Tim Swarens Has Entered the Political Witness Protection Program
Former Journalist Discovers Trump Is Both Too Much and Not Enough, Simultaneously
Tim Swarens wants us to believe the economy is thriving, but his column reads like an attempt to invoke anger rather than thought. Let me walk through his claims with some actual receipts.
On inflation, Swarens says it is largely under control, which would be a comforting narrative if it were true. Harvard Business School professor Alberto Cavallo has been tracking 350,000 goods in real time, and his research shows tariffs have increased imported goods by 6.6 percent and domestic goods by 3.8 percent compared to pre-tariff trends. The Consumer Price Index is already 0.7 percent higher since the tariffs began (Cavallo, 2025). Goldman Sachs projects consumers will bear 70 percent of tariff costs by the end of next year. This is basic economics. Tariffs are a tax on imports. When you tax imports, the cost gets passed to the people buying those goods, which is the American consumer. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found that tariffs were already exerting measurable upward pressure on consumer prices, particularly on durable goods (Cavallo, 2025). The Peterson Institute for International Economics added that if the tariffs remain in place over the coming decade, they would result in less U.S. economic output, higher U.S. prices, and lower American wages than if they had not been adopted (Cavallo, 2025). Swarens is either misunderstanding this or hoping his readers do.
The unemployment picture is more troubling than Swarens admits. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows unemployment rose to 4.6 percent in November 2025, up from 4.0 to 4.2 percent in the first seven months of the year (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026). Job creation slowed to its weakest level since 2020 (BBC News, 2026). These are not abstract numbers. They represent people looking for work who cannot find it. When an administration takes a victory lap on unemployment while the trend line is moving in the wrong direction, that should raise questions, not celebrate it. Trading Economics (2025) confirmed the unemployment rate increase, noting it reached its highest level since October 2021.
Home ownership tells another story. According to realtor.com data, owner occupied households fell to 65.0 percent in the second quarter of 2025, the lowest level since 2019 (Realtor.com, 2026). Existing home sales stalled at a 31 year low, as high mortgage rates and elevated prices made it tough for many Americans to buy (Morningstar, 2026). CNBC reported that home prices and mortgage rates remained elevated in 2026, though slower price growth and more supply in some markets would give buyers more options (CNBC, 2025). The combination of elevated prices and high mortgage rates priced many Americans out of the market. This is not prosperity. This is a structural problem that the current policies have not addressed.
Healthcare costs are another area where Swarens optimism does not match the reality facing millions of Americans. The enhanced premium tax credits for ACA marketplace plans are set to expire, which the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates will increase annual premium payments by an average of $1,016, or 114 percent, for subsidized enrollees (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2025). NPR reported that if Congress does not act, costs will rise on premiums for health care plans on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces (NPR, 2025). The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that approximately $14.2 billion less will be spent on services provided by hospitals and $5.1 billion less on services provided by office based providers if the subsidies are removed (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2025). When Congress removes subsidies, costs go up for middle class Americans. That is not a mystery. That is arithmetic.
The stock market performance Swarens cites as evidence of economic strength requires some perspective. The S&P 500 returned approximately 17.88 percent in 2025, following 25.02 percent in 2024 and 26.29 percent in 2023 (Slickcharts, 2026). These returns, while positive, fall within the historical norm for the index, which has delivered average annual returns of around 9.5 to 10.5 percent over the long term. Investopedia reports that since 1957, the S&P 500 has delivered an average annual return of 10.56 percent, but when adjusted for inflation, the real return drops to 6.69 percent (Investopedia, 2025). Trade That Swing notes the historical average yearly return of the S&P 500 is 9.466 percent over the last 150 years (Trade That Swing, 2025). Stock markets generally rise over time regardless of who occupies the White House. Attributing normal market behavior to presidential policy is a logical leap that the data does not support.
Interest rates are another area where the narrative does not quite fit. Rates have fallen from their peaks, which Swarens presents as good news. NerdWallet reported that with a drop in the federal funds rate, the target range is now between 3.50 percent and 3.75 percent, and savers will likely see their rates dip (NerdWallet, 2025). But there is a trade off here that advocates rarely mention. Lower interest rates reduce returns on savings accounts and certificates of deposit. Bank Rate (2025) noted that in 2025, U.S. savers showed less willingness to move their money between banks, a notable shift from the deposit flight and rate chasing behavior seen in previous years, and staying put could cost them money. For Americans relying on interest income, a lower rate environment means their money works less hard for them. This is not a hidden cost, it is just one that does not fit the optimistic framing.
The government efficiency argument deserves scrutiny too. Swarens mentions the DOGE agenda but does not examine its actual costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War could cost between $10 million and $125 million depending on implementation (Congressional Budget Office, 2026). Time magazine reported that a new report estimates the cost could range anywhere from $10 million to $125 million (Time, 2026). Forbes noted that a modest implementation of the name change would cost around $10 million (Forbes, 2026). Special counsel investigations and prosecutions have cost tens of millions of dollars. Forbes reported that Special Counsel Jack Smith and the Justice Department have spent more than $35 million prosecuting Trump (Forbes, 2024). Fox News put the figure at more than $50 million (Fox News, 2024). CNN reported that the Justice Department has spent nearly $24 million investigating and prosecuting former President Donald Trump and his allies (CNN, 2024). When you are spending millions to rename things and prosecute political opponents while claiming you are cutting waste, the math does not work out in the direction supporters suggest.
