Current US Economic Policies: A Coordinated Attack on Productive Capacity

Key Findings

Current US economic policies represent a coordinated attack on four key parts of the economy: manufacturing, agriculture, energy competitiveness, and research expertise. This analysis examines the economic mechanisms through which these attacks will devastate rather than strengthen the American economy, contrary to stated objectives.

The multiplier effect is devastating. The assault on all these sectors at once sends cascading damage throughout the economy. Manufacturing tariffs on capital goods prevent the investment necessary for competitiveness. Losing farm workers reduces domestic production and increases dependence on imports. Energy policies that favor certain industries over what works best raise costs across all sectors. Cutting research funding and expelling international talent create brain drain precisely when technological competition intensifies globally.

These sectors create ripple effects throughout the economy and reinforce each other. Manufacturing generates $2.74-$3.60 in total economic activity for every dollar spent, while agricultural exports contributed $412 billion in total economic output in 2022 [1]. The destruction of productive capacity creates an economy focused on extracting wealth from what already exists rather than creating new wealth. This leaves the economy dependent on financial games and wealth extraction rather than businesses that actually produce things. When productive capacity disappears entirely, even these extractive activities lose their foundation and collapse, leaving no viable economic base.

When you destroy productive sectors (manufacturing, agriculture, energy competitiveness, research), you’re left with a much smaller economic base. This smaller base can’t employ large numbers of people in well-paying jobs or generate the innovations that keep an economy competitive globally.

No successful precedent exists for simultaneous attacks on all productive sectors in advanced economies. The resulting economic structure lacks the broad-based employment and innovation capacity necessary for growth or global competitiveness.

This analysis examines:

• Manufacturing: How equipment tariffs destroy industrial investment
• Agriculture: Workforce removal leaving crops unharvested
• Energy: Blocking the cheapest available power sources
• Research: Funding cuts creating brain drain during global competition
• The cascade effect: How simultaneous attacks create reinforcing economic collapse

Introduction and Background

“US tariffs of 30% on EU imports will choke off investments and cause a deindustrialization in the world’s biggest economy.”

This statement from Germany’s VDMA machinery association reveals policies that will devastate the American economy [2]. Current policies systematically target the four foundational sectors that support advanced economic systems.

Productive capacity—the ability to create goods, food, energy, and knowledge—is the basis of the entire economy [3]. When productive sectors contract, they reduce the customer base and economic health that supports all other economic activity.

The scale is enormous. The US economy generates about $25 trillion annually. Manufacturing contributes $2.3 trillion, agriculture and related industries $1.4 trillion, and research and development $580 billion [4]. The policies examined here directly target each of these foundational sectors simultaneously.

Productive businesses—those that create goods, provide services, develop technologies, and generate jobs—are the foundation of American prosperity. The problem is not business success or fair profits, but specific practices that extract wealth without creating value. When companies invest in equipment, hire workers, develop new products, or expand operations, they strengthen the entire economy. The policies examined here are about the practices that undermine the foundations of the American economy rather than strengthen it.

“Capitalism has been the greatest driver of prosperity and opportunity the world has ever known. But left to its own devices, it can also generate massive inequality and instability.”

Methodology

This document traces how attacks on individual sectors spread damage throughout the economy. When tariffs make factory equipment more expensive, the impact goes far beyond manufacturing—it affects workers, suppliers, and entire communities that depend on those factories.

The analysis draws on government economic data, Federal Reserve reports, and academic research to calculate these ripple effects. Historical examples show how similar economic disruptions played out in other countries and time periods.

The Situation

Coordinated attacks target four distinct but interconnected sectors. Each attack creates immediate damage within its sector while generating cascading effects throughout the economy.

Manufacturing: The Equipment Trap

The 30% tariffs on European Union imports directly target machinery and equipment essential for US industry. German and European manufacturers produce precision equipment critical to pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, artificial intelligence development, energy systems, automotive production, and defense manufacturing [5].

