Economy

For the past three decades, Vipan Kumar has been importing Himalayan pink salt from Pakistan to sell in India.

The 50-year-old trader who is based in Amritsar in Punjab, the spiritual hub of Sikhs in India, told Al Jazeera that the recent blanket ban on trade between the two countries following the massacre of 26 people, mostly Indian tourists, at Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir in April has brought that trade to a screeching halt after New Delhi banned imports of all Pakistani goods, including those routed through third countries.

Kumar says he typically sold 2,000 to 2,500 tonnes of pink salt a quarter. “The profit margin is very thin, but still the business is feasible because of the bulk sales. But the ban has completely halted the pink salt business. We don’t know when the situation would turn normal,” he told Al Jazeera.

The Himalayan Pink Salt has a pinkish tint due to a trace of minerals, including iron, and is used in cooking, decorative lamps and spa treatments. Hindus also prefer to use this salt during their religious fasts as it is a non-marine salt.

Mined in Pakistan

The Himalayan pink salt is mined at the Khewra Salt Mine in the Punjab province of Pakistan, the second largest salt mine in the world after Sifto Salt Mine in Ontario, Canada, and located about 250 kilometres (155 miles) from the city of Lahore, which also at times lends its name to the pink salt – Lahori namak, which is Hindi for salt.

The salt mine contains about 82 million metric tonnes of salt, and 0.36 million metric tonnes is extracted every year. About 70 percent of the salt is used for industrial purposes, and the rest for edible use.

“The mine is very scenic and attracts several thousand tourists every year,” Fahad Ali, a journalist who lives close to the mine, told Al Jazeera.

It has approximately 30 salt processing units where the huge rock salt boulders are hand-mined and loaded on trucks before being dispatched, he said.

The salt is exported in a raw form to India, where importers process, grind and pack it for sale.

Prices swell

India mostly depends on Pakistan for this pink salt.

But after the Pahalgam massacre, India announced an end to all trade with Pakistan, which reciprocated the ban. The halt in trade was one of a series of diplomatic and economic tit-for-tat measures the neighbours took against each other before engaging in an intense four-day exchange of missiles and drones that took them to the cusp of a full-fledged war. On May 10, they stepped back from the brink, agreeing to a truce. However, the trade ban remains in place.

Salt traders in India told Al Jazeera that the current pause in imports has started to hamper their business as prices are starting to rise.

“It has been barely over a month since the announcement of the ban, and prices have already gone up,” said Gurveen Singh, an Amritsar-based trader, who blamed traders with existing stocks for selling them at higher prices.

“The salt which was sold in the retail market for 45 rupees to 50 rupees per kilogramme [$0.53-$0.58] before the ban is now being sold for at least 60 rupees per kilogramme [$0.70],” Singh said.

In some places, the price is even higher. In Kolkata this week, pink salt was being sold in markets for between 70 rupees and 80 rupees per kilogramme [$0.82-$0.93].

“We have no idea when the situation would return to normal. There would be complete crisis once the stocks get exhausted,” he said.

The rates, however, go up even more on the other side of India in the east due to the transportation cost incurred to send the salt from Amritsar.

Traders in Kolkata told Al Jazeera that the prices of the salt have gone up by 15-20 percent in the city, but that has not hampered demand as yet.

“The Himalayan rock salt remains in huge demand across the year, especially during festivals when people remain on fast and prefer the pink salt over the marine salt that is produced in India,” said Sanjay Agarwal, a manager in a private firm that deals in pink salt.

Dinobondhu Mukherjee, a salt trader in Kolkata, said that the government should look for an alternative country to procure this salt. “The relations between the two countries are usually strained, and that affects the trade. Our government should look for alternative countries to procure the salt so that the supply chain is never disrupted,” Mukherjee told Al Jazeera.

Pakistani exporters, however, said that the Indian ban would have a “positive impact” on their trade. Indian traders, they said, brand their salt as their own to sell in the international market at higher prices.

“The recent ban would help us to expand further as it would wipe off the competition from India,” Faizan Panjwani, chief operating officer of Karachi-based RM Salt, told Al Jazeera.

“Undoubtedly, India is a big market and has a lot of potential, but we want to send the salt by doing value addition and not in raw form. Our salt is already in huge demand globally,” he said.

Trade decline

Trade between the two countries has been decreasing since the 2019 attack on security forces in Pulwama in Indian-administered Kashmir in which 40 security personnel were killed. In response, India revoked the non-discriminatory market status – better known as Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status – that it had granted to Pakistan. It also imposed heavy tariffs of 200 percent on imports from Pakistan.

According to India’s Ministry of Commerce, the country’s exports to Pakistan from April 2024 to January 2025 stood at $447.7m, while Pakistan’s exports to India during the same period were a paltry $420,000.

In 2024, India imported about 642 metric tonnes of pink salt, which was far lower than the 74,457 metric tonnes imported in 2018 – largely as a result of the high tariffs.

Prior to the latest ban, India’s major exports to Pakistan included cotton, organic chemicals, spices, food products, pharmaceuticals, plastic articles, and dairy products. India normally imports copper articles, raw cotton, fruits, salt, minerals and some speciality chemicals from Pakistan.

“The implementation of the heavy duty had raised the import price of the salt from 3.50 rupees [$0.041] per kilogramme to 24.50 rupees [$0.29] per kilogramme in 2019, even though the salt was being routed from the third country like Dubai,” trader Kumar told Al Jazeera.

“Still, it had not impacted our business as the demand was too high, and buyers were ready to pay the price. But the government, this time, has also prohibited the entry of Pakistani goods from any third country, which has brought the supply to a complete standstill,” he said.

One unusual industry that is being hurt by the ban – lamps made from the Himalayan pink rock salt that are used as decorative lights and even tout unproven claims of being air purifiers.

“We have to look for an alternative country if the supply of rock salt doesn’t come from Pakistan,” said Global Aroma founder Deep, who uses a single name. “The prices of the lamps had already increased after the imposition of a 200 percent tariff in 2019, and the procurement from any other country will lead to further escalation of cost.”

Amid the relentless clatter of machinery, Ravi Kumar Gupta feeds a roaring steel furnace with scrap, blown metal and molten iron. He carefully adds chemicals tailored to the type of steel being produced, adjusting fuel and airflow with precision to keep the furnace running smoothly.

As his shift ends about 4pm, he stops briefly at a roadside tea shop just outside the gates of the steel factory in Maharashtra state’s Tarapur Industrial Area. His safety helmet is still on, but his feet, instead of being shielded by boots, are in worn-out slippers – scant protection against the molten metal he works with. His eyes are bloodshot with exhaustion, and his green, full-sleeved shirt and faded, torn blue jeans are stained with grease and sweat.

Four years after migrating from Barabanki, a district in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, Ravi earns $175 per month – $25 less than India’s monthly per capita income. And the paycheques are often delayed, arriving only between the 10th and 12th of each month.

Middlemen, who are either locals or longterm migrants posing as locals, supply labour to factories in Maharashtra, India’s industrial heartland. In return, the middlemen skim between $11 and $17 from each worker’s wages. In addition, $7 is deducted monthly from their pay for canteen food, which consists of limited portions of rice, dal and vegetables for lunch, as well as evening tea.

Asked why he continues to work at the steel factory, Ravi responds with resignation in his voice: “What else can I do?”

Giving up his job isn’t an option. His family – two young daughters in school, his wife and mother who work on their small plot of farmland, and his ailing father who is unable to work – depend on the $100 a month that he is able to send home. Climate change, he says, has “ruined farming”, the family’s traditional occupation.

“The rains don’t come when they should. The land no longer feeds us. And where are the jobs in our village? There’s nothing left. So, like the others, I left,” he says, his thick, calloused hands wrapped around a cup of tea.

Ravi is a cog in the wheel of the soaring dreams of the world’s fifth-largest economy. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has boldly spoken of making India a $5 trillion economy, up from $3.5 trillion in 2023.

But as Modi’s government woos global investors and assures them that it is easy today to do business in India, Ravi is among millions of workers whose stories of withheld wages, endless toil and coercion – telltale signs of forced labour, according to the United Nations’ International Labour Organization (ILO) – provide a haunting snapshot of the ugly underbelly of the country’s economy.

Farm to furnace

The Factories Act of 1948, which governs working conditions in steel mills like the one where Ravi works, mandates annual paid leave for workers who have been employed for 240 days or more in a year. However, workers like Ravi do not receive paid leave. Any day taken off is unpaid, regardless of the reason.

Like many others, Ravi is required to work all seven days a week, totalling 30 days a month, despite the fact that Sundays were officially declared a weekly holiday for all labourers in India as far back as 1890.

Workers in many Indian factories do not receive a salary slip detailing their earnings and deductions. This lack of transparency leaves them in the dark about how much money has been deducted – or why.

Worse still, if a worker is absent for three or four consecutive days, their entry card is deactivated. Upon returning, they are treated as a new employee. This reclassification affects their eligibility for important benefits such as the provident fund and end-of-service gratuity.

In many cases, workers are forced to rejoin under these unfair terms simply because their pending wages – either direct from the company or via the middlemen – have not been paid. Walking away would mean forfeiting their hard-earned money.

In addition to all this, Ravi confirms that neither he nor his colleagues, both in his company and in nearby factories within the industrial area, have received any written contracts outlining their job roles or employment benefits.

According to a 2025 study (PDF) published in the Indian Journal of Legal Review, many workers face exploitation through unfair contracts, wage theft and forced labour due to the absence of written agreements. These practices particularly affect more vulnerable groups like migrants, women and low-skilled workers, who often have limited access to legal recourse. Al Jazeera contacted the Maharashtra Labour Commissioner on May 20 seeking a response to concerns around forced labour in industries where workers like Ravi are employed, but has not received a reply.

There is also the absence of adequate safety gear: Ravi works near the furnace, where temperatures cross 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit). But workers aren’t provided with protective glass. “Neither the middlemen nor the employer gives us even the most basic safety gear,” he says.

Yet, helplessness wins.

“We know how dangerous it is. We know what we need to stay safe,” he says. “But what choice do we have?

“When you’re desperate, you have no choice but to adapt to these harsh, uncertain conditions,” he said.

‘If I get thrown out, what then?’

In the port town of Kakinada, along India’s Bay of Bengal coast – about 1,400km (870 miles) from where Ravi works – 47-year-old Sumitha Salomi earns even less than him.

A shrimp peeler, Sumitha has no formal job contract with the factory where she works. Like many others, she has been hired through a contractor – a woman from her own village. The factory, a heavily fortified facility that exports peeled vannamei shrimp to the United States, employs migrant workers from the neighbouring state of Odisha and other regions. The premises are tightly guarded, and access is strictly controlled.

But in the villages where the factory’s workers live, a common story emerges: None of them have written contracts. No one has social security or health benefits. The only work gear they have are gloves and caps – not for their safety, but to maintain hygiene standards for the exported shrimp.

India exported shrimp worth $2.7bn to the US in the 2023-24 fiscal year, according to official figures.

Sumitha explains that her pay depends on the weight of the shrimp she peels. “The only break we get is about 30 minutes for lunch. For women, even when we’re in severe menstrual pain, there’s no rest, no relief. We just keep working,” she says.

She earns about $4.50 a day. She knows the precarity of her job. Her wages are handed to her in cash, without any payslip, leaving her with no way to contest what she receives.

As a divorced mother, Sumitha carries the burden of multiple responsibilities. She’s still repaying loans she took for her elder daughter’s marriage, while also trying to keep her younger daughter in school. On top of that, she cares for her elderly widowed mother who needs cancer medication that costs about $10 a month.

But she does not question the factory bosses about her working conditions or the absence of a written contract. “I have a job – contract or no contract. That’s what matters,” she says, her voice stoic.

“There are no other jobs here in this village. If I start asking questions and get thrown out, what then?”

Unlike seasoned veteran Sumitha, 23-year-old Minnu Samay is still grappling with the harsh realities of her job in the seafood industry.

Minnu, a migrant worker from the eastern state of Odisha, is employed at a shrimp processing factory located within the high-security Krishnapatnam Port area in Nellore, about 500km (310 mile) south of Kakinada.

Migrant workers like Minnu are allowed to leave the factory just once a week for about three hours, mainly to buy essentials in Muthukur, a village 10km (6 miles) from the factory. As she hurries through the narrow market lanes, picking up sanitary pads and snacks during this brief window of freedom, she tells her story.

“I was 19 when I left home. Poverty forced me. My parents were deep in debt after marrying off my two sisters. It was hard to survive,” Minnu says. “So when we met an agent in our town, he arranged this job here.”

Slowly, she has learned while on the job, cutting and peeling shrimp. Minnu earns approximately $110 per month.

“We know we’re being exploited, our freedom is restricted, we have no health insurance or proper rights, and we’re constantly under surveillance,” she says. “But like many of my coworkers, we don’t have other options. We just adjust and keep going.”

Most overtime work is not paid, she said. “We’re watched by cameras every moment, trapped in what feels like an open prison,” she says.

On May 20, Al Jazeera sent queries to the Andhra Pradesh Labour Department, and on May 22, to the Indian Ministry of Labour, seeking responses to concerns over widespread forced labour in industries where workers like Sumitha and Minnu are employed. Kakinada and Nellore are in Andhra Pradesh state. Neither the Andhra Pradesh Labour Department nor the federal Indian Ministry of Labour has responded.

Labour rights experts say that these stories lay bare the urgent need for enforceable contracts, the abolition of exploitative hiring practices and initiatives to educate workers about their rights – vital measures to combat forced labour in India’s unorganised and semi-organised sectors.

On March 24, India’s federal Labour Minister Shobha Karandlaje told parliament that approximately 307 million unorganised workers (PDF), including migrant workers, were registered under an Indian government scheme.

But researchers say that the true scale of India’s unorganised workforce is likely even larger.

‘Concealed’ forced labour

Benoy Peter, executive director of the Centre for Migration and Inclusive Development (CMID), a civil society organisation based in the southern Indian state of Kerala, cited a document (PDF) from India’s National Sample Survey Organization, which said that the country’s total workforce is approximately 470 million in strength. Of this, about 80 million workers are in the organised sector, while the remaining 390 million – more than the entire population of the United States – are in the unorganised sector.

The UN International Labour Organization’s India Employment Report 2024 (PDF) supports Benoy’s observation, stating that low-quality jobs in the informal sector and informal employment are the dominant forms of work in India. The ILO report said that 90 percent of India’s workforce is “informally employed”.

And many of these workers are victims of forced or bonded labour. India ratified the ILO’s Forced Labour Convention 29 in 1954 and abolished bonded labour in 1975. Yet, according to the Walk Free Foundation, India has the highest estimated number of people living in modern slavery worldwide, with 11.05 million individuals (eight in every 1,000) affected.

The real numbers, again, are likely worse.

In 2016, the then Indian Labour Minister Bandaru Dattatreya informed Parliament that the country had an estimated 18.4 million bonded labourers, and that the government was working to release and rehabilitate them by 2030.

But in December 2021, when Indian parliamentarian Mohammad Jawed inquired (PDF) about this target in parliament, the government stated that only approximately 12,000 bonded labourers had been rescued and rehabilitated between 2016 and 2021.

The textile sector is among the worst offenders.

According to a parliamentary document from March this year, the southern Tamil Nadu state led textile and apparel exports, including handicrafts, with a value of $7.1bn. Gujarat, Modi’s home state, followed in second place, exporting $5.7bn worth of these goods.

Thivya Rakini, president of the Tamil Nadu Textile and Common Labour Union (TTCU), says that in a decade of visiting factories to work with garment workers, she has, in almost all instances, seen at least one – and often multiple – indicators of forced labour as defined by the ILO. Those indicators include intimidation, excessive overtime, withheld wages, sexual harassment, and physical violence, such as slapping or beating workers for failing to meet production targets.

India’s textiles industry has around 45 million workers, including 3.5 million handloom workers across the country.

“Forced labour in the textile industry is widespread and often concealed,” Thivya says. “It’s not a random occurrence. It stems directly from the business model of fashion brands. When brands pay suppliers low prices, demand large volumes on tight deadlines, and fail to ensure freedom of association or basic grievance mechanisms for workers, they create an environment ripe for forced labour.”

Women make up 60-80 percent of the garment workforce, she says.  “Many lack formal contracts, earn less than men for the same work, and face frequent violence and harassment,” she said. Many are from marginalised groups – Dalits, migrants or single mothers – making them even more vulnerable in a patriarchal society.

Other sectors are plagued by forced labour too. Transparentem, an independent, nonprofit organisation focused on uncovering and addressing human rights and environmental abuses in global supply chains, investigated 90 cotton farms in the central state of Madhya Pradesh from June 2022 to March 2023 and released its final report (PDF) in January 2025, uncovering child labour, forced labour and unsafe conditions: Children were handling pesticides without protection.

‘No choice but to tolerate exploitation’

Between 2019 and 2020, the Indian government consolidated 29 federal labour laws into four comprehensive codes. The stated aim of these reforms was to improve the ease of doing business while ensuring worker welfare. As part of this effort, the total number of compliance provisions was significantly reduced – from more than 1,200 to 479.

However, while many states have drafted rules needed to implement these codes, there has still not been a nationwide rollout of these laws.

Supporters of the new labour codes argue that they modernise outdated laws and provide greater legal clarity. Critics, however, particularly trade unions, warn that the reforms favour employers and dilute worker protections. One of the codes, for instance, makes it harder to register a workers union.

A union must now have a minimum of 10 percent of the workers or 100 workers, whichever is less, in an establishment to be members of a union, a significant rise from the earlier requirement of just seven workers under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.

Santosh Poonia from India Labour Line – a helpline initiative that supports workers, especially in the unorganised sector, by offering legal aid, mediation and counselling services – tells Al Jazeera that if workers are barred from forming unions, that would weaken their collective bargaining rights.

“Without these rights, they will have no choice but to tolerate exploitative working conditions,” he says.

To Sanjay Ghose, a senior labour law lawyer practising at the Indian Supreme Court, the problem runs deeper than the new consolidated codes.

“The real issue is the failure to implement these laws effectively, which leaves workers vulnerable,” he says.

Ghose warns that India’s stagnating job creation could compound the exploitation and forced labour among workers.

India’s top engineering schools, the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), have long prided themselves on how the world’s biggest banks, tech giants and other multinationals queue up at their gates each year to lure their graduates with massive pay packages.

Yet, the percentage of graduates from the IITs who secure jobs as they leave school has dropped sharply, by 10 percentage points, since 2021, when the Indian economy took a major hit from COVID-19 – a hit it hasn’t fully recovered from.

“Even graduates with high ranks from premier institutions like the IITs are struggling to secure job placements,” Ghose says. “With limited options available, job seekers are forced to accept whatever work they can find. This leads to exploitation, unfair working conditions, and, in some cases, forced labour.”

Pramod Kumar, a former United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) senior adviser, adds that weakened private investment and foreign direct investment (FDI) have made national growth largely dependent on government spending. Consequently, job opportunities are primarily limited to the informal sector, where unfair working conditions are prevalent, leading to exploitation and forced labour.

Private sector investment in India dropped to a three-year low of 11.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal year 2024, down from the pre-COVID average of 11.8 percent (fiscal years 2016-2020), according to ratings firm India Ratings & Research. Additionally, FDI in India declined by 5.6 percent year-on-year to $10.9bn in the October-December quarter of the last fiscal year, driven by global economic uncertainties.

Against that economic backdrop, Poonia, from the India Labour Line, says he can’t see how the government plans to meet its ambitious target of rescuing 18 million bonded labourers in India. He said he expects the opposite.

“The situation is going to worsen when the ease of doing business is prioritised over human rights and workers’ rights.”

The mandate that the DoT challenged was a key part of former US President Joe Biden’s plan to address climate change.

The United States Department of Transportation (DoT) has declared that former President Joe Biden’s administration exceeded its authority by assuming a high uptake of electric vehicles in calculating fuel economy rules.

With that declaration on Friday, the DoT paved the way for looser fuel standards and published the “Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program” (CAFE) rule. A future separate rule from the administration of President Donald Trump will revise the fuel economy requirements.

“We are making vehicles more affordable and easier to manufacture in the United States. The previous administration illegally used CAFE standards as an electric vehicle mandate,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement.

The department’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in writing its rule last year under Biden, had “assumed significant numbers of EVs would continue to be produced regardless of the standards set by the agency, in turn increasing the level of standards that could be considered maximum feasible,” it said Friday.

A shift away from Biden policies 

In January, Duffy signed an order directing NHTSA to rescind fuel economy standards issued under Biden for the 2022-2031 model years that had aimed to drastically reduce fuel use for cars and trucks.

In a release last year, the DoT, then led by Pete Buttigieg, put in place a required fuel economy to increase by 2 percent for cars made between 2027 and 2031.

At the time, the DoT said it would help save consumers upwards of $600 on gas every year. It was also part of the Biden administration’s plan to address climate change.

“These new fuel economy standards will save our nation billions of dollars, help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and make our air cleaner for everyone. Americans will enjoy the benefits of this rule for decades to come,” then NHTSA Deputy Administrator Sophie Shulman said at the time.

In June 2024, the NHTSA said it would hike CAFE requirements to about 50.4 miles per gallon (4.67 litres per 100km) by 2031 from 39.1mpg currently for light-duty vehicles.

The agency last year said the rule for passenger cars and trucks would reduce gasoline consumption by 64 billion gallons and cut emissions by 659 million metric tons, cutting fuel costs with net benefits estimated at $35.2bn.

Late on Thursday, Senate Republicans proposed eliminating fines for failures to meet CAFE rules as part of a wide-ranging tax bill, the latest move aimed at making it easier for automakers to build gas-powered vehicles.

Last year, Chrysler-parent Stellantis paid $190.7m in civil penalties for failing to meet US fuel economy requirements for 2019 and 2020 after paying nearly $400m for penalties from 2016 through 2019. GM previously paid $128.2m in penalties for 2016 and 2017.

Stellantis said it supported the Senate Republican proposal “to provide relief while DoT develops its proposal to reset the CAFE standards … The standards are out of sync with the current market reality, and immediate relief is necessary to preserve affordability and freedom of choice.”

GM declined to comment.

Employers in the United States have slowed hiring even though they added a solid 139,000 jobs in May.

While that was higher than the forecast of 133,000 jobs, it was lower than the 147,000 hires in April,  Labor Department data released on Friday showed. It also sharply revised downward the data for March and April by 95,000 jobs.

The US Labor Department said the biggest gains were in the healthcare industry which added 62,000 jobs; followed by the leisure and hospitality sector which added 48,000, 30,000 of which were in food services.

The social services sector followed suit, adding about 16,000 jobs. The federal government contracted 22,000 jobs.

Industries including manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, transportation and warehousing showed little change as tariff anticipation spending slowed.

The unemployment rate held steady at 4.2 percent. Wages ticked up slightly. The average wage grew by 15 cents or 0.4 percent.

“The job market is steadily but surely throttling back. Monthly job gains are moderating, and most telling, the gains are being consistently revised lower, and not by a little bit. Indeed, after revision, monthly job gains appear to be closing in on 100,000,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, told Al Jazeera.

“It [the jobs report] does signal the job market and economy are increasingly fragile as the fallout from the global trade war intensifies.”

Private payrolls also tumbled this month, according to payroll firm ADP in a report on Wednesday, which showed the US economy added only 37,000 jobs, the lowest in two years. Unlike the Labor Department report which lags by a few weeks, this report is more immediate.

“After a strong start to the year, hiring is losing momentum,” Nela Richardson, chief economist at ADP, said in a release.

What was particularly notable about the ADP report was the set of industries with net job losses. The manufacturing sector recorded a net loss of 3,000. Natural resources and the mining industry lost 5,000. Those losses in the goods-producing sectors were offset by a job gain of 6,000 in construction.

The only substantive gains were in the leisure and hospitality sector, a notoriously low-paying sector, which added 38,000, according to ADP. Financial services followed in the gains, adding 18,000 jobs. However, those gains were offset by losses, including in education and health, which cut 13,000 jobs. The trade and transportation and utilities sector cut 4,000 jobs.

Last month, the ADP report showed 62,000 jobs were added, in stark contrast to the Labor Department’s 147,000, because it is considered a more immediate measure.

Job openings and labour turnover 

On Tuesday, the job openings and labour turnover survey or JOLTS report, which captures data at a significant lag to the Labor Department and ADP, showed there were 7.4 million open jobs in April, up roughly 191,000 from the month before.

But just because jobs are open does not mean they are being filled, according to Elise Gould, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute.

“I think that reflects some cautiousness on the part of both employers and workers,” Gould told Al Jazeera.

While job openings in sectors like trade, transportation and utilities increased, hiring actually decreased.

This comes as major employers have implemented hiring slowdowns and freezes across sectors.

American Airlines reportedly put in place a hiring freeze for flight attendants in April amid uncertainty in the travel market. The financial services company T Rowe Price slowed down its hiring. And amid a slowdown in research grants, universities have put in place hiring freezes, most recently Johns Hopkins University, which currently has 600 National Institutes of Health-funded medical research projects under way.

As Al Jazeera has previously reported, small businesses said because of the looming tariffs, they’ve had to implement hiring freezes.

Hiring for small businesses declined in May by 4.4 percent compared with this time last year, according to Homebase, a payroll service provider for more than 150,000 small businesses accounting for roughly 3.8 million workers.

To forecast what to expect in the jobs market moving forward, EPI’s Gould suggests a close watch on key indicators including housing starts and factory orders, which indicate that manufacturers and construction companies will need to cut jobs if trends continue.

“Some of the government data [like the jobs and JOLTS report] takes a lot longer to sort of see trouble to catch that turning point and you might see it in the other measures a little bit faster, but there’s also a lot of volatility in them,” Gould said.

In April, residential home construction declined by 0.9 percent, the third straight month of declines, suggesting a pullback that indicates both builders and consumers are wary about building new homes and making improvements. At the same time, orders for goods made in US factories fell by 3.7 percent in April, according to the Census Bureau.

Washington, DC – The ties between United States President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk have seen highs and lows throughout the years.

But it all came crashing down on Thursday after months of what appeared to be an unshakable alliance in the White House.

A disagreement over Trump’s massive tax bill has escalated over the past few days, with Musk going so far as to suggest that the US president should be impeached.

In a series of social media posts, Musk launched personal attacks against Trump, culminating in a claim, made without evidence, that Trump is in the “Epstein files”.

Those documents relate to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and include travel logs and guest lists related to him and his associates. Part of the Epstein files remain secret, sparking curiosity and conspiracy theories about who might be mentioned.

Trump, meanwhile, responded with a social media fusillade of his own. He claimed he asked Musk to leave his White House role and suggested cutting the government subsidies and contracts awarded to the billionaire’s companies.

So how did the partnership between Musk and Trump collapse? And what may come next for the two men often described as the world’s richest and the world’s most powerful, respectively?

The honeymoon phase

A few months before the war of words between Musk and Trump erupted, the two seemed like an inseparable political force.

Musk had spent nearly $200m to elect Trump to a second term in 2024. Days after his successful election, Trump responded by appointing Musk to lead a newly created government cutting agency, called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Even the name of the department reflected the leeway that the billionaire investor had in Trump’s administration. The word “doge” refers to an internet meme of a dog, favoured by Musk, that became popular in 2010.

In the early weeks of Trump’s second term, Musk became one of the most prominent figures in the administration – and a lightning rod for public criticism. Under his leadership, DOGE sacked thousands of federal employees and gutted various agencies, including the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Musk appeared so powerful that some Democrats started to refer to him as “President Elon” to get under Trump’s skin.

But Trump and Musk presented a united front. During a Fox News interview in February, the US president and his then-adviser appeared side by side and heaped praise on one another.

“He gets it done. He’s a leader,” Trump said of Musk.

“I love the president. I just want to be clear about that,” Musk said of Trump.

Musk, who is originally from South Africa, started espousing right-wing views over the past few years and grew vocally critical of Democrats and progressives.

Those views became more prominent after he bought the social media platform Twitter, now X, in 2022. As he started to tilt rightward, he used the platform to bash irregular migration and efforts he believed aimed to police free speech, particularly with regards to identity politics and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Even during Musk’s political realignment, however, he and Trump exchanged stern criticism. For example, in July 2022, Musk posted that Trump was getting to be “too old to be chief executive of anything”, much less the presidency.

He also initially backed Trump’s Republican rival in the 2024 presidential race, Ron DeSantis, even hosting the Florida governor’s campaign launch on X.

But the failed assassination attempt against Trump would cement Musk’s shift in allegiance. After a bullet grazed Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July 2024, Musk announced he would “fully endorse” the Republican leader.

He even joined Trump for a return to Butler in September of last year.

The unravelling

The cliche in politics is that there are no permanent enemies or permanent allies, only permanent interests. That appears to be the case for Trump, who has a history of firing advisers and disavowing former friends.

Musk is only the latest high-profile rupture – and one that might not come as a surprise to political observers.

The unravelling of Trump’s “bromance” with Musk comes at the tail end of a rocky few months, as rumours swirled about closed-door clashes between the billionaire and the president’s inner circle.

In April, Musk announced that he would be spending less time at DOGE. By that time, his role appeared to be diminishing, with the billionaire no longer dominating headlines or regularly appearing in the Oval Office.

Late in May, Musk criticised the White House-backed tax and budget proposal, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“I was, like, disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not decrease it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,” Musk told the TV programme CBS Sunday Morning.

The bill cuts electric vehicle (EV) subsidies that boost Musk’s Tesla car company. But Musk has maintained his opposition to the bill lies in its increases to the national debt and its byzantine provisions: The bill clocks in at more than 1,000 pages.

The notoriously confrontational Trump, who had pinned his vision for the economy on the bill, kept his cool amid Musk’s early criticisms. He even acknowledged to reporters, “I’m not happy about certain aspects of [the bill].”

The two men made a public appearance together afterwards in the Oval Office, where Trump celebrated the end of Musk’s role as a special government employee. Even then, Trump insisted that Musk was “not really leaving” his team.

Once out of the government, though, Musk not only voiced discontent with the budget bill; he appeared to be lobbying against it. The bill had narrowly passed in the House of Representatives, only to face similarly steep odds in the Senate.

“I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,” Musk wrote on X on Monday.

“Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.”

The US president shot back on Thursday, starting with an appearance in the Oval Office with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

“ I’m very disappointed because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here,” Trump said. “ He had no problem with it. All of a sudden, he had a problem.”

Trump told the assembled reporters that Musk’s reaction was a backlash to his EV policies. He also speculated that Musk would have preferred to stay in the White House.

“ I’ll be honest, I think he misses the place,” Trump said. “ It’s sort of Trump derangement syndrome. We have it with others, too. They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamour’s gone. The whole world is different, and they become hostile.”

Afterwards, Trump took his criticisms to his social media platform, Truth Social.

“Elon was ‘wearing thin,’ I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!” Trump wrote in a social media post.

All the while, Musk had been posting on social media, criticising Trump’s bill and taking credit for his re-election campaign.

“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote. “Such ingratitude.”

What’s next, and who will win?

What happens next remains unclear. Although Musk has gained popularity within the Republican base, his political rise was partly due to his association with Trump.

He may now find himself loathed by both Democrats and Trump loyalists.

The US president, on the other hand, has a track record of surviving public scandals, including criminal charges.

Trump has also shown apparent willingness to use the government’s power against his rivals, most recently ordering an investigation into the administration of his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden.

Already, Trump has warned of risks to Musk’s businesses, including the rocket company SpaceX and the communications firm Starlink. “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” Trump wrote.

Still, Musk can also hurt Trump’s agenda. In his inauguration speech, Trump envisioned planting a US flag on Mars, but on Thursday, Musk said he plans to decommission a SpaceX rocket that the US uses to reach the International Space Station, as retaliation for Trump’s words.

Musk could also align with fiscally conservative lawmakers to block Trump’s signature tax bill in the Senate.

Despite Musk going on the offensive against Trump on Thursday, the US president used one of his later social media posts to shift the focus to his One Big Beautiful Bill.

“I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress. It’s a Record Cut in Expenses, $1.6 Trillion Dollars, and the Biggest Tax Cut ever given,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“If this Bill doesn’t pass, there will be a 68% Tax Increase, and things far worse than that.”

In a news statement this week, the White House cherry-picked personal income tax-related elements in the “big, beautiful bill”, the wide-ranging tax and spending bill being pushed by United States President Donald Trump, and claimed that, in opposing the legislation as a whole, the Democratic Party was opposed to every individual item contained within it.

Such a tactic is misleading, particularly since the White House cited measures in the bill that have been championed by Democrats to improve the lives of Americans and are not the reasons the Democrats have given for opposing the “big beautiful bill”.

Here’s a fact-check of what the White House claims Democrats oppose:

“They’re opposing the largest tax cut in history, which will put an extra $5,000 in their pockets with a double-digit percent decrease to their tax bills. In fact, Americans earning between $30,000 and $80,000 will pay around 15% less in taxes.”

The specifics of the tax bill have not been finalised. In its current form, it would cut taxes by an average of 2.4 percent, for middle-income households, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center.

While it is a significant tax cut, it is not the biggest in history. That was under Ronald Reagan in 1981 at 2.9 percent.

It is accurate that there will be a double-digit percentage decrease in tax bills, at least in the immediate term, at a little more than 11 percent across all tax brackets. It is also true that people earning between $30,000 and $80,000 will pay 15 percent less, according to the Non-Partisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

“They’re opposing NO TAX ON TIPS for the millions of Americans who work in the service industry and NO TAX ON OVERTIME for law enforcement, nurses, and more.”

This is true only in their opposition to Trump’s tax and spending bill.

Democrats and Republicans have supported the concept of no tax on tips. Both Donald Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris pledged to do so on the campaign trail. Senate Democrats backed the No Tax on Tips Act, passed by the US Senate on May 20. The bill, authored by Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, was co-sponsored by notable Democrats, including Jacky Rosen of Nevada and passed unanimously.

“They’re opposing historic tax cuts for senior citizens”

Outside of the “big beautiful bill”, Democrats have generally not opposed tax cuts for seniors. Many Democrats have championed legislation that would expand tax cuts for seniors. California Democrat Jimmy Panetta co-sponsored a Republican led bill that would increase the standard deduction for adults over the age of 65 by $4,000.

In 2024, House Democrats introduced the “You Earned It, You Keep It Act”, which would effectively eliminate taxes on social security benefits. The bill, however, has never made it past committee.

“They’re opposing a boost to the child tax credit.”

Again, they are opposing Trump’s “big beautiful bill”, not objecting to the child tax credit.

In fact, Democrats have long pushed to expand the child tax credit. In April, Senate Democrats, including Georgia’s Raphael Warnock and Colorado’s Michael Bennett, introduced legislation that would expand the child tax credit. The bill would increase the tax credit, from $2,000 where it currently stands, to $6,360 for newborns, $4,320 for children ages one to six and $3,600 for children six to 17, permanently.

While the “big beautiful bill” would also increase the child tax credit, it would do so only by $500, and that would kick in in 2028.

“They’re opposing new savings accounts for newborns and the chance for children across America to experience the miracle of compounded growth.” 

In the “big beautiful bill”, House Republicans introduced new savings accounts for children. The accounts would include a $1,000 handout for every child born between January 1, 2025 and January 1, 2029.

Democrats have not only been supporters of the idea for savings accounts for newborns, but prominent Democrats actually championed it.

In 2018, Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced the American Opportunity Accounts Act, which would also give $1,000 to newborns and up to $2000 in annual contributions. He reintroduced the bill again in 2023.

“They’re opposing expanded access to childcare for hardworking American families.”

This appears to be false. The White House link refers to the Paid Family and Medical Leave Credit, not child care access. Trump’s bill offers up to 12 weeks of paid leave for employees who have worked a year and earn $57,600 or less.

While that gives parents more time at home, Democrats have focused on expanding access to child care, including universal pre-K. In 2023, Republicans opposed a Democratic plan to keep child care centres open that struggled in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“They’re opposing historic border security to keep their communities safe.”

Last year, Trump pressured Republicans to vote against a bipartisan border security bill, a move that reportedly helped Trump’s chances of winning in November 2024. Democrats have opposed Republican plans to use US military bases for migrant detention, arguing that it misuses Department of Defense resources. Democrats have long opposed border wall funding, including during Trump’s first term.

A 2018 Stanford University analysis estimated that a border wall would reduce migration by just 0.6 percent. Despite this, the “big beautiful bill” allocates more than $50bn to complete the wall and maritime crossings, $45bn for building and maintaining detention centres, and $14bn for transportation.

“They’re opposing expanded health savings accounts that give Americans greater choice and flexibility in how they spend their money.”

This is sort of true. Democrats have not been huge proponents of health savings accounts. The belief is that healthcare savings accounts do not help the socioeconomically disadvantaged, who may not have the financial resources to contribute to the accounts. Democrats have also objected to other cuts to healthcare in the bill, including the potential $880bn that could be cut from essential government programmes like Medicaid.

“They’re opposing scholarships that empower Americans to choose the education that best fits the needs of their families.”

In the bill, the White House is conflating the longstanding debate on school choice with scholarships. Under school choice, funds otherwise allocated to the public school system can be re-allocated to private institutions, which Republicans argue will allow students to have potential access to a higher quality education.

Democrats have opposed school choice because it diverts funds from public school systems, many of which are already drastically underfunded. In Texas, Senator Ted Cruz, for example, pushed legislation that would expand school choice, even as three out of four school districts in the state are underfunded, according to a Kinder Institute analysis.

The leaders of Canada and Mexico have criticised the latest hike in steel and aluminium tariffs under United States President Donald Trump, who increased import taxes on the metal from 25 to 50 percent.

The international condemnation came just hours after the latest tariff increase went into effect early on Wednesday.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said the tariff increases were “unjustified”.

“They’re illegal. They’re bad for American workers, bad for American industry and, of course, for Canadian industry,” he said.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, meanwhile, pledged to pursue countermeasures if the Trump administration refuses to grant tariff relief. She warned that the tariffs would have a “huge impact” on Mexico’s steel and aluminium industries.

“This isn’t about an eye for an eye, but rather about protecting our industry and our jobs,” she added, without specifying what steps her government might take.

Canada calls for action

Wednesday’s tariff hike had been unveiled last Friday, when Trump held a rally with steelworkers outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

That region of the US is a part of the Rust Belt, an area that has been heavily affected by the decline in US manufacturing. Trump pledged to use tariffs and other measures to bring jobs and investments back to the area.

Previously, in March, Trump set tariffs on steel and aluminium at 25 percent. But he threatened to lift that rate to 50 percent specifically for Canadian imports of the metals, a plan he later appeared to walk back.

Those threats, however, roiled relations between the US and its northern neighbour in particular. Canada is the top supplier of steel to the US, followed by Brazil and then Mexico. South Korea and China also top the list.

Canada is also responsible for about 40 percent of aluminium imports to the US, followed by the UAE, Russia and Mexico. Carney’s government has pledged to pursue retaliatory measures so long as Trump’s tariffs remain in place.

On Wednesday, one of Canada’s largest labour unions, Unifor, called on Carney to take immediate action against the latest tariff hike, including by limiting the country’s exports of critical metals to the US.

“Unifor is urging the federal government to act without delay to defend Canada’s manufacturing sector and counter the escalating trade assault,” the union said in a statement.

Premier Doug Ford — who leads the top manufacturing province in Canada, Ontario — also called for Canada to respond in kind and “slap another 25 percent” on US steel imports.

“It’s tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar. We need to tariff the steel coming into Canada an additional 25 percent, totalling 50 percent,” Ford told reporters. “Everything’s on the table right now.”

Navigating global trade pacts

Both Canada and Mexico have been hard hit by Trump’s aggressive tariffs, which include a blanket 25-percent tax on all imports not subject to the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement (USMCA), as well as a separate 25-percent levy on automobile imports.

The three countries have highly integrated economies, with products like automobiles being built using supplies and factories from multiple locations.

The USMCA pact was agreed upon during Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2021. But he has since signalled he hopes to renegotiate the free-trade deal to get more favourable terms for the US.

But the doubling of the US steel and aluminium tariffs is expected to have a global impact, well beyond North America.

The European Union is also bracing for the increase. The bloc’s trade commissioner, Maros Sefcovic, met US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on the sidelines of a meeting for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on Wednesday.

“We’re advancing in the right direction at pace – and staying in close contact to maintain the momentum,” Sefcovic wrote on X afterwards.

UK Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds also met with Greer, and he said steel and aluminium tariffs would remain at 25 percent for his country. The two countries have been in the process of forging a post-Brexit bilateral trade agreement, announcing a “breakthrough” last month.

“We’re pleased that as a result of our agreement with the US, UK steel will not be subject to these additional tariffs,” a British government spokesperson said.

‘Extremely hard to make a deal’

Trump’s latest tariff hike comes days after a federal court ruled that his so-called reciprocal tariffs — which imposed customised taxes on nearly all US trading partners — were illegal.

Trump had imposed those tariffs in April, only to pause them for 90 days. The court’s ruling was quickly paused while legal proceedings continued, and Trump’s tariffs have been allowed to remain in place for now.

One of the hardest hit countries has been China, which saw US tariffs against its exports skyrocket to 145 percent earlier this year.

The Trump administration, however, has since sought to reach a deal with China to end the trade war between the world’s two largest economies.

The White House said on Monday that Trump would speak to Chinese President Xi Jinping this week, raising hopes the duo could soothe tensions and speed up negotiations.

But on Wednesday, Trump appeared to dampen hopes for a quick deal.

“I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!” he posted on his Truth Social platform.

When asked about the remarks during a regular news briefing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said Beijing’s “principles and stance on developing Sino-US relations are consistent”.

Tucked within the proposed “Big Beautiful Bill”, the more than 1,000-page tax and spending overhaul that United States President Donald Trump wants to see enacted in law, is a provision that is being referred to as a “revenge tax”.

The “Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes” in Section 899 targets countries that the Trump administration believes impose unfair or discriminatory taxes on US companies and individuals, and will allow the US to impose additional taxes on entities from those countries.

The provision calls, for instance, for levies on revenue from digital services, such as data monetisation and online advertising.

The proposal also includes a higher minimum tax on the profits of foreign entities, even if those profits are earned outside US borders. This could impact passive income streams, such as interest and dividends, and may discourage international investors from countries flagged as discriminatory.

The administration’s unpredictable approach to global economic policy has already created uncertainty in international markets. Should this measure be signed into law, it could further erode foreign investor confidence in the US market.

‘This revenge tax move will add to economic uncertainty. It will stop foreign CEOs from investing – the very thing President Trump says he wants. It means more wild economic swings, stock market declines, less stability and a greater chance of recession this year,” Stuart Mackintosh, the executive director of the financial think tank Group of Thirty, told Al Jazeera.

“Every few days, we see a destabilising misuse of US power, more self-inflicted wounds, that look set to drive up prices and slow the economy. America has shredded its political and economic alliances. These revenge taxes underscore that America cannot be trusted.”

Who could be affected

Under the provision, certain foreign governments and international businesses could face an additional 20 percent tax, which would apply to non-US entities earning income from US sources, including interest, dividends and royalties.

Taxes would be hiked gradually at the rate of 5 percent annually.

It would also affect profits earned at US locations, which are transferred to foreign parent companies, as well as income from the sale of US real estate by designated “bad actors”. Trusts, global foundations and partnerships with passive income could also be impacted.

However, exceptions are built into the legislation for foreign pension funds and charitable organisations. The tax would only apply to countries designated as “discriminatory” by the US Treasury Department. Countries not flagged would remain unaffected.

House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, a Republican from Missouri, said that while the provision could serve as an effective retaliatory tool, it “will hopefully never take effect”.

According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the measure could bring in revenue of $116.3bn over the next decade. But it would also lower tax revenue in the long term, by $12.9bn in both 2033 and 2034.

Impacted investment climate

The administration’s shifting trade strategies have already led to legal battles, policy reversals and a climate of unpredictability that has left companies hesitant to make long-term plans.

Companies like toy manufacturer Mattel and automaker Stellantis have suspended financial guidance due to the volatile nature of US tariff policy.

These policies have also contributed to swings in consumer confidence. When Trump announced his series of sweeping tariffs against trade partners on April 2, which he dubbed “Liberation Day”, confidence fell to a 13-year low, only to rebound after the administration paused the tariffs’ implementation.

Analysts warn that provisions like the “revenge tax” could deter foreign investment and strain developing partnerships.

“If you’ve got the headwinds of an extra withholding tax that starts at an extra 5 percent [and] moves up to 20 percent over the subsequent four years, I think [investors would] have second thoughts. In terms of optimising your investment strategy, you’d have a slightly smaller allocation to the US,” Chris Turner, the global head of markets and regional head of research for the United Kingdom and Europe at ING, a financial services company, told Al Jazeera.

There is already evidence that some economies have started diversifying away from the US. Canada, for example, has increased trade with Europe and Asia. Trump’s trade policies have also been cited as a factor in foreign governments divesting from US treasuries, while the European Central Bank continues to promote the euro as a competing global reserve currency.

This measure adds another mechanism to the Trump administration’s broader trade strategy, which has relied heavily on tariffs even as many face legal scrutiny.

Last week, the US Court of International Trade blocked the administration’s blanket global tariffs enacted under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. A federal district court temporarily halted the block’s enforcement as legal battles unfold.

Experts believe many of these tariffs may not withstand judicial review.

“There’s no statute that provides the president that authority”, to impose sweeping international tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Greg Shaffer, a law professor at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera. “And as the court said, if there were such a statute, it would be unconstitutional because the Constitution provides that responsibility to Congress.”

However, the ruling did not address tariffs on aluminium, steel and automobiles, which fall under a different legal basis – the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. Under that statute, Trump recently announced plans to raise those tariffs to 50 percent for most imports.

Mexico says tariffs make ‘no sense’ as Canada seeks negotiations to remove the levies ongoing.

In a move that has reignited trade tensions with key allies, United States President Donald Trump has doubled tariffs on steel and aluminium imports.

The new rates, which came into effect early on Wednesday, raise duties from 25 percent to 50 percent. Trump says the measure is designed to bolster the struggling US metals sector.

“We started at 25 and then, after studying the data more, realised that it was a big help, but more help is needed. And so that is why the 50 [percent tariff] is starting tomorrow,” said White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett during a steel industry event in Washington on Tuesday.

The executive order applies to all trading partners except the United Kingdom, which has reached a provisional trade deal with Washington during a 90-day pause on broader tariffs.

British exports will continue to face a 25 percent rate until at least July 9.

Allies seek exemptions

The hike is expected to weigh heavily on Canada and Mexico, two of the US’s closest economic allies and among the largest suppliers of steel. Census Bureau data shows Canada alone exports more aluminium to the US than the rest of the top 10 countries combined. Almost half of the US aluminium consumption is imported.

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney’s office confirmed that “intensive and live negotiations” were ongoing to remove the tariffs.

Mexico’s Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard slammed the decision as irrational, noting the imbalance in steel trade between the two nations.

“It makes no sense for the United States to levy a tariff on a product in which you have a surplus,” he said, adding that Mexico would seek an exemption.

The European Union criticised the decision, saying it “strongly regrets” the move and warned it could take retaliatory action, accusing Washington of undermining attempts at a negotiated settlement.

OECD chief economist Alvaro Pereira told the AFP news agency that the tariffs have already dampened global trade, investment and consumption, and that the US will bear the brunt of the fallout.

While several of Trump’s tariff measures face legal scrutiny, they remain in force during the appeals process.

WASHINGTON — A majority of U.S. journalists who followed the 1992 presidential campaign believe President Bush’s candidacy was damaged by press coverage of his record and of the economy, according to a survey released Saturday.

Only a small percentage of print and broadcast journalists think the campaign of President-elect Bill Clinton was similarly harmed by media coverage. In fact, more than one in three said coverage benefited the Arkansas governor.

Most journalists interviewed believe the press treated Bush fairly. He was harmed, they said, not by media bias but by accurate reporting on his performance in office and on the nation’s economy.

These are the principal findings of a special survey of more than 250 top- and middle-level journalists conducted by the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press. The survey was conducted in the final weeks of the election campaign.

Four in five journalists surveyed rated press performance in the 1992 campaign as good or excellent, saying it generally was better than the coverage in 1988.

Public opinion surveys conducted throughout the campaign showed most Americans also gave positive ratings to media coverage, although by a smaller margin. Nearly six in 10 people surveyed gave the press good or excellent marks. More than one in three, however, judged the performance as fair or poor.

The Times Mirror survey found the media judging the impact of its coverage differently at the end of the campaign than it had in an initial survey last May, during the final stages of the presidential primary battles.

The earlier polling found most journalists–slightly more than 50%–believed campaign coverage was having a “neutral effect” on Bush’s campaign as he turned back the challenge of conservative commentator Patrick J. Buchanan.

At that time, 64% thought Clinton was being hurt by media coverage during his struggle with the so-called “character” problems that beset his primary campaign.

The latest poll also found that journalists gave the industry high marks for specific aspects of campaign coverage. Overall, more than 70% gave ratings of good or excellent to coverage of Clinton’s Vietnam draft status, the candidates’ positions on issues and the economy.

The press gave itself a somewhat lower grade for coverage of independent candidate Ross Perot, with 63% rating it as good or excellent. The survey said one senior editor summed up the attitude of many by saying: “We were all on the verge of carrying very critical stories about his temperament and his personal life when he pulled out. Since he re-entered, we’ve treated him as an eccentric.”

The coverage of Bush’s role in the Iran-Contra scandal received the harshest judgment by journalists. More than 70% of respondents said the coverage was only fair or poor, with only 24% rating it as good. A television executive said only the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post had “done a good job of explaining this issue.”

The survey said a large number of journalists cited the emergence of talk shows this year as a chastening sign that politics can work well “without the press as interlocutor.”

However, critics of this new phenomenon “took aim at the cheerleading-like atmosphere” of some talk show political interviews, saying too many questions were soft, with no follow-up questions, the poll reported.

Billionaire Elon Musk has renewed his criticisms of United States President Donald Trump’s signature budget bill, calling it a “disgusting abomination” in a series of social media posts.

On Tuesday, just days after leaving his post in the Trump administration, Musk offered yet another broadside against the legislation, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill.

“I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,” Musk wrote. “Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.”

His subsequent posts laid out the reasoning for his opposition, suggesting that the spending and tax cuts proposed in the bill would balloon the US national debt.

“It will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt,” Musk said in one post. In another, he wrote, “Congress is making America bankrupt.”

The bill would extend tax cuts established in 2017, during Trump’s first term, and funnel more funds to his administration’s priorities, including $46.5bn for the construction of barriers at the US border with Mexico.

But to accomplish those goals, critics have pointed out that the legislation would lift the cap on the national debt by $4 trillion. It would also limit access to social safety-net programmes like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known colloquially as food stamps.

The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan bureau that provides research to Congress, estimates that the bill will result in a $698bn reduction in Medicaid subsidies and $267bn less in funding for SNAP.

Those trade-offs have spurred concern on both sides of the aisle, with Democrats and some Republicans expressing fears that their constituents may lose their access to vital government services.

Fiscal conservatives, meanwhile, have baulked at the increase to the national debt.

In an early-morning vote on May 22, the House of Representatives narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill by a tight vote of 215 to 214. Republicans hold a 220-seat majority in the 435-member chamber, but several members were either absent or voted “present”.

Only two Republicans — Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio — broke with party ranks to vote against the bill. The House’s 212 Democrats all voted against it as well, in a unified show of opposition.

That sent the bill to the Senate, where Republicans likewise hold a razor-thin majority. Senators are expected to weigh the bill in the coming days.

But following Musk’s criticisms of the One Big Beautiful Bill, Massie chimed in to applaud the billionaire for his frank criticism.

“He’s right,” Massie wrote in a brief post, to which Musk responded that his opposition was rooted in “simple math”.

Musk also called on voters to “fire all politicians who betrayed the American people” during the 2026 midterm elections — referencing what he considered wasteful spending.

Until last week, Musk had served as a special government employee in the second Trump administration, helping to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) since the president’s inauguration in January. In that advisory role, Musk was tasked with identifying and eliminating “waste” in the federal bureaucracy.

His and DOGE’s efforts to slash the federal workforce, yank contracts and shutter government agencies, however, made them both a target for widespread criticism and lawsuits. Opponents accused Musk of engaging in conflicts of interest, including by attacking watchdog groups like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Federal law generally prohibits special government employees from serving for more than 130 days in a year, and Musk ended his tumultuous tenure in the Trump administration with an Oval Office sendoff last week.

Trump presented the billionaire with a decorative key to the White House and called his work transformational, crediting Musk with ushering in “a colossal change in the old ways of doing business in Washington”.

But in the lead-up to that goodbye, Musk appeared in previews for the TV show CBS Sunday Morning denouncing the One Big Beautiful Bill. He described its provisions as contrary to the spirit of DOGE’s spending cuts.

“I was, like, disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,” Musk told CBS.

“I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful,” he added. “I don’t know if it could be both. My personal opinion.”

Those comments fuelled rumours of a widening rift between Trump and Musk, who had been one of the president’s most prominent donors and proxies during his 2024 re-election campaign.

Still, the Trump administration has brushed aside reports of tensions between the two men. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, for instance, shrugged off a question about Musk’s latest fusillade from her podium at the White House briefing room.

“ Look, the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn’t change the president’s opinion,” she said. “This is one big, beautiful bill, and he’s sticking to it.”

Leavitt did, however, blast Republican senators who opposed the legislation for “not having their facts together”.

One of those senators is Rand Paul of Kentucky, who voiced his support for Musk’s dissent against the bill on Tuesday.

“I agree with Elon. We have both seen the massive waste in government spending and we know another $5 trillion in debt is a huge mistake,” Paul wrote. “We can and must do better.”

Trump, however, lashed out against Paul on social media and defended his budget bill, calling it a “WINNER”.

“Rand votes NO on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas. His ideas are actually crazy (losers!). The people of Kentucky can’t stand him,” Trump said. “This is a BIG GROWTH BILL!”

Orders tumble by 3.7 percent after a rise in March when businesses increased purchases in anticipation of tariffs.

Orders from United States factories have tumbled in April after a surge in March when businesses had front-loaded purchases in anticipation of tariffs.

New orders for US manufactured goods dropped by 3.7 percent on a monthly basis, worse than economists had expected, according to Census Bureau data released on Tuesday.

Economists polled by the Reuters news agency expected a 3.1 percent drop. Dow Jones forecast a 3.3 percent drop. On an annual basis, however, factory orders rose by 2 percent.

April’s report is in sharp contrast to the 3.4 percent increase in March, which topped five straight months of increases.

Manufacturing, which accounts for 10.2 percent of the US economy, has been put under pressure by President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariffs. Trump sees the tariffs as a tool to raise revenue to offset his promised extension of tax cuts and to revive a long-declining industrial base, a feat that economists argued was impossible in the short term because of labour shortages and other structural issues.

Hardest hit sectors

Orders in the transportation sector fell 17.1 percent, led by a sharp drop in the commercial aircraft sector. Aircraft orders fell by 51.5 percent in April. Orders for motor vehicles, parts and trailers dropped 0.7 percent.

Electrical equipment, appliances and component manufacturing fell by 0.3 percent. But manufacturing for computers and other electronic products actually grew by 1 percent.

Machinery orders also rose 0.6 percent. Excluding transportation, which led the surge in March orders, orders fell 0.5 percent, matching March’s decline of non-transportation goods.

The government also reported that orders for nondefence capital goods excluding aircraft, a measure of business spending plans on equipment, decreased 1.5 percent in April rather than 1.3 percent as estimated last month.

Shipments of these so-called core capital goods fell by an unrevised 0.1 percent, or $1.8bn.

An Institute for Supply Management survey showed manufacturing contracted for a third straight month in May and suppliers took the longest time in nearly three years to deliver inputs to factories.

Seoul, South Korea – After six hours of emergency martial law, hundreds of days of protests, violence at a Seoul court and the eventual impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol, South Korea is now hours away from choosing a new leader in the hope of restoring stability to an unsettled nation.

From 6am to 8pm on Tuesday (21:00 to 11:00 GMT), South Koreans will vote for one of five presidential candidates in a race led largely by the opposition Democratic Party’s Lee Jae-myung. He is followed in the polls by the governing People Power Party candidate Kim Moon-soo.

The election – involving 44.39 million eligible voters – is expected to see either of these two top contenders replace Yoon. The expelled former president last week attended his fifth court hearing where he faces charges of leading an insurrection and abusing power due to his failed imposition of martial law on December 3.

If convicted, Yoon could face a maximum penalty of life in prison or even the death sentence.

Participation in the election is predicted to be at an all-time high amid the political turmoil resulting from the brief imposition of military rule, which still resonates in every corner of society and has sharply divided the country along political lines. There are those who still support Yoon and those who vehemently oppose his martial law decision.

The Democratic Party’s Lee is currently the clear frontrunner, with Gallup Korea’s latest poll on May 28 placing his support at 49 percent, compared with People Power Party Kim’s 36 percent, as the favourite to win.

Early voting, which ended on Friday, had the second-highest voter turnout in the country’s history, at 34.74 percent, while overseas voting from 118 countries reached a record high of 79.5 percent.

Lee Jae-myung’s second chance

In the last presidential election in 2022, Yoon narrowly edged out Lee in the closest presidential contest in South Korea’s history.

After his crushing defeat in 2022 to a voting margin of just 0.73 percentage points, Lee now has another chance at the top office, and to redeem his political reputation.

About a month ago, South Korea’s Supreme Court determined that Lee had spread falsehoods during his 2022 presidential bid in violation of election law.

In addition to surviving a series of bribery charges during his tenure as mayor of Seongnam and governor of Gyeonggi Province, which he claimed were politically motivated, Lee also survived a stabbing attack to his neck during a news conference in Busan last year.

Fortunately for Lee, the courts have agreed to postpone further hearings of his ongoing trials until after the election.

On the campaign trail this time around, Lee addressed his supporters from behind bulletproof glass, with snipers positioned on rooftops, scanning the crowds for potential threats, as counterterrorism units patrolled on foot.

Lee has also been joined on his campaign by conservative lawmakers, his former opponents, who have publicly supported his run for office numerous times during the past month, seeing him as a path back to political stability.

People Power Party candidate Kim was served an especially hard blow when his parliamentary colleague, Kim Sang-wook, defected from the party in early May to join Lee’s Democratic Party.

According to polling data from South Korea’s leading media outlet Hankyoreh, only 55 percent of conservative voters who supported Yoon in the 2022 election said they would back the People Power Party’s Kim this time around.

While such shifts represent the crisis that the mainstream conservative party is facing after the political fallout from Yoon’s botched martial law plan and removal from office, it also testifies to Lee’s appeal to both moderate and conservative voters.

Future president faces ‘heavy burden’

“The events of the martial law, insurrection attempt and impeachment process have dealt a heavy blow to our democracy,” said Lim Woon-taek, a sociology professor at Keimyung University and a former member of the Presidential Commission on Policy Planning.

“So, the new president will receive a heavy burden when assuming the president’s seat,” Lim told Al Jazeera.

Youth unemployment, social inequality and climate change have also become pressing issues that Yoon’s administration failed to tackle.

According to recent research, South Korea’s non-regular workers, including contract employees and part-timers, accounted for 38 percent of all wage and salary workers last year.

Lee has promised to champion business-friendly policies, and concentrate on investment in research and development and artificial intelligence, while refraining from focusing on divisive social issues such as the gender wars.

His stance has shifted considerably from his time moving up the political ranks when he promoted left-wing ideas, such as a universal basic income.

Events on the night of the declaration of martial law on December 3, also helped cement Lee’s image as a political freedom fighter. A former human rights lawyer, Lee was livestreamed scaling the walls of the National Assembly as the military surrounded the compound, where he rallied fellow legislators to vote and strike down Yoon’s decision to mobilise the military.

Among Lee’s most central campaign pledges has been his promise to bring to justice those involved in Yoon’s martial law scheme and tighten controls on a future president’s ability to do the same. Lee also wants to see a constitutional amendment that would allow presidents to serve two four-year terms, a change from the current single-term five years.

While Lee’s closest challenger, Kim, has agreed on such policies and made sure to distance himself from Yoon, the former labour-activist-turned-hardline-conservative has also said the former president’s impeachment went too far.

Trump, tariffs and South Korea’s new direction

The election also unfolds as United States President Donald Trump has proposed a series of tariffs on key South Korean exports such as steel, semiconductors and automobiles.

In the face of those threats, Lee has promised to stimulate demand and growth, while Kim has promised to ease business regulations. Kim also emphasised his plan to hold an immediate summit meeting with Trump to discuss the tariffs.

Lee, on the other hand, has promised a more pragmatic foreign policy agenda which would maintain relations with the US administration but also prioritise “national interests”, such as bridging closer relations with neighbouring China and Russia.

On North Korea, Lee is determined to ease tensions that have risen to unprecedented heights in recent years, while Kim has pledged to build up the country’s military capability to counter Pyongyang, and wants stronger security support from the US.

Lee has also promised to relocate the National Assembly and the presidential office from Seoul to Sejong City, which would be designated as the country’s new administrative capital, continuing a process of city-planning rebalancing that has met a series of setbacks in recent years.

Another major issue that Keimyung University’s Lim hopes the future leader will focus more on is the climate situation.

“Our country is considered a climate villain, and we will face future restrictions in our exports if we don’t address the immediate effects of not keeping limits on the amount of our hazardous outputs,” Lim said.

“The future of our country will really rest on this one question: whether the next president will draw out such issues like the previous administration or face the public sphere and head straight into the main issues that are deteriorating our society.”

The results of Tuesday’s vote are expected to emerge either late on Tuesday or in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

In the 2022 election, Yoon was proclaimed the winner at 4:40am the morning after election day.

With Lee the clear frontrunner in this election, the outcome could be evident as early as Tuesday night.

But enhanced surveillance at polling stations this year due to concerns raised about counting errors may be a factor in slowing down any early announcement of the country’s next president.

United States President Donald Trump has announced his administration is raising tariffs on steel imports from 25 percent to 50 percent.

Speaking to steelworkers and supporters at a rally outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Trump framed his latest tariff increase as a boon to the domestic manufacturing industry.

“We’re going to bring it from 25 percent to 50 percent, the tariffs on steel into the United States of America, which will even further secure the steel industry in the United States,” Trump told the crowd. “Nobody’s going to get around that.”

How that tariff increase would affect the free-trade deal with Canada and Mexico – or a separate trade deal struck earlier this month with the United Kingdom – remains unclear.

Also left ambiguous was the nature of a deal struck between Nippon Steel, the largest steel producer in Japan, and the domestic company US Steel. Still, Trump played up the partnership between the two companies as a “blockbuster agreement”.

“ There’s never been a $14bn investment in the history of the steel industry in the United States of America,” Trump said of the deal.

A tariff hike on steel

Friday’s rally was a return to the site of many election-season campaign events for Trump and his team.

In 2024, Trump hinged his pitch for re-election on an appeal to working-class voters, including those in the Rust Belt region, a manufacturing hub that has declined in the face of the shifting industry trends and greater overseas competition.

Key swing states like Pennsylvania and Michigan are located in the region, and they leaned Republican on election day, helping to propel Trump to a second term as president.

Trump, in turn, has framed his “America First” agenda as a policy platform designed to bolster the domestic manufacturing industry. Tariffs and other protectionist policies have played a prominent part in that agenda.

In March, for instance, Trump announced an initial slate of 25-percent tariffs on steel and aluminium, causing major trading partners like Canada to respond with retaliatory measures.

The following month, he also imposed a blanket 10-percent tariff on nearly all trade partners as well as higher country-specific import taxes. Those were quickly paused amid economic shockwaves and widespread criticism, while the 10-percent tariff remained in place.

Trump has argued that the tariffs are a vital negotiating tool to encourage greater investment in the US economy.

But economists have warned that attempting a “hard reset” of the global economy – through dramatic tax hikes like tariffs – will likely blow back on US consumers, raising prices.

Rachel Ziemba, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, said the latest tariff hike on steel also signals that negotiating trade deals with Trump may result in “limited benefits”, given the sudden shifts in his policies.

Further, Friday’s announcement signals that Trump is likely to continue doubling down on tariffs, she said.

“The challenge is that hiking the steel tariffs may be good for steel workers, but it is bad for manufacturing and the energy sector, among others. So overall, it is not great for the US economy and adds uncertainty to the macro outlook,” Ziemba explained.

Trump’s tariff policies have also faced legal challenges in the US, where businesses, interest groups and states have all filed lawsuits to stop the tax hikes on imports.

On Thursday, for instance, a federal court briefly ruled that Trump had illegally exercised emergency powers to impose his sweeping slate of international tariffs, only for an appeals court to temporarily pause that ruling a few hours later.

A deal with Nippon Steel

Before the tariff hike was announced, Friday’s rally in Pittsburgh was expected to focus on Nippon Steel’s proposed acquisition of US Steel, the second largest steel producer in the country.

“We’re here today to celebrate a blockbuster agreement that will ensure this storied American company stays an American company,” Trump said at the outset of his speech.

But the merger between Nippon Steel and US Steel had been controversial, and it was largely opposed by labour unions.

Upon returning to the White House in January, Trump initially said he would block the acquisition, mirroring a similar position taken by his predecessor, former US President Joe Biden.

However, he has since pivoted his stance and backed the deal. Last week, he announced an agreement that he said would grant Nippon only “partial ownership” over US Steel.

Speaking on Friday, Trump said the new deal would include Nippon making a “$14bn commitment to the future” of US Steel, although he did not provide details about how the ownership agreement would play out.

“Oh, you’re gonna be happy,” Trump told the crowd of steelworkers. “There’s a lot of money coming your way.”

The Republican leader also waxed poetic about the history of steel in the US, describing it as the backbone of the country’s economy.

“The city of Pittsburgh used to produce more steel than most entire countries could produce, and it wasn’t even close,” he said, adding: “If you don’t have steel, you don’t have a country.”

For its part, US Steel has not publicly communicated any details of a revamped deal to investors. Nippon, meanwhile, issued a statement approving the proposed “partnership”, but it also has not disclosed terms of the arrangement.

The acquisition has split union workers, although the national United Steelworkers Union has been one of its leading opponents.

In a statement prior to the rally, the union questioned whether the new arrangement makes “any meaningful change” from the initial proposal.

“Nippon has maintained consistently that it would only invest in US Steel’s facilities if it owned the company outright,” the union said in a statement, which noted firmer details had not yet been released.

“We’ve seen nothing in the reporting over the past few days suggesting that Nippon has walked back from this position.”

The rally on Friday comes as Trump has sought to reassure his base of voters following a tumultuous start to his second term.

Critics point out that steel prices have risen in the US by roughly 16 percent since Trump took office, and his Republican Party faces potentially punishing congressional elections in 2026.

The lawsuit came three days after a similar case by NPR, which also saw its funds cut.

PBS has filed a lawsuit against United States President Donald Trump and other administration officials to block his order stripping federal funding from the 330-station public television system, three days after NPR did the same for its radio network.

In its lawsuit filed on Friday, PBS relied on similar arguments, saying Trump was overstepping his authority and engaging in “viewpoint discrimination” because of his claim that PBS’s news coverage is biassed against conservatives.

“PBS disputes those charged assertions in the strongest possible terms,” lawyer Z W Julius Chen wrote in the suit, filed in US District Court in Washington, DC. “But regardless of any policy disagreements over the role of public television, our Constitution and laws forbid the President from serving as the arbiter of the content of PBS’s programming, including by attempting to defund PBS.”

It was the latest of many legal actions taken against the administration for its moves, including several by media organisations impacted by Trump’s orders.

PBS was joined as a plaintiff by one of its stations, Lakeland PBS, which serves rural areas in northern and central Minnesota. Trump’s order is an “existential threat” to the station, the lawsuit said.

A PBS spokesman said that “after careful deliberation, PBS reached the conclusion that it was necessary to take legal action to safeguard public television’s editorial independence, and to protect the autonomy of PBS member stations”.

‘Lawful authority’

Through an executive order earlier this month, Trump told the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal agencies to stop funding the two systems. Through the corporation alone, PBS is receiving $325m this year, most of which goes directly to individual stations.

The White House deputy press secretary, Harrison Fields, said the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers’ dime.

“Therefore, the President is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS,” Fields said. “The President was elected with a mandate to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and he will continue to use his lawful authority to achieve that objective.”

PBS, which makes much of the programming used by the stations, said it gets 22 percent of its revenue directly from the feds. Sixty-one percent of PBS’s budget is funded through individual station dues, and the stations raise the bulk of that money through the government.

Interrupting ‘a rich tapestry of programming’

Trump’s order “would have profound impacts on the ability of PBS and PBS member stations to provide a rich tapestry of programming to all Americans”, Chen wrote.

PBS said the US Department of Education has cancelled a $78m grant to the system for educational programming, used to make children’s shows like Sesame Street, Clifford the Big Red Dog and Reading Rainbow.

For Minnesota residents, the order threatens the Lakeland Learns education programme and Lakeland News, described in the lawsuit as the only television programme in the region providing local news, weather and sports.

Besides Trump, the lawsuit names other administration officials as defendants, including Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. PBS says its technology is used as a backup for the nationwide wireless emergency alert system.

The administration has fought with several media organisations. Government-run news services like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are struggling for their lives. The Associated Press has battled with the White House over press access, and the Federal Communications Commission is investigating television news divisions.

United States President Donald Trump has bid goodbye to Elon Musk at a White House event marking the billionaire’s departure from his role in government.

Speaking from the Oval Office on Friday, Trump showered Musk with praise for his work as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an initiative to reduce federal bureaucracy and spending.

“ I just want to say that Elon has worked tirelessly helping lead the most sweeping and consequential government reform programme in generations,” Trump said.

He credited Musk with delivering “a colossal change in the old ways of doing business in Washington” and called Musk’s service “without comparison in modern history”.

Still, the president also assured reporters that DOGE would continue its work even after Musk is gone.

“With Elon’s guidance, [DOGE is] helping to detect fraud, slash waste and modernise broken and outdated systems,” Trump said.

The joint appearance comes as the two men seek to downplay reports of a growing rift, particularly after Musk criticised Trump’s signature budget bill on CBS News. It also coincides with the publication of a New York Times report alleging that Musk has struggled with increasing drug use and personal turmoil behind the scenes.

Musk declined to comment on the Times report during his Oval Office appearance. He also avoided remarking on speculation that his departure was connected to tumbling sales at his car company, Tesla.

Instead, he pointed out that, as a special government employee, he cannot work in the Trump administration for a period exceeding 130 days without facing stricter disclosure and ethics requirements.

He also focused on promoting his work with DOGE and criticising those on the political left who would impede Trump’s agenda.

“This is not the end of DOGE, but really at the beginning,” Musk said, clad in a black T-shirt emblazoned with the phrase “The Dogefather”, written in the style of the gangster film The Godfather. “The DOGE team will only grow stronger over time.”

Trump, meanwhile, emphasised that his relationship with the billionaire – a prominent backer of his 2024 re-election campaign – would continue.

“Elon’s really not leaving. He’s going to be back and forth, I think,” Trump said.

Unclear accounting

Despite White House claims about its efficacy, the extent of DOGE’s cost-savings has remained foggy.

As of Friday, the panel claimed it had achieved an estimated $175bn in savings, made up of “asset sales, contract/lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletion, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions”.

But DOGE’s transparency and methodology have been repeatedly questioned. The only accounting made available to the public adds up to less than half of the claimed figure.

An analysis published on Friday by the news agency Reuters also suggests the actual sum is much lower. Using US Treasury summaries, Reuters found that only $19bn in federal spending had been cut, though it noted that some savings may require more time to be reflected in the Treasury Department’s data.

Regardless, all of those figures fall far short of the goal of $2 trillion saved that Musk initially set out to achieve.

When asked about the discrepancy on Friday, Musk maintained that $1 trillion in savings remained a long-term goal.

“I’m confident that over time, we’ll see a trillion dollars of savings, a reduction – a trillion dollars of waste and fraud reduction,” he said.

But critics have questioned if DOGE will continue with the same verve following Musk’s departure.

Musk and DOGE have long been lightning rods for public criticism, as they implemented sweeping changes to the federal government. Since Trump started his second term as president in January, organisations like the US Agency for International Development (USAID) have seen their funding cut and their staffing slashed.

As a result, employees, contractors, labour groups and state officials have sued to block DOGE’s efforts, with varying levels of success.

Behind the scenes, there have also been reports that Musk clashed with members of Trump’s cabinet, who may seek relief from cuts to their departments after Musk’s exit.

Musk’s foray into government has caused blowback for his companies as well, with protests at Tesla dealerships spreading across the country. Profits plunged 71 percent at Tesla in the first three months of the year, with shareholders calling for Musk to return to work.

When asked by a reporter if Musk’s time in government was “worth it”, he was circumspect. He explained that he felt DOGE had become seen as a “boogeyman”, blamed for any effort to overhaul the federal government.

But he reaffirmed his commitment to being a “friend and adviser to the president” and said the experience was worthwhile.

“I think it was. I think [it] was an important thing,” he added. “I think it was a necessary thing, and I think it will have a good effect in the future.”

Google has been back in federal court to fend off the United States Department of Justice’s attempt to topple its internet empire at the same time it is navigating a pivotal shift to artificial intelligence (AI) that could undercut its power.

On Friday, the legal and technological threats facing Google were among the key issues being dissected during the closing arguments of a legal proceeding that will determine the changes imposed upon the company in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared an illegal monopoly by US District Judge Amit Mehta last year.

Brandishing evidence presented during a recent three-week stretch of hearings, Justice Department lawyers are attempting to persuade Mehta to order a radical shake-up that includes a ban on Google paying to lock its search engine in as the default on smart devices and an order requiring the company to sell its Chrome browser.

Google lawyers say only minor concessions are needed, especially as the upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already are reshaping the search landscape, as alternative, conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice’s four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier.

Mehta used Friday’s hearing to ask probing and pointed questions to lawyers for both sides while hinting that he was seeking a middle ground between the two camps’ proposed remedies.

“We’re not looking to kneecap Google,” the judge said, adding that the goal was to “kickstart” competitors’ ability to challenge the search giant’s dominance.

After the daylong closing arguments, Mehta will spend much of the next several months mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labor Day in the US (September 1). Google has already promised to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it cannot take until the judge orders a remedy.

AI an inflection point

While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry’s future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google.

The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself will not rein in Google’s power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that’s the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc, is valued at $2 trillion.

Mehta indicated in court Friday that he was still undecided on how much AI’s potential to shake up the search market should be incorporated in his forthcoming ruling. “This is what I’ve been struggling with,” Mehta said early in the hearing.

Justice prosecutor David Dahlquist urged the judge to issue forward-thinking remedies that would “pry open” the search market to competition and not allow Google to use its search monopoly to unfairly benefit itself in the AI race.

Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine into an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet’s main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity.

The Justice Department contends a divestiture of the Chrome browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai helped build nearly 20 years ago would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google continuing to amass massive volumes of browser traffic and personal data that could be leveraged to retain its dominance in the AI era.

Executives from both OpenAI and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders its sale.

Google’s lawyer John Schmidtlein said on Friday that AI companies should “get to work” on their own products rather than try to persuade the court to give them unfair access to Google’s innovations.

The debate over Google’s fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups.

Apple, which collects more than $20bn annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department’s proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements.

Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own research, and that the ban might make Google even more powerful because the company would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would end up choosing its search engine anyway. The Cupertino, California, company also told the judge a ban would not compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google.

In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department’s proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company’s business.

Meanwhile, former Federal Trade Commission officials James Cooper and Andrew Stivers warned that another proposal, which would require Google to share its data with rival search engines, “does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship” of their personal information.

The App Association, a group that represents mostly small software developers, also advised Mehta not to adopt the Justice Department’s proposed changes because of the ripple effects they would have across the tech industry.

Hobbling Google in the way the Justice Department envisions would make it more difficult for startups to realise their goal of being acquired, the App Association wrote. “Developers will be overcome by uncertainty” if Google is torn apart, the group argues.

They’ve long been hedging their bets.
But Southeast Asian nations are caught in the dispute between the United States and China.
The trade-dependent countries are under threat from Trump’s tariffs, too.
They face a delicate balancing act between economic survival and strategic neutrality.
The message was clear at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations – ASEAN’s recent summit in the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur.
Member countries are recalibrating their economic partnerships to insulate their economies.
That includes a push to deepen trade ties with China and Gulf countries.

Why is the price of Japanese rice rocketing?

Plus, should older people work longer?

A federal appeals court has temporarily reinstated (PDF) US President Donald Trump’s tariffs a day after a trade court ruled that it exceeded the authorities granted to the president.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington temporarily blocked the lower court’s decision on Thursday, but provided no reasoning for the decision, only giving the plaintiffs until June 5th to respond.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted an emergency motion from the Trump administration arguing that a halt is “critical for the country’s national security”.

The White House has applauded the move.

“You can assume, even if we lose tariff cases, we will find another way,” trade adviser Peter Navarro said.

Wednesday’s surprise ruling by the US Court of International Trade had threatened to halt or delay Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs on most US trading partners, as well as import levies on goods from Canada, Mexico and China related to his accusation that the three countries were facilitating the flow of fentanyl into the US.

The International Court of Trade said tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which is typically used to address issues of national emergencies rather than addressing the national debt, were considered overreach.

Experts said the IEEPA, which was passed in 1977, is narrow in scope and targets specific countries, US-designated “terrorist organisations”, or gang activity pegged to specific instances. The US, for example, used the law to seize property belonging to the government of Iran during the hostage crisis in 1979 and the property of drug traffickers in Colombia in 1995.

“The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn’t say anything at all about tariffs,” Bruce Fain, a former US associate deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan, told Al Jazeera.

Fein added that there is a statute, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows tariffs in the event of a national emergency. However, he said, it requires a study by the commerce secretary and can only be imposed on a product-by-product basis.

‘Product-by-product’

Despite the appeal court’s reprieve, Wednesday’s decision has been viewed as a blow to the administration’s economic agenda that has thus far led to declining consumer confidence and the US losing its top credit rating.

Experts believe that, ultimately, the tariffs will not last.

Posting on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Thursday, lawyer Peter Harrell, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote that, if the trade court’s decision “is upheld, importers should eventually be able to get a refund of [IEEPA] tariffs paid to date. But the government will probably seek to avoid paying refunds until appeals are exhausted.″

“The power to decide the level of tariffs resides with Congress. The IEEPA doesn’t even mention raising tariffs. And it was actually passed in order to narrow the president’s authority. Now the president is using it to rewrite the tariff schedule for the whole world,” Greg Schaffer, professor of international law at Georgetown Law School, told Al Jazeera.

The US trade court did not weigh in on tariffs put in place by other laws, such as the Trade Expansion Act – the law used to justify tariffs on steel, aluminium, and automobiles.

There are additional targets for similar narrow tariffs, such as pharmaceuticals from China. In April, the White House announced that the US Department of Commerce launched an investigation to see if the US reliance on China for active ingredients in key medications posed a national security threat, thus warranting tariffs.

“This is not an issue of whether the president can impose tariffs,” said Fein, the former associate deputy attorney general. “He can under the 1962 act after there’s a study and after showing that it’s not arbitrary and capricious and that it’s a product-by-product, not a country-by-country approach.”

“If he doesn’t like that, he can ask Congress to amend the statute.”

Panel of judges finds the president overstepped his authority by imposing across-the-board duties on imports from trading partners.

A United States trade court has ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed blanket tariffs on imports from US trading partners, issuing a permanent injunction that immediately halts the tariffs and demands a government response within 10 days.

The Court of International Trade, based in New York, said the US Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries that is not overridden by the president’s emergency powers to safeguard the US economy.

“The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President’s use of tariffs as leverage,” a three-judge panel wrote on Wednesday. “That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it.”

The ruling, if it stands, could derail Trump’s global trade strategy to use steep tariffs to wring concessions from trading partners. It creates deep uncertainty around multiple simultaneous negotiations with the European Union, China and many other countries.

The court struck down Trump’s tariff orders issued since January under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a statute meant for addressing rare and extraordinary national emergencies. Tariffs introduced under other laws, such as those targeting specific industries like steel, autos and aluminium, were not addressed in this ruling.

The Trump administration swiftly filed an appeal, disputing the court’s jurisdiction. A White House spokesperson insisted trade imbalances posed a national crisis. “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” said Kush Desai, the White House deputy press secretary, defending Trump’s executive actions as necessary to protect US industry and security.

Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna, reporting from Washington, noted the court’s impartiality. “This particular court cannot be accused of being an activist one, as Trump and his followers have accused other courts that have ruled against him,” Hanna said. “One of the judges was appointed by Trump himself, another by former President Barack Obama and the third by the former Republican President Ronald Reagan.”

The Court of International Trade handles matters relating to customs and trade law. Its rulings can be challenged in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and eventually taken to the Supreme Court.

Financial analyst Robert Scott told Al Jazeera the tariffs failed to deliver tangible results even in Trump’s first term. “Most of those tariffs did not see the US trade position improve,” he said. “US trade deficits continued to grow and China’s exports to the world kept rising. They simply rerouted goods through other countries.”

The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small US businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties, and the other by 12 US states.

The companies, which range from a New York wine and spirits importer to a Virginia-based maker of educational kits and musical instruments, have said the tariffs will hurt their ability to do business.

“There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged Tariff Orders are unlawful as to Plaintiffs they are unlawful as to all,” the judges wrote in their decision.

At least five other legal challenges to the tariffs are pending.