Trump’s First Few Days for Independents

In the world of entrepreneurship and startup ecosystems, where disruption, innovation, and venture capital reign supreme, keeping an eye on public policy isn’t just smart — it’s essential. Government actions shape the macroeconomic environment, influence capital flows, and define the rules of the game for the next generation of innovators. With a new administration in Washington, there’s much to consider, especially from the perspective of independent and classically liberal thinkers who often dominate the entrepreneurial space.

Having spent a week in Washington D.C. during the inauguration, I was struck by a contrast in experiences.  On one hand, met immediately by the terrible cold, endless barricades, and uncertain and changing plans, I sensed a metaphor upon my start, that working with Washington isn’t merely bureaucratic, this is the way things are – cold and difficult.  As the days turned to the inauguration, the streets of the city felt dystopian, as though the zombies of the apocalypse were just around another corner, while emergency vehicle sirens in the distance echoed that we had a crisis at hand.  On the other hand, while the divide in the United States seems ever present online, with the vitriol of the extremes making it seem like we have to hate one another or we ourselves are hated, this week in Washington was not so.  Revelers left and right seemed to find consensus that we’re indeed due for change and that change was evident in my positive and optimistic meetings on the Hill, the beautiful experience of the inauguration, an incredible Texas Gala, and guests from around the world telling me they want to get to work.  

What I sensed in that contrast is that we’re on the precipice of disruption, a word which to many, means cause for concern, but with which in my startup circles, bodes of improvement, solutions, investment opportunity, and the enthusiasm that’s palpable when we can work to make a difference. 

Whether you cheer or jeer at the mention of Donald Trump’s name, hopefully you’re here because you seek the implications of policy more than the attention-hustle of praising or attacking the decisions such as they are.  Entrepreneurs are often politically independent at their core; an alignment that stems from a shared belief in the power of individual action, market freedom, and a healthy skepticism of government overreach. To get to work, let’s dive into how the first few days of Trump’s 2025 presidency are shaping the landscape.

Tax Policy and Economic Growth

The Trump administration is pushing to extend or expand the TCJA (the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act), which sunsets in 2025. Lower taxes generally align with independent ideals, as they reduce government intervention in personal and corporate finances and promote economic freedom. For entrepreneurs, the benefits include capital for reinvestment, faster scaling, and greater flexibility.

However, the Congressional Budget Office projects a staggering $5.8 trillion increase in deficits over the next decade if these tax cuts are extended. While supply-side economics suggests that tax reductions can stimulate growth and offset deficits, the historical record is mixed. The Reagan-era tax cuts, for example, spurred growth but also preceded rising debt levels. Entrepreneurs should keep an eye on how these deficits could impact interest rates and inflation, potentially tightening venture capital availability.

While immediate benefits may include increased hiring and innovation, long-term risks tied to fiscal irresponsibility cannot be ignored. History teaches us that unchecked deficits can erode economic stability, raising questions about the sustainability of a growth-at-all-costs approach.   Of course, we have other policy and financial changes that are already impacting hiring and innovation, we’ll get to that further in our brief.

Tariffs and Trade Policy

The administration’s plan to impose a 60% tariff on Chinese goods and a 10% baseline on other imports is a double-edged sword. On one hand, protecting domestic industries aligns with economic independence and national security goals. On the other, tariffs inherently conflict with free-market principles by distorting price signals and increasing costs for consumers.

Research from the Peterson Institute found that Trump’s 2018-2019 tariffs on Chinese imports cost U.S. households an average of $460 annually. Retaliatory measures by trade partners could exacerbate supply chain disruptions, particularly in sectors like electronics, manufacturing, and agriculture.

What this steers attention toward though, evident to some in the tongue-in-cheek humor about Canada joining the United States, is a look at markets closer to home.  

