Businessman: Global economy might change during Trump's term

Attempts by US President Donald Trump to tweak the current global economic system to better suit American businesses could disrupt the balance, says political observer and technology entrepreneur Lauri Almann.
What did the entourage surrounding Trump during his inauguration as president signify? Can anything about near-term or long-term plans be inferred from this?
I believe Trump's inauguration can primarily be analyzed based on the entourage surrounding him. On stage were representatives of $12 trillion in combined value: the United States' leading technology companies, as well as Bernard Arnault — the richest person in Europe. Comparing this inauguration to Trump's previous one reveals notable differences. Back then, it was often said that Trump was surrounded by experienced and influential advisers who kept him on the right track.
At the start of his previous term, Trump was primarily surrounded by security experts, retired generals and more traditional officials, including former politicians — individuals who could be considered representatives of the political mainstream. Today, they are no longer in the picture. What one might call "guardrails" are now gone. In their place, entrepreneurs have emerged, shaping the administration's direction. Much of what the administration will do will likely reflect the influence and priorities of this entourage.
But Trump promised to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, not entrepreneurs.
I believe that ordinary Americans and voters don't see any contradiction in this situation. Trump has skillfully sold the classic idea of the American Dream: anyone can achieve success if they just work harder and pay fewer taxes. This message resonates with the average American worker. Here lies the paradox that Democrats often watch with astonishment — how the Republican Party, traditionally seen as representing the interests of the wealthy, continues to be so persuasive for ordinary workers.
Democrats, after all, are the ones advocating for the interests of poorer people and striving to ensure that workers can do better. So why did all those pivotal swing states vote Republican this time? I think the reason is that this contradiction simply isn't perceived that way.
What does this shift away from the Democrats toward the Republicans indicate?
I think it reflects a significant cultural shift and societal fatigue with certain issues. I've also spoken to local Americans living in places like New York, Washington or other traditionally Democratic areas. Many of them say they are tired of the crowds of refugees in subway stations or simply the overall visual state of modern American cities. Excessive immigration and over-the-top political correctness are also seen as problems. At some point, all of this has worn society down to such an extent that the pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction.
What does it tell us that Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni was invited, but European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reportedly didn't even receive an invitation? Also, Trump did not mention the war in Ukraine in his inaugural speech.
The question of who was invited, where they were seated or who wasn't invited at all is somewhat reminiscent of what Sovietologists in the U.S. used to do during the height of the Soviet Union. They didn't fully understand how the system worked and tried to build entire political theories based on details — like who sat where, how someone acted or even when someone just coughed. Ultimately, they concluded that the Soviet Union was strong and would never collapse. And yet, one day it did.
I don't think we should read too much into this. Different groups were invited based on the demands or recommendations of various people around Trump. Political invitations, including involving far-right figures from Europe and elsewhere, are likely the initiative of Steve Bannon's faction. Bannon's influence in Trump's inner circle isn't particularly strong at the moment, but who knows, he might reemerge at some point. So, while it's interesting to note who sat where and who was invited, I wouldn't assign it too much significance.
As for Trump not mentioning Ukraine in his speech, that's not particularly surprising or unprecedented. He didn't mention the European Union or NATO either, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The speech was very much aimed at his base, his most loyal supporters. He made it clear what he plans to do and did so in a much more specific way than in his first inaugural address. It was like a shopping list — very direct and concrete.
Perhaps it's even a good thing that he didn't feel the need to mention Ukraine. This is because, within his voter base, the issue of Ukraine has become highly unpopular due to political polarization. I would actually interpret this omission as a positive sign — it suggests that he wants to keep his options open.
Let's turn to his speech. There were two sentences that didn't follow each other directly but were nevertheless significant. First, he said, "We have a government that has given unlimited funding to the defense of foreign borders but refuses to defend American borders, or more importantly, its own people." And a little later Trump added, "We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end. And, perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into." What can we make of this?
This is a domestic political message, precisely what Trump's voters expect from him. There's really nothing too alarming about it, as it's clear that reforms are on the horizon for the U.S. defense industry. And this ties back to who was on stage — technology entrepreneurs who are now strong supporters of Trump have previously criticized the way large defense contractors operate. There's a lot of waste in that sector.
Of course, this statement should also be considered in the context of Ukraine. But I don't think it should be overinterpreted. It's more a reflection of Trump's broader priorities and his appeal to a base that values less international entanglement and more domestic focus.
But as a technology entrepreneur yourself, when you watched, listened and analyzed all of this, what else would you highlight?
I think the economic environment during Trump's administration is likely to develop in quite an interesting way. The biggest factor we need to consider is that the next four years might unfold much like this morning — we wake up, refresh our X feed, check the news and see what's happened in America.
