Is Trump’s ‘Golden Age’ a bridge too far?

In his inaugural speech and address to a joint session of Congress, President Trump echoed an earlier pronouncement that his administration will bring a “dawn of the golden age of America” and said his administration has been working to “usher in the greatest and most successful era in the history of our country.”

The rhetoric sounded good and was well received by perhaps half of the attendees, but it will take more than the president — no matter how serious his commitment — to fully deliver on a promise like this.

Both the public and Congress will need to put away the credit cards and, for the first time since 2000 when Bill Clinton was in office, cut out the federal deficit and stop consuming more each year than is produced. The budget will have to be balanced, and what’s become its second-largest item — the interest cost of the federal debt — will have to be whittled down.

Trump has concentrated political power in the White House and once again demonstrated his recognized ability to make deals. Indeed, at least for the next four years, dealmaking may become the operational meaning of presidential governing.

Then there are the amazing actions being taken by the Department of Government Efficiency. Despite controversy and public relations missteps, its aggressive work is taking place without especially serious pushback from the loyal opposition or other counter-forces. In early March, DOGE indicated that it had saved $105 billion, with more to come as the efficiency initiative targets $1 trillion.

Cutting regulations and laying off federal workers does matter in the search for a more balanced and sustainable amount of governance, but it will not get us to Trump’s promised land. The federal deficit is just too large.

So far in fiscal 2025, the deficit has hit $839 billion. Total public debt is now $36 trillion, up from only $14 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2010. Being so far underwater means a “golden age” may be a bridge too far.

The latest, ever-changing tariffs on Canada, China, Mexico and other countries could also generate significant revenues as Americans are taxed on their purchases of foreign goods. But because Trump’s favorite policy instrument also cuts the flow of goods to U.S. consumers, tariffs will dim the shade of any golden age.

To continue consuming at the same level, the affordable goods we have long enjoyed from favored trading partners will have to come from elsewhere. The same is true of the foreign inputs many American manufacturers need to produce competitively priced final products.

Vice President JD Vance suggests that this difficulty can be avoided if manufacturers will simply bring their production here — one of the stated intentions of the Trump tariff policy. But major industrial plants don’t just get built overnight.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, finding construction workers and workers to staff new plants will be tough, given our extraordinarily tight labor market. Pulling this off with an essentially fully employed economy, while also deporting thousands of previously employed workers and promising tax cuts, will require an amazing increase in worker productivity. This is why we will likely have a well-functioning guest worker program in place whenever the golden age arrives.

Trump will make aspects of the economy better, but we the people should recognize that his economy will be managed from the White House, with little play by the legislative branch. Using uncertainty as a tool to bring concerned parties to the table, he will do what he does best: make deals that favor parties who favor him and his protectionist views.

Such policies tend to cartelize and further politicize important U.S. industries, chill competition and further empower the White House. We see signs of this in the recent call by leading Silicon Valley CEOs for a White House meeting. They hope to come together for a heart-to-heart conversation about economic policy.

For a true golden age to emerge, federal deficits will have to become a thing of the past. The people will have to break the government of the habit that enables us to consume so much more each year than we produce.

As Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently urged, private production will have to replace government spending.

Bruce Yandle is a distinguished adjunct fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and dean emeritus of the Clemson University’s College of Business and Behavioral Sciences.