Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘ukraine-war’

Trump’s 28 Pt. Ukraine War Plan

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , on November 24, 2025| 2 Comments »

by Jack Rasmus

This past week President Trump proposed a 28 Pt. plan to Russia and Ukraine as a basis for negotiations to end the current Ukraine-Russia war, now approaching its fourth year.

What’s behind the Trump proposal? Is it a further revelation of verbal understandings agreed to between Trump and Putin last August in Anchorage, Alaska? Or something more?

Is it a political cover for Trump to finally cut military intelligence and surveillance aid to Ukraine—while simultaneously imposing additional sanctions on Russia, and perhaps Ukraine as well, to pressure both parties to commence negotiations in earnest?

Is it a Trump maneuver to enable the US to share in the exploitation of the $260 billion Russian assets frozen in Belgium and EU banks?

Is it a Trump tactic to justify further US withdrawal from involvement in the war, once the Europeans reject it, and to let the Europeans have ‘their war’ with Russia in Ukraine?

Is it, as some have argued, a clever ‘hard cop’ (Europe) vs. ‘soft cop’ (US) maneuver to get Russia and Putin to agree to another ‘Minsk III’-like temporary truce to halt the conflict on the ground so that Europe & Ukraine can buy time to recruit, rearm, and retrain forces in order to continue the conflict?

Or is it a preliminary step toward eventual real negotiations down the road—i.e. after further military conflict exhausts both sides creating a basis for real compromises and negotiations in 2026?

Up to the release of the 28 point proposals this past week, the fundamental positions of three of the four parties involved in the conflict—Ukraine, Russia, and Europe—have not changed much, if at all. Is Trump’s plan therefore about trying to move the parties off their prior hardened positions that prevent any serious negotiations.

Prior Positions of the Parties

To date, Russia has held firm to its June 2024 positions: No NATO in Ukraine; formal recognition by Europe-US-Ukraine of Russian sovereignty over the four provinces (Lughansk, Donestsk, Zaporozhia, Kherson) and Crimea; reduction of Ukraine armed forces to less than 100,000 to ensure no future threat to Russia; and Ukraine neutrality and denazification of its government.

Ukraine’s position has been the same since the onset of the conflict in 2022: no Ukraine land concessions including Crimea; reparations for Russian damages; full retreat of all Russian military forces to Ukraine’s 1991 borders; and no negotiations to begin until a ceasefire and Russia’s full retreat.

Europe’s position is full support for Ukraine’s positions; an immediate ceasefire along the lines of combat as precondition to negotiations; use of Russia’s $260 billion frozen assets in its banks to fund Ukraine’s war effort in the interim and thereafter for Ukraine’s eventual reconstruction post-war; no changes to borders as a result of force; Europe troops to be allowed in Ukraine after the war ends; and no limits to NATO expansion determined by any state outside NATO member states.

The US position under Biden agreed with the European and Ukrainian positions above virtually completely. Biden proposed, moreover, to continue to escalate US financial, weaponry, and military assistance for as long as it takes to force Russia to end the war.

Under Trump, the US position shifted, to seek negotiations and to end the war on terms of whatever is eventually acceptable by Russia, Europe and Ukraine—as dictated by the relationship of forces at the time of final negotiations.

Trump and the US have therefore swung between a solution preferred by the political alliance of US neocons, Europe leaders, and Ukraine to a solution advocated by other political forces within the US who have begun recognizing the impossibility of ending the war on the basis of Europe-Ukraine positions to date. Trump’s dual representatives reflect the duality of the US position: General Kellogg representing the US neocon/EU positions and Trump’s personal advisor, Steve Witkoff, the emerging more realist US view of the conflict.

US Vice-President, J.D. Vance, summarized this latter, realist view when questioned by US media this past weekend after the release of Trump’s 28 Pt. Plan: the rigid Europe-Ukraine hardline view of the past three and a half years represents the view of “failed diplomats or politicians living in fantasy land” committed to the idea that somehow “more money, more weapons, or more sanctions” will result in eventual “victory”! 

The US wants to move on from Europe’s war with Russia in Ukraine. Its imperial interests now include larger strategic concerns in the middle east (Israel-GAZA-Iran war), Latin America (Venezuela regime change plans), and western Pacific (Taiwan-China). The emerging new view is that if Europe wants to continue war with Russia, they should do so on their own, paying for it and providing Ukraine’s the military support themselves.  The new view beginning to take hold among the Trump wing of the US foreign policy elite is that the USA has more important global strategic interests and concerns beyond continuing fighting and paying for Europe’s wars or protecting Europe from its imagined threat from Russia.

Mainstream Media Complicity

The US and Europe mainstream media throughout the conflict since 2022 reflected the US neocon view that Russia’s economy was about to collapse, Putin would be overthrown by Russian political opponents, and the Russian army was weak and would quickly stop fighting.  The most recent such view is that Russia has suffered 1.5 million losses since 2022—a number even larger than the current total Russian military of 1.4 million. 

Following the announcement of the 28 Pt. plan, the New York Times provided a brief, incomplete and slanted summary of its terms.  In its very first paragraph, it described the Trump plan as one in which “Ukraine would have to capitulate on most of Putin’s demands” and that “Ukraine would gain little other than a halt to the war”.  The Times’ authors added “Russia’s economy is at its weakest since February 2022” and that Russia is facing serious economic pressures due to US sanctions—all of which is a repeat of the propaganda mantra and remains contrary to the facts stated by various western market research sources.  Another Times theme is that the Trump requirement Ukraine hold elections is about “ushering out” Zelensky—i.e. a political goal attributed to Putin.

These themes were reiterated by the European media in turn and then some. The UK Guardian clarified several important elements of the plan conveniently ignored by the New York Times. For example, it questioned who originally authored the plan? It suggested the Plan was perhaps Russia’s originally, and was passed off by US Secretary State, Rubio, as Trump’s plan. The attempt here clearly was to undermine the plan and the US role, suggesting the US was just a dupe for Russia. Rubio immediately denied the suggestion, called the Times’ suggestion “blatantly wrong” and confirmed it was a US plan, not Russia’s, reached after US discussions with both Ukraine and Russia.

That did not stop US neocon Senators from repeating the Times’ theme publicly as well, implying the plan was Russia’s not Trump’s.