Research from Colombia’s 2011 trade reform demonstrates that capital goods tariffs have uniquely destructive effects on industrial investment [6]. IMF analysis shows that when capital goods tariffs are reduced, companies invest significantly more, but reducing other types of tariffs has no effect on investment [7]. When essential manufacturing equipment becomes 30% more expensive, companies delay or cancel capital investments rather than proceed with uneconomical projects. This kills US industry rather than strengthening it.

Real-world example: A semiconductor fabrication plant that needs a $50 million lithography machine from the Netherlands faces a $15 million tariff surcharge—enough to make the entire facility uneconomical. Meanwhile, competitors in countries without such tariffs can access the same equipment at world prices, gaining permanent cost advantages over American manufacturers.

The economic logic is straightforward: US factories require modern European equipment to maintain global competitiveness. Tariffs make this equipment prohibitively expensive relative to competitors who access the same equipment at world prices. Without equipment upgrades, US manufacturing productivity stagnates while international competitors advance.

IMF research quantifies this relationship: a 1% reduction in capital goods tariffs increases domestic investment by 0.4% [7]. Applying this ratio, a 30% tariff increase could reduce investment by 12%—devastating for industries that depend on equipment upgrades to stay competitive.

Agriculture: Losing the Hands That Feed Us

Agriculture contributes 5.5% of US GDP when including related industries such as food processing, transportation, and agricultural equipment [9]. The sector depends heavily on immigrant labor, with 73% of agricultural workers foreign-born [10]. Current data from the US Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Workers Survey shows that 42% of crop farmworkers lack legal work authorization [11]. In California, which produces 40% of US fruits and nuts, agricultural operations employ roughly 57% foreign-born workers, with 36.4% being undocumented [12].

Current enforcement actions remove this essential workforce. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations have already resulted in crops remaining unharvested, with growers reporting immediate labor shortages. Research shows that inadequate agricultural workforces have contributed to sluggish growth in US crop production volumes, leading to increased reliance on food imports to meet consumer demand [13].

On-the-ground impact: In California’s Central Valley, strawberry fields that normally employ 300 workers during harvest season struggled to find 150 after increased enforcement actions. Entire crops rotted in fields as growers faced impossible choices: pay wages that would bankrupt their operations or watch millions of dollars in produce spoil. Meanwhile, import buyers from Mexico and Chile seized the market share that California producers abandoned.

The economic consequences extend beyond immediate production losses. Reduced domestic agricultural output increases reliance on imports while decreasing export revenue. US agricultural exports generated $197.4 billion in direct sales and an additional $214.6 billion in related economic activity in 2022, creating total economic output of $412 billion [14].

Labor shortages in agriculture have economic effects. New American Economy research shows that grower losses from labor shortages reached $3.1 billion annually by 2014, with labor constraints explaining 27% of US market share decline in fresh produce from 1998-2012 [15]. More than a quarter of America’s lost competitive position came from workforce problems alone. Current enforcement actions accelerate these existing trends.

Energy: Fighting the Future

The administration declared a “national energy emergency” while specifically excluding wind and solar power from emergency measures [16]. These excluded sources comprised 17% of current electricity generation in 2024, surpassing coal for the first time [17]. Wind and solar accounted for 71% of new power capacity additions in 2024. The policy enacted by the current administration blocks the dominant source of America’s energy expansion.

This approach blocks the inevitable global transition toward renewable energy sources driven by technological advancement and economic necessity. While demand surges 15-20% through 2030 driven by data centers and artificial intelligence applications [18], energy policies artificially constrain access to the most cost-effective power sources.

Real-world example: Arizona utility regulators imposed “grid connection fees” and complex permitting requirements that delay commercial solar projects for months while residential installations face bureaucratic obstacles designed to protect utility profits. Despite having world-class solar resources, less than 1% of Arizona’s commercial power demands are served by on-site solar energy. Across Phoenix’s thousands of covered parking lots—built specifically to block the intense desert sun—virtually none harvest that same solar energy to reduce business electricity costs.

The long-term implications compound over time. The US is falling behind in energy-intensive manufacturing, data processing, and emerging technologies, while other countries are advancing renewable energy and gaining competitive advantages.

Policies that block renewable deployment lock the US into increasingly obsolete and expensive energy infrastructure.

