Author

admin

Browsing
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Elon Musk’s high-profile role in the Trump administration is dominating headlines. His DOGE recommendations are roiling the Washington establishment. His young staffers with backpacks are looking at waste in multiple government agencies, and he himself is frequently advising the president. While Musk’s prominent role is certainly unusual, history reveals some parallels to presidential advisers who have had an enormous influence in previous administrations. History also shows that having a high-profile non-traditional role also paints a big target on your back.

One of the first uber-powerful outside advisers was in the Woodrow Wilson administration. House was a wealthy Texan who had been advising Democratic politicians in his home state when he connected with then-New Jersey Governor Wilson. 

When Wilson won the presidency, House had little interest in a Cabinet slot. According to Wilson’s personal physician Cary Grayson, House ‘wanted no office himself and his one desire, it seemed, was to be helpful to the President in the selection of men for appointments.’ 

House became Wilson’s main foreign policy adviser. He lived in the White House, which gave him access day and night to Wilson, and controlled the flow of information to Wilson. House recalled that Wilson ‘seldom reads the newspapers and gains his knowledge of public affairs largely from the matter brought to his attention….’ With House culling what was brought to Wilson’s attention, it’s unsurprising that Wilson once called House ‘my second personality,’ adding ‘his thoughts and mine are one.’ 

House’s influence grew with America’s entry into World War I in 1917. House came up with the idea for and populated The Inquiry, a proto think tank that examined the potential scenarios in the war’s aftermath. Wilson’s famous 14 Points speech, laying out his framework for a post-war world, was based on a draft written by Inquiry member Walter Lippman and then refined by House and Wilson. As House recalled his efforts on that speech, he and Wilson ‘finished remaking the map of the world…at half past twelve o’clock.’

Although the war initially increased House’s power, it also set the stage for his downfall. There was resentment within the White House and the State Department about House’s outsized role. Wilson’s second wife Edith did not much like him, either. Wilson also felt that House conceded too much to the European powers in the Versailles negotiations. House further pushed his luck by urging Wilson to negotiate with Senate Republicans to secure passage of the Versailles Treaty, good advice that Wilson did not want to hear.

On June 28, 1919, House and Wilson met for the last time as Wilson was about to return to the U.S. to begin his ultimately unsuccessful effort to ratify the treaty. He said, ‘Good-by, House,’ and the two men never spoke again.

Franklin Roosevelt also had a top administration priority run by a man with a military title in a non-traditional appointment. Ex- was working for the wealthy investor and Democratic fixer Bernard Baruch when he became a member of Roosevelt’s ‘Brain Trust.’ He then headed Roosevelt’s new National Recovery Administration, where, according to the New York Times, he was given ‘almost unlimited powers.’ 

Johnson’s job as head of the NRA was to get companies to adhere to Roosevelt’s New Deal policies. Here the similarities to DOGE are apparent, except NRA was initially an executive branch creation targeting the private sector, while DOGE aims to rein in government. Congress created the NRA, and Roosevelt signed it into law, on June 16, after Johnson had started. Within one month, Johnson got 2 million companies to sign on to the NRA codes, allowing them to display the ‘Blue Eagle’ of compliance.

Johnson used heavy-handed tactics to get companies to comply. Ford founder Henry Ford learned this firsthand when he refused to sign on. In response, Johnson criticized Ford publicly and went to Michigan to confront Ford, even threatening to sic the Department of Justice on Ford. Ford pushed back, issuing a company statement saying that Johnson was ‘assuming the airs of a dictator.’

Ford’s resistance notwithstanding, Johnson was lionized by the press, and he was named TIME’s ‘Man of the Year’ in 1933. The power and accolades, however, seemed to go to Johnson’s head. His former employer Baruch warned FDR that Johnson was ‘a born dictator.’ Cabinet members like Labor Secretary Frances Perkins and Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau complained about him as well, but Roosevelt defended Johnson, saying that ‘every administration needed a Peck’s Bad Boy.’ Roosevelt even spurned an offer from Johnson to resign, prompting Johnson to tell the press, ‘My feet are nailed to the floor for the present… I am not going to resign.’

Despite Roosevelt’s initial support, the pressure eventually became too great. Roosevelt forced Johnson to resign in September of 1934. In his resignation speech, Johnson called the NRA ‘as great a social advance as has occurred on this earth since a gaunt and dusty Jew in Palestine declared, as a new principle in human relationship, ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.’’ Johnson’s love for the administration that ousted him did not last, though, as he became a Roosevelt critic, particularly of Roosevelt’s effort to remake, or ‘pack’ the Supreme Court that had invalidated Johnson’s NRA in 1935.

In Roosevelt’s third term, he changed priorities from what he called ‘Dr. New Deal’ to ‘Dr. Win the War.’ In this, one of his top needs was to shift America’s industrial base to producing war material. To do so, Roosevelt needed someone not from government but from the private sector that he had spent much of his first two terms trying to bring to heel. FDR looked to Baruch for advice. Baruch responded: ‘First, Knudsen. Second, Knudsen. Third, Knudsen.’ Baruch was referring to , president of General Motors, at the time the largest company on earth. FDR called Knudsen, who forgo an enormous $300,000 salary – about $6.5 million today – to become a dollar-a-year man in Washington. FDR also made Knudsen a lieutenant general in the Army, an unusual move for someone coming directly from the civilian ranks.

Like House and Johnson before him – and Musk in our day – Knudsen had his critics. New Dealers were angry that Knudsen refused to shut down the production of cars for civilian use. Knudsen held his ground before FDR, explaining that shutting down production would necessitate closing the plants, which would get in the way of war production. 

Criticism notwithstanding, Knudsen did his job well. In marshaling America’s industrial might to help the United States and its allies, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, win the war, Knudsen got some praise from an unusual source. At the 1943 meeting of the Big Three allies in Tehran, Josef Stalin proposed a toast ‘to American production, without which this war would have been lost.’ It might as well have been a toast to Knudsen himself.

Following the war, TIME founder saw in Dwight Eisenhower an opportunity to return Republicans to the White House. Luce backed Eisenhower in a variety of ways: with favorable TIME coverage, foreign policy advice, and the loan of several staffers to Eisenhower’s 1952 presidential campaign. When Eisenhower won, some of the Luce people joined the administration, and Luce’s wife Clare Boothe Luce served as ambassador to Italy.

During Eisenhower’s administration, Luce continued to provide both advice and favorable coverage, although the latter came at a cost. TIME staffers did not like serving as ‘Eisenhower’s mouthpiece.’ More broadly, TIME began to be seen as biased towards the Republicans, an example of reputational damage stemming from being too close to a sitting administration. 

In the Nixon administration, another prominent CEO would take a hit for his closeness to a Republican president. In 1968, long before was a presidential candidate, the Texas billionaire and founder of EDS met Richard Nixon through PepsiCo Chairman Donald Kendall. Perot, who had become rich selling data processing to the federal government, told Nixon that computers could be an important tool in a presidential campaign. He provided 10 paid employees – and an EDS airplane – to the Nixon campaign to demonstrate how it could be done. 

When Nixon won, Perot became a presence in the Nixon White House. He never took an official position, but he did join the Nixon Foundation, and was a source of ideas, staff, and money – or at least promises of money. He also highlighted the issue of American POWs held by the North Vietnamese, something that the Nixon administration appreciated. For its part, the Nixon administration helped Perot as well, siding with EDS in some government contract disputes and aiding EDS in its efforts to secure additional contracts.

While helpful in some ways, Perot was also a pest. Some of his ambitious plans, like buying the Washington Post or ABC to improve their Nixon coverage, did not come to fruition. Still, the idea of a billionaire buying a platform that could aid a president politically has at least some familiarity. In addition, Nixon White House aide Gordon Strachey characterized him as ‘Difficult to please Perot.’ 

