Barely three months have passed in his second term, yet it feels like years. With a compulsive media presence and dominating headlines through often contradictory statements riddled with obsessive repetition, the world has begun to understand Trump—though those closest to him still don’t dare to tell the emperor he has no clothes. At the very least, we now have a slightly clearer picture of what he is causing and what he might still cause. Weeks—just a few—of perplexity and dismay, but also tacit recognition of some of his insights, and increasingly, reactions—unthinkable until recently—from countries and institutions affected by his decisions, his threats, and his attempt to establish an illiberal political order and an autarkic economy for the United States and, who knows, for the rest of the world.

Above all, the faith in tariffs plays a leading role in Trumpist rhetoric. While it has originated from heavily deficit trade balances in goods (although not in services) for the United States, he has used and manipulated tariffs not to negotiate greater reciprocity in foreign trade, but to intimidate. Canada was challenged with tariffs, coupled with expansionist bravado about turning its northern neighbour into another U.S. state. Mexico made some partial concessions and took steps in the direction Trump demanded regarding illegal immigration, fentanyl smuggling, and the deportation of Mexican drug traffickers to the U.S., giving the southern neighbours a nearly privileged starting position. For the European Union—created, according to Trump, to “screw” America—the additional justification for tariffs has been the abandonment of American defense protection for Europe and dismissiveness toward Europe in the Ukraine issue. Finally, for China—arguably the main target of Trump’s aggressive policies and the most vilified due to its massive trade surplus with the U.S.—tariffs are combined with technology boycotts, the Taiwan issue on the horizon, and especially a campaign to improve the dollar-to-renminbi exchange rate.

Behind the scenes, Trump’s hyperactivity is complemented by the grotesque show run by Elon Musk in the so called Department of Government Efficiency, which, at this pace, will dismantle key structures, weaken the separation of powers, and destroy any hopeful liberal initiative for rational public spending control. The goal is to reduce taxes on businesses and individuals by offsetting them with tariff revenues—even though consumers ultimately foot the bill, a fact the Trump administration refuses to acknowledge.

Everything about Trump lies on a blurry line between a pile of eccentric, incoherent policies and decisions, or a highly risky but deliberate governmental strategy. The latter seems driven by an obsession to weaken the dollar at all costs, to make the U.S. more competitive after applying pressures (tariffs, geopolitical threats, forcing interest rate cuts...) that theoretically would boost exports, increase import prices, and revive American manufacturing—an ambition to be formalized in the so-called “Mar-a-Lago Accord”. In an economy with full employment that has effectively transitioned toward services and technology, it is hard to see how the U.S. might bring back industries like automotive or textiles, just to name two examples of what Trump seemingly wants to revive.

These weeks have also been especially important for U.S. financial markets, which have withdrawn their confidence in Trump—initially falling sharply, in wide divergence from Europe, which surprisingly gained ground as a “capital refuge”. However, Europe too eventually succumbed to a growing perception that we are headed for a global recession—one that, for the first time since the 1930s, is self-induced.

Stock investors have realized that both the uncertainty created by Trump’s erratic policy and the harmful effects of higher tariffs—through reduced activity (lower supply and demand, a dual shock) and rising inflation risks—have seriously hit equity markets, worsened in the U.S. by the recent weakness of the dollar. Even some of his loyal followers are beginning to privately express disagreement with his policies—still very fearful of Trump—and anxiety about market declines and the brutal devaluation of Americans’ savings. His desire to force Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to cut rates more aggressively clashes with the inflation risks that grow as tariffs rise, as well as with Powell’s desire to preserve his independence and not give in to Trump’s pressure. As Trump himself would say: the cards are on the table, and he’s not holding particularly the best hand.

In this scenario—troubling in the U.S., where the likelihood of recession grows by the hour, and slightly more optimistic in Europe, where national governments have at least decided to invest in defense and infrastructure led by Germany—uncertainty reigns. As in previous shocks, the role of financial advisers should be mainly that of psychologists for investors: helping them avoid panicked selling and offering support and calm during moments when capital and savings seem to slip away. A high responsibility and a much-needed steadiness—qualities that must be shown in these difficult times.

Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people have worked on these issues and consumed millions of hours of work on projects that ultimately... don't work!

That's the simple observation, even more debatable because it's made by the authorities and politicians themselves.

At the average cost of a consultant in Europe, the EU has destroyed hundreds of millions of euros.

But let's move on and start again, since this is what the out-of-touch, entrepreneur-free approach of some people leads us to. However, for us professionals and business leaders who are trying to help with these discussions, the bill is steep, and the method is so far removed from our approach, which alone allows for the development of the economy and these decision-making structures, by paying for everything.

So let's hope the EU has finally understood, and let's have a look at what's happening and what's in the pipeline.

The Retail Investment Strategy, part of the Capital Market Union, is moribund, having worried every business in the Union, from intermediation to banks and insurers, including asset management companies, which create and manage the funds that fuel the economy.

The Polish Presidency no longer believes in it, nor do several other Member States.

It must be said that the project, filtered through the lens of the idea of ​​"simplification," which has become "the" ultimate solution in Brussels, seems completely crazy.

From the outset, professionals have tried to make it clear that the RIS was not well-conceived, particularly because it was based on the premise that nothing had been done to support it, that the current system had led to serious disruption, when it should have simply been a matter of optimization.

However, the RIS is not officially buried. We cannot yet call it RIP and praise it posthumously.

However, there is now talk of proposing a text called the "Savings Investment Union (SIU)," for which consultations are beginning.

From what we understand from what has been submitted to us in recent weeks, the ambition is to centralize, unify, and standardize. However, there is concern, given that it is explained to us that simplification will be necessary by strengthening constraints and regulations. We'll have to wait and see what we think, even though many of us have already worked dozens of hours onto this "pre" project.

The simplification sought very recently by the EU, and let’s hope it, not too late, nor too timid or conceptual, will also address all texts relating to ESG, which were to structure the entire future and the entire economy of the EU.

The initial announcements were harsh, including for those of our citizens who disagreed with the poorly designed texts, which were cumbersome in their implementation, and which could only lead to degrowth.

The simplification of ESG could be summed up in a dozen reforms to the texts.

Some of the simplifications are obviously necessary, such as limiting the constraints on VSEs ans SMEs, which are incapable of tracking and applying 120 CSR criteria.

However, we have never called for everything to be thrown out and for a total and absolute ban on reporting data to companies, which will then be required to report on their compliance with these criteria. This would lead to a mechanical blockage at the fund level and ultimately to a limited range of offers for investors/savers, which would make it impossible to even imagine reaching 50% of the initial objective.

We want reasonable and proportionate CSR, simpler questionnaires that customers agree to complete, and products or offers whose presentation is compatible with the customer profile. Is it really that complicated to understand?

Simplicity isn't "all or nothing." The professionals and entrepreneurs in our Union have asked for "reason," for not being too cumbersome, and for not aiming for 100% ESG for everyone, everywhere.

This is very different, and it is to be hoped that we will be heard, and that this reflection will not be managed by just another Théodule committee made up of people who are not representative of those who will have to implement it. We are available both as representatives of the companies that will have to "place" and "advise" the investment vehicles, and simply as representatives of companies.

There are two areas of our profession that are not getting simpler: the fight against money laundering, the financing of terrorism, and fraud, and the rules relating to the integration of technology and data exchange.

As soon as we delve into the philosophy, law, and technology of these two areas, it is true that simplifying without increasing risk does not appear as easy as in other cases.

However, we should seriously consider the possible options, because even the technology that was supposed to solve everything is becoming a source of complication in the EU, while elsewhere it is achieving its objective.

The EU is today the most complicated union in the world for its businesses and citizens. Who would dare say that in other major nations or groups there are no laws and regulations?

The result is that we have fallen behind all the other major blocs. It is time to listen to the companies and firms that finance everything and make everything possible and now that simplification is no longer a taboo, to get something effective out of it, without excessive deregulation.