In the lexicon of economic afflictions, “stagflation” is one of the bad ones. The term (a portmanteau of “stagnation” and “inflation”) was first popularized by British politician Iain Macleod to describe an economy’s worst-case scenario: a debilitating combination of stagnant economic output and relentlessly rising prices.

In plain terms, it’s the worst of both worlds. And according to a major 2025 report, the US is dangerously close to one.

Stag-what?

The term “stagflation” was coined in the 1960s, but it was the 1970s that burned it into public memory. Back then, oil shocks, runaway prices, and rising joblessness shattered the economic playbook. The heart of stagflation is kind of a Catch 22: the standard tools for fighting inflation can deepen stagnation, and the tools to spur growth can fuel inflation. You can end up making one problem worse in the process of fixing the other. This can push a fragile economy into a deep recession, creating a seemingly inescapable policy trap.

Is the US truly headed down such a terrible path?

Several economists, spearheaded by Nobel-winning Paul Krugman seem to think so. Except this time, it’s not the economy itself that’s bad; it’s what’s coming from its leaders.

“When Donald Trump announced his Liberation Day tariffs on April 2, many economists declared that the economy was headed for stagflation, with a number outright predicting recession. Looking back over my own posts, I was a bit more cautious. Specifically, I had and have no doubts about the flation aspect, but was less sure about the stag.

At this point, however, the data really are looking increasingly stagflationary,” Krugman wrote in a recent Substack post.

Market reports are uncharacteristically gloomy. One recent survey found that 7 in 10 investors feel most stocks are overvalued and the economy is becoming “stagflationary.” The White House, unsurprisingly, dismissed this and even called Krugman a “deranged bum.” Of course, having a Nobel doesn’t necessarily mean you’re right, but randomly insulting economists is rarely a good sign.

What Does the Data Say?

In the United States, the data doesn’t yet match the full stagflation profile, but it’s inching closer, and it’s also challenging to read.

Inflation is sticky: the Consumer Price Index rose 2.7% in June 2025, with the Cleveland Fed forecasting 2.86% for August. Core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy prices, is even higher at 2.9%. That’s not a tragedy, but it’s significantly above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target — and the International Monetary Fund expects it to stay there for some time.

Growth is harder to read. After contracting by -0.5% in the first quarter, GDP bounced back at a 3% annualized rate in the second. But that rebound was accompanied by a drop in imports, and much of that growth came from investments in AI data centers.

The saving grace is the labor market. Unemployment is just 4.2%, a far cry from the 9–10% joblessness that defined the late 1970s and early 1980s. This is one of the main reasons economists are reluctant to declare stagflation in the U.S. just yet. For now, that means the U.S. is flirting with stagflation, not living in it.

But even the job market isn’t rosy. In early August, Trump abruptly fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after a weaker-than-expected employment report. He accused the agency of producing “rigged” numbers but didn’t provide any evidence to support his accusation. In fact, most economists just believe Trump fired the head because he didn’t like the numbers.

“Trump is firing the messenger because he doesn’t seem to like jobs numbers that reflect how badly he’s damaged the economy,” said Lily Roberts, managing director for inclusive growth at the Center for American Progress, a thinktank, for The Guardian.

That’s far from the only concerning sign coming from Trump and his administration.

Trumponomics

Donald Trump’s push for aggressive protectionism and hard-line immigration enforcement has become central to the current stagflation debate. His April 2025 “Liberation Day” tariffs rolled back nearly a century of trade liberalization. They push average tariff rates to levels last seen under the 1930 Smoot–Hawley Act. This 1930s act is eerily similar to what Trump is apparently trying to do, and despite appearing successful initially, it turbocharged the Great Depression and is widely considered an economic disaster.

In an economy where imports account for three times the share of GDP they did in 1930, those tariffs create a direct price shock. Economists across the spectrum agree: tariffs act like a targeted sales tax, raising costs for consumers and businesses unless foreign suppliers absorb the hit. That isn’t happening. Import prices, even excluding tariffs, have gone up.

At the same time, Trump’s stepped-up deportations are shrinking the foreign-born workforce, disrupting labor-heavy sectors like agriculture and construction. The result is a one-two punch: higher prices from costlier imports and reduced output from labor shortages — a textbook supply-side squeeze that drives inflation while slowing growth. Paul Krugman has described this as “classic stagflationary shock” territory, warning that these policies, if sustained, could entrench higher inflation just as economic growth begins to falter.

A Volatile Mix

The political layer of things is equally significant. Trump’s recent firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics chief after a soft jobs report raised fears that official data could be politicized; or rather, to put it bluntly, manipulated. That would make it harder to track the economy accurately at a moment when reliable numbers are essential for diagnosing and responding to stagflation risks.

Together, the tariffs, immigration crackdown, and political pressure on statistical agencies form a volatile mix: policy-driven supply shocks compounded by uncertainty about whether the U.S. can respond effectively if stagflation takes hold.

For now, 2025 is not a replay of the Great Stagflation, but the warning signs strong. The very fact that we’re considering this as a possibility is concerning. For now, the most important variable to watch is not a single data point like GDP. It’s whether the public still believes policymakers can keep prices stable. Once that faith is lost, history shows, the economy can fall off a cliff.