tariff

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.

Oct. 25 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Saturday said he will add a 10% tariff to Canadian goods after the airing of a controversial ad featuring former President Ronald Reagan during the World Series.

As the Toronto Blue Jays were on their way to winning the opening game by an 11-4 score over the Los Angeles Dodgers, an anti-tariffs ad featuring edited comments made by Reagan regarding his tariffs on Japanese goods.

The ad spurred Trump to follow through on an earlier threat to increase the tariff on Canadian goods exported to the United States.

“Canada was caught red-handed, putting up a fraudulent advertisement on Ronald Reagan’s speech on tariffs,” Trump said Saturday in a Truth Social post.

“The sole purpose of this fraud was Canada’s hope that the United States Supreme Court will come to their ‘rescue’ on tariffs that they have used for years to hurt the United States,” the president said.

“Ronald Reagan loved tariffs for the purpose of national security and the economy, but Canada said he didn’t,” Trump added.

The president said Canada was supposed to immediately cease airing the ad and remove it, but “they let it run last night during the World Series, knowing that it was a fraud.”

“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,” Trump added.

Reagan made the comments during an April 25, 1987, radio address to defend his tariff policy, but the Ontario government used and edited them without permission from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute.

The Ontario ad runs for a minute and edits the former president’s comments, which Trump and others have called “misleading.”

Ontario Premier Doug Ford said the ad’s intent is to “initiate a conversation” with U.S. officials and to reach “U.S. audiences at the highest levels,” CBS News reported.

The U.S. imposes a 10% tariff on Canadian energy, energy resources and potash and 35% for all other products that are not exempted by the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, according to the ReedSmith Trump 2.0 Tariff Tracker.

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE — President Trump headed for Asia for the first time this term, a trip where he’s expected to work on investment deals and peace efforts before meeting face-to-face with Chinese President Xi Jinping to try to de-escalate a trade war.

“We have a lot to talk about with President Xi, and he has a lot to talk about with us,” Trump told reporters Friday night as he left the White House. “I think we’ll have a good meeting.”

The president was taking a long-haul flight that has him arriving in Malaysia on Sunday morning, the first stop of a three-country visit.

His trip comes as the U.S. government shutdown drags on. Many federal workers are set to miss their first full paycheck next week, there are flight disruptions as already-squeezed air traffic controllers work without pay, and states are confronting the possibility that federal food aid could dry up. As Republicans reject Democratic demands to maintain healthcare subsidies for many Americans, there’s no sign of a break in the impasse.

Some Democrats criticized the president for traveling abroad during the standoff.

“America is shut down and the President is skipping town,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said.

Trump’s first stop is at a regional summit in Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian capital. He attended the annual Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations summit only once during his first term, but this year it comes as Malaysia and the U.S. have been working to address a military conflict between Thailand and Cambodia.

On Sunday, he’s scheduled to meet with Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, followed by a joint signing ceremony with the prime ministers of Thailand and Cambodia.

Trump threatened earlier this year to withhold trade deals with the countries if they didn’t stop fighting, and his administration has since been working with Malaysia to nail down an expanded ceasefire.

The president credited Ibrahim with working to resolve the conflict.

“I told the leader of Malaysia, who is a very good man, I think I owe you a trip,” he told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Trump on Sunday may also have a significant meeting with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who wants to see the U.S. cut a 40% tariff on Brazilian imports. Trump has justified the tariffs by citing Brazil’s criminal prosecution of his ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro, who was sentenced to 27 years in prison for plotting a coup.

Beyond trade, Lula on Friday also criticized the U.S. campaign of military strikes off the South American coast in the name of fighting drug trafficking. He said he planned to raise concerns with Trump at a meeting on Sunday in Malaysia. The White House has not yet confirmed the meeting is set to take place.

Stops in Japan and South Korea

From there, Trump heads to Japan and South Korea, where he’s expected to make progress on talks for at least $900 billion in investments for U.S. factories and other projects that those countries committed to in return for easing Trump’s planned tariff rates down to 15% from 25%.

The trip to Tokyo comes a week after Japan elected its first female prime minister, Sanae Takaichi. Trump is set to meet with Takaichi, who is a protege of late former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Trump was close to Abe, who was assassinated after leaving office.

Trump said Takaichi’s relationship with Abe was “a good sign” and “I look forward to meeting her.”

While there, Trump is expected to be hosted by Japanese Emperor Naruhito and meet with U.S. troops who are stationed in Japan, according to a senior U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity about the planned trip.

In South Korea, Trump is expected to hold a highly anticipated meeting with China’s Xi on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

The APEC summit is set to be held in Gyeongju, and the Trump-Xi meeting is expected to take place in the city of Busan, according to the U.S. official.

The meeting follows months of volatile moves in a trade war between China and the U.S. that have rattled the global economy.

Trump was infuriated this month after Beijing imposed new export controls on rare earths used in technology and threatened to hike retaliatory tariffs to sky-high levels. He has said he wants China to buy U.S. soybeans. But this week Trump was optimistic, predicting he would reach a “fantastic deal” with Xi.

The U.S. president also said he might ask Xi about freeing Jimmy Lai, a Hong Kong pro-democracy newspaper founder, saying that “it’ll be on my list.”

The only meeting that could possibly eclipse the Xi summit would be an impromptu reunion with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Speculation has been rife since South Korea’s Unification Minister Chung Dong-young told lawmakers this month it was possible that Trump could again meet with Kim in the demilitarized zone, as he did during his first term in 2019.

But such a meeting is not on the president’s schedule for this trip, according to the U.S. official.

Trump suggested it was hard to reach the North Korean leader.

“They have a lot of nuclear weapons, but not a lot of telephone service,” he said.

Price and Schiefelbein write for the Associated Press. Price reported from Washington and Schiefelbein from aboard Air Force One. AP writer Darlene Superville in Washington contributed to this report.

US president says Ontario government’s anti-tariff ad featuring Ronald Reagan needed to be taken down ‘immediately’.

Donald Trump has announced an additional 10-percent tariff on Canada, as the United States president continues to slam his country’s northern neighbour over a contentious anti-tariff advertisement featuring former President Ronald Reagan.

In a social media post on Saturday, Trump said the ad “was to be taken down, IMMEDIATELY, but [Canada] let it run last night during the World Series, knowing that it was a FRAUD”.

“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,” he said.

The advertisement, produced by the Canadian province of Ontario, features a 1980s speech by Reagan in which the former Republican leader had warned against the ramifications that high tariffs on foreign imports could have on the US economy.

The US government suspended trade talks with Canada this week over the ad, accusing the Ontario provincial government of misrepresenting Reagan’s position and seeking to influence a looming US Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s tariffs policy.

On Friday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced that, after consulting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, the province would “pause its US advertising campaign effective Monday so that trade talks can resume”.

“Our intention was always to initiate a conversation about the kind of economy that Americans want to build and the impact of tariffs on workers and businesses. We’ve achieved our goal, having reached US audiences at the highest levels,” Ford wrote on X.

“I’ve directed my team to keep putting our message in front of Americans over the weekend so that we can air our commercial during the first two World Series games.”

The Canadian government did not immediately comment on Trump’s announcement of additional tariffs on Saturday.

It is unclear whether the ad will run during the second World Series game between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Los Angeles Dodgers, which is set for 8pm local time in Toronto on Saturday (00:00 GMT Sunday).

Since taking office in January, Trump has unveiled sweeping tariffs against a number of countries including Canada, straining relations with the US’s longtime ally.

More to come…

Trade tariffs are mixing up the global economy in 2025. The Trump administration has issued double-digit import fees on goods from most countries, with even higher rates in markets like China and India. Some of these tariffs are currently in effect, while others are pending, with a patchwork of countermeasures issued by the targeted countries. To keep an eye on this messy situation, check out The Motley Fool’s tariff and trade investigation tracker — a living document that does all the hard data-tracking work for you.

Few companies are more international than IBM (IBM 1.82%) — Big Blue even has “international” in its name. It runs research labs on six continents, has more employees in India than the United States, and runs business offices in more than 170 countries. Almost exactly half of IBM’s revenues were collected in the Americas in 2024, which also includes Canada and Latin America.

Surely this global giant must feel the pinch from criss-crossing tariff policies, right? As it turns out, IBM isn’t too concerned with the ongoing trade tensions.

Image source: Getty Images.

How exposed is IBM to the tariff tango?

