In a pointed statement, the European Commission called for “full clarity” from Washington and stressed that both sides must respect the terms of a joint trade understanding reached last year. The development has introduced new tension into transatlantic ties at a time when global supply chains remain sensitive to abrupt policy shifts.

The dispute centers on tariffs announced by Trump and partially halted by the court. While U.S. officials insist existing agreements remain intact, European policymakers are openly questioning whether the current environment can sustain what they describe as fair and balanced trade.

Commission calls for commitments to be upheld

The European Commission, which negotiates trade policy on behalf of the EU’s 27 member states, said the current situation is not conducive to delivering “fair, balanced, and mutually beneficial” trade and investment as outlined in the EU-U.S. Joint Statement of August 2025.

Under that agreement, American and European negotiators settled on a framework imposing a 15% import tax on 70% of European goods exported to the United States. The arrangement was presented at the time as a stabilizing compromise after years of tariff disputes.

“A deal is a deal,” the Commission said, emphasizing that EU products should continue to benefit from the competitive treatment defined in the agreement, with no increases beyond the previously agreed ceiling.

The statement reflects mounting concern in Brussels that shifting signals from Washington could undermine business confidence. European officials argue that predictability is central to cross-border investment decisions and supply chain planning.

Trump criticizes ruling, floats higher global tariff

The controversy intensified after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down elements of Trump’s tariff program. The president criticized the ruling and said he would seek to introduce a global tariff rate of 15%, up from the 10% level announced a day earlier.

While details of how such a global tariff would interact with existing bilateral agreements remain unclear, the proposal has added to the uncertainty surrounding U.S. trade policy.

Jamieson Greer, Trump’s top trade negotiator, said in an interview with CBS News that Washington intends to stand by its trade deals and expects partners to do the same. He said he had spoken with his European counterpart and had not been told that the agreement was being abandoned.

“The deals were not premised on whether or not the emergency tariff litigation would rise or fall,” Greer said. “They want to see how this plays out.”

His comments appeared aimed at reassuring markets that the underlying trade framework remains in force, even as legal and political challenges continue.

European Parliament voice raises ratification concerns

In Brussels, political reaction has been sharper. Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s international trade committee, said he would propose pausing the ratification process of the agreement.

Lange described the situation as “pure tariff chaos” on the part of the U.S. administration, arguing that unpredictability makes it difficult for lawmakers and businesses to assess future conditions.

Although the European Parliament does not directly negotiate trade deals, it plays a crucial role in ratifying them. A pause in that process would signal deeper institutional unease within the bloc.

Vast trade relationship at stake

The scale of EU-U.S. trade underscores the significance of the dispute. According to Eurostat, the EU’s statistics agency, the total value of goods and services exchanged between the two economies reached 1.7 trillion euros ($2 trillion) in 2024 — roughly 4.6 billion euros per day.

Europe’s main exports to the United States include pharmaceuticals, cars, aircraft, chemicals, medical instruments, and wine and spirits. The U.S., in turn, exports professional and scientific services such as payment systems and cloud infrastructure, along with oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, aerospace products, and vehicles.

Given the breadth of this exchange, even modest tariff changes can ripple across sectors ranging from manufacturing to technology services. The Commission warned that unpredictable tariff application is inherently disruptive, eroding confidence and destabilizing supply chains.

Potential EU response mechanisms

As primarily a trading bloc, the EU has tools to respond if it concludes that undue pressure is being applied. One such mechanism is the bloc’s Anti-Coercion Instrument, designed to counter economic measures deemed coercive.

The instrument allows the EU to restrict trade and investment flows, bar companies from public tenders, or limit foreign direct investment from targeted countries. In its most severe application, it could effectively restrict access to the EU’s market of roughly 450 million consumers.

While officials have not indicated that such measures are imminent, the reference underscores the seriousness with which Brussels views compliance with trade agreements.

A test for transatlantic economic stability

The standoff highlights the fragility of transatlantic trade stability at a time when geopolitical tensions and economic realignment are reshaping global commerce. Businesses on both sides of the Atlantic have generally favored predictable, rules-based trade arrangements, particularly after years of tariff volatility.

For now, both Washington and Brussels say the agreement remains in place. Yet the combination of court intervention, political reaction, and fresh tariff proposals has introduced a layer of ambiguity that markets will be watching closely in the weeks ahead.

Whether the dispute evolves into a broader renegotiation or settles into legal clarification may determine the next phase of EU-U.S. economic ties.

Source: AP News – EU says US must honor a trade deal after court blocks Trump tariffs

The post EU Demands U.S. Honor Trade Deal After Supreme Court Blocks Trump Tariffs appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published Time: 09-05-2025, 10:00

In a rare exemption from U.S. tariffs on European imports, natural cork has been spared, giving both American winemakers and Portugal’s cork industry reason to celebrate. While most European goods remain subject to a 15% tariff, cork’s unique status as an “unavailable natural product” has allowed it to bypass trade restrictions, preserving a vital link between Portugal—the world’s largest cork producer—and the United States, one of its top buyers.

Cork Carves Out an Exemption

Natural cork is harvested from the bark of cork oak trees, grown primarily in the Mediterranean. Under the U.S.-EU trade agreement, the material was classified as an essential but unavailable resource in the U.S. market. As a result, cork joined a short list of exempt products—alongside items such as aircraft and pharmaceuticals—shielding it from tariff penalties introduced during the Trump administration.

