ReportWire

Tag: Tariff

  • Global leaders and businesses react to more U.S. tariff swings

    [ad_1]

    SEOUL — Governments and companies around the world scrambled Saturday to determine the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down most of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs and his response with a new round of import taxes.

    The latest twist in the U.S. tariff roller-coaster ride, launched when Trump returned to office 13 months ago and upended dozens of trading relationships with the world’s biggest economy, roiled trade officials from Mexico to South Korea to South America and beyond.

    South Korea’s Trade Ministry called for an emergency meeting Saturday to understand the new landscape. Some specific exports to the U.S., like automobiles and steel, aren’t affected by the U.S. high court decision. Those that are affected will probably now be covered by a new tariff imposed by an executive order Trump signed Friday. Trump announced Saturday morning that he would raise that 10% tariff to 15%.

    In Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron hailed the checks and balances in the United States, praising the “rule of law” during a visit to a Paris agricultural fair: “It’s a good thing to have powers and counter-powers in democracies. We should welcome that.”

    But he cautioned against any triumphalism.

    Officials were going over the language of bilateral or multilateral deals struck with the U.S. in recent months, even as they braced for new swings and Trump’s swift announcement of new tariffs.

    “I note that President Trump, a few hours ago, said he had reworked some measures to introduce new tariffs, more limited ones, but applying to everyone,” Macron said. “So we’ll look closely at the exact consequences, what can be done, and we will adapt.”

    Mexico braces, adapts

    Mexico’s secretary of the economy, Marcelo Ebrard, urged “prudence” Friday in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. “We have to see where this is going,” Ebrard told reporters. “We have to see what measures [Washington] is going to take to figure out how it is going to affect our country. “

    Amid widespread concern about tariffs in Mexico — the United States’ major commercial partner, with almost $1 trillion in annual two-way trade — Ebrard cautioned: “I tell you to put yourselves in zen mode. As tranquil as possible.”

    Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, when asked about the tariffs, said, “We’ll review the resolution carefully and then gladly give our opinion.”

    Ebrard said he plans to travel to the United States next week to clarify matters.

    Last year, Ebrard noted, Mexico managed to stave off Trump’s threats to impose a 25% across-the-board levy on all Mexican imports.

    However, Mexico has been pushing back against Trump administration tariffs on imports of vehicles, steel and aluminum, among other products.

    Among other impacts, the Supreme Court voided so-called fentanyl tariffs on Mexico, China and Canada. The Trump administration said it imposed those levies to force the three nations to crack down on trafficking of the deadly synthetic opioid.

    About 85% of Mexican exports to the United States are exempt from tariffs because of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The accord extended a mostly free-trade regimen among the three nations, replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement.

    The three-way pact is scheduled for joint review starting July 1. That date marks six years since the agreement was signed during the first Trump presidential term.

    In Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, along the Texas border, Sergio Bermúdez, head of an industrial parks company, discussed Trump’s plan for a new tariff. Trump, he said, “says a lot of things, and many of them aren’t true. All of the businesses I know are analyzing, trying to figure out how it’s going to affect them.”

    The impact could be felt especially in Juarez: Much of its economy depends on factories producing goods to export to consumers in the U.S., the result of decades of free trade between the U.S. and Mexico.

    The policy swoons in the United States over the last year have made many global business leaders cautious, as they struggle to forecast and see investment take a hit.

    CEO Alan Russell of Tecma, which helps American businesses set up operations in Mexico, has seen his job grow increasingly complicated over the last year — his company’s workload has surged as much as fourfold as it grapples with new import requirements. He worries the last U.S. moves will only make things more difficult.

    “We wake up every day with new challenges. That word ‘uncertainty’ has been the greatest enemy,” said Russell, who is American. “The difficult part has been not being clear what the rules are today or what they’re going to be tomorrow.”

    A ‘good decision’

    Swissmem, a top technology industry association in Switzerland, hailed the Supreme Court ruling as “good decision,” writing on X that its exports to the U.S. fell 18% in the fourth quarter alone — a period when Switzerland was facing much higher U.S. tariffs than most neighboring countries in Europe.

    “The high tariffs have severely damaged the tech industry,” Swissmem President Martin Hirzel said on X, while acknowledging the dust is far from settled. “However, today’s ruling doesn’t win anything yet.”

    Times staff writer Patrick J. McDonnell in Mexico City contributed to this report, as did Associated Press writers Tong-Hyung Kim in Seoul and Megan Janetsky in Mexico City. AP writers María Verza and Fabiola Sánchez in Mexico City, Samuel Petrequin in London and Jamey Keaten in Lyon, France, also contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Times staff and wire reports

    Source link

  • Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s tariffs leaves Mexico in cautious wait-and-see mode

    [ad_1]

    MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s secretary of the economy, Marcelo Ebrard, urged “prudence” Friday in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling invalidating part of President Trump’s sweeping tariff regimen.

    “We have to see where this is going,” Ebrard told reporters. “We have to see what measures [Washington] is going to take to figure out how it is going to affect our country. “

    Amid widespread concern about tariffs in Mexico—the United States major commercial partner, with almost $1 trillion in annual two-way trade—Ebrard cautioned: “I tell you to put yourselves in Zen mode. As tranquil as possible.”

    Across the globe, nations were assessing how the high court’s ruling might affect them. Some world leaders expressed relief or satisfaction with Friday’s decision.

    “The justices have shown that even a US president does not operate in a legal vacuum. Legal boundaries have been set, the era of unlimited, arbitrary tariffs may now be coming to an end,” wrote Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee, on X.

    Also writing on X, Canada’s trade minister, Dominic LeBlanc, referred to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which the Supreme Court improperly used to impose tariffs: “The United States Supreme Court’s decision reinforces Canada’s position that the IEEPA tariffs imposed by the United States are unjustified.”

    Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, in her daily news conference, diplomatically made a no-comment when asked about the tariffs. “We’ll review the resolution carefully and then gladly give our opinion,” she said.

    Ebrard, her economy secretary, plans to travel to the United States next week to clarify matters, he said.

    Last year, Ebrard noted, Mexico managed to stave off Trump’s threats to impose a 25% across-the-board levy on all Mexican imports.

    However, Mexico has been pushing back against Trump administration tariffs on imports of vehicles, steel and aluminum, among other products.

    Among other impacts, the Supreme Court voided so-called fentanyl tariffs on Mexico, China and Canada. The Trump administration imposed those levies in a bid to force the three nations to crack down on trafficking of the deadly synthetic opioid.

    In the aftermath of Friday’s ruling, Trump said he planned to seek alternate legal avenues to impose now-stricken tariffs.

    About 85% of Mexican exports to the United States are exempt from tariffs because of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The signature accord extended a mostly free-trade regimen between the three nations, replacing the previous North American Free Trade Agreement.

    The three-way pact is scheduled for joint review starting July 1. That date marks six years since the agreement was signed during the first Trump presidential term.

    [ad_2]

    Patrick J. McDonnell

    Source link

  • What the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down tariffs means for L.A.’s trade-dependent economy

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court’s decision Friday to strike down the majority of tariffs imposed by President Trump could provide some relief to L.A.’s trade-reliant economy — but only if they are not reimposed again through other means.

    The court’s 6-3 ruling that Trump didn’t have the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act rolled back levies that have upended international trade.

    “We’ve seen that the tariffs have a significant impact on our supply chain, on our manufacturers and especially on our port logistics and trade sector,” said Stephen Cheung, chief executive of the nonprofit Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.

    “I think this decision will have a significant impact on the Los Angeles economy. However, it’s going to take a long time to unravel, so we’ll see specifically how everything is going to pan out,” he said.

    The tariffs dealt a blow to a large swath of businesses in Southern California and across the state, including farmers, automakers, home builders, tech companies and apparel retailers.

    MGA Entertainment, the Chatsworth maker of Bratz dolls, said a little more than half of its products are made in China, while hardware and lumber seller Anawalt in Malibu said the majority of its lumber comes from Canada and nearly all of its steel products are made in China.

    During a news conference Friday following the decision, Trump said that under other legal authorities he would impose a 10% global tariff and pursue additional levies, including a possible 30% tariff on foreign cars. Later in the day he signed an order imposing the 10% tax, which takes effect Feb. 24.

    “The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court — absolutely ashamed,” Trump said. “They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.”

    Friday’s high-court decision affects up to $170 billion in tariffs collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, including 10% to 50% duties and penalties on China, Canada and Mexico.

    Whether importers who paid the tax can seek refunds was left to a lower court to decide. It’s estimated some $100 billion in tariffs were not affected by the decision.

    The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach — which handle nearly a third of the nation’s containerized cargo and are the primary trade gateway to Asia — saw a surge of traffic the first half of last year as importers sought to get ahead of the tariffs, largely imposed in April.

    However, traffic tailed off the second half of the year, with the L.A. port expecting a single-digit decline in volume this year before Friday’s decision.

    The twin facilities form the largest ports complex in North America, supporting more than 200,000 jobs and contributing $28 billion to the regional economy in 2022, according to a California Center for Jobs & the Economy report.

    The uncertainty surrounding the tariffs derives from the complexity of the tariffs themselves — as well as the other legal options Trump has to impose them again.

    Mike Jacob, president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Assn., which represents ocean carriers, marine terminal operators and others in the industry, said the tendency is to think of the tariffs as uniform.

    “It was different rates for different countries. That was compounded by different rates for different commodities. And there’s a lot of changes that have occurred with specific commodities,” he said. “So it’s almost impossible to take a broad brush and say, here’s what we expect to happen — except to say that it’s still a pretty unsettled space.”

    In imposing a 10% global tariff, Trump would be relying on a provision of the Trade Act of 1974, while his ability to pursue additional levies would rely on other law.

    Economist Jock O’Connell, international trade advisor at L.A.’s Beacon Economics, said that Trump may have authority to impose the 10% global tariffs, but additional levies would involve trade authorities.

    “That would be a cumbersome process. The tariffs have to be more specifically framed and the subject of an investigation,” he said.

    Also complicating the process are trade deals the U.S. has been negotiating with foreign countries based on the tariffs. O’Connell expects they will seek to renegotiate them.

    “They’re likely to come back to the table and say, ‘Well, you don’t have the authority to impose these,’” he said.

    Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, said importers are facing tough decisions right now, given that any ocean carrier leaving an Asian port today would not be subject to the tariffs that were struck down.

    “That executive is asking: ‘Are my commodities now exempt from this tariff?’ If the answer is yes, ‘Can I buy more of that product and get it shipped while there are no tariffs?’” he said.

    Those decisions would revolve around such factors as the availability of space on the vessel and local warehouses, as well as trucking services, he said.

    Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, said the decision should be good news for the larger U.S. economy and businesses on the “front line” of the trade wars, such as transportation, distribution, agriculture and retail.

    “If the president lets the Supreme Court decision stand and doesn’t try to replace the tariffs, that’s a plus for the economy — but that’s not what’s going to happen,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Laurence Darmiento

    Source link

  • Trump’s Cuba oil tariff threat creates new diplomatic challenge for Mexico’s Sheinbaum

    [ad_1]

    MEXICO CITY — President Trump’s plan to slap tariffs on nations that provide oil to Cuba has created a formidable new challenge for Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum in her efforts to balance Mexico’s interests with White House demands.

    On Friday, Sheinbaum said Mexico would seek a clarification from Washington in a bid to avoid a difficult choice: Halt oil shipments to Cuba, potentially triggering a humanitarian crisis on the island, or face new tariffs on Mexican products exported to the United States.

    Ceasing oil deliveries to Cuba, she warned, could result in a catastrophic scenario — a cutoff in electrical power to hospitals and homes, threatening medical care, food supplies and other essential services across the island, home to 11 million people.

    However, the leftist president signaled that she would not risk the imposition of additional U.S. levies on imports from Mexico, a nation heavily dependent on cross-border trade. “We cannot put our country at risk in terms of tariffs,” Sheinbaum told reporters at her regular morning news conference.

    For a year, Sheinbaum has been fending off Washington’s plans to impose punishing new tariffs on Mexico. Her efforts have mostly succeeded — and she has won warm praise from Trump — but a White House decree targeting oil supplies to Cuba presents a difficult new test.

    On Thursday, Trump issued an executive order establishing potential tariffs on goods from countries “that sell or otherwise provide oil to Cuba,” a step that, Trump said, was intended to protect “U.S. national security and foreign policy from the Cuban regime’s malign actions and policies.”

    Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel denounced Trump’s move on social media as a “fascist, criminal and genocidal” plan to “asphyxiate” the Cuban economy, which is already struggling with blackouts and a lack of gasoline, among other shortages.

    Sheinbaum has also been engaged in strenuous efforts to dissuade Trump from following through on his threats to deploy U.S. military assets against cartels in Mexico. She has called any prospective U.S. strike on Mexican territory a violation of Mexican sovereignty.