Key Elements of the 28 Pt. Plan

The plan is now public and readers can review it in detail for themselves. However, the key elements are the following:

  1. Ukraine must withdraw from the two provinces, Lughansk and Donetsk. It has already been driven out of Lughansk and occupies only 25% left of Donetsk. Moreover, the area from which it withdraws in those two provinces is to remain a demilitarized zone. So per the plan Ukraine is not required to actually recognized either as Russian sovereignty.
  2. Russia must withdraw all its forces from the northern provinces of Sumy and Kharkov. Its forces in Zaporozhie and Kherson are to be frozen in place, the rest of those two provinces remaining occupied by Ukraine.
  3. The plan calls for no NATO troops deployed in Ukraine and no further NATO expansion (the latter point left unclear as to where exactly no expansion was to occur). Ukraine can join the European Union.
  4. Sanctions on Russia would be removed in steps. Russia was allowed to join the G7 as its new G8 member.
  5. The size of Ukraine’s current 900,000 military forces would be capped at 600,000.
  6. $100 billion of Russia’s $260 billion frozen assets in Europe banks would be transferred to a joint US-Russia administered fund for the reconstruction of Ukraine after the war. To which Europe will add another $100 billion but not administer.
  7. Elections in Ukraine would be held within 100 days after the final agreement to end the war.
  8. There were also numerous vague terms calling for restoration of Russian speaking Ukrainians cultural and political rights prior to the new elections.

Europe leaders initially expressed extreme displeasure with not being part of the determining of the plan, cut out of negotiations with Russia, and especially with having to provide $100 billion of Russia’s frozen assets to the joint US-Russian fund and then another $100 billion further to the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Thus, the European and US have begun early in-fighting over the spoils available after the end of the war. Whose corporations will receive the lion’s share of the proceeds from reconstruction has begun emerging as a source of contention within the NATO forces, US and European.

Responses to the 28 Pt. Plan

Russia has said the 28 Pt. proposal is a basis upon which to start negotiations. Europe has initially rejected it and it hurriedly gathered its leaders in Geneva on November 23, 2025 to craft its official rejection and alternative proposal. Zelensky and Ukraine once again took cover behind the European opposition to the latest Trump initiative, declaring its opposition to the plan as well.

Europe and Ukraine have consistently insisted that negotiations should only take place when Russia agrees to an unconditional ceasefire along all lines of combat. Ceasefire first and freezing all lines of military contact is the precondition to start negotiations. That remains the fundamental Europe-Ukraine demand, which it has been since 2022. By demanding ceasefire first, then negotiations, Europe-Ukraine in effect propose a repeat of Minsk II negotiations held in 2015 to halt Russian military activity. They want a ‘Minsk III’.

As former British diplomat, Alaistair Crooke, has explained, “they (Europe) want a ceasefire, not a solution, so they can go back in, retrain, and rearm Ukraine to continue the war”. He adds: “Europe is coaching Zelensky to say No” and it wants to continue a “controlled war”.

German Chancellor, Merz, warned if Ukraine loses it will have a profound impact on Europe politics as a whole. That’s true. Europe’s current political elite have tied their futures to the war in Ukraine and cannot retreat. To do so risks the possible fracturing of NATO and even perhaps the European Union.  So why are Europe leaders like Merz, Macron in France, and Starmer in the UK so committed to continuing the war? There are several possible explanations.

First, the war is the way to keep the USA financially, and even militarily, committed to remain in NATO in Europe. The USA military umbrella since 1945 has been profitable for Europe and politically useful for Europe’s domestic politics: not having to expend huge sums on defense (US total cost in NATO is now estimated at $32B per year) has enabled Europe to provide social benefits to its populace much greater than the US has provided to its populace.

Should the USA pull out of Europe—which Trump likely wants to do eventually to cut $32B from future US defense spending—then Europe will have to cut social benefits, raise taxes further, and/or incur more sovereign debt, in order to develop its own defense/war military industrial complex. Merz has already declared Germany will spend $1 trillion over the next five years to do so. Other European countries will have to do the same. Europe’s economy cannot sustain that expenditure without massive cuts to social benefits that will certainly result in widespread political upheaval. Europe’s economy has been limping along since 2008, growing tepidly, experiencing bouts of stagnation and mild recessions for the last decade and a half, and has been declining in terms of productivity for some time. Real wages have not risen since at least 1999 when the European Union was created.  

Europe has been steadily falling behind the US and China technologically and financially. European leaders may think a surge in military spending will energize its GDP and growth but that route holds great economic and political risks. European leaders are likely aware of the consequences. But they see continuing the war as the way to keep US involved supporting the war, to keep US in NATO providing its subsidies, and the way to buy time to transition to their own military-industrial economy. The Ukraine war is key to buy time for this economic transition. Continued war in Ukraine is the only way for Europe’s elites to justify the social benefit cuts on the agenda.

As UK diplomat Alastair Crooke has correctly observed, Europe needs the war to continue. Ukraine and Zelensky will ride the European horse into the sunset as long as they can.

Failure to end the Ukraine war is not a problem of individuals—i.e. Zelensky, or Putin, or Trump or even the ultra-nationalist/neo-nazi elements in the Ukraine government. The problem is Europe—and Europe’s US neocon allies who share its pro-war objectives as well. European leadership is committed to a long war in Ukraine, so long as Ukraine has the troops to throw into the maelstrom. However, that may be coming to an end sooner than later.

The European leadership met this past Sunday, November 23, to hammer out a response to Trump’s 28 Pts. They will inject their own demands into a new document. In essence, some new formulation of ‘ceasefire first’ and other new demands.

According to the Guardian newspaper, they will propose to amend the 28 Pt plan to include a reduction in Ukraine military forces by only 100,000 to 800,000 instead of the 600,000 indicated in Trump’s plan—neither of which Russia will agree to. They will demand the Zaporozhie nuclear power plan now occupied by Russia to be returned to Ukraine. They’ll oppose immediate reductions of sanctions on Russia or permit it in the G8. They’ll especially reject the US-Russia joint administered fund to reconstruct Ukraine. They won’t agree to no NATO in Ukraine and will reiterate European forces must be allowed in Ukraine after the war. Reports are circulating they may even call for the US to commit troops to ‘supervise’ the truce on the ground after the war, i.e. to lure the US to provide cover for future European military encroachments. Their amendments will thus constitute a ‘ceasefire’ plan, albeit couched in more clever proposals. All of which Russia will reject.