Portuguese officials lobbied heavily for the exemption, recognizing cork’s importance to their economy. Patrick Spencer, executive director of the Oregon-based Natural Cork Council, described the announcement as a breakthrough.

“It was a great day in our neighborhood,” Spencer said, noting the U.S. government’s recognition of cork’s unique origins and role in winemaking.

The Wine Institute, representing California’s wine producers, also advocated for cork’s protection, citing its importance to the wine industry.

Trade Uncertainty and Future Exemptions

The broader outlook for tariffs remains unclear. In August, a U.S. appeals court ruled that former President Donald Trump had exceeded his authority in imposing sweeping tariffs on European imports, though the duties remain in effect pending a Supreme Court appeal.

If the tariffs are upheld, cork’s exemption may set a precedent. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested in a CNBC interview that other natural products—such as mangoes and cocoa—could also receive similar treatment in future trade discussions.

The U.S. Market for Cork

Portugal supplies roughly half of the world’s cork, with the United States ranking as its second-largest market after France. According to the Natural Cork Council, the U.S. imported $241 million worth of Portuguese cork in 2023, with more than 70% used for bottle stoppers in wine, spirits, olive oil, and honey.

Cork’s applications extend beyond beverages. NASA and SpaceX have utilized cork for rocket thermal shielding, while ground-up cork is used in sports fields and even in runway concrete to reduce shock from landings.

Despite America’s Mediterranean-like climate in California, the U.S. has never established a cork industry. A brief attempt during World War II left about 500 cork oak trees still standing at the University of California, Davis, but large-scale production failed due to the trees’ slow growth cycle.

“Americans are not patient enough to wait for a tree that takes 25 years to give its first harvest,” explained Antonio Amorim, CEO of Corticeira Amorim, one of Portugal’s leading cork producers.

Skilled Hands Behind the Harvest

Cork harvesting is considered one of Europe’s most specialized agricultural trades. Workers must carefully strip bark without damaging the trees, which can live for centuries. As a result, cork harvesters are among the highest-paid agricultural workers in Europe.

At Herdade de Rio Frio, southeast of Lisbon, harvesters still use traditional hand tools to remove bark slabs. Once harvested, each tree is marked with a number indicating the year, since bark regrowth takes about nine years.

This sustainable method has been practiced in Portugal for more than two centuries, reinforcing cork’s reputation as an environmentally friendly material.

Cork’s Comeback in Winemaking

Cork’s biodegradability and sustainability have contributed to its resurgence in the wine industry after many producers briefly shifted to synthetic closures in the 1990s and early 2000s. Concerns about “cork taint,” a musty taste caused by fungal contamination, once drove wineries toward aluminum screw caps and plastic alternatives.

Advances in quality control have addressed the issue, said Andrew Waterhouse, director of the Robert Mondavi Institute of Wine and Food Science at UC Davis. As a result, cork has regained popularity.

In 2010, 53% of premium U.S. wines used cork closures. By 2022, that figure rose to 64.5%, according to the Natural Cork Council.

Today, many wineries—including Trump Winery in Virginia—use both corks and screw caps. Waterhouse explained that cork remains the preferred choice for wines intended to age.

“If you say, ‘Has this wine aged properly?,’ what you mean is, ‘Was it in a glass bottle with a cork seal in a cool cellar,’” Waterhouse said. “We’re always trapped by history.”

Global and Sustainable Outlook

Portugal’s cork industry not only supports global winemaking but also contributes to environmental conservation. Cork oak forests absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide and provide habitats for endangered species in the Mediterranean ecosystem.

As trade debates continue, cork’s tariff exemption highlights the balance between global commerce, sustainability, and tradition. For now, winemakers and cork producers alike can breathe easier knowing that the centuries-old craft of cork harvesting remains protected in an uncertain trade climate.

Source: AP News – The cork in your wine bottle is one of very few products that dodged Trump’s tariffs

The post Cork in Wine Bottles Escapes Trump-Era Tariffs, Safeguarding U.S. and Portuguese Wine Trade appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published Time: 08-16-2025, 16:00

American consumers are once again expressing unease about inflation, but spending levels remain steady, helping sustain economic growth. While surveys show declining confidence tied to trade policy uncertainty and rising producer costs, robust employment and household resilience are keeping demand alive.

Inflation Concerns and Consumer Confidence

The University of Michigan reported on Friday that consumer sentiment fell 5% in August to 58.6, reversing four months of gradual improvement. The decline reflects renewed worries over tariffs introduced by President Donald Trump’s administration as part of its trade strategy.

Joanne Hsu, director of the University of Michigan’s survey, noted that “consumers continue to expect both inflation and unemployment to deteriorate in the future,” even though current conditions remain relatively stable.

Expectations for inflation in the year ahead rose to 4.9%, up from 4.5% in July, signaling that households are bracing for higher costs. However, recent history suggests that falling sentiment does not always translate into weaker consumer activity.

The Role of Employment in Sustaining Spending

The labor market remains one of the strongest supports for household spending. Unemployment is currently at 4.2%, according to the Labor Department. With steady job growth and historically low levels of unemployment claims, most Americans still have both the income and confidence to maintain consumption.

Chris Zaccarelli, chief investment officer at Northlight Asset Management, explained in a note that “as long as consumer spending holds up and companies are able to retain workers because of that robust spending, the flywheel can continue to spin, pushing corporate profits and stock prices higher.”

