A paradigm shift in US economic policy in 2025

 

America’s economic policy changed in four ways in 2025.

·    -  The Trump administration effectively ended the free trade regime

·      - It revamped immigration policy to make it far more restrictive

·      -   It withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change

·     -    It passed a tax bill that ensures that America’s public debt remains at a high level in the foreseeable future, if not at a record level

To me, the astonishing thing is that these dramatic shifts have failed thus far to unsettle the world economy or the financial markets. Analysts have been coming up with numerous explanations for why this is so- after predicting economic apocalypse.

In 2025, we will know who was right: Mr Trump or the pundits.

More in my article in Business Standard.

 

Four US economic policy shifts of 2025 

 

In 2025, the world saw one tectonic shift in US economic policy and at least three others that are consequential. These shifts will not be easy to reverse even if there is a change in administration in the United States (US) down the road. How exactly they will impact the US and the world is unclear at the moment. What is clear is that the rest of the world will have to adjust to them.

First, the tectonic shift. The US under President Donald Trump has decisively upended the free trade regime that has underpinned the world economy for decades.  The world has to live with a US base tariff level of 10 per cent plus an element that will vary from country to country and from time to time, depending on how the US perceives its trade relationship with that country. 

This will be reinforced by even higher tariffs for sectors, such as steel and aluminium, which are perceived to be of strategic importance to the US economy. The weighted average tariff under President Trump has risen from below 3 per cent to around 19 per cent.

 During the year, major nations settled for deals with the US that are hopelessly one-sided. The European Union (EU), for instance, faces a tariff of 15 per cent (with higher tariffs on steel and aluminium) while US exports to the US EU face zero tariff. For the privilege of doing business with the US, the EU has committed to spending an additional $750 billion on US energy products (over three years), investing $600 billion in America, and buying US military equipment worth “hundreds of billions of dollars”. 

Japan too will face a baseline tariff of 15 per cent and will invest $550 billion in the US. The United Kingdom gets away with a tariff of 10 per cent because of the “special relationship” with the US.  China has secured a one-year truce with the US that allows tariffs to settle at a staggering 47 per cent for one year. In return, China has agreed to lift restrictions on export of rare earths to the US and buy more soyabean from the US. 

Switzerland was hit with a tariff of 39 per cent. Its President rushed to the US to negotiate a lower tariff but was rebuffed. Two months later, the US agreed to reduce tariffs to 15 per cent in return for $200 billion investment from the Swiss. India’s refusal to be rushed into a trade deal looks very brave in comparison with the abject surrender of nations that are incomparably richer.

The second shift has to do with immigration policy. The US administration has clamped down on border crossings, deported thousands of illegal immigrants, paused asylum applications, and attempted to limit birthright citizenship. 

Kevin Hassett, one of Mr Trump’s economic advisers and now a frontrunner for the post of Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has argued that the issue is the quality of immigration. He notes that the United States admits only 12 per cent of its immigrants on the basis of employment and skills, whereas 63 per cent of those admitted by Canada and 68 per cent of those admitted by Australia are selected for the skills they bring to these countries.

Mr Trump himself has lately spoken of the importance of H1B visas and foreign students in US universities. But the National Security Strategy document released by the White House recently makes the basic stance clear: “The era of mass migration is over”. There will be no retreat from the view that migration strains domestic resources, undermines social cohesion and threatens national security. 

A third shift is the Trump administration’s rejection of climate change and green energy as priorities. One of Mr Trump’s first acts after taking over as President in January 2025 was to withdraw from the Paris Agreement that committed all signatories to time-bound emission reduction plans. Mr Trump often calls climate change a “hoax” or a “con job”, renewable energy a “joke” and talks of “clean, beautiful coal”. 

The Trump administration is actively working to dismantle subsidies for renewable energy and electric vehicles, instead opening up more land and waters for oil drilling — “drill, baby, drill” is the motto.  The National Security Strategy document declares emphatically, “We reject the disastrous ‘climate change’ and ‘Net Zero’ ideologies that have so greatly harmed Europe, threaten the United States, and subsidize our adversaries.”

Mr Trump’s actions will mean higher costs for the rest of the world in battling climate change. It will also mean fewer resources with which to battle it as the Trump administration axes billions of dollars that support climate change projects. It could result in other nations withdrawing from the Paris Agreement as they view the burdens imposed on them as unfair.