Trump’s response to Europe’s counterproposals will likely include his acceptance of whatever the Europeans propose at Geneva. He’s as much as said so. The 28 Pt plan, even with the European amendments, is just an interim document and another false start event—i.e. an ‘Anchorage 2.0’—on the road to a later more serious negotiation.

When asked by the media he admitted the plan is not the ‘final agreement’. And when queried in turn what he’ll do if Zelensky rejects it, Trump replied: “he’ll have to like it, or just keep fighting, I guess.” 

Strategically the best the US and Trump can get from the Plan is to move Ukraine and Europe off their nearly four years-long hardline positions. To create some ‘hooks’ upon which to hang future negotiations.

True negotiations will not begin until Russia takes back all the four provinces it has declared as part of sovereign Russia. Serious discussions begin only when Russia takes back all of the four provinces, stands at the Dnipr river and decides whether or not to push further west into Ukraine or to take Odessa in the south.  At that point the ‘Special Military Operation’, SMO, becomes something else. Something much larger. Alternatively, realistic negotiations might begin if and when the Ukraine army begins to collapse before Russia reaches the Dnipr, which could happen within the next 90 days given the current rate of Russian advances on the ground in the east. 

The Institute for War (IFW), a western think tank clearly allied with NATO and Ukraine, has reported up to 300,000 Ukrainian troops have deserted since the war began. At least another 500,000 have been killed or permanently disabled. Per the IFW Ukraine is recruiting 17,000 troops per month but is losing 30,000.  Russian volunteers (not draftees as in Ukraine) are joining its military at the rate of roughly 30,000/ month and its losses are much less than its recruitment. The ultimate limit to war is not finding enough money to pay for it. Nor even enough weapons. It is the manpower losses.

The war in Ukraine will end when the military conflict ends. Not vice versa—i.e. not as result of a ceasefire ending the conflict before negotiating the terms of its ending.

The Trump 28 Pt. plan will not begin the process of ending the war. On the contrary, the inevitable collapse of the plan may well lead to more escalation, not less.

Jack Rasmus

November 22, 2025

Read Full Post »

The Real Trump-Zelensky Minerals Deal

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , on February 26, 2025| 1 Comment »

After weeks of on again off again, US mainstream media headlines today, February 26, 2025 announce that Trump and Ukraine’s president Zelensky—after weeks of ‘tit for tat’ mutual accusations–have reportedly reached a deal for Ukraine to pay the US from Ukraine’s minerals wealth.

The deal details remain opaque, however. It’s not clear if the amount to be repaid is still $500 billion. Nor is it clear whether the agreement will repay past US aid to Ukraine or be used to help rebuild Ukraine after the war’s end.

Furthermore, the mainstream media provides no details as to ‘who else benefits’ from the deal. Will the money go back into the US Treasury, into a Ukraine post war rebuilding…or to benefit private interests? 

Typical of US mainstream media’s reporting of events is today’s Wall St. Journal headline announcing a pact was reached. The only details reported, however, is that Ukraine “would pay some proceeds from future mineral resource development into a fund” and that “existing oil and gas production would be exempt from the deal”.  More revealing is the reference that “the size of the U.S.’s stake in the fund and joint ownership deals will be hashed out in future agreements.”

In short, it all looks like a PR compromise between Trump and Zelensky to lower the accusations and public feuding between them that had been rising in intensity in recent weeks. Both Trump and Zelensky make token concessions to make it appear as if a deal exists and leave the critical details unclear. 

Both sides thus now kicked down the road, to be flushed out in detail only after war’s end. Most likely that end will occur sometime in the second half of 2025—at least with regard to US active participation in the war.  For there are signs the US/NATO proxy war with Russia in Ukraine may soon end but the conflict morph into a Europe/NATO proxy war.

Zelensky’s Original Offer

The idea of money from Ukraine’s mineral wealth in exchange for US aid is a Zelensky proposal raised last fall when the Biden administration was still in power and it was clear the US Congress would not pass further legislation after its $61 billion aid package enacted early last summer. Raising the idea of minerals wealth in exchange for more aid last fall was thus a Zelensky effort to restart the flow of US funds to Ukraine.

Embedded in the running dispute in recent weeks by Trump and Zelensky over whether, how much and in what form Ukraine would share its mineral wealth with the US is their parallel running disagreement over how much aid the US has actually given Ukraine the past three years.

Trump has said the Biden administration gave Ukraine $350 billion with no strings attached, while Europe provided only $150 billion in the form of loans to be repaid. Thus Trump’s reference to the $500 billion is in effect a redefinition of Biden’s ‘no strings attached’ aid, converting Biden’s grant into a loan to be repaid, much like the Europeans’ terms of aid. Presumably the $500 billion would cover repayment of the $350 billion given Ukraine thus far by the US, with perhaps $150 billion more left over for rebuilding Ukraine post war.

Zelensky responded Ukraine only actually received $70 billion in US aid since 2022 and admitted he could not account for another $100 billion. He further emphasized US aid was a grant not a loan and Ukraine would not repay any of it.  Zelensky thus clarifies he means minerals for more future weapons and funding from US not as repayment for past US aid. He also has clarified the form of wealth transfer will not assume a 50% US sharing nor US right to purchase 50% of the Ukraine assets to ensure 50% sharing. The mechanism—as well as the amount–is left to future details.

Also in dispute is what any of the wealth sharing funds would be used for. Trump has been unclear whether the sharing would reimburse US for past aid as well as to help rebuild Ukraine after a settlement. Zelensky’s position is all the sharing would be redirected back into rebuilding Ukraine.

In short, the agreement announced today amounts to minimal tokenism by both parties. Again suggesting it’s for media consumption to appear as if there’s a deal of substance and to provide a means for both Trump and Zelensky to lower the heat of mutual accusations and incriminations.

Trump’s Counter Offer

Trump has been saying all along that since Zelensky proposed the $500 billion figure in principle last fall he first raised the idea inviting negotiations. It was Zelensky’s number. Trump has explained he has only agreed to Zelensky’s number and countered with some details as to how the $500 billion might be repaid: specifically he proposed the US be given a 50% claim on all proceeds from the sale of all Ukraine minerals plus the US right to acquire Ukrainian minerals companies to ensure payment.