    Mexican crude has taken on a new urgency for Cuba since the U.S. ouster this month of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, whose socialist government was long the major supplier of oil to Cuba. (Havana said 32 Cuban officers, members of Maduro’s security detail, were killed in the operation.)

    Maduro’s fall and the Venezuelan government’s subsequent submission to Washington has resulted in a cut-off of Venezuelan oil to Cuba. U.S. imports of Venezuelan oil, meanwhile, have soared.

    Mexico supplied Cuba with about 20,000 barrels a day of oil for much of 2025, said Jorge R. Piñon, an energy expert at the University of Texas. But shipments have declined drastically this year, apparently because of U.S. pressure.

    “The faucets are being shut off,” said Piñon. “Sheinbaum is walking a tightrope.”

    Without imports, he said, Cuba faces a daily oil shortfall of about 60,000 barrels to meet its energy needs. Other potential sources for Cuba include the oil-exporting nations of Russia, Angola, Algeria and Brazil, Piñon said, but it was unclear if any of those countries would be inclined to defy the White House and help bail out Cuba.

    Mexico’s support for the Cuban government has long been a point of pride here, a sign of a foreign policy independence from the United States, especially during the Cold War. Mexican leaders, including Sheinbaum, have repeatedly decried Washington’s more than half-century embargo of the island as an illegal blockade that punishes ordinary Cubans, not the country’s communist elite.

    It was from the Mexican coast that, in 1956, Fidel Castro sailed to Cuba along with Ernesto “Che” Guevara and other revolutionaries in the yacht Granma, launching an improbable but ultimately successful armed rebellion to overthrow U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista.

    Former Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador — Sheinbaum’s predecessor and political mentor — labeled Castro a “giant” and called Havana a “progressive” model for resistance to U.S. pressure.

    But the U.S. push to block Mexican oil exports to Cuba is also exposing divisions in the ruling Morena political bloc, which was founded by López Obrador.

    Leftists in Morena have assailed Washington’s attempt to halt Mexican oil exports to Cuba. But more conservative members of the ruling party have urged caution.

    Ricardo Sheffield, a prominent Morena senator who was previously a member of the center-right National Action Party, has called for a review of oil pacts with Cuba. In a recent speech, he acknowledged “the relationship and the history that unites” Mexico and Cuba, but warned: “If we continue giving away oil to Cuba, we will have more problems with our neighbors in the U.S.”

    Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Patrick J. McDonnell, Kate Linthicum

    Source link

  • Firmness, flattery and phone calls: How Mexico’s president won over Trump

    [ad_1]

    MEXICO CITY — He has called Colombian President Gustavo Petro “a sick man” and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator.” He once slammed French President Emmanuel Macron as “publicity-seeking,” and former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “dishonest and weak.”

    President Trump is known for hurling scathing insults at world leaders.

    Then there’s Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. The U.S. president has described her, at turns, as “fantastic,” “terrific” and “elegant.”

    In a social media post Thursday, he offered his most glowing compliments yet, extolling Sheinbaum as “wonderful and highly intelligent” and saying Mexicans “should be very happy” to have her as their leader.

    Trump’s emphatic praise for Sheinbaum is surprising, given their marked differences in temperament and politics.

    Sheinbaum, a leftist known for her patience and pragmatism, labeled Israel’s U.S.-backed war in Gaza a “genocide” and condemned the recent U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

    She disagrees with Trump on three of his firmly held beliefs: that the U.S. should raise tariffs on Mexican imports, expel migrants en masse, and attack drug traffickers inside Mexico.

    But Sheinbaum is keenly aware of how Trump’s actions on trade, immigration and security could plunge Mexico into turmoil, potentially threatening her own popularity and the legacy of the ruling party founded by her populist predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

    So she has tread strategically, requesting frequent phone calls with Trump, making concessions on issues such as security and heaping praise right back at him. She described her conversation with Trump on Thursday as “productive and cordial” and added: “I had the pleasure of greeting his wife, Melania.”

    So far, her tactics have worked. Trump’s repeated threats of sweeping tariffs on Mexican goods and drone attacks on cartel targets have not yet come to pass.

    Managing Trump has been one of the biggest — and perhaps most consequential — focal points of Sheinbaum’s presidency. “It’s not something that just happened today,” she said recently of her relationship with Trump. “Communication, coordination, and defending the people of Mexico … are constants.”

    Sheinbaum has been quelling nerves in Mexico since Trump’s election in late 2024, just weeks after she assumed the presidency. She promised to forge strong bonds with the incoming U.S. leader, who is widely disliked here for his diatribes against immigrants. Sheinbaum vowed to emulate Kalimán, a beloved Mexican comic-book superhero known for defeating villains with “serenity and patience.”

    She has sought to command Trump’s respect in other ways, holding massive public rallies that demonstrate widespread support for her government. “We will always hold our heads high,” she said at one event shortly before Trump took office. “Mexico is a free, independent, and sovereign country. We coordinate, we collaborate, but we do not submit.”

    In some ways, Trump has actually galvanized support for Sheinbaum by sparking a surge in nationalism. Polls show most Mexicans approve of her handling of the bilateral relationship. According to a poll conducted by El País newspaper, her approval rating soared to 83% in May after she persuaded Trump to postpone the implementation of heavy tariffs. It now stands around 74%.

    Still, some political analysts point out that Trump may like Sheinbaum because, despite her talk of defending Mexico’s sovereignty, she has actually acquiesced to him many times, particularly on issues of security.

    “The list of concessions to Trump accumulated in a single year far surpasses in scope and depth those made by supposedly more ‘subservient’ governments,” wrote columnist Jorge Lomonaco in El Universal newspaper.

    Sheinbaum has deployed Mexican troops to stop migrants from reaching the U.S. border. She has sent dozens of accused drug criminals to the U.S. to face trial there, sidestepping the standard extradition process to do so. She imposed tariffs on some imports from China and other countries, and her government reportedly paused shipments of oil to Cuba, signaling a possible end to what Sheinbaum had lauded as a “humanitarian” effort to aid the embattled island nation — another possible target of Trump.

    “In public, Sheinbaum’s government has maintained a sovereign and patriotic rhetoric, but it is evident that, in private, it has been very docile with the U.S.,” Lomonaco wrote.

    Trump’s discourse with Mexico continues to be infused with threats. While he calls Sheinbaum a “good woman,” he also said in May that she is “so afraid of the cartels she can’t even think straight.”

    Many believe Trump’s decision to send U.S. special forces to arrest Maduro and his wife in Caracas could embolden him to launch a U.S. military attack on cartels in Mexico — a move that Sheinbaum would clearly see as crossing a red line, and could probably ignite a political crisis here.

    “I do think there’s a real risk of a strike on Mexican soil against cartels, especially after what happened in Venezuela,” said Gustavo Flores-Macías, dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland.

    Mexico, he said, is attempting “a delicate balance of keeping U.S. authorities happy without falling into this perennial game of trying to appease the White House and do everything that Trump wants.”

    Trump has also threatened to pull out of a trilateral trade deal with Canada, which was negotiated during his first term. The U.S., Mexico and Canada must launch a joint review of the free trade pact by July 1, its sixth anniversary, to determine whether the nations intend to renew it for 16 more years or make modifications. Trump has called the deal “irrelevant,” but the pact is fundamental to a Mexican economy heavily dependent on cross-border trade.

    Meantime, a controversy arose last week surrounding the mysterious capture in Mexico of Ryan Wedding, the former Canadian Olympic snowboarder who faces federal charges in California of running a billion-dollar drug-trafficking ring.

    Sheinbaum dismissed reports that FBI agents on the ground in Mexico participated in the the arrest of Wedding, who, according to U.S. authorities, had been hiding for years in Mexico.

    Sheinbaum insisted that Wedding turned himself in at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City and, at a news briefing, displayed a photograph that she said depicted Wedding outside the embassy.

    But Canadian media said the image was probably fake, a creation of artificial intelligence. Sheinbaum dodged questions about the image’s authenticity. Wedding’s lawyer, Anthony Colombo, disputed Sheinbaum’s account that Wedding turned himself in. “He was arrested,” Colombo told reporters outside the federal courthouse in Santa Ana, where Wedding entered a not guilty plea. “He did not surrender.”

    Sheinbaum was able to weather the dispute, but the episode again raised questions about how far the Mexican president is willing to go to keep Trump happy.

    “It would be very very concerning — and certainly illegal under Mexican law — if the FBI operated and arrested an individual on Mexican soil,” said Flores-Macías, who added: “I think there are some clear signs that this took place without the involvement of Mexican authorities.”

    Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Kate Linthicum, Patrick J. McDonnell

    Source link

  • Amazon CEO warns prices have gone up from tariffs

    [ad_1]

    Some of the things people buy the most are at their most expensive point of the year as the calendar changes over to 2026. Our get the facts data team dug into what actually caused the prices of some items to go up or go down. Let’s start with beef. Right now, the average price for ground beef is 823 per pound and 967 for steaks, the highest prices for both all year. Several factors like President Trump’s tariffs. Cattle inventories and an aging farming population contributed to the increase, but so did something called the New World screwworm, *** parasitic fly that produced *** deadly disease in some places like Mexico. Another grocery staple that is more expensive now, coffee. Our get the Facts data team found the price rose each month throughout the year, maxing out at 926 cents *** pound. Two of the world’s biggest coffee producers, Brazil and Vietnam, Were impacted by drought and excessive rains earlier this year, which reduced coffee production, and Brazil saw an additional 40% tariff over the summer as well. One of the biggest talking points, especially from President Trump about the state of the economy was egg prices. They are one of the few items tracked that actually are cheapest now. Egg prices saw their biggest price hike in nearly 10 years in January, then rose to an all-time high of 623. Per dozen in March. This was in large part to ongoing bird flu outbreaks. Egg prices would start falling in the summer and are now 286 *** dozen. Some other groceries that saw increases this year, cookies, potato chips, bacon, cheddar cheese, and orange juice. But it wasn’t all increases at the supermarket. Some items are cheaper now compared to January, like pasta, white bread, tomatoes, and strawberries. In Washington, I’m Amy Lou.

    If your next Amazon order seems more expensive, President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs may be partially to blame, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said Tuesday.Like many retailers, Amazon and its vast network of third-party sellers loaded up on inventory ahead of Trump’s tariff rollout last spring. But that supply ran out by the fall, Jassy said in a CNBC interview on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.“So you start to see some of the tariffs creep into some of the prices, some of the items,” he said. “Some sellers are deciding that they’re passing on those higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices, some are deciding that they’ll absorb it to drive demand and some are doing something in between.”The comments are a stark shift from last June, when Jassy said in a CNBC interview that the company had not seen “prices appreciably go up.” That was after Amazon drew the direct ire of Trump and members of his administration following reports that the e-commerce giant planned to display how tariffs were impacting prices.After Trump spoke with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos at the time, a company spokesperson told CNN the move “was never a consideration for the main Amazon.” It was only being considered for certain products on its spinoff site, Haul, which sells items below $30, the company said.On Tuesday, though, Jassy said: “We’re going to do everything we can to work with our selling partners to make prices as low as possible for consumers, but you don’t have endless options.”In a statement, though, the company told CNN that overall price levels have not changed more than expected. “While we are seeing prices for some sellers and some brands go up, overall the prices of products on Amazon have not changed outside of normal fluctuations,“ an Amazon spokesperson said.And the White House said it maintains that foreign exports are footing that tariff bill.“The average tariff imposed by America has increased by almost tenfold under President Trump, and inflation has continued to cool from Biden-era highs,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement.“The Administration has consistently maintained that foreign exporters who depend on access to the American economy, the world’s biggest and best consumer market, will ultimately pay the cost of tariffs, and that’s what’s playing out,” he added.Amazon isn’t the only retailer warning of higher prices because of tariffs. Walmart, Target and Home Depot and many other companies have publicly said tariffs are making products more expensive. And while overall consumer inflation was modest last year, many businesses surveyed by the Federal Reserve in its latest Beige Book, a collection of anecdotes, warned they’re planning bigger price hikes this year.

    If your next Amazon order seems more expensive, President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs may be partially to blame, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said Tuesday.

    Like many retailers, Amazon and its vast network of third-party sellers loaded up on inventory ahead of Trump’s tariff rollout last spring. But that supply ran out by the fall, Jassy said in a CNBC interview on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

    “So you start to see some of the tariffs creep into some of the prices, some of the items,” he said. “Some sellers are deciding that they’re passing on those higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices, some are deciding that they’ll absorb it to drive demand and some are doing something in between.”

    The comments are a stark shift from last June, when Jassy said in a CNBC interview that the company had not seen “prices appreciably go up.” That was after Amazon drew the direct ire of Trump and members of his administration following reports that the e-commerce giant planned to display how tariffs were impacting prices.