Revisiting the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) presents both opportunities and risks. Securing better terms for U.S. businesses might enhance competitiveness and simple considerations such as proximity and time zones, makes working with U.S. neighbors easier than overseas, but renegotiation periods typically bring uncertainty. For industries like automotive manufacturing, which rely heavily on integrated North American supply chains, this uncertainty could pose operational challenges. Then again, strengthening North American countries eases other challenges such as immigration and national security.

Immigration and Labor Market

Trump’s executive order to challenge birthright citizenship and restrict immigration flows is framed as a means to reduce government spending on entitlements. This resonates with some liberal arguments against the welfare state. Yet, from an economic perspective, these policies could backfire. Industries such as tech, agriculture, and hospitality depend on immigrant labor, and tighter restrictions could lead to higher wages, labor shortages, and slower economic growth.

A 2020 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research noted that immigrants have historically driven a disproportionate share of U.S. innovation, particularly in STEM. We’re seeing a healthy social media debate about this and it warrants much closer attention because there are pros and cons to whichever direction the country proceeds; restricting immigration could hamper the talent pipeline that startups and tech giants rely upon for competitiveness.  I might argue though that if we address affordability and education, both in dire need of deregulation (or at least massive overhaul), Americans are more than ready to fill the demands for labor in innovation.

Regulation and Deregulation

The administration’s moves to roll back Biden-era environmental regulations align with independent principles of reducing government overreach but society is only ready for that when public pressure, social exposure, and competitive markets enable the economy to self-correct and remove companies causing harm. Lowering compliance costs can stimulate economic activity, particularly in traditional industries like energy and manufacturing. However, independent theory also emphasizes property rights, and that environmental degradation often infringes upon these if we’re not enabled to choose otherwise. Long-term consequences, such as pollution or climate-related risks, could impose costs on businesses and individuals alike.

Trump’s commitment to “one in, two out” regulation reductions, similar to what we’ve seen in Argentina, paired with the Supreme Court’s curtailment of the Chevron doctrine, signals a return to legislative accountability. Entrepreneurs often benefit from such simplifications, as regulatory uncertainty and compliance burdens are major barriers to entry for would-be founders while adding to the cost of doing business for everyone.

Trump’s policy to unwind electric vehicle (EV) mandates supports domestic manufacturing but may slow the broader transition to green technology. Applaud market-driven innovation and yet, still consider how tariffs on foreign vehicles distort competition.

We’re also seeing reinforced support for drone technology and AI infrastructure, with the administration aiming to streamline integration and commercialization of both. While this aligns with our ideals of fostering innovation, privacy concerns loom large and hopefully we’ll see diligence on prohibiting prying eyes from looking where they shouldn’t be allowed. Without clear boundaries, advancements in surveillance technology could undermine individual freedoms.

---

Why we must have this pragmatic view of policy

Entrepreneurs and political independents — or those with classically liberal (libertarian) views —  share a foundational ethos rooted in personal responsibility, self-determination, and skepticism of centralized authority. Both groups value individual initiative over collective control, seeing innovation, progress, and prosperity as the natural outcomes of free-market dynamics and unencumbered decision-making. Entrepreneurs, like libertarians, thrive on the belief that markets, not governments, are best equipped to allocate resources efficiently. In a study published in The Journal of Business Venturing, researchers found that entrepreneurs are disproportionately inclined toward individualistic and self-reliant attitudes, as these traits are essential for managing risk, overcoming barriers, and capitalizing on opportunities in uncertain environments.

Entrepreneurial success also depends on the freedom to challenge established norms, much like the political independence prized by libertarians. Thought leaders like Milton Friedman have long emphasized that economic freedom is a prerequisite for innovation: “The great advances of civilization…have never come from centralized government.” Entrepreneurs understand that bureaucracy and overregulation stifle creativity by imposing unnecessary costs and barriers, aligning their economic worldview with libertarian calls for limited government. This shared belief in “permissionless innovation,” a concept championed by libertarian thinkers like Adam Thierer, underscores the entrepreneurial mindset: the idea that breakthroughs emerge not from prior approval but from experimentation in open, competitive markets. In essence, both entrepreneurs and libertarians view freedom—not control—as the engine of progress and prosperity.

