Politics
Trump digs in on tariff plan and threatens stiffer China levies as trade crisis deepens
WASHINGTON — Mixed messages on trade from the Trump administration threw markets into further turbulence on Monday, leaving investors, foreign governments and the president’s own allies desperate for an offramp from a dramatic increase in global tariffs scheduled to go into effect Tuesday night.
Yet President Trump, posting on social media and speaking to reporters throughout the day, gave no indication he was open to a rapid course correction, suggesting some of his new tariff rates — set at a baseline of 10% for all countries, but increasing substantially for some of the largest U.S. trading partners — would be permanent. Other rates, he said, might be the subject of bilateral negotiations without any guarantee of success that could take weeks, months or even years.
The mere rumor that Trump would consider a pause in the policy led to a fleeting rally on Wall Street, only for stocks to plummet again on word from the White House that the suggestion was “fake news.” The day of confusion led the Dow Composite and Standard & Poor’s 500 to post moderate losses at the closing bell, with the NASDAQ up a fraction of a point.
From the Oval Office, Trump said he would escalate an emerging trade war with China after Beijing said it would respond to a new U.S. tariff rate of 34% with an identical tariff hike of its own. In response, Trump said, he would add another 50% tariff increase on Chinese imports — a move that would result in Chinese products facing 104% import duties by Wednesday.
Trump also said he was negotiating on a bilateral basis with individual countries over their tariff policies and trade deficits with the United States, including Israel and Japan.
“We’re going to have one shot at this, and no other president is going to do this, what I’m doing — and I’ll tell you what, it’s an honor to do it, because we have just been destroyed,” Trump said. “We’ll be talking to China, we’ll be talking to a lot of different countries.”
He denied that the administration would consider a pause in the global increase. “We’re not looking at that,” he said.
“We have many, many countries that are coming to negotiate deals with us, and they’re going to be fair deals,” Trump continued. “In certain cases, they’re going to be paying substantial tariffs. They will be fair deals.”
Conflicting messages
The president’s remarks came after a day of uncertainty, with several of the president’s top advisors sending conflicting messages over the president’s willingness to change course.
“This is not a negotiation,” Peter Navarro, senior counselor for trade and manufacturing to Trump, wrote in the Financial Times about the new policy. “President Trump is always willing to listen. But to those world leaders who, after decades of cheating, are suddenly offering to lower tariffs — know this: that’s just the beginning.”
Yet when asked whether the president was willing to pause the policy, Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, said, “I think the president is going to decide what the president is going to decide.”
“There are more than 50 countries in negotiation with the president,” Hassett said.
Later, Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, said the administration would open negotiations with Japan to “implement the president’s vision for the new Golden Age of Global Trade” — just one of “50, 60, maybe almost 70” countries that had approached the administration to open talks.
Those negotiations, he said, could extend through June — a message to markets, sent after trading stopped for the day, that a fix to the immediate crisis would take time.
“It’s going to be very busy,” Bessent said in an interview with Fox Business. Trump “gave himself maximum negotiating leverage, and just when he has achieved the maximum leverage, he’s willing to start talking.”
Success of the talks is not guaranteed. On Monday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen offered “zero for zero tariffs on industrial goods.” But Trump said it was not enough, stating the European Union itself “was formed to really do damage to the United States in trade.”
Visiting the White House on Monday afternoon, sitting alongside the president, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel offered fellow U.S. allies a potential road map to appease Trump in the trade wars.
The president has argued that foreign nations, “friend and foe alike,” have ripped off the United States for decades, imposing both tariff and non-tariff barriers on the import of U.S. goods that have disadvantaged U.S. businesses.
“We will eliminate the trade deficit with the United States,” Netanyahu said. Before Trump’s tariff announcement Wednesday, Israel, a relatively minor U.S. trading partner, said it would eliminate all import duties on U.S. products. It was nevertheless hit with a 17% tariff rate by the Trump administration over the country’s trade deficit with Washington.
“We intend to do it very quickly — we think it’s the right thing to do — and we’re going to also eliminate trade barriers,” Netanyahu added. “I think Israel could serve as a model for many countries who ought to do the same.”
Allies urge a reversal
Stock markets reacted to the president’s policy announcement last week with a historic rout, eviscerating $5 trillion in value in just 48 hours.
As markets in Asia and Europe continued their plunge on Monday morning, and as U.S. futures trading Sunday night intensified, some of the president’s wealthiest allies on Wall Street began airing criticism of the new trade policy and pleaded with him to reconsider.
Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock, told the Economic Club of New York that he had no doubt the economy was weakening, and could even already be entering a recession, because of the White House policy, Bloomberg reported. Bill Ackman, a billionaire hedge fund manager who backed Trump in the 2024 presidential campaign, warned of a “self-induced, economic nuclear winter” if the president refused to back down.
“The president has an opportunity to call a 90-day time out, negotiate and resolve unfair asymmetric tariff deals, and induce trillions of dollars of new investment in our country,” Ackman wrote on X. “If, on the other hand, on April 9th we launch economic nuclear war on every country in the world, business investment will grind to a halt, consumers will close their wallets and pocket books, and we will severely damage our reputation with the rest of the world that will take years and potentially decades to rehabilitate.”
Recession risks
Goldman Sachs updated its assessment of the risks of recession this year from a 35% to 45% probability, following a similar assessment from JP Morgan Chase last week, warning of a 60% likelihood.
JP Morgan’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, wrote in a letter to shareholders Monday that increased inflation is likely, not only on imported goods but on domestic prices, as input costs rise and demand increases on domestic products.”
“Whatever you think of the legitimate reasons for the newly announced tariffs — and, of course, there are some — or the long-term effect, good or bad, there are likely to be important short-term effects,” Dimon wrote. “Whether or not the menu of tariffs causes a recession remains in question, but it will slow down growth.”
Even Elon Musk, a top ally of the president leading an administration effort to cut jobs across the federal government, went public with his concerns about the policy, sparring with Navarro, Trump’s economic advisor, on X over their respective qualifications to be advising the president.
“I hope it is agreed that both Europe and the United States should move, ideally, in my view, to a zero tariff situation, effectively creating a free trade zone between Europe and North America,” Musk said Sunday. “That has certainly been my advice to the president.”
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Pennsylvania2 minutes agoPennsylvania hunting licenses to soon go on sale
-
Rhode Island7 minutes agoRhode Island DCYF discloses fatality of 18-year-old
-
South-Carolina14 minutes agoDECISION 2026: What to know about primary elections in South Carolina
-
South Dakota17 minutes agoUSF becomes South Dakota’s first ‘cardiac ready’ campus
-
Tennessee22 minutes ago2026 Tennessee football preview: Grady Dangerfield
-
Texas29 minutes agoFort Worth police launch drone program to speed response times
-
Utah32 minutes agoGot cargo? Utah Highway Patrol, DPS want you to secure your load before you drive
-
Vermont37 minutes agoVermont barn-building ‘legend’ still visits every job site at 83