Embedded in their running dispute the past few weeks is differences over how much the US has actually given in aid to Ukraine since the war began in 2022. The Wall St. Journal article today—and the US mainstream media in general the past two weeks–largely agrees with Zelensky’s claim Ukraine received only “$70 billion in military aid.”  However, that estimate conveniently ignores that the Biden administration passed legislation last summer that alone provided $61 billion in military aid, to which has been added a still undetermined further amount by the Biden administration in the weeks after the US November election.  Moreover the $70 billion is an estimate for military aid not other forms of aid the US has provided the past three years.

The true amount of US aid to Ukraine—military as well as to pay the salaries of the Ukraine government the past three years—is undoubtedly closer to the $350 billion than the $70 billion. Zelensky himself has previously stated the cost of paying Ukraine government salaries and employee pensions is $8 billion a month. That total for three years is close to $300 billion. Much of US aid to Ukraine since February 2022 has therefore been to finance the Ukraine government, not just to provide military aid. In total it’s likely between $300 and $400 billion.

Apart from the uncertainty as to what actually is the dollar amount of the just announced deal, the agreement reported by the Wall St. Journal today includes no guarantee of US security for Ukraine. This precondition of US security in exchange for sharing Ukraine’s mineral wealth has consistently been a major sticking point in Trump-Zelensky negotiations all along.  Zelensky’s position has been a guarantee of US security is always a quid pro quo for any wealth sharing.

In short, the agreement reported today is a PR deal primarily for public media consumption. Zelensky has made a token concession in principle of only “some proceeds” (not $500 billion) and that would not include revenues from “existing oil and gas production”.  In return Trump has made a token concession of ‘some amount’ of mineral wealth sharing according to some arrangement, both of which are to be determined in some ‘future agreement’.

All the exchanges and announcements associated with the mineral wealth exchange for US support in some form is an exercise in ‘putting the cart before the horse’ as the saying goes. A deal on wealth sharing for whatever reason cannot predate a negotiated settlement to the war itself. It can only be a part of a settlement that is still fundamentally elusive. Especially if the US ends its proxy war with Russia and cuts a separate deal with Russia, and Europe picks up the tab of the cost of continuing the war and providing weapons to Ukraine

Who Benefits?

The US mainstream media’s narrative is the $500 billion (or whatever the eventual amount) is about funds to rebuild Ukraine after the war’s end.  But is that an adequate explanation for ‘who benefits’ from the funds from the minerals production and sale?  What is the deal really about? Who are the parties that will eventually benefit from whatever wealth sharing results?

What’s really behind the $500 billion minerals deal? 

The Europeans clearly out negotiated Biden by providing Ukraine with $150 billion in loans not grants, to be repaid somehow at a later date. They are also sitting on $260 billion in Russian frozen assets in EU banks. And they just announced another $20 billion ‘bridge loan’ to Ukraine to enable it to continue the war into the summer. They’ve been suggesting, and it is obvious they plan, to use the $260 billion frozen assets to cover the cost of rebuilding Ukraine.

 And this is the key point: the rebuilding will involve projects carried out by European companies and funded by European banks and investors, to be paid from the $260 billion. Thus the EU private sector will ultimately benefit the most from the rebuilding.

Biden left the US without such a solution by giving the money away to Ukraine with ‘no strings attached’.  Thus Trump creating a $500 billion fund should be understood as analog to Europe’s $260 billion.  While some of the $500 billion (or part thereof) will no doubt be to repay the US Treasury, is likely most will be allocated to compensate US companies, now deeply entrenched in Ukraine since 2015 for rebuilding projects conducted by US companies and financed by US banks.  US companies’ exit costs and future losses may also be reimbursed from the funds

Any who doubt how deeply entrenched US business interests are today in Ukraine should just refer to the local business chambers of commerce throughout the major cities of Ukraine. They will find hundreds of subsidiaries of US corporations, let alone Ukraine businesses now indirectly owned by western banks and investors. The penetration of US capital into Ukraine has been going on for more than a decade, since 2014 when US neocon, Victoria Nuland, was made ‘economic czar’ for Ukraine by its parliament that year. A flood of US capital and companies followed. Trump’s $500 billion fund is destined to address their interests as well as assist & subsidize new US capital in the rebuilding of Ukraine.

In other words, all the debate and talk in Europe about what to do with Russia’s $260 billion frozen assets and the Trump $500 billion proposal to get Ukraine to share its mineral wealth is really about how the spoils of war get distributed and to whose interests—i.e. Europe’s, the USA’s and their respective business interests.

Moreover, Trump plans to extend the wealth transfer from those areas of Ukraine now part of Russia in the east. Zelensky’s Ukraine cannot ensure any wealth sharing from those regions lost to Russia. But Trump striking a deal with Russia for US companies to participate in the reconstruction in east Ukraine’s four provinces now part of Russia is a further phase of the deal to exploit the reconstruction of Ukraine. Less directly as well, any agreements with Russia over terms of trade with Russia in general.  It’s not coincidental that Putin has publicly suggested the door would once again open to US capital investment in Russia after a deal.

There’s no doubt both Trump’s $500 billion and Europe’s $260 billion will eventually be part of any negotiated settlement to the war. Neither deal can be finalized until it is clear there is some final settlement, since how much dollars and Euros, in what form of investment, and for whose benefit cannot be decided until the war on the ground is over. And that’s yet to be determined although the endgame in military terms is drawing near.

However, military force is just an extension of political strategies and interests and the latter are still in flux. But a sure sign the political endgame is also approaching is when the economic interests behind the political forces begin to be discussed and clarified. And that’s what the minerals sharing deal is about, as well as the maneuvering of US and Europeans with regard to negotiations. 

The wolves are beginning to devour the carcass and are snapping and growling at each other to determine who gets to eat first and how much.

By the minerals deal and by economic negotiations with Russia underway, the USA plans to eat its full share one way or another. The Europeans can have a bite as well, but must wait their turn. As the ‘alpha’  wolf, the US will take the biggest bite out of Ukraine and if Europe doesn’t like it they can go find another prey.

Dr. Jack Rasmus

February 26, 2025

Read Full Post »

Biden’s Pernicious Presidential Legacies (print)

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , , on January 24, 2025| 1 Comment »

Trump’s proposals to radically transform much of US economic and social policy are being rapidly rolled out during the first week of his administration. How much he succeeds or fails in that transformation will depend on a number of factors. High on the list of such factors is the residue of conditions and policies leftover by the Biden administration—i.e. the legacies of the Biden years. Those legacies will play an important role influencing, and perhaps even determining, how Trump may fare in implementing his plans.  So what are the legacy policies and conditions?