There are different ways to figure out IBM’s tariff exposure. I could take the complicated web of current and future tariff rates, apply them to each of IBM’s products and services in various countries, and create an intimidating spreadsheet. Or I could look for management’s statements about the tariff challenge.

The company helped me out by addressing the unpredictable tariff policies in the first-quarter earnings call. This call took place on April 23, three weeks after Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff announcement.

“Over the last several years, we have strategically diversified and streamlined our supply chain,” said CFO Jim Kavanaugh. “Goods imported to the U.S. represent less than 5% of our overall spend and under current U.S. tariff policy, the impact to IBM is minimal.”

Why IBM shrugs at tariff headlines

That brief statement means a couple of things to me:

• It’s IBM’s only official discussion of tariffs in 2025, even though the trade expenses have shifted significantly since April. In other words, the tariff issue is hardly worth mentioning.
• Applying tariff rates to “less than 5%” of IBM’s global spending is not exactly nothing, of course. I’d hate to cover that multimillion-dollar bill from my personal accounts. IBM still builds mainframe computers, requiring parts from tariff-laden countries like China or the European Union. But the cost of products and services stopped at 16.3% of total revenues last year, and 5% of that gross expense ratio is less than 1% of IBM’s incoming revenues. Even if every tariff were a beefy 100% surcharge, that’s a pretty manageable extra cost — and most of the international trade fees are far smaller.

IBM plays it safe anyway

I’m still waiting for IBM to issue further updates about the tariff situation, but I’m not holding my breath in anticipation. Yes, the company is tremendously global, but it can still operate comfortably without running into game-changing tariff expenses.

At the same time, IBM is taking action to minimize even this modest financial impact. Kavanaugh also noted that IBM is looking into alternative sources for tariff-laden components. Every dollar counts, you know.

Furthermore, Big Blue announced a $150 billion American investment plan at the end of April. The company will move significant manufacturing and research assets to domestic soil over the next five years, starting with $30 billion of mainframe development and quantum computing research operations. Again, the tariffs don’t really hurt, but it can’t be a bad idea to minimize the financial sting anyway. Plus, this homebound manufacturing move might unlock unrelated favors from the Trump team.

So, it makes sense to take some tariff-dodging action, but IBM would barely notice the extra costs anyhow. I don’t expect Big Blue to suffer a tariff-related downturn any time soon.

Spain argues NATO funding should address real threats, not arbitrary targets, amidst Trump’s tariff retaliation plans.

The European Commission and Spain’s government have dismissed US President Donald Trump’s latest threat to impose higher tariffs on Madrid over its refusal to meet his proposed NATO target for defence spending.

Trump said on Tuesday that he was “very unhappy” with Spain for being the only NATO member to reject the new spending objective of 5 percent of economic output, adding that he was considering punishing the Mediterranean country.

“I was thinking of giving them trade punishment through tariffs because of what they did, and I think I may do that,” Trump added. He had previously suggested making Spain “pay twice as much” in trade talks.

Trade policy falls under the remit of Brussels, and the European Commission would “respond appropriately, as we always do, to any measures taken against one or more of our member states”, commission spokesperson Olof Gill said in a press briefing on Wednesday.

The trade deal between the European Union and the United States signed in July was the right platform to address any issues, Gill added.

“The defence spending debate is not about increasing spending for the sake of increasing it, but about responding to real threats,” Spain’s Economy and Trade Ministry said in a statement.

“We’re doing our part to develop the necessary capabilities and contribute to the collective defence of our allies.”

Spain has more than doubled nominal defence spending from 0.98 percent of gross domestic product in 2017 to 2 percent this year, equivalent to about 32.7bn euros ($38bn).

Defence Minister Margarita Robles said allies weren’t discussing the 5 percent target for 2035 in Wednesday’s meeting because they were prioritising the present situation in Ukraine, but wouldn’t completely rule out a shift in Spain’s position.

Targeted tariffs by the US against individual EU member states are rare, but there are precedents, said Ignacio Garcia Bercero, a senior fellow at the Brussels-based economic think tank Bruegel.

In 1999, the US hit the EU with 100 percent punitive tariffs on products such as chocolate, pork, onions and truffles in retaliation for an EU import ban on hormone-treated beef. But those tariffs excluded Britain, which at the time was still a member of the trade bloc.

The US could impose anti-dumping penalties on European products that are mostly produced in Spain, said Juan Carlos Martinez Lazaro, professor at Madrid’s IE business school.

In 2018, Washington imposed a combination of duties of more than 30 percent on Spanish black table olives at the request of Californian olive growers. Spain’s share of the US market plummeted from 49 percent in 2017 to 19 percent in 2024.

Another option would be moving the naval and air bases the US has in southern Spain to Morocco – an idea floated by former Trump official Robert Greenway – which would damage the local economies through the loss of thousands of indirect jobs.

China has accused the United States of “double standards” after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose an additional 100 percent tariff on Chinese goods in response to Beijing’s curbs on exports of rare earth minerals.

China says its export control measures announced last week were in response to the US restrictions on its entities and targeting of Beijing’s maritime, logistics and shipbuilding industries.

Trump’s tariff threats, which come weeks ahead of the likely meeting between the US president and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, have the potential to reignite a trade war months after Washington lowered the China tariffs from 125 to 30 percent.

The actions by the world’s two largest economies threaten to ignite a new trade war, adding further uncertainty to global trade. So what’s the recent history of US trade measures against China, and will the two countries be able to resolve their differences?

Why did China tighten export controls on rare earths?

On October 9, China expanded export controls to cover 12 out of 17 rare-earth metals and certain refining equipment, effective December 1, after accusing Washington of harming China’s interests and undermining “the atmosphere of bilateral economic and trade talks”.

China also placed restrictions on the export of specialist technological equipment used to refine rare-earth metals on Thursday.

Beijing justified its measures, accusing Washington of imposing a series of trade curbs on Chinese entities despite the two sides being engaged in trade talks, with the last one taking place in Madrid, Spain last month.

Foreign companies now need Beijing’s approval to export products containing Chinese rare earths, and must disclose their intended use. China said the heightened restrictions come as a result of national security interests.

China has a near monopoly over rare earths, critical for the manufacture of technology such as electric cars, smartphones, semiconductors and weapons.

The US is a major consumer of Chinese rare earths, which are crucial for the US defence industry.

At the end of this month, Trump and Xi are expected to meet in South Korea, and experts speculate that Beijing’s move was to gain bargaining advantage in trade negotiations with Washington.

China’s tightening of restrictions on rare earths is “pre-meeting choreography” before Trump’s meeting with Xi, Kristin Vekasi, the Mansfield chair of Japan and Indo-Pacific Affairs at the University of Montana, told Al Jazeera.

How did Trump respond?

On October 10, Trump announced the imposition of a 100 percent tariff on China, effective from November 1.

“Based on the fact that China has taken this unprecedented position … the United States of America will impose a Tariff of 100 percent on China, over and above any Tariff that they are currently paying,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform.

He added that this would come into effect on November 1 or before that. Trump added that the US would also impose export controls on “any and all critical software”.

Earlier on October 10, Trump accused China of “trade hostility” and even said he might scrap his meeting with Xi. It is unclear at this point whether the meeting will take place.

“What the United States has is we have a lot of leverage, and my hope, and I know the president’s hope, is that we don’t have to use that leverage,” US Vice President JD Vance told Fox News on Sunday.

How did China respond to that?

China deemed the US retaliation a “double standard”, according to remarks by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce spokesperson on Sunday.

China said that Washington had “overstretched the concept of national security, abused export control measures” and “adopted discriminatory practices against China”.

“We are living in an era of deeper intertwining of security and economic policies. Both the US and China have expanded their conceptions of national security, encompassing a range of economic activities,” Manoj Kewalramani, chairperson of the Indo-Pacific Studies Programme at the Takshashila Institution in Bangalore, India, told Al Jazeera.

“Both have also weaponised economic interdependence with each other and third parties. There are, in other words, no saints in this game.”

Kewalramani said that China started expanding the idea of “national security” much earlier than others, especially with its “comprehensive national security concept” introduced in 2014.

Through this, China began to include many different areas, such as economics, technology, and society, under the term “national security”. This shows that China was ahead of other countries in broadening what counts as a national security issue.

China threatened additional measures if Trump went ahead with his pledge.

“Willful threats of high tariffs are not the right way to get along with China. China’s position on the trade war is consistent: we do not want it, but we are not afraid of it,” the Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesperson said in a statement.

“Should the US persist in its course, China will resolutely take corresponding measures to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests,” the statement said.

