As the US approaches its 250th birthday, its "nation of immigrants" label may need to be re-examined. Research shows that in 2025, the US experienced a net migration outflow of approximately 150,000 people - the first "reverse migration" wave since the Great Depression of the 1930s - and this trend is expected to intensify further in 2026 and 2027.
The China-based 'Global Times' says this "historic population reversal" is rooted in imbalances in the US economic structure and issues with social governance, reflecting profound economic and political restructuring.
This also means a "decline in its economic vitality, social cohesion and global appeal".
The US government attributes this phenomenon to its policies of strengthening the deportation of illegal immigrants and tightening visa regulations.
According to information released by the US Department of Homeland Security in January, nearly 3 million "illegal immigrants" left the US in 2025. However, behind the surface of this population movement seemingly driven by immigration policy, there lies a less-noticed structural reversal: US citizens are leaving their country at an unprecedented rate.
All these happening and now the Iran war and consistently double speak on the negotiations are only making things worse.
Sanjay Raja, the chief UK economist at Deutsche Bank, said inflation would rise further – perhaps by up to another percentage point – in the coming months.
“All of the data suggests that there’s something coming – we are going to see some pressure.”
Nevertheless, an argument is being made that the downward effect on growth would be relatively modest – knocking up to a quarter of a percentage point off GDP growth.
The outlook about the new Iran-US deal was 'less optimistic' after planned US-Iran peace talks in Switzerland were abruptly called off, then reinstated, and Iran said Israeli bombing in Jordan meant it was justified in closing the strait of Hormuz again.
Energy markets are already anticipating the hoped-for resurgence in supply: the cost of a barrel of crude oil dropped below $80 a barrel after the agreement was announced, for the first time since the early days of the war.
Yet governments are still counting the economic costs of a war they did not want any part of.
Despite Trump’s bullishness, his tentative agreement with Iran leaves many questions unanswered and will not immediately draw a line under the economic damage caused by the war.
Ryan Sweet, the chief global economist at the consultancy Oxford Economics, said:
“The difficulty of quantifying the economic cost is that the economic timeline doesn’t equal the military timeline, so we’re still going to be feeling the economic impact of this through the rest of this year and potentially early next.”
Americans' willingness to leave their country is also reflected in applications to renounce US citizenship.
According to immigration firms, applications to renounce US citizenship surged 48 percent year-over-year in 2024, and 2025 is likely to exceed that level. A Gallup poll in November 2025 showed that for two consecutive years, about one in five Americans said they would permanently move to another country if given the opportunity.
Trump is also facing some pushback against the deal at home, even from Republicans. Neil Shearing, the chief global economist at the consultancy Capital Economics, said policymakers should view the agreement as fragile.
“It’s a good start. But there are several ways the deal can fall apart. Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah and Lebanon, Iran exploiting its chokehold over the strait of Hormuz, and a dispute over how to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”
Matt Gertken, the chief geopolitical strategist at BCA Research, said in a recent research note that the US-Iran memorandum of understanding “should not be seen as a complete and durable peace deal that uncorks the global commodity bottleneck and concludes the war”.
(The Guardian)
Economists at Goldman Sachs said the conflict in Iran has already prompted revisions to their forecasts for economic growth, inflation and central bank policy.
Against a volatile backdrop of the Middle East conflict, the International Monetary Fund (based in Washington) said the war could add to the already strained position of government finances throughout the world.
In its half-yearly fiscal monitor, the IMF said global debt levels were on track to increase because the war was pushing up the price of energy and food, fuelling higher government borrowing costs, and hitting economic growth.
No comments:
Post a Comment