Connect with us

Business

Trump Will Hit Mexico, Canada and China With Tariffs

Published

on

Trump Will Hit Mexico, Canada and China With Tariffs

President Trump plans to impose stiff tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China on Saturday, a move aimed at pressuring America’s largest trading partners into accepting more migrants and halting the flow of migrants and drugs into the United States.

Mr. Trump will put a 25 percent tariff on goods from Mexico and Canada, along with a 10 percent tariff on Chinese products, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a news briefing Friday.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Friday, Mr. Trump said the tariffs were punishment for Canada, Mexico and China allowing drugs and migrants to flood into the United States.

Mr. Trump’s decision to hit America’s trading partners with tariffs could mark the beginning of a disruptive and damaging trade war, one that is far messier than the conflict that defined Mr. Trump’s first term.

Back then, Mr. Trump placed tariffs on nearly two-thirds of Chinese imports, resulting in China hitting the U.S. with levies of its own. Mr. Trump also imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, inciting retaliation from the European Union, Mexico and Canada.

Advertisement

While the tariffs against allies were viewed as controversial, they were relatively limited in scope. It remains to be seen exactly what products Mr. Trump’s new tariffs apply to, but the president has implied that they would be expansive and cover imports from Canada and Mexico, close allies of the United States.

Mr. Trump said on Friday that he would also “absolutely” impose tariffs on the European Union, saying they had “treated us so terribly.” He added that the United States would eventually put tariffs on chips, oil and gas — “I think around the 18th of February,” he said — as well as later levies on steel, aluminum and copper.

Canada, Mexico and China are America’s three largest trading partners, supplying the United States with cars, medicine, shoes, timber, electronics, steel and many other products. Together, they account for more than a third of the goods and services imported to or bought from the United States, supporting tens of millions of American jobs.

The three governments have promised to answer Mr. Trump’s levies with tariffs of their own on U.S. exports, including Florida orange juice, Tennessee whiskey and Kentucky peanut butter. All three of those states have Republican senators representing them in Congress and voted for Mr. Trump in 2024.

Mr. Trump’s tariffs would immediately add a surcharge for the importers who bring products across the border, most of which are U.S. companies. In the nearer term, that could disrupt supply chains and lead to shortages, if importers choose not to pay the cost of the tariff.

Advertisement

If importers do pay the tariff, it will probably translate into higher prices for some American goods, as those companies generally pass the cost of tariffs on to their customers.

“Hopes that Trump’s tariffs threats were merely bluster and a bargaining tool are now crumbling under the harsh reality of his determination to deploy tariffs as a tool to shift other countries’ policies to his liking,” said Eswar Prasad, a trade policy professor at Cornell University.

Mr. Trump had said in November that he would put the tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, in an effort to halt the flow of migrants and drugs, particularly fentanyl, into the United States.

The threat set off a scramble from Canadian and Mexican officials, who tried to persuade the administration to hold off on tariffs by engaging in last-minute talks with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and detailing the efforts they were making to police the border.

Auto, agricultural and energy companies have all been pushing the Trump administration hard not to apply tariffs, and have called for an exclusions process that could give some products an exemption.

Advertisement

Marcelo Ebrard, the Mexican economy minister, said Friday that tariffs would most likely lead to shortages in specific goods, and that U.S. prices on Mexican goods would increase. He called the move “a strategic mistake” by the Trump administration.

“The main impact is clear: Millions of families in the United States would have to pay 25 percent more,” he said.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, in a post on X on Friday afternoon, said that “no one — on either side of the border — wants to see American tariffs on Canadian goods.” He said that “if the United States moves ahead, Canada’s ready with a forceful and immediate response.”

A spokesman for the Chinese embassy said that China firmly opposed tariffs and that any differences or frictions should be resulted through dialogue. “There is no winner in a trade war or tariff war, which serves the interests of neither side nor the world,” the spokesman said.

Mr. Trump’s advisers had been weighing different options for the tariffs, like applying them to specific sectors, such as steel and aluminum, or delaying their effective date for several months, according to people familiar with the planning.

Advertisement

Ms. Leavitt said the president had chosen to impose tariffs because the countries “have allowed an unprecedented invasion of illegal fentanyl that is killing American citizens, and also illegal immigrants into our country.”

“The amount of fentanyl that has been seized at the southern border in the last few years alone has the potential to kill tens of millions of Americans,” she said. “And so the president is intent on doing this.”

At both borders, the number of illegal crossings has dropped sharply.

The number of unauthorized crossings at the southern border in December 2023 reached nearly 250,000, overwhelming the Border Patrol and causing the government to shut down a port of entry. At the northern border, the flow of migrants crossing illegally skyrocketed during the 2024 fiscal year. During that time, more than 23,000 arrests were made of migrants crossing illegally — two years before that figure was around 2,000.

The situation at the border has changed since then.

Advertisement

In December, agents made roughly 47,000 arrests at the southern border and 510 at the northern border.

The economic fallout from the tariffs would depend on how they were structured, but the ripple effects could be broad. Canada, Mexico and the United States have been governed by a trade agreement for more than 30 years, and many industries, from automobiles and apparel to agriculture, have grown highly integrated across North America.

Mary Lovely, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the tariffs would be “very costly” for U.S. businesses.

U.S. factories rely on inputs from both countries, including minerals and timber from Canada and auto parts from Mexico. The tariffs would also go against efforts that U.S. companies have made in recent years to move out of China, at the urging of the Trump and Biden administrations, Ms. Lovely said.

According to economists at S&P Global, the auto and electric equipment sectors in Mexico would be most exposed to disruption if tariffs were enacted, as would mineral processing in Canada. In the United States, the largest risks would be to the farming, fishing, metals and auto sectors.

Advertisement

Jonathan Samford, the president of Global Business Alliance, which represents international companies, said the tariffs might result in rising costs for U.S. consumers, slowdowns for U.S. businesses and lost opportunities for future investment.

In his remarks from the Oval Office Friday, Mr. Trump said he would “probably” reduce the tariff on Canadian oil to 10 percent. Roughly 60 percent of the oil that the United States imports comes from Canada, and about 7 percent comes from Mexico, and experts have warned that cutting off those flows could cause American energy prices to spike.

While the United States is the world’s largest oil producer, refineries need to mix the lighter crude produced in domestic fields with heavier oil from places like Canada to make fuels like gasoline and diesel.

The potential economic implications from tariffs are also complicating matters for the Federal Reserve, which is still trying to wrestle inflation down to its 2 percent target. The Fed this week held interest rates steady, after a series of cuts, amid persistent inflation and questions about how the tariffs would play out.

On balance, most economists expect higher trade barriers to raise prices for U.S. businesses and households, which could lead to a temporary burst of higher inflation. Whether that escalates into a more pernicious problem will depend on whether Americans’ expectations about future inflation start to shift higher in a meaningful way.

Advertisement

Ernie Tedeschi, the director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab, estimates that a 25 percent tariff on all Canadian and Mexican imported goods — paired with a 10 percent tariff on all Chinese imports — would lead to a permanent 0.8 percent bump in the price level, as measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index. That translates to roughly $1,300 per household on average. Those estimates assume that the targeted countries enact retaliatory measures and that the Federal Reserve does not take action by adjusting interest rates.

Mr. Tedeschi expects tariffs on that level to eventually shave 0.2 percent off gross domestic product once inflation is taken into account.

Mr. Trump’s top economic advisers have disputed the idea that the tariffs fuel inflation, and argued that exporters from countries such as China would lower their prices in the face of higher U.S. tariffs.

In the press briefing, Ms. Leavitt said inflation had remained subdued in Mr. Trump’s first term, despite tariffs being imposed. And she said the president was undertaking other policies that would lower inflation, like passing tax cuts and encouraging energy production.

Hamed Aleaziz, Vjosa Isai and Emiliano Rodríguez Mega contributed reporting.

Advertisement

Business

Not ‘Just Ken’: Mattel shares Barbie’s longtime boyfriend’s full name

Published

on

Not ‘Just Ken’: Mattel shares Barbie’s longtime boyfriend’s full name

At the 2024 Oscars, Ryan Gosling, reprising his role as Ken in Greta Gerwig’s 2023 movie “Barbie,” donned a bedazzled pink suit and belted the ballad “I’m Just Ken.”

“I’m just Ken, anywhere else I’d be a 10,” the actor sang. “Is it my destiny to live and die a life of blond fragility?”

Barbie’s needy male counterpart, it turns out, is not “just Ken.” His full name is Kenneth Sean Carson, according to Mattel, which says the doll saw a uptick in popularity in the years following the hit movie’s release.

Ahead of Ken’s 65th birthday, the El Segundo-based toy giant shared a laundry list of niche biographical details about the doll, including his official “birthday” — March 11, 1961, making him a Pisces — as well as his relationship history with Barbie.

The company said in a statement Monday that Ken has “experienced a resurgence in recent years.”

Advertisement

A Mattel spokesperson cited the “Barbie” movie as a driving factor, as it showed a “different side” of Ken. In a meta move, the company later in 2023 released Ken dolls modeled after Ryan Gosling’s portrayal of Ken.

The “Kenbassador” line launched last year was a “great success,” the spokesperson said. The first product in that toy series was a $75 doll modeled after basketball player LeBron James released in April.

Mattel says it does not break out sales of Ken dolls, but in 2017, when Mattel unveiled Ken dolls with different body types, including one that invited “dad-bod” comparisons, the company told the Wall Street Journal that, on average, girls have one Ken doll for every seven Barbies they own.

Ruth Handler, the creator of Barbie, named the original doll after her daughter, Barbara. The glamorous doll, unique in that it depicted a grown woman rather than a baby, was an instant hit when it debuted at the New York Toy Fair in 1959. Barbie has significantly evolved in the decades since. Recent additions include Barbies with Type 1 diabetes and another with autism.

The Ken doll, created in 1961, was named after Handler’s son, Kenneth. He featured molded hair, wore red swim trunks and carried a yellow towel.

Advertisement

Kenneth Handler told The Times in a 1989 story that there were few similarities between him and the doll named after him. He died in 1994.

“Ken doll is Malibu,” he said. “He goes to the beach and surfs. He is all these perfect American things.”

But when Kenneth Handler was at Hamilton High School in Beverlywood, he “played the piano and went to movies with subtitles.” He continued, “I was a nerd — a real nerd. All the girls thought I was a jerk.”

Like Barbie, Ken dabbled in many different careers over the decades. There have been doctor, pilot, tennis player, firefighter, lifeguard, barista and even Olympic skier Kens, among many others. In 2006, he received a “mid-life makeover” from celebrity stylist Phillip Bloch.

According to the company, Ken and Barbie “met” on the set of their first television commercial in 1961 and soon began dating. After more than four decades, the doll couple broke up in 2004, but reunited in 2011.

Advertisement

Mattel was founded by Ruth Handler; her husband, Elliot Handler; and Harold “Matt” Matson in 1945 in a Los Angeles garage. The toy maker became a publicly traded company in 1960.

Mattel, which also owns Fisher-Price and Hot Wheels, wrote in its October Securities and Exchange Commission filing that “industry-wide shifts in retailer ordering patterns” pushed its third quarter net sales down 6%.

In 2024, Barbie gross billings — which measure the total value of products Mattel ships to retailers before sales adjustments — were down 12% from 2023, which had seen a boost from the movie, according to the company’s annual SEC filing.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Paramount outlines plans for Warner Bros. cuts

Published

on

Paramount outlines plans for Warner Bros. cuts

Many in Hollywood fear Warner Bros. Discovery’s sale will trigger steep job losses — at a time when the industry already has been ravaged by dramatic downsizing and the flight of productions from Los Angeles.

David Ellison‘s Paramount Skydance is seeking to allay some of those concerns by detailing its plans to save $6 billion, including job cuts, should Paramount succeed in its bid to buy the larger Warner Bros. Discovery.

Leaders of the combined company would search for savings by focusing on “duplicative operations across all aspects of the business — specifically back office, finance, corporate, legal, technology, infrastructure and real estate,” Paramount said in documents filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission.

Paramount is locked in an uphill battle to buy the storied studio behind Batman, Harry Potter, Scooby-Doo and “The Big Bang Theory.” The firm’s proposed $108.4-billion deal would include swallowing HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and other Warner cable channels.

Advertisement

Warner’s board prefers Netflix’s proposed $82.7-billion deal, and has repeatedly rebuffed the Ellison family’s proposals. That prompted Paramount to turn hostile last month and make its case directly to Warner investors on its website and in regulatory filings.

Shareholders may ultimately decide the winner.

Paramount previously disclosed that it would target $6 billion in synergies. And it has stressed the proposed merger would make Hollywood stronger — not weaker. The firm, however, recently acknowledged that it would shave about 10% from program spending should it succeed in combining Paramount and Warner Bros.

Paramount said the cuts would come from areas other than film and television studio operations.

A film enthusiast and longtime producer, David Ellison has long expressed a desire to grow the combined Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. slate to more than 30 movies a year. His goal is to keep Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. stand-alone studios.

Advertisement

This year, Warner Bros. plans to release 17 films. Paramount has said it wants to nearly double its output to 15 movies, which would bring the two-studio total to 32.

“We are very focused on maintaining the creative engines of the combined company,” Paramount said in its marketing materials for investors, which were submitted to the SEC on Monday.

“Our priority is to build a vibrant, healthy business and industry — one that supports Hollywood and creative, benefits consumers, encourages competition, and strengthens the overall job market,” Paramount said.

If the deal goes through, Paramount said that it would become Hollywood’s biggest spender — shelling out about $30 billion a year on programming.

In comparison, Walt Disney Co. has said it plans to spend $24 billion in the current fiscal year.

Advertisement

Paramount also added a dig at Warner management, saying: “We expect to make smarter decisions about licensing across linear networks and streaming.”

Some analysts have wondered whether Paramount would sell one of its most valuable assets — the historic Melrose Avenue movie lot — to raise money to pay down debt that a Warner acquisition would bring.

Paramount is the only major studio to be physically located in Hollywood and its studio lot is one of the company’s crown jewels. That’s where “Sunset Boulevard,” several “Star Trek” movies and parts of “Chinatown” were filmed.

A Paramount spokesperson declined to comment.

Sources close to the company said Paramount would scrutinize the numerous real estate leases in an effort to bring together far-flung teams into a more centralized space.

Advertisement

For example, CBS has much of its administrative offices on Gower in Hollywood, blocks away from the Paramount lot. And HBO maintains its operations in Culver City — miles from Warner’s Burbank lot.

Paramount pushed its deadline to Feb. 20 for Warner investors to tender their shares at $30 a piece.

The tender offer was set to expire last week, but Paramount extended the window after failing to solicit sufficient interest among Warner shareholders.

Some analysts believe Paramount may have to raise its bid to closer to $34 a share to turn heads. Paramount last raised its bid Dec. 4 — hours before the auction closed and Netflix was declared the winner.

Paramount also has filed proxy materials to ask Warner shareholders to reject the Netflix deal at an upcoming stockholder meeting.

Advertisement

Earlier this month, Netflix amended its bid, converting its $27.75-a-share offer to all-cash to defuse some of Paramount’s arguments that it had a stronger bid.

Should Paramount win Warner Bros., it would need to line up $94.65 billion in debt and equity.

Billionaire Larry Ellison has pledged to backstop $40.4 billion for the equity required. Paramount’s proposed financing relies on $24 billion from royal families in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi.

The deal would saddle Paramount with more than $60 billion of debt — which Warner board members have argued may be untenable.

“The extraordinary amount of debt financing as well as other terms of the PSKY offer heighten the risk of failure to close,” Warner board members said in a filing earlier this month.

Advertisement

Paramount would also have to absorb Warner’s debt load, which currently tops $30 billion.

Netflix is seeking to buy the Warner Bros. television and movie studios, HBO and HBO Max. It is not interested in Warner’s cable channels, including CNN. Warner wants to spin off its basic cable channels to facilitate the Netflix deal.

Analysts say both deals could face regulatory hurdles.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Southwest’s open seating ends with final flight

Published

on

Southwest’s open seating ends with final flight

After nearly 60 years of its unique and popular open-seating policy, Southwest Airlines flew its last flight with unassigned seats Monday night.

Customers on flights going forward will choose where they sit and whether they want to pay more for a preferred location or extra leg room. The change represents a significant shift for Southwest’s brand, which has been known as a no-frills, easygoing option compared to competing airlines.

While many loyal customers lament the loss of open seating, Southwest has been under pressure from investors to boost profitability. Last year, the airline also stopped offering free checked bags and began charging $35 for one bag and $80 for two.

Under the defunct open-seating policy, customers could choose their seats on a first-come, first-served basis. On social media, customers said the policy made boarding faster and fairer. The airline is now offering four new fare bundles that include tiered perks such as priority boarding, preferred seats, and premium drinks.

“We continue to make substantial progress as we execute the most significant transformation in Southwest Airlines’ history,” said chief executive Bob Jordan in a statement with the company’s third-quarter revenue report. “We quickly implemented many new product attributes and enhancements [and] we remain committed to meeting the evolving needs of our current and future customers.”

Advertisement

Eighty percent of Southwest customers and 86% of potential customers prefer an assigned seat, the airline said in 2024.

Experts said the change is a smart move as the airline tries to stabilize its finances.

In the third quarter of 2025, the company reported passenger revenues of $6.3 billion, a 1% increase from the year prior. Southwest’s shares have remained mostly stable this year and were trading at around $41.50 on Tuesday.

“You’re going to hear nostalgia about this, but I think it’s very logical and probably something the company should have done years ago,” said Duane Pfennigwerth, a global airlines analyst at Evercore, when the company announced the seating change in 2024.

Budget airlines are offering more premium options in an attempt to increase revenue, including Spirit, which introduced new fare bundles in 2024 with priority check-in and their take on a first-class experience.

Advertisement

With the end of open seating and its “bags fly free” policy, customers said Southwest has lost much of its appeal and flexibility. The airline used to stand out in an industry often associated with rigidity and high prices, customers said.

“Open seating and the easier boarding process is why I fly Southwest,” wrote one Reddit user. “I may start flying another airline in protest. After all, there will be nothing differentiating Southwest anymore.”

Continue Reading

Trending