    After Trump spoke with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos at the time, a company spokesperson told CNN the move “was never a consideration for the main Amazon.” It was only being considered for certain products on its spinoff site, Haul, which sells items below $30, the company said.

    On Tuesday, though, Jassy said: “We’re going to do everything we can to work with our selling partners to make prices as low as possible for consumers, but you don’t have endless options.”

    In a statement, though, the company told CNN that overall price levels have not changed more than expected. “While we are seeing prices for some sellers and some brands go up, overall the prices of products on Amazon have not changed outside of normal fluctuations,“ an Amazon spokesperson said.

    And the White House said it maintains that foreign exports are footing that tariff bill.

    “The average tariff imposed by America has increased by almost tenfold under President Trump, and inflation has continued to cool from Biden-era highs,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement.

    “The Administration has consistently maintained that foreign exporters who depend on access to the American economy, the world’s biggest and best consumer market, will ultimately pay the cost of tariffs, and that’s what’s playing out,” he added.

    Amazon isn’t the only retailer warning of higher prices because of tariffs. Walmart, Target and Home Depot and many other companies have publicly said tariffs are making products more expensive. And while overall consumer inflation was modest last year, many businesses surveyed by the Federal Reserve in its latest Beige Book, a collection of anecdotes, warned they’re planning bigger price hikes this year.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘This will be an interesting trip’: President Trump to speak in Switzerland amid Greenland uproar

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump will deliver a speech today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, focusing on a plan to make housing more affordable, while his comments about acquiring Greenland continue to stir tensions with European allies.”This will be an interesting trip. I have no idea what’s going to happen, but you are well represented,” Trump told reporters before departing the White House for Switzerland.The speech comes shortly after he threatened to impose tariffs on Denmark and seven other allies due to their opposition to his interest in acquiring Greenland. Trump announced that the tariffs would start at 10% next month and increase to 25% by June. The tensions over the U.S. interest in the Danish territory have already affected Wall Street, with stocks rattled on Tuesday.In Davos, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney warned global leaders that the world is “facing a rupture,” emphasizing the risks of countries trying to avoid conflict by compliance. “There is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along, to accommodate to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety. Well, it won’t,” Carney said.Carney also added that Canada opposes tariffs over Greenland. Trump’s speech is expected to focus largely on housing, and following his address, he will meet with leaders at the forum, according to the White House.Home sales in the U.S. are at a 30-year low with rising prices. Reports show elevated mortgage rates are keeping prospective home buyers out of the market. Rent, for several years, has been the largest contributor to inflation.This comes as Trump announced his plan to buy $200 billion in mortgage securities to help lower interest rates on home loans. He’s also called for a ban on large financial companies buying houses. Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:s

    WASHINGTON —

    President Donald Trump will deliver a speech today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, focusing on a plan to make housing more affordable, while his comments about acquiring Greenland continue to stir tensions with European allies.

    “This will be an interesting trip. I have no idea what’s going to happen, but you are well represented,” Trump told reporters before departing the White House for Switzerland.

    The speech comes shortly after he threatened to impose tariffs on Denmark and seven other allies due to their opposition to his interest in acquiring Greenland.

    Trump announced that the tariffs would start at 10% next month and increase to 25% by June.

    The tensions over the U.S. interest in the Danish territory have already affected Wall Street, with stocks rattled on Tuesday.

    In Davos, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney warned global leaders that the world is “facing a rupture,” emphasizing the risks of countries trying to avoid conflict by compliance.

    “There is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along, to accommodate to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety. Well, it won’t,” Carney said.

    Carney also added that Canada opposes tariffs over Greenland.

    Trump’s speech is expected to focus largely on housing, and following his address, he will meet with leaders at the forum, according to the White House.

    Home sales in the U.S. are at a 30-year low with rising prices. Reports show elevated mortgage rates are keeping prospective home buyers out of the market. Rent, for several years, has been the largest contributor to inflation.

    This comes as Trump announced his plan to buy $200 billion in mortgage securities to help lower interest rates on home loans. He’s also called for a ban on large financial companies buying houses.

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    s

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump ties his stance on Greenland to not getting Nobel Peace Prize, European officials say

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump linked his aggressive stance on Greenland to last year’s decision not to award him the Nobel Peace Prize, telling Norway’s prime minister that he no longer felt “an obligation to think purely of Peace,” two European officials said Monday.Trump’s message to Jonas Gahr Støre appears to ratchet up a standoff between Washington and its closest allies over his threats to take over Greenland, a self-governing territory of NATO member Denmark. On Saturday, Trump announced a 10% import tax starting in February on goods from eight nations that have rallied around Denmark and Greenland, including Norway.Those countries issued a forceful rebuke. But British Prime Minister Keir Starmer sought to de-escalate tensions on Monday. While the White House has not ruled taking control of the strategic Arctic island by force, Starmer said he did not believe military action would occur.”I think this can be resolved and should be resolved through calm discussion,” he said.Still, the American leader’s message to Gahr Støre could further fracture a U.S.-European relationship already strained by differences over how to end the nearly four-year war in Ukraine, previous rounds of tariffs, military spending and migration policy.In a sign of how tensions have increased in recent days, thousands of Greenlanders marched over the weekend in protest of any effort to take over their island. Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said in a Facebook post Monday that the tariff threats would not change their stance.“We will not be pressured,” he wrote.Meanwhile, Naaja Nathanielsen, Greenland’s minister for business, minerals, energy, justice and equality, told The Associated Press that she was moved by the quick response of allies to the tariff threat and said it showed that countries realize “this is about more than Greenland.”“I think a lot of countries are afraid that if they let Greenland go, what would be next?”Trump sends a message to the Norwegian leaderAccording to two European officials, Trump’s message to Gahr Støre read in part: “Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.”It concluded: “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.”The officials, who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, said it had been forwarded to multiple European ambassadors in Washington. PBS first reported on the content of Trump’s note.U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended the president’s approach in Greenland during a brief Q&A with reporters in Davos, Switzerland, which is hosting the World Economic Forum meeting this week.“I think it’s a complete canard that the president would be doing this because of the Nobel,” Bessent said, immediately after saying he did not “know anything about the president’s letter to Norway.”Bessent insisted Trump “is looking at Greenland as a strategic asset for the United States,” adding that “we are not going to outsource our hemispheric security to anyone else.”The White House did not respond to questions about the message or the context for Trump sending it.Gahr Støre confirmed Monday that he had received a text message the day before from Trump but did not release its contents.The Norwegian leader said Trump’s message was a reply to an earlier missive sent on behalf of himself and Finnish President Alexander Stubb, in which they conveyed their opposition to the tariff announcement, pointed to a need to de-escalate, and proposed a telephone conversation among the three leaders.“Norway’s position on Greenland is clear. Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and Norway fully supports the Kingdom of Denmark on this matter,” the Norwegian leader said in a statement. “As regards the Nobel Peace Prize, I have clearly explained, including to President Trump what is well known, the prize is awarded by an independent Nobel Committee and not the Norwegian Government.”He told TV2 Norway that he hadn’t responded to the message, but “I still believe it’s wise to talk,” and he hopes to talk with Trump in Davos this week.The Norwegian Nobel Committee is an independent body whose five members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament.Trump has openly coveted the peace prize, which the committee awarded to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado last year. Last week, Machado presented her Nobel medal to Trump, who said he planned to keep it though the committee said the prize can’t be revoked, transferred or shared with others.Starmer says a trade war is in no one’s interestIn his latest threat of tariffs, Trump indicated they would be retaliation for last week’s deployment of symbolic numbers of troops from the European countries to Greenland — though he also suggested that he was using the tariffs as leverage to negotiate with Denmark.European governments said that the troops traveled to the island to assess Arctic security, part of a response to Trump’s own concerns about interference from Russia and China.Starmer on Monday called Trump’s threat of tariffs “completely wrong” and said that a trade war is in no one’s interest.He added that “being pragmatic does not mean being passive and partnership does not mean abandoning principles.”Six of the eight countries targeted are part of the 27-member European Union, which operates as a single economic zone in terms of trade. European Council President Antonio Costa said Sunday that the bloc’s leaders expressed “readiness to defend ourselves against any form of coercion.” He announced a summit for Thursday evening.Starmer indicated that Britain, which is not part of the EU, is not planning to consider retaliatory tariffs.“My focus is on making sure we don’t get to that stage,” he said.Denmark’s defense minister and Greenland’s foreign minister are expected to meet NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in Brussels on Monday, a meeting that was planned before the latest escalation.___Associated Press writers Josh Boak in West Palm Beach, Florida; Emma Burrows in Nuuk, Greenland; and Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report.

    President Donald Trump linked his aggressive stance on Greenland to last year’s decision not to award him the Nobel Peace Prize, telling Norway’s prime minister that he no longer felt “an obligation to think purely of Peace,” two European officials said Monday.

    Trump’s message to Jonas Gahr Støre appears to ratchet up a standoff between Washington and its closest allies over his threats to take over Greenland, a self-governing territory of NATO member Denmark. On Saturday, Trump announced a 10% import tax starting in February on goods from eight nations that have rallied around Denmark and Greenland, including Norway.

    Those countries issued a forceful rebuke. But British Prime Minister Keir Starmer sought to de-escalate tensions on Monday. While the White House has not ruled taking control of the strategic Arctic island by force, Starmer said he did not believe military action would occur.

    “I think this can be resolved and should be resolved through calm discussion,” he said.

    Still, the American leader’s message to Gahr Støre could further fracture a U.S.-European relationship already strained by differences over how to end the nearly four-year war in Ukraine, previous rounds of tariffs, military spending and migration policy.

    In a sign of how tensions have increased in recent days, thousands of Greenlanders marched over the weekend in protest of any effort to take over their island. Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said in a Facebook post Monday that the tariff threats would not change their stance.

    “We will not be pressured,” he wrote.

    Meanwhile, Naaja Nathanielsen, Greenland’s minister for business, minerals, energy, justice and equality, told The Associated Press that she was moved by the quick response of allies to the tariff threat and said it showed that countries realize “this is about more than Greenland.”

    “I think a lot of countries are afraid that if they let Greenland go, what would be next?”

    Trump sends a message to the Norwegian leader

    According to two European officials, Trump’s message to Gahr Støre read in part: “Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.”

    It concluded: “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.”

    The officials, who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, said it had been forwarded to multiple European ambassadors in Washington. PBS first reported on the content of Trump’s note.

    U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended the president’s approach in Greenland during a brief Q&A with reporters in Davos, Switzerland, which is hosting the World Economic Forum meeting this week.

    “I think it’s a complete canard that the president would be doing this because of the Nobel,” Bessent said, immediately after saying he did not “know anything about the president’s letter to Norway.”

    Bessent insisted Trump “is looking at Greenland as a strategic asset for the United States,” adding that “we are not going to outsource our hemispheric security to anyone else.”

    The White House did not respond to questions about the message or the context for Trump sending it.

    Gahr Støre confirmed Monday that he had received a text message the day before from Trump but did not release its contents.

    The Norwegian leader said Trump’s message was a reply to an earlier missive sent on behalf of himself and Finnish President Alexander Stubb, in which they conveyed their opposition to the tariff announcement, pointed to a need to de-escalate, and proposed a telephone conversation among the three leaders.

    “Norway’s position on Greenland is clear. Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and Norway fully supports the Kingdom of Denmark on this matter,” the Norwegian leader said in a statement. “As regards the Nobel Peace Prize, I have clearly explained, including to President Trump what is well known, the prize is awarded by an independent Nobel Committee and not the Norwegian Government.”

    He told TV2 Norway that he hadn’t responded to the message, but “I still believe it’s wise to talk,” and he hopes to talk with Trump in Davos this week.

    The Norwegian Nobel Committee is an independent body whose five members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament.

    Trump has openly coveted the peace prize, which the committee awarded to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado last year. Last week, Machado presented her Nobel medal to Trump, who said he planned to keep it though the committee said the prize can’t be revoked, transferred or shared with others.

    Starmer says a trade war is in no one’s interest

    In his latest threat of tariffs, Trump indicated they would be retaliation for last week’s deployment of symbolic numbers of troops from the European countries to Greenland — though he also suggested that he was using the tariffs as leverage to negotiate with Denmark.

    European governments said that the troops traveled to the island to assess Arctic security, part of a response to Trump’s own concerns about interference from Russia and China.

    Starmer on Monday called Trump’s threat of tariffs “completely wrong” and said that a trade war is in no one’s interest.

    He added that “being pragmatic does not mean being passive and partnership does not mean abandoning principles.”

    Six of the eight countries targeted are part of the 27-member European Union, which operates as a single economic zone in terms of trade. European Council President Antonio Costa said Sunday that the bloc’s leaders expressed “readiness to defend ourselves against any form of coercion.” He announced a summit for Thursday evening.