What trade measures has the US taken against China in recent history?

2025: Trump unleashes tariff war

A month after taking office for his second term, Trump signed an executive order imposing a 10 percent tariff on all imports from China, citing a trade deficit in favour of China. In this order, he also imposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada. China levied countermeasures, imposing duties on US products in retaliation.

In March, the US president doubled the tariff on all Chinese products to 20 percent as of March 4. China imposed a 15 percent tariff on a range of US farm exports in retaliation; these took effect on March 10.

Trump announced his “reciprocal tariffs,” imposing a 34 percent tariff on Chinese products. China retaliated, also announcing a 34 percent tariff on US products. This was the first time China announced export controls on rare earths.

Hours after the reciprocal tariffs went into effect, Trump paused them for all his tariff targets except China. The US and China continued to hike tit-for-tat levies on each other.

Trump slapped 145 percent tariffs on Chinese imports, prompting China to hit back with 125 percent tariffs. Washington and Beijing later cut tariffs to 30 percent and 10 percent, respectively, in May, then agreed to a 90-day truce in August for trade talks. The truce has been extended twice.

December 2024: The microchip controls are tightened

In December 2024, Trump’s predecessor, former US President Joe Biden, tightened controls on the sale of microchips first introduced on October 2022.

Under the new controls, 140 companies from China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore were added to a list of restricted entities. The US also banned more advanced chip-making equipment to certain countries. Even products manufactured abroad with US technology were restricted.

April 2024: Biden signs the TikTok ban

Biden signed a bill into law that would ban TikTok unless it was sold to a non-Chinese buyer within a year. The US government alleged that TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance was linked to the Chinese government, making the app a threat to national security.

ByteDance sued the US federal government over this bill in May 2024.

In September this year, Trump announced that a deal was finalised to find a new owner of TikTok.

October 2023: Biden introduces more restrictions on chips

In October 2023, Biden restricted US exports of advanced computer chips, especially those made by Nvidia, to China and other countries.

The goal of this measure was to limit China’s access to “advanced semiconductors that could fuel breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and sophisticated computers that are critical to [Chinese] military applications,” Gina Raimondo, who was secretary of the US Department of Commerce during the Biden administration, told reporters.

Prior to this, Biden signed an executive order in August 2023, creating a programme that limits US investments in certain high-tech areas, including semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence, in countries deemed to be a security risk, like China.

October 2022: Biden restricts Chinese access to semiconductors

Biden restricted China’s access to US semiconductors in October 2022. The rules further expanded restrictions on chipmaking tools to include industries that support the semiconductor supply chain, blocking both access to American expertise and the essential components used in manufacturing the tools that produce microchips.

Semiconductors are used in the manufacturing of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. The US government placed these restrictions back then to limit China’s ability to acquire the ability to produce semiconductors and advance in the technological race.

The restrictions made it compulsory for entities within China to apply for licences to acquire American semiconductors. Analysis by the US-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace described these licences as “hard to get” back then.

Recently, some US lawmakers are calling for even more restrictions, warning that China could quickly reverse-engineer advanced semiconductor technologies on its own, outpace the US in the sector, and gain a military edge.

May 2020: Trump cracks down on Huawei

In May 2020, the US Bureau of Industry and Security intensified rules to stop Huawei, the Chinese tech giant, from using American technology and software to design and make semiconductors in other countries.

The new rules said that semiconductors are designed for Huawei using US technology or equipment, anywhere in the world, would need US government approval before being sent to Huawei.

May 2019: Trump bans Huawei

Trump signed an executive order blocking Chinese telecommunications companies like Huawei from selling equipment in the US. The Shenzhen-based Huawei is the world’s largest provider of 5G networks, according to analysis by the New York City-based think tank the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Under this order, Huawei and 114 related entities were added to a list that requires US companies to get special permission (a licence) before selling certain technologies to them.

The rationale behind this order was the allegation that Huawei threatened US national security, had stolen intellectual property and could commit cyber espionage. Some US lawmakers alleged that the Chinese government was using Huawei to spy on Americans. The US did not publicise any evidence to back these allegations.

Other Western countries had also cooperated with the US.

March 2018: Trump imposes tariffs on China

During his first administration, Trump imposed sweeping 25 percent tariffs on Chinese goods worth as much as $60bn. In June of 2018, Trump announced more tariffs.

China retaliated by imposing tariffs on US products. Beijing deemed Trump’s trade policies “trade bullyism practices”, according to an official white paper, as reported by Xinhua news agency.

In September 2018, Trump issued another round of 10 percent tariffs on Chinese products, which were hiked to 25 percent in May 2019.

During the Obama administration (2009-2017)

In 2011, during US President Barack Obama’s tenure, the US-China trade deficit reached an all-time high of $295.5bn, up from $273.1bn in the previous year.

In March 2012, the US, European Union, and Japan formally complained to China at the World Trade Organization (WTO) about China’s limits on selling rare earth metals to other countries. This move was deemed “rash and unfair” by China.

In its ruling, the world trade body said China’s export restraints were breaching the WTO rules.

In 2014, the US indicted five Chinese nationals with alleged ties to China’s People’s Liberation Army. They were charged with stealing trade technology from American companies.

What’s next for the US-China trade war?

Trump and Xi are expected to meet in South Korea on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), which is set to begin on October 31.

But the latest trade dispute has clouded the Xi-Trump meeting.

On Sunday, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, downplaying the threat: “Don’t worry about China, it will all be fine! Highly respected President Xi just had a bad moment. He doesn’t want Depression for his country, and neither do I. The U.S.A. wants to help China, not hurt it!!!”

In an interview with Fox Business Network on Monday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, “President Trump said that the tariffs would not go into effect until November 1. He will be meeting with [Communist] Party Chair Xi in [South] Korea. I believe that meeting will still be on.”

When it comes to which of the two players is more affected by the trade war, Kewalramani said that he thinks “what matters is who is willing to bear greater pain, endure greater cost”.

“This is the crucial question. I would wager that Beijing is probably better placed because Washington has alienated allies and partners with its policies since January. But then, China’s growing export controls are not simply aimed at the US. They impact every country. So Beijing has not also endeared itself to anyone,” Kewalramani said, pointing out how Trump’s tariffs and China’s rare earth restrictions target multiple countries.

“The ones affected the most are countries caught in the midst of great power competition.”

On Sunday, US VP Vance told Fox News about China: “If they respond in a highly aggressive manner, I guarantee you, the president of the United States has far more cards than the People’s Republic of China.”

Kewalramani said that so far, Beijing has been more organised, prepared and strategic than the US in its policies.

“That said, it has overreached with the latest round of export controls. US policy, meanwhile, has lacked strategic coherence. The US still is the dominant global power and has several cards to play. What matters, however, is whether it can get its house in order.”

Oct. 13 (UPI) — China vowed to retaliate if U.S. President Donald Trump makes good on his threat to impose a 100% tariff on goods from the Asian country, further straining fraught trade relations between the world’s largest economies.

“If the U.S. insists on going the wrong way, China will surely take resolute measures to protect its legitimate rights and interests,” a spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Commerce said Sunday in a statement.

The back and forth comes after representatives from Washington and Beijing held trade talks in Beijing last month with prospects of further negotiations continuing this month in South Korea.

However, whether those discussions will continue on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Gyeongju remains unclear.

U.S.-China trade relations have deteriorated under the Trump administration, which has repeatedly imposed tariffs on Chinese goods that are being challenged in U.S. courts are at the World Trade Organization.

Late last week, Beijing’s Commerce Ministry announced tighten export restrictions on rare earth items and materials. In response, Trump announced the 100% tariff threat on his Truth Social media platform. China imports are currently subject to a 30% tariff.

The American leader said the import tax would go into effect Nov. 1, along with additional export controls on so-called critical software.

“It is impossible to believe that China would take such an action, but they have, and the rest is History,” Trump said in the statement.

China’s commerce ministry on Sunday accused the United States of hypocrisy, saying Washington in the 20 days since their talks in Madrid has “introduced a string of new restrictive measures,” pointing to Washington putting multiple Chinese firms on the Entity List, expanded the scope of export controls affecting thousands of Chinese companies and other actions.

“The U.S. actions have severely harmed China’s interests and undermined the atmosphere of bilateral economic and trade talks, and China is resolutely opposed to them,” the ministry spokesperson said.

“China’s stance is consistent. We do not want a tariff war but we are not afraid of one.”

Beijing says it will not back down in the face of threats, urging the US to resolve differences through negotiations.