The Nixon link would eventually cost Perot. The Nixon administration asked Perot to help the struggling but prominent Wall Street firm F. I. Dupont, Glore Forgan and Co. Perot initially put in $10 million, then poured in more, ultimately totaling $100 million. In the end. Dupont fell apart, and EDS stock plummeted from $162 a share to $10, significantly reducing Perot’s net worth. As Perot later recalled, ‘They said it was a $5 million problem. So we waded in like Boy Scouts and then found out the vault was out of control.’

When Perot later ran for president in 1992, he lost to Bill Clinton. As president, Clinton enlisted his former Rhodes Scholar friend and business consultant as staff director of his health care task force. Magaziner had eschewed offers of a Cabinet slot to help direct the administration’s biggest issue. Magaziner enlisted hundreds of volunteers, many from the private sector, to work on the task force, working 15-hour days in 30 different sub-task forces, and meeting with Clinton on a nearly daily basis.

Like Musk, Magaziner tried to attack a challenging problem in a new way. As his wife Suzanne said of him, ‘Ira is always trying to redefine the square. He’s not constrained by limits just because they’re there.’ He also took his share of hits. The Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein said of Magaziner that ‘There is about him a supreme self-confidence that sometimes slips into arrogance.’ 

Ultimately, the health effort failed, and Republicans took control of the House and Senate in part because of the backlash against the Magaziner-led initiative. The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons sued the administration, arguing that non-governmental appointees could have meetings with governmental officials that were not open to the public. Federal Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that Magaziner was ‘misleading at best’ in the discovery process. Lamberth added that the government needed to be ‘accountable when its officials run amok,’ and fined Magaziner more than $285,000. 

Magaziner offered to resign after the health care failure, but Clinton refused the resignation. Magaziner remained a White House adviser on internet-related issues through 1998, and his fine was eventually reversed on appeal in 1999.

Clearly, no one is or could be exactly like Elon Musk: a mega-billionaire who runs electric car, social media, and space exploration companies while running a powerful government commission identifying waste, fraud, and abuse. But there have certainly been other prominent private sector actors who have worked on presidential priorities in non-traditional ways, bringing in their own people in the process. And there have also others who have been accused of arrogance and conflicts of interest, pilloried in the press and subjected to financial and reputational hits. The biggest open question is what happens in this kind of relationship between the president and the adviser. Whether the Musk-Trump relationship survives this experience remains the biggest and most interesting question out there.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Warren Buffett went on the record Friday to deny social media posts after President Donald Trump shared on Truth Social a fan video that claimed the president is tanking the stock market on purpose with the endorsement of the legendary investor.

Trump on Friday shared an outlandish social media video that defends his recent policy decisions by arguing he is deliberately taking down the market as a strategic play to force lower interest and mortgage rates.

“Trump is crashing the stock market by 20% this month, but he’s doing it on purpose,” alleged the video, which Trump posted on his Truth Social account.

The video’s narrator then falsely states, “And this is why Warren Buffett just said, ‘Trump is making the best economic moves he’s seen in over 50 years.’”

The president shared a link to an X post from the account @AmericaPapaBear, a self-described “Trumper to the end.” The X post itself appears to be a repost of a weeks-old TikTok video from user @wnnsa11. The video has been shared more than 2,000 times on Truth Social and nearly 10,000 times on X.

Buffett, 94, didn’t single out any specific posts, but his conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway outright rejected all comments claimed to be made by him.

“There are reports currently circulating on social media (including Twitter, Facebook and Tik Tok) regarding comments allegedly made by Warren E. Buffett. All such reports are false,” the company said in a statement Friday.

CNBC’s Becky Quick spoke to Buffett Friday about this statement and he said he wanted to knock down misinformation in an age where false rumors can be blasted around instantaneously. Buffett told Quick that he won’t make any commentary related to the markets, the economy or tariffs between now and Berkshire’s annual meeting on May 3.

While Buffett hasn’t spoken about this week’s imposition of sweeping tariffs from the Trump administration, his view on such things has pretty much always been negative. Just in March, the Berkshire CEO and chairman called tariffs “an act of war, to some degree.”

“Over time, they are a tax on goods. I mean, the tooth fairy doesn’t pay ’em!” Buffett said in the news interview with a laugh. “And then what? You always have to ask that question in economics. You always say, ‘And then what?’”

