• Donate
  • Login
Sunday, June 7, 2026
  • Login
  • Register
Canary
Cart / £0.00

No products in the basket.

MEDIA THAT DISRUPTS
  • UK
  • Global
  • Opinion
  • Skwawkbox
  • Manage Subscription
  • Support
  • Features
    • Health
    • Environment
    • Science
    • Feature
    • Sport & Gaming
    • Lifestyle
    • Tech
    • Business
    • Money
    • Travel
    • Property
    • Food
    • Media
  • SHOP
No Result
View All Result
MANAGE SUBSCRIPTION
SUPPORT
  • UK
  • Global
  • Opinion
  • Skwawkbox
  • Manage Subscription
  • Support
  • Features
    • Health
    • Environment
    • Science
    • Feature
    • Sport & Gaming
    • Lifestyle
    • Tech
    • Business
    • Money
    • Travel
    • Property
    • Food
    • Media
  • SHOP
No Result
View All Result
Canary
No Result
View All Result
  • Editorial
  • Explainer
  • Global
  • Opinion
  • Environment
  • Feature
  • Food
  • Health
  • Science
  • Skwawkbox
  • UK

Uproar over Trump’s latest move which could bring about a 2008-style financial crash

Steve Topple by Steve Topple
19 May 2025
in Analysis
Reading Time: 3 mins read
228 15
A A
1
Home Global Analysis
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on BlueskyShare via WhatsAppShare via TelegramShare on Threads

The US financial landscape stands on the brink of a major transformation – and potential collapse – as Donald Trump prepares to roll back some of the most significant banking regulations enacted in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. Of course, Trump being Trump it goes against any sense of justice for most ordinary citizens – and will merely serve to line the pockets of the rich.

Trump: slashing financial regulation

As the Guardian reported:

US watchdogs are reportedly planning to slash capital rules for banks designed to prevent another 2008-style crash, as Donald Trump’s deregulation drive opens the door to the biggest rollback of post-crisis protections in more than a decade.

The move follows heavy lobbying by the banking industry, with lenders such as JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs having long complained that competition and lending have been hindered by burdensome rules governing the assets they must hold versus their liabilities.

Regulators are expected to put forward the proposals this summer, aimed at cutting the supplementary leverage ratio that requires big banks to hold high-quality capital against risky assets including loans and derivatives

Central to Trump’s proposed changes is a proposed reduction in capital requirements, particularly focusing on the supplementary leverage ratio—a key measure designed to ensure banks maintain adequate buffers against losses.

The administration’s drive to ease these restrictions aims primarily to boost liquidity within the banking sector. Proponents argue that reducing the regulatory burden on banks will enable increased lending and economic growth.

However, this approach has been met with significant criticism from experts and observers.

What the hell just happened?

People are warning that Trump’s drive for deregulation could amplify systemic risks within an already volatile financial system.

Detractors of the policy highlight the dangers of encouraging potentially reckless practices reminiscent of those that contributed to the financial meltdown more than a decade ago.

Critics contend that looser regulations could embolden banks to take on excessive risk, ultimately leaving ordinary people vulnerable to the fallout of another crisis. These concerns are particularly poignant given the historical precedent where such deregulation had devastating impacts on the broader economy and the lives of countless individuals.

Adding complexity to the unfolding financial landscape is the use of Synthetic Risk Transfers (SRTs), practices employed by banks to shift credit risks onto external investors.

By leveraging SRTs, financial institutions can reduce their apparent risk exposure, enabling them to present a healthier balance sheet while effectively transferring the underlying risk elsewhere. Analysts warn that this tactic may mask the true stability of banks, potentially obscuring vulnerabilities that could have far-reaching economic consequences.

This financial recalibration in the US contrasts markedly with developments elsewhere.

Trump could be laying the groundwork for another global shock

The international reverberations of the Trump administration’s policies are significant. European actors have been actively engaging to influence US decisions, aware that shifts in American financial regulation can have profound impacts across transatlantic economic ties. These dynamics underscore the interconnected nature of global finance and the risks posed when key players adopt divergent strategies in overseeing their banking systems.

Overall, as US congresswoman Pramila Jayapal said on X:

After the Great Recession — which cost millions of jobs and destroyed countless lives — our government put regulations in place to make sure it never happened again.

Now, Trump is getting rid of those rules. What could possibly go wrong?

