The Uncommitted National Movement has already used its position to protest against the continuing bloodshed in Gaza, where more than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed.
Earlier this month, Harris was formally designated the Democratic nominee through a virtual roll call — an online vote in which all delegates could take part.
Instead of voting for Harris, the “uncommitted” delegates nominated victims from Gaza. Mohammed was among the delegates who participated in the protest.
“I submitted my vote for Reem Badwan, a three-year-old who was murdered in an Israeli air strike in Gaza,” Mohammed said. “And I made clear my vote [in the general election] was contingent on a ceasefire and an arms embargo.”
Ahmad Awad, an “uncommitted” delegate from New Jersey, said the effort was a “symbolic way to highlight the many victims of the war”. The 29-year-old lawyer nominated Abdul Rahman Manhal, a 14-year-old killed in Gaza’s Nuseirat refugee camp in November.
“The districts that I’m representing as an ‘uncommitted’ delegate encompasses Paterson and Clifton, New Jersey, which are home to a large Palestinian American community. It’s basically little Ramallah,” Awad said, drawing an analogy to the West Bank city.
Awad explained that his participation in the “uncommitted” movement stems from a family history of fighting and surviving human rights abuses.
“Fighting for human rights is something that’s really ingrained in my DNA,” he told Al Jazeera.
“On my father’s side, both of my grandparents were born in Palestine prior to 1948. My mother’s side is Polish. My grandfather is a survivor of Nazi slave labour camps.”
‘Resolute is the best word’
In Harris’s abrupt entrance into the presidential race, activists have seen a potential opening for a course change in US policy towards Israel.
Harris became the Democratic nominee after Biden withdrew from the race on July 21, amid concerns about his age and capacity to lead.
Whereas Biden has advanced a policy of “bear-hug diplomacy” towards Israel, some observers believe Harris has signalled her intention to take a tougher stance.
Shortly after entering the presidential race, Harris pledged to denounce the suffering of Palestinian civilians. “I will not be silent,” she said, shortly after meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In a brief exchange with two “uncommitted” leaders — Layla Elabed and Abbas Alawieh — at a campaign stop in Detroit this month, she also said she would speak with the group.
But her campaign has not set a date for the meeting, and a Harris campaign adviser doused hopes that she would support a full arms embargo on Israel.
Michael Berg, a 49-year-old uncommitted delegate from Missouri, said there had been some positive signs from Harris, although he had tempered his expectations.
“It’s hard to know where things are going,” said Berg, who named two-year-old Gaza victim Jihad Khaled Abu Amer as his vote during the virtual roll call. “I’m hoping that Vice President Harris is not as dug in on positions as President Biden seems to be.”
Still, Berg explained he and the other “uncommitted” delegates are steadfast in their mission to advocate for a ceasefire at the Democratic National Convention.
“So we are, I guess, resolute is the best word. We are going to the convention because we have a very clear mandate and mission from the people, and we’re going to do what we can.”
‘Standing with my fellow Kentuckians’
In the lead-up to the convention, the “uncommitted” movement has added delegates to its group.
Violet Olds, for instance, applied to represent the “uncommitted” segment of voters in Kentucky but was not initially involved in the movement.
Olds, a digital project manager, said that after she was selected by the party to represent uncommitted voters, she was approached by her local Democratic Socialists of America chapter, which connected her to the national protest movement.
“I actually reached out and found ways to communicate with other Kentucky voters to find out why they voted uncommitted and how I can represent their voices at the convention,” the 41-year-old told Al Jazeera.
“And it all comes down to basically Gaza and Palestine. So I’m standing with my fellow Kentuckians and with Palestinians.”
During the roll call, Olds named Mohammad Bhar, a 24-year-old Palestinian man with Down syndrome who died after being mauled by an Israeli military dog in his home in Shujayea in Gaza.
“I am autistic, and so that means that I represent a whole different class of people than I think the Democratic Party is usually used to representing, and my son is autistic, as well,” Olds said. “So when I heard Mohammad’s story, it really, really, really hit home.”
Asma Mohammed, an activist with Uncommitted Minnesota, addresses media in Minneapolis, Minnesota [Stephen Maturen/AFP]
Others, like Inga Gibson, a delegate from Hawaii, have long been part of the Palestinian solidarity movement. Nearly 30 percent of voters in Hawaii’s Democratic primary cast their ballot for “uncommitted”, the largest proportion of any state. Seven of the island state’s 22 delegates are “uncommitted”.
Gibson attributed the turnout to Hawaii’s “own history of settler colonialism”.
“A lot of native Hawaiians within the Palestinian freedom movement have drawn on that parallel,” she explained.
Gibson, a 52-year-old environmental policy consultant, said that the relatively small size of the “uncommitted” delegation does not reflect wider sentiment against US support for Israel.
Polls have repeatedly shown widespread disapproval of Israel’s actions among Democrats. Experts say the support for Israel could disadvantage Democrats in several key battleground states, including Michigan and Pennsylvania.
“I do not feel that our movement, by any means, is in the minority, even if our delegates are, per se, in the minority compared to 4,000 others,” said Gibson. She named Gaza victim Ruba Yasser Nawas, a 22-year-old software engineer, during the roll call vote.
“Everything that we are asking for is completely mainstream.”
‘Cannot just make this week a celebration’
June Rose, the sole “uncommitted” delegate from Rhode Island, also said it was incorrect to assume the delegation members come from the fringes of the Democratic Party.
“We are Democratic professionals. I’m the chief of staff of the Providence City Council. I’ve made my career helping to elect Democrats and defeat Republicans who pose incredible risk to the future of our country,” the 29-year-old told Al Jazeera.