How Businesses Are Managing Tariff Pressures

Since early 2025, tariffs have been a central feature of U.S. trade policy. Economists initially warned that higher import costs could fuel rapid consumer inflation. Yet so far, businesses have adopted strategies to shield consumers from the full impact.

A report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond highlighted measures such as delaying orders, staggering the timing of tariff charges, negotiating cost-sharing with suppliers, and stockpiling inventory ahead of new tariff rounds.

These approaches have allowed companies to contain inflationary pressures, at least temporarily. “Sensing from businesses suggests that the impact of tariffs on their price-setting has been lagged, but it is starting to play out,” Richmond Fed economists wrote.

Still, warning signs are emerging. The Producer Price Index, which measures the costs businesses pay for goods and services, rose 0.9% in July, pushing the annual rate to 3.3%. The figures exceeded economists’ expectations and could signal higher consumer prices in the months ahead.

Consumer Sentiment vs. Spending Behavior

Historically, consumer sentiment has not been a reliable predictor of actual spending. For example, in 2022, sentiment fell to record lows during a 40-year high in inflation, yet consumer spending remained strong. Similarly, in 2023, despite uncertainty surrounding the congressional debt ceiling standoff, households continued to shop at consistent levels.

This disconnect appears to be persisting in 2025. Although confidence has slipped, retail sales data shows that consumers are still actively spending across a variety of categories.

Retail Sales Hold Steady

The Commerce Department reported that retail sales rose 0.5% in July, aligning with economists’ forecasts. Although the pace slowed from June’s upwardly revised 0.9% gain, the figures point to steady consumer demand.

Sales rose notably at car dealerships (up 1.6%) and furniture stores (up 1.4%). Online shopping also grew by 0.8%, boosted by Amazon’s annual Prime Day promotions. Gas stations and department stores reported gains as well, reflecting broader consumer activity.

However, some categories lagged. Home improvement stores saw sales fall 1%, while electronics retailers posted a 0.6% decline. Restaurants and bars also slipped 0.4%, extending a period of subdued performance in the dining sector.

A “control group” measure of retail sales, which excludes volatile categories, rose 0.5% in July, slightly beating economists’ expectations. Even after adjusting for the Consumer Price Index’s 0.2% monthly increase, real spending remained positive at 0.3%.

Bill Adams, chief economist at Comerica Bank, emphasized this resilience, writing, “What consumers do is more important to the economy than what they say.”

Outlook for the U.S. Economy

The U.S. economy continues to depend heavily on consumer spending, which accounts for roughly 70% of total output. While businesses and households have so far absorbed the pressures of tariffs and higher production costs, economists caution that this resilience may not last indefinitely.

If producer costs continue to rise and companies begin passing them onto consumers, inflation could accelerate, putting more pressure on household budgets. At the same time, uncertainty surrounding trade policy could weigh on confidence and business investment.

For now, the combination of strong employment, business adaptability, and steady consumer demand has allowed the U.S. economy to maintain momentum despite policy headwinds. But analysts warn that if inflation expectations continue to climb, spending habits could shift in the months ahead.

Source: CNN – American consumers are getting nervous about inflation again. For now, they’re still spending

The post U.S. Consumers Stay Resilient Amid Inflation Concerns and Trade Tensions appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published: August 5, 2025 – 16:00 EDT

A pivotal court battle over former President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs is rapidly advancing and could soon reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The case may significantly redefine the scope of executive authority in trade policy and has drawn intense scrutiny from legal experts, policymakers, and global trading partners alike.

A decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is expected within weeks, setting the stage for a potential Supreme Court review during its upcoming 2025–2026 term.

Background: Trump’s Use of Emergency Powers for Trade Tariffs

At the heart of the legal challenge is Trump’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a 1977 law typically used for national security emergencies—to justify imposing new tariffs on a wide range of U.S. trading partners. Dubbed the “Liberation Day” tariffs, the measures included a 10% baseline tariff on all imports and steeper, reciprocal tariffs targeting countries like China.

Trump administration officials argued that the tariffs were essential to correct trade imbalances, reduce U.S. deficits, and promote domestic manufacturing. Critics, however, say the move represents a significant overreach of executive power and bypasses Congressional authority on trade policy.

Federal Court Ruling and Expedited Appeal

In May 2025, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) unanimously ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority under IEEPA. The court found that the law did not grant the president “unbounded authority” to impose tariffs unilaterally.

However, the decision was quickly put on hold after the appeals court granted a stay, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect pending further legal review.

Given the urgency and far-reaching implications of the case, the Federal Circuit has fast-tracked the appeal. Legal observers expect a ruling by late August or September. If either party seeks a further appeal—as both sides have suggested—the case could be added to the Supreme Court docket as early as October 2025.

Mixed Signals from the Appeals Court Hearing

The Federal Circuit’s hearing last week featured an 11-judge panel questioning attorneys from both sides. Observers described the session as intense but inconclusive.

Dan Pickard, a partner at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney specializing in international trade and national security law, said the oral arguments offered little clarity on which way the court might rule.

“I don’t know if I walked out of that hearing thinking the government will prevail or that it’s dead on arrival,” Pickard told Fox News Digital. “It was more mixed.”

Lawyers representing the 12 states challenging the tariffs, including Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, echoed that sentiment. While they expressed cautious optimism, they acknowledged the difficulty of predicting the court’s decision, especially given the limited time each side had to present its case.

Legal Stakes: Could Redefine Presidential Trade Authority

The potential Supreme Court review of this case could mark the most significant challenge to executive trade powers in decades. If the high court agrees that Trump’s use of IEEPA was unconstitutional, it could limit future presidents from enacting similar trade policies without Congressional oversight.

That said, legal experts emphasize that even if the Supreme Court limits IEEPA’s use, the executive branch retains multiple alternative trade tools.

“There are plenty of other legal authorities available to the president,” Pickard explained. “If IEEPA is ruled out, that doesn’t mean the administration will stop using aggressive trade policy. There’s still Section 301, Section 232, and others.”

Political and Economic Implications

Trump’s tariff strategy has sparked both domestic and international debate. Supporters argue that the tariffs are necessary to protect American industries and reduce reliance on foreign manufacturing. Critics warn of retaliatory measures, disrupted supply chains, and higher costs for American consumers and businesses.

Despite the legal challenges, the White House has continued implementing the tariffs, with Attorney General Pam Bondi reiterating the administration’s commitment to defending the policy in court.

“These tariffs are transforming the global economy, protecting national security, and addressing the consequences of our exploding trade deficit,” Bondi said in a statement. “We will continue to defend the president’s authority.”

What Comes Next?

With the appellate decision expected soon, both sides are preparing for a potential Supreme Court showdown. If accepted for review, the case could receive a ruling by the end of 2025—potentially shaping trade and executive power for years to come.

Until then, legal uncertainty continues to cast a shadow over U.S. trade relations, market forecasts, and future presidential authority.

Source: FOX News – Trump’s tariff power grab barrels toward Supreme Court

The post Supreme Court May Decide Legality of Trump’s Tariff Powers appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Writing Time: August 3, 2025, 17:00 EDT

Leading pharmaceutical companies have announced over $250 billion in new U.S. manufacturing investments in response to former President Donald Trump’s renewed push for reshoring drug production. However, analysts say the efforts are unlikely to fully meet the administration’s objectives of lowering drug prices or reducing foreign dependence for essential medications.

Major Pharmaceutical Firms Announce Billions in U.S. Manufacturing Expansion

In recent months, global pharmaceutical firms have outlined massive U.S.-based manufacturing plans. AstraZeneca committed $50 billion toward expanding its U.S. operations. Johnson & Johnson unveiled a $55 billion investment focused on domestic production and research facilities. Eli Lilly also pledged $27 billion to construct four new manufacturing plants across the country.

Collectively, these announcements signal a shift under pressure from Trump-era tariff threats, aimed at reshoring pharmaceutical production and securing the national drug supply chain.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick celebrated the developments, saying on social media, “Another win for American manufacturing… Reshoring pharma production is one of our top priorities.”

Still, experts caution that the investments—while significant—are unlikely to drastically alter the global structure of drug supply chains or lead to noticeable price reductions for U.S. consumers.

Complex Global Supply Chains Remain a Challenge

Despite the surge in domestic commitments, the pharmaceutical industry remains deeply globalized. Active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and finished products are routinely sourced and manufactured internationally. Shifting these intricate supply chains back to the U.S. is no simple feat.

While some investments are directly linked to the administration’s tariff strategy, many were planned before Trump’s recent announcements. For example, Johnson & Johnson’s $55 billion plan includes a North Carolina facility that was already in development as early as October of last year.

“These companies are trying to align with the administration’s messaging,” said Evan Seigerman, senior biopharma analyst at BMO Capital Markets. “It’s about optics—they want the administration to know they’re on board.”

Generics Manufacturers Face Bigger Hurdles

Brand-name pharmaceutical companies are not the only ones under scrutiny. The administration’s national security concerns center heavily on generic drugs, which account for over 90% of all prescriptions in the U.S. Yet the majority of these medications—especially pills and capsules—are produced overseas, predominantly in India and China.

Unlike their brand-name counterparts, generic drugmakers operate with significantly thinner profit margins, making large-scale investment in U.S. facilities financially challenging.

Still, some are stepping up. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA pledged a $1 billion investment through 2030 to expand domestic operations. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals also announced plans to quadruple production within the next five years. Both companies primarily produce sterile injectable medications.

However, others remain hesitant. “We’re not sure the market will support it if we build it,” said John Murphy III, CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines. He warned that low reimbursement rates make domestic investment risky for many generic producers.

National Security Risks and Uncertain Incentives

The U.S. Senate has increasingly raised concerns over reliance on foreign suppliers for critical drugs, especially in light of geopolitical tensions. In emergencies, disrupted supply chains could jeopardize access to life-saving treatments.

Still, many industry experts argue that tariffs alone are insufficient to drive reshoring of generic drug production. Erin Fox, associate chief pharmacy officer at the University of Utah Health, noted, “It’s highly, highly unlikely we will see generic production expand in the U.S. without significant incentives.”

Building domestic facilities also takes time. Even if tariffs are delayed by a year—as Trump has indicated—experts say constructing and operationalizing new plants could take three to five years. Meanwhile, uncertainty over future tariffs and changes in political leadership make long-term planning difficult for manufacturers.

Will Domestic Manufacturing Lower Drug Prices?

One of Trump’s goals is to bring down high prescription drug costs, but experts are skeptical that reshoring alone will achieve this.