International comparison matters: Germany shows both sides: losing Russian gas created short-term energy costs, but moving faster to renewables is now giving them cheaper energy and better security [19].

Research: The Brain Drain

Federal research funding is being slashed, with thousands of scientists terminated and university research support drastically reduced [20]. The National Institutes of Health has terminated approximately 2,100 research grants totaling around $9.5 billion, affecting ongoing projects across medical and life sciences research [21]. Grant Watch, a database tracking federal funding cuts, has documented more than 2,482 terminated NIH grants worth $8.7 billion and 1,669 terminated National Science Foundation grants worth $1.5 billion as of mid-June 2025 [22].

International student visa policies are removing global talent from US institutions. Student visas have been revoked across 32 states, with Chinese students facing “aggressive” revocation policies [21][22][23]. Harvard University has been prohibited from enrolling new international students, affecting 6,793 current international students at that institution alone [24]. Duke University has lost $96.4 million in undisbursed NIH funding from 28 canceled grants, forcing the institution to cut discretionary spending by $125 million and halve its PhD program enrollment [27].

This creates immediate brain drain as other countries actively recruit displaced talent. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology immediately offered positions to students affected by Harvard’s enrollment ban [25]. European institutions have launched specific programs to attract researchers leaving US positions due to funding cuts.

The economic value is massive. Research and international talent create massive economic value. International students contributed $50.1 billion to the US economy in 2022, supporting 335,000 jobs [26]. This represents economic activity equivalent to a major corporation. Federal research funding has huge economic impacts, with every dollar of NIH funding creating $2.46 in economic output [27].

Ripple Effects

Manufacturing creates the highest economic multiplier effects of any major sector. Every dollar spent in manufacturing generates between $2.74 and $3.60 in total economic activity, while each manufacturing job creates at least 9 additional jobs in other sectors, with manufacturing accounting for 10 of the 15 industries with the largest jobs multipliers nationally [28]. Recent research from the National Association of Manufacturers using 2018 IMPLAN data confirms that manufacturing has the highest multiplier effect of any economic sector, with each dollar spent generating $2.74 in additional economic activity [29]. These multipliers reflect manufacturing’s extensive supply chain links and the high wages that manufacturing workers spend in their communities.

As the world’s largest economy, US manufacturing decline creates global supply chain disruptions that amplify domestic damage. International partners lose reliable suppliers while US manufacturers lose export markets, creating a reinforcing cycle where domestic manufacturing becomes less viable as global integration deteriorates.

Agricultural production also creates large multiplier effects, especially through exports. The $197.4 billion in agricultural exports in 2022 supported an additional $214.6 billion in related economic activity, including transportation, processing, packaging, and logistics services [29]. Rural communities depend heavily on these multiplier effects, as agricultural income supports local services, retail establishments, and equipment suppliers.

Beyond these direct effects, research and development creates new knowledge that benefits entire economic systems. Federal R&D investment has generated breakthrough technologies including the internet, GPS, touchscreen interfaces, and lithium-ion batteries that created entire industries [30]. Basic research takes decades to pay off, but the economic returns are typically huge – 20-30% annually [31].

Energy costs affect every economic activity. Manufacturing, transportation, commercial operations, and residential consumption all depend on reliable, affordable electricity. When energy costs increase by 10%, manufacturing competitiveness typically declines by 2-4% relative to international competitors with lower energy costs [32]. Global energy markets amplify these effects as higher US energy costs reduce export competitiveness while energy-dependent trading partners seek more reliable suppliers, accelerating domestic economic isolation.

The Cascade Effect

Simultaneous attacks create cascading damage that exceeds the sum of individual sector losses. Manufacturing needs agricultural inputs, agriculture depends on manufactured equipment and research advances, energy systems require manufactured components, and research institutions need stable funding from productive activity.

Attacking all four sectors at once breaks these connections and creates reinforcing collapse. As productive employment disappears, service businesses lose their customer base. As domestic production falters, international partners cut America out of their supply chains and seek alternative suppliers. America loses export markets, borrowing costs rise, and brain drain accelerates. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where isolation destroys more productive capacity.

