The tendency of U.S. presidents to shape economic narratives has been evident in recent discussions about inflation linked to tariffs. This pattern echoes similar behavior observed during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, when officials were instructed to avoid using the term “recession” to describe economic downturns. Economic advisor Fred Kahn humorously referred to the situation as “the worst banana in 45 years” when asked directly about the economy.
With the U.S. first-quarter GDP showing a contraction of 0.5 percent and forecasts predicting weak growth later in the year, there are concerns that officials may once again avoid using certain terms to describe economic conditions. President Donald Trump’s preference for optimistic economic messaging has already influenced discussions about his economic policies.
Trump expressed dissatisfaction with Walmart executives after they announced plans to raise prices due to China tariffs. He urged the company to absorb the costs and warned them that he would be monitoring their actions closely. Similarly, when toymaker Mattel indicated it would increase prices because of tariffs, Trump threatened to impose a 100 percent tariff on its products, claiming the firm would not sell any toys in the U.S.
As a result, business leaders have become cautious about discussing price increases and other disruptions caused by White House tariffs. Some retailers have adopted alternative language when communicating with investors, using terms like “adjusting” prices or referring to pricing policies as “surgical.” Others address the issue indirectly, avoiding direct references to tariffs.
Neil Saunders, director of Global Data Retail, noted that the White House has taken a confrontational stance toward companies that speak out about tariff-related challenges. Denise Dahlhoff, director of marketing and communications research at the Conference Board, advised executives to use neutral terms such as “sourcing cost,” “input cost,” or “supply chain cost” instead of “tariff,” which can be politically sensitive.
Trump’s emphasis on language was evident when he banned an Associated Press reporter from press conferences and Air Force One over the agency’s refusal to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” in its style manual. This decision was later reversed due to concerns about First Amendment rights.
While Trump and Carter are not the only presidents to attempt to influence economic discourse, historical efforts have yielded mixed results. One notable example is King James I of England, who commissioned a new Bible translation in 1604 to remove references to kings as tyrants.
Leaders at all levels will continue to frame issues according to their perspectives, especially when their authority or judgment is questioned. However, as long as freedom of speech remains protected, individuals retain the ability to express their views openly, even if it requires adapting their language to navigate political sensitivities.
— news from (The Columbian)
— News Original —
Yandle: Presidentially corrected economic talk
Whether U.S. bombers recently “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capability (President Donald Trump’s preferred wording) or “severely damaged” it (per the CIA) matters so much to Trump that he has threatened to sue news outlets reporting the CIA’s terminology.
The common presidential desire to shape the narrative has been especially noticeable lately, especially with matters regarding tariff-induced inflation.
It may even be generating a particular form of presidentially corrected economic speech reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s tenure.
In 1978, Carter, worried about America’s sagging economy, ordered cabinet members to refrain from alarming the country with the word “recession.” Minding his boss’s instruction but facing a direct question, economic advisor Fred Kahn famously responded, “We’re in danger of having the worst banana in 45 years.”
With U.S. first quarter GDP growth now charting minus 0.5 percent and more than one respected forecaster looking at paltry growth later this year, will we see officials dancing around the same word in the near future? Trump’s preference for political happy talk has already reframed conversations about his economic agenda.
Trump recently chastised Walmart executives when they announced that China tariffs would force the retailer to raise prices. He angrily called for Walmart to “eat” the tariffs and reminded them in less-than-gentle terms that he would be watching.
In another example, toymaker Mattel indicated that it, too, would be raising prices because of tariffs. Outraged, Trump threatened to impose a 100 percent tariff on its products, promising the firm “won’t sell one toy in the United States.”
Since then, business leaders have been avoiding speaking about the price increases and other disruptions that Americans are quite obviously experiencing due to White House tariffs. As Neil Saunders, director of Global Data Retail, warned: “The White House has decided it should aim its tanks at companies that do speak out.”
So, when offering investor guidance, some retailers speak of “adjusting” prices, others address the elephant in the room “gently and sparingly,” and still others refer to their pricing policies with words like “surgical.”
Above all, linking price changes to tariffs is a no-no. Denise Dahlhoff, director of marketing and communications research at the Conference Board, advises executives to use more neutral terms like “sourcing cost” or “input cost” or “supply chain cost,” which “are not as incendiary as ‘tariff.’”
After all, Trump is serious about language. In February, the White House banned an Associate Press reporter from press conferences and Air Force One over the news agency’s refusal to reterm the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” in its influential style manual (at least until cries over First Amendment rights turned the tide).
Trump and Carter are hardly the first pair of presidents to pour rhetorical oil on troubled waters, but the historical results, as with today, are mixed at best.
Perhaps the most audacious and enduring effort by a Western leader to alter political speech came in 1604 when newly installed King James I of England ordered 47 leading Biblical scholars to develop a new Bible translation. The resulting King James Authorized Version is thought to be one of the most beautifully written volumes of the age. By the king’s order, it also removed certain references to kings as tyrants, which had been present in an earlier English Bible.
Kings, democratically elected presidents and holders of lesser offices will always frame things as they see fit, especially if they feel that their power or wisdom is being questioned. We the people may sometimes respond pragmatically by altering our own language.
These things can be weathered so long as Americans retain our reverence for freedom of speech. Otherwise, only the bravest will have the gumption to call a spade a spade.
Bruce Yandle is a distinguished adjunct fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and former executive director of the Federal Trade Commission.