---

What’s To Come in Innovation

Early moves from Trump’s administration signal a more favorable regulatory stance toward cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. Reversing restrictions from prior administrations could foster innovation and financial sovereignty. However, the absence of a comprehensive regulatory framework risks market manipulation and consumer harm, as highlighted by the 2022 Terra-Luna collapse.

 An emphasis on blockchain technology for enhancing government operations or national security could be seen as a positive move, promoting efficiency and transparency; reinforcing “decentralization” as such, and the implications of being decentralized in free speech, protecting rights, and enabling independence, is, I’d argue, the more meaningful choice of words and intent than “blockchain.”

The $500 billion Stargate initiative aims to develop cutting-edge AI infrastructure, including data centers and computing capabilities. While such projects can boost innovation, we might also be wary of government-led tech development, which could stifle private sector ingenuity while raising the question of why such investment is needed by the public sector (to what end?). Collaboration with private industry is essential to ensure market-driven outcomes.

Posts on X highlight concerns about Stargate turning into a surveillance tool, which raises significant privacy issues. The lack of stringent privacy laws could lead to government or corporate overreach, challenging the principles of individual liberty and privacy.

The expansion of data centers for AI and other technologies under Stargate will likely increase energy demands. Trump’s push for “energy dominance” through increased domestic production might align with economic growth but at the potential cost of environmental considerations, a point of contention for entrepreneurs who might advocate for market-based solutions to energy issues rather than government-led initiatives.

Bottom line, the investment in physical infrastructure like data centers could be viewed positively for economic growth, but there’s a risk of creating monopolistic environments if not competitively structured, which goes against free, entrepreneur, and innovation market principles.

Which is why, frankly, the establishment of Stargate in Abilene, Texas, leaves at least this economist with optimism.  Reflecting the continued move of innovation from Silicon Valley to Texas, the embrace of the independent values of Texans, and the alignment of the future in Stargate, with what is already the capital of America’s space, quantum, energy, and media future, we might be learning from Texas to make America great again.

Trump’s continued support for the Space Force and possibly expanding its role could be seen as both a move towards national security and an endorsement of space exploration. The privatization of space ventures is key, and any government involvement should aim to spur private innovation rather than control it; we might be seeing this positively in the inspiration to plant a flag on Mars; promoting free enterprise in what could be considered the next frontier for economic activity. 

There’s an opportunity here for the administration to push for less restrictive regulations on space activities, potentially leading to an explosion of innovation and economic opportunities in the sector, but this must be balanced with the need to manage space debris, property rights in space, and international cooperation.

Note from the inauguration: Tim Cook, Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos, standing behind the next 4 years; welcoming Trump 2.0 as the U.S. pivots from Biden’s heavy-handed tech policy. For innovators and entrepreneurs, this could be the reset button we desperately needed.

Biden’s administration treated business growth like a crime. Calling policymakers a “whole-of-government strike force,” the past few years of corporate tax and regulatory uncertainty were an all-out assault on success. Punishing startup success stories wasn’t just shortsighted — it tanked economic growth.

The American people noticed. The Rejection of Bidenomics wasn’t subtle. What’s next? Trump has outlined a tech-forward plan:

• Undo Biden’s red tape mess
• Celebrate American ingenuity
• Lead in innovation before China eats our lunch.

Dismantling the Administrative State:

Trump’s “one in, two out” regulation rollback worked wonders in his first term. Combine that with SCOTUS’s recent death blow to the Chevron doctrine, and we’re staring at a big win for accountability. Congress makes laws—not unelected bureaucrats.