During Trump’s first term, Buffett opined at length in 2018 and 2019 about the trade conflicts that erupted, warning that the Republican’s aggressive moves could cause negative consequences globally.

“If we actually have a trade war, it will be bad for the whole world … everything intersects in the world,” Buffett said in a CNBC interview in 2019. “A world that adjusts to something very close to free trade … more people will live better than in a world with significant tariffs and shifting tariffs over time.”

Buffett has been in a defensive mode over the past year as he rapidly dumped stocks and raised a record amount of cash exceeding $300 billion. His conglomerate has a big U.S. focus and has large businesses in insurance, railroads, manufacturing, energy and retail.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Retailers and brands have turned to Vietnam to manufacture goods from sneakers to couches while moving some or all production out of China.

For years, China’s southern neighbor became a popular alternative for companies trying to avoid the crossfire of U.S. trade tensions with Beijing. Now, as President Donald Trump expands his tariff targets, they can no longer steer clear.

Trump said he will put a 46% duty on imports from Vietnam as part of a new wave of global levies announced Wednesday. That could soon raise costs for major corporations in the apparel, furniture and toy space, and some of them may pass those increases to consumers in the form of price hikes. The tariffs on Vietnam take effect on April 9.

China exported more goods to the U.S. than any other country for more than two decades, but Mexico surpassed China as the top source in 2023. China is now the second largest supplier to the U.S., accounting for $438.9 billion worth of goods in 2024, according to government data from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

For companies that have looked to diversify the countries they rely on for production and reduce risks from trade conflicts with China, Vietnam has also become a popular place to go. Imports from Vietnam grew to $136.6 billion in 2024, up about 19% from 2023, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

On the other hand, imports from China rose only 2.8% from 2023 to 2024, according to government data. Imports from China dropped about 18% last year when compared to 2022, when the U.S. brought in $536.3 billion in goods from the country.

The duties will hit companies at a time when many consumers have become value-conscious and selective about spending due to persistent inflation and concerns about the economy. While it is unclear now which companies will raise prices due to the tariffs, businesses may be reluctant to shoulder the higher costs as they forecast lackluster spending in the months ahead.

Some household names will feel the pinch from Vietnam tariffs. Nike manufacturers about half of its footwear in China and Vietnam, with about 25% coming from Vietnam. Trump will put a 34% tariff on top of existing 20% duties on imports from China, for an apparent rate of 54%, a White House official told CNBC.

The tariffs would be yet another headwind for the sneaker and athletic apparel giant, which already delivered a disappointing forecast for the current quarter. That guidance, which projects a double-digit percentage sales decline in the three-month period, included the estimated impact from tariffs on imports from China and Mexico.

Expanded tariffs could stall or slow Nike’s efforts to revive its brand and improve sales under its new CEO Elliott Hill, a company veteran who took the helm last fall.

Nike shares dropped more than 6% in extended trading Wednesday. Adidas and other major footwear players also rely heavily on Vietnam.

The two companies did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

Nearly a third of footwear imports in the U.S. came from Vietnam in 2023, the most recent full-year data available, according to the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, an industry trade group.

Steve Madden, for example, said on an earnings call in early November that it would slash its imports to the U.S. from China by as much as 45% over the next year. The footwear maker made that announcement just days after Trump’s presidential victory, following his campaign trail promises to impose steep tariffs on countries like China.

Yet one of the nations Steve Madden has accelerated its move to is Vietnam, along with Cambodia, Mexico and Brazil, CEO Edward Rosenfeld said at the time on the earnings call.

Vietnam was the second largest country for suppliers of Ugg and Hoka parent company Deckers Brands as of this month. The company has 68 supply chain partners in Vietnam, which is surpassed only by its 125 suppliers in China. Deckers shares dropped nearly 9% in extended trading. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

VF Corporation, which is made up of footwear, apparel and accessories brands including The North Face, Timberland, Vans and Jansport, has a heavy reliance on China and Vietnam, too. About 38% of its suppliers are in China and 17% are in Vietnam, adding up to 55% of exposure across the two countries, according to a manufacturing disclosure from December.

