Connect with us

Politics

Trump slaps major tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, setting the stage for trade war

Published

on

Trump slaps major tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, setting the stage for trade war

President Trump slapped sweeping tariffs on goods from Mexico, Canada and China on Saturday, sending shock waves through the global supply chain and sparking fears of a disruptive trade war that could dramatically raise costs for U.S. consumers.

Trump signed executive orders placing duties of 25% on imports from Mexico and Canada, except for a 10% rate on Canadian energy products. He imposed a 10% tax on all imports from China.

The White House said the tariffs would go into effect on Tuesday, and could be raised if the targeted countries retaliate with tariffs of their own, as they have threatened. In a post on Truth Social, the president said he was taxing imports from those countries because he blames them for the flow of undocumented immigrants and drugs into the United States.

The three nations are America’s top trading partners, supplying the U.S. with food, medicine, oil, cars, timber and electronics.

Employees work in a Honda car plant in 2014, in Celaya, in the central Mexican state of Guanajuato.

Advertisement

(Eduardo Verdugo / Associated Press)

The tariffs against Canada and Mexico upend a trade pact that dates back three decades and is the linchpin of many tightly integrated industries across North America. Trump himself signed the newest version of the trade accord during his first term, praising the 2020 U.S.-Mexico-Canada-Agreement as “the fairest, most balanced and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed into law.”

The tariffs threaten to deeply disrupt the economies of Mexico, Canada and China and drive up consumer prices in the U.S.

Experts say some effects will be significant and quickly felt, with American consumers likely finding higher prices for fresh vegetables and fruits and other perishable imports in a matter of days.

Advertisement

“Foreigners don’t pay the tariffs, American businesses and consumers do,” said Jock O’Connell, a trade expert at Beacon Economics, a Los Angeles-based research firm.

Americans are still smarting from a surge of food prices in the wake of the pandemic. High inflation was widely considered an important factor in Trump’s election, and the president has promised to bring down prices for groceries and other goods. But these new tariffs are almost certain to do the opposite, economists say.

The U.S. imports more than $900 billion of products from Canada and Mexico, and a 25% tariff is huge given that goods have crossed North American borders duty-free for many years.

“Is the Trump administration comfortable with hiking the price of avocados and guacamole ahead of the Super Bowl?” said Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at the accounting firm RSM US, adding that he was not joking.

For many other products, prices may start to increase only as inventories are depleted. Car prices will almost surely rise. U.S. auto manufacturing is so interlinked with Mexico and Canada, with parts going back and forth across borders many times, that analysts say they’re not really American cars but North American cars.

Advertisement

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer condemned the tariffs and the effect they would have on the auto industry in her state, which Trump flipped in 2024: “A 25 percent tariff will hurt American auto workers and consumers, raise prices on cars, groceries, and energy for working families and put countless jobs at risk. Trump’s middle-class tax hike will cripple our economy and hit working-class, blue-collar families especially hard.”

Gas prices may also rise, especially in the Great Lakes and Rocky Mountain West, which depend on Canadian oil. Trump has repeatedly talked about bringing down the cost of gas, but the U.S. still imports billions of dollars of crude — and ramping up domestic production isn’t so easy or quick.

Steam rises at an oil sands facility near Fort McMurray, Canada.

Steam rises at Suncor’s oil sands facility near Fort McMurray, Canada, in September 2023.

(Victor R. Caivano / Associated Press)

The 10% tariffs on China will add to 10% to 25% duties that Trump imposed on many Chinese imports during his first term, and which former President Biden kept in place. That will hit American household pocketbooks broadly because China is such a big supplier of consumer items.

Advertisement

Under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, any country has the right to pull out at any time. And a U.S. president can impose new tariffs without approval from Congress by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which authorizes executive action to counter threats to national security, foreign policy or the economy.

Trump had been warning for months that he planned to impose tariffs on imports in a bid to lure manufacturing back to the United States. Campaigning before the November election, he vowed at one point to establish an across-the-board tax of 10% or 20% on all goods entering the U.S. At another, he threatened a 200% tariff on vehicles from Mexico.

“Come make your product in America,” he told companies in a speech at the World Economic Forum earlier this year. If not, he said, “then very simply you will have to pay a tariff.”

But Trump sees tariffs also as a negotiating tactic to extract compromises from other nations on matters that have little to do with trade.

His executive order imposing tariffs against Canada blames the country for “failing to devote sufficient attention and resources or meaningfully coordinate with United States law enforcement partners to effectively stem the tide of illicit drugs.”

Advertisement

He has said that Mexico must suffer tariffs because it hasn’t done more to stop migrants from reaching the U.S. border.