Manufacturing costs in the U.S. are significantly higher due to labor, regulation, and operational overhead. Stephen Farrelly, ING’s global health care sector lead, emphasized that drug pricing is also influenced by insurers, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and overall healthcare infrastructure.

“Increasing domestic manufacturing won’t automatically translate into savings for consumers,” Farrelly said. “Prices are shaped by the entire U.S. healthcare system, not just where the drugs are made.”

While brand-name drugmakers may have the resources to absorb some increased costs, it is likely that at least a portion will be passed on to consumers—either directly at the pharmacy or through higher insurance premiums.

In the case of generics, the impact could be even more dramatic. Higher production costs could lead companies to exit the U.S. market, worsening drug shortages and reducing treatment options for patients.

Future of Tariffs Still Unclear

As of early August, the Trump administration has not finalized the scope of planned pharmaceutical tariffs. A proposed trade deal with the European Union outlines a 15% tariff on drug imports, with potential exemptions for certain generics. Trump has also floated tariffs of up to 200%, giving companies time to adapt before they are fully implemented.

However, without concrete trade terms or clear incentives for reshoring generics, experts remain cautious about the administration’s long-term success.

“Unless we see meaningful structural reform—especially in how generics are reimbursed—it’s hard to imagine a large-scale return of manufacturing to the U.S.,” Farrelly said.

Source: CNN – Drugmakers are pouring billions of dollars into new US manufacturing. It still won’t achieve all of Trump’s tariff goals

The post Pharma Giants Invest Billions in U.S. Amid Tariff Push appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Writing Time: August 3, 2025, 16:30 (U.S. Eastern Time)

In a sweeping escalation of trade policy, President Donald Trump has imposed a series of tariffs impacting dozens of nations—ranging from developing economies like Laos and Algeria to longtime U.S. allies such as Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom. While some countries negotiated partial relief by agreeing to Trump’s demands, even they now face significantly higher trade taxes. And for U.S. consumers and businesses, the fallout includes rising prices and mounting legal uncertainty.

A New Trade Order Driven by Presidential Power

President Trump’s actions follow his April 2 declaration of “Liberation Day,” when he invoked a 1977 law to declare America’s trade deficit a national emergency. This maneuver allowed him to bypass Congress and impose tariffs as high as 50% on imports from nations with which the U.S. runs trade deficits, and a 10% “baseline” on nearly all others.

The move has upended decades of multilateral trade norms. Instead of rule-based trade under the World Trade Organization, Trump’s approach has shifted toward unilateral enforcement and economic coercion.

“The biggest winner is Trump,” said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and ex-deputy director-general of the WTO. “He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded—dramatically.”

Winners, Losers, and the Price of Compliance

While a handful of countries avoided even steeper tariffs by negotiating new terms, the deals still entail significantly higher costs than before.

• The United Kingdom accepted a 10% tariff, up from just 1.3%.
• The European Union and Japan agreed to 15% tariffs, avoiding even higher proposed rates of 30% and 25%, respectively.
• Other nations—including Pakistan, Vietnam, Indonesia, South Korea, and the Philippines—also settled for higher tariffs rather than risk worse outcomes.

Still, even the so-called “winners” are paying more than before.

“In many respects, everybody’s a loser here,” said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at New York Law School.

Developing Nations Bear a Heavy Burden

Countries that did not strike deals, or ran afoul of Trump’s other political grievances, faced even more punitive measures.

• Laos, with a per capita GDP of just $2,100, now faces a 40% import tax.
• Algeria has been hit with a 30% tariff, despite its limited economic engagement with the U.S.
• Lesotho, a small southern African kingdom, saw its tariff reduced to 15% from the initial 50%, but not before suffering early economic disruptions.

Even Taiwan, which negotiated its tariff down from 32% to 20%, is still struggling with the economic impact.

“20% from the beginning has not been our goal,” said Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te. “We hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate.”

Political Motivations Drive Selective Punishments

Some tariff hikes appear to be driven more by geopolitics than by trade imbalances.

• Brazil was slapped with a 50% tariff, reportedly due to Trump’s dissatisfaction with its treatment of former President Jair Bolsonaro.
• Canada received a 35% tariff following its statement in support of recognizing a Palestinian state—an issue where Trump strongly backs Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
• Switzerland, despite its longstanding neutrality, saw its tariff raised to 39%, exceeding Trump’s original 31% proposal.

“The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington to make a deal,” said Wolff, now a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Legal Challenges and the Fight Over Executive Authority

Trump’s sweeping use of emergency powers has prompted legal backlash. Five U.S. companies and twelve states are suing the administration, arguing the 1977 law does not grant the president such expansive tariff-setting authority.

In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the challengers and blocked the tariffs, though allowed the government to continue collecting them pending appeal.

During a hearing this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit expressed skepticism over the administration’s justification, making it likely that the case could reach the Supreme Court.

“If [the tariffs] get struck down, then maybe Brazil’s a winner and not a loser,” said Appleton.

Domestic Consumers and Businesses Feel the Squeeze

While tariffs are levied on foreign goods, the financial burden is mostly shouldered by American importers—and by extension, U.S. consumers.

According to economists at Goldman Sachs, overseas exporters absorb only about 20% of the added costs. The remaining 80% falls on U.S. buyers, including companies like Walmart, Best Buy, Nike, and Procter & Gamble, all of which have raised prices in response.

“This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,” Appleton said. “Sneakers, knapsacks, appliances, video games—all of those are going to cost more because none of them are made in America.”