Learning from History

Attacking manufacturing, agriculture, energy, and research simultaneously creates cascading damage through multiplier effects. But has any country ever tried this before? Looking at major economic crises in history can show whether simultaneous attacks on all productive sectors have ever been attempted—and whether any economy has survived them.

No economy has ever successfully attacked all its productive sectors at once. Past economic changes happened gradually or hit one sector at a time, not all productive sectors simultaneously.

The Soviet Union collapsed while transitioning from a command economy to markets, but it kept its productive capacity. Despite the political chaos, the USSR kept its factories, farms, and research centers that helped with some recovery [33].

Argentina’s economic crises in 1989-1991 and 2001-2002 came from currency and debt problems. The country kept its productive sectors but recovery has been difficult [34].

The Great Depression came from financial extraction and policy failures, but the productive infrastructure stayed intact. Factories, farms, universities, and research institutions remained physically intact and could resume production when demand recovered and financing became available [35].

Britain declined gradually from 1945-1980, but only some sectors collapsed. Others like finance and pharmaceuticals remained competitive, and the country successfully adapted. The decline was selective rather than comprehensive [36].

The current situation is fundamentally different: deliberate attacks on all productive sectors at once:

• Manufacturing competitiveness
• Agricultural workforce
• Energy advantages
• Research capabilities

Nothing like this has ever been tried, so there’s no proven way to recover.

The Political Roadblocks

When COVID-19 exposed America’s inability to produce basic medical supplies, the obvious solution was rebuilding domestic manufacturing capacity. When infrastructure crumbled from first to thirteenth place globally, the fix was investment in transportation and energy infrastructure. When agricultural workforce shortages left crops rotting in fields, the answer was comprehensive immigration reform.

None of these solutions happened. Even when attempted, they were blocked or undermined by the same corporate interests and political handicaps that profit from America’s productive decline. These interests control the political mechanisms needed for recovery. This creates the real mathematical impossibility: not economic recovery, but political reform.

Corporate Capture Systems

Regulatory Capture: Federal agencies meant to protect American interests have been corrupted by the industries they regulate. The pattern repeats across sectors: FDA officials protect pharmaceutical profits while public health deteriorates, EPA officials enable fossil fuel extraction while blocking renewable innovation, FCC commissioners serve telecom interests while broadband competition stagnates. These agencies function as marketing arms for corporate interests rather than protectors of the public.

The Revolving Door: Officials make decisions that benefit their future corporate employers rather than the country. The scale is systematic: analysis by the Project on Government Oversight found that 80% of former FCC commissioners take industry jobs, while 59% of former Congress members work for lobbying firms [41].

Information Control Networks: Special interests shape Americans’ understanding through seemingly independent organizations. Issue One found that dark money groups spent a record $1.9 billion in the 2024 federal election cycle, creating systematic bias toward policies that benefit narrow interests rather than strategic economic objectives [42]. Think tanks, academic research, and advocacy groups promote extraction-friendly policies while hiding their corporate backers. Universities depend on corporate funding for research programs, creating pressure for studies that serve donor interests rather than scientific truth.

Corporate Decision-Making Capture: Many large corporations have been pressured to prioritize short-term gains over long-term strategy. Quarterly earnings pressure creates bias against long-term investment. Short-term investors demand immediate returns at the expense of business health. Executive compensation tied to stock performance reinforces these short-term incentives. American corporations spent over $1 trillion on stock buybacks in 2021 alone—capital that could have funded strategic infrastructure, research facilities, or workforce development [43]. When financial markets reward short-term gains over productive investment, many companies end up serving Wall Street quarterly targets rather than building long-term strength.

Political Barriers

Fundraising Time Allocation Crisis: Members of Congress spend between 20 and 30 hours per week fundraising rather than governing [44]. Representatives schedule donor calls during committee hearings, postpone legislative sessions for fundraising events, and evaluate policy positions based on fundraising implications rather than national benefit.

Complex problems get minimal focus while donor interests receive sustained attention, making strategic planning impossible.

Electoral Incentives vs. Recovery: Policies causing economic damage provide immediate political benefits to core constituencies. Economic recovery requires 5-10 year investment timelines while electoral cycles operate on 2-4 year intervals.