But experts questioned Canada and Mexico’s ability to further curb drug and people smuggling. A 2022 report commissioned by the U.S. Congress found that “Canada is not known to be a major source of fentanyl, other synthetic opioids or precursor chemicals to the United States, a conclusion primarily drawn from seizure data.”

Others said the tariffs have the potential to spur more migration.

Economies in Mexico and Canada rely much more heavily on the U.S. than the other way around, and the threat of tariffs has made the peso and Canadian dollar very volatile in recent weeks.

The value of Mexico’s exports and imports amounts to almost 90% of the country’s gross domestic product, according to World Bank data. Economists warn that even a small increase in tariffs on goods destined to the U.S. poses serious risks for the economy.

Advertisement

“Under the worst-case scenario, the Mexican economy will fall into recession, the currency will depreciate, and inflation will rise,” reads a report released by the economic research firm Moody’s Analytics.

Analysts say that if tariffs drag down the Mexican economy, more Mexican workers without proper documentation will seek to enter the U.S. “If Mexico goes into a recession, you’ll see a surge in immigration,” said economist Brusuelas.

Migrants make their way to a Border Patrol van after crossing illegally into San Diego

Migrants make their way to a Border Patrol van after crossing illegally and waiting to apply for asylum between two border walls separating Mexico and the United States on Jan. 21 in San Diego.

(Gregory Bull / Associated Press)

Evan Ellis, a research professor of Latin American studies at the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute, described tariffs as a “catastrophic risk.”

Advertisement

“If you essentially deep-six the Mexican economy … there are people who are going to once again flow across the U.S. border,” he said.

The country’s economy is already on shaky ground. Mexico faces its largest budget deficit since the 1980s. Data show 36% of the population lives in poverty with 7% living in extreme poverty.

A severe recession in Mexico in the 1990s contributed to some 5 million Mexicans immigrating to the U.S.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has insisted that Mexico has a plan to counter tariffs.

“We are prepared for any scenario,” she told journalists on Friday, although she said that Mexico had been “doing everything in our power” to prevent tariffs. “What do we want? That dialogue with respect prevails.”

Advertisement

Canadian officials have also promised an aggressive response.

“Being smart means retaliating where it hurts,” said Chrystia Freeland, the former finance minister who represented Canada in USMCA negotiations. “Our counterpunch must be dollar-for-dollar — and it must be precisely and painfully targeted: Florida orange growers, Wisconsin dairy farmers, Michigan dishwasher manufacturers, and much more.”

If China, Canada and Mexico retaliate by slapping tariffs on American products entering their markets, that will very likely slow the volume of trade. The ripple effects will be felt across the entire supply chain, hurting business and employment at ports, warehouses and other logistics and transportation operations.

Higher inflation from tariffs may hit Los Angeles especially hard coming soon after the fires, which appear to be pushing up prices for rents and other services and products.

“The timing couldn’t be worse. It will make for a double whammy for Southern California,” said Sung Won Sohn, professor of finance and economics at Loyola Marymount University.

Advertisement

During his first term, Trump in 2018 imposed tariffs on steel from Mexico and other countries, prompting counter-tariffs on American farm goods and straining U.S.-Mexico relations.

At the time, he also threatened broader tariffs on all Mexican goods, but he eventually backed off after American business leaders complained that it would hurt them and his administration extracted a promise from Mexican authorities to do more to stop migrants from reaching the U.S. border.

Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s economy secretary, suggested last year that the only goal of tariffs is to achieve political gains, given the makeup of the highly integrated global economy.

“The United States economy is not a manufacturing economy,” said Ebrard. “And I’m sorry, but it will not be that way again.”

Linthicum reported from Albuquerque, N.M., and Lee reported from Washington.

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.

Politics

Homeland Security Department to End Union Contract with TSA Workers

Published

on

Homeland Security Department to End Union Contract with TSA Workers

The Department of Homeland Security said Friday that it was ending its collective bargaining agreement with workers in the Transportation Security Administration, claiming that the union contract was imperiling the safety of travelers.

The move was the latest step by President Trump’s administration to undermine labor protections for federal workers, and prompted an outraged response from the American Federation of Government Employees, a union that represents some 47,000 at the T.S.A., along with hundreds of thousands of other federal workers. The union vowed to fight the action, saying that it had little do with safety and appeared to be illegal.

The move could lay the groundwork for the government to fire T.S.A. workers and perhaps even privatize the agency, according to labor experts. Project 2025, a conservative policy playbook that Mr. Trump distanced himself from during the presidential campaign but has since followed, called for privatizing the T.S.A.