A fourth shift is the rise in the level of public debt in the US as well as in other advanced countries. Public debt in the US and other advanced countries has risen relentlessly since the global financial crisis of 2007, and had averaged 104 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) even before the pandemic struck in 2020. Mr Trump passed his Big Beautiful Bill that retained the tax cuts of Trump-1 and boosted defence expenditure. The International Monetary Fund projects US government debt to rise from 122 per cent of GDP in 2024 to 143 per cent by 2030. The corresponding figures for advanced economy debt are 109 per cent and 119 per cent, respectively.  

Commentators worry that rising public debt in advanced countries poses a threat to macroeconomic instability in the global economy. Mr Trump’s economic advisors, however, believe that faster economic growth, tariff revenues and lower interest rates will cause government debt to fall to 94 per cent by 2034. That is one forecast that will be watched closely. But clearly, the dogma about the unsustainability of high levels of public debt that advanced countries preached to the developing world has gone out of the window.

As the year draws to a close, the astonishing thing is that these massive shifts in economic policy have thus far failed to seriously unsettle the US economy or the world economy or the financial markets. The IMF projects growth in the world economy for 2025 at 3.2 per cent, just 20 basis points below last year’s. The US will grow at 2 per cent, compared to 2.8 per cent last year. US inflation is running at 2.8 per cent, which is way below what was feared following Mr Trump’s Liberation Day announcements. 

The US equity market touched an all-time high during the year, with a return of 13 per cent over the year. The yield on the one-year G-Sec in the US is a full 50 basis points below its level when Mr Trump assumed office. Pundits, who predicted economic apocalypse, are trying to find reasons why their forecasts went wrong. 

Has the moment of reckoning been merely deferred? Or is Mr Trump on to something? We should know for sure in 2026. 

 

Key Supreme Court rulings awaited in the US

 In the months ahead, the US Supreme Court will pronounce on some truly important matters:

i. Trump tariffs: Is President Trump justified in using emergency powers to impose tariffs? Or is that the remit of the US Congress? If the Court rules against the Trump adminstration, the US  government will have to return billions in tariffs imposed so far. Legal experts say the President has recourse to several statutes for imposing tariffs, so he will prevail even if the Court rules against him.

ii. Birthright citizenship: Does being born in the US confer citizenship automatically? The Trump administration says it doesn't apply to illegal immigrants nor children born of those temporarily visiting the US.

iii. Can Trump fire officials of the Federal Reserve?: Trump fired Fed Governor Lisa Cook on the ground that she had committed mortgage fraud without such fraud being proved in a court of law.  A lower court judge blocked the order. The administration then sought to prevent Cook from attending office until the case was decided but the US Court of Appeals ruled against it. The Court has indicated that it is inclined to treat the Fed differently from other government agencies that enjoy autonomy.

The importance of being Scott Bessent

The financial markets have held up in the face of Trump tariffs and assorted shocks during the year. Much credit must surely go to the US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. 

Bessent is a financial markets player of repute. He made a huge fortune in the markets. He knows financial markets and, more importantly, he respects them. The calibration of various actions as well as the calibration of comments from the US administration are largely responsible for the markets not buckling under the upending of the free trade regime under Trump-II. 

To get into Bessent's mind, it's useful to read the FT story on Bessent that is based on two interviews with him.

Bessent sums up his approach succinctly:

We want the most America-first policies that are possible, without incurring market wrath.

Bessent is in the forefront of the transformation of the policy paradigm- and more:

In just nine months, Bessent has staunchly promoted Trump’s aggressive tariff policies, championed the president’s effort to overhaul the Federal Reserve — including his attempt to fire governor Lisa Cook — and ushered in a new era of sweeping deregulation and tax cuts, including the loosening of crypto rules and the promotion of stablecoins. But he has also brought Maga to the US Treasury in other ways: vowing to use the Internal Revenue Service to probe left-leaning organisations the government suspects of fuelling political violence

How does he differ from his predecessors?

Unlike most of my predecessors I have a very healthy scepticism of elite institutions and elite opinion, whereas I think they didn’t,. But I have a healthy regard for the market.

The critics have been wrong about the markets crumbling under the onslaught of Trump tariffs:

Since he was sworn into the job on January 28, the S&P 500 equity index has risen about 12 per cent, while the 10-year Treasury yield, a proxy for long-term borrowing costs, has dropped by slightly more than half a percentage point over the same period to 4 per cent. Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles.  .... “Where the hell is the market risk? They’ve just been wrong.”  