The company’s shares dropped more than 8% in extended trading Wednesday. VF declined to comment, citing its quiet period before its upcoming earnings report.

The furniture industry has also ramped up its reliance on Vietnam.

In 2023, 26.5% of U.S. furniture imports came from the country, close behind the 29% coming from China, according to data from the Home Furnishings Association, a trade group that lobbies on behalf of home goods retailers. The group cited investment banking firm Mann, Armistead & Epperson — one of the furniture industry’s top sources for data.

Taken together, that means about 56% of U.S. furniture imports come from both regions combined.

On an earnings call in February, Wayfair CEO Niraj Shah said the shift to countries outside of China has been “a growing trend” since Trump enacted tariffs during his first administration.

He said places like Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam “have grown as places where folks have factories and where our goods are coming from.”

Wayfair’s stock plunged about 12% in extended trading. In a statement, Wayfair said it is “closely monitoring the evolving trade landscape.” The company added it is “well-positioned to continue offering customers the best possible combination of value, assortment, and experience.”

Toymakers have also leaned on Vietnam to make more merchandise that’s imported and sold to kids and adults across the U.S. Hasbro, SpinMaster, Mattel and Crayola are among the companies that work with GFT Group, one of the largest toy manufacturers in the Southeast Asia.

In addition to long-established manufacturing facilities in China, GFT currently has five production facilities in northern Vietnam that employ over 15,000 workers.

On a call in early March, Funko Chief Financial Officer Yves LePendeven said the company, which is known for its big-eyed plastic collectibles called Pops, was working hard to control what it could in the year ahead. That includes trying to offset tariffs by “renegotiating factory costs, accelerating our shift in production to other sourcing countries, and implementing pricing adjustments,” he said.

On the call, he said about a third of Funko’s global product purchases come from China. He didn’t name the countries that Funko was moving production to, but it is a customer of GFT Group.

Those toymakers did not immediately respond to CNBC’s requests for comment.

Curtis McGill is the co-founder of Hey Buddy Hey Pal, a toy company that specializes in Easter egg decorating kits. He said he expects the 46% tariffs to raise toy costs in the U.S., but added companies will likely be negotiating with suppliers in Vietnam to try to mitigate those hikes.

“A lot of manufacturers and the actual toy companies have been already having conversations with manufacturing plants having to to help in some regards, because the toy companies are getting pressure to try and maintain prices on this side from the retailers,” McGill said.

For companies, including apparel makers, the new tariff policies have raised questions about whether — and where — to potentially move their manufacturing. Last month, an investor asked American Eagle Outfitters about its exposure to Vietnam on its most recent earnings call.

Chief Financial Officer Michael Mathias said the jeans and apparel brand’s production is similar in Vietnam and China, with “high-teens to 20%” of production in each of those countries. He said the company aims to trim that back to single-digits by the back half of the year.

American Eagle shares dipped more than 5% on Wednesday. The company did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

Yet both Mathias and American Eagle CEO Jay Schottenstein said on the company’s last earnings call that it will be crucial to stay flexible, while waiting to see how tariffs would play out and which countries would be targeted.

Schottenstein referred to eight years ago during the first Trump administration, when American Eagle also faced challenges and had to figure out a new plan.

Schottenstein said there’s another shift coming, but “nobody knows what the story is yet.”

“I wouldn’t be rushing,” he said. “You go rush, where am I rushing to? I don’t know where I’m rushing to.”

Peter Baum is the chief financial officer and chief operation officer of Baum Essex, a New York-based manufacturer with licenses to make products for brands like Nautica, Betsey Johnson and Steve Madden. During the first Trump administration in 2019, Baum moved factories from from China to the Philippines, Cambodia, Vietnam and India.

He told CNBC on Wednesday that the reciprocal tariffs would do massive damage to his company.

“This is how you start a global depression. After 80 years and five generations Trump just put us out of business,” Baum said.

— CNBC’s Sarah Whitten, Jason Gewirtz and Eamon Javers contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

WASHINGTON — Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg told senators on Wednesday that he’s happy with the company’s progress improving manufacturing and safety practices following several accidents, including a near catastrophe last year.