Reversing destructive policies means admitting error, creating political vulnerability. Short-term economic pain from policy reversal occurs before long-term benefits materialize, creating systematic bias against necessary corrections.

Institutional Rigidity: Federal agencies implementing destructive policies resist change. Congressional oversight mechanisms respond to political rather than economic priorities. Special interest capture of regulatory agencies blocks reform. Legal barriers slow policy changes even when politicians want them.

Psychological and Cognitive Barriers

Sunk Cost Escalation: Political investment in current policies creates pressure to continue rather than acknowledge failure. Admitting error undermines political credibility for future initiatives. Reversal requires leaders to contradict previous public statements and campaign promises. Political base expects continued commitment to ideological positions regardless of outcomes.

Limited Economic Understanding: In order to make sense of these complex issues, politicians need understandable and balanced information about how the economy works as a whole. Instead, special interests provide slanted information and often write the actual bills for politicians. The current system of constant donor and lobbying pressure prevents understanding the long term effects.

Ideological Override of Evidence: Politicians filter economic data through their political commitments rather than utilizing facts and objective analysis. When expert research contradicts their beliefs, they reject it. They dismiss successful examples from other countries as irrelevant to America, despite the reality that globalization makes international experience directly applicable. Evidence-based policy changes would require politicians to abandon the ideological positions that define their political identity and satisfy their donor base.

Systemic Inadequacy

Coordination Failure: Economic recovery requires coordinated response across multiple agencies (Treasury, Commerce, Labor, Agriculture, Education, State) that exceeds the ability of the political processes. Different agencies operate under conflicting political pressures and constituency demands. International coordination necessary for recovery is complicated by foreign relations damaged by current policies and global partners seeking alternative arrangements to reduce dependence on unstable US systems. Private sector coordination is required but business confidence is undermined by policy unpredictability and deteriorating international relationships.

Resource Allocation Dysfunction: Politicians make policy based on political impact rather than economic benefit to the country. Vote trading (‘I’ll support your bill if you support mine’) further distorts resource allocation away from national economic needs. Emergency economic response requires sustained funding commitment beyond normal appropriations cycles. Federal budget processes cannot rapidly reallocate resources across multiple sectors. State and local governments lack resources for independent economic development when federal policy is counterproductive.

Time Horizon Incompatibility: Economic recovery requires sustained 10-20 year commitment while political control changes every 2-4 years. Policy continuity across multiple election cycles is historically rare for major economic initiatives. Opposition parties are incentivized to reverse previous administration’s economic policies regardless of effectiveness. Economic crisis response must begin immediately but political system requires extended deliberation and consensus-building that prevents rapid response.

Historical Evidence of Political Incapacity

Previous Crisis Response Limitations: The 2008 financial crisis required extraordinary measures (TARP, Fed intervention) that barely achieved political consensus for a much simpler problem. COVID-19 response demonstrated limited political capacity for sustained economic coordination beyond immediate emergency measures. Infrastructure investment needs have been recognized for decades but the political system remains unable to implement comprehensive solutions. Climate change response inadequacy despite scientific consensus demonstrates the political system’s inability to address long-term challenges requiring immediate action.

International Comparison Failures: Other developed economies (Germany, Japan, South Korea) successfully maintain manufacturing competitiveness through different policy approaches that prioritize long-term strategic planning over short-term political cycles. The US political system cannot adopt proven international models due to ideological constraints and capture by interests that benefit from current dysfunction. Trade policy decisions ignore economic analysis available from other countries’ experiences with similar challenges. Educational and research policies lag international best practices despite available evidence of successful approaches.

Capture System Reinforcement: The same special interests that benefit from economic destruction also control the information systems and political processes needed for recovery. Energy companies that profit from blocking renewable transition fund think tanks that produce anti-renewable research and politicians who implement anti-renewable policies. Healthcare companies that profit from extraction fund research that opposes reform and politicians who block reform. This creates self-reinforcing systems where the beneficiaries of problems control the mechanisms needed to solve them [45].

