World

Why Trump Is Imposing Tariffs on Mexico

Published

1 year ago

February 1, 2025

President Trump on Saturday ordered 25 percent tariffs on all Mexican exports to the United States and a similar levy on all Canadian goods, except for a 10 percent tariff on Canadian energy. His move sent shock waves through both nations, whose leaders have warned that the tariffs will harm all three countries and disrupt their deeply interwoven economies.

On his first day in office, Mr. Trump had vowed to impose punitive tariffs on Mexican and Canadian exports on Feb. 1, to force the two countries to better secure their borders against the flow of undocumented migrants and drugs.

The tariffs target the United States’ closest neighbors and key trading partners. Mexico became the United States’ largest trading partner last year, exporting a variety of goods, including automobiles and avocados, while Canada is the largest foreign supplier of crude oil to the United States.

Mexican officials have criticized the tariffs, arguing that they will not only harm Mexico’s economy, but will also hurt U.S. companies that have production plants in Mexico, including General Motors and Ford. American consumers are also likely to see higher prices for fruits, vegetables and other products.

President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico said on Friday that the country was “prepared for any scenario.” She has suggested that Mexico could retaliate with tariffs of its own.

Here is what to know about the tariffs:

Why is Trump imposing tariffs on Mexico?

Mr. Trump placed Mexico and the U.S. southern border at the center of his presidential campaign, railing against record levels of undocumented immigrants entering the United States, as well as the movement of fentanyl into the country. (Border crossings are currently at significantly lower than the record levels in 2023.)

Mr. Trump accused Mexico of allowing a “mass migration invasion” into the United States, claiming that this had brought “crime, and drugs,” crushed wages and overwhelmed school systems.

It is not the first time Mr. Trump has used tariffs as a strategy to achieve policy objectives involving immigration.

During his first term, he threatened to impose taxes on Mexican products to pressure the country’s president at the time, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, into cracking down on migration.

As a result, Mexico deployed National Guard officers across the country to take on illegal immigration and agreed to the expansion of a program that allowed migrants seeking asylum in the United States to remain in Mexico while their legal cases proceeded.

What has Mexico done to counter the flow of immigrants over the U.S. border?

Mexico has significantly increased immigration enforcement in recent years, particularly during the Biden administration. It has added hundreds of immigration checkpoints across the country, including along once-deserted sections of the border, conducted inspections on commercial bus routes and drastically increased detentions.

To deter people from reaching border cities like Tijuana, a top migrant entry point near San Diego, Mexican authorities raided hotels and safe houses, increased security at official crossings and installed new border checkpoints where migrants were passing through a gap in a wall.

Mexico also moved migrants away from the border, using chartered flights and buses to drop large numbers of people in southern cities like Villahermosa. The strategy contributed to a plunge in apprehensions of people trying to cross along the southern border at the start of last year.

The government also introduced bureaucratic obstacles for migrants trying to make it to the United States. At one point, it stopped issuing documents that allowed migrants and refugees to stay in Mexico.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, alluded to these actions this past week when she said the Trump administration had seen “a historic level of cooperation from Mexico” on border security.

What has Mexico done to control the trafficking of fentanyl?

Ms. Sheinbaum has taken a far tougher line than her predecessor in cracking down on the criminal groups involved in the fentanyl trade.

Mr. López Obrador prioritized tackling the social and economic root causes of drug crime over enforcement actions. But during Ms. Sheinbaum’s first four months in office, Mexican security forces have conducted major seizures of fentanyl and stepped up operations to locate and destroy clandestine fentanyl laboratories. Security forces have also targeted key members of the Sinaloa cartel, the powerful criminal organization largely responsible for the fentanyl pouring over the southern border.

In December, Mexican security forces seized more than a ton of fentanyl, the equivalent of more than 20 million doses of fentanyl pills, in what Ms. Sheinbaum described as “the largest mass seizure of fentanyl pills ever made.”

Mexico’s security minister, Omar García Harfuch, announced this past week that since Ms. Sheinbaum took office on Oct. 1, more than 10,000 people had been arrested on serious criminal charges, including homicide. Mexican authorities also have seized 90 tons of drugs, including more than 1.3 tons of fentanyl, and destroyed more than 139 laboratories, Mr. Garcia Harfuch said.

Some of the most decisive efforts to curb rampant violence have focused on the state of Sinaloa, where rival factions of the Sinaloa cartel have turned the state into a war zone after Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada Garcia, a top leader of the cartel, was lured onto a plane under false pretenses and sent to the United States, where he is under indictment.

