Trade War? What Trade War? | Way back at the beginning of April, even before President Donald Trump’s so-called Liberation Day, some people were already tired of the whole trade war thing. They sent emails with subject lines like, “If I have to read the word ‘tariff’ one more time...” and warned of impending economic doom. “At the rate things are going,” they wrote, “we’re gonna have to start wearing chicken-feed sack dresses and making Ambrosia salad like Kit Kittredge during the Great Depression.” If any of that sounds familiar, it’s because that newsletter writer is me, managing to be both jaded and melodramatic at the same time. Half a year and change later, I am relieved to tell you that I have not ingested any mayonnaise-based fruit salads in 2025, nor have I resorted to sack-based clothing. (Although I’m tempted: Brown is very much in these days.) All of which is to say: Maybe we were too worried about tariffs? “Does the world economy even know there’s a trade war?” asks Clive Crook. It’s a question a lot of folks seem to be asking as stocks defy gravity with each closing bell. “Given all the drama, the results to date seem a trifle underwhelming. Perhaps the new era of US protectionism isn’t quite as transformative as the White House would have you believe,” he writes. Although the president’s trade war has turned some sectors upside-down — Patricia Lopez has covered soybean producers’ “farmageddon” and Lionel Laurent notes how Europe is caught in China’s chipmaking crosshairs — other sectors of the business universe remain relatively unscathed, thanks to dozens of carve-outs in Washington. “Deal by deal, the US has already excluded more than 40% of imports of machinery and electronics (including smartphones and laptops), roughly 90% of pharmaceuticals, all energy products, and big shares of chemicals, metals, and metal products,” Clive notes. “All told, as of this summer, officials had shielded non-USMCA imports worth $750 billion in 2024 from the Liberation Day tariffs.” Those exemptions, combined with various forms of tax relief, have minimized the trade war’s damage thus far. The IMF says the US economy is on track to grow 1.9% this year and 2% in 2026 — healthy-ish figures that do not portend economic doom. Still, the fact that this whole rodeo boils down to one man with a penchant for late-night internet tirades can’t be good. Next Thursday, Trump will sit down with Chinese President Xi Jinping during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. “It remains to be seen whether ‘make a deal’ or ‘tariffs are beautiful’ gets the upper hand,” Clive writes. “The outcome of trade talks with China — compromise or calamity — might clarify that.” Panic in the Protein Aisle | While we’re revisiting old newsletters, might I direct you to one of my 2025 Bingo prediction squares: “An unfounded health scare sparks panic.” Hmm! Now let’s take a looksie at Lisa Jarvis’s column today, “Your Protein Powder Isn’t Poisoning You,” in which she writes: “A recent report about lead levels in protein supplements sparked unnecessary alarm about a product that an increasing number of Americans are using to meet their fitness and nutrition goals.” Ding ding ding! That seems to fit the bill perfectly. Basically, what happened is that Consumer Reports used the arbitrarily set lead exposure limit established by California’s Proposition 65, which is magnitudes lower than what the federal government says is safe. “Had they used the FDA levels in their analysis, they would have come up with a drastically different, way less fear-based report,” Lauren Colenso-Semple, a muscle physiology researcher, told Lisa. So if you’re big into protein, take a deep breath! It’s not like you’re licking paint or anything. Still, Lisa says the MAHA-fueled protein craze — in which people cram extra macros into their diets via Starbucks lattes, Pop-Tarts and poultry smoothies (ew) — is overkill. “Big Food has been quick to capitalize on the public’s craving by introducing new versions of its popular products,” she writes, but “the problem is that few of those ‘protein-upgrades’ offer meaningful nutritional value.” Elsewhere in MAHA obsessions, you have babies. Or really, the administration’s desire to expose more people to the glories of parenthood. Last week, Trump nudged private employers to include fertility treatments in their insurance coverage and announced an effort to reduce IVF costs. Republican Senator Katie Britt said it was the “most pro-IVF thing that any president in the history of the United States of America has done.” From a family formation perspective, it sounds great, but from a regulatory perspective, Abby McCloskey is hearing alarm bells. “IVF is the opening gate for a new world of reproductive technologies, ethical quagmires and designer babies,” she writes, yet there’s barely any regulation surrounding it. She paints quite a troubling picture of the future: “Forget the rich paying off Ivy League schools to let their children in; we’re not so far away from designing embryos who can get in on their own (engineered) genius.” Welp. At least I know what to add to my Bingo card for 2026! | 