This matters because the Biden administration loved empowering the so-called “Fourth Branch” of government. Trump’s approach is poised to bring balance back to policymaking. Want innovation? Get rid of the nonsense. Entrepreneurs need a launchpad, not hurdles.

Celebrating Success vs. Controlling It:

Biden embraced control—think speech restrictions, weaponized bureaucracies, and punishing companies for daring to thrive. Walter Russell Mead nailed it: America’s greatness is in its “turbulent, nearly ungovernable society.” Creativity thrives in chaos, not control.

Kamala Harris doubled down on Biden’s mistakes, admitting she wouldn’t change a thing. Americans aren’t stupid; they know that micromanaging the private sector hurts everyone. Trump’s open embrace of U.S. innovation offers a much-needed course correction.

Permissionless Innovation:

The phrase itself sounds like a rallying cry for creators. Trump’s AI policies championed this in 2019, balancing innovation and protection without drowning businesses in red tape. Compare that to Biden’s 2023 “AI Red Tape Wishlist.” Guess which one stifles startups?

Biden’s AI executive order was a bureaucratic disaster, layering complexity onto small businesses already struggling to innovate. Unsurprisingly, GOP leaders slammed it as “dangerous.” The pivot back to simplicity could reignite America’s tech leadership against rivals like China.

Hope is on the horizon for U.S. creators. Trump’s pro-innovation stance, coupled with a Supreme Court backing deregulation, gives entrepreneurs the chance to build, baby, build. The question is: will America grab this second chance to lead in global tech?

What Might We Appreciate Globally?

Donald Trump’s tendency to negotiate by starting with extreme proposals, such as the imposition of up to 60% tariffs on Chinese goods, is consistent with his broader strategy: force stakeholders to the table by making the status quo untenable. For most, the initial discomfort of these policies might give way to appreciating the long-term strategy — if it leads to freer trade and reduced reliance on distortive practices like subsidies or intellectual property theft. The downside is clear: heightened trade tensions could disrupt global supply chains, accelerating China’s efforts toward self-sufficiency and reducing interdependence in the global tech ecosystem.

That said, forcing China to confront its own reliance on the U.S. market could encourage more balanced and fair trade practices in the long term. Trump’s approach, transactional and aggressive as it seems, could also push the U.S. to reorient its investments closer to home. Strengthening North America as an economic bloc—by improving relationships with Mexico and Canada through renegotiations of agreements like the USMCA—could make the region less dependent on global volatility while fostering economic integration.

Recalibrating Engagement with Africa

Trump’s pivot toward strategic partnerships in Africa, particularly those focused on critical minerals, shifts away from traditional aid and towards relationships built on mutual economic benefit. While this transactional approach may reduce direct development assistance, it creates opportunities for African nations to leverage their resources for sustainable economic growth. The renewal (or potential adjustment) of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) could redefine U.S.-Africa trade dynamics, perhaps introducing conditions that incentivize stronger governance or economic reform.

Still, the reduction of U.S. involvement in African conflicts, unless tied directly to national interests, might leave a power vacuum. China and Russia are likely to fill these gaps, but if U.S. partnerships prioritize free-market principles and economic liberalization, the long-term outcomes for African nations could outweigh the short-term challenges.

Europe: Encouraging Self-Reliance

Trump’s skepticism of NATO and demands for greater European defense spending may seem destabilizing at first, but they align with independents’ ideals of self-reliance. By pushing European allies to take greater responsibility for their defense, the U.S. reduces its own financial and military burdens while encouraging a more balanced global power dynamic. The threat of tariffs on European goods, though initially disruptive, could encourage Europe to diversify trade partnerships and reduce overreliance on the U.S., potentially fostering innovation and resilience within its economies.

Environmental and Trade Policies

The rollback of environmental regulations, often criticized for isolating the U.S. from global climate efforts, reflects a prioritization of domestic economic growth over multilateral commitments. We might see this as a recalibration of the U.S. role, emphasizing market-driven environmental solutions over government mandates. If successful, it could showcase the power of innovation and competition in addressing environmental challenges, though skepticism about long-term consequences remains valid.