The T.S.A., which has about 50,000 workers in the field and makes up about a quarter of the Homeland Security Department’s work force, is tasked with securing the nation’s airports, highways and passenger rail system. It was created in 2002 in response to the Sept. 11 attacks and folded into the Homeland Security Department in 2003.

In a statement on Friday, the Homeland Security Department claimed that a “select few poor performers” in the T.S.A. were exploiting benefits and suggested that too many employees were devoting time to union matters rather than security work. “Eliminating collective bargaining removes bureaucratic hurdles,” the statement said, adding that the union had “constrained” efforts to keep Americans safe.

Advertisement

Everett Kelley, the union’s president, said in a statement that “this action has nothing to do with efficiency, safety or homeland security.”

“This is merely a pretext for attacking the rights of regular working Americans across the country because they happen to belong to a union,” he added.

The union’s lawyers were assessing their legal options, according to Brittany Holder, a union spokeswoman.

Rebecca Givan, a professor of labor studies at Rutgers University, said the move appeared to be without precedent by a federal agency and would likely be “tied up in courts.” But she said it would send a message that would be felt beyond the T.S.A.

“For the government to say, ‘We no longer abide by legally binding contracts’ creates uncertainty and insecurity across the work force,” Ms. Givan said.

Advertisement

Last week, T.S.A. workers were told that they needed to respond to emails asking them to list five work accomplishments from the previous week, part of Elon Musk’s request across federal agencies for such lists from employees. The request came as T.S.A. workers headed into one of the busiest travel periods of the year.

In May of last year, the Biden administration reached a seven-year collective bargaining agreement with the T.S.A. workers’ union that enhanced bereavement leave and made it easier for employees to take unscheduled leave. The T.S.A. said the agreement brought the agency’s contract more in line with those of other federal agencies. The union said T.S.A. workers had long been denied protections offered to most federal workers.

It was the first comprehensive collective bargaining contract secured by T.S.A. workers, said John Logan, a professor of labor studies at San Francisco State University.

Mr. Logan said the Trump administration’s effort to withdraw the agreement came as part of a broader statement to agencies that “they can ignore things that we previously thought were legally binding.”

“It’s really a big deal,” he said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Agriculture secretary cancels $600K grant for study on menstrual cycles in transgender men

Published

on

Agriculture secretary cancels 0K grant for study on menstrual cycles in transgender men

The U.S. Department of Agriculture canceled a grant worth $600,000 for the study of menstrual cycles in transgender men, Secretary Brooke Rollins said Friday.

The Southern University Agricultural & Mechanical College in Louisiana was the recipient of the grant, according to a database on USAspending.gov.

“The first occurrence of menstruation occurs at approximately 12 years of age and ends with menopause at roughly 51 years of age,” the grant description reads. “A woman will have a monthly menstrual cycle for about 40 years of her life, averaging to about 450 periods over the course of her lifetime.”

FEDERAL DEPARTMENT SLASHES MILLIONS IN CONTRACTS, INCLUDING $230K FOR ‘BRAZILIAN FOREST AND GENDER CONSULTANT’

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins speaks to members of the press outside the White House in Washington, D.C. on February 14, 2025. (Getty Images)

Advertisement

“It is also important to recognize that transgender men and people with masculine gender identities, intersex and non-binary persons may also menstruate,” the description adds. “At any given moment about 26% of the world’s population is menstruating.”

The study seeks to “address growing concerns” related to menstruation, including the potential use of natural fibers, such as hemp, in feminine hygiene products.

DOGE SAYS GOVERNMENT PAYING FOR 11,020 ADOBE ACROBAT LICENSES WITH ZERO USERS, PLUS MORE ‘IDLE’ ACCOUNTS

Brooke Rollins

Brooke Rollins speaks to members of the media outside the White House in Washington, DC, on Friday, Feb. 14, 2025. (Getty Images)

The grant had been scheduled to remain in progress until April 2027.

The study was first uncovered by the conservative nonprofit American Principles Project, which has identified more than 340 federal grants issued during the Biden administration to various institutions — including colleges and hospitals — that totaled more than $128 million in federal funds.

Advertisement
USDA sign outside of their headquarters in Washington, D.C.

A sign of the Department of Agriculture is seen in Washington, D.C., on December 18, 2022.  (Celal Gunes / Anadolu Agency)

“CANCELLED: $600,000 grant to study ‘menstrual cycles in transgender men,’” Rollins wrote Friday on the social media platform X.

“Keep sending us tips. THANK YOU, @approject! The insanity is ending and the restoration of America is underway,” she added.

