America’s billionaires are turning their back on Trump

Among the titans of global finance, none are more powerful and influential than Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase. So when he turns against Donald Trump and criticises the 47th US president’s repudiation of the old, multilateral, rules-based order, we should sit up and take notice.

The more so in that Dimon’s intervention comes just a month before the congressional midterms, where the Republicans are expected to receive a hammering.

A lifelong Democrat, Dimon has admittedly never been part of Trump’s inner circle and in the past year, relations between the two have deteriorated precipitously.

He played no part in the undignified and fawning scramble for presidential favours after Trump’s election two years ago. According to accounts, he wisely rebuffed soundings on serving in Trump’s second administration as Treasury secretary.

In January, moreover, Trump launched a $5bn lawsuit against Dimon and JPMorgan for allegedly de-banking him. The bank says the president’s suit “has no merit”.

For his part, Dimon has been highly critical of Trump’s mooted plan to cap credit card interest rates at 10 per cent and he has refused to help fund Trump’s White House ballroom.

But he’s also been careful not to overstep the mark and to give credit where he thinks it is due.

“Take a step back, be honest,” Dimon said in the run-up to Trump’s second stab at the presidency. He “was kind of right about NATO, kind of right on immigration. He grew the economy quite well. Tax reform worked. He was right about some of China. He wasn’t wrong about some of these critical issues”.

Dimon’s remarks played a key role in rehabilitating Trump among the general run of US business leaders after the ignominy of the Capitol Hill riots. If someone as worldly, wise and seasoned as Dimon thinks Trump is basically right, then it sanitises and promotes what he stands for.

Be that as it may, judging by an op-ed he wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week, he now seems to have changed his mind.

“A strong America with robust military and economic alliances is the foundation for a prosperous and peaceful world,” he wrote in an apparent rebuff of Trump’s MAGA-driven approach to allies, trade and international relations.

Nor is he the only critic among those who have hitherto been relatively supportive.

In a recent interview, Peter Thiel, a long-standing Trump backer and a Republican mega donor, said he wished the president had chosen more competent people for his administration.

In an interview with Mathias Dopfner, chief executive of The Telegraph’s new owner Axel Springer, the Palantir co-founder accused Trump of “over-correcting for the mistakes of the first term with all these loyalty tests. You got sort of an administration staffed by not very smart but very loyal people”.

This is potentially dangerous territory for Thiel. Palantir is still highly dependent on US government contracts. But in another sign that the tide is turning against Trump-style politics, he said it anyway.

Not his words, but the sycophancy of Trump’s cabinet is worthy of a banana republic.

Dimon’s suggestion is that a grand alliance be struck with European and other like-minded democracies such as Canada, Japan, Korea, Australia and Mexico.

In return for free trade with the US, Europe would agree to full implementation of proposals by former European Central Bank president Mario Draghi for countering loss of economic competitiveness, turbocharging a virtuous circle of rising prosperity for both jurisdictions.

If this sounds very much like the old, post-war, pre-Trump contract, that’s because it is. It would be the Western alliance reborn and a very welcome development all round.

Yet it would be unwise to count on this happening in practice: political opposition in Europe to some of Draghi’s key recommendations remains strong.

But Dimon’s suggestion shows that the US is not yet entirely lost to the cause of multilateral solutions.

It’s similar to what Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has been suggesting, only with the US at its centre, not as a potentially hostile force kicking in the other direction.

Does Trump’s presidency mark a permanent change in the geopolitical and economic weather, or is he a temporary aberration? From the very start of his second term, that’s been the big question. Dimon’s musings suggest the latter.

So do the polls before next month’s midterms. The US economy is in many respects booming, but it is not an electorally friendly form of growth. The leaders in this boom, the hyperscalers of the AI arms race, are generally unpopular with voters and though their investment spending binge generates plenty of jobs, it disguises a great hinterland of economic grievance and frustration.

Much higher petrol, diesel and mortgage costs are wreaking havoc with the Republican vote, and it’s Trump who is getting the blame.

Ridiculously, Trump gives himself an A+ for everything that’s happened in his second term. Sadly for him, voters do not appear inclined to agree.

The president promised no more wars but then promptly started one. No matter, the Iranians would be crushed, and it would be over in weeks. Seven months later, it is still going and there is little sign of a lasting resolution.

The president promised lower interest rates and lower gas prices but all he has managed so far is the reverse. It’s true that Gulf producers have found lots of workarounds for the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Exports of crude from the region are now said to be back to virtually pre-war levels.

But in all likelihood, it has come too late to save the Republican vote in the midterms.

There is still a month to go, admittedly, but scarcely anyone thinks this is time enough to reverse either current cost-of-living pressures or the electoral fortunes of the Republican Party.

A cynic might say that all Dimon is doing by aligning himself with the Carney view of the world is recognising this change in the political weather.

A year ago, it looked as if Trump might be one of the most consequential presidents in US history. As the months pass, that judgment looks ever more doubtful.

Business leaders tend to bend with the wind. If they sense that things are going against the political incumbent, they nuance their position to fit.

But Dimon, a philosophical as well as a practising globalist, has never bought into Trump’s “America first” nationalism. Trump’s loss of political momentum has given him cover to start talking his mind.

Even if he does lose both houses, Trump will presumably still attempt to govern as before through use of executive order. All the same, he’ll be tied up in legal knots for the remainder of his term and his room for manoeuvre fiscally will be tightly restricted. This should at least begin to reduce the upward pressure on interest rates.

A year ago, it looked as if Trump might be one of the most consequential presidents in US history. As the months pass, that judgment looks ever more doubtful. To succeed, the West must pull and act together. Tearing it apart was never the right path.

UK Telegraph, London