Tag: Tariffs

  • Trump Abandons Tariff Threats on China Following Summit with Putin

    Trump Abandons Tariff Threats on China Following Summit with Putin

    id5902077 GettyImages 2229450199 inside
    U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin walk on the tarmac after they arrived at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, on Aug.15, 2025. © Andrew Caballero-reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

    President Donald Trump said after his Aug. 15 summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that progress made in the talks means that he will not immediately consider imposing additional tariffs on countries such as China for buying Russian oil—but hinted that he might have to “in two or three weeks.”

    Trump has warned that if Russia does not move toward ending the war in Ukraine, the United States will impose sanctions directly on Moscow. He has also threatened secondary sanctions—penalties on countries such as China and India that continue to buy Russian oil despite U.S. pressure.

    China and India are the largest buyers of Russian oil, providing Putin and his military with revenue that allows the Kremlin to keep the war against Ukraine going. Trump already hit India with an additional 25 percent tariff on Indian goods—bringing the total to 50 percent—explicitly citing its ongoing purchases of Russian oil as the reason.

    Even though China is the biggest single buyer of Russian oil, Trump has not imposed similar tariffs or penalties on Beijing. Were he to ramp up Russia-related sanctions and tariffs, China and its slowing economy would suffer a sharp blow. Such a move would risk breaking a fragile U.S.–China trade truce, agreed to in order to give the two sides time to negotiate a broader deal.

    Trump was asked by Fox News’s Sean Hannity, in an interview on Aug. 15, for his thoughts on the secondary tariffs against China and other buyers of Russian oil.

    “Well, because of what happened today, I think I don’t have to think about that,” Trump replied.

    “Now, I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don’t have to think about that right now. I think, you know, the meeting went very well.”

    At the height of their trade fight earlier this year, the United States hit Chinese imports with 145 percent tariffs, prompting Beijing to retaliate with 125 percent duties. The two sides have since scaled back, with current rates down to 10 percent on the United States and 30 percent on China.

    After a two-day meeting in Sweden in late July, the world’s two largest economies signaled that they may extend the temporary trade truce to keep talks going. With the agreement set to expire on Aug. 12, Trump signed an executive order granting a 90-day extension of the tariff pause on China to permit further negotiations.

    At their Alaska summit, Trump and Putin said they agreed on numerous points but fell short of securing a deal that would bring about a cease-fire in Ukraine, something Trump has been pushing for.

    Trump said on Aug. 16 that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will travel to Washington early next week for a meeting in the Oval Office.

    “If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

    The meeting, set for Aug. 18, has been confirmed by Zelenskyy, who said in a post on X that “Ukraine reaffirms its readiness to work with maximum effort to achieve peace.”

    Both Trump and Putin said the Aug. 15 meeting set the stage for continued dialogue and stronger prospects for a peace deal.

    In his interview with Hannity, the U.S. president said that there was agreement on many points, but that there were “one or two pretty significant items” left to settle, with the president expressing confidence that they can be resolved.

    “Now it’s really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done, and I would also say the European nations, they have to get involved a little bit,” Trump said.

  • China’s complex relationship with Nvidia’s H20 chip is marked by both its potential benefits and significant concerns

    China’s complex relationship with Nvidia’s H20 chip is marked by both its potential benefits and significant concerns

    Stock Widget

    Chinese authorities have intensified scrutiny of domestic tech giants, including Tencent TCEHY -2.30% ▼, ByteDance, and Baidu BIDU -1.85% ▼, over their purchases of Nvidia’s NVDA -3.45% ▼ H20 AI chips, raising concerns about data security and urging companies to prioritize domestic alternatives. The regulatory pressure also extends to AMD AMD -2.10% ▼, while domestic chipmakers like SMIC 981.HK +5.20% ▲ benefit from the push toward technological self-sufficiency. Major Chinese firms like Alibaba BABA -1.95% ▼ face difficult decisions as they navigate between proven U.S. technology and regulatory pressure to adopt domestic alternatives.

    The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and other regulatory bodies have held meetings with these firms and smaller tech companies in recent weeks, questioning the necessity of relying on U.S.-made chips when local options are available. This development threatens Nvidia’s recently restored access to the Chinese market and could generate billions in revenue for the U.S. government through a novel export deal, while highlighting China’s push for technological self-sufficiency in the global AI race.

    The CAC’s recent actions mark a significant escalation in China’s oversight of foreign AI technology. According to Reuters, Chinese officials have summoned major internet firms, including Tencent, ByteDance, and Baidu, to explain their reasons for purchasing Nvidia’s H20 chips, designed specifically for the Chinese market to comply with U.S. export restrictions. One source indicated that authorities expressed concerns about potential information risks, particularly the possibility that materials submitted by Nvidia for U.S. government review could contain sensitive client data. “The regulators are worried about what Nvidia might be sharing with U.S. authorities,” the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the private nature of the meetings.

    While no outright ban on H20 purchases has been issued, Bloomberg News reported on August 12, 2025, that Chinese authorities have sent official notices discouraging the use of H20 chips for government or national security-related projects, affecting both state-owned enterprises and private companies. A separate report by The Information claimed that the CAC directed over a dozen tech firms, including Alibaba, to suspend Nvidia chip purchases entirely, citing data security concerns. These directives followed the Trump administration’s decision in July 2025 to reverse export curbs on the H20, allowing Nvidia to resume sales in China after a ban earlier this year.

    The CAC’s concerns were amplified by state-controlled media, with outlets like Yuyuan Tantian, affiliated with CCTV, publishing articles on platforms like WeChat that criticized the H20 chips for alleged security risks, lack of technological advancement, and environmental inefficiencies. Nvidia, in a statement on August 12, 2025, refuted these claims, asserting that the H20 is “not a military product or for government infrastructure” and emphasizing that China has ample domestic chip alternatives for its needs. Tencent, ByteDance, Baidu, and Alibaba did not respond to requests for comment, and the CAC remained silent on the matter.

    The scrutiny of Nvidia’s H20 chips comes amid heightened U.S.-China tensions over AI technology. The H20, a less-advanced version of Nvidia’s flagship AI chips, was developed to navigate U.S. export controls imposed in late 2023, which restricted sales of more powerful chips like the A100 and H100 to China. The Trump administration’s reversal of the H20 ban in July 2025 was part of a broader deal with Nvidia and AMD, announced last week, requiring the companies to remit 15% of their China sales revenue for certain advanced chips to the U.S. government. According to posts on X, this arrangement could generate billions of dollars for Washington, with Nvidia’s China sales alone accounting for $17 billion—or 13% of its total revenue—in its fiscal year ending January 26, 2025.

    However, China’s renewed guidance could jeopardize this revenue stream. By discouraging H20 purchases, Beijing is signaling its intent to reduce reliance on U.S. technology, a move that aligns with its broader “Made in China 2025” initiative to achieve technological self-sufficiency. Domestic chipmakers like Huawei and SMIC are ramping up production of AI accelerators, with Huawei’s Ascend series emerging as a viable rival to the H20. SMIC’s stock rose 5% on August 12, 2025, reflecting investor optimism about growing demand for locally produced chips.

    The regulatory pressure also extends to AMD, with Bloomberg reporting that China’s guidance affects its MI308 chip, though no specific notices targeting AMD were confirmed. AMD did not respond to inquiries outside regular business hours. The uncertainty surrounding foreign chip purchases has sparked speculation on X that Nvidia and AMD may raise prices for their chips in China to offset the 15% revenue share to the U.S. government, potentially further incentivizing Chinese firms to pivot to domestic alternatives.

    The global AI chip market, projected to reach $400 billion by 2027, is a critical battleground for U.S. and Chinese tech giants. Nvidia has long dominated the market, with its GPUs powering AI applications worldwide. In China, the company’s H20 chip was a lifeline after U.S. sanctions curtailed sales of its more advanced models. However, Beijing’s push for domestic alternatives threatens Nvidia’s market share, which accounted for 13% of its revenue in the last fiscal year.

    China’s domestic chip industry, while growing, faces challenges due to U.S. sanctions on advanced chipmaking equipment, such as lithography machines critical for producing cutting-edge processors. Despite these constraints, companies like Huawei have made significant strides, with posts on X highlighting the performance of Huawei’s Ascend chips in AI workloads. “Huawei’s chips are closing the gap with Nvidia’s H20,” tweeted one tech analyst, reflecting growing confidence in China’s capabilities.

    For Chinese tech giants, the CAC’s directives create a delicate balancing act. Companies like Tencent, ByteDance, and Baidu rely on AI chips to power their cloud computing, search, and social media platforms. While Nvidia’s H20 offers proven performance, the regulatory pressure to adopt domestic chips could force a shift, even if local alternatives lag in certain applications. Smaller tech firms, less equipped to navigate regulatory scrutiny, may face greater challenges in securing reliable chip supplies.

    At the heart of China’s caution is a deep-seated concern about data security and U.S. influence. The CAC’s meetings with Nvidia representatives last month focused on whether the H20 chip posed backdoor risks that could compromise Chinese user data and privacy. These concerns echo broader fears in Beijing that U.S. technology could be used to monitor or manipulate Chinese systems, a sentiment amplified by state media.

    Conversely, Washington has its own worries about China’s access to advanced AI chips. U.S. President Donald Trump’s suggestion on August 11, 2025, that Nvidia might be allowed to sell a scaled-down version of its Blackwell chip in China reflects a pragmatic approach to balancing economic interests with national security. However, this proposal has sparked debate, with critics arguing that even less-advanced U.S. chips could enhance China’s military capabilities. China’s foreign ministry responded on August 12, 2025, urging the U.S. to maintain a stable global chip supply chain, signaling its desire to avoid further escalation.

    China’s cautious stance on Nvidia’s H20 chips underscores the broader geopolitical tug-of-war over AI technology. For Nvidia, the regulatory hurdles threaten a critical market, forcing the company to navigate a complex landscape of compliance and competition. The 15% revenue-sharing deal with the U.S. government adds further pressure, potentially increasing costs for Chinese buyers and accelerating the shift to domestic alternatives.

    For Chinese tech firms, the CAC’s guidance reflects a broader push for technological independence, but it also risks disrupting their AI development timelines. While Huawei and SMIC are making strides, scaling production to meet domestic demand remains a challenge, particularly given U.S. restrictions on advanced manufacturing equipment. The global chip supply chain, already strained by sanctions and trade disputes, faces further uncertainty as both nations vie for dominance.

    As the AI race intensifies, the outcome of this standoff will have far-reaching implications. For now, China’s scrutiny of Nvidia’s H20 chips signals a bold step toward self-reliance, while the U.S. grapples with balancing economic gains against strategic concerns. The global tech industry, caught in the crossfire, awaits clarity on how this high-stakes rivalry will reshape the future of AI.

  • Trump Slaps 50% Tariff on India Over Russian Oil Purchases

    Trump Slaps 50% Tariff on India Over Russian Oil Purchases

    President Donald Trump is imposing an additional 25 percent tariff on India, lifting the total rate to 50 percent. Trump, writing in an Aug. 6 executive order, said India’s government is “currently directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil.”

    “Accordingly, and as consistent with applicable law, articles of India imported into the customs territory of the United States shall be subject to an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 25 percent,” the executive order states.

    Last week, the president announced a 25 percent tariff against India, one of the largest U.S. trading partners. Additionally, India would face another penalty over its purchases of Russian energy and military equipment.

    In an Aug. 5 interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” he confirmed that he would increase the tariff on India “very substantially over the next 24 hours” because it is buying Russian crude oil that is “fueling the war machine.”

    The new tariff rate on India is now the largest of the tariffs imposed on U.S. trading partners.

    While Trump has called Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi a “friend,” he has regularly expressed concerns about India’s trade imbalance, tariffs, and nontariff trade barriers.

    Last year, the U.S. goods trade deficit with India was $45.8 billion, up 5.9 percent from 2023, according to the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office.

    India has also been in the crosshairs of Trump’s targeting of the BRICS coalition, a group of emerging market countries headlined by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

    “BRICS … is basically a group of countries that are anti the United States, and India is a member of that, if you can believe it,” he said at a July 30 press conference.

    “It’s an attack on the dollar, and we are not going to let anybody attack the dollar. So it’s partially BRICS and it’s partially the trade situation.”

    Despite BRICS’ years-long campaign to dethrone the U.S. dollar and embrace bilateral trade settled in local currencies, the greenback remains the dominant currency in global trade. The dollar accounts for nearly half of international payments, SWIFT data for June show.

    Pressure Campaign

    Trump’s announcement follows through on his threats to ratchet up pressure to end the Russia–Ukraine conflict. One strategy the Trump administration has employed is targeting countries buying Russia’s petroleum products, threatening to implement secondary tariffs.

    In an Aug. 4 Truth Social post, the president stated that India is also using the Russian oil it purchases to sell it “on the open market for big products.”

    “They don’t care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine,” he said.

    India has defended the transactions as a means to provide the population with affordable energy since conventional supplies were diverted to Europe following the war in Ukraine.

    “In this background, the targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable,” a spokesperson for India’s foreign ministry said, adding that the government will employ all necessary measures to protect its economic and national interests.

    Officials also say India is engaged in long-term oil contracts with Russia, making it challenging to break those contracts overnight.

    According to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade, India has accelerated its imports of Russian crude oil since 2022. Last year, India purchased almost $53 billion in oil, up from nearly $49 billion in 2023.

    Last week, Trump reduced his original 50-day deadline for Russia to end the war, giving Moscow 10 to 12 days.

    The Kremlin criticized the White House’s campaign to force countries to eliminate trade with Russia.

    Dmitry Peskov, spokesperson for the Kremlin, says India and other countries should be allowed to select their own trading partners for trade and economic cooperation.

    “We hear many statements that are in fact threats, attempts to force countries to cut trade relations with Russia. We do not consider such statements to be legal,” Peskov told reporters on Aug. 5.

    U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff is in Moscow on Aug. 6, just a few days before Trump’s deadline.

  • Ford’s “Made in America” Approach Backfires Amid Trump’s Tariffs

    Ford’s “Made in America” Approach Backfires Amid Trump’s Tariffs

    President Donald Trump’s aggressive new trade policies—designed to bolster domestic manufacturing—are hitting Ford Motor Company harder than many anticipated. Despite building roughly 80% of the vehicles it sells in the U.S. domestically, Ford is projecting a net $2 billion tariff-related drag on earnings for 2025, up from a prior estimate of $1.5 billion.

    Big Three Automakers Earnings Loss – 3D Chart
    Big Three to Lose $7 Billion in Earnings
    Ford, GM, and Stellantis—the so-called Big Three—now expect a combined $7 billion earnings hit this year
    3D column chart showing earnings losses for Big Three automakers: Ford $2 billion, GM $3.5 billion, Stellantis $1.5 billion, totaling $7 billion in losses.

    Despite its domestic-heavy production footprint, Ford isn’t insulated. It reported an $800 million tariff hit in Q2, contributing to a net loss of $36 million, and revised its full‑year earnings forecast to $6.5 billion–$7.5 billion, down from previous guidance of $7.0 billion–$8.5 billion.

    Made-in-America Isn’t Enough

    Even though Ford produces nearly four in five U.S.-sold vehicles locally, much of its parts and materials—like steel, aluminum, and EV components—are sourced internationally. Under the White House’s new trade regime:

    Foreign-made vehicle imports face new 25% tariffs, while automakers allied with USMCA countries can benefit from reduced levies as long as supplier sourcing meets content rules.

    Ford continues to face steep tariffs on materials and parts—particularly aluminum and steel—which squeeze margins despite local assembly.

    https%3A%2F%2Farchive images.prod.global.a201836.reutersmedia.net%2F2020%2F10%2F01%2FLYNXMPEG9042U
    Ford Motor Co. CEO Jim Farley poses next to a new 2021 Ford F-150 pickup truck at the Rouge Complex in Dearborn, Michigan, U.S. September 17, 2020. © REUTERS/Rebecca Cook/File Photo

    CEO Jim Farley warned the tariffs could blow a hole in the U.S. industry and force difficult choices in product planning and pricing strategy.

    Thanks to trade agreements with the EU, Japan, and South Korea, many foreign automakers now pay only 15% tariffs, significantly less than the 25% levied on imports from Canada and Mexico or on non‑compliant parts.

    Stellantis CEO Antonio Filosa noted that 8 million of the 16 million vehicles sold annually in the U.S.—made in Mexico or Canada with many U.S. components—now face higher tariffs than fully compliant imports from abroad.

    384442
    Stellantis North America COO and Jeep CEO Antonio Filosa speaks during the Stellantis press conference at the Automobility LA 2024 car show, Los Angeles, California, U.S., Nov. 21, 2024. © AFP Photo

    In Q1 2025, Ford’s revenue declined 5% to $40.7 billion but still beat expectations, and net income dropped from $1.3 billion to $471 million.

    • Offset strategies include:
      • Transporting compliant vehicles from Mexico through bonded channels to avoid tariffs
      • Halting exports to China
      • Implementing internal cost reductions totaling about $1 billion planned for 2025

    As of late July, Ford reinstated full‑year guidance, projecting $6.5 billion–$7.5 billion in adjusted EBIT, and affirmed $2 billion in tariff-related costs for the year.

    Big Three Carmakers Earnings – Accurate Data
    Analysts predict lower earnings at the Big Three carmakers
    General Motors
    Ford
    Stellantis
    Bar chart showing Big Three automakers’ net income from 2018 to 2026, with actual data through 2023 and analyst forecasts for 2024-2026.

    A recent study estimates the entire auto industry could incur up to $108 billion in tariff costs, with the Big Three alone losing roughly $41.7 billion in 2025. Bernstein analysts forecast up to a 60% decline in free cash flow for the trio, due to rising production costs and shrinking margins.

    Consumer pricing will likely rise: average new vehicle prices could increase by 4–8% by year-end, with some models seeing hikes up to $2,000, driven by imported parts tariffs and material cost inflation.

    US Car Sales by Assembly Location
    On average only half the cars sold in America are made there
    US car sales by country of assembly % (US companies starred)
    US
    Canada/Mexico
    Imported
    Horizontal stacked bar chart showing percentage of US car sales by assembly location for different manufacturers. US companies are marked with asterisks.

    Ford’s commitment to “Made in America” now looks paradoxical. The company is suffering disproportionately from a tariff regime meant to favor U.S. businesses—because its deep integration with global parts supplies exposes it to amplified cost burdens. Farley’s characterization of Ford as “the most American company with a $2 billion liability” captures the irony and urgency of the moment.

    Unless Washington revises or harmonizes its trade policies—particularly with key neighbors Mexico and Canada—the pain for Ford and its peers could deepen. Meanwhile, international competitors may seize market share just as consumer prices edge upward.

  • Trump Imposes 25% Tariff on India, Hints at Penalties for Russian Oil Purchases

    Trump Imposes 25% Tariff on India, Hints at Penalties for Russian Oil Purchases

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The United States will impose a 25% tariff on goods from India, plus an additional import tax because of India’s purchasing of Russian oil, President Donald Trump said Wednesday.

    India “is our friend,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform, but its tariffs on U.S. products “are far too high.”

    The Republican president added India buys military equipment and oil from Russia, enabling Moscow’s war in Ukraine. As a result, he intends to charge an additional “penalty” starting on Friday as part of the launch of his administration’s revised tariffs on multiple countries.

    Trump told reporters on Wednesday the two countries were still in the middle of negotiations on trade despite the tariffs slated to begin in a few days.

    “We’re talking to India now,” the president said. “We’ll see what happens.”

    The Indian government said Wednesday it’s studying the implications of Trump’s tariffs announcement.

    India and the U.S. have been engaged in negotiations on concluding a “fair, balanced and mutually beneficial” bilateral trade agreement over the last few months, and New Delhi remains committed to that objective, India’s Trade Ministry said in a statement.

    Trump’s view on tariffs

    Trump’s announcement comes after a slew of negotiated trade frameworks with the European Union, Japan, the Philippines and Indonesia — all of which he said would open markets for American goods while enabling the U.S. to raise tax rates on imports. The president views tariff revenues as a way to help offset the budget deficit increases tied to his recent income tax cuts and generate more domestic factory jobs.

    While Trump has effectively wielded tariffs as a cudgel to reset the terms of trade, the economic impact is uncertain as most economists expect a slowdown in U.S. growth and greater inflationary pressures as some of the costs of the taxes are passed along to domestic businesses and consumers.

    There’s also the possibility of more tariffs coming on trade partners with Russia as well as on pharmaceutical drugs and computer chips. 

    Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, said Trump and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer would announce the Russia-related tariff rates on India at a later date.

    Tariffs face European pushback

    Trump’s approach of putting a 15% tariff on America’s long-standing allies in the EU is also generating pushback, possibly causing European partners as well as Canada to seek alternatives to U.S. leadership on the world stage.

    French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday in the aftermath of the trade framework that Europe “does not see itself sufficiently” as a global power, saying in a cabinet meeting that negotiations with the U.S. will continue as the agreement gets formalized.

    “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.”

    Seeking a deeper partnership with India

    Washington has long sought to develop a deeper partnership with New Delhi, which is seen as a bulwark against China.

    ?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews
    President Donald Trump, front right, gestures as he walks down the stairs of Air Force One with his grandchildren, Spencer, left, and Chloe, back center, upon his arrival at Joint Base Andrews, Md., Tuesday, July 29, 2025. © AP Photo/Luis M. Alvarez

    Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has established a good working relationship with Trump, and the two leaders are likely to further boost cooperation between their countries. When Trump in February met with Modi, the U.S. president said that India would start buying American oil and natural gas.

    The new tariffs on India could complicate its goal of doubling bilateral trade with the U.S. to $500 billion by 2030. The two countries have had five rounds of negotiations for a bilateral trade agreement. While U.S. has been seeking greater market access and zero tariff on almost all its exports, India has expressed reservations on throwing open sectors such as agriculture and dairy, which employ a bulk of the country’s population for livelihood, Indian officials said.

    The Census Bureau reported that the U.S. ran a $45.8 billion trade imbalance in goods with India last year, meaning it imported more than it exported.

    At a population exceeding 1.4 billion people, India is the world’s largest country and a possible geopolitical counterbalance to China. India and Russia have close relations, and New Delhi has not supported Western sanctions on Moscow over its war in Ukraine.

    The new tariffs could put India at a disadvantage in the U.S. market relative to Vietnam, Bangladesh and, possibly, China, said Ajay Sahai, director general of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations.

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

  • Trump Threatens 35% Tariff on Some Canadian Goods

    Trump Threatens 35% Tariff on Some Canadian Goods

    In a sharp escalation of trade tensions, President Donald Trump has announced a 35% tariff on select Canadian imports, effective August 1, tightening pressure on Canada over issues ranging from fentanyl trafficking to retaliatory trade measures. Crucially, goods compliant with the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) are exempted—at least for now.

    Trump’s move targets products he claims are part of Canada’s inadequate response to the fentanyl crisis flooding into the U.S. He also cites longstanding Canadian barriers, particularly in dairy and agricultural sectors—some carrying “400%” duties as he alleged, hurting U.S. producers.

    In a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney shared publicly on Truth Social, Trump warned that tariff rates could rise further or be adjusted downward depending on Ottawa’s actions. He also pledged to penalize any “transshipment” efforts intended to avoid the new levies.

    U.S. officials clarified that the 35% tariff applies only to non-USMCA-compliant goods, preserving preferential treatment for those that adhere to the trilateral agreement. This means most automotive parts and other USMCA-certified items remain tariff-free—but non-compliant sectors such as certain foods, potash, and energy may face the full burden.

    The distinction provides Canada’s businesses with a temporary buffer, but uncertainty looms—particularly around goods whose compliance status is under review.

    Financial markets responded swiftly: U.S. stock futures and Treasury yields slipped on worries over trade escalation. The Canadian dollar also dropped to a two-week low, reflecting investor anxiety .

    Canadian exporters in non-USMCA sectors are bracing for disruption. Ottawa is considering retaliatory measures and invoking rule-based solutions under WTO frameworks and NAFTA-era mechanisms. Prime Minister Carney has indicated ongoing efforts to mitigate both the fentanyl flow and tariff fallout before the July 21 economic and security pact deadline.

    The tariff threats form part of a broader U.S. strategy: Trump has issued similar warnings to over 20 countries, with proposals ranging from 15%–20% tariffs, including a temporary 50% levy on Brazilian goods. Several countries are now scrambling to negotiate carve-outs or exemptions to avoid steep duties.

    The prevailing argument in Washington: these trade measures are aimed at correcting “unsustainable trade imbalances” that pose economic and national security risks .

    “Carving out USMCA-compliant goods softens the blow but leaves too much uncertainty,” notes Alicia Fernandez, trade economist at NorthStar Insights. “We’re likely headed toward tit-for-tat tariffs and escalating legal dispute.”

    Trump’s 35% tariff threat on Canadian goods—while sparing USMCA-compliant items—signifies a targeted yet volatile escalation in the U.S.–Canada trade relationship. With critical deadlines approaching and retaliatory steps underway, this confrontation may reshape North American trade policy well beyond August.

  • Trump’s 200% Tariff Threat Leaves Pharma Firms Scrambling for Contingency Plans

    Trump’s 200% Tariff Threat Leaves Pharma Firms Scrambling for Contingency Plans

    Novartis AG NOVN –.–%
    Sanofi SA SAN –.–%
    Roche Holding AG ROG –.–%
    Eli Lilly and Co LLY –.–%
    Johnson & Johnson JNJ –.–%

    U.S. pharmaceutical companies are racing to assess the fallout from President Donald Trump’s proposal of a 200% tariff on imported pharmaceutical products, a policy that has sent shockwaves through the global drug industry and sparked intense scenario planning among manufacturers and investors.

    Speaking on Tuesday, Trump reiterated that long-delayed, industry-wide tariffs are imminent, following the launch of a Section 232 national security investigation into pharmaceutical supply chains in April. While he hinted that the tariffs wouldn’t take effect immediately — instead offering a grace period of 12 to 18 months — industry analysts and executives warn the impact could be both disruptive and long-lasting.

    “This kind of tariff would inflate production costs, compress profit margins, and risk severe supply chain disruptions, leading to drug shortages and higher prices for U.S. consumers,” analysts at Barclays warned in a research note Wednesday.

    Even with a grace period, the pressure is building. UBS called the delay “insufficient time” for pharmaceutical manufacturers to shift operations back to the U.S., noting that relocating commercial-scale production typically takes four to five years.

    According to Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a mere 25% tariff would already drive up U.S. drug prices by $51 billion annually, translating to as much as a 12.9% increase in consumer prices. The group blasted the proposed 200% levy as “counterproductive” to public health, especially given rising inflation and mounting healthcare costs.

    “A 100% or 200% tariff would be potentially disastrous for every person because we need those pharmaceuticals, and it takes those companies a long time to produce them here in the U.S.,” said Afsaneh Beschloss, founder and CEO of RockCreek Group, speaking on CNBC’s Closing Bell.

    Many of the world’s leading drugmakers — including Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Bayer, and AstraZeneca — manufacture much of their product outside the U.S., particularly in Europe, India, and Asia, where costs are lower and supply chains more mature.

    In anticipation of potential fallout, global firms are exploring relocation strategies and cost restructuring. Roche, for instance, stated it is “monitoring the situation closely” and advocating for policies that reduce barriers to patient access while continuing to expand its U.S. manufacturing footprint.

    Bayer said it is focused on “securing supply chains and minimizing any potential impact,” while Novartis confirmed no changes to its current U.S. investment strategy but emphasized ongoing collaboration with the U.S. administration and trade associations.

    Other firms — such as Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk — have remained largely silent, either declining comment or citing pre-earnings quiet periods.

    Trump’s administration argues that reshoring pharmaceutical production is a national security imperative, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in the global medical supply chain. Historically, pharmaceuticals have been exempt from trade tariffs due to their essential nature. But Trump has long criticized the industry for “offshoring profits” while “overcharging American patients.”

    The president’s remarks on Tuesday reinforced this stance, describing the move as a necessary step toward bringing “American-made medicine” back to domestic shelves. Critics, however, argue that such sweeping tariffs could drive up drug costs while placing undue stress on an industry already grappling with R&D inflation, regulatory pressures, and price transparency reforms.

    The pharmaceutical industry had hoped for a carve-out from broad tariffs — a strategy that appears increasingly unlikely. Some optimism has shifted toward future trade negotiations that might soften the blow.

    The recently signed U.S.-U.K. trade agreement, while thin on specifics, includes a provision to negotiate preferential treatment for British pharmaceutical products and ingredients, contingent on the outcome of the Section 232 probe.

    Swiss and EU pharmaceutical exporters may be pursuing similar carve-outs, but progress has been slow. With the final Section 232 report due by the end of July, drugmakers are bracing for a pivotal policy moment — one that could redefine their long-term U.S. market strategy.

  • U.S. Tariffs Dominate Headlines, but EU-China Trade Tensions Quietly Escalate

    U.S. Tariffs Dominate Headlines, but EU-China Trade Tensions Quietly Escalate

    While the United States’ aggressive tariff strategies continue to dominate global trade headlines, a quieter but increasingly tense economic confrontation is unfolding between China and the European Union — one that could have lasting implications for global markets, supply chains, and industrial policy.

    Behind the scenes, tit-for-tat measures between Brussels and Beijing have intensified in recent months, exposing a fractured relationship marred by accusations of unfair trade practices, overcapacity, and geopolitical divergence.

    The European Union recently restricted Chinese companies from participating in public tenders for medical devices, citing concerns over procurement transparency and national security. China quickly retaliated by imposing import curbs on European medical products, marking a fresh escalation in the long-simmering standoff.

    Simultaneously, China made good on its long-threatened tariffs on EU-made brandy, a move widely interpreted as a retaliatory response to the EU’s 2024 imposition of anti-subsidy duties on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs).

    Both sides have since ramped up their criticism and countermeasures, with diplomatic language growing sharper and economic cooperation increasingly fraught.

    “EU-China trade relations are now quite poor,” said Marc Julienne, director of the Center of Asian Studies at the French Institute of International Relations (Ifri), speaking to CNBC earlier this week. “What was once a domain of great opportunity and enthusiasm has now become more about managing risk.”

    This sentiment is echoed across European policy circles. Grzegorz Stec, a senior analyst at the Mercator Institute for China Studies, noted that the two economies are increasingly on a collision course, especially on issues like industrial policy, trade diversion, and market access.

    “Beijing’s increasingly urgent need to export contradicts the EU’s desire to protect its own industrial base,” Stec said, referencing China’s ongoing struggle with overcapacity and sluggish domestic demand. These structural issues have compelled Chinese exporters to look outward, often at prices and volumes that European officials say distort competition and threaten homegrown industries.

    Beijing’s recent tariffs on European brandy are being described by analysts as “economic weaponization” — part of a broader strategy to pressure Brussels into scaling back scrutiny and protectionist measures. The Chinese investigation into European spirits began shortly after the EU initiated its own probe into Chinese EV subsidies.

    This pattern of retaliatory trade policy is not new in global geopolitics, but the stakes are growing. Europe’s trade deficit with China continues to widen, and concerns are mounting over the environment for foreign firms in China, which many say has become increasingly restrictive and opaque.

    Interestingly, some experts argue that U.S. tariffs under President Donald Trump could have served as a catalyst for closer EU-China cooperation. Instead, both parties have grown more entrenched in their respective trade positions.

    “If anything, the EU and China should have used the U.S. pressure as a common ground for negotiation,” Julienne said. “But instead, geopolitical divergence and mutual distrust prevailed.”

    Jean-Marc Fenet, senior fellow at the ESSEC Institute for Geopolitics & Business, believes part of the reason is that China feels it has already ‘won’ its tariff standoff with Washington, reducing the urgency to compromise with Brussels.

    “Beijing no longer sees the need for a unified front with the EU,” Fenet said. “In fact, there’s growing concern in Beijing that the EU may fall in line with Washington’s harder stance on China.”

    The China-U.S. trade framework agreement announced in June — covering contentious areas such as rare earth exports and technology regulations — only reinforced that perception. Earlier this year, Beijing had already moved to restrict exports of critical rare earth elements and magnets, leveraging its dominance in materials vital to the automotive, energy, and defense sectors.

    With an upcoming EU-China Summit scheduled for July 24 in Beijing, hopes are low for a breakthrough. Sources confirm that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Chinese President Xi Jinping are expected to meet, but even senior officials are bracing for a tense and possibly unproductive dialogue.

    “The significant hardening of the European Commission’s trade stance, and the bolstering of protectionist tools in recent years, suggest more frictions ahead,” Fenet said.

    Indeed, trade experts warn of a long and bumpy road for EU-China relations. As the EU pursues greater economic autonomy and retools industrial policy to protect key sectors, Beijing is unlikely to ease its assertive stance, particularly as it looks to export its way out of structural economic stagnation.

    “The overcapacity issues, paired with China’s use of rare earths as leverage in EV tariff talks, suggest that this trade conflict has only just begun,” said Stec.

    The brewing tension between two of the world’s largest economies — the EU (GDP $19 trillion) and China (GDP $17.5 trillion) — threatens to disrupt multiple industries, from luxury goods and automobiles to healthcare and green technology.

    Companies operating across both markets may face regulatory uncertainty, new tariffs, and a rising compliance burden. Investor sentiment may also sour, particularly in sectors heavily reliant on EU-China trade flows.

    As of July 11, European stock markets remain volatile, with the Euro Stoxx 50 down 0.8% over the past week. Chinese markets, meanwhile, have been weighed down by weak domestic data and trade anxiety, with the Shanghai Composite dipping 1.2% this week.

  • Ford is still struggling to secure enough rare-earth magnets due to a supply shortage

    Ford is still struggling to secure enough rare-earth magnets due to a supply shortage

    Detroit, MI – Ford Motor Co. is facing a persistent supply shortage of rare-earth magnets—critical components for EV motors and various automotive systems—despite a recent U.S.–China agreement intended to ease export restrictions. The situation remains dire, forcing Ford into a “hand-to-mouth” rhythm to keep its production lines running.

    Last May, Ford halted production of its Explorer SUV at the Chicago Assembly plant for several days after its magnet supplier ran dry. These powerful rare-earth magnets—made from metals like neodymium, dysprosium, and terbium—are essential not only for EV motors but also for braking, steering, and seating systems.

    Lisa Drake, Ford’s VP of Industrial Planning for EVs, remarked that the company “still needs to move things around” to avert fresh shutdowns, admitting the operation remains “hand to mouth”. CEO Jim Farley echoed the concern in a recent Bloomberg interview: “It’s day-to-day… We have had to shut down factories. It’s hand-to-mouth right now.”

    Since April, China—which dominates 90% of global rare-earth magnet refinement—has enforced stricter export licensing rules on these metals, requiring detailed disclosures and slowing approval processes, WSJ reported.

    Although a temporary six-month agreement was struck in June to accelerate exports, affected automakers—including Ford—report little meaningful relief. Many export licenses continue to dribble in, primarily favoring larger, state-affiliated firms.

    Ford’s stock slipped nearly 1% on news of the supply disruptions—though year-to-date gains remain near 7%. At the same time, domestic mining and processing firms like MP Materials (NYSE: MP) and Freeport-McMoRan (NYSE: FCX) enjoyed surging stock prices as investors bet on a long-term shift toward U.S. production of critical minerals.

    Ford’s CFO recently disclosed that design improvements could cut annual rare-earth usage by up to 500,000 pounds, and the new hybrid systems already consume 50% less neodymium per vehicle. While the automaker is mapping raw-material sourcing directly back to mines, those efforts will take years to offset immediate shortages.

    Analyst Michelle Krebs of AutoForecast Solutions warns, “Every OEM assumed they could scale battery production linearly. The rare-earth situation proves how quickly geopolitical factors can disrupt those plans”.

    Continued supply volatility; potential further single-shift delays or plant pauses if authorization backlogs persist. Push for non-Chinese magnet sources (Canada, Australia, U.S.) and increased recycling, but industrial-scale capacity remains 2–3 years off. Deep investment in domestic mining and refining will diminish supply chain chokepoints—but remains a strategic and political challenge.

    Ford remains committed to its 2 million EVs-per-year goal by 2026, but acknowledges that resolving this bottleneck is crucial for meeting that target.

    The magnet logjam is more than an automotive hiccup—it’s a flashpoint in global industrial policy. “China’s dominance in rare earths is a geopolitical weapon,” says an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “There’s no quick fix—this is a wake-up call”.

    Even with diplomatic progress and asset-light design pivots, Ford remains locked in a daily scramble for magnets that may define its EV production trajectory—and automobile manufacturing’s broader global supply resilience.

  • Trump is defending the interests of the oil giants concerning climate regulations in EU trade discussions

    Trump is defending the interests of the oil giants concerning climate regulations in EU trade discussions

    Former U.S. President Donald Trump is intervening in current transatlantic trade negotiations to bolster American oil giants by pressuring the European Union to relax its landmark climate regulations—moves that threaten to weaken global environmental commitments.

    In recent trade discussions ahead of the July 9 deadline, Trump officials have floated proposals aimed at diluting the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and methane emissions mandates, both central to Brussels’ aggressive climate stance. These rules impose rigorous environmental and human rights oversight on companies and require verified methane caps for fossil fuel imports by 2030—a move the U.S. energy sector says could drive them out of the European market.

    Executives from ExxonMobil, including CEO Darren Woods, explicitly lobbied Trump to use trade leverage against Brussels. Private sources confirm U.S. negotiators are now urging the EU to soften or delay these regulations in exchange for tariffs relief.

    Trump has dangled a steep 50% tariff threat on EU exports if the EU doesn’t step back on its climate rules—a key tactic in forcing concessions. Meanwhile, Brussels, eager to avert a damaging tariff spike, is considering trade-off proposals such as increasing imports of U.S. LNG and adjusting methane oversight frameworks to qualify U.S. gas under equivalency schemes.

    This duel underscores a broader conflict between climate ambition and trade power: Trump’s approach aims to fuse energy dominance with economic leverage, while the EU seeks to uphold its Green Deal principles.

    Following reports of these contentious trade maneuvers, European carbon credit futures slipped approximately 1.2%, signaling investor anxiety over potential dilution of climate policy. Analysts caution that even talk of loosening methane or sustainability rules could erode confidence in the EU’s green market framework—while bolstering U.S. oil and gas margins temporarily.

    Environmental groups have sounded the alarm, labeling the U.S. push “a direct attack on the Paris Agreement,” warning that any weakening of EU standards could unravel global climate governance.

    EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has reaffirmed the EU’s “sovereign right” to set its own environmental rules and cautioned against ceding core Green Deal elements just to avert U.S. tariffs.

    Yet internal EU divisions bite: some leaders argue for flexibility to secure broader trade benefits, while others—like France’s Stéphanie Yon-Courtin—warn that concessions risk setting a dangerous precedent on environmental sovereignty.

    EU negotiators will decide whether to carve out limited flexibilities—such as pragmatic methane measurement standards or delayed rollout of the CSDDD—to soften U.S. trade pressure. If no deal is struck, Brussels is reportedly readying retaliatory tariffs worth up to €95 billion. This clash may redefine transatlantic relations—showing whether trade imperatives outweigh climate leadership at a critical geopolitical juncture.

    Trump’s alignment with Big Oil in EU trade talks reveals more than one-off bargaining—it spotlights a strategic confrontation over whether commercial leverage can override environmental clarity. The outcome will signal how far Washington and Brussels are willing to bend in balancing market access against the planet’s future.

  • Court Overturns Trump Tariffs, Sparking Surge in Homebuilder Stocks

    Court Overturns Trump Tariffs, Sparking Surge in Homebuilder Stocks

    Homebuilder stocks rallied Thursday, in a sign that residential construction will benefit from the sweeping court ruling striking down President Donald Trump’s tariffs on imported good.

    Shares of D.R. Horton and Lennar, the two largest U.S. homebuilders, rose about 0.7% in early trading, alongside a similar bump for other public companies in the sector. The benchmark S&P 500 gained 0.87% at the opening bell.

    In a surprise ruling late Wednesday, the little-known U.S. Court of International Trade shot down Trump’s sweeping Liberation Day reciprocal tariffs on nearly all trading partners, as well as his 20% anti-fentanyl levies on China, Canada, and Mexico.

    The Trump administration plans to appeal the ruling, and Trump is expected to seek other legal authority to reimpose the steep tariffs that have become a centerpiece of his economic agenda.

    On Thursday afternoon, an appeals court ruled that Trump’s tariff’s could remain in place as the administration’s appeal plays out.

    “Whether or not the tariffs are re-imposed in some form, I think the rally in residential construction stock speaks directly to the likely impact on the price of materials,” says The Budgets Senior Economist Sara William.

    “When construction becomes less expensive, those savings can be passed on to homebuyers—and builders are more likely to move forward with new projects,” he adds. “That means more homes get built, which helps ease the housing shortage and improve affordability at the margin.”

    The ruling was met with cautious relief from homebuilders, who had warned that the tariffs would drive up the cost of imported construction materials and make planning new developments more difficult.

    “The situation on the tariff front remains fluid, and the trade court decision illustrates the need for the Trump administration to seek fair, equitable deals with America’s trading partners that roll back tariffs on building materials,” the National Association of Homebuilders wrote in an analysis of the new ruling.

    Notably, the court ruling does not impact tariffs on Canadian lumber, which are currently at 14.5% and set to more than double later this year.

    Canadian lumber, which accounts for about 70% of the imported lumber used in home construction, is subject to tariffs under different authority than the reciprocal tariffs impacted by the court ruling.

    Earlier this month, homebuilders said in a key survey that Trump’s whirlwind trade policies have made planning challenging, with 78% reporting difficulties pricing their homes recently due to uncertainty around material prices.

    Overall builder confidence in the market for newly built single-family homes dropped to a two-year low in May, according to the National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index.

    Construction activity on single-family homes has suffered since Trump began implementing his tariff scheme, with single-family starts dropping in April to an eight-month low.

    That downturn came as unwelcome news for a housing market that is grappling with a housing shortage of nearly 4 million units, according to a recent analysis from the Realtor.com economic research team.

  • Trump shifts from tax cuts to tariffs, disregarding economic red flags

    Trump shifts from tax cuts to tariffs, disregarding economic red flags

    One day after House Republicans approved an expensive package of tax cuts that rattled financial markets, President Trump pivoted back to his other signature policy priority, unveiling a battery of tariff threats that further spooked investors and raised the prospects of higher prices on American consumers.

    For a president who has fashioned himself as a shrewd steward of the economy, the decision to escalate his global trade war on Friday appeared curious and costly. It capped off a week that saw Mr. Trump ignore repeated warnings that his agenda could worsen the nation’s debt, harm many of his own voters, hurt the finances of low-income families and contribute far less in growth than the White House contends.

    The tepid market response to the president’s economic policy approach did little to sway Mr. Trump, who chose on Friday to revive the uncertainty that has kept businesses and consumers on edge. The president threatened 50 percent tariffs on the European Union, and a 25 percent tariff on Apple. Other tech companies, he said, could face the same rate.

    Since taking office, Mr. Trump has raced to enact his economic vision, aiming to pair generous tax cuts with sweeping deregulation that he says will expand America’s economy. He has fashioned his steep, worldwide tariffs as a political cudgel that will raise money, encourage more domestic manufacturing and improve U.S. trade relationships.

    But for many of his signature policies to succeed, Mr. Trump will have to prove investors wrong, particularly those who lend money to the government by buying its debt.

    So far, bond markets are not buying his approach. Where Mr. Trump sees a “golden age” of growth, investors see an agenda that comes with more debt, higher borrowing costs, inflation and an economic slowdown. Investors who once viewed government debt as a relatively risk-free investment are now demanding that the United States pay much more to those who lend America money.

    That is on top of businesses, including Walmart, that say they may have to raise prices as a result of the president’s global trade war. The onslaught of policy changes has also left the Federal Reserve frozen in place, unsure as to when the economy will call for lower interest rates in the face of persistent uncertainty. As a result, borrowing costs for mortgages, car loans and credit cards remain onerous for Americans.

    Still, Mr. Trump continues to proclaim that his policies will bring prosperity. This week, the White House released data showing that its tax cuts could increase U.S. output as much as 5.2 percent in the short term, compared with the gains it would have achieved if the bill is not adopted. The administration has stood largely alone in offering such rosy predictions about the effects of Mr. Trump’s policies on businesses, average workers and the nation’s fiscal future.

    In report after report, economists this week predicted that Mr. Trump’s signature tax package could add well over $3 trillion to the national debt. Some found that the measure is unlikely to deliver substantial economic growth, and could enrich the wealthiest Americans while harming the poorest, millions of whom could soon lose access to federal aid for food and health insurance.

    The tax cuts are largely an extension of ones that Congress passed in 2017, meaning that few taxpayers will see an increase to their after-tax income. In fact, some might see their financial situation deteriorate: Many of the lowest earners may even see about $1,300 less on average under the Republican bill in 2030, according to the nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model, which factored in the proposed cuts to federal safety-net programs.

    Facing an onslaught of red flags and dour reports, the White House has remained bullish.

    “I think folks have cried wolf a lot,” Stephen Miran, the chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, said in an interview, stressing that Mr. Trump’s agenda would “grow the economy.”

    In the past, investors and businesses might have rejoiced over Mr. Trump’s grand proclamations about lowering taxes, reducing regulations and opening access to foreign markets. But the most common reaction this week was concern over Mr. Trump’s sclerotic approach, which has renewed fears that the economy could enter a prolonged period of pain.

    “It’s possible that you’re going to get a big benefit to growth, but the costs are so obvious and so clear that I think it’s hard to put a lot of faith in that at the moment,” said Eric Winograd, an economist at the investment firm AllianceBernstein.

    By most metrics, Mr. Trump inherited a solid economy. Layoffs were low when he took office, and have stayed that way, helping to keep the unemployment rate stable. And consumers, even amid elevated prices, continued to spend apace.

    Four months into his second term, however, there are signs that the economy is beginning to come under greater strain, in what experts worry is a prelude to a more substantive slowdown. While economists do not expect the economy to tip fully into a recession, they say Mr. Trump’s tariffs in particular have raised the odds of a downturn, as both businesses and consumers begin to cut back.

    Many of the president’s allies maintain that Mr. Trump is doing exactly as he promised during the 2024 presidential campaign, acting out of a belief that his vision can spur robust economic growth. In doing so, that can help to create jobs, raise wages and generate the sort of activity that can lessen the nation’s fiscal imbalance, said Stephen Moore, a conservative economist who served as one of Mr. Trump’s advisers during his first term.

    “So many of these problems are the result of low growth,” Mr. Moore said of the economy. Mr. Trump is aiming to get growth back up to 3 percent, Mr. Moore added.

    But the administration has at times ignored a steady stream of data suggesting its policies may not deliver those gains.

    The disparity between vision and reality became apparent Thursday as House Republicans voted to advance a bill that would extend the set of tax cuts enacted in the president’s first term. The measure also included Mr. Trump’s campaign promises to eliminate taxes on tips and overtime pay.

    An analysis released Thursday by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan advisory arm of Congress, found that the new Republican measure may raise the average rate of growth in U.S. output by only 0.03 percentage points compared with current expectations through 2034. The finding cast doubt on the administration’s long-held assertion that economic activity can help to lower the deficit. The joint committee also said the president’s tax package could add $3.7 trillion to the nation’s debt over the next decade.

    Mr. Miran maintained on Friday that congressional analysts and others had underestimated the effects of Mr. Trump’s initial tax cuts, and had done the same this year.

    “Better tax policy creates better economic growth, and better economic growth creates better revenue,” he said.

    Focusing on the debt, Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House National Economic Council, said on Fox News on Thursday that there was “a lot of spending reduction in this bill,” adding that the Trump administration would seek additional savings as the bill moved through the Senate.

    The prospect of a worsening fiscal imbalance prompted Moody’s Ratings just last week to downgrade the U.S. credit rating, citing Republican tax cuts and the proclivity of past G.O.P. administrations to spend. Party lawmakers swiftly rejected the finding, but bond markets took notice, sending yields on longer-term U.S. debt higher. Soft demand at an auction of 20-year Treasuries on Wednesday gave markets another jolt, pushing up bond yields and weighing on U.S. stocks.

    Mr. Trump sent markets into another tailspin on Friday as he abruptly shifted his attention to tariffs. He attacked the European Union and threatened to raise tariffs on its exports to a flat rate of 50 percent. He signaled a mixed appetite for negotiations, telling reporters in the Oval Office: “I don’t know. We’re going to see what happens.”

    The president also took aim at Apple, signaling he would impose a 25 percent import tax on iPhones, months after his administration relaxed some of its trade policies to aid tech giants. Mr. Trump later suggested his new tariffs might also apply to Samsung.

    The S&P 500 fell nearly a percentage point on Friday and pushed the U.S. dollar lower against a basket of its peers. Many from Washington to Wall Street yet again scrambled to decipher Mr. Trump’s intentions — and sort out the extent to which the president is serious, bluffing or set to walk back his policies again.

    24dc trump econ 01 wzgv superJumbo
    Some companies, including Walmart, have said they may have to raise prices as a result of the president’s global trade war. (Karsten Moran for The New York Times)

    Some businesses have forecast price increases as a result of Mr. Trump’s tariff threats. A report this week from Allianz found that many businesses are trying to push the added tariff costs onto suppliers or consumers, with roughly half of its survey respondents saying they may increase prices.

    The potential for rising prices while growth is slowing poses a unique challenge for the Fed and its voting members, forcing them to reconcile with conflicting missions — a goal to pursue low, stable inflation, and a desire to sustain a healthy labor market.

    “The bar for me is a little higher for action in any direction while we’re waiting to get some clarity,” Austan Goolsbee, the president of the Chicago Fed and a voting member on this year’s rate-setting committee, told CNBC on Friday.

    Mr. Goolsbee recalled a recent exchange with the chief executive of a construction business, who said: “We’re now in a put-your-pencils-down moment.” Businesses, Mr. Goolsbee said, now “have to wait if every week or every month or every day there’s going to be a new major announcement.”

    “They just can’t take action until some of those things are resolved,” he added.