Disinflation, Uneven Growth, and a Labor Market Under Pressure: The Real Story of the 2025 Economy
For much of 2025, Americans were told a simple story about the economy. Inflation was beaten. Growth was back. Industry was returning home. “Promises made, promises kept,” the Trump Administration declared, pointing to cooling prices, headline GDP numbers, and a flurry of factory announcements as proof that the economic corner had been turned.
Like most simple stories, this one leaves a great deal out.
The reality of the 2025 economy is more complicated, more fragile, and more instructive than the slogans suggest. Yes, inflation continued to fall. Yes, some quarters delivered impressive growth. But beneath those surface-level wins, the labor market softened, hiring slowed dramatically, and trade policy introduced new stresses that are likely to reverberate well beyond a single calendar year.
This article takes a comprehensive look at the U.S. economy in 2025 under the Trump Administration’s second term and compares it with the final years of the Biden-Harris Administration. It relies primarily on official government data, supplemented by research and public sentiment, to answer a central question: what actually changed, what merely shifted, and what risks remain unresolved.
The Inflation Story: Disinflation Is Not Deflation
Inflation was the political scarlet letter of the early 2020s. Under the Biden-Harris Administration, consumer prices surged to levels not seen since the early 1980s, peaking in mid-2022 as pandemic disruptions, fiscal stimulus, and supply-chain chaos collided. By the time Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, inflation had already come down significantly from its peak, but it remained elevated enough to shape public anger and political outcomes.
In 2025, inflation continued to decelerate. By late in the year, headline CPI-U was running at roughly 2.7 percent year over year, with chained CPI slightly lower at about 2.6 percent. Core inflation followed a similar path. These figures placed inflation much closer to the Federal Reserve’s long-term target and well below the average rates recorded during Biden’s final three years in office.
From a macroeconomic perspective, this was a meaningful achievement. Inflation is a tax on every household, and stabilizing prices restores a degree of predictability to wages, contracts, and investment decisions. The Trump Administration was correct to highlight this progress.
Where the messaging diverged from reality was in how disinflation was framed.
Disinflation means prices are rising more slowly. It does not mean prices are falling. For households still grappling with rent, insurance premiums, healthcare costs, and higher baseline grocery prices, the lived experience of inflation did not magically reset in 2025. The cumulative increase in the cost of living from 2021 through 2024 remained embedded in household budgets.
The Administration leaned heavily on selective price declines to bolster its affordability narrative. Gasoline prices fell to multi-year lows in many states. Egg prices retreated sharply from their prior spikes. Certain food categories and consumer goods posted year-over-year declines. These were real and measurable improvements, and they mattered to consumers at the margin.
But they were not comprehensive. Shelter costs remained elevated. Services inflation proved sticky. Insurance, childcare, and medical expenses continued to strain household finances. Disinflation improved the rate of change, not the level.
Public sentiment reflected this nuance. Polling throughout late 2025 showed Americans acknowledging that inflation had cooled while simultaneously expressing frustration that life still felt expensive. Many households recognized the improvement on paper but did not yet feel relief in practice. This disconnect between macro statistics and lived experience became one of the defining political tensions of the year.
Growth: Strong Headlines, Uneven Reality
If inflation was the Administration’s most defensible win, GDP growth was its most aggressively marketed talking point.
On a quarterly basis, 2025 delivered some impressive numbers. After a weak start to the year, real GDP growth rebounded sharply. The second quarter was revised up to roughly 3.8 percent annualized growth. The third quarter came in even stronger, exceeding 4 percent in initial estimates. These figures outpaced any single quarter recorded during much of the post-pandemic normalization period.
Those numbers made for compelling headlines. They also obscured important context.
The first quarter of 2025 contracted. Growth did not follow a smooth upward trajectory. Instead, the year oscillated between weakness and strength, reflecting an economy adjusting to tight monetary conditions, shifting trade dynamics, and lingering uncertainty about federal policy.
The composition of growth matters as much as the headline number. In 2025, a significant portion of GDP strength came from trade arithmetic and inventory adjustments. Imports fell sharply, which mechanically boosts GDP calculations. Government spending increased in certain quarters. Consumer spending remained resilient but showed signs of fatigue.
