On Nov. 11, Swarthmore’s economics department hosted “The Economics of the Trump Administration,” a panel on the current administration’s economic policy and its implications for international trade, antitrust, healthcare, and the macroeconomy. The panel was organized by the coordinators of community-building events in economics: Lucy Tobier ’26, Allison Chong ’26, and Renee Zhuang ’27, who foster community among students and faculty within the economics department through events and study breaks.
The panel featured Professors Stephen O’Connell, Ellen Magenheim, and Mark Kuperberg, and Associate Professor Marc Remer. In light of recent tariffs, healthcare eligibility changes, and trade policies going into effect, the panel connected current economic issues with theories taught in the classroom.
A wide class-year range of over 60 students and faculty came together over a free lunch, filling Singer Hall 34-35, to hear the faculty’s insights on what Trump’s economic policy could mean for millions of Americans.
O’Connell began the conversation by analyzing the international trade landscape. He characterized the core of President Trump’s former tariff policy as causing a lot of uncertainty.
Unlike traditional economic policy designed to create stable environments for investment, O’Connell explained that the proposed across-the-board tariffs would create a volatile and unpredictable climate for global trade. He framed this not just as an economic strategy, but as a geopolitical one, suggesting that the tariffs might be Trump’s attempt to ensure America’s global economic dominance as the United States’s power relative to China continues to be threatened. He noted, however, that it was unclear how this would affect local production and consumption of goods.
Next to speak was Remer, who specializes in industrial organization and antitrust. He shifted the focus to domestic corporate regulation, unpacking the more aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement of the last three administrations.
In his remarks, Remer indicated that the Trump administration might move to block major mergers it views as consolidating too much market power. He suggested that this could represent a rare point of bipartisan agreement on the need to curb corporate dominance, though the specific industries and companies targeted would likely differ from those prioritized by the current administration. He mentioned that antitrust enforcers in Trump’s first administration launched the investigations into four massive tech companies (Meta, Amazon, Google, Apple) that resulted in lawsuits from Biden’s high-profile regulators, Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter. About Trump’s second term, though, Remer was unsure what to expect, given mixed signals on the administration’s approach so far.
Magenheim then assessed the potential changes to the U.S. healthcare system, specifically regarding Medicaid. She highlighted that the Affordable Care Act and ensuing healthcare expansions had reduced the uninsured population by seven percentage points from 2010 to 2022. Therefore, the Republican-led efforts to repeal it ever since its passage — which she was careful to clarify did not come with replacements — represented a drastic step backward. Though she prefaced by saying that the effects of policy cannot usually be surely predicted in economics, Magenheim said, “Removing [the ACA] is guaranteed to increase the uninsured population.”
She elaborated that the repercussions of repealing the act would not be felt equally, noting that such a policy shift would most adversely affect marginalized populations. Regionally, she pointed out that areas like the American Southeast and specifically Texas, which already have higher rates of uninsured populations, would be affected more severely.
Outlining the potential mechanism for this change, Magenheim said that Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” is actually a complicated set of changes. The law includes measures that will cause an estimated 10-14 million people to fall off Medicaid, such as a work requirement of at least twenty hours per week or an equivalent educational effort to maintain eligibility, and a process that requires more frequent and more difficult Medicaid reapplication. This creates administrative barriers for vulnerable populations.
Kuperberg began his segment on the administration’s broader effects on the macroeconomy by highlighting several significant dangers on the horizon. These included the erosion of the social safety net, the risk of stagflation — a combination of rising inflation and unemployment — and the ever-present threat of a financial crisis.
He finished his analysis by reiterating the unpredictability of the macroeconomy: most things cannot be said for certain. To illustrate this, he quoted Yogi Berra: “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” He echoed this on the topic of recessions — recessions hit by surprise because they are largely unpredictable. Addressing widespread concern about how Trump’s tariff policy might affect consumer prices, Kuperberg noted that tariffs will most likely affect investment purchasing in the U.S. more than consumption goods.
He also noted that the government shutdown would have had broader macroeconomic implications, had it continued, through impacts like upcoming Thanksgiving travel on reduced Transportation Security Administration staffing. The morning before the panel, however, the first signs emerged of the shutdown ending. “Flying home for Thanksgiving should be fine,” Kuperberg mentioned.
Zhuang touched on the value of the panel: “With so many rapid changes in the economy, it can be difficult for students to make sense of the constant stream of news.” She continued, “Hearing clear insights from professors who specialize in these areas helps us better understand the nation’s current circumstances and also gives students the chance to learn from faculty they may not normally interact with, offering new perspectives beyond the classroom.”