“But my relationship with the party will never supersede my relationship with my values, and in this case, my values and my party are in direct conflict.”
Rose named Eileen Abu Odeh, a toddler killed with her family in an Israeli air raid in Gaza, during the roll call. They explained the delegation’s presence at the Democratic National Convention can serve as a gut check for the party, as it prepares to chart a course forward on foreign policy.
“Our party cannot just make this week a celebration, and I think that that’s the tone that many in our party want to take,” Rose said. “But that celebration would be on the graves of innocent children who’ve been slaughtered.”
As Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris overtakes her Republican opponent Donald Trump in opinion polls – she is now leading in five crucial swing states – experts warn she will face “a heavy road” when it comes to passing economic legislation should she become the next president of the United States.
The year 2025 will be one filled with political negotiations as several significant pieces of economic legislation are set to expire, including tax cuts for individuals under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the reinstatement of the nation’s debt limit, which was suspended last year.
But with voters choosing members of both houses of the US Congress – all of the lower House of Representatives and a third of the upper chamber, the Senate – in November as well, Harris’s ability to push through any legislation will depend on how Democrats perform in those elections.
“The House is up for grabs, but if the Senate is Republican – a likely outcome – Harris will have a heavy road in getting any legislation passed,” Gary Clyde Hufbauer, nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told Al Jazeera.
Among those major pieces of legislation are the individual provisions under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which are due to expire at the end of next year when they will revert to the levels of a 2016 law.
The 2017 law, which was signed by Donald Trump, provided dramatic tax breaks to US corporations while families at all income levels saw a drop in income tax from 2018 with the largest benefits going to the rich.
“If Harris wants to extend any of the provisions on the individual side or make them more favourable to lower-income people, she will have to contend with the Senate. That will be a huge horse trade,” Hufbauer explained.
There will also be negotiations on the US government’s debt limit, including the perennial challenges of avoiding a government shutdown, said Bernard Yaros, lead US economist at Oxford Economics.
“In the low probability that Democrats fully sweep the elections, we don’t expect Harris’s economic agenda to change. She’s running on a platform of continuity, and she’s going to want to implement all the Build Back Better agenda that didn’t get enacted,” such as the caregiving and family support policies, Yaros told Al Jazeera. “We don’t see much difference between her and [incumbent President Joe] Biden’s policies. She will want to run to finish the job.”
‘Pivot to the centre’
Harris’s economic views and policies are so far largely unknown. While Trump is trying to seize on her statements before the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries when she had positioned herself on the left as she tried to win the ticket to be her party’s nominee, economists have largely dismissed those statements.
Her campaign in “2020 was under different circumstances,” Yaros told Al Jazeera. “Now she’s in a general election, so she has to pivot to the centre. She has to appeal to moderates in swing states who will not be enthused by a 35 percent tax rate, for instance,” Yaros said referring to Harris’s 2020 stance when she suggested hiking the corporate tax rate to 35 percent from the current 21 percent.
Medicare for All is another policy that the Trump campaign has seized upon to discredit Harris as a viable candidate for the top job but, again, one that economists are not worried about. “I wouldn’t take that seriously,” Yaros said. “She needs to pivot to the centre.”
The one thing that could hurt her chances is inflation. Even though the consumer price index is at 2.9 percent and finally within spitting distance of the US Federal Reserve’s target of 2 percent, compared with historic highs of 9.1 percent in June 2022, actual prices are still substantially higher than before the pandemic.
‘Carrying the baggage’ of inflation
“Her approval rating has been very co-related with Biden’s on inflation and fell like Biden’s in 2022 during high inflation,” Yaros said. “The Democrats and she will still carry that baggage. But now that people are starting to know her more, she’s now more out and front. If her approval rating is on the rise, voters may not penalise her for what happened under the Biden presidency in terms of inflation.”
Hufbauer added: “Inflation, immigration are just killer issues for Democrats, and I don’t think Harris could escape those.”
Harris’s “advantage is that she doesn’t have much of a record in the economic sphere, so that gives her freedom to manoeuvre and do things”, Hufbauer said. These could include political efforts like bringing down petrol prices by releasing US reserves in the run-up to the elections, capping rent hikes at 5 percent and lambasting everybody’s pet peeve – corporate greed.
Prices have gone up and “young people are really unhappy” because house prices have gone up 30 percent to 40 percent and that’s “way more than wages”, Hufbauer pointed out. He added that while Harris cannot really bring down those prices, she can offer sympathy and be forward-looking by addressing issues such as how to tackle the situation using rent control, help for new families coming into the housing market with tax deductions, “things that look like she’s actually addressing that”, Hufbauer said.
On Thursday, the Reuters news agency reported that Harris would announce 3 million new housing units in a speech on Friday and outline new tax incentives for builders who construct properties for first-time homebuyers.
Trade, another big economic issue
Trump has proposed imposing a 10 percent across-the-board tariff on all imported goods and levies of 60 percent or higher on Chinese imports, an idea derided by economists. “That would be a shock to the world system,” Hufbauer warned. Biden, for his part, has kept many of Trump’s tariffs in place and added targeted ones.
Businesses typically pass higher tariffs on to their customers, raising prices for consumers. That could also affect businesses’ decisions about how and where to invest.
The one area that could really hurt Harris is an expanded war in the Middle East as that will also stoke inflation and send prices skyrocketing again.
“If the US gets on more of a war footing, that’s her danger point on inflation,” Hufbauer said.