Though there is no evidence that these enforcement actions have made a significant dent in the Sinaloa cartel’s production abilities, analysts say that it has sent a clear message about Mexico’s commitment to make good on Mr. Trump’s demands.

“There are thousands of clandestine fentanyl kitchens in Sinaloa alone, and the drug is so immensely profitable the cartel is not just going to hand it over to the authorities,” said Eduardo Guerrero, a Mexican security analyst.

“But the important thing was to show that Mexico is working harder and faster and making good in this promise to produce results,” he added.

Mexico has also recently passed a constitutional reform to prohibit the production, distribution and sale of chemical precursors needed to manufacture fentanyl. It has also increased laws around offenses related to fentanyl.

What has Mexico told Mr. Trump about its efforts?

After Mr. Trump’s victory, Ms. Sheinbaum said he should consider what Mexico has done to curb the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigration.

In a letter to Mr. Trump, Ms. Sheinbaum said a “comprehensive” migration policy to care for migrants arriving in Mexico from different countries and seeking to reach the United States had led to a 75 percent drop in encounters along the United States-Mexico border from December 2023 to November 2024.

Half of the migrants who arrived in the United States entered with a legal appointment to claim asylum since the United States introduced an app that allowed migrants to make those appointments, she added. (The Trump administration has shut down the app-based entry program.)

“For these reasons, migrant caravans no longer arrive at the border,” she said.

Ms. Sheinbaum, in the same letter, reiterated Mexico’s “willingness to prevent the fentanyl epidemic” from continuing to take a toll in the United States, and highlighted enforcement actions that resulted in the seizure of tons of synthetic drugs.

Click to comment

World

Sombr Altercation at Brit Awards Was Staged, Rep Confirms

Published

6 hours ago

February 28, 2026

Press Room

Sombr Altercation at Brit Awards Was Staged, Rep Confirms

Sombr was mid-performance at the Brit Awards when a random man bumrushed the stage and pushed the singer off the platform, leaving him stunned — only it was all planned, says his rep.

The singer-songwriter, who was nominated for international artist and international song, was at the end of his smash single “Undressed” when a man joined him on the podium and shoved him hard. Security guards aggressively removed the man from the stage, and Sombr returned to the microphone to segue into his next song.

Shortly after the performance came to a close, Sombr’s rep confirmed to Variety that the whole thing was part of the act. Fans were already split online over whether the incident was staged or real. Naysayers noticed that the offender was wearing a shirt that read “Sombr is a homewrecker” — a nod to his latest single “Homewrecker,” which some claimed was a dead giveaway. But others weren’t necessarily convinced it was a stunt, considering how hard he was pushed and how additional security guards came to his rescue.

Brits host Jack Whitehall remarked on the incident after Sombr’s performance concluded. “Such a shame we didn’t have the security ready,” he said.

The incident took place just days after Britain’s BAFTA Awards last Sunday, when John Davidson, the Scottish Tourette’s syndrome activist and real-life inspiration for the film “I Swear,” disrupted that ceremony with an outburst of racial slurs that occurred as “Sinners” stars Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo were onstage. “I can’t begin to explain how upset and distraught I have been as the impact from Sunday sinks in,” Davidson told Variety earlier this week.

Whitehall made a joking reference to that incident — which was not bleeped from the initial BAFTA broadcast and was audible to viewers — at the top of the Brits, saying “We’ve got the best in the business on the bleep button.”

Sombr is coming off a red-hot year that saw his various singles “Undressed,” “Back to Friends” and “12 to 12” impact the charts. He recently performed at the Grammy Awards, where he was nominated for best new artist alongside Addison Rae, Alex Warren, the Marías, Leon Thomas, Lola Young, Katseye and Olivia Dean, who ended up taking home the award.

World

Iran goes dark amid ‘regime paranoia’, blackout follows Israeli, US strikes on compound

Published

7 hours ago

February 28, 2026

Press Room

Iran goes dark amid ‘regime paranoia’, blackout follows Israeli, US strikes on compound

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Iran was plunged into an internet blackout Saturday after Israel and the U.S. launched military strikes around the country, according to a global internet monitor.

Within hours of the strikes — which officials said targeted infrastructure and killed dozens of senior regime figures at a compound in Tehran— NetBlocks CEO Alp Toker confirmed connectivity started “flatlining.”

“We’re tracking the ongoing blackout, but our assessment is that this is straight out of Iran’s wartime playbook and consistent both technically and strategically with what we saw during the 2025 Twelve-Day War with Israel,” Toker told Fox News Digital.

“Iran’s internet connectivity is now flatlining around the 1% level, so the original blackout the regime imposed during the morning has been consolidated,” he confirmed.