    Starmer indicated that Britain, which is not part of the EU, is not planning to consider retaliatory tariffs.

    “My focus is on making sure we don’t get to that stage,” he said.

    Denmark’s defense minister and Greenland’s foreign minister are expected to meet NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in Brussels on Monday, a meeting that was planned before the latest escalation.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Josh Boak in West Palm Beach, Florida; Emma Burrows in Nuuk, Greenland; and Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Commentary: America tried something new in 2025. It’s not going well

    [ad_1]

    Is there a dumpster somewhere to torch and bury this year of bedlam, 2025?

    We near its end with equal amounts relief and trepidation. Surely we can’t be expected to endure another such tumultuous turn around the sun?

    It was only January that Donald Trump moved back into the White House, apparently toting trunkloads of gilt for the walls. Within weeks, he’d declared an emergency at the border; set in motion plans to dismantle government agencies; fired masses of federal workers; and tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.

    Demonstrators at a No Kings rally in Washington, protesting actions by President Trump and Elon Musk.

    (Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

    By spring, the administration was attacking Harvard as a test case for strong-arming higher education. By June, Trump’s grotesquely misnamed Big Beautiful Bill had become law, giving $1 trillion in tax cuts to billionaires and funding a deportation effort (and armed force) that has fundamentally reshaped American immigration law and ended any pretense about targeting “the worst of the worst.”

    Fall and winter have brought questionable bombings of boats in the Caribbean, a further backing away from Ukraine, a crackdown on opposition to Trump by classifying it as leftist terrorism and congressional inaction on healthcare that will leave many struggling to stay insured.

    That’s the short list.

    It was a year when America tried something new, and while adherents of the MAGA movement may celebrate much of it, our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak have a different perspective.

    Here, they renew their annual tradition of looking at the year past and offering some thoughts on what the new year may bring.

    Chabria: Welp, that was something. I can’t say 2025 was a stellar year for the American experiment, but it certainly will make the history books.

    Before we dive into pure politics, I’ll start with something positive. I met a married couple at a No Kings rally in Sacramento who were dressed up as dinosaurs, inspired by the Portland Frog, an activist who wears an inflatable amphibian suit.

    When I asked why, the husband told me, “If you don’t do something soon, you will have democracy be extinct.”

    A woman standing before an American flag during an anti-Trump protest in downtown Los Angeles.

    Crowds participate in No Kings Day in downtown Los Angeles in October.

    (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

    I loved that so many Americans were doing something by turning out to not just protest policies that hit personally, but to rally in support of democracy writ large. For many, it was their first time taking this kind of action, and they were doing it in a way that expressed optimism and possibility rather than giving in to anger or despair. Where there is humor, there is hope.

    Barabak: As in, it only hurts when I laugh?

    In 2024, a plurality of Americans voted to reinstall Trump in the White House — warts, felony conviction and all — mainly in the hope he would bring down the cost of living and make eggs and gasoline affordable again.

    While eggs and gas are no longer exorbitant, the cost of just about everything else continues to climb. Or, in the case of beef, utility bills and insurance, skyrocket.

    Workers adding Donald Trump's name to the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts

    The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts is another of the long-standing institutions Trump has smeared his name across.

    (Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

    Meantime, the president seems less concerned with improving voters’ lives than smearing his name on every object he lays his eyes on, one of the latest examples being the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

    (The only place Trump doesn’t want to see his name is in those voluminous Epstein files.)

    I wonder: Why stop there? Why not brand these the United States of Trump-erica, then boast we live in the “hottest” country on Planet Trump?

    Chabria: Stop giving him ideas!

    You and I agree that it’s been a difficult year full of absurdity, but we’ve disagreed on how seriously to take Trump as a threat to democracy. As the year closes, I am more concerned than ever.

    It’s not the ugly antics of ego that alarm me, but the devastating policies that will be hard to undo — if we get the chance to undo them.

    The race-based witch hunt of deportations is obviously at the top of that list, but the demolition of both K-12 and higher education; the dismantling of federal agencies, thereby cutting our scientific power as a nation; the increasing oligarchy of tech industrialists; the quiet placement of election deniers in key election posts — these are all hammers bashing away at our democracy.

    Now, we are seeing overt antisemitism and racism on the MAGA right, with alarming acceptance from many. The far right has championed a debate as dumb as it is frightening, about “heritage” Americans being somehow a higher class of citizens than nonwhites.

    Vice President JD Vance speaks at a college campus event in front of a poster reading "This Is the Turning Point."

    Vice President JD Vance speaks at the University of Mississippi in Oxford.

    (Gerald Herbert / Associated Press)

    Recently, Vice President JD Vance gave a speech in which he announced, “In the United States of America, you don’t have to apologize for being white anymore,” and Trump has said he wants to start taking away citizenship from legal immigrants. Both men claim America is a Christian nation, and eschew diversity as a value.

    Do you still think American democracy is secure, and this political moment will pass without lasting damage to our democratic norms?

    Barabak: I’ll start with some differentiation.

    I agree that Trump is sowing seeds or, more specifically, enacting policies and programs, that will germinate and do damage for many years to come.

    Alienating our allies, terrorizing communities with his prejudicial anti-immigrant policies — which go far beyond a reasonable tightening of border security — starving science and other research programs. The list is a long and depressing one, as you suggest.

    But I do believe — cue the trumpets and cherubs — there is nothing beyond the power of voters to fix.

    To quote, well, me, there is no organism on the planet more sensitive to heat and light than a politician. We’ve already seen an anti-Trump backlash in a series of elections held this year, in red and blue state alike. A strong repudiation in the 2026 midterm election will do more than all the editorial tut-tutting and protest marches combined. (Not that either are bad things.)

    A poll worker at Los Angeles' Union Station.

    A stressed-out seeming poll worker in a polling station at Los Angeles’ Union Station.

    (Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

    The best way to preserve our democracy and uphold America’s values is for unhappy citizens to register their dissent via the ballot box. And to address at least one of your concerns, I’m not too worried about Trump somehow nullifying the results, given legal checks and the decentralization of our election system.

    Installing lawmakers in Congress with a mandate to hold Trump to account would be a good start toward repairing at least some of the damage he’s wrought. And if it turns into a Republican rout, it’ll be quite something to watch the president’s onetime allies run for the hills as fast as their weak knees allow.

    Chabria: OMG! It’s a holiday miracle. We agree!

    I think the midterms will be messy, but I don’t think this will be an election where Trump, or anyone, outright tries to undo overall results.

    Although I do think the groundwork will be laid to sow further doubt in our election integrity ahead of 2028, and we will see bogus claims of fraud and lawsuits.

    So the midterms very well could be a reset if Democrats take control of something, anything. We would likely not see past damage repaired, but may see enough opposition to slow the pace of whatever is happening now, and offer transparency and oversight.

    But the 2026 election only matters if people vote, which historically is not something a great number of people do in midterms. At this point, there are few people out there who haven’t heard about the stakes in November, but that still doesn’t translate to folks — lazy, busy, distracted — weighing in.

    If proposed restrictions on mail-in ballots or voter identification take effect, even just in some states, that will also change the outcomes.

    But there is hope, always hope.

    Barabak: On that note, let’s recognize a few of the many good things that happened in 2025.

    MacKenzie Scott donated $700 million to more than a dozen historically Black colleges and universities, showing that not all tech billionaires are selfish and venal.

    The Dodgers won their second championship and, while this San Francisco Giants fan was not pleased, their seven-game thriller against the Toronto Blue Jays was a World Series for the ages.

    And the strength and resilience shown by survivors of January’s SoCal firestorm has been something to behold.

    Any others, beside your demonstrating dinos, who deserve commendation?

    Pope Leo XIV waves after delivering the annual Christmas blessing.

    Pope Leo XIV waves after delivering the Christmas Day blessing from the main balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican.

    (Gregorio Borgia / Associated Press)

    Chabria: Though I’m not Catholic, I have been surprisingly inspired by Pope Leo XIV.

    So I’ll leave us with a bit of his advice for the future: “Be agents of communion, capable of breaking down the logic of division and polarization, of individualism and egocentrism.”

    Many of us are tired, and suffering from Trump fatigue. Regardless, to put it in nonpapal terms, it may be a dumpster — but we’re all in it together.

    Barabak: I’d like to end, as we do each year, with a thank you to our readers.

    Anita and I wouldn’t be here — which would greatly please some folks — but for you. (And a special nod to the paid subscribers out there. You help keep the lights on.)

    Here’s wishing each and all a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.

    We’ll see you again in 2026.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria, Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • President Trump announces ‘warrior dividend’ bonus checks for US troops

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump said in a White House speech Wednesday night that he was sending a $1,776 bonus check to U.S. troops for Christmas, indicating that tariffs were funding the payments as he tried to reassure a worried public about the health of the economy.Trump said 1.45 million military service members would get the “warrior dividend before Christmas.“The checks are already on the way,” he added.He seemed to imply that the checks were being funded from tariff revenues.“We made a lot more money than anybody thought because of tariffs, and the bill helped us along,” Trump said, referring to the GOP’s major tax cuts legislation it passed earlier this year. “Nobody deserves it more than our military, and I say congratulations.”This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

    President Donald Trump said in a White House speech Wednesday night that he was sending a $1,776 bonus check to U.S. troops for Christmas, indicating that tariffs were funding the payments as he tried to reassure a worried public about the health of the economy.

    Trump said 1.45 million military service members would get the “warrior dividend before Christmas.

    “The checks are already on the way,” he added.

    He seemed to imply that the checks were being funded from tariff revenues.

    “We made a lot more money than anybody thought because of tariffs, and the bill helped us along,” Trump said, referring to the GOP’s major tax cuts legislation it passed earlier this year. “Nobody deserves it more than our military, and I say congratulations.”

    This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Americans like artificial Christmas trees even though few are made in US

    [ad_1]

    On a recent December day, Mark Latino and a handful of his workers spun sheets of vinyl into tinsel for Christmas tree branches. They worked on a custom-made machine that’s nearly a century old, churning out strands of bright silver tinsel along its 35-foot (10-meter) length.Latino is the CEO of Lee Display, a Fairfield, California-based company that his great-grandfather founded in 1902. Back then, it specialized in handmade velvet and silk flowers for hats. Now, it’s one of the only companies in the United States that still makes artificial Christmas trees, producing around 10,000 each year.Video above: RETRO FIND: Would you swap your Christmas tree for a Christmas weed?Tariffs shone a twinkling light this year on fake Christmas trees — and the extent to which America depends on other countries for its plastic fir trees.Prices for fake trees rose 10% to 15% this year due to the new import taxes, according to the American Christmas Tree Association, a trade group. Tree sellers cut their orders and paid higher tariffs for the stock they brought in. Despite those issues, tree companies say they aren’t likely to shift large-scale production back to the U.S. after decades in Asia. Fake trees are labor-intensive and require holiday lights and other components the U.S. doesn’t make, said Chris Butler, CEO of the National Tree Co., which sells more than 1 million artificial trees each year. Americans are also very price-sensitive when it comes to holiday décor, Butler said. “Putting a ‘Made in the U.S.A.’ sticker on the box won’t do any good if it’s twice as expensive,” Butler said. “If it’s 20% more expensive, it won’t sell.”About 80% of the U.S. residents who put up a Christmas tree this year planned to use a fake one, according to the American Christmas Tree Association. That percentage has been unchanged for at least 15 years.Mac Harman, the founder and CEO of Balsam Brands, which sells hundreds of thousands of Balsam Hill trees each year, said Americans like to set up their trees on Thanksgiving and leave them up for weeks, which dries out fresh-cut trees. Others prefer fake trees because they’re allergic to the mold spores on real trees, he said.Video below: ‘Seems like a real-life Grinch’: Police searching for Christmas tree thiefAmericans also like convenience; 80% of the fake trees sold each year have the lights already strung on them, Butler said.That preference is one reason artificial tree production shifted away from the U.S., first to Thailand in the early 1990s and to China about a decade later. Winding lights around the branches is time-consuming and tedious, Harman said.”Where are we going to get 15,000 people in America who want to string lights on Christmas trees?” Harman said.It takes an hour or two to make an artificial Christmas tree, from molding and cutting the needles to tying branches together and attaching the lights, Butler said. Workers in China, where 90% of fake trees are made, are paid $1.50 to $2 per hour, he said.Harman said the workers who wrap the lights on Balsam Hill’s trees are so efficient “it’s like watching an Olympian.”One of Balsam Brands’ Chinese partners employs 15,000 to 20,000 people; another in Indonesia has up to 10,000, he said. Many are seasonal workers, since orders for Christmas décor slow down between October and February.Balsam Brands, which is based in Redwood City, California, studied whether it could make faux trees in Ohio during the first Trump administration, when President Donald Trump threatened — but eventually delayed — tariffs on imported Christmas décor, Harman said.The company hired consultants and considered automating some work. But it concluded a tree that currently sells for $800 would cost $3,000 if it was made in the U.S. Harman said Balsam couldn’t even find a U.S. company to make the pair of gloves it includes in each box for fluffing out branches.Lee Display employs three or four people for most of the year, adding more during the holiday rush to help with installations and displays. About half its business is making custom displays for companies such as Macy’s, while the other half is selling directly to consumers. Video below: Christmas celebrations return to BethlehemLatino said he likes that he can produce an order quickly instead of waiting for it to ship from overseas.”You have more control over it. I like to think that everything here is either my fault or my mistake or my careful planning and skill,” he said.The tariffs still affected Lee Display. Latino’s son James, who leads business development and marketing, said the company didn’t import lights or decorations from China this year and relied on items it already had in stock. It’s getting low on lights, so next year it will have to pay more to import them, he said.Some artificial tree companies are branching out so they’re less reliant on China. National Tree Co., which is based in Cranford, New Jersey, moved some manufacturing to Cambodia in 2024, and could source all its trees from outside China by next year if it wanted to, Butler said.But diversifying their suppliers didn’t make those companies immune from the impact of tariffs either. In April, the Trump administration threatened a 49% tariff against products from Cambodia. That rate was eventually reduced to 19%. Tariffs on artificial trees from China also bounced around but now average 20%, according to the American Christmas Tree Association.Butler said his company imported fewer trees this year and also raised prices by 10%. He said he used a lot of the money to offer customer discounts since demand was weak because of consumer worries about the economy.”It’s a discretionary item. People say, ‘I can wait one more year,’” Butler said.Balsam Brands cut its workforce by 10%, canceled travel, froze raises and even stopped serving lunch in the office once a week to absorb the impact of tariffs, Harman said. It also raised tree prices by 10%.Harman said his sales are down 5% to 10% this year in the U.S. but up 10% or more in Germany, Australia, Canada and France. That tells him tariffs have decreased U.S. demand. “If a merry Christmas is measured in how many decorations people put up, by that measure it’s going to be a slightly less merry Christmas,” he said.