Similarly, threats to renegotiate agreements like the USMCA introduce uncertainty for industries reliant on integrated North American supply chains, particularly automotive manufacturing. Yet these disruptions could encourage Mexico and Canada to diversify their economies, reducing dependency on the U.S. while promoting regional strength. Border security initiatives, while politically divisive, might also enhance the economic stability of the region by addressing challenges tied to immigration and cross-border labor dynamics.

The Global Economic Landscape

Trump’s policies, viewed through our lens here, offer a paradox: they aim to reduce U.S. dependence on global systems while forcing other nations to reconsider their reliance on the U.S. This “America First” strategy could lead to a more fragmented global trade system, with nations shifting toward regional trade blocs or bilateral agreements. While this might seem counterproductive to the principles of free trade, the ultimate goal could be a world where countries negotiate from positions of greater equity and sovereignty, fostering more balanced and competitive markets.

For entrepreneurs, the lessons are twofold. First, navigating these disruptions requires flexibility and a long-term view, recognizing that short-term instability might pave the way for freer markets. Second, these policies challenge the entrepreneurial community to innovate solutions that thrive in an increasingly multipolar economic environment. The tension between protectionism and free-market integration remains, but the opportunity lies in how the global community responds to these provocations. As always, the market—not politics—will ultimately determine the winners and losers.

From Washington to What’s Next

Trump’s first week in office has already set the stage for a transformative period in U.S. policy, one that is deeply consequential for entrepreneurs, innovators, and market-driven thinkers. By extending tax cuts, aggressively pursuing trade renegotiations, rolling back regulations, and reshaping global engagement, the administration is signaling a return to policies aimed at economic independence and private-sector empowerment. Yet, these actions are a double-edged sword. While deregulation and lower taxes bolster the entrepreneurial spirit and innovation, tariffs, immigration restrictions, and ballooning deficits introduce significant uncertainties that could stifle long-term growth and stability.

For entrepreneurs, who often align with politically independent or classically liberal principles, the implications of these policies are nuanced. Policies that favor individual initiative and reduce bureaucratic barriers, such as deregulation and a more favorable cryptocurrency framework, present opportunities for innovation and reinvestment. However, concerns about protectionism, global trade fragmentation, and government overreach into technology development remain prominent. Entrepreneurs must weigh the potential for short-term gains against the broader risks of market distortion and fiscal irresponsibility.

The administration’s emphasis on domestic economic strength—manifested in initiatives like the $500 billion Stargate AI infrastructure project, the push for “energy dominance,” and the renegotiation of agreements such as the USMCA—presents a path forward that is ambitious but fraught with challenges. While these initiatives could drive growth and strengthen the U.S.’s leadership in critical industries, they also raise questions about sustainability, competition, and individual liberties. The balance between fostering market-driven innovation and addressing externalities, such as environmental impacts and privacy concerns, will determine the success of these policies.

Disruption as Opportunity

Entrepreneurs and policymakers alike must view this era as one of profound disruption—a term that, in the entrepreneurial lexicon, signals opportunity as much as challenge. Trump’s policies are reshaping the landscape in ways that will test the resilience and adaptability of the entrepreneurial community, pushing it to innovate solutions for an evolving global order. The emphasis on decentralization, deregulation, and market freedom aligns with the ethos of entrepreneurial independence, yet these ideals will only thrive if paired with accountability and strategic foresight.

This moment demands not just attention but action from those who seek to influence or benefit from these shifts. As the global economy becomes increasingly multipolar and self-reliance is prioritized over integration, the entrepreneurial community must champion policies that promote equitable and competitive markets while mitigating the unintended consequences of disruption. The stakes are high, but so are the possibilities. The question is not whether these policies will create change but how we will rise to meet it.