Ultimately, the rollback of regulatory measures by the Trump administration signals a fundamental shift in America’s approach to financial oversight—one that prioritises deregulation in the name of economic stimulus but which raises pressing questions about the resilience and integrity of the banking sector moving forward.

We’ve been here before in the US, when the Clinton administration rolled back the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 – a move which directly led to the 2008 financial crash. Trump now looks set to do similar, but of course it won’t be him and his ilk who are affected when it all goes wrong.

Featured image via the Canary

Tags: Donald Trumpeconomics
Share180Tweet113ShareSendShareShare
Previous Post

Climate Resistance just disrupted luxury lifestyle event that asked attendees to fly in by private jet

Next Post

A memorial to a slave trader in Falmouth just got an honest heritage sign

Next Post
Thomas Corker

A memorial to a slave trader in Falmouth just got an honest heritage sign

Is the Growth of the Online Gambling Sector in 2025 Sustainable or a Bubble Ready to Burst?

Is the Growth of the Online Gambling Sector in 2025 Sustainable or a Bubble Ready to Burst?

An HMRC letter ripped open over pension

HMRC pensions scandal sees thousands of women owed over £7,000

The DWP office in London

The DWP has left unpaid carers in £357 million of debt thank to its own negligence

Liz Kendall calls Winter Fuel Payments cut part of a DWP 'moral mission'. Yes, she did say that.

Liz Kendall says Winter Fuel Payments cut part of a 'moral mission'. Yes, she did go there.

Comments 1

  1. billkruse says:
    1 year ago

    Exactly the same thing’s happening here with Reeves making plain her plans to remove the banking restrictions put in place after the 2008 crash to prevent another similar one.
    Last time, the banks were bailed out; this time, it appears likely we’ll see what’s called a bail-in in operation as the legislation was passed for this some time ago. Loosely speaking, instead of the BoE creating money from nowhere to bail out the banks which we were told we then had to pay for so we couldn’t have nice things (healthcare, education etc. despite the fact the banking crash had nothing to do with us) while the banksters merrily sailed on regardless, this time our bank accounts will be emptied and the contents replaced with equity (ie shares) in the banks of supposedly equal value. Then the banks (I’m guessing at least the ‘big 4’) will go bankrupt, leaving creditors ie people who had accounts with them, the owners of worthless shares while the banksters escape yet again leaving an impoverished nation behind them.
    Readers might think that can’t happen as money, some money at least, is guaranteed by the govt. The govt entity which is the guarantor is a ltd company, one which has no assets of its own. How then, you might ask, can it be the guarantor of millions of accounts? We can only guess at that.
    Bail-in. The legislation exists and can be Googled for, not just for the UK but for many other nations too. It’s almost as if the need was expected.
    Interestingly, the BoE states, “In light of the fact that bail-in is a crisis management tool, the Bank reserves its full discretion to depart from the approach in the operational guide and Template Resolution Instruments should it be judged appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case.”
    That sounds to me awfully like the BoE is saying, ‘if push comes to shove, we gonne do just whatever we wanna.’
    Still trust your money to a bank?

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

FIFA
Global

FIFA eases restrictions on bringing water into World Cup stadiums

by Alaa Shamali
7 June 2026
World Cup
Global

US denies visas to 15 members of Iran’s 2026 World Cup delegation

by Alaa Shamali
7 June 2026
England
Global

England — one of the top candidates for the 2026 World Cup

by Alaa Shamali
7 June 2026
World Cup
Global

Visa crisis threatens media coverage for the 2026 World Cup

by Alaa Shamali
7 June 2026
World Cup
Uncategorized

World cup chaos as US denies visas to Iranian team officials

by HG
7 June 2026

The Canary
PO Box 71199
LONDON
SE20 9EX

Canary Media Ltd – registered in England. Company registration number 09788095.

For guest posting, contact [email protected]

For other enquiries, contact: [email protected]

Complaints and Corrections

About the Canary

Meet the Team

© Canary Media Ltd 2026, all rights reserved | Website by Monster | Hosted by Krystal | Privacy Settings

Ok

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
  • UK
  • Global
  • Opinion
  • Skwawkbox
  • Manage Subscription
  • Support
  • Features
    • Health
    • Environment
    • Science
    • Feature
    • Sport & Gaming
    • Lifestyle
    • Tech
    • Business
    • Money
    • Travel
    • Property
    • Food
    • Media
  • SHOP
  • Login
  • Sign Up
  • Cart