    On a recent December day, Mark Latino and a handful of his workers spun sheets of vinyl into tinsel for Christmas tree branches. They worked on a custom-made machine that’s nearly a century old, churning out strands of bright silver tinsel along its 35-foot (10-meter) length.

    Latino is the CEO of Lee Display, a Fairfield, California-based company that his great-grandfather founded in 1902. Back then, it specialized in handmade velvet and silk flowers for hats. Now, it’s one of the only companies in the United States that still makes artificial Christmas trees, producing around 10,000 each year.

    Video above: RETRO FIND: Would you swap your Christmas tree for a Christmas weed?

    Tariffs shone a twinkling light this year on fake Christmas trees — and the extent to which America depends on other countries for its plastic fir trees.

    Prices for fake trees rose 10% to 15% this year due to the new import taxes, according to the American Christmas Tree Association, a trade group. Tree sellers cut their orders and paid higher tariffs for the stock they brought in.

    Despite those issues, tree companies say they aren’t likely to shift large-scale production back to the U.S. after decades in Asia. Fake trees are labor-intensive and require holiday lights and other components the U.S. doesn’t make, said Chris Butler, CEO of the National Tree Co., which sells more than 1 million artificial trees each year.

    Americans are also very price-sensitive when it comes to holiday décor, Butler said.

    “Putting a ‘Made in the U.S.A.’ sticker on the box won’t do any good if it’s twice as expensive,” Butler said. “If it’s 20% more expensive, it won’t sell.”

    About 80% of the U.S. residents who put up a Christmas tree this year planned to use a fake one, according to the American Christmas Tree Association. That percentage has been unchanged for at least 15 years.

    Mac Harman, the founder and CEO of Balsam Brands, which sells hundreds of thousands of Balsam Hill trees each year, said Americans like to set up their trees on Thanksgiving and leave them up for weeks, which dries out fresh-cut trees. Others prefer fake trees because they’re allergic to the mold spores on real trees, he said.

    Video below: ‘Seems like a real-life Grinch’: Police searching for Christmas tree thief

    Americans also like convenience; 80% of the fake trees sold each year have the lights already strung on them, Butler said.

    That preference is one reason artificial tree production shifted away from the U.S., first to Thailand in the early 1990s and to China about a decade later. Winding lights around the branches is time-consuming and tedious, Harman said.

    “Where are we going to get 15,000 people in America who want to string lights on Christmas trees?” Harman said.

    It takes an hour or two to make an artificial Christmas tree, from molding and cutting the needles to tying branches together and attaching the lights, Butler said. Workers in China, where 90% of fake trees are made, are paid $1.50 to $2 per hour, he said.

    Harman said the workers who wrap the lights on Balsam Hill’s trees are so efficient “it’s like watching an Olympian.”

    One of Balsam Brands’ Chinese partners employs 15,000 to 20,000 people; another in Indonesia has up to 10,000, he said. Many are seasonal workers, since orders for Christmas décor slow down between October and February.

    Balsam Brands, which is based in Redwood City, California, studied whether it could make faux trees in Ohio during the first Trump administration, when President Donald Trump threatened — but eventually delayed — tariffs on imported Christmas décor, Harman said.

    The company hired consultants and considered automating some work. But it concluded a tree that currently sells for $800 would cost $3,000 if it was made in the U.S. Harman said Balsam couldn’t even find a U.S. company to make the pair of gloves it includes in each box for fluffing out branches.

    Lee Display employs three or four people for most of the year, adding more during the holiday rush to help with installations and displays. About half its business is making custom displays for companies such as Macy’s, while the other half is selling directly to consumers.

    Video below: Christmas celebrations return to Bethlehem

    Latino said he likes that he can produce an order quickly instead of waiting for it to ship from overseas.

    “You have more control over it. I like to think that everything here is either my fault or my mistake or my careful planning and skill,” he said.

    The tariffs still affected Lee Display. Latino’s son James, who leads business development and marketing, said the company didn’t import lights or decorations from China this year and relied on items it already had in stock. It’s getting low on lights, so next year it will have to pay more to import them, he said.

    Some artificial tree companies are branching out so they’re less reliant on China. National Tree Co., which is based in Cranford, New Jersey, moved some manufacturing to Cambodia in 2024, and could source all its trees from outside China by next year if it wanted to, Butler said.

    But diversifying their suppliers didn’t make those companies immune from the impact of tariffs either. In April, the Trump administration threatened a 49% tariff against products from Cambodia. That rate was eventually reduced to 19%. Tariffs on artificial trees from China also bounced around but now average 20%, according to the American Christmas Tree Association.

    Butler said his company imported fewer trees this year and also raised prices by 10%. He said he used a lot of the money to offer customer discounts since demand was weak because of consumer worries about the economy.

    “It’s a discretionary item. People say, ‘I can wait one more year,’” Butler said.

    Balsam Brands cut its workforce by 10%, canceled travel, froze raises and even stopped serving lunch in the office once a week to absorb the impact of tariffs, Harman said. It also raised tree prices by 10%.

    Harman said his sales are down 5% to 10% this year in the U.S. but up 10% or more in Germany, Australia, Canada and France. That tells him tariffs have decreased U.S. demand.

    “If a merry Christmas is measured in how many decorations people put up, by that measure it’s going to be a slightly less merry Christmas,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Black Friday shoppers spend more time looking for deals but less money amid economic angst

    [ad_1]

    Black Friday shoppers flocked to stores, hoping to get more bags for their buck as they grapple with inflation, tariffs and anxiety about the health of the economy.

    Citadel Outlets in Commerce was mobbed Friday morning with long waits for parking and winding lines in front of stores as consumers tried to grab good deals. Camila Romero and her 13-year-old daughter spent hours in line trying to get the best possible deals on Ugg and Coach items on their wish lists.

    “You come to the Citadel because it’s outlets. And it’s discounts on top of that,” she said. “So even when you’re broke, you don’t feel it.”

    Shoppers across Los Angeles plan to spend less this holiday season, data show. While retailers tease their biggest deals and prepare for what they hope is robust demand, a Deloitte survey found that Angelenos plan to spend 14% less over the holidays compared with last year.

    Nationally, shoppers are expected to spend 10% less than last year.

    Consumers are pulling back on spending in response to economic uncertainty and rising prices, said Rebecca Lohrey, a partner at Deloitte with expertise in retail and e-commerce.

    “There is at least a perception of higher prices and higher costs of goods,” Lohrey said. “That is a concern for consumers across the board, and is one of the reasons they’re tightening their wallets a little bit.”

    The survey found that 62% of Angelenos expect the economy to weaken in the year ahead, up from 34% in 2024. Around the same percentage of respondents said they are concerned about a potential recession in the next six months.

    Across income groups, consumers are making cost-cutting trade-offs and putting more emphasis on finding the best deal, the data showed. More than half of Los Angeles respondents said they would switch brands if their first choice was too expensive.

    “It tends to be the lower income brackets or the middle income brackets that are the most likely to trade down,” said Collin Colburn, vice president of commerce and retail media at the Interactive Advertising Bureau. “This year, actually, everyone is trading down.”

    Camryn Smith and her daughter showed up to snoop around for the deals at the Americana at Brand in Glendale early Friday morning. The discounts help knock off some of the effect of inflation, she said.

    “The prices are higher and they just bring them down to what they normally would be,” Smith said. “It’s crazy.”

    Consumers are fatigued from continuous inflation and instability brought on by the Trump administration. More shoppers are regifting or considering giving homemade gifts, the Deloitte survey found.

    “We’ve been in an environment where prices continue to rise for a host of reasons, inflation being one, tariffs being another,” Colburn said. “I think when that happens year on year, it really drags on the consumer.”

    This means more shoppers are looking for ways to save on purchases — and presents — they cannot put off.

    The National Retail Federation predicts that a record number of Americans will shop the sales over Thanksgiving weekend. Retail sales in November and December are expected to grow between 3.7% and 4.2% compared with last year, the federation said.

    Cautious consumers are more eager than ever to find a hot deal, said NRF chief economist Mark Mathews.

    “People are changing the way that they spend,” he said. “They’re focusing more on stretching their dollar and getting value for the dollar.”

    Even shoppers spending more than usual may be doing it out of concern, economists say. Consumers who anticipate inflation sometimes spend now out of fear that prices will rise later.

    Brooklyn Farmer braved the crowds at Citadel to shop and try to save amid inflation.

    “People are struggling right now, but the holidays are still important to them,” he said. “The thinking is if there’s going to be discounts like this, I might as well go while I can, instead of spending more later.”

    Of those surveyed by Deloitte in Los Angeles, 43% said they planned to spend most of their holiday budget at big-box retailers and 32% said they would spend the most at digital-first retailers.

    Shoppers are also using new tools to help them find products and deals, including artificial intelligence. Data collected by the Interactive Advertising Bureau found that AI now ranks as the second-most influential shopping source, ahead of retailers’ websites and apps and behind only search engines.

    Nearly 90% of shoppers nationally said AI helps them find products they wouldn’t have found otherwise, according to the IAB data.

    Mattel, the El Segundo-based toy company, is offering up to 50% off at Target on Hot Wheels, Barbie dolls and Disney Princess toys, said company spokesperson Kelly Powers.

    “Mattel is working closely with retailers across the country on Black Friday deals,” Powers said.

    In May, Mattel said it was considering raising its prices to offset the effect of President Trump’s tariffs on China..

    On the October earnings call, however, the company said the full effect of tariffs won’t be seen until the fourth quarter.

    Discount retailers that depend heavily on foot traffic have given conflicting signals about their business.

    Walmart recently raised its sales forecast for the year after reporting a 6% year-over-year increase in revenue in the third quarter.

    Target, in contrast, missed analyst expectations and reported a 1.5% decline in sales in the third quarter. On a call with analysts earlier this month, Target Chief Executive Brian Cornell said the company “has not been performing up to its potential.”

    Of course, for many shoppers on Friday, the pilgrimage to splurge at the local mall was about more than saving.

    Ericka Pentasuglia brought her daughter to the Americana the Brand at around 3 a.m. to be the first in line for a pop-up store selling Billie Eilish perfume. She thought it was important for her to pass down the tradition of Black Friday shopping.

    “I do feel like it is dying a little bit,” Pentasuglia said. “The best thing is that you don’t lose a tradition, it continues to your children.”