The most obvious economic legacy Biden leaves behind is the overhang of the worst inflation since 1980-81. Both a chronic high rate of inflation as well as a general price level that has risen at least 30%-40% over the four years of Biden’s term, when accurately estimated. Inflation has not been tamed and is now rising further—on a base level and rate already too high.

A second economic legacy—a consequence of the above—is that most US households’ real weekly earnings actually declined the past four years. Like the legacy of chronic inflation, that too promises to worsen in the very near future.

Biden’s third economic legacy is that despite a massive fiscal stimulus of $3.6 trillion during his first two years in office, in the second two years the US GDP economic growth rate has been a tepid average annual rise of 2%-2.5%. Thus a mountain of fiscal stimulus has produced a molehill of real economy recovery. More business-investor tax cuts by Trump will not change the tepid US economic growth of the Biden years—just as similar cuts in 2018 by Trump failed to do.

There was no molehill recovery, however, for financial asset wealth accumulation by wealthy investors and billionaires under Biden. In contrast to the anemic real economic growth legacy during his term, Biden’s $3.6 trillion fiscal stimulus of 2021-22 produced a record surge in 2023-24 in financial asset wealth accumulation and the creation of a record number of US billionaires. Income and wealth inequality in America accelerated. It will further under Trump, now on a base of an already record level.

A fifth economic legacy results from all the preceding four: during his four year term, no less than $7.65 trillion in cumulative US budget deficits also defines Biden’s economic legacy. As a consequence of the $7.65 trillion in budget deficits, the US national debt under Biden surged from $26.9 trillion in January 2021 to $36.2 trillion at year end 2024. That in turn resulted in annual interest payments to bondholders of $.95 trillion in 2024 alone.

A sixth economic legacy Biden leaves the US economy is a chronic and rising trade deficit of approximately $1 trillion annually.

These are all ‘legacies’, not just failed policies, since their effects will continue to be felt for years to come—by the US economy in general and especially by its middle and working class households.

But these economic legacies are not the entire story. There are more political legacies Biden leaves his successors. Here are another six political legacies worth noting as well:

In the realm of domestic politics there are at least three: first, during the Biden years, American democracy continued to atrophy and do so in a number of new ways; second, a national crisis in health care services affordability deepened; third, Biden leaves a strategically weakened Democrat Party an ineffective elections contender that will fail to recover for perhaps another decade.

It is in the sphere of geo-political action and US foreign policy, however, that Biden’s most enduring political legacies will leave an indelible imprint on the USA for years to come. These include the costly, lost US proxy war in Ukraine that has irreparably damaged US European allies’ economies; his unconditional support for genocide in Israel and GAZA that has undermined US influence throughout the middle east; and his policies of economic sanctions targeting Russia and China that have accelerated the expansion of the BRICS countries and their challenge to a US global economic hegemony that has prevailed for nearly a half century.

Let’s examine each critical legacy in more detail.

1. Chronic Inflation Rate & High Price Level 

As Biden leaves office it is clear that inflation has not been tamed and in fact has recently begun to rise again, leaving a base level and rate rise upon which inflation will almost certainly rise further in 2025 and beyond.

The inflation beast that arose in 2020-21 was tamed only in part and temporarily on his watch and has begun spreading its claws once more.

Inflation surged in 2021-22 to a 9% high as estimated by the US government’s official consumer price index (see BLS monthly CPI Reports, September 2021 thru December 2024). That rate of increase abated in 2023-24 as global energy costs and commodity prices slowed their rate of increase. However, in closing months of 2024 energy and goods prices in general have begun drifting upward once again. The inflation beast that arose in 2020-21 was tamed only in part and temporarily on his watch and has begun spreading its claws once more.

The official US estimate of the rise in the price level for consumers since 2020 is around 24% But that number obfuscates the far more severe impact on median and other working class households’ take home pay and disposable income. Prices for many basic food staples like bread, milk, eggs, chicken, etc. have risen 30%-40% since 2020. In 2024 a Wall St. Journal survey estimated the most often purchased grocery prices had risen 35% since 2020.

The true cost of shelter (home prices, rents) has risen even more. The prices for homes nation-wide are up 39% according to the Shiller home price index. But households’ mortgage costs—i.e. what households actually pay out of their monthly budgets— are up 113%! US official price indexes like the CPI do not include mortgage interest rates. Nor any interest rate hikes paid by households for that matter.  Mortgage inflation due to rising interest costs have thus risen far faster and higher at 113% than the 39% for the price of buying a house.

The inflation for shelter (houses and rents & related costs) is even higher if home insurance costs, home repairs, and other fees that define ‘shelter’ in government statistics are included. Rents for roughly 50 million renting households typically follow home prices up and in 2023-24 rents have often made up half of the monthly rise in services price inflation in the CPI. Other services prices have also risen 30% and more—i.e. for auto, home and medical insurance; for auto repairs; and for other key and often purchased services like travel or entertainment.

Interest rates in the Biden years accelerated after March 2022 and have remained chronically high ever since, severely impacting households’ budgets: for example, interest rates on credit cards rose from 16% to 24%, bank auto loans roughly doubled to 9% on average for car purchases, while student loans surged to 6.8% and more.

When interest inflation is properly accounted for—along with increases in local government property and other taxes, fees, and other charges not considered by the government’s Consumer Price Index—the true inflation experienced by US households since January 2021 is easily 35%-40% and therefore much higher than the official CPI number of 24%.

This 35%-40% is the price level legacy left by the Biden administration—the level from which the rate of inflation for goods and services and interest rates across the board promise to rise further in 2025 under Trump as he implements tariffs and implements other policy changes that will raise prices further.

The consequence of this inflation legacy is another Biden legacy: still further declining real take home pay for tens of millions of middle class and below households.

2. US Households’ Declining Real Earnings

While the mainstream media and politicians like to cherry pick wage data to try to show wages have risen under Biden they typically cite ‘wages’ that include salaries, bonuses, and other pay to CEOs, managers and the self employed; report for only full time employed workers; ignore seasonality adjustments; or cite wages unadjusted for inflation.

According to the Federal Reserve bank’s ‘FRED’ database, Median Usual Weekly Earnings adjusted for inflation actually declined during the Biden years. After rising slightly under Obama and then from $351 per week to $378 per week during Trump’s first term, during the Biden years real median weekly earnings actually declined from $378 to $373 per week.