Continue Reading

Politics

Newsom stymies implementation of landmark California plastic law, orders more talks

Published

on

Newsom stymies implementation of landmark California plastic law, orders more talks

Gov. Gavin Newsom this week stymied implementation of landmark state environmental legislation that would have limited the amount of single-use plastics sold and distributed in California — drawing outrage from environmentalists.

The law, known as SB 54, was signed by Newsom in 2022. Since then, dozens of regulators, lawmakers, environmentalists and industry groups have worked together to write the rules and regulations that would guide its implementation.

On Friday — the deadline to finalize those rules — Newsom told the negotiators to start over.

“The Governor is directing CalRecycle to restart these regulations to ensure California’s bold recycling law can achieve its goal of cutting plastic pollution and is implemented fairly,” Daniel Villaseñor, Newsom’s deputy director of communications, said in a statement.

But some environmentalists and lawmakers were incensed at the move.

Advertisement

In a statement, representatives of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the Ocean Conservancy and Oceana said Newsom’s decision “puts the interests of the plastics and fossil fuel industry above the wallets and welfare of Californians and the environment.”

They cited his prior enthusiasm for the law, which his office once referred to as “the most significant overhaul of California’s plastics and packaging recycling policy in history.”

“The only thing that has changed since these regulations were finalized six months ago is that Gavin Newsom is now running for president,” said one disgruntled environmentalist who had been working on the regulations since 2022, and who asked to remain anonymous because they continue to negotiate with the governor’s office on several legislative and regulatory items.

SB 54 called for plastic and packaging companies to reduce single-use plastic packaging by 25% and ensure that 65% of that material is recyclable and 100% either recyclable or compostable — all by 2032. The law also required packaging producers to bear the costs of their products’ end-life (whether via recycling, composting, landfill or export) and figure out how to make it happen — removing that costly burden from consumers and state and local governments.

According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale, or distributed during 2023 in California.

Advertisement

Single-use plastics and plastic waste more broadly are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, the accumulation of plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.

Villaseñor, Newsom’s spokesman, cited the program’s cost as a deterrent.

A state analysis showed the law, once enacted, would have cost the state $36 billion and each Californian households about $300. However, the analysis then noted those costs were “likely to be mitigated by an estimated increase in personal income amounting to $19.2 billion, coupled with additional health and environmental benefits totaling $40.3 billion.”

Indeed, the analysis suggested most Californians were likely to see an increase in personal income as a result of the law, ranging from a $3 per person bump during the first year and $131 by 2032.

“The law has always been about affordability,” said state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), the architect of SB 54. “It’s been increasingly difficult for our cities and counties to handle the endless influx of plastics into our waste stream and they have been forced to increase rates on regular folks over and over again.”

Advertisement

But others, including Nick Lapis, director of advocacy at Californians Against Waste, wondered if maybe it is time to bring the issue back to the voters.

In 2022, a ballot measure that would have put an end to most single-use packaging and foodware in the state was pulled after industry representatives and lawmakers promised to write legislation that would essentially do the same thing, via SB 54. The only difference was that the law would allow the industry a major role in its oversight, development and management.

Dropping the ballot measure was considered a mistake at the time by several environmentalists, who foresaw the industry delaying, derailing or killing it.

“Suffice it to say that we just don’t have confidence that an industry so prone to deceiving the public for so long about the impacts of its products on our communities and our planet will now take the starring role in its own demise voluntarily,” wrote a coalition of environmentalists in a 2022 letter condemning the removal of the ballot initiative in favor of the law.

Concerns about the governor’s commitment to the law began in December, when members of the Circular Action Alliance — a coalition that was formed to represent the plastic and packaging industry — began to complain about the regulations to Newsom.

Advertisement

Rachel Wagoner, an executive director of the industry coalition was, until March 2024, the director of the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, or CalRecycle.

Newsom appointed Wagoner to the CalRecycle position in 2020, and it was under her leadership that the majority of the law’s regulations were written and agreed upon.

Larine Urbina, a spokeswoman for the Circular Action Alliance, said in a statement that her organization appreciated Newsom’s “commitment to the effective and efficient implementation of SB 54,” and that the alliance’s goal “is to ensure the legislation meets its significant ambitions and to help create a circular economy.”

As lawmakers and environmentalists now scramble to pick up the pieces of the SB 54, they noted the bill was signed into law — and therefore the law of the land.

“The Governor and legislators … must continue to insist that the law’s goals and timelines are met,” wrote the representatives of Oceana, Ocean Conservancy and Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Advertisement

Allen, the state senator, agreed with that sentiment.

“We’re hopeful the administration and agency can move swiftly this go-around … and come out with revised regulation that get us on track toward swift implementation of the law,” he said. “When that happens, it’ll be a win for both our environment and ratepayers.”

Continue Reading

Trending