Ortberg faced questioning from the Senate Commerce Committee about how the company will ensure that it doesn’t repeat past accidents or manufacturing defects, in his first hearing since he became CEO last August, tasked with turning the manufacturer around.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R.-Texas, the committee’s chairman, said he wants Boeing to succeed and invited company managers and factory workers to report to him their opinions on its turnaround plan. “Consider my door open,” he said.

Ortberg acknowledged the company still has more to do.

“Boeing has made serious missteps in recent years — and it is unacceptable. In response, we have made sweeping changes to the people, processes, and overall structure of our company,” Ortberg said in his testimony. “While there is still work ahead of us, these profound changes are underpinned by the deep commitment from all of us to the safety of our products and services.”

Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg testifies on Capitol Hill on April 2.Brendan Smialowski / AFP – Getty Images

Boeing executives have worked for years to put the lasting impact of two fatal crashes of its best-selling Max plane behind it. 

Ortberg said Boeing is in discussions with the Justice Department for a revised plea agreement stemming from a federal fraud charge in the development of Boeing’s best-selling 737 Maxes. The previous plea deal, reached last July, was later rejected by a federal judge, who last month set a trial date for June 23 if a new deal isn’t reached.

Boeing had agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the U.S. government, pay up to $487.2 million and install a corporate monitor at the company for three years.

“We’re in the process right now of going back with the DOJ and coming up with an alternate agreement,” Ortberg said during the hearing. “I want this resolved as fast as anybody. We’re still in discussions and hopefully we’ll have a new agreement here soon.”

Asked by Sen. Maria Cantwell, the ranking Democrat on the committee, whether he had an issue with having a corporate monitor, Ortberg replied: “I don’t personally have a problem, no.”

Ortberg and other Boeing executives have recently outlined improvements across the manufacturer’s production lines, such as reducing defects and risks from so-called traveled works, or doing tasks out of sequence, in recent months, as well as wins like a contract worth more than $20 billion to build the United States’ next generation fighter jet.

But lawmakers and regulators have maintained heightened scrutiny on the company, a top U.S. exporter.

“Boeing has been a great American manufacturer and all of us should want to see it thrive,” Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican and chairman of the committee, said in a statement in February announcing the hearing. “Given Boeing’s past missteps and problems, the flying public deserves to hear what changes are being made to rehabilitate the company’s tarnished reputation.”

The Federal Aviation Administration last year capped Boeing’s production of its 737 Max planes at 38 a month following the January 2024 door plug blowout. The agency plans to keep that limit in place, though Boeing is producing below that level.

Ortberg said at the hearing Wednesday that the company could work up to production rate of 38 Max planes a month or even higher sometime this year, but said Boeing wouldn’t push it if the production line isn’t stable.

Acting FAA Administrator Chris Rocheleau said at a Senate hearing last week that the agency’s oversight of the company “extends to ongoing monitoring of Boeing’s manufacturing practices, maintenance procedures, and software updates.”

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

United Airlines plans to add daily flights to Vietnam and Thailand in October, further expanding the network for the U.S. carrier that already has the most Asia service.

In the expansion, United is using a tactic that’s unusual in its network: Its airplanes from Los Angeles and San Francisco that are headed for Hong Kong will then go on to the two new destinations. The Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, service is set to begin on Oct. 26.

On Oct. 25, United plans to add a second daily nonstop flight from San Francisco to Manila, Philippines, and on Dec. 11, it will launch nonstops from San Francisco to Adelaide, Australia, which will operate three days a week.

The carrier has aggressively been adding far-flung destinations not served by rivals to its routes, like Nuuk, Greenland, and Bilbao, Spain, which start later this year. Getting the mix right is especially important as carriers seek to grow their lucrative loyalty programs and need attractive destinations to keep customers spending.

Bangkok, in particular, “is in even more demand now given the popularity of ‘White Lotus,’” Patrick Quayle, United’s senior vice president of network and global alliances, said of the HBO show.