China has called United States President Donald Trump’s new tariffs on Chinese goods hypocritical as it defended its curbs on exports of rare earth elements and equipment, while stopping short of imposing additional duties on US imports.

In a lengthy statement on Sunday, China’s Ministry of Commerce said its export controls on rare earths, which Trump had labelled “surprising” and “very hostile”, were introduced in response to a series of US measures since their trade talks held in Madrid, Spain, last month.

“China’s stance is consistent,” the ministry said in a statement posted online. “We do not want a tariff war but we are not afraid of one.”

Trump on Friday retaliated to the Chinese curbs on rare earth exports by announcing a 100 percent tariff on Chinese exports to the US and new export controls on critical software, effective from November 1.

Beijing cited Washington’s decision to blacklist Chinese firms and impose port fees on China-linked ships as examples of what it called “provocative and damaging” actions, calling Trump’s tariff threat a “typical example of double standards”.

“These actions have severely harmed China’s interests and undermined the atmosphere for bilateral economic and trade talks. China firmly opposes them,” the ministry said.

Unlike earlier rounds of tit-for-tat tariffs, China has not yet announced any countermeasures.

Rare earths have been a major sticking point in recent trade negotiations between the two superpowers. They are critical to manufacturing everything from smartphones and electric vehicles to military hardware and renewable energy technology.

China dominates the global production and processing of these materials. On Thursday, it announced new controls on the export of technologies used for the mining and processing of critical minerals.

The renewed trade tensions between the world’s two largest economies also risk derailing a potential summit between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea later this month. It would have been their first face-to-face encounter since Trump returned to power in January.

The dispute has also rattled global markets, dragging down major tech stocks and worrying companies reliant on China’s dominance in rare earth processing.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Friday that he’s placing an additional 100% tax on Chinese imports starting on Nov. 1 or sooner, potentially escalating tariff rates close to levels that in April fanned fears of a steep recession and financial market chaos.

The president said on his social media site that he is imposing these new tariffs because of export controls placed on rare earth elements by China. The new tariffs built on an earlier post Friday on Truth Social in which Trump said that “there seems to be no reason” to meet with Chinese leader Xi Jinping as part of an upcoming trip to South Korea.

Trump said that “starting November 1st, 2025 (or sooner, depending on any further actions or changes taken by China), the United States of America will impose a Tariff of 100% on China, over and above any Tariff that they are currently paying.”

The announcement after financial markets closed on Friday risked throwing the global economy into turmoil. Not only would the global trade war instigated by Trump be rekindled at dangerous levels, but import taxes being heaped on top of the 30% already being levied on Chinese goods could, by the administration’s past statements, cause trade to break down between the U.S. and China.

While Trump’s wording was definitive, he is also famously known for backing down from threats, such that some investors began engaging in what The Financial Times called the “TACO” trade, which stands for “Trump Always Chickens Out.” The prospect of tariffs this large could compound the president’s own political worries inside the U.S., potentially pushing up inflation at a moment when the job market appears fragile and the drags from a government shutdown are starting to compound into layoffs of federal workers.

The president also said that the U.S. government would respond to China by putting its own export controls “on any and all critical software” from American firms.

It’s possible that this could amount to either posturing by the United States for eventual negotiations or a retaliatory step that could foster new fears about the stability of the global economy.

The United States and China have been jostling for advantage in trade talks, after the import taxes announced earlier this year triggered a trade war between the world’s two largest economies. Both nations agreed to ratchet down tariffs after negotiations in Switzerland and the United Kingdom, yet tensions remain as China has continued to restrict America’s access to the difficult-to-mine rare earths needed for a wide array of U.S. technologies.

Trump did not formally cancel the meeting with Xi, so much as indicating that it might not happen as part of a trip at the end of the month in Asia. The trip was scheduled to include a stop in Malaysia, which is hosting the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit; a stop in Japan; and a visit to South Korea, where he was slated to meet with Xi ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

“I was to meet President Xi in two weeks, at APEC, in South Korea, but now there seems to be no reason to do so,” Trump posted.

Trump’s threat shattered a monthslong calm on Wall Street, and the S&P 500 tumbled 2.7% on worries about the rising tensions between the world’s largest economies. It was the market’s worst day since April when the president last bandied about import taxes this high. Still, the stock market closed before the president spelled out the terms of his threat.

China’s new restrictions

On Thursday, the Chinese government restricted access to the rare earths ahead of the scheduled Trump-Xi meeting. Beijing would require foreign companies to get special approval for shipping the metallic elements abroad. It also announced permitting requirements on exports of technologies used in the mining, smelting and recycling of rare earths, adding that any export requests for products used in military goods would be rejected.

Trump said that China is “becoming very hostile” and that it’s holding the world “captive” by restricting access to the metals and magnets used in electronics, computer chips, lasers, jet engines and other technologies.

The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to an Associated Press request for comment.

Sun Yun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center, said Beijing reacted to U.S. sanctions of Chinese companies this week and the upcoming port fees targeting China-related vessels but said there’s room for deescalation to keep the leaders’ meeting alive. “It is a disproportional reaction,” Sun said. “Beijing feels that deescalation will have to be mutual as well. There is room for maneuver, especially on the implementation.”

The U.S. president said the move on rare earths was “especially inappropriate” given the announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza so that the remaining hostages from Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack can be released. He raised the possibility without evidence that China was trying to steal the moment from him for his role in the ceasefire, saying on social media, “I wonder if that timing was coincidental?”

There is already a backlog of export license applications from Beijing’s previous round of export controls on rare earth elements, and the latest announcements “add further complexity to the global supply chain of rare earth elements,” the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China said in a statement.

Gracelin Baskaran, director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., said China signaled it is open to negotiations, but it also holds leverage because to dominates the market for rare earths with 70% of the mining and 93% of the production of permanent magnets made from them that are crucial to high-tech products and the military.

“These restrictions undermine our ability to develop our industrial base at a time when we need to. And then second, it’s a powerful negotiating tool,” she said. And these restrictions can hurt efforts to strengthen the U.S. military in the midst of global tensions because rare earths are needed.

Trump’s trade war

The outbreak of a tariff-fueled trade war between the U.S. and China initially caused the world economy to shudder over the possibility of global commerce collapsing. Trump imposed tariffs totaling 145% on Chinese goods, with China responding with import taxes of 125% on American products.

The taxes were so high as to effectively be a blockade on trade between the countries. That led to negotiations that reduced the tariff charged by the U.S. government to 30% and the rate imposed by China to 10% so that further talks could take place. The relief those lower rates provided could now disappear with the new import taxes Trump threatened, likely raising the stakes not only of whether Trump and Xi meet but how any disputes are resolved.

Differences continue over America’s access to rare earths from China, U.S. restrictions on China’s ability to import advanced computer chips, sales of American-grown soybeans and a series of tit-for-tat port fees being levied by both countries starting on Tuesday.

Nebraska Republican Rep. Don Bacon said “China has not been a fair-trade partner for years,” but the Trump administration should have anticipated China’s restrictions on rare earths and refusal to buy American soybeans in response to the tariffs.

How analysts see moves by U.S. and China

Wendy Cutler, senior vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, said Trump’s post shows the fragility of the détente between the two countries and it’s unclear whether the two sides are willing to de-escalate to save the bilateral meeting.

Cole McFaul, a research fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, said that Trump appeared in his post to be readying for talks on the possibility that China had overplayed its hand. By contrast, China sees itself as having come out ahead when the two countries have engaged in talks.

“From Beijing’s point of view, they’re in a moment where they’re feeling a lot of confidence about their ability to handle the Trump administration,” McFaul said. “Their impression is they’ve come to the negotiating table and extracted key concessions.”

Craig Singleton, senior director of the China program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a think tank, said Trump’s post could “mark the beginning of the end of the tariff truce” that had lowered the tax rates charged by both countries.

It’s still unclear how Trump intends to follow through on his threats and how China plans to respond.

“But the risk is clear: Mutually assured disruption between the two sides is no longer a metaphor,” Singleton said. “Both sides are reaching for their economic weapons at the same time, and neither seems willing to back down.”

Boak and Tang write for the Associated Press. AP writers Stan Choe in New York and Josh Funk in Omaha, Neb., contributed to the report.

Franklin Street Advisors disclosed an exit from Intuitive Surgical (ISRG -0.92%) in its latest SEC filing for the quarter ended September 30, selling 42,601 shares for an estimated $23.2 million.

