Business
Trump Maintains 104% China Tariffs as U.S. Officials Signal Openness to Talks
President Trump’s next round of punishing tariffs on some of America’s largest trading partners was set to go into effect just after midnight on Wednesday, including stiff new levies that will increase import taxes on Chinese goods by at least 104 percent.
Mr. Trump acknowledged on Tuesday that his tariffs had been “somewhat explosive.” But throughout the day he continued to defend his approach, saying that it was encouraging countries with what he calls “unfair” trade practices to offer concessions.
“We have a lot of countries coming in to make deals,” he said during remarks at the White House on Tuesday afternoon. At a dinner with Congressional Republicans in Washington later that evening, he said other countries wanted to make a deal with the United States but he was happy just collecting the revenue from tariffs, which he claimed would reach $2 billion a day.
“I know what the hell I’m doing,” he said, adding that he would announce “a major tariff on pharmaceuticals” very shortly.
The president and top administration officials signaled on Tuesday that the White House was ready to negotiate deals, saying that 70 governments had approached the United States to try to roll the levies back. Mr. Trump said officials would begin talks with Japan, South Korea and other nations.
The president, whose punitive and successive tariffs on China have triggered a potentially economically damaging trade war, also said he was open to talking to Beijing about a deal.
“China also wants to make a deal, badly, but they don’t know how to get it started,” Mr. Trump wrote on social media. “We are waiting for their call. It will happen!”
On April 2, the president imposed a 10 percent global tariff on hundreds of countries and promised far steeper “reciprocal” tariffs on April 9 for nations that he maintains have “ripped off” America. Much of his anger has been directed at China, which exports far more into the United States than it buys. Since February, the president has imposed successive rounds of tariffs on China. On Wednesday, the minimum tax on Chinese imports will hit 104 percent. Some products may face even higher levies if they are subject to tariffs that Mr. Trump imposed during his first term.
The president’s approach has prompted retaliation from China and caused other countries to draw up their own plans to hit American exports. As a result, economists have raised their expectations for a recession in the United States, and many now consider the odds to be a coin flip.
Mr. Trump has dismissed those concerns and said he will not back away from his trade agenda. The president says his approach is necessary to return manufacturing and industrial production to the United States. He and his economic advisers have pointed to recent offers by countries to lower their own tariffs, though some officials have given mixed signals about how willing the president will be to negotiate.
News that the administration was considering reaching agreements with trading partners helped to buoy stock markets after three days of punishing losses. But by Tuesday afternoon the S&P 500 had given up any gains and closed down for the fourth consecutive trading day.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a briefing on Tuesday afternoon that Mr. Trump had spoken with the prime minister of Japan on Monday and that the United States would be seeking deals. She said that the president had asked his advisers to “have tailor-made trade deals with each and every country that calls up this administration to strike a deal.”
But Ms. Leavitt rejected the idea that the request represented an “evolution” from aides’ earlier comments that there would not be a negotiation over tariffs. She said the president was not planning to pause his plan. “He expects these tariffs are going to go into effect,” she said.
Ms. Leavitt also insisted that the United States had the upper hand when it came to negotiations. “America does not need other countries as much as other countries need us, and President Trump knows this,” she said.
Mr. Trump’s Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, made similar comments on Tuesday as he assailed China for retaliating against the United States with tariffs of its own and warned that America had more leverage in a trade war with the world’s second-largest economy.
“What do we lose by the Chinese raising tariffs on us?” Mr. Bessent said on CNBC. “We export one-fifth to them of what they export to us, so that is a losing hand for them.”
Jamieson Greer, Mr. Trump’s top trade official, defended the administration’s aggressive tariff moves before a Senate committee on Tuesday morning, arguing that the U.S. economy was facing “a moment of drastic, overdue change” after decades of factories moving overseas and hurting the American working class.
Mr. Greer said that the president had imposed the tariffs to achieve “reciprocal treatment from other countries.” He added that the policy was already working, citing announcements that companies have made in recent weeks of investments in the United States.
He declined to say how long the tariffs would be in effect, saying that the administration was looking at it “country by country.” But he implied that there might not be quick remedies.
“Our large and persistent trade deficit has been over 30 years in the making, and it will not be resolved overnight, but all of this is in the right direction,” Mr. Greer said.
Mr. Bessent, who will oversee negotiations with Japan along with Mr. Greer, also indicated an openness to negotiating deals.
“I think you are going to see some very large countries with large trade deficits come forward very quickly,” Mr. Bessent said. “If they come to the table with solid proposals, I think we can end up with some good deals.”
Other officials have been less optimistic about the possibility of countries finding a way to avoid the tariffs.
“This is not a negotiation,” Peter Navarro, a White House trade adviser who is a strong supporter of tariffs, wrote in an opinion essay on Monday. “For the U.S., it is a national emergency triggered by trade deficits caused by a rigged system.”
Mr. Trump’s aggressive tariffs have prompted sharp blowback from Democrats in Congress and increasing nervousness from Republicans, who are under pressure from constituents to defend their export markets.
A bipartisan group of senators — including Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the committee; the minority leader, Chuck Schumer of New York; and one Republican, Rand Paul of Kentucky — plans to introduce a resolution later this week that would terminate the national emergency the president declared to introduce his tariffs.
But the measure would face a tough path to passage. If the House approves it, Congress will need enough votes to override the president’s veto. And the House may take action so it is not forced to vote on the resolution.
Last week, the Senate approved a similar measure to scrap the tariffs that Mr. Trump imposed on Canada, but House Republicans moved pre-emptively to shut down the requirement that they vote on such a measure.
Representatives Don Bacon of Nebraska and Jeff Hurd of Colorado, both Republicans, introduced a bipartisan House bill on Monday that would give Congress the final say on any proposed tariffs. The measure, cosponsored by two Democrats, Representatives Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Gregory W. Meeks of New York, has not yet drawn any other Republican supporters.
But Mr. Bacon said on Monday that he had spoken to several other colleagues — “like, 10 to 20” — who said they liked the proposal but wanted to wait and hear from Mr. Greer on Capitol Hill. On Wednesday, Mr. Greer will testify before the House Ways and Means Committee.
Several Senate Republicans had forceful exchanges with Mr. Greer on Tuesday about whether the tariffs were a negotiating tool and whether businesses that depend on imported products might find relief.
“We need to think strategically about tariff policy, including how to minimize unnecessary costs on American families,” Senator Michael D. Crapo, the Republican chairman of the finance committee, said. “I also recognize that although it is easy to see the costs arising from tariffs, it is far more difficult to assess the cost of denied market access opportunities.”
Senator Steve Daines, a Republican from Montana, said he was concerned about the inflationary effect of tariffs on consumers. But he said he was encouraged that other countries were approaching the United States to negotiate. He said that stock markets were rebounding Tuesday because “there’s hope that these tariffs are means and not solely an end,” he said.
Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, one of the few Republicans who have signed on to legislation opposing Mr. Trump’s tariffs, said that agriculture “is usually the first place of retaliation.”
During the trade fight with China in Mr. Trump’s first term, U.S. agricultural exports plummeted after China imposed high retaliatory duties on soybean, corn, wheat and other American imports, and the United States spent about $23 billion to support American farmers.
Mr. Grassley said that he supported the president generally but believed that Congress had delegated too much authority to him over trade. He said he had taken a “wait and see” approach to tariffs because he believed Mr. Trump and Mr. Greer were using them as a tool to get fairer trade.
“If that’s not the case, level with me,” Mr. Grassley told Mr. Greer.
The Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents major companies like Walmart, Target, Starbucks and Best Buy, released a statement ahead of Mr. Greer’s testimony saying that the tariffs had caused “disruption and uncertainty in the markets and with consumers” and could drive up prices for products like baby clothes, handbags and paper plates.
“Americans elected President Trump to lower inflation and grow the economy,” the group said. “Instead, these broad-based tariffs threaten family pocketbooks and risk destabilizing confidence in the economy.”
For Democrats, the tariffs have provided plenty of fodder to argue that Mr. Trump is mismanaging the economy.
“The U.S. economy has gone from the envy of the world to a laughingstock, in less time than it took to finish March Madness,” Mr. Wyden said on Tuesday. “Through it all, Donald Trump and his advisers have yet to provide any understandable explanation at all for what his tax hike on the American people is supposed to accomplish.”
“Donald Trump is single-handedly driving this economy off a cliff with no evidence to back him up,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts.
Maya C. Miller, Tony Romm and Tyler Pager contributed reporting.
Business
Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk
new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey
February 27, 2026
Business
Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office
Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.
If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.
All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.
But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.
That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.
The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.
— Katie Martin, Financial Times
Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.
Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.
Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.
But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.
Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.
That hasn’t been the case for months.
”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”
Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.
Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.
It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.
Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”
Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”
Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.
Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.
“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”
I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.
To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.
Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.
The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.
It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.
That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.
Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.
Business
How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.
Nvidia, the chipmaker that became the world’s most valuable public company two years ago, was alone worth more than $4.75 trillion as of Thursday morning. Its value, or market capitalization, is more than double the combined worth of all the companies in the energy sector, including oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron.
The chipmaker’s market cap has swelled so much recently, it is now 20 percent greater than the sum of all of the companies in the materials, utilities and real estate sectors combined.
What unifies these giant tech companies is artificial intelligence. Nvidia makes the hardware that powers it; Microsoft, Apple and others have been making big bets on products that people can use in their everyday lives.
But as worries grow over lavish spending on A.I., as well as the technology’s potential to disrupt large swaths of the economy, the outsize influence that these companies exert over markets has raised alarms. They can mask underlying risks in other parts of the index. And if a handful of these giants falter, it could mean widespread damage to investors’ portfolios and retirement funds in ways that could ripple more broadly across the economy.
The dynamic has drawn comparisons to past crises, notably the dot-com bubble. Tech companies also made up a large share of the stock index then — though not as much as today, and many were not nearly as profitable, if they made money at all.
How the current moment compares with past pre-crisis moments
To understand how abnormal and worrisome this moment might be, The New York Times analyzed data from S&P Dow Jones Indices that compiled the market values of the companies in the S&P 500 in December 1999 and August 2007. Each date was chosen roughly three months before a downturn to capture the weighted breakdown of the index before crises fully took hold and values fell.
The companies that make up the index have periodically cycled in and out, and the sectors were reclassified over the last two decades. But even after factoring in those changes, the picture that emerges is a market that is becoming increasingly one-sided.
In December 1999, the tech sector made up 26 percent of the total.
In August 2007, just before the Great Recession, it was only 14 percent.
Today, tech is worth a third of the market, as other vital sectors, such as energy and those that include manufacturing, have shrunk.
Since then, the huge growth of the internet, social media and other technologies propelled the economy.
Now, never has so much of the market been concentrated in so few companies. The top 10 make up almost 40 percent of the S&P 500.
How much of the S&P 500 is occupied by the top 10 companies
With greater concentration of wealth comes greater risk. When so much money has accumulated in just a handful of companies, stock trading can be more volatile and susceptible to large swings. One day after Nvidia posted a huge profit for its most recent quarter, its stock price paradoxically fell by 5.5 percent. So far in 2026, more than a fifth of the stocks in the S&P 500 have moved by 20 percent or more. Companies and industries that are seen as particularly prone to disruption by A.I. have been hard hit.
The volatility can be compounded as everyone reorients their businesses around A.I, or in response to it.
The artificial intelligence boom has touched every corner of the economy. As data centers proliferate to support massive computation, the utilities sector has seen huge growth, fueled by the energy demands of the grid. In 2025, companies like NextEra and Exelon saw their valuations surge.
The industrials sector, too, has undergone a notable shift. General Electric was its undisputed heavyweight in 1999 and 2007, but the recent explosion in data center construction has evened out growth in the sector. GE still leads today, but Caterpillar is a very close second. Caterpillar, which is often associated with construction, has seen a spike in sales of its turbines and power-generation equipment, which are used in data centers.
One large difference between the big tech companies now and their counterparts during the dot-com boom is that many now earn money. A lot of the well-known names in the late 1990s, including Pets.com, had soaring valuations and little revenue, which meant that when the bubble popped, many companies quickly collapsed.
Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet and others generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year.
And many of the biggest players in artificial intelligence these days are private companies. OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX are expected to go public later this year, which could further tilt the market dynamic toward tech and A.I.
Methodology
Sector values reflect the GICS code classification system of companies in the S&P 500. As changes to the GICS system took place from 1999 to now, The New York Times reclassified all companies in the index in 1999 and 2007 with current sector values. All monetary figures from 1999 and 2007 have been adjusted for inflation.
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts2 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Oklahoma1 week agoWildfires rage in Oklahoma as thousands urged to evacuate a small city
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO2 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology6 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology6 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making