Historic Tariff Levels and Rising Household Costs

Trump’s tariffs have driven the average U.S. import tax from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3%, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University.

That increase is projected to cost the average U.S. household $2,400 per year, significantly affecting middle- and lower-income families.

“The U.S. consumer’s a big loser,” Wolff emphasized.

Looking Ahead: Uncertainty Reigns

As legal challenges proceed and trade partners consider their next moves, the future of Trump’s tariff regime remains unclear. What is evident, however, is that the global economic landscape has been dramatically reshaped—with no guarantees of long-term gains for any party involved.

Even among countries that secured deals, frustration is evident. Many are left questioning whether the concessions they made will pay off or merely delay further economic strain. Meanwhile, U.S. consumers and businesses continue to shoulder rising costs without any clear end in sight.

Source: AP News – From Laos to Brazil, Trump’s tariffs leave a lot of losers. But even the winners will pay a price

The post Trump’s Global Tariffs Spark Economic Backlash at Home and Abroad appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Written: July 30, 2025, 16:00 EDT

President Donald Trump has announced a new 25% tariff on goods imported from India, citing what he described as unfair trade practices and India’s continued purchase of Russian oil. The move, made via a statement on Trump’s Truth Social platform, is part of a broader strategy to reshape U.S. trade relationships and strengthen American manufacturing.

Tariffs aimed at addressing trade imbalance and Russian oil imports

Trump stated that India, although a strategic partner, maintains “tariffs that are far too high” on U.S. goods. In addition to the base tariff, he proposed an unspecified “penalty” for India’s continued purchases of oil and military equipment from Russia—measures he claims indirectly support Moscow’s war in Ukraine.

The tariff and penalty are expected to take effect Friday, as part of the administration’s wider trade realignment with countries across Asia and Europe.

“India is our friend, but their tariffs are too high,” Trump wrote. “And buying oil and weapons from Russia is helping fund a war we oppose.”

Potential economic impact and industry reaction

The new tariffs are expected to make Indian products less competitive in the U.S. market compared to exports from other countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh. This has caused concern among Indian exporters, who were already navigating post-pandemic recovery and shifting global supply chains.

Ajay Sahai, Director General of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations, expressed uncertainty over the policy.

“We are back to square one, as Trump hasn’t spelled out what the penalties would be in addition to the tariff,” Sahai said in an interview. “The demand for Indian goods is bound to be hit.”

The United States recorded a $45.8 billion trade deficit with India last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, highlighting a long-standing imbalance that Trump has often cited as justification for tougher trade measures.

Broader trade strategy includes new frameworks with allies

Trump’s tariff announcement follows a series of recent trade negotiations with the European Union, Japan, the Philippines, and Indonesia. These new frameworks are intended to expand export opportunities for American companies while giving the administration flexibility to raise import taxes.

Trump has framed these measures as a tool to offset rising budget deficits tied to earlier tax cuts and to revitalize domestic industry by encouraging U.S. production.

Critics, however, caution that broad tariffs can lead to higher prices for American consumers and contribute to inflation. Economists note that increased import taxes are often passed along to businesses and shoppers, diluting any potential gains in job creation or trade balance.

Pushback from global allies and Europe’s response

The Trump administration’s tariff-first approach has also triggered friction with traditional allies. A new 15% tariff targeting goods from European Union countries has led to calls for a more assertive European trade strategy.

In response, French President Emmanuel Macron told cabinet members on Wednesday that Europe must assert greater economic sovereignty.

“To be free, you have to be feared,” Macron said. “We have not been feared enough. There is a greater urgency than ever to accelerate the European agenda for sovereignty and competitiveness.”

Macron also signaled continued negotiations with the United States to finalize the broader trade framework, despite tensions over tariffs.

U.S.–India relations face new uncertainty

The latest tariffs could complicate efforts to double U.S.–India trade to $500 billion by 2030—a target discussed in multiple bilateral meetings. The two countries have already held five rounds of negotiations aimed at reducing trade barriers and crafting a comprehensive agreement.

While the United States seeks greater market access and near-zero tariffs on key exports, Indian officials have hesitated to open sensitive sectors like agriculture and dairy, which employ a large portion of India’s population.

In February, during a visit to India, Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged closer energy cooperation, with India agreeing to purchase U.S. natural gas and oil. The new penalties, however, suggest a shift in tone despite the two leaders’ historically friendly relationship.

Trump commented on the evolving trade policy during a return flight from Scotland earlier in the week but withheld specifics at the time.

“We’re going to see,” he said when asked about the rumored 25% rate on Indian goods.

Back at the White House, he initially suggested no immediate action would be announced—a claim that proved inaccurate when the tariff decision was posted online the following day.

Outlook: More friction or future negotiation?

As the administration moves forward with its updated tariff regime, global markets and diplomatic ties face a period of renewed uncertainty. India’s strategic position in the Indo-Pacific, its population of over 1.4 billion, and its role as a counterweight to China make its economic ties with Washington a critical component of U.S. foreign policy.

Whether Trump’s latest tariff measures serve as a bargaining chip or a long-term policy remains to be seen. Analysts say much will depend on India’s response and the pace of future trade talks between the two countries.

Source: AP News – Trump announces 25% tariff on India and unspecified penalties for buying Russian oil

The post Trump unveils 25% tariff on India, citing trade imbalance and Russian oil ties appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

With just days left before his self-imposed deadline, former President Donald Trump says he’s ready to slap tariffs as high as 70% on countries that haven’t reached new trade agreements with the United States.

Speaking at Joint Base Andrews early Friday, Trump announced the White House will begin sending formal notices to around a dozen countries per day starting immediately. These letters will outline new tariff rates that, in most cases, are set to take effect on August 1.

“They’ll range from maybe 60% or 70% tariffs to 10% and 20% tariffs,” Trump told reporters. “We’ve finalized the letters. They’ll explain exactly what each country will be paying.”

A Three-Month Moratorium Nears Its End

Back in April, Trump gave U.S. trading partners a three-month window to negotiate so-called “reciprocal” trade deals—or face steep penalties. At the time, he imposed tariffs as high as 50% on many nations. Now, with the July 9 deadline just days away, Trump appears set on following through.

The news sparked global concern, even as U.S. markets remained closed for the Independence Day holiday. International markets and futures dipped on the announcement, reflecting investor anxiety over escalating trade tensions.

Who’s on the Tariff List?

The exact list of countries receiving new tariff notices hasn’t been confirmed. However, Trump has repeatedly singled out Japan and the European Union as examples of nations he believes are taking advantage of U.S. trade policy.

Earlier this week, he threatened to send a letter to what he called “spoiled” Japan, possibly setting its tariff rate as high as 35%. Whether that move was a serious threat or just part of his negotiating playbook remains unclear.

According to Trump, most countries will receive their notices by July 9. But some flexibility may still be on the table for nations actively negotiating in good faith.

Mixed Signals from the Administration

Despite Trump’s tough stance, members of his administration have offered a more measured tone. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt recently noted that “the deadline is not critical” for countries like India, which are still negotiating.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent echoed that view in a Fox Business interview, suggesting that talks could extend to Labor Day if progress is being made. However, Trump contradicted that softer messaging Friday, saying, “Not really,” when asked about deadline extensions.

“They’ll start to pay on August 1,” Trump said. “The money will start to come into the United States on August 1, in pretty much all cases.”

Still, Bessent told Bloomberg TV that a “flurry” of deals may be signed before July 9. For countries that don’t reach an agreement, Trump suggested they could still face a minimum 10% tariff under baseline rules announced on April 2—dubbed “Liberation Day” by the former president.

Only a Few Deals Finalized So Far

Despite Trump’s bold claims that “200 deals” were nearly done, only a few trade frameworks have been formally announced. So far, the administration has only confirmed agreements with the United Kingdom and China, with Vietnam being mentioned by Trump in a social media post—though no formal terms have been released.

“As we get to the smaller countries, we’re pretty much going to keep the tariffs the same,” Trump added.

Trump admitted that finalizing hundreds of trade deals in such a short timeframe wasn’t realistic.

“You know, we have 200 countries,” he said. “We can’t do that. So at a certain point… we’re just going to tell them what they have to pay to do business in the United States.”

A Strategy Two Months in the Making

The idea of imposing new tariffs on countries that fail to make a deal has been circulating since late April. But the deadline has shifted multiple times.

• April 23: Trump said tariffs would be imposed on countries failing to negotiate in “the next few weeks.”

• May 16: He extended that to “two to three weeks.”

• Now: The letters are said to be going out “sometime tomorrow.”

“It’s just much easier,” Trump concluded. “We have far more than 170 countries, and how many deals could you make?”

As the clock ticks down, the world is watching closely. Whether Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy will drive countries to the negotiating table—or trigger another round of global economic tension—remains to be seen.

Source: CNN – Trump says he is about to raise tariffs as high as 70% on some countries

The post Trump Plans Tariffs Up to 70% as Deadline Looms for Trade Negotiations appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Kananaskis, Alberta — The Group of Seven summit wrapped up with more questions than answers as six world leaders struggled to find common ground on key global crises—Russia’s war in Ukraine, the escalating Israel-Iran conflict, and global trade tensions—after U.S. President Donald Trump made an early exit.

While Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and leaders from the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, and Japan continued discussions through the summit’s final day, the absence of Trump loomed large. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte joined the talks on Tuesday, hoping for clear commitments—particularly on Ukraine—but major agreements never materialized.

No Unified Stance on Ukraine

One of the summit’s most pressing challenges—Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine—ended without a joint statement. Zelenskyy, who had been scheduled to meet with Trump (a meeting later scrapped), called for more support and said Ukraine was ready for peace talks and a ceasefire, but needed stronger pressure on Russia.

Behind the scenes, a senior Canadian official said the U.S. had resisted any joint declaration on Ukraine, reportedly to avoid undermining its diplomatic push for negotiations with Moscow. Although Canada later walked back that claim, the lack of a unified front was clear. Carney instead issued Canada’s own statement reaffirming support for a “secure and sovereign Ukraine” and announcing new economic sanctions on Russia.

Meanwhile, Trump defended his reluctance to join new sanctions, arguing that punishing Russia comes with “tremendous” costs to the U.S. He also blamed the Ukraine war on the 2014 G7 decision to expel Vladimir Putin over Crimea’s annexation—a stance at odds with his G7 peers.

Tensions in the Middle East Dominate the Agenda

The summit was also overshadowed by growing fears of a regional war in the Middle East. As Israeli airstrikes pounded Iran and Tehran fired back with missiles and drones, leaders scrambled to address the crisis.

Trump, before leaving, briefly joined the others in releasing a carefully worded joint statement calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and stressing that Iran “can never have a nuclear weapon.” French President Emmanuel Macron warned against any push for regime change in Iran, saying military action would only lead to more instability.

“I believe the greatest mistake today would be to pursue regime change in Iran through military means,” Macron said. “That would lead to chaos.”

Trade Frictions and Awkward Moments

Trade tensions also resurfaced, with Trump’s steep tariffs dominating side conversations. His trade team stayed behind in Canada to continue talks as he flew back to Washington. Trump has slapped 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum, a 25% tax on cars, and a 10% tariff on most imports—measures that have strained relationships with key allies. More hikes may be on the way after his self-imposed 90-day deadline for trade renegotiations ends July 9.

Despite the chilly atmosphere, Trump did share one bright moment with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, finalizing a U.S.–U.K. trade framework first announced in May. But even that included a touch of awkwardness: as Trump waved around the signed agreement, he dropped the papers. Starmer quickly picked them up—explaining afterward that only he could safely approach Trump without alarming security.

“There were quite strict rules about who can get close to the president,” Starmer said. “It wouldn’t have been good for anyone else to step forward.”

Fractured Unity, Lingering Questions

With no major breakthroughs and a summit visibly lacking in unity, questions remain about the G7’s effectiveness in shaping global policy. Macron defended Carney’s leadership, saying it’s unrealistic to expect any host to resolve the world’s biggest problems in a single summit. “That would be unfair,” he said.

Carney himself downplayed Trump’s early departure, saying it was driven by the urgent crisis in the Middle East, not disagreements at the summit. “There was no problem,” he told reporters. “Mr. Trump felt it was better to be in Washington, and I can understand that.”

Still, the optics were hard to ignore: a world grappling with war, rising authoritarianism, and economic uncertainty—and a summit struggling to stay in sync without its most powerful member at the table.

“We did everything I had to do at the G7,” Trump said from Air Force One. But as the headlines and photo ops show, that “everything” may not have been enough.

Source: AP News – G7 leaders fail to reach ambitious joint agreements on key issues after Trump’s exit

The post G7 Summit Ends Without Unity After Trump Walks Out Early appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

As world leaders prepare to gather in the Canadian Rockies for this year’s G7 summit, the headlines may be dominated by Israel’s unprecedented strike on Iran—but behind the scenes, trade is poised to be just as urgent a topic.

With less than a month before President Donald Trump’s self-imposed July 9 deadline on sweeping new tariffs, nations are scrambling to avoid what could become a full-blown trade crisis.

“You can’t afford not to talk about it, from any country’s perspective,” said Josh Lipsky, chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council.

The Clock Is Ticking on Trump’s Trade Ultimatum

At the center of it all is Trump’s warning: without new trade deals, dozens of countries—including some of America’s closest allies—could face sharply higher tariffs. The president has floated so-called “reciprocal” rates that could reach up to 50% on some imports.

While Trump has hinted at the possibility of extending the deadline for countries “negotiating in good faith,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made clear last week that such leniency won’t be automatic.

So, while international security will still command attention, trade is very much on the official agenda—unless, as economist Maurice Obstfeld put it, “the security situation becomes world-threateningly grave.”

Tariffs Are Already Taking a Toll

Trump’s 10% blanket tariff, combined with targeted hikes of 50% on steel, 25% on aluminum, and a proposed 25% on cars, is starting to ripple through global markets.

In the UK, new data shows the economy contracted in April at a rate not seen in nearly two years—thanks largely to a historic drop in exports to the U.S.

And that’s just the beginning. The World Bank recently warned that this decade could bring the weakest stretch of global growth since the 1960s. A major factor: uncertainty around U.S. trade policy.

According to the Bank’s latest projections, the U.S. and Europe are expected to face some of the steepest growth slowdowns due to reduced trade and mounting tariff tensions.

Every Leader Wants a Deal—But Can They Get One?

Trump administration officials say the president is laser-focused on making U.S. trade “fair and reciprocal,” and that it will be a central point of discussion at the summit.

Japan’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has already confirmed that his one-on-one with Trump will zero in on their ongoing trade negotiations. But don’t expect a major announcement.

“Even if they’re close to a deal, it doesn’t make sense to announce it in front of other leaders and give Trump that leverage,” said Lipsky. Still, a public signal that progress is being made—especially with Japan—seems likely.

Alongside the G7 countries (U.S., Japan, UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Canada), this year’s summit will also host leaders from the EU, Australia, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, South Africa, and Ukraine.

EU Talks Remain the Big Wild Card

If there’s one relationship on thin ice, it’s the U.S.-EU trade dynamic.

Just two weeks ago, Trump threatened a massive 50% tariff on EU exports, accusing leaders of stalling talks. Days later, after a phone call with EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, he eased off—at least for now.

European officials, according to Obstfeld, would gladly strike a deal that lowers tariffs without giving up too much. But they’re unlikely to scrap their value-added tax (VAT)—a sticking point Trump has repeatedly called “unfair” to U.S. exporters.

And even though Trump is expected to meet with French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, trade likely won’t dominate those chats. That’s because von der Leyen is the EU’s lead negotiator—creating, as Lipsky puts it, “a strange dynamic” when it comes to hashing out trade policy in bilateral meetings.

Source: CNN – World leaders will still talk trade at the G7. They ‘can’t afford not to’

The post With Tariff Deadline Looming, G7 Leaders Race to Avoid Trade Fallout appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.