What Happened

According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission released on Thursday, Franklin Street Advisors sold its entire holding in Intuitive Surgical, divesting 42,601 shares. The estimated value of the transaction, calculated using the average market price during the quarter, was approximately $23.2 million.

What Else to Know

Franklin Street Advisors’ Intuitive Surgical position previously comprised 1.4% of the fund’s 13F assets.

Top holdings after the filing:

• NVDA: $132.2 million (7.6% of AUM)
• MSFT: $115.2 million (6.6% of AUM)
• AAPL: $110.4 million (6.4% of AUM)
• GOOGL: $91.2 million (5.3% of AUM)
• AMZN: $72.5 million (4.2% of AUM)

As of Thursday afternoon, shares of Intuitive Surgical were priced at $443.87, down 9.5% over the past year and underperforming the S&P 500’s 16% gain.

Company Overview

Company Snapshot

• Intuitive Surgical offers the da Vinci Surgical System for minimally invasive surgery and the Ion endoluminal system for diagnostic lung procedures, along with surgical instruments, digital solutions, and support services.
• The company generates revenue primarily through the sale of surgical systems, recurring instrument and accessory sales, and service contracts for its installed base.
• It serves hospitals, surgical centers, and healthcare providers globally, targeting institutions seeking advanced minimally invasive surgical capabilities.

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets products that enable physicians and healthcare providers to enhance the quality of, and access to, minimally invasive care in the United States and internationally. Its strategic focus on innovation and expanding procedure adoption underpins its long-term growth trajectory.

Foolish take

Franklin Street Advisors’ $23.2 million sale of its entire Intuitive Surgical position marks a clear step back from the medical robotics firm after a volatile year for the stock. Shares have fallen more than 25% from their all-time high in January, as investors weigh valuation concerns and new tariff-related risks that management warned could trim 2025 margins by about 1 percentage point.

In its second-quarter 2025 earnings, Intuitive posted revenue of $2.4 billion, up 21% year-over-year, with worldwide da Vinci procedure volume climbing 17%. Meanwhile, GAAP net income rose 25% to $658 million ($1.81 per share). Yet even with expanding adoption, tightening gross margins—driven by higher input costs and tariffs on components from Mexico, Germany, and China—tempered enthusiasm.

CEO Dave Rosa said Intuitive remains “committed to advancing care” and expanding access to minimally invasive surgery worldwide. But after a multi-year run-up, Franklin’s decision to take profits may signal growing caution among institutional investors who see near-term headwinds outpacing the company’s impressive long-term growth story.

Glossary

13F reportable assets: Assets that institutional investment managers must disclose quarterly to the SEC, showing their holdings in U.S. publicly traded securities.
Assets under management (AUM): The total market value of investments that a fund or firm manages on behalf of clients.
Full exit: When an investor sells all shares of a particular holding, eliminating exposure to that asset.
Stake: The amount of ownership or investment a fund or individual holds in a company or asset.
Filing: An official document submitted to a regulatory authority, such as the SEC, to disclose financial or operational information.
Divesting: Selling off an asset or investment, often to reduce risk or change portfolio strategy.
Minimally invasive surgery: Surgical procedures performed through small incisions, often using specialized instruments or robotic systems.
Installed base: The total number of a company’s products currently in use by customers.
Service contracts: Agreements for ongoing maintenance, support, or services related to products sold.
Procedure adoption: The rate at which new medical procedures or technologies are implemented by healthcare providers.
TTM: The 12-month period ending with the most recent quarterly report.

The European Union’s plan to hike tariffs on steel imported over and above its annual threshold could tip the United Kingdom’s steel industry into its worst crisis in history, industry leaders have warned.

On Tuesday, the European Commission proposed that the 27-member bloc would slash its tariff-free steel import quota by 47 percent to 18.3 million tonnes and would impose a tariff of 50 percent on any steel imported in excess of this amount.

This represents a sharp hike: The EU’s current annual steel import quota stands at 33 million tonnes, and imports above this limit are subject to a 25 percent tariff.

The announcement has rattled the British steel industry, which exports nearly 80 percent of its steel to the EU.

“This is perhaps the biggest crisis the UK steel industry has ever faced,” Gareth Stace, director general of the lobby group UK Steel, said on Tuesday. He described the move as a “disaster” for British steel.

Community, a trade union representing UK steelworkers, said the EU’s proposal represents an “existential threat” to the UK steel industry.

Here’s what we know about the EU’s new levies and why the UK is worried:

Why has the EU announced a tariff hike for steel imports?

The new tariff is expected to come into effect from June 2026, as long as EU countries and the European Parliament approve it.

The EU says it has no choice but to bring in the new tariff as it seeks to protect its own markets from a flood of subsidised Asian steel, which has been diverted by US President Donald Trump’s latest 50 percent tariff on all steel imports to the US.

The EU also wants to protect its steel sector from the challenge of global overcapacity.

In a speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Tuesday, the European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Maros Sefcovic, defended the bloc’s steel tariffs proposal as a move to “protect the bloc’s vital sector” whose steel trade balance has “deteriorated dramatically”.

Sefcovic added that more than 30,000 jobs have been lost since 2018 in the EU’s steel industry, which employs about 300,000 people overall.

While the industry is ailing, he said, other countries have begun imposing tariffs and other safeguards to ensure their own domestic steel industries expand. The Commission’s proposal, therefore, seeks to “restore balance to the EU steel market”.

More succinctly, a senior EU official told The Times newspaper: “My dear UK friends, you have to understand that we have no choice but to limit the total volumes of imports that come into the EU, so this is the logic that we apply clearly. Not acting could result in potentially fatal effects for us.”

The EC’s proposal comes as the bloc’s steel sector faces stiff competition from countries like China, where steel production is heavily subsidised.

China produced more than a billion metric tonnes of steel last year, followed by India, at 149 million metric tonnes, and Japan, at 84 million metric tonnes, according to the World Steel Association, a nonprofit organisation with headquarters in Brussels.

By comparison, said Sefcovic, the EU produces 126 million tonnes per year but only requires 67 percent of this for its own use – “well below the healthy 80 percent benchmark and below profitable levels”.

Moreover, steel production within the EU has declined by 65 million tonnes per year since 2007 – with nearly half of that lost since 2018.

“A strong, decarbonised steel sector is vital for the European Union’s competitiveness, economic security and strategic autonomy. Global overcapacity is damaging our industry,” EC President Ursula von der Leyen said.

The Commission’s industry chief, Stephane Sejourne, told reporters in Strasbourg that “the European steel industry was on the verge of collapse” and said that through the tariffs plan, the Commission is “protecting it [EU’s steel industry] so that it can invest, decarbonise and become competitive again”.

Sejourne added that the Commission’s plan is “in line with our [EU] values and international law”.

Why would the UK bear the brunt of EU steel tariffs?

The EU is the UK’s largest market for steel exports by far. In 2024, the UK exported 1.9 million metric tonnes of steel, worth about 3 billion pounds ($4.02bn) and representing 78 percent of its home-made steel products to the EU.

While the EC’s steel tariffs proposal does not apply to members of the European Economic Area, namely Norway and Iceland, it will apply to the UK and Switzerland. Ukraine will also be exempt from the tariff quota since it is facing “an exceptional and immediate security situation”, according to the EC.

The EU says it is open to negotiations with the UK once it has formally notified the World Trade Organization (WTO) of the new levy. For now, however, uncertainty looms.

Compounding this, the UK also fears being flooded by cheaper, subsidised steel from Asia as both the EU and US markets close their doors to it.

In a statement, UK Steel added: “The potential for millions of tonnes that will be barred from the EU market, to be redirected towards the UK is another existential threat.”

Nicolai von Ondarza, an associate fellow at Chatham House, the London-based policy institute, told Al Jazeera that cheap steel diverted by the EU’s planned tariffs will mostly come from countries like China, “putting additional pressure on its industry”.

The British steel sector is also shouldering Trump’s 25 percent tariff on British steel imports, a global supply glut, and higher energy prices, and has been embattled by job losses in some of its biggest steelworks due to green transition initiatives.

Can the UK negotiate its way out of this?

That is currently its best hope, according to industry leaders.

“We would urge the UK and EU to begin urgent negotiations and do everything possible to prevent the crushing impact these proposals would have on our steel industry,” he added.

Chatham House’s Ondarza told Al Jazeera: “For the UK, the first route is to try to negotiate a carve-out of these EU tariffs. Both the EC and the UK have already signalled willingness to talk. These negotiations are likely to be tricky, but not unlikely that they come to an agreement.”