    [ad_2]

    Caroline Petrow-Cohen, Christopher Buchanan, Gavin J. Quinton

    Source link

  • How tariffs could impact your holiday wine

    [ad_1]

    President Trump is rolling back tariffs on *** wide range of agricultural products, many of which are not widely made in the United States. Here’s what he told reporters last night. The president’s executive order released on Friday lifts so-called reciprocal tariffs on dozens of imported goods, including coffee, tea, spices, tropical fruits like bananas and beef. Labor Department data shows some of those products have seen big price increases in the last year. Take coffee up nearly 19% since last September, President. Trump says his new order will help bring prices down, but continued to insist that the cost of tariffs has been largely borne by other countries. Some Democrats though had *** different take, with one congressman writing quote, President Trump is finally admitting what we always knew. His tariffs are raising prices for the American people. The debate follows recent Democratic wins in elections largely. Focused on the issue of affordability and as both parties look ahead to high stakes midterms next year, President Trump said Friday he does not think it’ll be necessary to reverse other tariffs moving forward. His administration most recently has been touting trade frameworks with 4 Latin American countries and Switzerland as evidence in their view that these tariffs are working. Reporting in Washington, I’m Jackie DeFusco.

    Choosing the right wine to pair with your Thanksgiving meal can be as stressful as cooking the turkey. And this year, it’s going to be worse.Video above: Trump rolls back tariffs on dozens of productsShoppers can expect higher prices and possibly slimmer selections at their local wine shops, as importers are facing steep tariffs and shopkeepers are dealing with declining demand.Bottled wine prices have risen nearly 20% over the past 25 years and 8% over the past decade, according to the latest government data. Several reasons are to blame, including climate change, inflation, and rising production costs.Wine prices at McCabes Wine & Spirits shop in Manhattan are between 5% to 12% higher this year because “it’s the reality of the tariffs, shipping, manufacturing, and labor,” said owner Daniel Mesznik.His shop, like others in the United States, are working to strike a delicate balance. They’re dealing with higher upfront costs due to a hodgepodge of tariffs from President Donald Trump’s administration — notably, a 15% tariff on European Union imports — while trying not to pass too many of those costs to their customers”We’re doing our best to keep those increases to a minimum for our guests,” he told CNN. “But, I think folks understand that this is the current reality and they’re receptive to it and they’re understanding of it.”Tariffs are affecting the bottom line even more for importers of wine. Elenteny Imports, a logistics and distribution company that works with 9,000 retailers and restaurants, said wine sales are down 13% year over year.Wine woesWine volume consumed in the United States declined 3% between 2019 and 2024, and it’s expected to fall another 4% from 2024 to 2029, according to IWSR, an alcohol data insights firm.”For casual drinking occasions, wine has often been the choice for drinkers who prefer not to drink beer. But wine can be expensive and only comes in larger bottles,” said Marten Lodewijks, president of IWSR.For the past few years, drinkers have been shifting their preferences to spirits and canned cocktails.”We’ve seen wine volumes consistently decline year after year, while ready-to-drink beverages, which are less expensive, come in convenient sizes and packs, and benefit from continual flavor innovations, are growing rapidly,” he told CNN.2025 is another gloomy year, according to data from Elenteny. Order volumes for imported wines show that year-to-date bookings are down nearly 30%.Demand has sunk following a “post-pandemic frothiness,” Elenteny CEO Alexi Cashen told CNN, but said “absolutely that tariffs are the persecutory issue here.”Domestic wines, which Trump thought the tariffs would help, aren’t selling any better this year, she added.Mesznik’s shop, which recently reopened following a 16-month renovation, has shifted some of its focus from wine to tequila. He added 40% more brands and types and moved them to the front of the shop.Notably, tequila and mezcal are exempt from tariffs since both fall under the 2018 free trade agreement Trump signed with Mexico during his first term.”Tequila are in the most beautiful bottles. It’s the category in my business that everyone gravitates to right now and I want that to be front and center,” Mesznik said.Wine used to be roughly 70% of his annual sales but will drop to 65% this year because of growth in other categories, like agave, he said.Smaller selections?With drastically smaller orders coming in from overseas, including a 50% drop from France and 66% decline from Italy, per Elenteny’s data, shoppers might see that reflected on store shelves.”Many retailers, distributors, and restaurants have streamlined their wine offerings in response to the falling overall demand for alcoholic beverages, including wine,” Mike Veseth, the Wine Economist, told CNN. “Consumers might have to search more than usual to find a particular brand.”Adding to the uncertainty, Veseth said, is the upcoming Supreme Court decision about the legality of tariffs, “which discourages wine business from making investment or taking decisive action on prices.”In particular, Cashen said mid-priced wines between $40 to $50 wines “struggle the most,” while low-end bottles and premium wines are selling well, further underscoring the “K-shaped” economy.Meanwhile, Mesznik said his shop is ordering “smarter” compared to years’ past, buying from fewer wholesalers that offer deals when buying more cases.”For example, we have a Pinot Noir from Argentina this month that’s on sale. Whereas I may only buy normally 1 or 3 cases of that, I’m ordering 5 and 10 cases,” he said.

    Choosing the right wine to pair with your Thanksgiving meal can be as stressful as cooking the turkey. And this year, it’s going to be worse.

    Video above: Trump rolls back tariffs on dozens of products

    Shoppers can expect higher prices and possibly slimmer selections at their local wine shops, as importers are facing steep tariffs and shopkeepers are dealing with declining demand.

    Bottled wine prices have risen nearly 20% over the past 25 years and 8% over the past decade, according to the latest government data. Several reasons are to blame, including climate change, inflation, and rising production costs.

    Wine prices at McCabes Wine & Spirits shop in Manhattan are between 5% to 12% higher this year because “it’s the reality of the tariffs, shipping, manufacturing, and labor,” said owner Daniel Mesznik.

    His shop, like others in the United States, are working to strike a delicate balance. They’re dealing with higher upfront costs due to a hodgepodge of tariffs from President Donald Trump’s administration — notably, a 15% tariff on European Union imports — while trying not to pass too many of those costs to their customers

    “We’re doing our best to keep those increases to a minimum for our guests,” he told CNN. “But, I think folks understand that this is the current reality and they’re receptive to it and they’re understanding of it.”

    Tariffs are affecting the bottom line even more for importers of wine. Elenteny Imports, a logistics and distribution company that works with 9,000 retailers and restaurants, said wine sales are down 13% year over year.

    Wine woes

    Wine volume consumed in the United States declined 3% between 2019 and 2024, and it’s expected to fall another 4% from 2024 to 2029, according to IWSR, an alcohol data insights firm.

    “For casual drinking occasions, wine has often been the choice for drinkers who prefer not to drink beer. But wine can be expensive and only comes in larger bottles,” said Marten Lodewijks, president of IWSR.

    For the past few years, drinkers have been shifting their preferences to spirits and canned cocktails.

    “We’ve seen wine volumes consistently decline year after year, while ready-to-drink beverages, which are less expensive, come in convenient sizes and packs, and benefit from continual flavor innovations, are growing rapidly,” he told CNN.

    2025 is another gloomy year, according to data from Elenteny. Order volumes for imported wines show that year-to-date bookings are down nearly 30%.

    Demand has sunk following a “post-pandemic frothiness,” Elenteny CEO Alexi Cashen told CNN, but said “absolutely that tariffs are the persecutory issue here.”

    Domestic wines, which Trump thought the tariffs would help, aren’t selling any better this year, she added.

    Mesznik’s shop, which recently reopened following a 16-month renovation, has shifted some of its focus from wine to tequila. He added 40% more brands and types and moved them to the front of the shop.

    Notably, tequila and mezcal are exempt from tariffs since both fall under the 2018 free trade agreement Trump signed with Mexico during his first term.

    “Tequila are in the most beautiful bottles. It’s the category in my business that everyone gravitates to right now and I want that to be front and center,” Mesznik said.

    Wine used to be roughly 70% of his annual sales but will drop to 65% this year because of growth in other categories, like agave, he said.

    Smaller selections?

    With drastically smaller orders coming in from overseas, including a 50% drop from France and 66% decline from Italy, per Elenteny’s data, shoppers might see that reflected on store shelves.

    “Many retailers, distributors, and restaurants have streamlined their wine offerings in response to the falling overall demand for alcoholic beverages, including wine,” Mike Veseth, the Wine Economist, told CNN. “Consumers might have to search more than usual to find a particular brand.”

    Adding to the uncertainty, Veseth said, is the upcoming Supreme Court decision about the legality of tariffs, “which discourages wine business from making investment or taking decisive action on prices.”

    In particular, Cashen said mid-priced wines between $40 to $50 wines “struggle the most,” while low-end bottles and premium wines are selling well, further underscoring the “K-shaped” economy.

    Meanwhile, Mesznik said his shop is ordering “smarter” compared to years’ past, buying from fewer wholesalers that offer deals when buying more cases.

    “For example, we have a Pinot Noir from Argentina this month that’s on sale. Whereas I may only buy normally 1 or 3 cases of that, I’m ordering 5 and 10 cases,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Presents to arrive in time for the holidays, but may be more expensive

    [ad_1]

    Consumers don’t have to worry about products arriving in time for the holidays, though they may be facing higher prices, say officials at one of America’s largest ports.

    Imports at the Port of Long Beach are flowing smoothly through its facilities despite the government shutdown and tariff uncertainties, port executives said. Still, they acknowledge that the volume and prices of products in the millions of containers coming through the port suggest that imports are becoming more costly and consumers are more cautious.

    Until now, retailers, manufacturers and other intermediaries have absorbed much of the cost of tariffs, but that is changing as it becomes more apparent which tariffs are here to stay, Mario Cordero, chief executive of the Port of Long Beach, said Friday during a virtual news conference.

    “Consumers will likely see price escalation in the coming months as shippers continue to pass along the cost of tariffs on goods, and a higher percentage of these costs will be passed on to the consumer,” he said.

    Cordero, who drinks Starbucks coffee, said he’s seen the price of a cup of coffee increase by 15% and that more consumers are going to discount stores to find deals. However, potential price hikes could be offset if the United States and China strike further trade agreements.

    The Port of Long Beach, a gateway for trade between the United States and Asia-Pacific, released new data that offers a glimpse into how President Trump’s on-again, off-again tariffs are affecting goods imported from key trade partners, such as China.

    This week, the U.S. Supreme Court also started to hear arguments as the justices examine the legality of Trump’s tariffs.

    Over the past year, the port saw a drop in the movement of containers filled with certain goods such as winter apparel, kitchen appliances and toys that people typically buy as gifts, a sign that consumers are likely wary about spending.

    Still, the impact of tariffs on cargo volume hasn’t been as bad as some experts predicted. Cordero said some experts had projected that the port could see as much as a 35% drop in cargo volume.

    “Clearly today, it’s fair to say that the worst scenarios some predicted did not occur,” Cordero said. “The challenges were many, and there’s no doubt that many companies and their workers suffered, but cargo volume is turning out to be just as high this year as it was last year.”

    In fiscal year 2025, which runs from October 2024 to September 2025, the port surpassed 10 million 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs) for the first time, up 11% from the same period last year. TEU is a measurement used to describe cargo capacity for container ships and terminals.

    While the port saw a decline in the amount of TEUs moved in October compared with the same period in 2024, Cordero said he thinks the port will end 2025 in “positive territory.”

    In October, there were 839,671 TEUs moved. That’s because retailers and shippers started shipping goods earlier than normal to avoid fees and to stock up their warehouses because of tariffs.

    The Port of Long Beach is an economic engine for California. Officials say it helps create 691,000 jobs in Southern California. More than 2.7 million U.S jobs are connected to the Port of Long Beach, they say.

    [ad_2]

    Queenie Wong

    Source link

  • Supreme Court justices sound skeptical of Trump’s tariffs

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded skeptical Wednesday of President Trump’s claim that he has the power to set large tariffs on products coming from countries around the world.

    Most of the justices, both conservative and liberal, said Congress, not the president, had the power to impose taxes and tariffs. And they agreed Congress did not authorize tariffs in an emergency powers law adopted in 1977.

    It has “never before been used to justify tariffs, and no one had argued it before this case,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told Trump’s top courtroom attorney. “The imposition of taxes on Americans … has always been a core power of Congress.”

    Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that tariffs involve the president’s power over foreign affairs. They are “regulatory tariffs, not taxes,” he said.

    Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed.

    Imposing a tariff “is a taxing power which is delegated by the Constitution to Congress,” Kagan said.

    Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he too was skeptical of the claim the president had the power to impose taxes based on his belief that the nation faces a global emergency.

    If so, could a future president acting on his own impose a 50% tax on cars because of climate change? he asked.

    Gorsuch said the court has recently blocked far-reaching presidential regulations by Democratic presidents that went beyond an old and vague law, and the same may be called for here.

    Otherwise, presidents may feel free to take away the taxing power “from the people’s representatives,” he said.

    But Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Samuel A. Alito Jr. questioned the challenge to the president’s tariffs.