Conclusion

The German machinery association’s warning that US tariffs would “choke off investments and cause deindustrialization” is correct—but vastly understates the scope of destruction. Current policies attack all four sectors that support advanced economies: manufacturing, agriculture, energy competitiveness, and research expertise.

These attacks will devastate rather than strengthen the American economy through multiplier effects and sector interdependencies. Manufacturing tariffs on equipment destroy investment. Agricultural workforce removal cuts domestic production. Energy policies that block cheaper renewable sources raise costs across all sectors. Research cuts and talent expulsion create brain drain during global technological competition.

When you attack all productive sectors at once, the damage multiplies. Manufacturing generates $2.74-$3.60 for every dollar spent. Each sector depends on the others—destroy one and you pull down all the rest.

The global scale amplifies the self-destruction. As the world’s largest economy contracts through coordinated attacks on productive capacity, international trade networks fragment, financial systems destabilize, and technological cooperation breaks down. These global disruptions return as additional domestic pressure—reduced export markets, higher borrowing costs, accelerated brain drain, and technological isolation—creating a self-reinforcing cycle where America’s self-inflicted wounds spread internationally and return amplified.

The result is an economy focused on extracting wealth from existing assets rather than creating new wealth. When productive capacity disappears entirely, even extraction collapses, leaving no viable economic base.

No economy has ever faced the loss of all its productive sectors simultaneously and survived. Previous crises were gradual or targeted specific industries—nothing like this comprehensive assault on productive capacity. The unprecedented global integration of the modern economy means that systematic destruction of the world’s largest productive base creates cascading international effects that accelerate domestic collapse.

The current political system cannot fix this because it’s captured by the same interests that benefit from the destruction. Corporate capture, fundraising dependence, and institutional rigidity prevent the coordinated response that recovery would require.

What began as tariff policy has become deliberate destruction of the economic foundations that support the world’s largest economy. This is creating economic contraction; it is not strengthening America. The global effect ensures that this becomes self-accelerating as international systems fragment and partners seek alternatives to an increasingly unreliable American economy.

---

Note: This analysis focuses on US economic mechanisms. The global economic implications of contraction in the world’s largest economy extend significantly beyond the scope examined here.