The fundamental problem with Swarens analysis is that he treats the economy as a simple scorecard where good numbers equal good policy. But the economy is a complex system with winners and losers, and the headline numbers often obscure where the pain is concentrated. Tariffs raise prices for everyone but hit lower and middle income households hardest because they spend a larger portion of their income on goods (Cavallo, 2025). Harvard Business School assistant professor Jaya Wen explained that when the price of products goes up, that tends to increase income inequality in this country, and in a society that people think is already pretty unequal (Cavallo, 2025). Rising unemployment affects certain demographics and regions more than others. Healthcare cost increases do not affect the healthy the same way they affect the chronically ill.
Swarens acknowledges that millions of our neighbors continue to struggle, but then concludes America is stronger, safer and more prosperous. Those statements do not logically connect. If millions are struggling while the aggregate numbers look okay, the aggregate numbers are not telling the whole story. They are masking inequality, regional disparities, and policy choices that benefit some at the expense of others.
The comparison to Greenland at the beginning of Swarens column is actually more revealing than he intended. He criticizes the administration for pushing too far on Greenland while praising its foreign policy wins. But the same impulse that led to the Greenland situation, the willingness to disregard allies, international norms, and basic diplomacy in pursuit of aggressive objectives, manifests in economic policy too. Tariffs treat trading partners as adversaries. Trade wars have winners and losers, and the economic research consistently shows American consumers bear the brunt (Cavallo, 2025).
What is most frustrating about columns like Swarens is that they perform a kind of rhetorical alchemy, turning complex economic realities into a simple thumbs up or thumbs down. The economy is not good or bad. It is a system that produces specific outcomes for specific people based on specific policy choices. When those choices include higher prices, rising unemployment, declining homeownership, and disappearing healthcare subsidies, calling the economy strong requires a very narrow definition of strength.
The reasonable position is not to deny that some economic indicators look positive. It is to ask who those positive indicators benefit, at what cost, and what trade offs are being made. If tariffs are working, who is paying for that success? If stock markets are rising, does that help the family whose healthcare costs just jumped $1,000? If unemployment is low by historical standards, does that matter to the person who lost their job last month?
Swarens ends by saying Trump beats the alternative. But that framing only works if you accept his characterization of the economy in the first place. When you look at the data, the picture is not nearly as clear as he suggests. The economy is not a football game where you root for your team and celebrate the score. It is a lived reality for hundreds of millions of people, and their experiences vary enormously based on where they live, what they do, and what policies affect them directly.
The proper analytical stance is to examine the specific mechanisms, track the specific outcomes, and resist the temptation to reduce everything to a simple verdict. Swarens column does the opposite. It takes genuinely complicated questions about trade, employment, healthcare, and governance and reduces them to a thumbs up for the home team. That approach might generate engagement and partisan satisfaction, but it does not generate understanding.
If you enjoy reading things written by people that have a favorite flavor of crayon read his nonsense here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/01/20/trump-economy-border-wins-first-year/88253519007/
---
References
Cavallo, A. (2025, October 24). Harvard research: U.S. trade tariffs are increasing prices. Harvard Business School Institute for Business in Global Society. https://www.hbs.edu/bigs/us-trade-tariffs-increasing-prices
CNN. (2024, January 5). Justice Department, special counsel have spent nearly $24 million investigating and prosecuting Trump. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/justice-department-trump-cases-expenses
Congressional Budget Office. (2026). The costs of using the name “Department of War.” https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2026-01/61942-DoD-Name-Change.pdf
Forbes. (2024, August 29). Here’s how much Jack Smith has spent prosecuting Trump. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/08/29/jack-smith-and-doj-have-spent-more-than-35-million-prosecuting-trump/
Fox News. (2024, November 26). Jack Smith’s federal Trump cases cost taxpayers more than $50 million, financials show. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/special-counsel-jack-smiths-federal-trump-cases-cost-taxpayers-more-than-50-million-financials-show
Investopedia. (2025). S&P 500 average returns and historical performance. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average-annual-return-sp-500.asp
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2025, September 30). ACA marketplace premium payments would more than double on average next year if enhanced premium tax credits expire. https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/aca-marketplace-premium-payments-would-more-than-double-on-average-next-year-if-enhanced-premium-tax-credits-expire/
NerdWallet. (2025). What the Fed rate drop means for savings accounts. https://www.nerdwallet.com/banking/news/what-the-fed-rate-announcement-means-for-savings-accounts
NPR. (2025, October 12). ACA health care plans are at the center of the shutdown fight. https://www.npr.org/2025/10/12/nx-s1-5570849/shutdown-aca-health-care-tax-credits
Realtor.com. (2026, January 12). U.S. household real estate value falls from record high. https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/household-real-estate-value-drops-in-third-quarter-2025/
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2025, September 25). How expiration of ACA tax credits will affect healthcare spending. https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/our-research/2025/09/how-expiration-of-aca-tax-credits-will-affect-healthcare-spending.html
Slickcharts. (2026). S&P 500 total returns by year since 1926. https://www.slickcharts.com/sp500/returns
Swarens, T. (2026, January 20). Trump goes too far, but he’s delivering a prosperous America. USA TODAY. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/01/20/trump-economy-border-wins-first-year/88253519007/
Time. (2026, January 14). Trump’s ‘Department of War’ rebrand could cost $125 million. https://time.com/7346623/trump-department-of-war-dod-rebrand-cost/
Trading Economics. (2025). United States unemployment rate. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
Trade That Swing. (2025). Historical average stock market returns for S&P 500. https://tradethatswing.com/average-historical-stock-market-returns-for-sp-500-5-year-up-to-150-year-averages/
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2026). The employment situation: December 2025. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf