Trump’s investment claims – do the US economy raise tariffs?

US President Donald Trump may have called tariffs his favorite word in the dictionary. But when it comes to intrusive investments, investments in business must be close.

As of last month, he said that more than $ 12 trillion (£ 8.8 TN) was “virtually devoted” on the clock. “Nobody has ever seen the numbers like ours,” he said, attributing to the agenda of the tariffs, tax reducing and deregulation.

If it is true, this figure would really be strange that potentially tripping approximately 4 dollars in gross private investments, which the United States has reported all the past year.

Thus, the sudden falling of business costs creates the basis for the new Golden Economic Age, according to Trump, is it all theater?

First, first: early in Trump’s finding to have clear data to evaluate his claims. The US government publishes business investment statistics only every three months.

In January -for, which reflects the two months of Trump’s stay, shows a heavy jump in business, albeit one that, according to analysts, was partly related to the data, distorted by the previous strike boeing.

Other anecdotal and interviewed data show that Trump’s influence on investments is much more gradual than he claimed.

“We are unlikely to have the data, and almost all the information we have is probably for investment projects that were planned and ordered last year,” says economist Nick Balum, Professor Stanford University, whose work looks at the impact on business investment.

“I suppose that business investments are slightly decreasing, not massive … First of all, because uncertainty is quite high and it will suspend it.”

The Swiss pharmaceutical firm Roche, which announced plans to invest $ 50 billion in the US in April in April, is a good example.

Some of the projects that are in the amount were already in the work.

The executives also warned that some Trump’s ideas – in particular, a drug repair proposal – could improve their plans.

“The pharmaceutical industry will need to revise their expenses, including investments,” the company said.

Trump usually does his business indicating investment promises made by loud firms such as Apple and Hyundai.

The White House saves A fugitive count From these ads, but in early June it put a total new investment at about $ 5.3 TN – less than half the amount quoted by Trump.

Even this figure is overstated.

Approximately a third of 62 investments on this list include plans that were at least partly in the work before Trump took over. For example:

• Stelantis, on the $ 5 billion plan to open the plant in Belvider, Illinois, initially made a promise in 2023.

• Other commitments include subjects that are traditionally not considered investment – such as PAPE COST ACCOUNT BIRDSwhich includes taxes and wages paid to employees who are already in the company.

In reality, as of the middle, the new investments arising from the announcements probably amounted to something closer to $ 134 billion, Goldman Sachs said.

This amount declined to only $ 30 billion, without including investments supported by foreign governments after the researchers took into account the risk that some projects may not be implemented or would happen anyway.

“Although not economically, such increases do not correspond to recent headlines,” they wrote.

Pressing the figures, the White House press secretary Kush Desai got rid of the concerns that the administration’s claims are untrue.

“The Trump administration uses a multifaceted approach to attract investment in the United States … And no sense of meaningful reduction and admission can refute that it is paying off,” he said in a statement stating that many firms are clearly attributed to Trump and his policies for forming his plans.

The BBC has addressed more than two dozen investments in the White House list.

Many did not respond or referred to previous statements.

Others acknowledged that working on some of their projects is previously dated by the current administration.

The exaggeration of politicians and companies is hardly unexpected.

But the willingness of the Trump administration dramatically intervene in the economy with tariffs and other changes, gave the company a reason to pump its plans the ways of the president, says Martin Blackmpo, senior employee of the International Economy Institute Petersen.

“The company that makes the ad is a way to get some current benefits, not necessarily following these (costs for promise) when the situation changes,” he says. “There is a strong stimulus for companies to provide as much as possible.”

This does not mean that Trump’s policy doesn’t matter.

The threats of tariffs “certainly were a catalyst” for pharmaceutical firms plan more production in the US, a key source of the sector’s profit, says Stephen Farrell, Global Lead for Pharma and Healthcare in Ing.

But, he adds, there are restrictions in what can threaten.

Pharma investments should unfold over time – a decade in some cases – in a sector that was still ready for growth.

And they come from firms that sell branded drugs – not cheaper, common medicines that many Americans are counting on, and produced in China and India.

Mr. Farralli also warned that the sector investment could be at risk in the long run, given the uncertainty in the government’s approach to tariffs, drug pricing and research.

Overall, many analysts expect investment growth to slow down in the US this year because of the uncertainty of politics.

Economist German Gutierrez from Washington University says Trump has the right to increase investment in the US, but believes his emphasis on global competition is incorrectly diagnosed.

His own work revealed that the decrease in investments is partially related to the consolidation of the industry. Now several large firms are dominated by sectors, there is less incentive to invest in competition.

In addition, the types of investments that firms are usually cheaper items such as software rather than machines and factories.

Tariffs, says Professor Guterres, is unlikely to solve these problems.

“The way this is done and the type of tools they use is not the best ways to achieve this. It just requires much more to really go,” he says.