---

References

[1] USDA Economic Research Service. “Agricultural Trade and the US Economy.” Economic Research Report 2023. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/international-markets-us-trade/us-agricultural-trade/us-agricultural-trade-at-a-glance
[2] VDMA (Verband Deutscher Maschinen- und Anlagenbau). Press Statement on US Trade Policy. January 2025. Available at: https://vdma.eu/en/press-releases-statements
[3] Solow, Robert M. “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 70.1 (1956): 65-94. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/qjecon/v70y1956i1p65-94..html
[4] Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Gross Domestic Product by Industry.” National Economic Accounts, 2024. Available at: https://www.bea.gov/news/2025/gross-domestic-product-4th-quarter-and-year-2024-second-estimate
[5] Eurostat. “International Trade in Goods – Machinery and Transport Equipment.” External Trade Statistics, 2024.
[6] Eslava, Marcela, et al. “The Effects of Structural Reforms on Productivity and Profitability Enhancement.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 128.1 (2013): 121-164. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304387804000653
[7] International Monetary Fund. “Are Capital Goods Tariffs Different?” IMF Working Paper 2020/061, May 2020. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2020/05/22/Are-Capital-Goods-Tariffs-Different-49282
[8] Federal Reserve Board. “Financial Accounts of the United States.” Fourth Quarter 2024. Available at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20250313/html/default.htm
[9] USDA Economic Research Service. “Agriculture and Related Industries’ Contribution to GDP.” Farm Economy Indicators, 2024.
[10] Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Foreign-Born Workers in Agriculture.” Labor Force Characteristics, 2024. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/forbrn.nr0.htm
[11] California Department of Food and Agriculture. “Agricultural Production Statistics.” Annual Report 2024. Available at: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/
[12] USDA Economic Research Service. “U.S. Agricultural Trade at a Glance.” Economic Research Service, 2023. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/international-markets-us-trade/us-agricultural-trade/us-agricultural-trade-at-a-glance
[13] New American Economy. “Ten-Year Decline in U.S. Farm Labor Has Cost U.S. Economy $3.1B Annually in Crop Production.” September 2018. Available at: https://www.newamericaneconomy.org/news/ten-year-decline-u-s-farm-labor-cost-u-s-economy-3-1b-annually-crop-production-report-shows/
[14] White House. “Proclamation on National Energy Emergency.” Federal Register, January 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/declaring-a-national-energy-emergency/
[15] Energy Information Administration. “Electric Power Monthly.” US Department of Energy, January 2025. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_month/january2025.pdf
[16] Energy Information Administration. “Annual Energy Outlook 2025.” US Department of Energy. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/
[17] International Renewable Energy Agency. “Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2023.” Abu Dhabi: IRENA, 2024. Available at: https://www.irena.org/Publications/2024/Sep/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2023
[18] German Federal Statistical Office. “Energy Prices and Economic Performance 2022-2024.” Wiesbaden: Destatis, 2024.
[19] Science Magazine. “It’s a nightmare: U.S. funding cuts threaten academic science jobs at all levels.” 2025. Available at: https://www.science.org/content/article/it-s-nightmare-u-s-funding-cuts-threaten-academic-science-jobs-all-levels
[20] STAT News. “A Harvard scientist built a database of 2,100 NIH grant terminations. Then his own funding was cut.” May 27, 2025. Available at: https://www.statnews.com/2025/05/27/nih-cuts-tracked-in-grant-watch-database-q-and-a-with-harvard-researcher-scott-delaney/
[21] NPR. “Rubio says U.S. will ‘aggressively’ revoke visas for many Chinese students.” May 28, 2025. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2025/05/28/g-s1-69495/rubio-says-u-s-will-aggressively-revoke-visas-for-many-chinese-students
[22] U.S. Department of State. “New Visa Policies Put America First, Not China.” May 28, 2025. Available at: https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/05/new-visa-policies-put-america-first-not-china
[23] NBC News. “U.S. will ‘aggressively’ revoke Chinese students’ visas, Rubio says.” May 29, 2025. Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/us-will-aggressively-revoke-chinese-students-visas-rubio-says-rcna209637
[24] Visual Capitalist. “Charted: International Students at Harvard (2006–2024).” June 2, 2025. Available at: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-international-students-at-harvard-2006-2024/
[25] Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. “International Student Initiative.” Press Release, January 2025.
[26] Institute of International Education. “Economic Impact of International Students 2022.” Open Doors Report.
[27] National Institutes of Health. “Direct Economic Contributions.” December 30, 2024. Available at: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/impact-nih-research/serving-society/direct-economic-contributions
[28] Camoin Associates. “The Multiplier Effect: Which Industries are the Biggest Job Creators?” November 22, 2021. Available at: https://camoinassociates.com/resources/the-multiplier-effect-which-industries-are-the-biggest-job-creators/
[29] USDA Economic Research Service. “Agricultural Trade Multipliers.” Data Products, 2023. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-trade-multipliers