This combination of rising prices, chronically high interest rates, and declining real earnings during Biden’s term is further reflected in the balance sheets of US households the last four years: Household balance sheets (difference between assets and debt) serve as a kind of aggregate indicator on how well those working for wages and salaries have been doing. And per the Federal Reserve’s Financial Accounts of the US, at the close of 2020 US households’ assets totaled $859 billion, and rose to only $883 billion by the second quarter of 2024. In contrast, US households’ total liabilities (i.e. debt from excess use of credit) rose from $17.1 trillion to $20.7 trillion. The latter number reflects the surging load of debt households took on during the Biden years.

3. Weak GDP Growth Despite $3.6 Trillion Stimulus

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—the measure of how much the real economy grew—was not all that impressive, given the huge fiscal stimulus Biden introduced into the economy during his four year term. For example, his March 2021 ‘American Relief Plan’ designed to provide support to the general economy as it tried to reopen in 2021-22 from the 2020 shutdown amounted to $1.9 trillion in government spending and tax cuts.

However, that $1.9 trillion 2021 stimulus failed to quickly boost the US economy and GDP once the economy had fully reopened in 2022. The reopening in summer and late 2021 was followed by what’s called a technical recession in the first six months of 2022 when the US economy actually contracted for two consecutive quarters—or what some might legitimately call a double dip recession, despite the virtual blackout of the term at the time by the mainstream media and politicians.

As the recession unfolded in the first half of 2022, Biden’s response was to shift what remained of spending on households left over from the $1.9 trillion American Relief Plan of March 2021 (which by the way was intended to last only six months in 2021) and to transfer those funds to subsidize business investment instead of continuing households’ Covid relief.

To that unspent Covid funding was added additional funds by Congress as it passed Biden’s three business investment subsidy bills of 2022: the Infrastructure Act, the Chip & Modernization Act and the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act that subsidized energy companies, alternative and fossil fuels. Those bills amounted to another $1.7 trillion in fiscal spending and tax cuts.

Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Relief Act plus the subsequent three business investment subsidy Acts amounted to a combined $3.6 trillion fiscal stimulus in 2021-22.

Biden thus leaves the legacy of a failure to correct this apparent crisis of US traditional fiscal-monetary policies’ failure to stimulate real economic growth—or conversely, one might add, to significantly curb inflation long term as well.

The $3.6 trillion mountain of fiscal stimulus produced a molehill of real GDP growth! GDP recovered in the second half of 2022 after its first half recession, but recorded a meager 1.9% growth rate for 2022. That was followed in 2023 and 2024 with still tepid GDP growth of 2.5% and 2.3% (the latter estimated by the CBO), respectively. The $3.6 trillion total stimulus, in other words, did not result in GDP growth in 2022-24 beyond the typical long run average GDP gain for the US economy or around 2-2.5%. Where did the stimulus go if it didn’t move the dial on the growth of the economy beyond its historical average?

The stimulus picture is even more unimpressive when one adds the 2020 additional fiscal stimulus of $3.1 trillion provided by the 2020 Cares Act in March 2020 and the Consolidated Act passed in December of 2020. That’s $6.7 trillion of combined fiscal stimulus… producing only annual GDP growth 2022-24 averaging barely 2.3% a year!

The historic low GDP growth of the economy under Biden was even weaker if one adds to the $3.6 trillion fiscal stimulus the Federal Reserve bank’s additional monetary stimulus of $4 trillion more in 2020-2022.

In short, a more than $10 trillion fiscal-monetary stimulus in 2020-2022 produced nothing more than the historically average GDP growth rate during the last three years of Biden’s administration during which the US economy had fully reopened!

This fact strongly suggests that US fiscal-monetary policies are barely working any more as instruments of economic stabilization. Biden thus leaves the legacy of a failure to correct this apparent crisis of US traditional fiscal-monetary policies’ failure to stimulate real economic growth—or conversely, one might add, to significantly curb inflation long term as well. It’s a legacy Trump inherits in turn.

4. Record Asset Wealth Accumulation & Billionaire Creation

The failure to stimulate the real US economy under Biden contrasts sharply, however, with the success of those same policies in stimulating financial asset markets in the US. After a contraction in 2020 due to the Covid shutdown and a weak recovery in 2021-22, US financial markets surged to record levels in 2023-24. US Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq markets recorded gains of 25-29% and more in each of the last two years.  It’s not by accident the US economy created a record number of new billionaires under Biden, whose wealth is largely associated with rising financial asset prices from stocks, bonds, derivatives, and other. Record asset wealth surge is thus also a legacy of Biden’s regime.

The combination of record asset wealth amidst tepid real GDP growth, chronic inflation, and declining real earnings for a majority of Americans suggests the failure of the massive $10.7 trillion fiscal-monetary stimulus of 2020-22 might be due to the mis-allocation of that stimulus to financial markets at the expense of real growth. That’s for another analysis; however, at minimum, it’s a ‘smoking gun’.

5. US Budget Deficits & National Debt

The record $10+ trillion Biden era stimulus was diverted to asset markets nonetheless contributed in part to the record surge in the US budget deficits under Biden, and in turn to the accelerating US National Debt (which represents cumulative annual budget deficits).

Budget deficits are a function of both insufficient tax revenue collection, on the one hand, and accelerating government spending on the other.  Insufficient tax revenues are due in turn to weak economic growth and/or tax cuts (or fraud); while spending excesses are associated mostly with discretionary spending on Defense, Wars, social programs, and rising interest payments on the national debt. For a quarter century at least, the US has been exacerbating all the above.

The US Congress and presidents have together cut taxes by at least $17 trillion since 2001. Slow economic growth in the wake of the 2008-09 crash and the Covid 2020-21 shutdown also negatively impact tax revenues, which historically account for 60% of budget shortfalls. The other 40% is due to excess spending which, in turn, is comprised of defense and supplemental war spending, interest payments on the debt, and social programs including the bailouts of the economy in 2008-10 and 2020-22. Defense & War spending since 2001 for US middle east and terrorist wars has amounted to, at minimum, another $8 trillion. Bailouts account for another roughly $5 trillion.  That’s $30 trillion. Rising interest payments on the national debt, especially since March 2022, account for most of the rest of the current national debt.

Under Biden record annual budget deficits ranged from $2.7 trillion in 2021 to $1.8 trillion in 2024 for a total $7.65 trillion cumulative deficits over the past four years. From a level of $5.5 trillion in 2000, the National Debt in turn is now $36.2 trillion—having risen from$26.9 trillion at the end of 2020 just before Biden took office to the more than $36 trillion by today.

