Business
Markets soar as Trump pauses most global tariffs, escalates trade war with China
WASHINGTON — President Trump walked back plans on Wednesday for a global trade war that sparked fears of economic panic and recession, a dramatic reversal after a week of market turmoil that led to a historic surge of relief on Wall Street.
But the president further escalated his standoff with China over tariffs, raising duties on America’s third-largest trading partner to 125%. Trump’s tariff on foreign automobiles, set at 25%, remains in place.
Markets responded to Trump’s reversal with an exuberant surge, a turn of fortunes after news of the president’s policies last week wiped out $7 trillion in value over just three days of trading. Overnight, a U.S. bond market selloff added to concerns over a spiraling economic crisis.
Minutes after Trump changed course, the Dow Jones industrial average rose over 2,900 points. The Nasdaq was up 12% at the closing bell. And the Standard & Poor’s 500 increased over 9.5% — its largest gain since the 2008 financial crisis, but still down over 11% from its February highs.
The turnabout provided temporary relief from a policy that experts warned could upend the global economy, sending prices in the United States up across the board and risking global recession.
Trump administration officials initially explained the policy switch as part of an organized plan: “This was his strategy all along,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said. Yet, within the hour, Trump himself acknowledged that dire market blowback from his announcement last week forced him to back down.
The initial policy plan had countries paying a universal tariff of 10% to import their goods to the United States. Other, select countries, which the president believed were treating the United States unfairly, were hit with higher rates.
“I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line,” Trump told reporters at the White House, explaining his decision. “They were getting yippy, you know, they were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid.
“I guess they say it was the biggest day in financial history,” Trump added. “I think the word would be flexible, you have to be flexible.”
The sequencing of Trump’s announcement prompted some concern among Democrats that Trump may have tipped off allies that a policy reversal was coming. On Wednesday morning, four hours before announcing the pause, Trump wrote on social media that it was a “GREAT TIME TO BUY.”
“Trump is creating giant market fluctuations with his on-again, off-again tariffs. These constant gyrations in policy provide dangerous opportunities for insider trading,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “Who in the administration knew about Trump’s latest tariff flip-flop ahead of time? Did anyone buy or sell stocks, and profit at the public’s expense? I’m writing to the White House — the public has a right to know.”
Trump said he would pause his universal 10% tariff rate on most countries, which went into effect a week ago.
But other trading partners hit with higher rates on Wednesday — tariffs that were referred to as “reciprocal” by the White House, but that actually reflected a country’s trade deficit with the United States — will now have those rates lowered to 10%.
While Trump said that rate is “substantially lower” than previously planned rates, it is still nearly three times the average import tax that had been in place before his announcement last week.
China, meanwhile, will be hit by yet another increase in duties, with imports from Beijing now facing a 125% tariff rate, after China matched Trump’s last two rate hikes over the past week.
“Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets, I am hereby raising the Tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately. At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the days of ripping off the U.S.A., and other Countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, leading markets to soar minutes later.
“Conversely, and based on the fact that more than 75 Countries have called … to negotiate a solution to the subjects being discussed relative to Trade, Trade Barriers, Tariffs, Currency Manipulation, and Non Monetary Tariffs, and that these Countries have not, at my strong suggestion, retaliated in any way, shape, or form against the United States,” Trump continued, “I have authorized a 90 day PAUSE, and a substantially lowered Reciprocal Tariff during this period, of 10%, also effective immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
The president’s decision to reverse course drew widespread praise from his political allies, who credited him with executing on the “art of the deal” over the past week.
Trump’s approach, wrote Bill Ackman, a billionaire hedge fund manager and supporter of the president, is that “we now understand who are our preferred trading partners, and who the problems are. China has shown themselves to be a bad actor.”
Bessent initially told reporters at the White House that Trump’s decision to issue a pause was the result of most countries around the world refraining from issuing retaliatory measures, and instead approaching the administration with offers to negotiate.
“President Trump created maximum negotiating leverage for himself,” Bessent said. “The ones that we have lowered went into effect a week ago, and we have just been overwhelmed — overwhelmed — by the responses from, mostly, our allies, who want to come and negotiate in good faith.”
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, pushed back against questions from the media over the president backing down in the face of market pressures, as well as assessments from the country’s major banking institutions, such as JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, that his new trade policy would push the country into recession.
“Many of you in the media clearly missed the art of the deal,” Leavitt said. “You clearly failed to see what President Trump is doing here.”
The White House said Trump was providing relief to trading partners that declined to retaliate to his initial tariff increase, and was escalating with China because it took retaliatory steps.
But Trump found out that the European Union, too, announced plans to retaliate with new levies only on Wednesday morning, when questioned by a reporter in the Oval Office that afternoon.
Howard Lutnick, the Commerce secretary, told Trump in front of reporters that he did not believe Europe’s new actions would go into effect.
“Oh, that’s bad timing for them. That’s bad timing,” Trump said.
“They didn’t put them in,” Lutnick said. “No, they threatened. But they picked a later date, which, our expectation is it’s going to be later still.”
“Oh, OK. Because I’m glad that they held back,” Trump responded.
Trump and Leavitt had denied for days that Trump would consider any pause on the new trade policy, even denying that the specific pause announced Wednesday — a 90-day pause on global tariffs, with China excluded — was on the table just two days ago.
That rumor led to a short-lived market rally on Monday before the White House referred to such plans as “fake news,” plunging stocks once more.
“We are not looking at that,” Trump told reporters at the time, asked about the prospects of a 90-day pause.
By Wednesday, Trump said of the pause, “it’s something very positive for the world.”
Nike is cutting about 1,400 jobs in its operations division, mostly from its technology department, the company said Thursday.
In a note to employees, Venkatesh Alagirisamy, the chief operating officer of Nike, said that management was nearly done reorganizing the business for its turnaround plan, and that the goal was to operate with “more speed, simplicity and precision.”
“This is not a new direction,” Mr. Alagirisamy told employees. “It is the next phase of the work already underway.”
Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company, is trying to recover after missteps led to a prolonged sales slump, in which the brand leaned into lifestyle products and away from performance shoes and apparel. Elliott Hill, the chief executive, has worked to realign the company around sports and speed up product development to create more breakthrough innovations.
In March, Nike told investors that it expected sales to fall this year, with growth in North America offset by poor performance in Asia, where the brand is struggling to rejuvenate sales in China. Executives said at the time that more volatility brought on by the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices might continue to affect its business.
The reorganization has involved cuts across many parts of the organization, including at its headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. Nike slashed some corporate staff last year and eliminated nearly 800 jobs at distribution centers in January.
“You never want to have to go through any sort of layoffs, but to re-center the company, we’re doing some of that,” Mr. Hill said in an interview earlier this year.
Mr. Alagirisamy told employees that Nike was reshaping its technology team and centering employees at its headquarters and a tech center in Bengaluru, India. The layoffs will affect workers across North America, Europe and Asia.
The cuts will also affect staffing in Nike’s factories for Air, the company’s proprietary cushioning system. Employees who work on the supply chain for raw materials will also experience changes as staff is integrated into footwear and apparel teams.
Nike’s Converse brand, which has struggled for years to revive sales, will move some of its engineering resources closer to the factories they support, the company said.
Mr. Alagirisamy said the moves were necessary to optimize Nike’s supply chain, deploy technology faster and bolster relationships with suppliers.
A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.
The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.
The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.
The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.
It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.
However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.
Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.
Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.
“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.
In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”
The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.
“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.
Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.
Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.
Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.
The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.
But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.
Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.
A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.
“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .
Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.
Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.
Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.
Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.
Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.
But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.
Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.
While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.
“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.
It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”
Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.
“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.
The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.
Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.
Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”
Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.
Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.
“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”
For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.
“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”
-
Connecticut2 minutes agoAdvocates pushing to expand bill protecting Connecticut renters
-
Delaware8 minutes agoDelaware crabshack remains enthusiastic despite increased crab prices – 47abc
-
Florida14 minutes agoThe Vikings’ new DT Caleb Banks has strength that fits his massive size
-
Georgia20 minutes ago
Five Stats to Know about Texans G Keylan Rutledge
-
Hawaii26 minutes agoAloha in Action benefit concert raises money for flood victims
-
Idaho32 minutes agoIdaho officials review medical cannabis campaign as donor records change
-
Illinois38 minutes agoHow Illinois affordable housing bills could change suburban neighborhoods
-
Indiana44 minutes agoFull-length Replay: Indiana | FOX Sports