Business fixed investment was inconsistent. Some sectors expanded aggressively, particularly those tied to government incentives and strategic reshoring efforts. Others pulled back, citing cost pressures, financing conditions, and policy unpredictability.
When viewed as a full year, 2025 growth likely settled in the low-to-mid 2 percent range. That is respectable but not exceptional by historical standards. It is broadly comparable to the latter Biden years once the post-pandemic rebound faded.
What made 2025 distinctive was volatility. Strong quarters alternated with weak ones. Growth existed, but it lacked balance and durability. This volatility fed directly into business confidence and hiring decisions.
The Labor Market: Where the Cracks Appeared
If inflation was cooling and GDP was posting headline gains, why did the economy feel fragile to so many Americans? The answer lies in the labor market.
Job growth slowed dramatically in 2025. After years of robust hiring under Biden, payroll gains decelerated to near stall speed. By the end of the year, monthly job creation averaged only a fraction of prior norms. In the final months of 2025, some reports even showed net job losses.
Unemployment rose modestly but meaningfully. From historically low levels in 2023 and 2024, the jobless rate drifted upward into the mid-4 percent range. This was not a recessionary spike, but it marked a clear shift from the tight labor conditions that had defined the post-pandemic recovery.
Manufacturing employment was particularly revealing. Despite the Administration’s emphasis on industrial revival, factory jobs declined on net in 2025. Automation, global competition, and higher input costs weighed heavily on the sector.
One reason hiring slowed was monetary policy. The Federal Reserve kept interest rates high to ensure inflation stayed under control. Higher borrowing costs dampen expansion plans, especially for small and mid-sized firms.
Another reason was trade policy.
Trade and Tariffs: Revenue Up, Hiring Down
The Trump Administration returned to aggressive tariff policy in 2025, framing it as both an economic and strategic tool. Tariffs were raised across a wide range of imports, with the stated goals of protecting domestic production, reducing the trade deficit, and generating federal revenue.
On those narrow metrics, the policy delivered results. Customs duties surged to record levels. The trade deficit narrowed substantially as imports declined. From a fiscal perspective, tariff revenue provided a meaningful inflow to the Treasury.
What tariffs did not do was spark a hiring boom.
Federal Reserve research and independent economic analyses consistently found that the 2025 tariff increases did not trigger a new inflation spike. That allowed the Administration to claim vindication against critics who warned of runaway price increases.
But the same research also showed that tariffs weighed on job growth. Higher input costs reduced margins. Policy uncertainty caused firms to delay expansion. Export-oriented industries faced retaliation and reduced demand.
The net effect was a labor market that cooled faster than inflation did.
This trade-off is politically inconvenient but economically consistent. Tariffs can suppress inflation by dampening demand and slowing activity. They can raise revenue without raising income taxes. But they also act as a brake on hiring, especially in sectors dependent on global supply chains.
In 2025, that brake was visible.
Wages: Modest Gains After Years of Erosion
One area where 2025 showed genuine improvement was real wages. With inflation running below wage growth for much of the year, purchasing power stabilized and even edged higher for many workers.
This marked a reversal from the Biden years, when nominal wages rose but inflation rose faster, eroding real income. In 2025, workers finally began to see paychecks stretch a bit further.
The gains were modest. They did not erase prior losses. And they were unevenly distributed across industries and regions. But they mattered.
The paradox of 2025 was that workers who had jobs were slightly better off, while those seeking jobs faced a more difficult market. That tension fed economic anxiety and shaped public opinion.
Comparing Administrations: Different Problems, Different Trade-Offs
Comparing the Trump Administration’s 2025 economy to the Biden-Harris years requires resisting partisan shorthand.
Under Biden, the economy experienced a historic recovery from the pandemic. Job growth was explosive early on. Unemployment fell to multi-decade lows. The downside was inflation, which surged to levels unseen in forty years.
Under Trump’s second term, inflation cooled. Growth continued, but lost balance. The labor market softened. Trade policy shifted risk from prices to employment.
Neither approach was cost-free. Biden prioritized demand stabilization and employment, accepting inflation as the price. Trump prioritized price stability and trade leverage, accepting slower hiring as the consequence.
The public experienced both sets of trade-offs. That is why economic sentiment in 2025 remained conflicted. Voters recognized improvement but felt uncertainty.