For Biden, strategic predictability with major powers was critically important. But the problem with strategic predictability is that people stop listening because they already know what you're going to say. This kind of predictability can lead to situations where, for example, the Ukrainian army doesn't get to use the weapons they actually need because such action would be seen as unpredictable.
Trump, on the other hand, will certainly introduce a lot of unpredictability — into international relations, the economy and business. As entrepreneurs, we look at the environment companies will operate in and how the U.S. approaches the economic system, which today underpins the global economy and has brought tremendous benefits to the U.S.
If we examine Trump's core argument, it's that the rest of the world — Europe, Asia and both allies and adversaries — are robbing the U.S. blind, for instance, through trade imbalances that are unfavorable to the U.S. But if we look at the reality in the U.S., it's the richest country in the world, the hub of the most innovation. U.S. companies, citizens and the nation itself have actually benefited the most from the very system that Trump and his supporters heavily criticize.
If there's now an effort to change this system, potentially adjusting it even further to favor certain companies or address global imbalances, it could lead to a disruption of that balance. That's something I'm certainly watching closely.
If the balance is disrupted, Europe should seriously worry, because the European Union's or the broader European region's trade balance with the United States is more in Europe's favor than in America's. What's your take on that?
Yes, that's true, but if we look at which country is ultimately wealthier, it's still the U.S. For example, there were predictions that China's economy might surpass the U.S. by 2025 or 2027, but looking at China's current economic performance, people are now saying that might never happen.
We allowed ourselves to believe in certain statistics, which, to some extent, were bluffs or even self-delusions. And that's not always the most accurate perspective. In terms of U.S. data and statistics, there's no real need to worry. However, Trump's message works very effectively in politics.
From his inaugural speech, we saw several specific statements on economic issues, including the suggestion that the Panama Canal should be returned to the U.S.
He remained more cautious regarding China.
He certainly wants to keep all options open regarding China. This cautious approach is also influenced by the interests of major technology companies like Apple, Amazon and Tesla, which have significant stakes in China. I believe this caution can be traced back to the priorities and concerns of these corporations. Their economic ties and investments in China play a key role in shaping this reserved stance.
Did Trump make any pointed remarks in his speech toward NATO member states that haven't met the 2 percent or later 3 percent spending requirement? Not to mention his campaign suggestion that NATO countries should increase defense spending to 5 percent?
What Trump says about NATO countries is one of the few areas where he is fairly predictable. He does indeed criticize NATO member states for spending too little on their own defense. Certain countries have chronically fallen short of the agreed-upon thresholds. But the real question is whether Trump has thoroughly considered what it would mean if the European Union were to spend 5 percent of its GDP on defense. What kind of a behemoth would that create?
As one German general put it — can you even imagine Germany spending 5 percent of its GDP on defense? Is that the kind of Germany you want? Fundamentally, concerns about defense spending are valid and I believe the issue of defense budgets will undoubtedly shape NATO's unity and the United States' position toward its allies. It's a decisive factor.
When Trump says that Putin is harming himself by continuing the war in Ukraine, it leaves everything open. It doesn't say anything concrete, but at the same time, no one can feel reassured — not Ukrainians, not us here and certainly not the Kremlin's angry dwarf. What's your perspective on that?
As a skilled negotiator, Trump wants to keep his options open. He has drawn significant confidence from his successful brokering of a ceasefire in the Middle East. He managed to influence the Israeli prime minister to engage in a challenging ceasefire agreement.
I believe Trump is in a much stronger position regarding Russia than during his previous term. He wants to maintain flexibility and is interested in ensuring that Russia is in as weak a position as possible during any potential peace negotiations over Ukraine. He seems prepared to take additional economic measures to substantiate his claim that the war is harmful to Putin. It will certainly be interesting to watch how this develops.
None of the orders Trump has already signed concern Russia. His latest foreign policy mention was about North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Un. Trump told reporters, "I liked him, he liked me, we got along very well. I'm sure he's happy to see me again." What's your take on this?
Mornings where Trump said something the night before, leaving everyone wondering what it meant, are something we'll see very frequently over the next four years. The most fascinating part is that we just don't know what's coming. Meanwhile, the midterm elections are only two years away and it's interesting to see how Trump interprets his mandate. This will certainly be compelling to follow.
Of all his orders so far, my personal favorite is the one instructing U.S. federal employees to do everything they can to lower prices — which essentially means nothing will change. But what really stands out is the indication that pardons might be granted to the 1,500 people involved in the January 6 events.
This will be a significant factor in the midterm elections, particularly in how it impacts moderate Republicans and Democrats. The key will be how many similar initiatives and decisions are made and how radical Trump's approach becomes. This will be a decisive issue because polling suggests that voters are looking for economic measures and a more moderate Trump.
Whether we get that version of Trump is something we truly don't know.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Mari Peegel, Marcus Turovski