TRADERS are not usually a cheery lot. But they seemed more than pleased last November when Donald Trump stunned pollsters to win the presidency. Although most of his policy proposals were muddled at the time, he did express a few consistently that cheered markets: they liked his plans to increase government spending, especially on infrastructure, while cutting tax and regulation. Optimists were creative with their praise of Mr Trump’s plans: some described them as Keynesian; others thought them Reaganesque.

In what came to be known as the “Trump trade”, the financial markets believed that Mr Trump’s policies would boost corporate earnings. They believed that fiscal stimulus would require the Federal Reserve to push up interest rates to stop the economy from overheating and control inflation. The prospect of higher growth and real bond yields, at least for a time, caused the dollar to soar.

All of this though, hinged on the belief that Mr Trump, a political tyro who had declared war on the establishment, could navigate the byzantine politics of Washington, DC. But as a barrage of scandals emerged from the White House, traders have begun to doubt the Republicans’ ability to pass legislation. On May 9th the president unexpectedly fired James Comey, then head of the FBI, deepening such concerns. Many wonder whether anything can be passed at all.

Betting markets reckon that Mr Trump’s chances of passing a corporate-tax cut bill this year fell from 56% to 42% by May 10th. Although stockmarkets remain at an all-time high, other indicators more sensitive to Mr Trump’s promises have started to reverse course. Both the dollar and short-term inflation expectations have fallen. The Mexican peso, which plummeted immediately after Mr Trump’s election because of fears of a potential trade war, has recovered. Data from Goldman Sachs, a bank, show that when Mr Trump was first elected, the stocks of certain companies did especially well: those paying high tax rates, and those working in the construction and engineering industries outperformed the overall market index. But as the president’s chances of pushing through his policies have waned, so too have these firms’ fortunes in the market.

In hindsight, traders should have been more sceptical that a Beltway outsider could radically shake up Washington. Who knew that public policy could be so complicated?