    Kavanaugh pointed to a round of tariffs imposed by President Nixon in 1971, and he said Congress later adopted its emergency powers act without clearly rejecting that authority.

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she was struggling to understand what Congress meant in the emergency powers law when it said the president may “regulate” importation.

    She agreed the law did not mention taxes and tariffs that would raise revenue, but some judges then saw it as allowing the authority to impose duties or tariffs.

    The tariffs case heard Wednesday is the first major challenge to Trump’s presidential power to be heard by the court. It is also a test of whether the court’s conservative majority is willing to set legal limits on Trump’s executive authority.

    Trump has touted these import taxes as crucial to reviving American manufacturing.

    But owners of small businesses, farmers and economists are among the critics who say the on-again, off-again import taxes are disrupting business and damaging the economy.

    Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court’s six Republican appointees have voted repeatedly to set aside orders from judges who had temporarily blocked the president’s policies and initiatives.

    While they have not explained most of their temporary emergency rulings, the conservatives have said the president has broad executive authority over federal agencies and on matters of foreign affairs.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • What to know about the Supreme Court arguments over Trump’s tariffs

    [ad_1]

    Three lower courts have ruled President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose worldwide tariffs to be illegal. Now the Supreme Court, with three justices Trump appointed and generally favorable to muscular presidential power, will have the final word.In roughly two dozen emergency appeals, the justices have largely gone along with Trump in temporarily allowing parts of his aggressive second-term agenda to take effect while lawsuits play out.But the case being argued Wednesday is the first in which the court will render a final decision on a Trump policy. The stakes are enormous, both politically and financially.The Republican president has made tariffs a central piece of his economic and foreign policy and has said it would be a “disaster” if the Supreme Court rules against him.Here are some things to know about the tariffs arguments at the Supreme Court:Tariffs are taxes on importsThey are paid by companies that import finished products or parts, and the added cost can be passed on to consumers.Through September, the government has reported collecting $195 billion in revenue generated from the tariffs.The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs, but Trump has claimed extraordinary power to act without congressional approval by declaring national emergencies under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.In February, he invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the U.S. border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.In April, he imposed worldwide tariffs after declaring the United States’ longstanding trade deficits “a national emergency.”Libertarian-backed businesses and states challenged the tariffs in federal courtChallengers to Trump’s actions won rulings from a specialized trade court, a district judge in Washington and a business-focused appeals court, also in the nation’s capital.Those courts found that Trump could not justify tariffs under the emergency powers law, which doesn’t mention them. But they left the tariffs in place in the meantime.The appeals court relied on major questions, a legal doctrine devised by the Supreme Court that requires Congress to speak clearly on issues of “vast economic and political significance.”The major questions doctrine doomed several Biden policiesConservative majorities struck down three of then-President Joe Biden’s initiatives related to the coronavirus pandemic. The court ended the Democrat’s pause on evictions, blocked a vaccine mandate for large businesses and prevented student loan forgiveness that would have totaled $500 billion over 10 years.In comparison, the stakes in the tariff case are much higher. The taxes are estimated to generate $3 trillion over 10 years.The challengers in the tariffs case have cited writings by the three Trump appointees, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, in calling on the court to apply similar limitations on a signal Trump policy.Barrett described a babysitter taking children on roller coasters and spending a night in a hotel based on a parent’s encouragement to “make sure the kids have fun.”“In the normal course, permission to spend money on fun authorizes a babysitter to take children to the local ice cream parlor or movie theater, not on a multiday excursion to an out-of-town amusement park,” Barrett wrote in the student loans case. “If a parent were willing to greenlight a trip that big, we would expect much more clarity than a general instruction to ‘make sure the kids have fun.’”Kavanaugh, though, has suggested the court should not apply the same limiting standard to foreign policy and national security issues.A dissenting appellate judge also wrote that Congress purposely gave presidents more latitude to act through the emergency powers law.Some of the businesses that sued also are raising a separate legal argument in an appeal to conservative justices, saying that Congress could not constitutionally delegate its taxing power to the president.The nondelegation principle has not been used in 90 years, since the Supreme Court struck down some New Deal legislation.But Gorsuch authored a dissent in June that would have found the Federal Communications Commission’s universal service fee an unconstitutional delegation. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined the dissent.“What happens when Congress, weary of the hard business of legislating and facing strong incentives to pass the buck, cedes its lawmaking power, clearly and unmistakably, to an executive that craves it?” Gorsuch wrote.The justices could act more quickly than usual in issuing a decisionThe court only agreed to hear the case in September, scheduling arguments less than two months later. The quick turnaround, at least by Supreme Court standards, suggests that the court will try to act fast.High-profile cases can take half a year or more to resolve, often because the majority and dissenting opinions go through rounds of revision.But the court can act quickly when deadline pressure dictates. Most recently, the court ruled a week after hearing arguments in the TikTok case, unanimously upholding a law requiring the popular social media app to be banned unless it was sold by its Chinese parent company. Trump has intervened several times to keep the law from taking effect while negotiations continue with China.

    WASHINGTON —

    Three lower courts have ruled President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose worldwide tariffs to be illegal. Now the Supreme Court, with three justices Trump appointed and generally favorable to muscular presidential power, will have the final word.

    In roughly two dozen emergency appeals, the justices have largely gone along with Trump in temporarily allowing parts of his aggressive second-term agenda to take effect while lawsuits play out.

    But the case being argued Wednesday is the first in which the court will render a final decision on a Trump policy. The stakes are enormous, both politically and financially.

    The Republican president has made tariffs a central piece of his economic and foreign policy and has said it would be a “disaster” if the Supreme Court rules against him.

    Here are some things to know about the tariffs arguments at the Supreme Court:

    Tariffs are taxes on imports

    They are paid by companies that import finished products or parts, and the added cost can be passed on to consumers.

    Through September, the government has reported collecting $195 billion in revenue generated from the tariffs.

    The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs, but Trump has claimed extraordinary power to act without congressional approval by declaring national emergencies under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

    In February, he invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the U.S. border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.

    In April, he imposed worldwide tariffs after declaring the United States’ longstanding trade deficits “a national emergency.”

    Libertarian-backed businesses and states challenged the tariffs in federal court

    Challengers to Trump’s actions won rulings from a specialized trade court, a district judge in Washington and a business-focused appeals court, also in the nation’s capital.

    Those courts found that Trump could not justify tariffs under the emergency powers law, which doesn’t mention them. But they left the tariffs in place in the meantime.

    The appeals court relied on major questions, a legal doctrine devised by the Supreme Court that requires Congress to speak clearly on issues of “vast economic and political significance.”

    The major questions doctrine doomed several Biden policies

    Conservative majorities struck down three of then-President Joe Biden’s initiatives related to the coronavirus pandemic. The court ended the Democrat’s pause on evictions, blocked a vaccine mandate for large businesses and prevented student loan forgiveness that would have totaled $500 billion over 10 years.

    In comparison, the stakes in the tariff case are much higher. The taxes are estimated to generate $3 trillion over 10 years.

    The challengers in the tariffs case have cited writings by the three Trump appointees, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, in calling on the court to apply similar limitations on a signal Trump policy.

    Barrett described a babysitter taking children on roller coasters and spending a night in a hotel based on a parent’s encouragement to “make sure the kids have fun.”

    “In the normal course, permission to spend money on fun authorizes a babysitter to take children to the local ice cream parlor or movie theater, not on a multiday excursion to an out-of-town amusement park,” Barrett wrote in the student loans case. “If a parent were willing to greenlight a trip that big, we would expect much more clarity than a general instruction to ‘make sure the kids have fun.’”

    Kavanaugh, though, has suggested the court should not apply the same limiting standard to foreign policy and national security issues.

    A dissenting appellate judge also wrote that Congress purposely gave presidents more latitude to act through the emergency powers law.

    Some of the businesses that sued also are raising a separate legal argument in an appeal to conservative justices, saying that Congress could not constitutionally delegate its taxing power to the president.

    The nondelegation principle has not been used in 90 years, since the Supreme Court struck down some New Deal legislation.

    But Gorsuch authored a dissent in June that would have found the Federal Communications Commission’s universal service fee an unconstitutional delegation. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined the dissent.

    “What happens when Congress, weary of the hard business of legislating and facing strong incentives to pass the buck, cedes its lawmaking power, clearly and unmistakably, to an executive that craves it?” Gorsuch wrote.

    The justices could act more quickly than usual in issuing a decision

    The court only agreed to hear the case in September, scheduling arguments less than two months later. The quick turnaround, at least by Supreme Court standards, suggests that the court will try to act fast.

    High-profile cases can take half a year or more to resolve, often because the majority and dissenting opinions go through rounds of revision.

    But the court can act quickly when deadline pressure dictates. Most recently, the court ruled a week after hearing arguments in the TikTok case, unanimously upholding a law requiring the popular social media app to be banned unless it was sold by its Chinese parent company. Trump has intervened several times to keep the law from taking effect while negotiations continue with China.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court’s conservatives face a test of their own in judging Trump’s tariffs

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservatives face a test of their own making this week as they decide whether President Trump had the legal authority to impose tariffs on imports from nations across the globe.

    At issue are import taxes that are paid by American businesses and consumers.

    Small-business owners had sued, including a maker of “learning toys” in Illinois and a New York importer of wines and spirits. They said Trump’s ever-changing tariffs had severely disrupted their businesses, and they won rulings declaring the president had exceeded his authority.

    On Wednesday, the justices will hear their first major challenge to Trump’s claims of unilateral executive power. And the outcome is likely to turn on three doctrines that have been championed by the court’s conservatives.

    First, they say the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning. Its opening words say: “All legislative powers … shall be vested” in Congress, and the elected representatives “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposes and excises.”

    Second, they believe the laws passed by Congress should be interpreted based on their words. They call this “textualism,” which rejects a more liberal and open-ended approach that included the general purpose of the law.

    Trump and his lawyers say his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs were authorized by the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA.

    That 1977 law says the president may declare a national emergency to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” involving national security, foreign policy or the economy of the United States. Faced with such an emergency, he may “investigate, block … or regulate” the “importation or exportation” of any property.

    Trump said the nation’s “persistent” balance of payments deficit over five decades was such an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

    In the past, the law has been used to impose sanctions or freeze the assets of Iran, Syria and North Korea or groups of terrorists. It does not use the words “tariffs” or “duties,” and it had not been used for tariffs prior to this year.

    The third doctrine arose with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and is called the “major questions” doctrine.

    He and the five other conservatives said they were skeptical of far-reaching and costly regulations issued by the Obama and Biden administrations involving matters such as climate change, student loan forgiveness or mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for 84 million Americans.

    Congress makes the laws, not federal regulators, they said in West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency in 2022.

    And unless there is a “clear congressional authorization,” Roberts said the court will not uphold assertions of “extravagant statutory power over the national economy.”

    Now all three doctrines are before the justices, since the lower courts relied on them in ruling against Trump.

    No one disputes that the president could impose sweeping worldwide tariffs if he had sought and won approval from the Republican-controlled Congress. However, he insisted the power was his alone.

    In a social media post, Trump called the case on tariffs “one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the ‘Majors.’ In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President.”

    Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, his top courtroom attorney, argues that tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security. And if so, the court should defer to the president.

    “IEEPA authorizes the imposition of regulatory tariffs on foreign imports to deal with foreign threats — which crucially differ from domestic taxation,” he wrote last month.

    For the same reason, “the major questions doctrine … does not apply here,” he said. It is limited to domestic matters, not foreign affairs, he argued.

    Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh has sounded the same note in the past.

    Sauer will also seek to persuade the court that the word “regulate” imports includes imposing tariffs.

    The challengers are supported by prominent conservatives, including Stanford law professor Michael McConnell.

    In 2001, he and John Roberts were nominated for a federal appeals court at the same time by President George W. Bush, and he later served with now-Justice Neil M. Gorsuch on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

    He is the lead counsel for one group of small-business owners.

    “This case is what the American Revolution was all about. A tax wasn’t legitimate unless it was imposed by the people’s representatives,” McConnell said. “The president has no power to impose taxes on American citizens without Congress.”

    His brief argues that Trump is claiming a power unlike any in American history.

    “Until the 1900s, Congress exercised its tariff power directly, and every delegation since has been explicit and strictly limited,” he wrote in Trump vs. V.O.S. Selections. “Here, the government contends that the President may impose tariffs on the American people whenever he wants, at any rate he wants, for any countries and products he wants, for as long as he wants — simply by declaring longstanding U.S. trade deficits a national ‘emergency’ and an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat,’ declarations the government tells us are unreviewable. The president can even change his mind tomorrow and back again the day after that.”

    He said the “major questions” doctrine fully applies here.

    Two years ago, he noted the court called Biden’s proposed student loan forgiveness “staggering by any measure” because it could cost more than $430 billion. By comparison, he said, the Tax Foundation estimated that Trump’s tariffs will impose $1.7 trillion in new taxes on Americans by 2035.