Why This Matters Going Forward
The 2025 economy matters not just as a scorecard, but as a signal.
Disinflation without labor strength is politically fragile. Growth without confidence is economically fragile. Trade policy that boosts revenue but suppresses hiring creates long-term structural tension.
As the United States moves deeper into the second half of the decade, policymakers face hard choices. Sustaining price stability while reigniting broad-based job growth will require coordination between fiscal policy, trade strategy, and monetary restraint. Pretending that one set of indicators tells the whole story is a recipe for policy error.
The lesson of 2025 is not that the economy failed or triumphed. It is that economic trade-offs cannot be wished away by messaging. Inflation, growth, jobs, and trade are interconnected. Pulling one lever moves the others.
The Administration’s slogan may be “promises made, promises kept.” The data tell a more sobering story: promises kept in one dimension often create pressure in another.
That is the reality Washington rarely admits. And it is the reality voters eventually confront, whether politicians acknowledge it or not.
References
-
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Consumer Price Index Summary.” (CPI-U 12-month change and related tables; includes November 2025 and December 2025 releases.)
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm -
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U).”
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/additional-resources/chained-cpi.htm -
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Gross Domestic Product, 2nd Quarter 2025 (Third Estimate), GDP by Industry, and Corporate Profits.”
https://www.bea.gov/news/2025/gross-domestic-product-2nd-quarter-2025-third-estimate-gdp-industry-corporate-profits -
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Gross Domestic Product, 3rd Quarter 2025 (Initial Estimate) and Corporate Profits (Preliminary).”
https://www.bea.gov/news/2025/gross-domestic-product-3rd-quarter-2025-initial-estimate-and-corporate-profits -
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) Tables.” (Table 1.1.1 and related GDP tables.)
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/?reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&categories=survey -
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment Situation Summary.” (Annual 2025 payroll gain and unemployment rate.)
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm -
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “The Employment Situation — December 2025” (PDF news release).
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf -
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. “The Economic Effects of Tariffs.” (Economic Letter, November 2025.)
https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2025/11/economic-effects-of-tariffs/ -
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. “Higher Tariffs Might Have Created Headwinds to Employment Growth in 2025.” (Economic Bulletin, December 2025.)
https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/economic-bulletin/higher-tariffs-might-have-created-headwinds-to-employment-growth-in-2025/ -
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service. “Monthly Treasury Statement (MTS).” (Receipts/outlays framework used for tariff/customs-receipt context.)
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/mts/ -
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Fiscal Data. “Monthly Treasury Statement” (dataset landing page).
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/monthly-treasury-statement/ -
The White House. “Economy.” (Administration policy framing and claims referenced in the article.)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/economy/ -
The White House. “Wins and Achievements.” (Administration “achievements” framing cited in the article.)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/achievements/ -
Gallup. “Economy.” (Economic confidence trend context used for sentiment framing.)
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1609/consumer-views-economy.aspx -
CBS News. “As Year Ends, Americans Weigh In on Cost of Living, Trump …” (Public sentiment perspective referenced in the article.)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/opinion-poll-cost-of-living-trump/ -
Congressional Budget Office. “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2025 to 2035.” (Macro/fiscal outlook context.)
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60870 -
Peterson Institute for International Economics. “Trump’s Tariff Revenue Tracker: How Much Is the US Collecting? Which Imports Are Hit?” (Tariff revenue context and framing.)
https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2025/trumps-tariff-revenue-tracker-how-much-us-collecting-which-imports-are -
Peterson Institute for International Economics. “The Global Trade War: An Update.” (Trade/tariff impacts and labor-market context.)
https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/global-trade-war-update -
International Monetary Fund. “World Economic Outlook, October 2025: Global Economy in Flux, Prospects Remain Dim.”
https://www.imf.org/en/publications/weo/issues/2025/10/14/world-economic-outlook-october-2025 -
University of Michigan, Surveys of Consumers. “Surveys of Consumers (Homepage).”
https://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/ -
University of Michigan, Surveys of Consumers. “Consumer Sentiment Data (Data Portal).”
https://data.sca.isr.umich.edu/ -
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED). “University of Michigan: Consumer Sentiment (UMCSENT).” (Convenient public series view of the same sentiment measure.)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UMCSENT
Discover more from Timothy Alexander
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.