Slash and churn
Trump, tariffs, Ukraine, bureaucracy, benefits and British public opinion
The ‘twitchy twenties’ have got even twitchier. He’s only been in the Oval Office for 12 weeks, but President Trump has upended the global consensus about trade, disrupted the pro-Ukraine alliance, and given Elon Musk and DOGE free reign to roll back the reach and role of America’s federal government.
Churn
While the financial markets were put in a tailspin by President Trump’s various trade policy announcements, “pauses” and exemptions, public opinion was probably less volatile (we’ll never know because measurements of public opinion are blissfully less plentiful than those of market movements).
Ipsos has found Britons generally anti-tariffs (and only slightly more so than Americans). A majority (74%) think that increased tariffs will make regular household purchases more expensive (as do Americans) and that increasing tariffs will do more harm than good (64%).
Polled soon after Trump’s initial announcement, two thirds anticipated a negative impact on the UK (66%) and global (68%) economies. Four in ten (41%) expected tariffs to have a negative impact on their own personal financial situation.
The fallout is not just economic — Britons’ concerns extend to the relationship between Britain and the U.S. At the start of the month, only three in ten considered there to be a “special relationship” between the two countries, a significant 17-point drop from the previous year.
They are not alone. Polling by Ipsos in 29 countries earlier this month found several double-digit declines between 2024 and 2025 in the proportion of people considering the United States to have a positive influence on world affairs. Sentiment is especially downbeat among historic allies in Europe, Canada, Mexico, South Korea and Japan (no penguins were polled).
One thing that hasn’t changed is Briton’s implacable support for Ukraine. In March, around six in ten supported Britain’s current role in the conflict — up slightly from just above five in ten in February.
Slash
The MAGA right in the form of the so-called ‘Muskrats’ is cutting away at the U.S. state, or at least trying to (there are some suggestions it is running out of steam). This reflects a worldview crudely articulated by conservative activist Grover Norquist who has said he wants to cut the state to a “size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub”.
While there were spooky echoes of this in Starmer’s “tepid bathwater” speech earlier this year, his Government is nowhere near DOGE in either rhetoric or reality. Labour strategists are surely aware of the corrosive effects of any hint of a “return to austerity” and, potentially, polls which have shown worries about the state retreating when it is needed. Public opinion is famously ‘thermostatic’ on some issues and economic conditions remain too chilly for people to countenance a smaller, less generous or active state.
Where Labour has come closest to being DOGE-like came in its decision to cut an estimated £6.4bn from the health and disability benefits bill by 2029/30 (these will be brought down to £4.8bn by an uplift to the standard rate of Universal Credit according to the OBR).
The decision has been controversial, even more so after the publication of the Government’s impact assessment. The move allowed Rachel Reeves to stay the right side of her fiscal rules although the subsequent announcement of tariffs by the White House increased speculation about the need for tax rises in the Autumn.
British public opinion on the benefits system holds considerable jeopardy. Most people are dissatisfied with its effectiveness — for example, over half believe that it performs poorly at providing good value for taxpayers’ money. There is also a strong belief in the importance of encouraging work and potentially tightening access to benefits, pointing to favourable ground for reform.
But, set against this, many support a compassionate approach that ensures everyone in need receives support. 37% believe that ensuring everyone who needs health-related benefits receives them should be prioritised, even if it means some who could work do not. But 46% believe the government should require people claiming health-related benefits to take actions like retraining or speaking to a work coach, risking loss of benefits if they refuse.
You and us — the economy both
It is unclear why the Trump administration is pursuing tariffs, and whether its motivations are, as stated, about putting an end to “exploitation” of America, restoring blue collar jobs in MAGA strongholds, or raising revenue to facilitate tax cuts.
Economic considerations are likely to be paramount. The economy was the single most important or at least a very important issue in Americans’ choice of which candidate to support last November. Inflation was also salient. Trump was seen as having the best policies on these issues. Other polling evidence similarly pointed to a perception that his first term was economically successful while Biden’s wasn’t.
Two weeks ago, Trump promised the “largest tax cuts in American history”. That’s something Starmer and Reeves won’t be worrying about delivering here. Instead, their mission is growth, and sticking to a totemic manifesto commitment; “Labour will not increase taxes on working people”.
Twitchiness all round.