“The blackout was imposed just after 7:00 UTC, not long after the attack on the Iranian regime compound,” Toker clarified, adding that Iran had been largely offline for approximately 12 hours following the attack.

“At 06:10 UTC, there is the main compound strike; at 07:10 UTC, telecoms disruption starts; at 08:00 UTC, the blackout is largely in effect; and by 08:30 UTC, connectivity flatlines.”

“Wartime national blackouts are exceedingly rare around the world, and it’s something we’ve only really seen at this scale in Iran,” he said.

President Donald Trump monitors U.S. military operations in Iran following an Israeli strike in Tehran on Saturday, Feb. 28, 2026. (@WhiteHouse/X)

In the wake of the attack, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, President Donald Trump said on Truth Social that the “heavy and pinpoint” bombing in Iran “will continue uninterrupted throughout the week or as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!”

He claimed Iranian security forces and members of the regime’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were already seeking immunity. He urged them to “peacefully merge with the Iranian Patriots.”

“We are hearing that many of their IRGC, Military, and other Security and Police Forces no longer want to fight and are looking for Immunity from us,” Trump said in the post. “As I said last night, ‘Now they can have Immunity; later they only get Death!’”

Toker argued the timing of the blackout suggested it was imposed deliberately as the regime sought to secure communications amid fears of further targeting.

TRUMP TELLS IRANIANS THE ‘HOUR OF YOUR FREEDOM IS AT HAND’ AS US-ISRAEL LAUNCH STRIKES AGAINST IRAN

TEHRAN, IRAN – FEBRUARY 28: Smoke rises over the city center after an Israeli army launches 2nd wave of airstrikes on Iran on February 28, 2026. (Photo by Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images) (Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images)

“The Iranian regime will have deployed this new blackout to counter potential cyberattacks during their own military operation, but also to avoid leaking the locations of senior regime figures through metadata and user-generated content,” he said.

“Communications would have been limited, and Iran’s leadership would have proceeded with the assumption that all communications, including satellite or whitelisted networks, carry risks,” he said before claiming that “paranoia would be well grounded at this point, with the blackout a belated but direct response to that.”

“Those participating directly would already know to avoid technology that could betray their whereabouts,” Toker said.

“However, the metadata may well have played a part in determining that the meeting of regime leaders was being held at the Tehran compound, who was in attendance, and at what time.”

DID THEY GET HIM? KHAMENEI’S FATE REMAINS UNKNOWN AFTER ISRAEL-US STRIKE LEVELS HIS COMPOUND

In this handout image provided by the Office of the Supreme Leader of Iran, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei addresses the nation in a state television broadcast on June 18, 2025 in Tehran, Iran. (Office of the Supreme Leader of Iran via Getty Images)

Toker revealed that the broader network around the regime leaders and around the compound wouldn’t have had the same strict restrictions.

“This kind of adjacent ‘background noise’ can be correlated against other intelligence sources to build an understanding of activity on the ground,” he added.

“Smartphones are a readily available, almost ‘free’ source of intelligence, and even when locked down, they eventually connect to international online services and generate insights that can be used to pinpoint regime figures,” Toker said.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“In the aftermath of Saturday’s strike, this concern will have been high on the remaining Iranian leadership’s minds, especially if they didn’t have a clear and specific understanding of how the meeting was compromised.”

Iran has previously imposed sweeping internet shutdowns during periods of domestic unrest, including nationwide protests in January, which saw thousands killed, often seeking to curb the spread of information and restrict coordination.

Emma Bussey is a breaking news writer for Fox News Digital. Before joining Fox, she worked at The Telegraph with the U.S. overnight team, across desks including foreign, politics, news, sport and culture.

World

Activists hail ‘historic’ EU’s decision on accessible abortion

Published

8 hours ago

February 28, 2026

Press Room

Activists hail ‘historic’ EU’s decision on accessible abortion

Women’s rights groups and activists hailed the European Commission’s decision on accessible abortion across Europe, calling it a “historic” move for women’s rights and European democracy.

The move marks an unusual step taken by the European Union, as healthcare policy is typically determined at a national level.

On Thursday, the European Commission confirmed member states can use an EU social fund to provide access to safe and legal abortion for women who are barred from doing so in their home country.

Member states can make use of the bloc’s existing European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), which contributes to social, education, employment and healthcare policies, voluntarily and in accordance with their domestic laws to provide such support.

“We were very aware of the competence that the European Union has in this area, which is restricted,” Europe’s Associate Director for the Center for Reproductive Rights Katrine Thomasen told Euronews, pointing to the fact that the bloc can support, coordinate or supplement the actions of members states, but cannot impede on national laws, such as healthcare policies.