The interest payment in 2024 to bondholders who purchased US Treasuries to fund Biden’s budget deficits is now, per latest estimates, at $.95 trillion. Interest payments to bondholders thus now costs more than funding the Pentagon each year, approximately $885 billion per latest estimates. Moreover, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) estimates that by 2034 the National Debt will rise, if continues at its current pace, to $56 trillion with annual interest payments of $1.7 trillion to bondholders by 2034. 

With accumulated annual budget deficits over his four year term of $7.65 trillion during his term, Biden has had the highest budget deficits and has contributed more to the national debt than any prior president.

This legacy of deficits and debt means in 2025 the US Congress will almost certainly initiate a major austerity spending policy cutting social and public spending programs, foreign aid, offshore supplemental spending, layoff 100,000 federal workers, and lesser categories of spending cuts by $200 billion or more per year.

While the problem of rising budget deficits and national debt reaches back to at least 2000, the Biden legacy is its policies have severely exacerbated the longer term trend. It provided useful political ammunition for Trump and his corporate backers to slash public spending and social programs as never before.

6. Trade Deficit & Economic-Tech War with China 

One of the economic hallmarks of the Biden administration has been to continue the trade and tech war with China that the prior Trump administration initiated in early 2018. Biden embraced and continued Trump’s tariffs as instrument of economic coercion. He then went several steps further beyond just a tariff strategy. Targeting primarily China, he launched legal actions against China companies, sought to drive them from US capital markets and prohibit their joint ventures in the US economy, pressured allies to raise tariffs and to embargo Chinese imports to their economies as well, and blocked the export of certain tech & business goods to China. Under Biden, Trump’s former tariff war with China morphed into a virtual US economic war against China.

This policy forced China to pursue access to other markets abroad and to accelerate its own internal tech development. Most notably China began penetrating markets and resource access in Africa and South America.

The record of US trade relations with most of the rest of the world was no less ineffective. The US trade deficit accelerated with rising imports into the US and slowing US exports to the rest of the world. According to the Trading Economics research site, the US trade deficit in goods alone is now running at -$1.2 trillion a year in 2024 and the overall deficit in goods and services nearly $1 trillion.

Biden leaves a legacy for the Trump administration that will make Trump’s return to raise tariffs even higher more difficult to succeed. The record trade deficit is likely an important motivator behind Trump’s policy to ‘drill baby drill’ to increase US oil and gas production in order to export to Europe to offset some of the trade deficit due to rising goods imports to the US. In other words, the Biden trade deficit legacy will be used by Trump to justify more oil and gas drilling and the further environmental issues in the US that will result.

7. Decline of Democracy in America

The Biden regime added new dimensions to the decline of American Democracy—a decline that has been occurring since at least the 1990s. These dimensions have now become embedded in the US electoral and political system. Among the changes on Biden’s watch:

The Democrat party’s adoption of a policy of systematic ballot denialism. This has included marginalizing of challengers to the Democrat party’s DNC leadership’s practice of pre-selecting its presidential candidates in lieu of an open, competitive primary system. The practice began in earnest in 2016, became even more evident with the South Carolina primary in 2020, and then deepened in the 2024 party primary cycle, as challengers such as RFkjr, Tulsi Gabbard, Maryann Williamson and others were systematically excluded from an already pre-determined primary outcome. Ballot denialism was also adopted as a policy by the DNC targeting outside third party challengers like the Greens and other 3rd parties.

Another contribution to the decline of intra-party and electoral democracy under Biden was a deepening of the influence of wealthy big donors within the party—reflected in part by those donors’ $2.9B contributions in just a few months in summer 2024; and likely more than $5B in the 2024 election cycle. The deepening of wealthy donors influence within the Democrat party extended to foreign entities as well. The Israeli political action committee, AIPAC, was allowed and encouraged by the DNC to interfere in the party’s primaries, as well as the general elections, by contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to select pro-Israel party candidates.

Further indicators of democracy decline on Biden’s watch was the cynical manipulation of the US legal system (i.e. lawfare) against challengers; a policy of enabling non-citizen immigrants to vote in elections; continuing support for the gerrymandering of seats in the US House of Representatives; and an extreme abuse of the powers of the presidential pardon system as was evident in Biden’s last actions as president—including the pre-emptive pardoning of family members and himself—that has punctured the popular myth that in America no one is above the law. All these changes are now embedded in the party system in general.

The decline of democracy in America has occurred not only within the electoral system and intra-political party practices and norms. The last quarter century has witnessed the decline of the US electoral democracy along multiple legal fronts, enabled by the US Supreme Court. From the Court’s Bush v. Gore decision in 2000 when it in effect selected the president, to its 2010 Citizens United decision which ruled spending money in elections was an act of ‘free speech’ for corporations and rich donors (including foreign), to decisions legitimizing the extreme gerrymandering that has resulted in no more than 40 seats in the US House of Representatives ever being competitive, to approving the spying, surveillance and denial of 1st amendment rights as result of the Patriot and subsequent National Defense Acts.

Among the Biden administration’s political legacies is how it presided over the atrophy of democracy within the Democrat party’s primary system, how it allowed rich donors deeper influence and control of its DNC, and how it introduced questionable anti-democracy practices like ballot denialism and non-citizen voting among its election practices.

8. Increasingly Unaffordable US Health Care

The failure to stem and reverse the increasingly unaffordable healthcare system in the USA is another political legacy of the Biden years. Much is made by the party elite and its associated mainstream media how the Obama Affordable Care Act has succeeded in providing affordable health insurance. But facts reveal it has not.

The average cost of private health insurance for a typical family of four is now more than $25,000 per year, according to Kaiser Family research. And that’s just monthly premiums. It doesn’t count additional copays or deductibles now averaging $1 to $5k per year. Nor do those costs include dental, hearing or vision services. Hearing aids cost $4-$5k and the cost of a single tooth implant is $10,000 or more. Then there’s the ever-accelerating cost of prescription drugs, often hundreds of dollars per pill (costing less than $10 if purchased from the same company in Canada or abroad).  A consequence has been millions of Americans are forced to forego use of health care services even if they are formally covered by bare bones insurance with unaffordable deductibles and copays.

The Biden legacy is to have allowed the crisis in affordability to continue and worsen, citing the Affordable Care Act which is financed in large party by $900 billion a year in government subsidies to Health Insurance companies. Biden introduced a few band-aid solutions, such as limiting the cost of insulin drug costs to $35/month (but just for Medicare enrollees). The vast majority of the population of millions of diabetes patients must still contend with health insurance insulin coverage denial. Another Biden token solution to escalating prescription drug prices was to limit the cost of just six of the most often purchased drugs—which will not to take effect until 2026, however.

Also left virtually unaddressed during the Biden years has been the triple Social-Healthcare crises: the escalating national suicide rate (now >48,000/yr), chronic gun deaths (averaging 45,000/yr since 2021), and accelerating drug-related deaths from opioids. At 70,000 in 2019 US drug related deaths surged to more than 100,000 in every year of the Biden administration.

The Biden legacy to allow the continuation of the Health Care affordability crisis in America. Like Medieval physician practices of centuries ago, the unaffordable health system is ‘bleeding’ American dry. And little to nothing has also been done to reduce the epidemic of deaths from suicides and addiction. The Biden legacy is to have looked away while the patient slowly succumbs leaving the health of the nation much worse off as he leaves office.

9. Crisis Within the Democratic Party

Biden leaves his own Democrat Party in political shambles, from which it is uncertain it may recover; or if it does, not soon. Insisting on running for re-election in 2024, Biden reversed a pledge made in 2020 he would not do so. His declining mental capacities revealed in the first presidential debate in the summer of 2024 for all to see, set in motion a disastrous chain of events where party elites—led by Obama and Pelosi—removed him as presidential candidate after just months earlier maneuvering to nominate him as such. The oligarchic nature of the party was thus revealed to all.  That political oligarchy then selected an alternative weak candidate in VP Harris who publicly vowed to continue the policies of the Biden administration, thus ensuring her defeat in the general election. At the core of those policies was a strategy of Identity Politics which had increasingly defined the party since 2016. Fundamental economic issues for voters were largely ignored in the 2024 election. The Democrat party now drifts, essentially leadership and without a strategy and proposals that appeal to the voters. That drift promises to continue for years to come, during which its Republican opponent may well deepen its coalition and control of government for several election cycles to come. Biden thus leaves a Democrat party deeply and perhaps mortally wounded—thereby leaving Trump and the Republicans to run roughshod over the political system with their own anti-democracy plans in turn.

10. Costly Lost Proxy War in Ukraine 

When Biden quickly ‘cleared the deck’ with a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 it was to focus on provoking a proxy war in Ukraine. That decision has proved the most disastrous US foreign policy decision since president Lyndon Johnson’s decision in 1965 to send 500,000 US troops to Vietnam.

Nearly all military analysts now admit the proxy war in Ukraine is lost. All that remains is how the US extricates itself. The political and economic fallout from Biden’s failed military adventure in Ukraine will be felt for years yet to come: Europe has been destabilized economically and politically as result; Russia has been permanently driven into long term military alliances with China, No. Korea and Iran; US weapons inventories have been seriously depleted; Russia has war mobilized its economy and accelerated its advanced weapons development faster than the US; global trade has been restructured to the disadvantage of the USA; US ability to compete with China has been set back for years or perhaps longer; US budget deficits have been raised by at least $250 billion in US aid to Ukraine the past three years. And that’s just a short list. It’s also a Biden failed foreign policy legacy.

11. Sanctions, Rise of the BRICS & Decline of US Hegemony 

History will likely show that Biden has done more to undermine US global economic hegemony and political influence than Russian and China presidents Putin and Xi together.

The Biden sanctions on both countries, especially Russia, have been counterproductive, impacting European allies negatively more than Russia or China. More important, Biden sanctions have likely accelerated the shift of the economies of the Global South toward the BRICS, the members of which have expanded significantly since 2022.

With the BRICS’ expansion has begun an inevitable shift in the global economy: from the central, dominant role of the US dollar as a global transaction and reserve currency to alternative currencies; a move by many economies away from the US bank-managed SWIFT International Payments system; and plans by the BRICS to create an institutional alternative to the IMF.

Biden thus leaves a most difficult legacy to Trump and presidents thereafter to address how to counter and compete with the BRICS and the emergence of an alternative global financial structure. History will therefore show Biden accelerated the decline of the US global empire by weaponizing the US dollar and escalating sanctions policies.

12. Support for Genocide in GAZA

Biden’s regime will likely mark a clear turning point in the history of US global dominance and the end to the US unipolar world that existed since the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991.

A close second to Biden foreign policy debacles in the proxy war in Ukraine and mishandling of sanctions and the US dollar is the Biden policies supporting genocide by Israel in GAZA. The US has become inextricably associated in world opinion with allowing the genocide with its unlimited military funding support to Israel—currently amounting to around $50 billion since October 2023—and US unlimited shipments of US bombs and advanced weaponry to Israel. The result has been perhaps 500,000 Palestinians killed, maimed and homeless and the virtual loss of US political influence and soft power throughout most of the Arab and Muslim world.

The legacy of Biden policy in support of genocide will mean the continued diminishment of US political influence in the region, as well as US moral influence throughout the world.

Biden foreign policy legacies will haunt US attempts to re-establish US influence and authority in the world. Biden’s regime will likely mark a clear turning point in the history of US global dominance and the end to the US unipolar world that existed since the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991.

Biden’s departure on January 20, 2025 also closes the book in the latest period in the history of Neoliberalism in the USA that has defined US policy and its evolution from the late 1970s to the present. Launched initially in the closing years of the Jimmy Carter presidency around 1978, Neoliberal economic and political policies expanded and deepened throughout the 1980s and 1990s, reaching a kind of apogee of effectiveness around 2005-07. Neoliberal policy then hit a wall with the financial crash and great recession of 2008-09. Thereafter such policies recovered only partially under Obama and Trump 2017-20 before hitting another wall with the Covid shutdown and recession of 2020-21.

Throughout Neoliberalism’s ‘weak restoration period’ of 2010-20, the internal contradictions within the Neoliberal policy mix have intensified. Those internal contradictions have deepened with the failed policies of the Biden regime.

Thus the beginning of the end of the Neoliberal restructuring of America that began in the late 1970s-early 1980s—and that has continued ever since—may well be recognized in years to come as the most notable historic legacy of the Biden years.

About the Author

Jack Rasmus is author of the recently published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, 2020. He publishes at Predicting the Global Economic Crisis. 

Read Full Post »