What Trump is attempting has the potential to derail the markets. Give credit to Trump for choosing the right person to manage the markets.  

 

How Trump shook up NATO in his first term as President

Jens Stoltenberg was Nato  secretary-general during Trump 1. The Guardian carries an excerpt from his forthcoming account of his time as Nato chief. It's a terrific read. It brings alive Trump's interactions with European leaders during his first term and how he read the riot act to them on stepping up their contributions to Nato- I didn't know the US contributed 80-90 per cent of Nato's budget!

In May 2017, Trump visited the Nato headquarters. It was a new building that he was to inaugurate. He didn't approve of the expenditure at all:

“Do you really need such a big headquarters?” he asked. “What do you need all these people for?”

I replied that while the organisation itself isn’t that large, member states’ delegations also use the building – it makes it easy to meet with security measures in place, and everyone uses the same cafeteria. I told Trump who had designed the headquarters: architects Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, who also designed the Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago.

“I know those people. They’re extremely expensive,” Trump exclaimed. “I don’t understand why you chose those expensive architects. Extremely expensive!”

Later in 2018, Stoltenberg spoke over the phone. Again, Trump did some plain speaking:

Trump had recently met with Merkel, too, and told her things simply couldn’t carry on the way they were. “I said, ‘Angela, you have to cough up. You need to spend 2%.’ She said, ‘Maybe in 2030’ – and she laughed as she said it … She laughed!”

He said the United States was spending 4% of GDP on defence, and covered 80-90% of Nato’s expenses. “And we’re not doing it any more. We’re gonna pay what Germany pays.”

By the end of the call there was no mistaking Trump’s warning: “Look, if we leave, we leave. You need Nato, desperately. We don’t need Nato.”

Trump doesn't believe the US needs Nato; it is the Europeans who need it. And if they need it badly, they had better pay for it. Well, Trump has had the last laugh. Many Nato allies have met the 2 per cent target and the fresh target that Trump has set is 5 per cent.

U-turn on Ukraine?

President Trump stunned everybody with his remarks on Truth Social following his meeting with Ukrainian president Zelenskyy.

Trump wrote: 

“Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form…With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option. Why not?”.

Trump also called Russia a "paper tiger".

These remarks seem to mark a U-turn from his position after the Alaska Summit with President Putin last month. Trump had said at the time that Ukraine would have to accept loss of territory to Russia as part of any peace settlement.

Trump also said Nato was free to shoot down Russian planes that introduced into Nato airspace.

So, what's cooking?

Well, the key point is that Trump refuses to commit any American support for Ukraine's war with Russia. The Europeans are free to purchase arms from the US and give these to Ukraine- no more freebies from the US. The US will not be directly involved in the conflict. Moreoever, Trump refused to commit any support to Nato if it shot down Russia aircraft- any American intervention would depend on the circumstances.

We need to connect these positions with Trump's earlier exhortation to Europe to impose tariffs of 50 to 100 per cent on Chinese exports to the EU and to stop purchasing Russian oil and gas altogether. There's no way the Europeans can do that- their economies would be wrecked. Similarly, there's no way the Nato allies can wage war on Russia on their own. 

The Europeans have been urging Trump to get tough with Russia, impose more sanctions and to step up support for Ukraine. Trump is now telling them: if you think you can this war, go right ahead and fight the Russians, I'm not going to join you.

Trump's remarks amount to a dare and a taunt to Europe. As he made clear in his address to the UN earlier this week, he has very little regard for Europeans- he knows they will chicken out of a confronation with Russia sans American involvement. 

America's economy defies gloom- Economist

I have reproduced the headline of the Economist's piece- and the Economist is no fan of Trump's.

Some eight months into Trump's administration, the US economy is far from plunging into the abyss as his detractors had forecast (and continue to forecast).

The Economist spells out the positives in the US economy:

Growth has certainly slowed. But dig deeper in the data and you do not have to be an uber-bull to see reasons for hope. The slump has been modest and no longer seems to be worsening. America’s 1.4% annualised GDP growth in the first half of the year would be a happy surprise for many Europeans. And the 2% growth America has managed over the past year is better yet in comparison

The jobs situation is not bad because demand for jobs has been reined by the crackdown on immigaation:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has revised down its estimate for net migration in 2025 from 2m to 400,000. Researchers at the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, two think-tanks, peg the figure at between -500,000 and 100,000. Customs and Border Protection reported just 8,000 “encounters” with illegal migrants on the southern border in July, against 100,000 in the same month last year and nearly 200,000 the year before.