The Commission stopped short of creating a new funding mechanism, which was requested by the European Parliament in a non-binding resolution adopted in December.

Critics argued that by declining to establish a dedicated fund and instead referring to an existing one, the EU was effectively failing to act and rejecting the proposal.

However, women’s rights organisations say the decision affirms that the EU has the competence to act on sexual and reproductive heath and creates a pathway towards accessible abortion.

“It was previously not clear that member states could use EU funding to provide abortion care to women facing barriers,” Thomasen said, “the Commission’s decision is really the first time that it is affirming and deciding that EU funds can be used in this way”.

Member states that wish to benefit from the ESF+ to offer accessible abortion services will now need to establish programmes and define how patients can benefit from it.

‘My Voice, My Choice’

The Commission’s decision came in response to a call made by the citizens’ initiative “My Voice, My Choice” for the creation of an EU solidarity mechanism to guarantee safe and affordable access to abortion for all women.

“My Voice, My Choice” is a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), a mechanism that allows citizens to call on the European Commission to propose new legislation.

If an initiative gets the support of at least one million people across at least seven EU countries, it must be discussed by the European Parliament, while the European Commission has a timeframe to either set out legislative measures or provide justification for not doing so.

“My Voice, My Choice” collected 1,124,513 signatures across all 27 countries.

“My Voice, My Choice started on the streets, it started with a group of women who had had enough that women are secondary citizens,” the initiative’s coordinator Nika Kovač told Euronews.

“We decided to take action and we brought something to the table. We brought our own chair to the places where we usually don’t have the chairs,” Kovač added.

The movement gained cross-border momentum, with women’s rights activists mobilising across Europe. With over one million followers on Instagram, “My Voice, My Choice” also built a strong online presence.

Dutch journalist Belle de Jong campaigned for the initiative in Malta, where abortion remains criminalised and heavily restricted. She described the challenges of organising on the ground, noting that many women were reluctant to take to the streets because of stigma and fear of legal consequences.

De Jong told Euronews that the campaign’s success in Malta was largely because it was online, “so people didn’t have to go out into the streets or show their face,” she said, adding that she collected more than 4,000 signatures for Malta, more than double she expected.

“Thanks to My Voice, My Choice, we no longer have an excuse to prosecute women for accessing healthcare, because we’re paying for them to go abroad with this EU mechanism. So it really begs the question: when are we going to decriminalise it? That will be our next fight in Malta,” she added.

The decision sparked a range of reactions from politicians

Several members of the European Parliament have expressed satisfaction after the Commission’s statements.

“For the first time the Commission has confirmed that countries can use EU funds to support access to abortion care. This is a victory for European women”, said Slovenian Socialist MEP Matjaž Nemec, who penned a letter to the Commission ahead of the decision.

Valérie Hayer, President of Renew Europe, said the decision “marked real progress for women’s rights,” underlining that the Commission had never before stated so clearly that EU funding can support access to safe abortion.

Other MEP’s, including Emma Fourreau from the Left group and French MEP Mélissa Camara from the Greens/EFA group considered the move a step forward, but would have liked to see a dedicated budget.

On the other side, far-right Spanish party Vox claimed that the Commission has rejected the “My Voice, My Choice” initiative, as there will be no specific fund to finance abortions abroad. “The Commission is just trying to politically save the initiative by pointing out existing instruments,” a press release from the party states.

The Italian anti-abortion association “Pro Vita & Famiglia” (Pro Life and Family) also considered that the initiative was rejected, while criticising its opening up to the use of ESF+ money to finance reproductive healthcare. “We ask the Italian government not to use this money to promote abortions”, said spokesperson Maria Rachele Ruiu.

Abortion policies across the European Union

Some EU countries have highly restrictive laws on abortion rights. A total ban is in force in Malta, where abortion is not allowed under any circumstances, while in Poland it is permitted only when conception follows sexual violence or when there is a risk to the woman’s health.

In January 2021, the Polish Constitutional Tribunal banned abortions in cases of fetal malformation, which until then had been the most frequent reason for terminating pregnancies in the country.

Several EU countries have taken steps to guarantee the right to safe abortions. France, for instance, made it a constitutional right, while Luxembourg and the Netherlands have removed mandatory waiting periods.

Sweden, France, and the Netherlands rank best in the European Union for abortion rights, according to the European Abortion Policies Atlas 2025. Malta and Poland remain at the bottom of the ranking, along with Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco.

Some countries have more relaxed laws, but they lack legal protections that fully decriminalise abortion, wide service availability, national health coverage, or government-led information on the matter.

Other member states have recorded new restrictions, increased harassment of abortion providers, and the spread of disinformation on the topic.