On his way for a two-day business trip to India, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer told reporters that his country is “in discussions with the EU” about the proposal.

“I’ll be able to tell you more in due course, but we are in discussions, as you’d expect,” he said.

Meanwhile, Chris McDonald, the UK industry minister, has suggested that retaliatory measures may not be completely off the table.

“We continue to explore stronger trade measures to protect UK steel producers from unfair behaviours,” he told reporters.

If the US caused this, can it help to solve it?

While the EU’s tariffs proposal has led to an outcry in the UK, it is also a measure which seeks to bring the US to the negotiating table, the EC says.

In August, the EU and US agreed a trade deal under which Washington will levy 15 percent tariffs on 70 percent of Europe’s exports to the country. Brussels and Washington have yet to discuss how tariffs would apply to European steel, which still faces a 50 percent tariff under Trump’s new trade regime.

Sefcovic told reporters the Commission’s steel tariffs proposal would be a good foundation to engage with the US and also fight the challenge of overcapacity as “like-minded partners”.

WASHINGTON — Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney will meet with President Trump in the Oval Office on Tuesday at a time when one of the world’s most durable and amicable alliances has been fractured by Trump’s trade war and annexation threats.

Carney’s second visit to the White House comes ahead of a review next year of the free trade agreement, which is critical to Canada’s economy. More than 77% of Canada’s exports go to the U.S.

Trump’s talk of making Canada the 51st state and his tariffs have Canadians feeling an undeniable sense of betrayal. Relations with Canada’s southern neighbor and longtime ally haven’t been worse.

“We’ve had ups and downs, but this is the lowest point in relations that I can recall,” said Frank McKenna, a former Canadian ambassador to the United States and current deputy chairman of TD Bank.

“Canadians aren’t being instructed what to do. They are simply voting with their feet,” he said. “I talk every day to ordinary citizens who are changing their vacation plans, and I talk to large business owners who are moving reward trips away or executive business trips. There is an outright rebellion.”

There is fear in Canada over what will happen to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Carney is looking to get some relief on some sector-specific tariffs, but expectations are low.

“Improving relations with the White House ahead of the USMCA review is certainly an objective of the trip, but opposition parties and part of the Canadian public will criticize Prime Minister Carney if he doesn’t achieve some progress on the tariff front at this stage,” said Daniel Béland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal.

Trump said Monday that he anticipated Carney wanted to use the meeting to discuss trade.

“I guess he’s going to ask about tariffs, because a lot of companies from Canada are moving into the United States,” Trump, a Republican, told reporters after signing an executive order related to Alaska. “He’s losing a lot of companies in Canada.”

Carney has said the USMCA, which is up for review in 2026, is an advantage for Canada at a time when it is clear that the U.S. is charging for access to its market. Carney has said the commitment of the U.S. to the core of USMCA means that more than 85% of Canada-U.S. trade continues to be free of tariffs. He said the U.S. average tariff rate on Canadian goods is 5.6% and remains the lowest among all its trading partners.

But Trump has some sector-specific tariffs on Canada, known as Section 232 tariffs, that are having an impact. There are 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, for example.

McKenna said he is hearing Canada might get some relief in steel and aluminum. “It could be 50% to 25% or agreeing on tariff-free quotas to allow the steel and aluminum to go through at last year’s levels,” he said.

The ties between the two countries are without parallel. About $2.5 billion (nearly $3.6 billion Canadian) worth of goods and services cross the border each day. Canada is the top export destination for 36 U.S. states. There is close cooperation on defense, border security and law enforcement, and a vast overlap in culture, traditions and pastimes.

About 60% of U.S. crude oil imports are from Canada, and 85% of U.S. electricity imports are from Canada.

Canada is also the largest foreign supplier of steel, aluminum and uranium to the U.S. and has 34 critical minerals and metals that the Pentagon is eager for and investing in for national security.

“The bigger prize would be getting a mutual agreement to negotiate as quickly as possible the free trade relationship,” McKenna said. “If the United States were to threaten us with the six months’ notice of termination, I think it would represent a deep chill all across North America.”

Gillies writes for the Associated Press.

Trump had imposed a 40 percent US tariff on Brazilian goods in July on top of a 10 percent one earlier even though the United States has a trade surplus with Brazil.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has asked United States President Donald Trump to lift the 40 percent tariff imposed by the US government on Brazilian imports.

The leaders spoke for 30 minutes by phone on Monday. During the call, they exchanged phone numbers in order to maintain a direct line of contact, and President Lula reiterated his invitation for Trump to attend the upcoming climate summit in Belem, according to a statement from Lula’s office.

Shortly after, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that he had had a good conversation with Lula.

“We discussed many things, but it was mostly focused on the Economy, and Trade, between our two Countries,” Trump said.

He added that the leaders “will be having further discussions, and will get together in the not too distant future, both in Brazil and the United States”.

The Trump administration had imposed a 40 percent tariff on Brazilian products in July on top of a 10 percent tariff imposed earlier. Lula reminded Trump that Brazil was one of three Group of 20 (G20) countries with which the US maintains a trade surplus, according to the Brazilian leader’s office.

The Trump administration has justified the tariffs by saying that Brazil’s policies and criminal prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro constitute an economic emergency.

Earlier this month, Bolsonaro was convicted of attempting a coup after losing his bid for re-election in 2022, and a panel of the Supreme Court sentenced him to 27 years and three months in prison.

In September, Trump and Lula had a brief encounter at the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, with Trump hailing their “excellent chemistry”.

During Monday’s call, Lula also offered to travel to Washington to meet with Trump, his office said.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices like to talk about the Constitution’s separation of powers and how it limits the exercise of official authority.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts and his conservative colleagues have given no sign so far they will check President Trump’s one-man governance by executive order.

To the contrary, the conservative justices have repeatedly ruled for Trump on fast-track appeals and overturned federal judges who said the president had exceeded his authority.

The court’s new term opens on Monday, and the justices will begin hearing arguments.

But those regularly scheduled cases have been overshadowed by Trump’s relentless drive to remake the government, to punish his political enemies, including universities, law firms, TV networks and prominent Democrats, and to send troops to patrol U.S. cities.

The overriding question has become: Are there any legal limits on the president’s power? The Supreme Court itself has raised the doubts.

A year ago, as Trump ran to reclaim the White House, the justices blocked a felony criminal indictment against him related to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, mob attack on the Capitol as Congress met to certify Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election, for which Trump was impeached.

Led by Roberts, the court ruled for Trump and declared for the first time that presidents were immune from being prosecuted for their official actions in the White House.

Not surprisingly, Trump saw this as a “BIG WIN” and proof there is no legal check on his power.

This year, Trump’s lawyers have confidently gone to Supreme Court with emergency appeals when lower-court judges have stood in their way. With few exceptions, they have won, often over dissents from the court’s three liberal Democrats.

Many court scholars say they are disappointed but not surprised by the court’s response so far to Trump’s aggressive use of executive power.

The Supreme Court “has been a rubber stamp approving Trump’s actions,” said UC Berkeley law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “I hope very much that the court will be a check on Trump. There isn’t any other. But so far, it has not played that role.”

Roberts “had been seen as a Republican but not a Trump Republican. But he doesn’t seem interested or willing to put any limits on him,” said UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. “Maybe they think they’re saving their credibility for when it really counts.”

Acting on his own, Trump moved quickly to reshape the federal government. He ordered cuts in spending and staffing at federal agencies and fired inspectors general and officials of independent agencies who had fixed terms set by Congress. He stepped up arrests and deportations of immigrants who are here illegally.

But the court’s decisions on those fronts are in keeping with the long-standing views of the conservatives on the bench.

Long before Trump ran for office, Roberts had argued that the Constitution gives the president broad executive authority to control federal agencies, including the power to fire officials who disagree with him.

The court’s conservatives also think the president has the authority to enforce — or not enforce — immigration laws.

That’s also why many legal experts think the year ahead will provide a better test of the Supreme Court and Trump’s challenge to the constitutional order.

“Overall, my reaction is that it’s too soon to tell,” said William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and a former clerk for Roberts. “In the next year, we will likely see decisions about tariffs, birthright citizenship, alien enemies and perhaps more, and we’ll know a lot more.”

In early September, Trump administration lawyers rushed the tariffs case to the Supreme Court because they believed it was better to lose sooner rather than later.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the government could face up to a $1-trillion problem if the court delayed a decision until next summer and then ruled the tariffs were illegal.

“Unwinding them could cause significant disruption,” he told the court.

The Constitution says tariffs, taxes and raising revenue are matters for Congress to decide. Through most of American history, tariffs funded much of the federal government. That began to change after 1913 when the 16th Amendment was adopted to authorize “taxes on incomes.”

Trump has said he would like to return to an earlier era when import taxes funded the government.

“I always say ‘tariffs’ is the most beautiful word to me in the dictionary,” he said at a rally after his inauguration in January. “Because tariffs are going to make us rich as hell. It’s going to bring our country’s businesses back that left us.”

While he could have gone to the Republican-controlled Congress to get approval, he imposed several rounds of large and worldwide tariffs acting on his own.

Several small businesses sued and described the tariffs as “the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.”

As for legal justification, the president’s lawyers pointed to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. It authorizes the president to “deal with any unusual or extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”

The law did not mention tariffs, taxes or duties but said the president could “regulate” the “importation” of products.

Trump administration lawyers argue that the “power to ‘regulate importation’ plainly encompasses the power to impose tariffs.” They also say the court should defer to the president because tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security.

They said the president invoked the tariffs not to raise revenue but to “rectify America’s country-killing trade deficits and to stem the flood of fentanyl and other lethal drugs across our borders.”

In response to lawsuits from small businesses and several states, judges who handle international trade cases ruled the tariffs were illegal. However, they agreed to keep them in place to allow for appeals.

Their opinion relied in part on recent Supreme Court’s decisions which struck down potentially far-reaching regulations from Democratic presidents on climate change, student loan debt and COVID-19 vaccine requirements. In each of the decisions, Roberts said Congress had not clearly authorized the disputed regulations.

Citing that principle, the federal circuit court said it “seems unlikely that Congress intended to … grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”

Trump said that decision, if allowed to stand, “could literally destroy the United States of America.” The court agreed to hear arguments in the tariffs case on Nov. 5.

A victory for Trump would be “viewed as a dramatic expansion of presidential power,” said Washington attorney Stephanie Connor, who works on tariff cases. Trump and future presidents could sidestep Congress to impose tariffs simply by citing an emergency, she said.

But the decision itself may have a limited impact because the administration has announced new tariffs last week that were based on other national security laws.

Last month, Trump administration lawyers asked the Supreme Court to rule during the upcoming term on the birthright citizenship promised by the 14th Amendment of 1868.

They did not seek a fast-track ruling, however. Instead, they said the court should grant review and hear arguments on the regular schedule early next year. If so, a decision would be handed down by late June.

The amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

And in the past, both Congress and the Supreme Court have agreed that rule applies broadly to all children who are born here, except if their parents are foreign ambassadors or diplomats who are not subject to U.S. laws.

But Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said that interpretation is mistaken. He said the post-Civil War amendment was “adopted to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not to the children of illegal aliens, birth tourists and temporary visitors.”

Judges in three regions of the country have rejected Trump’s limits on the citizenship rule and blocked it from taking effect nationwide while the litigation continues.

The U.S. economy will be hampered by the Trump administration’s tariffs in the coming months, which along with interest rate cuts could lead to a “stagflation-lite” scenario of modestly elevated inflation and unemployment, according to the UCLA Anderson Forecast released Wednesday.

The fourth-quarter estimate also predicts that rising layoffs could lead to a recession, and if President Trump is successful in exerting more control over the Federal Reserve, a “full blown stagflation scenario becomes a more significant risk.”

“This forecast is being produced at a time when more extreme scenarios have become increasingly plausible, even though they do not yet represent our baseline outlook,” states the report by Clement Bohr, senior economist at the forecast.

UCLA’s report notes that the labor market “deteriorated notably” in June while inflation pivoted away from a path of “gradual normalization” onto a rising trajectory.

The quarterly forecast does not take into account the government shutdown that began Wednesday that could results in thousands of layoffs, but predicts third-quarter GDP growth will come in at just 1% on a seasonably adjusted basis, and it will weaken further as the full cost of the tariffs takes hold.

It expects growth to recover in the middle of next year and reach 2% by the fourth quarter, remaining there throughout 2027.

Driving the stagflation prediction is an effective tariff rate of about 11%, with the risk of future levies on pharmaceuticals and the potential lack of a resolution of the China trade dispute. The report notes the political pressure on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and the decision by the bank to cut the federal funds rate by a quarter point in September. UCLA predicts a similar rate cut this month.

Trump’s “big beautiful” budget reconciliation bill passed in July, which included $703 billion in temporary tax cuts over the next four years starting in 2026, also will provide substantial stimulus. The Consumer Price Index is expected to peak at 3.6% in the first quarter of next year before easing.

However, the economy will be held back by a tightening labor supply caused by retiring baby boomers and restrictive immigration policies. The unemployment rate has crept up to 4.3% and is expected to peak at 4.6% early next year.

Also Wednesday, closely watched ADP Research released figures showed private-sector payrolls decreased by 32,000 in September with job growth slowing across many industries.

The billions of dollars being invested in artificial intelligence by large technology firms has helped prop up the economy, the forecast noted, which should result in productivity gains — but the capital expenditures should tail off as a “trough of disillusionment” sets in when revenue gains don’t meet expectations.

The report also expects consumer consumption to weaken following a surge in electric-vehicle purchases in the third quarter due to the expiration of federal tax credits last month.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, said if the government shutdown lasts a week or two it won’t have a “meaningful economic impact.” However, if it lasts for a month or more and is accompanied by mass federal layoffs, it would have a profound effect on the economy, Zandi said.

“It would wreak havoc on the financial markets as global markets and investors begin to wonder if we can govern ourselves,” he said. “That would mean higher interest rates and lower stock prices.”

President Trump again suggested that films made outside the U.S. should be subject to a 100% tariff, a move he said would help rejuvenate film production in America but that has been greeted with skepticism by many in Hollywood.

“Our movie making business has been stolen from the United States of America, by other Countries, just like stealing ‘candy from a baby,’” Trump wrote in a post Monday morning on his Truth Social platform. “California, with its weak and incompetent Governor, has been particularly hard hit! Therefore, in order to solve this long time, never ending problem, I will be imposing a 100% Tariff on any and all movies that are made outside of the United States.”

The post did not include details on how such a tariff would work or how it would be levied. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This is not the first time Trump has floated a tariff on films made overseas to combat so-called runaway production.

In May, Trump said he was authorizing the Commerce Department and U.S. Trade Representative to begin the process of instituting a 100% tariff on “on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands.”

That announcement surprised studio executives, who said at the time that they had no advance notice of the move. Shortly after, California Gov. Gavin Newsom reached out to the White House, offering to work together to create a federal film tax incentive, which many in the industry have said they would prefer over a tariff.

Newsom responded to Trump’s dig by sharing on X a screenshot of a news headline detailing the recent increase in applications for California’s revamped film and TV tax credit program next to a headline about Hollywood studios’ stock performance after Trump’s initial call in May for a 100% tariff on films made outside the U.S. “Almost like we know what we’re doing,” Newsom wrote in his post. “Almost like Donald Trump absolutely does not.”

Countries including Canada, the U.K. and New Zealand have developed generous film tax credit programs, which, along with lower costs, have increasingly lured productions out of the U.S. California has been particularly hard hit by the production exodus.

In response, states have also upped their individual tax credit programs, including California, which has now more than doubled the annual amount allocated to its film and TV tax credit program and expanded its eligibility criteria.

The Motion Picture Assn., the lobbying arm of Hollywood’s major studios, was not immediately available for comment.

On Monday, California congressional representatives reiterated their support for a federal film tax incentive program to support the U.S. film business.

Noting that a tariff could have “unintended and damaging consequences,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) said he was “ready to work with this administration” and colleagues “on both sides of the aisle” to pass a major federal film tax credit.

The California senator is currently working on a proposal for a federal film incentive, a Schiff spokesperson said.

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), a former film producer, also called for movement on a federal tax incentive, saying that a 100% tariff on films made overseas would only increase costs for consumers.

“I’m relieved President Trump recognizes that we are losing a signature American product: the domestic film and TV industry,” she said in a statement. “I hope the President will join us in pioneering a real solution that levels the playing field with international competition.”

MAGNOLIA, Ky. — The leafy soybean plants reach Caleb Ragland’s thighs and are ripe for harvest, but the Kentucky farmer is deeply worried. He doesn’t know where he and others like him will sell their crop because China has stopped buying.

Beijing, which traditionally has snapped up at least a quarter of all soybeans grown in the U.S., is in effect boycotting them in retaliation for the high tariffs President Trump has imposed on Chinese goods and to strengthen its hand in negotiations over a new overall trade deal.

It has left American soybean farmers fretting over not only this year’s crop but the long-term viability of their businesses, built in part on China’s once-insatiable appetite for U.S. beans.

“This is a five-alarm fire for our industry,” said Ragland, who leads the American Soybean Assn. trade group.

The situation might even be enough to test farmers’ loyalty to Trump, although the president still enjoys strong support throughout rural America. If no deal is reached soon, farmers hope the government will come through with aid as it did during Trump’s first term, but they see that as only a temporary solution. Trump said Thursday he was considering an aid package.

U.S. and Chinese officials have held four rounds of trade talks between May and September, with another likely in the coming weeks. No progress on soybeans has been reported.

Getting closer to harvest, “I’m honestly getting worried that the time is running out,” said Jim Sutter, chief executive of the U.S. Soybean Export Council.

Political pressure is growing

After Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, China responded with tariffs of its own, which now total up to 34% on U.S. soybeans. That makes soybeans from other countries cheaper.

China’s retaliatory tariffs also hit U.S. growers of sorghum, corn and cotton; and even geoduck divers have been affected. But soybeans stand out because of the crop’s outsize importance to U.S. agricultural exports. Soybeans are the top U.S. food export, accounting for about 14% of all farm goods sent overseas.

And China has been by far the largest foreign buyer. Last year, the U.S. exported nearly $24.5 billion worth of soybeans, and China accounted for more than $12.5 billion. That compared with $2.45 billion by the European Union, the second-largest buyer. This year, China hasn’t bought beans since May.

With U.S. farmers hurting, the Trump administration is under growing pressure to reach a deal with China. As talks drag on, Trump appears ready to help.

“We’re going to take some of the tariff money — relatively small amount, but a lot for the farmers — and we’re going to help the farmers out a little bit,” Trump said, during what he called a transition period.

The only way most farmers survived Trump’s trade war in his first term was with tens of billions of dollars in government payments. But that’s not what most farmers want.

What farmers expect from Trump

“The American farmer, especially myself included, we don’t want aid payments,” said Brian Warpup, 52, a fourth-generation farmer from Warren, Ind. “We want to work. We work the land, we harvest the land, the crop off the land. And the worst thing that we could ever want is a handout.”

Farmers are looking to Trump for a long-term solution.

“Overwhelmingly, farmers have been in President Trump’s corner,” said Ragland, the president of the soybean association. “And I think the message that our soybean farmers as a whole want to deliver is: ‘President Trump, we’ve had your back. We need you to have ours now.’”

He said farmers appreciate the willingness to provide some short-term relief, but what they ultimately need are strong, reliable markets. “Our priority remains seeing the United States secure lasting trade agreements — particularly with China — that allow farmers to sell their crops and build a sustainable future with long-term customers,” he said.

Ragland, 39, hopes his three sons will become the 10th generation to till his 4,500 acres in Magnolia, Ky. Unless something changes soon, he worries that thousands of farmers may not survive.

Coming into this year, many farmers were just hoping to break even because crop prices were weak while their costs had only increased. Trump’s tariffs, which helped make their crops uncompetitive around the world, drove prices down further. And tariffs on steel and fertilizer sent costs up even more.

Darin Johnson, president of the Minnesota Soybean Growers Assn., said he still has faith in the Trump administration to reach a good trade deal with China.

“I think where the patience is probably wearing thin is the time,” said Johnson, a fourth-generation farmer. “I don’t think anybody thought that we were going to take this much time, because we were told 90 deals — 90 deals in 90 days.”

China’s negotiating strategy

The U.S. soybean industry grew in response to Chinese demand starting back in the 1990s, when China began its rapid economic rise and turned to foreign producers to help feed its people. Protein-rich soybeans are an essential part of the diet.

While China relies on domestic crops for steamed beans and tofu, it needs far more soybeans for oil extraction and animal feed. In 2024, China produced 20 million metric tons of soybeans, while importing more than 105 million metric tons.

American farmers have come to count on China as their biggest customer, and this has “given the Chinese a point of leverage,” Sutter said. By holding off on buying U.S. soybeans, China is seen as trying to leverage that purchasing power in the trade talks.

“I think that’s the strategy,” said Sutter of the U.S. Soybean Export Council. “I think that’s why China is targeting soybeans and other agricultural products, because they know that farmers have a strong lobby and farmers are important to the U.S. government.”

Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, didn’t answer specific questions on soybean purchases but urged the U.S. to work with Beijing.

“The essence of China-U.S. economic and trade cooperation is mutual benefit and win-win,” Liu said.

China turned to Brazil when Trump launched his first trade war in 2018. Last year, Brazilian beans accounted for more than 70% of China’s imports, while the U.S. share was down to 21%, World Bank data show. Argentina and other South American countries also are selling more to China, which has diversified to boost food security.

What American farmers are doing in response

U.S. farmers also are broadening their customer base, said Sutter, who recently traveled to Japan and Indonesia in search of new markets. Taiwan pledged to purchase $10 billion worth of soybeans, corn, wheat and beef in the next four years.

“There’s strong diversification efforts underway,” Sutter said. But “China is so big, it’s hard to replace them overnight.”

Farmers are working to boost consumption at home, too. Growth in biodiesel production has taken in some of the soybeans that were once exported. Other beans are crushed to produce soybean oil and soybean meal. The United Soybean Board is investing in research into the benefits of using soybeans to feed dairy cows and hogs.

But Iowa farmer Robb Ewoldt, a director with the Soybean Board, knows that such domestic uses are growing only gradually.

“We cannot replace a China in one shot,” Ewoldt said. “It’s not going to happen. We need to be realistic in that.”

Tang and Funk write for the Associated Press. Tang reported from Washington and Funk from Omaha. AP journalists Dylan Lovan in Magnolia, Obed Lamy in Warren and Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

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 — President Trump has asked the Supreme Court for a fast-tracking ruling that he has broad power acting on his own to impose tariffs on products coming from countries around the world.

Despite losing in the lower courts, Trump and his lawyers have reason to believe they can win in the Supreme Court. The six conservative justices believe in strong presidential power, particularly in the area of foreign policy and national security.

In a three-page appeal filed Wednesday evening, they proposed the court decide by Wednesday to grant review and to hear arguments in early November.

They said the lower court setbacks, unless quickly reversed, “gravely undermine the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.”

They cited Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s warning about the potential for economic disruption if the court does not act soon.

“Delaying a ruling until June 26 could result in a scenario in which $750 billion-$1 trillion have already been collected and unwinding them could cause significant disruption.” he wrote.

Trump and his tariffs ran into three strong arguments in the lower courts.

First, the Constitution says Congress, not the president, has the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and a tariff is an import tax.

Second, the 1977 emergency powers law that Trump relies on does not mention tariffs, taxes or duties, and no previous president has used it to impose tariffs.

And third, the Supreme Court has frowned on recent presidents who relied on old laws to justify bold new costly regulations.

So far, however, the so-called “major questions” doctrine has been used to restrict Democratic presidents, not Republicans.

Three years ago, the court’s conservative majority struck down a major climate change regulation proposed by Presidents Obama and Biden that could have transformed the electric power industry on the grounds it was not clearly based on the Clean Air Acts of the 1970s.

Two years ago, the court by the same 6-3 vote struck down Biden’s plan to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in student loans. Congress had said the Education Department may “waive or modify” monthly loan payments during a national emergency like the Covid 19 pandemic, but it did not say the loans may be forgiven, the court said. Its opinion noted the “staggering” cost could be more than $500 billion.

The impact of Trump’s tariffs figure to be at least five times greater, a federal appeals court said last week in ruling them illegal.

By a 7-4 vote, the federal circuit court cited all three arguments in ruling Trump had exceeded his legal authority.

“We conclude Congress, in enacting the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not give the president wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs,” they said.

But the outcome was not a total loss for Trump. The appellate judges put their decision on hold until the Supreme Court rules. That means Trump’s tariffs are likely to remain in effect for many months.

Trump’s lawyers were heartened by the dissent written by Judge Richard Taranto and joined by other others.

He argued that presidents are understood to have extra power when confronted with foreign threats to the nation’s security.

He called the 1977 law “an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign-affairs realm” that said the president may “regulate” the “importation” of dangerous products including drugs coming into this country.

Citing other laws from that era, he said Congress understood that tariffs and duties are a “common tool of import regulation.”