    The case figures to be a major test of whether the Roberts court will put any legal limits on Trump’s powers as president.

    But the outcome will not be the final word on tariffs. Administration officials have said that if they lose, they will seek to impose them under other federal laws that involve national security.

    Still pending before the court is an emergency appeal testing the president’s power to send National Guard troops to American cities over the objection of the governor and local officials.

    Last week, the court asked for further briefs on the Militia Act of 1908, which says the president may call up the National Guard if he cannot “with the regular forces … execute the laws of the United States.”

    The government had assumed the regular forces were the police and federal agents, but a law professor said the regular forces in the original law referred to the military.

    The justices asked for a clarification from both sides by Nov. 17.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • How Trump pressures the world into burning more oil and gas

    [ad_1]

    The world was on the brink of a climate milestone: adopting a global carbon tax for the shipping industry. Countries had spent years crafting the plan, hoping to throttle planet-warming pollution from cargo vessels. They had every reason to think the measure would pass when the International Maritime Organization met in mid-October.

    Enter Donald Trump. After returning to the White House for a second term, the president and his top officials undertook a monthslong campaign to defeat the initiative. The U.S. threatened tariffs, levies and visa restrictions to get its way. A battery of American diplomats and Cabinet secretaries met with various nations to twist arms, according to a senior U.S. State Department official, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. Nations were also warned of other potential consequences if they backed the tax on shipping emissions, including imposing sanctions on individuals and blocking ships from U.S. ports.

    Under that Trump-led pressure — or intimidation, as some describe it — some countries started to waver. Ultimately, a bloc including the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Iran voted to adjourn the meeting for a year, killing any chance of the charge being adopted anytime soon.

    The U.S. “bullied otherwise supportive or neutral countries into turning against” the net-zero plan for shipping, says Faïg Abbasov, a director at the European advocacy group Transport & Environment. With its intense lobbying at the International Maritime Organization, the Trump administration was “waging war against multilateralism, UN diplomacy and climate diplomacy.”

    At first glance, it might look like the U.S. has exited the climate fight. The president is once again pulling the country out of the Paris Agreement, and he may not send an official U.S. delegation to next month’s COP30 climate summit in Brazil. But don’t be confused: America is still in the arena; it’s just fighting for the other side.

    Since his return to Washington, Trump has used trade talks, tariff threats and verbal dressing-downs to encourage countries to jettison their renewable energy commitments (and buy more U.S. oil and liquefied natural gas in the process). Just 10 months into his second term, the campaign is showing surprising success as key figures and countries increasingly buckle under the determined pressure.

    Trump was elected to implement a “common sense energy agenda,” says White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers. He “will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries.”

    Oil and gas supporters champion the president’s ambition. They say he’s helped reset the global conversation around climate change and given a welcome political opening to banks, corporations and other governments that wanted to back away from some sustainability targets in the face of growing electricity demand. “President Trump is sort of providing the banks, the European Union and others cover for tempering their climate ambitions,” says Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, an advocacy group. “He gives these countries the ability to say, ‘Hey, I’m just trying to go along with the United States here. That’s why I’m buying all this LNG.’”

    But in the eyes of environmental advocates and leaders who depend on multilateralism as a means for global climate action, Trump is unfairly asserting his will on a world that’s running out of time to rein in emissions and avert the worst consequences of global warming. “They’re clearly casting a much wider net to the climate destruction than they did the first time,” says Jake Schmidt, a senior strategic director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “They have more people engaged in it, and they obviously had more time to plan for it.”

    The strong-arming is happening on multiple fronts. Among the biggest is trade, where Trump has already compelled Japan, South Korea and the EU to pledge to spend on American energy and energy infrastructure. Japan, for instance, agreed to invest $550 billion on U.S. projects, and talks are underway to steer some of that funding to a $44 billion Alaska gas pipeline and export site. South Korea has pledged roughly $100 billion in U.S. energy purchases.

    The EU, meanwhile, has vowed to spend some $750 billion buying American energy, including LNG, to secure lower tariffs on its exports to the U.S. Analysts have questioned whether those sales will fully materialize, since they’d require Europe to more than triple its annual energy imports from the U.S. But the public commitment by itself was a stunning move for a bloc that’s led the world in pushing policies to combat climate change — including by setting binding targets for slashing planet-warming pollution, establishing a “green deal” plan to shed fossil fuels and slapping a tariff on carbon-intensive imports.

    Trump administration officials have seized on the U.S.-EU trade deal to urge other changes. For instance, Energy Secretary Chris Wright is pressuring the bloc to relax curbs on the methane footprint of imported gas. The EU is already easing corporate sustainability requirements so fewer companies are compelled to limit their environmental harms, a retrenchment that came after pressure from Germany and other European stakeholders as well as the White House.

    Meanwhile the administration has been goading the International Energy Agency to shuffle its leadership and urged the agency to reinstate forecasts that show a rosier outlook for fossil fuel demand. It has pressed multilateral development banks to prioritize fossil fuels over climate adaptation and clean energy projects when their financing of those green initiatives has become critical given widespread foreign aid cuts.

    And Trump himself has berated countries that aren’t falling in line. In a September speech to the United Nations General Assembly, he chided nations for setting policies around what he called the “hoax” and “con job” of climate change, warning that they can’t be “great again” without “traditional energy sources.” He’s also told UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to reject wind turbines and embrace the North Sea’s oil riches.

    It’s a marked acceleration from term-one Trump. During his first four years in the White House, Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda amounted to rally cries of “drill, baby, drill” and slow steps to encourage more domestic oil and gas production. This time around, the president’s approach has global reach — and far fewer limits. And when it comes to international agreements relating to energy and climate, “the U.S. has an interest in divide and rule, and thus breaking the potential for cooperation,” says Abby Innes, an associate professor in political economy at the London School of Economics.

    Whether or not U.S. officials attend COP30 in November, the U.S. president’s influence will loom large. “Countries like Saudi Arabia feel emboldened by Trump to promote fossil fuels,” says Linda Kalcher, founder of the Strategic Perspectives think tank and a veteran of the annual UN climate summits. One European diplomat said the main goal now at COP30 is just to avoid being bullied.

    To be sure, other countries haven’t followed the U.S. exodus from the Paris Agreement, and the deployment of clean energy is still soaring globally. Even tax incentive phaseouts and project cancellations in the U.S. are only slowing, not stopping, the country’s adoption of wind and solar power. And while multinational companies may be dialing down their green rhetoric, analysts say many are still quietly cleaning up their supply chains and operations to keep selling in California, Europe and other places demanding more sustainability.

    And in a perverse twist for a U.S. president who’s decried the world’s reliance on China, other nations are increasingly linking arms with Beijing as they bid for zero-emission energy tech. “When it comes to dealing with China, whether it’s countries or companies, politicians and executives tell me: ‘Better the devil that you know,’” says Ioannis Ioannou, an associate professor at the London Business School whose research focuses on sustainability and corporate social responsibility. “It offers more stability than the Trump administration.”

    Dlouhy and Rathi write for Bloomberg. Bloomberg’s Jack Wittels and John Ainger contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Akshat Rathi

    Source link

  • Nearly Half of Congress Urges Supreme Court To Strike Trump Tariffs

    [ad_1]

    Lawmakers are rallying against President Donald Trump’s tariffs a week before the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments over the legality of the newly imposed duties.

    A bipartisan group of 207 lawmakers last week submitted an amicus brief arguing that Trump does not have the authority to implement such sweeping tariffs under the the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law Trump has used to justify his policies.

    “The Administration’s interpretation of IEEPA would effectively nullify the guardrails set forth in every statute in which Congress expressly granted the President limited tariff authority — a result Congress did not intend,” the lawmakers argue in their brief. 

    They further argue that it is the Constitution that gives Congress the power to implement tariffs, not the president. Thirty-six senators appeared on the brief, along with 171 House Democrats. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AL) was the only Republican to sign off on the brief. 

    The brief is the latest in a lawsuit initially filed by Rick Woldenberg, the CEO of Learning Resources, a Vernon Hills, Illinois-based educational toy company that expected 2025 would be its best year on record. Then Trump’s tariffs hit. Woldenberg, who expects sales to dip by 25 percent this year after the new, skyrocketing duties took effect, wants to recoup the tariffs he, along with thousands of other companies, have paid so far this year. 

    Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has previously acknowledged that collective tariff refunds could be as much as $1 trillion.

    A lower court ruled in August that Trump’s tariffs are illegal, setting off a high-stakes showdown before the Supreme Court, which will settle the matter at the highest judicial level. An early October survey from JPMorgan shows that trade experts believe the odds could be as high as 80 percent that the Supreme Court will rule against Trump’s tariff policies.

    “While the sitting three liberal justices are expected to oppose IEEPA tariffs, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Barrett–both with pro-business leanings — may also side against,” the survey said. 

    The Senate is deliberating three different bills that seek to eliminate Trump’s tariffs in some capacity, though passage is unlikely on any front.

    Meanwhile, Trump continued escalating his tariff rhetoric, most recently slapping Canada with an additional 10 percent tariff after a Canadian-backed television advertisement ran during a World Series game. The ad, paid for by Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, critiqued Trump’s tariff policies, using then-President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 remarks to extoll the benefits of free trade, decrying what happens when protectionist tariffs are imposed: “Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Melissa Angell

    Source link

  • China Vows to Stand Firm Against Trump’s 100 Percent Tariff Threat

    [ad_1]

    China signaled Sunday that it would not back down in the face of a 100 percent tariff threat from President Donald Trump, urging the U.S. to resolve differences through negotiations instead of threats. U.S. Vice President JD Vance defended Trump’s position and seemed to warn China not to be aggressive in its response.

    “China’s stance is consistent,” the Commerce Ministry said in a statement posted online. “We do not want a tariff war but we are not afraid of one.”

    It was China’s first official comment on Trump’s threat to jack up the tax on imports from China by Nov. 1 in response to new Chinese restrictions on the export of rare earths, which are vital to a wide range of consumer and military products.

    The back and forth threatens to derail a possible meeting between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping and end a truce in a trade war in which new tariffs from both sides briefly topped 100 percent in April.

    In response, Vance said Sunday that Trump is committed to protecting America’s economic livelihoods while making the United States more self-sufficient. He said the fact that China has “so much control over critical supply in the United States of America” is the definition of a national emergency and therefore justifies Trump’s move to impose tough tariffs.

    “It’s going to be delicate dance and a lot of it is going to depend on how the Chinese respond. If they respond in a highly aggressive manner, I guarantee you the president of the United States has far more cards than the People’s Republic of China,” Vance said on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.”

    “If, however, they’re willing to be reasonable, then Donald Trump is always willing to be a reasonable negotiator. We’re going to find out a lot in the weeks to come about whether China wants to start a trade war with us or whether they actually want to be reasonable,” Vance continued. “I hope they choose the path of reason. The president of the United States is going to defend America regardless.”

    Trump has raised taxes on imports from many U.S. trading partners since taking office in January, seeking to win concessions. China has been one of the few countries that hasn’t backed down, relying on its economic clout.

    “Frequently resorting to the threat of high tariffs is not the correct way to get along with China,” the Commerce Ministry said in its post, which was presented as a series of answers from an unnamed spokesperson to four questions from unspecified media outlets.

    The statement called for addressing any concerns through dialogue.

    “If the U.S. side obstinately insists on its practice, China will be sure to resolutely take corresponding measures to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests,” the post said.

    In addition to the 100 percent tariff, Trump threatened to impose export controls on what he called “critical software,” without specifying what that means.

    Both sides accuse the other of violating the spirit of the truce by imposing new restrictions on trade.

    Trump said in a social media post that China is “becoming very hostile” and that it is holding the world captive by restricting access to rare earth metals and magnets.

    The Chinese Commerce Ministry post said the U.S. has introduced several new restrictions in recent weeks, including expanding the number of Chinese companies subject to U.S. export controls.

    On rare earths, the ministry said that export licenses would be granted for legitimate civilian uses, noting that the minerals also have military applications.

    The new regulations include a requirement that foreign companies get Chinese government approval to export items that contain rare earths sourced from China, no matter where the products are manufactured.

    China accounts for nearly 70 percent of the world’s rare earths mining and controls roughly 90 percent of their global processing. Access to the material is a key point of contention in trade talks between Washington and Beijing.

    The critical minerals go into many products, from jet engines, radar systems and electric vehicles to consumer electronics including laptops and phones. China’s export controls have hit European and other manufacturers, as well as American ones.

    The Commerce Ministry statement said that the U.S. is also ignoring Chinese concerns by going forward with new port fees on Chinese ships that take effect Tuesday. China announced Friday that it would impose port fees on American ships in response.

    Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link