Slower population growth lowers the “breakeven” rate of job creation (that needed to keep the employment rate stable), meaning even weak employment figures could be consistent with a healthy economy......For his part, on September 17th Jerome Powell, the Fed’s chair, guessed the breakeven rate was “between zero and 50,000”.

Then, there is greater clarity on tariffs:

Now the outlines of the import-tax regime look more certain. Tariff revenues, after rising sharply, seem to have stabilised in the past few months. Uncertainty measures have fallen, even if not all the way back to the levels of last year.

The Economist thinks Trump's campaign against the Fed could give rise to problems. It is likely to be proved wrong- as it has been proved wrong so far. 

Trump fires Fed Governor Lisa Cook.... but markets are hardly rattled

President Trump has fired Fed Governor Lisa Cook in what is a first for an American president, the removal of a serving member of the Fed.

Analysts see Trump's move as an assault on the independence of the Fed. They say- and they have been saying this for several months now- that Trump's remarks and actions carry the risk of seriously upsetting the financial markets. 

The stock market and the bond market, they say, will not take kindly to a move that undermines the ability of the Fed to effectively battle inflation.

Well, that is the theory. 

The outcome so far is turning out to be very different. 

The markets seem quite unfazed by Trump's latest move or his earlier broadsides against Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. The media notes that the stock market reaction is "muted". The Financial Times seems seriously disappointed that the markets have not fallen off the cliff. It comments:

some analysts are concerned that investors aren’t taking Trump’s cumulative threats on the Fed’s independence seriously enough. Although bond yields jumped on Tuesday, they eased back somewhat over the course of the day.....investors also have shown signs of being lulled into a false sense of complacency.. Ultimately, more severe market ructions might be what is needed to force Trump to pull back from causing greater damage to the central bank and the US economy at large

Well, the "greater damage" just ain't happening. 

Could it be that the markets think that Trump is right? That the economy will benefit from cuts in the interest rate? That the fear of inflation getting out of control is exaggerated?

India's purchase of oil Russia: Peter Navarro clarifies what the gripe is

President Trump's decision to impose punitive additional tariffs of 25 per cent on Indian exports to the US has sparked outrage as well as disbelief in India. The Indian position is as follows:

• India's imports of oil from Russia (88 million tonnes) are less than those of China (109 million tonnes)
• India was encouraged by the Biden administration to buy oil from Russia so that prices in the oil market (sans Russia) did not go up 
• India is not violating any sanctions in importing oil from Russia. There is no US or NATO ban on countries importing oil from Russia, only a price cap (which was $60). 
• India has every right to procure oil from the cheapest source as that benefits the Indian economy

India has articulated these points repeatedly in recent weeks. Trump's trade advisor Peter Navarro thought it necessary to counter the Indian position through an article in FT:

Importantly, before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Russian oil made up less than 1 per cent of India’s crude imports. Since then, daily imports have soared to more than 1.5mn barrels — more than 30 per cent of India’s total.  To be clear, this surge has not been driven by domestic oil consumption needs. Rather, what really drives this trade is profiteering by India’s Big Oil lobby. Refining companies have turned India into a massive refining hub for discounted Russian crude.  The refiners buy oil at a steep discount, process it, and then export refined fuels to Europe, Africa, and Asia — all the while shielding India from sanctions scrutiny under the pretence of neutrality. 

So, the objection is that India is not using cheaper Russian oil for the benefit of Indian consumers. Instead, oil companies (mostly one private company) are using cheap Russia oil to sell refined oil in the international market at huge margins and have reaped massive profits. India's oil imports from Russia are not about benefiting the Indian economy but about enriching India's oil refiners. 

Scott Bessent has reinforced the point made by Navarro by saying that China had increased Russia's share in its oil imports from 13 per cent to just 16 per cent whereas India had increased it from 1 per cent to 42 per cent. 

This is what I would call the Indian arbitrage – buying cheap Russian oil, reselling it as product.....They’ve made $16bn in excess profits – some of the richest families in India. 

Perhaps the controversy would not have arisen if India had used cheap Russian oil to lower the price for Indian consumers through lower duties. 