[30] National Science Foundation. “Science and Engineering Indicators 2024: The State of U.S. Science and Engineering.” NSB-2024-3, March 2024. Available at: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20243
[31] Jones, Charles I. “R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth.” Journal of Political Economy 103.4 (1995): 759-784.
[32] International Energy Agency. “Gaining an Edge: Energy Demand and Competitiveness.” Paris: IEA, 2024. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/gaining-an-edge/energy-demand-and-competitiveness
[33] Gaidar, Yegor. “Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia.” Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2007. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/books/collapse-of-an-empire/
[34] Perry, Guillermo E., and Luis Servén. “The Anatomy of a Multiple Crisis: Why was Argentina Special and What Can We Learn from It?” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3081, 2003. Available at: https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/1813-9450-3081
[35] Bernanke, Ben S. “Essays on the Great Depression.” Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Available at: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691118208/essays-on-the-great-depression
[36] Stiglitz, Joseph E. “The Euro: How a Common Currency Threatens the Future of Europe.” New York: W.W. Norton, 2016. Available at: https://wwnorton.com/books/the-euro/
[37] Grant Watch Database. “Terminated Federal Research Grants.” Airtable Database, 2025. Available at: https://airtable.com/appjhyo9NTvJLocRy/shrNto1NNp9eJlgpA
[38] STAT News. “A Harvard scientist built a database of 2,100 NIH grant terminations. Then his own funding was cut.” May 27, 2025. Available at: https://www.statnews.com/2025/05/27/nih-cuts-tracked-in-grant-watch-database-q-and-a-with-harvard-researcher-scott-delaney/
[39] The Chronicle. “Stalled funding, canceled grants: How the NIH crisis is affecting Duke.” Duke University, June 2025. Available at: https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2025/06/duke-university-national-institutes-of-health-cut-cancel-duke-research-nih-federal-funding-grants-trump-administrations
[40] Felbermayr, Gabriel, et al. “Are Capital Goods Tariffs Different?” IMF Working Paper 2020/061, May 2020.
[41] Fwd.us. “Immigrant Farmworkers and America’s Food Production – 5 Things to Know.” 2024. Available at: https://www.fwd.us/news/immigrant-farmworkers-and-americas-food-production-5-things-to-know/
[42] USDA Economic Research Service. “Legal status of hired crop farmworkers, fiscal 1991–2022.” Chart Gallery, 2024.
[43] New American Economy Research Fund. “Immigration and Agriculture.” August 16, 2021.
[44] Ember Energy. “US Electricity 2025 – Special Report.” March 26, 2025.
[45] Business Council for Sustainable Energy. “2025 Key Trends.” April 15, 2025.
[46] Issue One. “The Congressional Fundraising Treadmill, July-September 2021.” Available at: https://issueone.org/articles/the-congressional-fundraising-treadmill-5-key-numbers-to-know-from-the-newest-house-and-senate-campaign-finance-filings/
[47] Public Citizen. “Nearly Two Thirds of Former Members of 115th Congress Working Outside Politics and Government Have Picked Up Lobbying or Strategic Consulting Jobs.” June 27, 2019.
[48] Brennan Center for Justice. “Dark Money Hit a Record High of $1.9 Billion in 2024 Federal Races.” May 2025. Available at: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dark-money-hit-record-high-19-billion-2024-federal-races
[49] Fitzhugh, Laurel. “The Auction Block Democracy: How Fundraising Replaced Governing and Weakened America.” Dittany, 2025. https://dittany.com/democracy-reforms-strengthen-america/
[50] Fitzhugh, Laurel. “The Shadow System: How Corporate Capture Undermines American Power.” Dittany, 2025. https://dittany.com/auction-block-democracy-fundraising-weakens-america/
[51] Associated Press. “Trump research funding cuts threaten brain drain.” 2025. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/trump-research-funding-cuts-brain-drain-f1ac9fe5c8a90f5d5ec9b2726475e10e
[52] University of California. “Cuts to federal science spending will cost every American.” 2025. Available at: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/cuts-federal-science-spending-will-cost-every-american
[53] National Education Association. “Scientific research is getting cut, and it should scare all Americans.” NEA Today, 2025. Available at: https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/scientific-research-getting-cut-and-should-scare-all-americans
[54] Brookings Institution. “Cutting research funding would make education less effective and efficient.” 2025. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/cutting-research-funding-would-make-education-less-effective-and-efficient/
[55] NPR. “Rubio says U.S. will ‘aggressively’ revoke visas for many Chinese students.” May 28, 2025. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2025/05/28/g-s1-69495/rubio-says-u-s-will-aggressively-revoke-visas-for-many-chinese-students
[56] U.S. Department of State. “New Visa Policies Put America First, Not China.” May 28, 2025. Available at: https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/05/new-visa-policies-put-america-first-not-china
[57] NBC News. “U.S. will ‘aggressively’ revoke Chinese students’ visas, Rubio says.” May 29, 2025. Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/us-will-aggressively-revoke-chinese-students-visas-rubio-says-rcna209637
[58] The Washington Post. “Trump admin. to crack down on Chinese visas and applicants, Rubio says.” May 29, 2025. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/05/28/chinese-visas-applicants-trump-rubio/