He said the carrier isn’t planning on cutting any international routes for its upcoming winter schedule.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Americans nearing retirement and recent retirees said they were anxious and frustrated following a second day of market turmoil that hit their 401(k)s after President Donald Trump’s escalation of tariffs.

As the impending tariffs shook the global economy Friday, people who were planning on their retirement accounts to carry them through their golden years said the economic chaos was hitting too close to home.

Some said they are pausing big-ticket purchases and reconsidering home renovations, while others said they fear their quality of life will be adversely affected by all the turmoil.

“I’m just kind of stunned, and with so much money in the market, we just sort of have to hope we have enough time to recover,” said Paula, 68, a former occupational health professional in New Jersey who retired three years ago.

Paula, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she feared retaliation for speaking out against Trump administration policies, said she was worried about what lies ahead.

“What we’ve been doing is trying to enjoy the time that we have, but you want to be able to make it last,” Paula said Friday. “I have no confidence here.”

Trump fulfilled his campaign promise this week to unleash sweeping tariffs, including on the United States’ largest trading partners, in a move that has sparked fears of a global trade war. The decision sent the stock market spinning. On Friday afternoon, the broad-based S&P 500 closed down 6%, the tech-heavy Nasdaq dropped 5.8%, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 2,200 points, or about 5.5%.

As Wall Street reeled Friday after China hit back with tariffs against the U.S., millions of Americans with 401(k)s watched their retirement funds diminish along with the stock market.

“I looked at my 401(k) this morning and in the last two days that’s lost $58,000. That’s stressful,” said Victor Fettes, 54, of Georgia, who retired last week as a senior director of risk management and compliance at Verizon. “If that continues, I can’t stay retired.”

Trump has said the tariffs will force businesses to relocate manufacturing and production back to the U.S. and bring back jobs. Some investors and business groups have pushed back, saying they are likely to lead to higher prices for U.S. consumers.

“Our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike,” Trump said recently. “But it is not going to happen anymore.”

The president has acknowledged the potential pain coming to some Americans’ wallets, but he continues to staunchly defend his agenda.

“MY POLICIES WILL NEVER CHANGE,” he posted to social media Friday. Later, he wrote, “ONLY THE WEAK WILL FAIL.”

Trump’s tariffs are steeper and more widespread than any in modern American history. They are potentially even broader than the tariffs of 1930 that historians said worsened the Great Depression.

Some Americans thinking about retirement told NBC News they feel their economic stability is being played with.

“I don’t want to have to worry that everyone is constantly changing my financial reality,” said Alison Carey, 64, of Oregon, a freelancer in the theater industry. “Let the economy do its machinations, but don’t put me in the gears.”

Paula said she and other older Americans are living with “anxiety about something where you don’t really know what’s going to happen. You can’t do anything though.”

She and her husband have decided to pause and reduce spending on big-ticket items. They are reconsidering vacations and home renovations.

“We can’t change anything right now, except our spending,” she said. “I’m sure there are consumers across the board that want to be cautious, too. Then it becomes a vicious cycle. Consumer confidence goes down.”

One in five Americans age 50 and over have no retirement savings, and more than half, 61%, are worried they will not have enough money to support them in retirement, according to a survey published by the AARP last April.

“It makes you realize how out of touch the current administration is with regular people,” said Benajah Cobb, 63, Carey’s husband, who also works in the theater industry.

He said he hoped the last few days of stock market turmoil would motivate lawmakers to put more checks and balances on the president.

“It’s happening so quickly. Things are falling apart so quickly,” he said. “I’m hoping Congress will try to step up a bit, the Republicans in Congress.”

Fettes said he has been calling his representatives about the tariffs and other issues “to make sure that as a constituent, our voices are being heard.”

“We believe firmly in our family that a democracy is a participatory game, and so we want to make sure that our representatives understand where we’re at and what we would like for them to do to represent,” he said.

Paula said that as she and her husband continue to monitor their retirement accounts, their biggest fear is how Trump’s policies could impact the quality of the rest of their lives — and when their funds will run out.

“That’s my big worry, when is that shortfall going to happen now?” she said.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS