Connect with us

News

Donald Trump escalates tariff threat as he doubles down on protectionism

Published

on

Donald Trump escalates tariff threat as he doubles down on protectionism

Donald Trump is escalating his threats to increase tariffs on imports if he wins a second term in the White House, reviving fears of renewed trade wars that hit the global economy during his presidency.

The Republican candidate, seeking to win blue-collar votes in swing states pivotal to November’s presidential election, has doubled down on his protectionist rhetoric, delivering blunt warnings of tariffs to US trading partners including the EU.

On Saturday, Trump went further, promising tariffs of 100 per cent on imports from countries that were moving away from using the dollar — a threat that could engulf many developing economies too.

“I’ll say, ‘you leave the dollar, you’re not doing business with the United States. Because we’re going to put a 100 per cent tariff on your goods,’” he said at a rally in Wisconsin.

“If we lost the dollar as the world currency, I think that would be the equivalent of losing a war,” he told the Economic Club of New York on Thursday.

Advertisement

Trump is reviving his “America first” economic agenda as he battles Democratic candidate Kamala Harris for the White House, and has vowed to impose a tariff of up to 20 per cent on all imported goods.

“I’m talking about taxing . . . foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly,” Trump said in New York last week.

One former trade official, who is familiar the Trump’s thinking on trade, said he could also reimpose tariffs that were suspended by President Joe Biden, including on steel and aluminium imports and on European goods as part of the long-running dispute over aircraft subsidies.

“The Biden people really gave the Europeans some big wins out of the gate . . . the Europeans didn’t really give the Biden administration anything,” he said. “The EU uses the rules to help their companies and hurt American companies.”

European officials have warned they have retaliatory options in place. Trump’s term in office was characterised by a economically bruising trade war with China.

Advertisement

Trump’s new tariff threats could come under fire from Harris during their presidential debate on Tuesday night, where the rivals will have a chance to lay out their plans for the economy — voters’ most important issue ahead of the November vote.

Harris has criticised Trump’s plans for a tariff on all imports as a “Trump tax” on American consumers that would hurt middle-class families.

Democrats too have backed a more aggressive use of tariffs: the Biden administration has maintained the bulk of the tariffs on Chinese imports that Trump imposed, and also announced levies of up to 100 per cent on imported Chinese electric vehicles.

Trump has not offered more details of his plans to slap tariffs on countries leaving the dollar. But it could hit several large G20 developing economies — including China, India, Brazil and South Africa — or even countries using the euro to trade.

Trump has proposed 60 per cent tariffs on goods imported from China, and has said Chinese cars reaching the US through Mexico should face tariffs of 100 per cent.

Advertisement

Trump last week expressed a preference for tariffs as a tool for international relations over sanctions, saying the latter “kills your dollar and it kills everything the dollar represents”.

But economists warn 100 per cent tariffs could backfire.

“The dollar’s global role has stemmed from the fact that countries voluntarily choose to use it for a whole range of international transactions,” Brad Setser, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Treasury official, wrote on X.

EY-Parthenon’s chief economist Gregory Daco said levies of this nature would have “dire consequences for the US economy”, denting consumer spending and business investment while hampering growth.

Daco said 60 per cent tariffs on Chinese imports and 10 per cent universally — and the retaliatory measures they would induce — would cut 1.2 percentage points from GDP growth in 2025 and 2026, to 0.5 per cent and 0.8 per cent respectively.

Advertisement

When he was in the White House, Trump’s tariff plans — which break with Republican free-market orthodoxy — faced opposition from some of his economic aides and some congressional Republicans.

Resistance within his party has been fading.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Patrick McHenry, the Republican chair of the House financial services committee, hit back at “hyperventilation” about Trump’s proposals.

“Commerce across the globe has benefited America greatly [and] has given strength and capacity to the dollar, but president Trump wants to ensure that American interests are thought of much more highly in these engagements,” he said.

The former Trump trade official said the ex-president was simply trying to return the US to “stable” politics. “You will not get back to the type of stable, normal politics until the voters feel like the economy has shifted in a way that is going to be better for [American workers],” the official said.

Advertisement

JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, suggested in a recent FT interview that the US could raise tariffs on Nato allies to force them to spend more on defence. “I think that we have to be willing to apply some pressure on our allies to actually spend more on defence,” he said.

However, higher US tariffs on EU goods would automatically mean retaliatory tariffs on iconic US products such as Harley-Davidson motorbikes and bourbon whiskey.

The EU’s responses could also include blocking investment from overseas, and penalising procurement bids benefiting from subsidies.

“Trump’s views are the same as last time. So we better prepare ourselves,” said an EU official.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

RFK Jr. Would ‘Significantly Undermine’ Public Health, a Group of Experts Says

Published

on

RFK Jr. Would ‘Significantly Undermine’ Public Health, a Group of Experts Says

A new national coalition of health professionals and scientists, mobilizing to oppose Senate confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be the United States’ next health secretary, released a public letter on Monday warning that his “unfounded, fringe beliefs could significantly undermine public health practices across the country and around the world.”

The coalition, calling itself “Defend Public Health,” includes faculty members from some of the U.S.’s leading academic institutions, including public health schools at Yale and Havard. Its leaders said they had gathered 700 signatures on the public letter and had generated 3,500 individual letters urging senators to reject Mr. Kennedy, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s choice to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

“Mr. Kennedy is unqualified to lead the nation’s health department with a budget of over $1.6 trillion and over 80,000 employees,” the public letter states. “He has little to no relevant administrative, policy or health experience or expertise that would prepare him to oversee the work of critical public health agencies.”

Over the past several weeks, Mr. Kennedy has made the rounds on Capitol Hill, paying courtesy calls to senators who will consider his nomination. His confirmation is not assured, with some Republicans, including Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, chairman of the Senate Health Committee, having said that Mr. Kennedy’s vaccine skepticism gives them pause.

The letter published on Monday is only the latest public push by Kennedy opponents. A separate group, the Committee to Protect Health Care, said last week that it had gathered more than 15,000 signatures on a letter opposing Mr. Kennedy.

Advertisement

But Kennedy allies in the medical field are also mobilizing. In December, not long after Mr. Trump announced his nomination, a group of 800 medical professionals released its own letter supporting Mr. Kennedy. It said his nomination “represents an unparalleled chance to restore our nation’s health and renew trust in our public health institutions.”

Continue Reading

News

Trump risks turning the US into a rogue state

Published

on

Trump risks turning the US into a rogue state

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

“I think the president-elect is having a bit of fun”. That was how the Canadian ambassador to Washington reacted to Donald Trump’s first suggestion that her country should become the 51st American state.

The menacing “joke” is one of Trump’s preferred methods of communication. But the incoming president has now spoken at such length about his ambition to incorporate Canada into the US that Canadian politicians are having to take his ambitions seriously, and reject them in public.

The Canadians have the small solace that Trump ruled out invading their country and is instead threatening them with “economic force”. But he has refused to rule out military action to achieve his ambitions to “take back” the Panama Canal and take over Greenland, which is a self-governing Danish territory.

Advertisement

More light-hearted banter? The chancellor of Germany and foreign minister of France took Trump’s threats seriously enough to warn that Greenland is covered by the EU’s mutual defence clause. In other words — at least in theory — the EU and the US could end up at war over Greenland.

Trump’s defenders and sycophants are treating the whole thing as a huge joke. The New York Post proclaimed a new “Donroe Doctrine” — the 19th-century message to Europeans not to meddle in the western hemisphere — with Greenland relabelled as “our land”. Brandon Gill, a Republican congressman, smirked that the Canadians, Panamanians and Greenlanders should be “honoured” at the idea of becoming Americans.

But the rights of small nations are not a joke. The forcible or coerced takeover of a country by a larger neighbour is the biggest alarm bell in world politics. It is a signal that a rogue state is on the march. That is why the western alliance knew it was crucial to support Ukraine’s resistance to Russia. It is also why the US organised an international alliance to eject Iraq from Kuwait in the early nineties.

Attacks on small countries triggered the first and second world wars. When the British cabinet agonised in 1914 over whether go to war with Germany, David Lloyd George, who later became prime minister, wrote to his wife: “I have fought hard for peace . . . but I am driven to the conclusion that if the small nationality of Belgium is attacked by Germany all my traditions . . . will be engaged on the side of war.”

Britain and France infamously refused to protect Czechoslovakia from Nazi Germany in 1938. But within a year, they had recognised their error and extended a security guarantee to Poland — the next small neighbour on Germany’s hit list. The invasion of Poland triggered the start of conflict.

Advertisement

Trump’s supporters bitterly resent any comparison between his rhetoric and that of aggressors from the past or present. They argue that his demands are actually aimed at strengthening the free world, for a struggle against an autocratic China and possibly Russia too. Trump has justified his expansionist ambitions for Canada, Greenland and Panama on grounds of national security.

Another argument is that Trump’s bluster is simply a negotiating tactic. His supporters sometimes claim that he is just putting pressure on allied nations to do what is necessary, for the greater good of the western alliance. And after all, they say, aren’t many of Greenland’s 55,000 inhabitants seeking independence from Denmark? Are Canadians not tiring of the incompetent “woke” elite who run their country?

But these are feeble arguments. It would be legitimate for Trump to try to persuade Greenlanders that they might be better off as Americans. But threatening to use military or economic coercion is outrageous. His claims that many Canadians would love to join the US are also delusional. The idea was rejected by 82 per cent of Canadians in a recent poll.

As for grand strategy — the reality is that Trump’s threats to Greenland, Panama and Canada are an absolute gift to Russia and China. If Trump can claim that it is a strategic necessity for the US to take over Greenland or the Panama Canal, why is it illegitimate for Putin to claim that it is a strategic necessity for Russia to control Ukraine? If Gill can claim it is America’s “manifest destiny” to expand its frontiers, who could object when Xi Jinping insists it is China’s manifest destiny to control Taiwan?

Both Russia and China have long dreamt of pulling apart the western alliance. Trump is doing their work for them. Just a few weeks ago, it would have been beyond the Kremlin’s wildest dreams to see Canada’s main news magazine running a cover story on “Why America can’t conquer Canada”. The idea of European leaders invoking the EU’s mutual-defence clause against the US — not Russia — would also have seemed like fantasy. But these are the new realities.

Advertisement

Even if Trump never makes good on his threats, he has already done enormous damage to America’s global standing and to its alliance system. And he is not even in office yet.

It does seem unlikely Trump would order an invasion of Greenland. (Although it once seemed unlikely that he would attempt to overthrow an election.) It is even less probable that Canada will be intimidated into surrendering its independence. But the very fact that the incoming president is ripping up international norms is a disaster. Any sniggering at Trump’s “jokes” is misplaced. What we are witnessing is a tragedy — not a comedy.

gideon.rachman@ft.com

Continue Reading

News

Firefighters Brace For More Santa Ana Winds As Los Angeles Palisades and Eaton Fires Continue To Burn | Weather.com

Published

on

Firefighters Brace For More Santa Ana Winds As Los Angeles Palisades and Eaton Fires Continue To Burn | Weather.com
undefined

Play

  • At least 24 have been killed in wildfires throughout Los Angeles County.
  • Red flag warnings are issued for early this week, meaning dangerous fire conditions are expected.
  • The fires combined have burned more than 62 square miles.

T​he death toll is up to 24 as wildfires continue to burn in Los Angeles County. The Palisades Fire is being blamed for eight of those deaths, while the Eaton Fire is responsible for 16 fatalities. According to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s office, missing persons reports have been filed for 16 individuals. The number of missing and the number perished could both rise, according to officials.

F​irefighters who spent the weekend keeping four large fires in check are now bracing for more Santa Ana winds which could stoke the flames and cause new fires to flare up.

The National Weather Service has posted red flag warnings through Wednesday, meaning severe fire conditions are expected. Gusts from 45 mph up to 70 mph are expected, with the worst of the weather coming on Tuesday morning through noon Wednesday.

(​MORE: Intense ‘Firenado’ Spawned By Palisades Fire)

Homes along the Pacific Coast Highway are seen burned by the Palisades Fire, Sunday, Jan. 12, 2025, in Malibu, California.

(AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)

Seventy additional water trucks were sent to the county to help with any surging flames in the coming days, and fire retardant dropped from the air will block fires along hillsides, officials said.

“We are prepared for the upcoming wind event,” Los Angeles County Fire Chief Anthony C. Marrone said, according to the AP.

Advertisement

About 150,000 people in Los Angeles County are under evacuation orders. Officials said that evacuation orders in the Palisades area will likely stay in place until the red flag warnings expire Wednesday evening.

In total, the four blazes have consumed more than 62 square miles, an area larger than San Francisco, The Associated Press reported. T​he Palisades Fire, which has burned more than 37 square miles, according to CalFire, has consumed more than 1,000 structures. The fire was 13% contained early Monday morning. The Eaton Fire, at 27% containment early Monday, had consumed more than 22 square miles and more than 1,400 structures.

T​he Hurst Fire is now 89% contained after burning a little over one square mile.

More than 14,000 personnel, including firefighters from California, nine other states and Mexico, have been responding to the fires.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending