impose

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE — President Trump said Saturday that he plans to hike tariffs on imports of Canadian goods by an extra 10% because of an anti-tariff television ad aired by the province of Ontario.

The ad used the words of former President Reagan to criticize U.S. tariffs, angering Trump, who said he would end trade talks with Canada. Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford said he would pull the ad after the weekend, and it ran Friday night during the first game of the World Series.

“Their Advertisement was to be taken down, IMMEDIATELY, but they let it run last night during the World Series, knowing that it was a FRAUD,” Trump said in a post on his social media platform as he flew aboard Air Force One to Malaysia.

“Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act, I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now.”

The ad used a recording of Reagan criticizing tariffs, though his comments were edited. He often criticized government policies — including protectionist measures such as tariffs — that interfered with free commerce and he spent much of that 1987 radio address spelling out the case against tariffs.

Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney will both attend the Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Malaysia. But Trump told reporters traveling with him that he had no intention of meeting Carney there.

Schiefelbein writes for the Associated Press.

The UK, France and Germany have called on Iran not to escalate tensions and to pursue negotiations after UN sanctions were reinstated on Saturday.

The three countries said they had “no choice” but to bring back the sweeping measures against Tehran “as a last resort” over its “continued nuclear escalation” and lack of cooperation.

“We urge Iran to refrain from any escalatory action,” they said in a joint statement, adding: “The reimposition of UN sanctions is not the end of diplomacy.”

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian insisted last week that the country had no intention of developing nuclear weapons, and condemned the re-imposition of international sanctions as “unfair, unjust, and illegal”.

The United Nations’ sweeping economic and military sanctions were reimposed on Iran at 00:00 GMT on Saturday – a decade after they were lifted in a landmark international deal over its nuclear programme.

Iran stepped up banned nuclear activity after the US quit the deal in 2016. Donald Trump pulled the US out in his first term as president, criticising the deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – negotiated under his predecessor Barack Obama, as flawed.

Talks between the three countries and Iran on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly earlier this week failed to produce a deal which would have delayed the sanctions being reimposed.

In a joint statement early on Sunday, the foreign ministers of the three European countries, known as the E3, said: “Given that Iran repeatedly breached these commitments, the E3 had no choice but to trigger the snapback procedure, at the end of which those resolutions were brought back into force.”

In the meantime, they said they would “continue to pursue diplomatic routes and negotiations”.

They cited Iran’s failure to “take the necessary actions to address our concerns, nor to meet our asks on extension, despite extensive dialogue”.

Specifically, they mentioned Tehran’s refusal to cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.

“Iran has not authorised IAEA inspectors to regain access to Iran’s nuclear sites, nor has it produced and transmitted to the IAEA a report accounting for its stockpile of high-enriched uranium,” the statement read.

Iran suspended IAEA inspection after Israel and the US bombed several of its nuclear sites and military bases in June.

Under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is legally obliged to allow inspections of its nuclear sites, and on Friday, the IAEA confirmed that they had resumed.

But while Iran has been in talks with the IAEA to find a way forward, it has also warned that a return of sanctions will put that in jeopardy.

Pezeshkian has walked back from his earlier threats for Iran to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But, speaking to reporters on Friday, he added that Tehran would need reassurances that its nuclear facilities would not be attacked by Israel in order to normalise its nuclear enrichment programme.

He also rejected a US demand to hand over all of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium in return for a three-month exemption from sanctions, saying: “Why would we put ourselves in such a trap and have a noose around our neck each month?”

Iran said on Saturday it was recalling its ambassadors to Britain, France and Germany for consultations.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to uphold President Trump’s birthright citizenship order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The appeal, shared with the Associated Press on Saturday, sets in motion a process at the high court that could lead to a definitive ruling from the justices on whether the citizenship restrictions are constitutional.

Lower-court judges have blocked them from taking effect anywhere. The Republican administration is not asking the court to let the restrictions take effect before it rules.

The Justice Department’s petition has been shared with lawyers for parties challenging the order, but is not yet docketed at the Supreme Court.

Any decision on whether to take up the case probably is months away and arguments probably would not take place until the late winter or early spring.

“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”

Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said the administration’s plan is plainly unconstitutional.

“This executive order is illegal, full stop, and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that. We will continue to ensure that no baby’s citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order,” Wofsy said in an email.

Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term in the White House that would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so, even after a Supreme Court ruling in late June that limited judges’ use of nationwide injunctions.

While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or probably violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved people, had citizenship.

The administration is appealing two cases.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled in July that a group of states that sued over the order needed a nationwide injunction to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship being in effect in some states and not others.

Also in July, a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the citizenship order in a class-action lawsuit including all children who would be affected.

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers who are in the country illegally, under long-standing rules. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

The administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

Sherman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

Israeli action in Tulkarem city comes as Palestinians have been subjected to ‘collective punishment’ in the occupied West Bank.

Israeli forces have detained more than 100 Palestinians in raids on the occupied West Bank city of Tulkarem and have imposed a curfew, Al Jazeera Arabic reports, as the Israeli offensive in Gaza City has forced more than 200,000 Palestinians to flee the largest urban center in the enclave.

As reported earlier, Israel’s military has been conducting raids in Tulkarem after it said two Israeli soldiers were wounded when their vehicle was “hit by an explosive device“.

Soldiers stormed shops and cafes, detaining patrons, as well as residents in their vehicles, forcing them to march in line towards an Israeli military checkpoint, a WAFA correspondent reported.

Israeli forces launched a campaign of violence in the occupied West Bank after six people were killed in a shooting attack in occupied East Jerusalem earlier this week. Hamas’s armed wing, the Qassam Brigades, claimed responsibility for the shooting, in which both suspects were killed.

In response, Israel ordered the demolition of the homes of the two suspects, as well as sanctions on their family members and residents of their towns, Qatanna and al-Qubeiba, northwest of Jerusalem in the West Bank.

“There has been a complete siege and lockdown of these areas,” Al Jazeera’s Hamdah Salhut said on Tuesday following the shooting. “Collective punishment is in full swing in the occupied West Bank.”

Israel’s growing crackdown in the West Bank

Israel has launched a crackdown on the occupied West Bank since it launched its devastating war on Gaza, killing more than 1,000 Palestinians, arresting thousands, and demolishing hundreds of homes and civic infrastructure. Even before the October 7, 2023, attack inside Israel by the Hamas-led Palestinian groups, Israeli military and settler violence was at its highest in years.

Israel’s military operation has fuelled the forced displacement of more than 40,000 Palestinians.

“Israel’s deadly military operation in the occupied West Bank, unfolding in the horrific shadow of its ongoing genocide in the occupied Gaza Strip, has had catastrophic consequences for tens of thousands of displaced Palestinians who are facing a rapidly escalating crisis with no foreseeable prospects of return. Unlawful transfer of protected persons is a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a war crime,” Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty International’s senior director for Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns, said in a statement on June 5.

As well as the Israeli military actions against Palestinians, violence by Israeli settlers spiked during the war on Gaza. At least 1,860 incidents of settler violence in the occupied West Bank were recorded between October 7, 2023, and December 31, 2024, according to data from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

The rise of far-right leaders to power has pushed Israel further towards right, with politicians at the highest levels, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, openly indulging in anti-Palestinian rhetoric.

“We are going to fulfil our promise that there will be no Palestinian state. This place belongs to us,” Netanyahu reiterated at an event in Maale Adumim, an illegal Israeli settlement just east of Jerusalem, on Thursday.

“We are going to double the city’s population.”

All the settlements are considered illegal under international law and are considered the biggest hurdle in the resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Last September, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) overwhelmingly adopted a resolution calling on Israel to end its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories within a year. Still, Israel has since expanded its settlements in complete disregard of international laws and norms.

Sept. 10 (UPI) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would review a challenge to President Donald Trump‘s sweeping tariffs, expediting the case to be heard in two months.

The high court justices issued the one-page order that set the schedule for the case, with the arguments session to take place during the first week of November.

Trump asked the justices to intervene last week, seeking an early November review by the conservative-leaning high court to make a speedy decision on his controversial tariffs, after twice being told by the courts they are illegal.

“It is gratifying to see the Supreme Court accept these cases on an unusually fast track,” Andrew Morris, senior litigator with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which filed amicus briefs against Trump’s tariffs in both cases challenging them, told UPI in an emailed statement.

“The court should act promptly to strike down the tariffs. It should hold that the president cannot invoke emergency powers — and national security — to impose tariffs on the American people.”

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has turned to tariffs as a key tool of his economic policy to right what he sees as unfair trading relationships that the United States has with other nations.

In April, he imposed a 10% tariff on nearly all goods imported from nearly all countries, followed by so-called reciprocal tariffs slapped on specific countries and at specific rates in order to redress those perceived negative trade imbalances.

Trump has argued he has the power to impose the tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which permits the president to implement asset freezes, trade embargoes and other similar economic sanctions during a national emergency.

On April 22, the educational toy manufacturer Learning Resources Inc. sued the Trump administration, arguing the president did not have the power to impose sweeping tariffs, only Congress does.

“The Constitution vests the power to impose tariffs in Congress,” the company said in its complaint, while arguing Trump was misusing the IEEPA, which was intended to impose sanctions on foreign terrorist and hostile nations representing an unusual and extraordinary threat to U.S. society.

“The statute does not mention tariffs or duties, and in the five decades and eight administrations since its enactment, no president besides President Trump has ever invoked IEEPA to impose a tariff or a duty.”

Several other lawsuits followed, and in May, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York ruled against the Trump administration, finding the tariffs were illegal and that the IEEPA did not give the president import tax powers.

Late last month, a divided appeals court agreed. However, the tariffs remain in place, at least for now.

While Trump and his administration have boasted that the tariffs will raise billions in revenue, critics say it is the American public, and not the foreign companies, that are footing the bill.

US President Donald Trump has called on the European Union to hit China and India with tariffs of up to 100% as part of his efforts to force Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine, a source familiar with the discussions has told the BBC.

He made the demand, first reported by the Financial Times, during a meeting between US and EU officials on Tuesday discussing options to increase economic pressure on Russia.

The proposal comes as Trump struggles to broker a peace deal between Moscow and Kyiv and as Russia’s strikes on Ukraine intensify.

Separately, Trump told reporters on Tuesday that he plans to talk to Putin on a call this week or early next week.

Ukraine’s main government building in Kyiv was struck by a Russian missile over the weekend – in an attack that was seen as both symbolic and a major increase of aggression by the Kremlin.

Over the weekend, attacks across the country marked the heaviest aerial bombardment on Ukraine since the war began. Ukraine said Russian forces used at least 810 drones and 13 missiles.

On Tuesday, more than 20 civilians were killed by a Russian glide bomb in the eastern Donbas region, as they queued to collect their pensions.

Speaking to reporters after the weekend bombardment, Trump said he was “not happy with the whole situation” and threatened harsher sanctions on the Kremlin.

The US president has previously threatened harsher measures against Russia, but not taken any action despite Putin ignoring his deadlines and threats of sanctions.

A highly anticipated summit between the leaders in Alaska last month ended without a peace deal.

Trump’s request to the European Union follows remarks from US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who said Washington was prepared to escalate economic pressure but needed stronger European backing.

Trump also said on Tuesday that the US and India were “continuing negotiations to address the Trade Barriers” between the two countries.

He planned to speak to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the coming weeks and expects a “successful conclusion” to their trade talks, he wrote on his Truth Social platform.

China and India are major purchasers of Russian oil, which helps to keep the Russian economy afloat.

Last month, the US imposed a 50% tariff on goods from India, which included a 25% penalty for its transactions with Russia.

Although the EU has said it would end its dependency on Russian energy, around 19% of its natural gas imports still come from Russia.

If the EU does impose the tariffs on China and India it would mark a change to its approach of attempting to isolate Russia with sanctions rather than trade levies.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court granted an unusually quick hearing on President Trump’s sweeping tariffs on Tuesday, putting a policy at the center of his economic agenda squarely before the nation’s highest court.

The tariffs will remain in place in the lead-up to arguments set for November, a lightning-fast timetable by the Supreme Court’s typical standards.

The court agreed to take up an appeal from the Trump administration after lower courts found most of his tariffs illegal.

The small businesses and states that challenged them also agreed to the accelerated timetable. They say Trump’s import taxes on goods from nearly every country in the world have nearly driven their businesses to bankruptcy.

Two lower courts have agreed that Trump didn’t have the power to impose tariffs on nearly every country on earth under an emergency powers law, though a 7-4 appeals court has left them in place for now.

The Trump administration asked the justices to intervene quickly, arguing the law gives him the power to regulate imports and striking down the tariffs would put the country on “the brink of economic catastrophe.”

The case will come before a court that has been reluctant to check Trump’s extraordinary flex of executive power. One big question is whether the justices’ own expansive view of presidential authority allows for Trump’s tariffs without the explicit approval of Congress, which the Constitution endows with the power to levy tariffs. Three of the justices on the conservative-majority court were nominated by Trump in his first term.

While the tariffs and their erratic rollout have raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth, Trump has also used them to pressure other countries into accepting new trade deals. Revenue from tariffs totaled $159 billion by late August, more than double what it was at the same point a year earlier.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer has argued that the lower court rulings are already affecting those trade negotiations. If the tariffs are struck down, the U.S. Treasury might take a hit by having to refund some of the import taxes it’s collected, Trump administration officials have said. A ruling against them could even the nation’s ability to reduce the flow of fentanyl and efforts to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, Sauer argued.

The administration did win over four appeals court judges who found the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets the president regulate importation during emergencies without explicit limitations. In recent decades, Congress has ceded some tariff authority to the president and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

The case involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency: the tariffs first announced in April and the ones from February on imports from Canada, China and Mexico.

It doesn’t include his levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, or the tariffs Trump imposed on China in his first term that were kept by Democratic President Biden.

Trump can impose tariffs under other laws, but those have more limitations on the speed and severity with which he could act.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

FM Maxime Prevot says his country will recognise Palestine this month and impose 12 ‘firm sanctions’ on Israel.

Belgium will recognise the State of Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) later this month, Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs Maxime Prevot has announced.

“Palestine will be recognised by Belgium at the UN session! And firm sanctions will be imposed against the Israeli government,” Prevot, who is also the deputy prime minister, wrote on the social media platform X early on Tuesday.

Prevot said Belgium would also impose 12 “firm sanctions” on Israel, including a ban on importing products from the settlements, and “a review of public procurement policies with Israeli companies”.

He added that the announcement was made “in light of the humanitarian tragedy unfolding in Palestine, particularly in Gaza”.

At the end of July, President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would recognise Palestine at the UNGA, which will be held from September 9 to 23 in New York.

Following this, several other countries have announced that they will do the same, although some have said they intend to place conditions on their recognition.

As of April this year, some 147 countries, representing 75 percent of UN members, have already recognised Palestinian statehood.

Belgium’s announcement comes as Israel’s war on Gaza has killed at least 63,459 people and wounded 160,256 more.

In July, Belgian prosecutors referred a war crimes complaint against two Israeli soldiers to the International Criminal Court (ICC), following allegations that they participated in atrocities in Gaza.

This is a breaking news story. More soon.

WASHINGTON — Appellate court judges expressed broad skepticism Thursday over President Trump’s legal rationale for his most expansive round of tariffs.

Members of the 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington appeared unconvinced by the Trump administration’s insistence that the president could impose tariffs without congressional approval, and it hammered its invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to do so.

“IEEPA doesn’t even mention the word ‘tariffs’ anywhere,” Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna said in a sign of the panel’s incredulity at a government attorney’s arguments.

Brett Schumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing “no president has ever read IEEPA this way” but contended it was nonetheless lawful.

The 1977 law, signed by President Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war.

Trump says the country’s trade deficit is so serious that it likewise qualifies for the law’s protection.

In sharp exchanges with Schumate, appellate judges questioned that contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified.

“If the president says there’s a problem with our military readiness,” Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, “and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn’t seem to necessarily deal with [it].”

Schumate said Congress’ passage of IEEPA gave the president “broad and flexible” power to respond to an emergency, but that “the president is not asking for unbounded authority.”

But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump’s maneuver as a “breathtaking” power grab that amounted to saying “the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.”

No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges’ deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump weighed in on the case on his Truth Social platform, posting: “To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America’s big case today. If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE “DEAD,” WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!’’

In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that “a national emergency exists” necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, was unconvinced, ruling in May that Trump exceeded his powers.

The issue now rests with the appeals judges.

The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil more on Friday.

The case centers on Trump’s so-called Liberation Day tariffs of April 2 that imposed new levies on nearly every country. But it doesn’t cover other tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, nor ones imposed on China during Trump’s first term and continued by President Biden.

The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped his authority through the use of tariffs on other nations. The plaintiffs include 12 U.S. states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a company selling pipes and plumbing goods, and a maker of fishing gear.

The U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the authority to impose taxes — including tariffs — but over decades lawmakers have ceded power over trade policy to the White House.

Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University.

Wiseman and Sedensky write for the Associated Press. Sedensky reported from New York.

July 27 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Sunday announced 15% tariffs on most goods from the European Union, down from the threatened 30%, as part of a trade agreement with the 27-nation bloc.

Trump announced the deal at his Turnberry Isle Country Club in Scotland after his public session with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Trump said the EU won’t impose new tariffs on U.S. imports.

During the meeting with the media, both leaders said the chance of a deal was 50-50.

“You’re known as a tough negotiator and dealmaker,” von der Leyen told Trump, with reporters on hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2w3imNVMSM

Leyen said the agreement “will bring stability. It will bring predictability. That’s very important for our businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.”

Trump said the deal was “satisfactory to both sides” in a second press conference that followed their talks.

The EU is the largest U.S. trading partner with $605 billion in goods yearly. The products are mainly drugs and pharmaceuticals, primarily from Ireland, as well as aircraft and heavy machinery, mainly from France and Germany.

The 50% tariffs on steel, like for most other nations, would remain, and more duties could be imposed for pharmaceutical products, as well as semiconductors. Trump has also threatened a 200% tariff on any drugs imported to the United States.

Trump said that in the deal, the EU has agreed to purchase $750 billion worth of U.S. energy and invest $600 billion into the United States more than they are currently investing, which wasn’t detailed. The EU is opening the bloc to trade for zero tariffs, and it will purchase “a vast amount” of U.S. military equipment, though the exact amount was yet to be determined, Trump said.

Trump also added that the deal will have a great impact on the U.S. car industry, noting that few American vehicles had previously been sold on the continent.

“So, I just want to congratulate you,” Trump said to von der Leyen. “I think it’s great that we made a deal today instead of playing games and maybe not making a deal at all.”

Von der Leyen added that the deal means that “basically, the European market is open.”

“It’s a good deal. It’s a huge deal. It was tough negotiations. I knew it at the beginning and it was indeed very tough, but we came to a good conclusion for both sides.”

On April 2, he said he would impose a 20% duty against the EU, with most trading nations imposed a baseline of 10%. He paused the retaliatory tariffs on April 9 for 90 days.

In a letter to EU nations on July 12, the U.S. president threatened 30% retaliatory tariffs to take effect on Friday.

“Imposing 30% tariffs on EU exports would disrupt essential transatlantic supply chains, to the detriment of businesses, consumers and patients on both sides of the Atlantic,” von der Leyen said after Trump’s letter.

Letters to other nations, including Brazil, have threatened tariffs as high as 50%.

The Trump administration has been negotiating with other nations, including reaching deals with China (30%), Japan (15%), Indonesia (19%) and Vietnam (20%). Britain, which is not part of the European Union, has a reduction in some tariffs of 10% on up to 100,000 vehicles and 25% on steel and aluminum.

Last year, the average U.S. tariff on imports from the EU was 1.2%, according to Capital Economics’ chief Europe economist.

The deal with the European Union is part of a broader trade agreement. The EU had a $58.7 billion overall trade surplus with the United States in 2024. For goods, it was $168.6 billion but the deficit was $126 billion in services trade.

In 2024, the bloc bought nearly $400 billion in goods.

Michael Brown, a senior research strategist at British-based Pepperstone brokerage, told The New York Times that U.S. defense companies likely will emerge as winners from the deal.

July 12 (UPI) — The United States will start charging 30% tariffs on August 1 on products coming into the country from the European Union, President Donald Trump confirmed Saturday.

Trump confirmed the tariffs in a letter to European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen dated Friday and later posted on Truth Social.

“The United States of America has agreed to continue working with the European Union, despite having one of our largest trade deficits with you,” Trump wrote in the letter, which referred to the trade deficit as a matter of national security.

In the letter, Trump cited the need to “move away from these long-term, large, and persistent, Trade Deficits, endangered by your Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers.”

The news comes as Trump this week announced 35% import tariffs on all imports from Canada as the two countries were in the midst of negotiations.

Trump earlier this month said he would not waver from his July 9 deadline to impose reciprocal tariffs on countries around the world that failed to reach agreements with the United States.

Letters with final “take it or leave it” offers then began going out last week.

Vietnam and Britain are among the few countries that have reached deals with the United States on the tariff front prior to the deadline.

“Starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge The European Union a Tariff of only 30% on EU products sent into the United States,” Trump wrote in the letter.

“Please understand that this 30% number is far less than what is needed to eliminate the Trade Deficit disparity we have with the EU.”

Trump signaled tariffs could climb if the EU fails to “allow complete, open Market Access to the United States, with no Tariff being charged to us, in an attempt to reduce the large Trade Deficit.”

The president also warned the EU against escalating the situation, which von der Leyen indicated was a possibility.

“A 30% tariff on EU exports would hurt businesses, consumers and patients on both sides of the Atlantic. We will continue working towards an agreement by August 1,” von der Leyen wrote on X Saturday morning.

“At the same time, we are ready to safeguard EU interests on the basis of proportionate countermeasures.”

Trump addressed the possibility of retaliation in his letter.

“If for any reason you decide to raise your Tariffs and retaliate, then, whatever the number you choose to raise them by, will be added onto the 30% that we charge,” Trump wrote.

“This Deficit is a major threat to our Economy and, indeed, our National Security!”

Brits are being warned to check local laws in their holiday destinations before setting off as multiple countries impose strict vape bans that could result in a hefty fine or even prison time

As summer holiday season kicks off, British travellers are being urged to double-check vaping laws at their holiday destinations or risk hefty fines, confiscation, or even prison.

While most holidaymakers remember to pack suncream, passports and sunglasses, one everyday item could land you in trouble abroad: your vape. UK-based retailer WizVape has issued a warning for travellers this summer after the UK’s own ban on disposable vapes came into effect on June 1, 2025.

With similar restrictions now appearing across Europe and beyond, vape users could easily be caught out by local laws. “Many travellers are unaware that simply carrying a disposable vape could result in confiscation, hefty fines, or even legal trouble abroad,” says Saif Khan, Director at WizVape.

READ MORE: Inside an affordable European gem with ‘cobblestone old towns’ and stunning beaches

“Whether you’re heading to the beach or the city this summer, it’s essential to check the local laws before you fly.”

In Europe, countries such as France and Belgium have already implemented full bans on disposable vapes.

In Spain, vaping may still be legal, but using your device on beaches in Barcelona or Benidorm could see you slapped with a fine of up to €750 (£650).

Other European nations are planning restrictions too. A disposable vape ban in Germany has passed the Bundesrat but awaits parliamentary approval.

Ireland are also expected to implement a ban by the end of 2025. In Hungary, flavoured e-liquids and popular devices like Elf Bars are already prohibited.

“Make sure you’re using a reusable device and have packed enough refills so you don’t need to purchase a non-UK friendly vape for your return,” adds Khan.

Outside Europe, the risks are even higher. In Thailand, tourists face severe penalties for possession of any vaping device – including large fines or even jail time. Other destinations with complete bans include:

• Singapore – fines of up to £1,150 for possession.
• Mexico – devices often confiscated at airports.
• India, Qatar, Brazil and Argentina – strict bans and penalties in place.

Travellers returning to the UK should also be cautious about bringing disposables home. With the UK’s ban now in place, anyone caught with a single-use vape could have it confiscated at the border.

“Don’t assume what’s legal abroad is legal at home,” Khan warns. “Stay informed and travel smart this summer.”

READ MORE: Molly-Mae’s go-to skin-brightening pads help to instantly clear skin for a radiant glow

The United States will place a lower-than-promised 20 percent tariff on many Vietnamese exports, President Donald Trump has said, cooling tensions with its 10th-biggest trading partner days before he could raise levies on most imports.

Vietnamese goods will now face a 20 percent tariff, and any transshipments from third countries through Vietnam will face a 40 percent levy, Trump said, announcing the trade deal on Wednesday. Vietnam would accept US products with a zero percent tariff, he added.

“It is my Great Honor to announce that I have just made a Trade Deal with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” Trump said on Truth Social after speaking with Vietnam’s top leader, To Lam.

Trump’s announcement comes just days before a July 9 deadline he set to resolve negotiations before he ramps up tariffs on most imports, one of the Republican’s signature economic policies.

Under that plan announced in April, US importers of Vietnamese goods would have had to pay a 46 percent tariff.

The Vietnamese government said in a statement that the two countries agreed on a joint statement about a trade framework. It did not confirm the specific tariff levels mentioned by Trump.

Vietnam would commit to “providing preferential market access for US goods, including large-engine cars”, the government in Hanoi said.

A deal between the two countries would be a political boost for Trump, whose team has struggled to quickly close deals with Washington’s biggest trading partners ahead of the deadline.

While the administration has teased a forthcoming deal with India, truces reached earlier with the United Kingdom and China were limited in scope. Talks with Japan, the sixth-largest trading partner for the US and closest ally in Asia, appeared deadlocked.

“Vietnam has been very keen to get out from under this,’’ said Mary Lovely, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “This is forcing a smaller country to eat it, basically. We can do that. It’s the big countries that everybody’s keeping their eyes on.’’

She said she doubts that Trump will be able to impose such a lopsided agreement on big trading partners such as the European Union and Japan.

The US is Vietnam’s largest export market, and the two countries’ growing economic, diplomatic and military ties are a hedge against Washington’s biggest strategic rival, China. Vietnam has worked to retain close relations with both superpowers.

Shares of major US apparel and sportswear makers, including Nike, Under Armour and North Face maker VF Corp, rose on the news.

Lam also asked Trump for the US to recognise Vietnam as a market economy and remove restrictions on the exports of high-tech products to the country, Vietnam said. Those changes have long been sought by Hanoi and dismissed by Washington.

The White House and the Vietnamese Ministry of Industry and Trade did not respond to requests for additional comment.

Growing trade ties

Since Trump imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in Chinese goods in his 2017-2021 term, US trade with Vietnam has exploded.

Since 2018, Vietnam’s exports have gone up nearly threefold, from less than $50bn that year to about $137bn in 2024, Census Bureau data shows. US exports to Vietnam are up only about 30 percent in that time – to just over $13bn last year from less than $10bn in 2018.

Washington complains that Chinese goods have been dodging higher US tariffs by transiting through Vietnam.

William Reinsch, a former US trade official now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the significance of the transshipment crackdown will depend on “how the term is defined and enforced. Some transshipment is outright fraud – simply changing the label; some is a legitimate substantial transformation in Vietnam into a new product; and there is a lot in between. Enforcement is always complicated”.

Details were scarce, and it was not immediately clear how any transshipment provision aimed at products largely made in China and then finished in Vietnam would be implemented.

Trump announced a wave of tariffs for countries around the world on April 2, before pausing the implementation of most duties until July 9. More than a dozen countries are actively negotiating with the Trump administration to avoid a steep spike in tariffs on their exports.

The UK accepted a 10 percent US tariff on many goods, including autos, in exchange for special access for aircraft engines and British beef.

Like the agreement struck with the UK in May, the one with Vietnam resembles more a framework than a finalised trade pact.

China and the US also came to a truce in a tit-for-tat tariff battle in which Beijing restored American access to some rare earth minerals, but the two sides left most of their disagreements to later negotiations.

SANTIAGO, Chile, June 5 (UPI) — Colombia is at a democratic crossroads as President Gustavo Petro clashes with Congress and civil society over political disputes, legislative gridlock and stalled reforms.

At the center of the dispute is Petro’s announcement that he intends to call a national referendum by executive decree to revive parts of his agenda — particularly a labor reform bill recently rejected by the Senate.

For weeks, Petro’s proposal to call a national referendum has polarized the political climate.

His administration says the referendum would allow voters to weigh in on key issues, including healthcare and pension reforms, public debt restructuring and the potential formation of a constituent assembly.

The opposition and several legal experts have called the measure unconstitutional and an overreach of presidential powers.

Colombia’s Constitution outlines specific requirements for calling a national referendum, including congressional approval.

Petro’s opponents warn that bypassing this step would set a dangerous precedent, weakening democratic institutions and the separation of powers.

The possibility that Petro could issue a decree to call a national referendum without congressional approval may lead to a legal challenge before Colombia’s Constitutional Court. The court’s final ruling on the legality of such a decree will be critical in determining the future of the initiative and the balance of power among government institutions.

In addition to the referendum controversy, Petro’s labor reform proposal suffered a major defeat in the Senate, where it was rejected and shelved. The bill, one of the administration’s flagship initiatives to “dignify labor and improve working conditions,” failed to secure enough votes to move forward in the legislative process.

The government’s proposed labor reform included cutting the standard daytime work shift to eight hours, doubling pay for work on Sundays and holidays, formalizing employment for digital platform workers, extending paternity leave to 12 weeks and ensuring equal pay for men and women.

Business groups, such as the National Business Association of Colombia and the National Federation of Merchants have been outspoken in opposing the bill. They argue the reform would have negative economic consequences, including job losses, reduced investment and a rise in unregulated employment.

Despite the government’s efforts and intense debate, the bill failed to win over enough senators, many of whom also raised concerns about the reform’s potential impact on job creation and business competitiveness.

Attention now turns to the Constitutional Court, whose decision will be pivotal for the future of the referendum proposal and the broader institutional balance in Colombia.

May 22 (UPI) — The United States will impose sanctions on Sudan after determining that its military used chemical weapons against its breakaway paramilitary forces during their civil war, the State Department said.

The determination that the government of Sudan used chemical weapons last year was made by the United States on April 24 under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 and was delivered to Congress on Thursday.

The sanctions, which include restrictions on U.S. exports and access to U.S. government lines of credit, will be imposed on June 6, following the 15-day Congressional notification period, the department said.

The Sudanese government has yet to respond to the development.

The Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces have been locked in a brutal civil war since April 15, 2023, following years of political instability.

In March, the Sudanese military captured the capital, Khartoum, marking a significant victory in the war that has killed an estimated 150,000 people and continues to rage.

The United States has accused both SAF and RSF of committing crimes against humanity and, last month, said atrocities committed by the paramilitary forces meet the threshold of genocide.

In January, The New York Times reported that the SAF used chemical weapons at least twice against the RSF since the war began in remote areas of the country. Officials cited in the report said the chemical weapon used was chlorine gas.

Sudan has denied the accusation.

The Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 is a U.S. law that requires the president to impose sanctions on countries determined to use chemical weapons.

Sudan is also a signatory to the international Chemical Weapons Convention, which obliges all signatories to chemically disarm by destroying their stockpiles of chemical weapons.

“The United States calls on the Government of Sudan to cease all chemical weapons use and uphold its obligations under the CWC,” State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement.

“The United States remains fully committed to hold to account those responsible for contributing to chemical weapons proliferation.”