Trump- Putin Alaska meet triggers fury amongst Trump's critics

There was no deal, no announcement of ceasefire, no mention of any follow-up talks between the US and Russia. Yet President Trump gave the meeting a rating of 10 on 10 and expressed optimism about what would follow.

Why? Because the meeting helped reaffirm the long-standing personal relationshp between Trump and Putin. 

Trump stood at the mid-point of a red carpet and clapped his hands at Putin walked towards him after alighting from his plane. Trump received Putin with a warm handshake and then escorted him past a guard of honour to a podium. It was roses all the way

The equation between the two Presidents has long been a source of annoyance to neocons in the US and Europe. And, seeing the way the two got along, the neocons and Trump's critics in general are furious.

The Guardian's correspondent caught the mood very well in a priceless piece of reporting, never mind that the report oozes bile:

That was the moment he knew it was true love.

Donald Trump turned to gaze at Vladimir Putin as the Russian president publicly endorsed his view that, had Trump been president instead of Joe Biden, the war in Ukraine would never have happened.

“Today President Trump was saying that if he was president back then, there would be no war, and I’m quite sure that it would indeed be so,” Putin said. “I can confirm that.”

Vladimir, you complete me, Trump might have replied. To hell with all those Democrats, democrats, wokesters, fake news reporters and factcheckers. Here is a man who speaks my authoritarian alternative facts language.

......Trump, 79, purportedly the most powerful man in the world, literally rolled out the red carpet for a Russian dictator indicted for alleged war crimes over the abduction and transfer of thousands of Ukrainian children. Putin’s troops have also been accused of indiscriminate murder, rape and torture on an appalling scale.

In more than 100 countries, the 72-year-old would have been arrested the moment he set foot on the tarmac. In America, he was treated to a spontaneous burst of applause from the waiting Trump, who gave him a long, lingering handshake and a ride in “the Beast”, the presidential limousine.

Putin could be seen cackling on the back seat, looking like the cat who got the cream. As a former KGB man, did he leave behind a bug or two?

The reaction in the US has been hostile. FT reports:

Donald Trump returned to a political backlash in Washington over his handling of Vladimir Putin after failing to follow through on his threat of “severe consequences” if the Russian president refused to agree a ceasefire in Ukraine...

Europe continues to be in denial. The European Council has released a statement that says:

Ukraine must have ironclad security guarantees to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. We welcome President Trump’s statement that the US is prepared to give security guarantees. The coalition of the willing is ready to play an active role. No limitations should be placed on Ukraine’s armed forces or on its cooperation with third countries. Russia cannot have a veto against Ukraine’s pathway to EU and Nato.

The latest news is that Zelenskyy will meet Trump on Monday at the White House. If all goes well, Trump, Zelenskyy and Putin will meet. 

Trump-Putin Alaska summit: the remarks the media did not hear

The UK's Sun has a terrific scoop on  the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska. 

The Sun got a forensic lip reader to transcribe what Trump and Putin were telling each other at a couple of places. There was no microphone to catch these remarks for the benefit of the media. Here is the Sun's account:

Putin looked relaxed as he walked down a red carpet towards Trump - giving the US leader a thumbs-up before greeting him with a warm handshake.

Trump begins clapping as Putin approaches and the American says: “Finally,” according to Hickling (the lip reader).

Hickling then said that as the pair shook hands Trump added: “You made it, fantastic to see you and appreciated."

The pair then appear to begin talking about Ukraine and the bringing the fighting to an end with a ceasefire.

Putin responds in English, saying: “Thank you — and you."

He also makes a pledge to Trump: "I am here to help you.”

Trump replies: “I’ll help you.”

Pointing towards Trump, Putin says: “All they need is to ask.”

Trump answers simply: “Okay.”

Putin continues: “I will bring it to a rest.”

Trump responds: “I hope it does.”

Turning towards the vehicle, Hickling said Trump smiles and says: “Come on, let’s get straight into the vehicle. We need to move forward, both giving it attention. I know this is serious, it’s quite long. What a journey it is.”

Trump salutes and says: “Thank you.”

On the podium, Trump says: “Thank you. Let’s shake hands — it gives a good impression.”

Putin nods in agreement, shakes his hand, and says: “Thank you.”

The pair then shared a moment alone in Trump’s presidential limo - known as The Beast - which drove them to the summit venue.

 They were then next seen when they posed for photos in front of the press to record the historic moment.

But the photocall descended into chaos when the journalists started shouting at Trump and the tyrant - who doesn't face that sort of opposition in Russia.

Hickling said that Trump noticed Putin wasn't happy with a question or remark made.

The American leans in to his aide, according to the lipreader, and whispers: “I'm uncomfortable, we need to move them quickly.”

Putin then makes a face after being on the receiving end of the aggressive questioning.

Hickling said the Russian tells a reporter: “You is ignorant.” 

Then, as he cups his hands to his mouth to shout above the chaos, he says again: “You are ignorant.”

The chemistry, as anybody can see, was pretty good. No wonder Trump gave the meeting at 10 on 10.

Why is Alaska the venue for the Trump-Putin Summit this week?

Putin has an ICC arrest warrant against himself. That obliges signatories to the ICC to arrest Putin if he is in their jurisdiction. Alaska is the US territory but the US is not a signatory to the ICC (nor is Russia). So the US is not under any legal obligation to arrest Putin although nothing prevents it from doing so.

But that can't be the whole explanation for the choice of Alaska. Putin does not attend the UNGA meetings in New York, presumably for fear of arrest. One reason given for the choce of Alaska is that it is within easy reach of Russia. At the narrowest point, it is a mere two miles away from Russian territory. At the likely venue for the summit, the distance is 88 kms. Russian subs with special forces will be prowling in the vicinity, ready to swing into action if required. In other words, Alaska is fairly safe for Putin.

The Guardian has a story that suggests mutual inconvenience is a factor in the choice of Alaska. The flying time for Putin is nine hours, for Trump it is eight hours. It is also a considerable distance away from Ukraine and its European allies. Further, Putin can fly directly from Russia into Alaska without having to overfly countries that are members of the ICC. 

Some suggest there is a symbolic significance to Putin's wanting to meet up in Alaska. Alaska was sold by Russia to the US for around $7 million in 1867. Which means that territories can jolly well exchange hands. And that would apply to Ukrainian territory currently under Russian control. 

Trump baiters need to chill

 I wasn't impressed at all by the coverage of the events in Washington last week.

The mobs storming into Capitol Hill last week were a disturbing sight. But this was hardly an armed insurrection or a coup d'etat. President Trump believes the election was stolen- and he has made no secret of it. His followers and admirers think likewise. A large number of them decided to vent their feelings last week. 

Sorry, but that doesn't amount to an insurrection nor was it President Trump inciting violence. And the calls to restrain Trump from using the nuclear option were really over the top. What's happening is that the liberal media and the Washington establishment are desperate to see Trump off. They have wanted badly that he should concede defeat. They are miffed at the legal challenges he has mounted. Never mind that all that President Trump has do so far falls within the ambit of the law.

So when a large mob- estimated at anywhere upwards of 200,000- showed its support to Trump, the anti- Trump brigade seem to lose perspective and we had shrill hysteria from politicians and the mainstream media, with social media such as Twitter jumping into the fray.

It was refreshing to read this article in Russia Today that asked Trump-baiters to tone down the rhetoric:

A coup attempt, an insurrection, sedition – whatever wonderfully evocative term you care to reach for – is not some strange-looking dude with a painted face and horns on his head posing for the cameras inside the Capitol's hallowed halls.

It's not an incredibly dim, grey-haired bloke sitting in the House leader's office chair and scrawling notes. It's not a bunch of not-very-bright people tearing through the corridors of power with Confederate flags and MAGA hats stealing a laptop or two.

That's not a coup d'etat, it's a much smaller thing – it's called ‘crap security’.

An armed insurrection is a leader pointing his army at the Capitol, and tanks driving up the steps and smashing through the doors. Rifle-wielding troops following up in its wake. 

A coup d'etat would be Donald Trump pulling on his military fatigues and taking to the airwaves, sitting at the Resolute Desk and solemnly declaring he had taken absolute control for the good of the nation.

If the president was imposing martial law, then all these screaming people would have a point.

But he isn't. And that's not what happened. It simply is not what's happening now, nor is it going to happen in the final ten days of Trump's term.

.....There was no American coup. It's hyperbole and four years of pent-up fury and score settling. The folk shouting the loudest simply despise The Donald the most, and they don't much like his supporters either. They do fear them, though, because there are loads of them and these people – for some reason – adore their president. Biden, Pelosi et al will simply never get their heads around “why?” 

It doesn't matter. Trump is over.