International Trade

The states claim the new levies are a pretext to re-impose tariffs that were ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court.

A group of 25 Democratic-led states has sued Donald Trump’s administration over its latest tariffs, claiming that the US president has exceeded his legal authority to implement the levies.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade on Monday, targets new double-digit tariffs imposed on 60 trading partners last month over allegations they were not doing enough to stop the importation of goods produced with forced labour.

These latest tariffs took effect just as the clock ran out on temporary tariffs that Trump had turned to after the Supreme Court struck down his flagship “liberation day” levies in a February ruling.

“After losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of tariffs,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The states that sued over the new tariffs, including Oregon and New York, all have Democratic attorneys general or governors.

In response, White House spokesman Kush Desai said the levies were an appropriate and legal response to unfair trade practices in other nations.

“A foreign country’s failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor is unreasonable and burdens US commerce, including American workers, and must be addressed,” Desai said.

Revive US manufacturing

Trump, who argues that high tariffs will revive US manufacturing, last year overturned decades of Washington policy that favoured lower tariffs and ever-freer trade.

Invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), he imposed double-digit tariffs on imports from almost every country, saying the US’s longstanding trade deficit amounted to a national emergency.

But the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA did not authorise tariffs. The decision forced the administration to establish a refund process for importers who had paid the tariffs.

Eager to make up the lost revenue, Trump turned to temporary 10 percent worldwide tariffs, but they expired at midnight on July 24.

The latest round of global tariffs was imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, meant to combat unfair or discriminatory economic practices by other nations. The tariffs imposed in July affect more than 99 percent of US imports.

The states’ complaint, like two previous lawsuits filed by small businesses over the tariffs, argued that the new tariffs used “forced labor” as a pretext to re-impose the tariffs that had already been ruled illegal in court. They said that a sweeping tax on imports would do nothing to address the real problems of forced labour around the world.

Japan and the United States have confirmed a rare, coordinated yen-buying intervention to halt the Japanese currency’s slide to 40-year lows, with Tokyo signalling it is willing to take further action if needed.

The Japanese Ministry of Finance confirmed the joint intervention after a statement by US President Donald Trump on Sunday announced that Washington was helping to prop up the yen as a sign of friendship and to support the global economy.

“They have a weakening yen, and they wanted a little bit of help. And we’re always there for Japan,” Trump said in response to a reporter’s query about why the US is helping to support the currency.

The yen leapt after the announcement, leaving traders on high alert for further intervention from authorities. The Japanese currency gained as much as 1.4 percent to hit a nearly three-month high of 155.20 per US dollar, compounding a 3.8 percent surge over the previous two sessions. The yen also advanced broadly against other major currencies, including the euro and sterling.

The latest bout of aggressive yen-buying heavily pressured the US dollar. In early Asian trading on Monday, the euro climbed to a 1.5-month high of $1.1559, while sterling hovered near a two-week top at $1.3476.

However, the rapid appreciation of the currency immediately weighed on the equity market. The Nikkei share average tumbled, reversing course from the one-week high it had achieved in the previous session.

Analysts say the intervention underscores both countries’ resolve to prevent global spillovers from a sell-off in the yen and Japanese government bonds, including by adding pressure on already rising US Treasury yields.

Japan has been struggling to curb a relentless drop in its currency that has pushed up import prices and stoked broader inflation, hitting household wallets and Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s approval ratings.

In its statement, Japan’s Finance Ministry said Friday’s yen-buying intervention with the US Treasury Department “countered excessive volatility and disorderly movements in the Japanese yen in recent months”.

“The Japanese Ministry of Finance remains attentive and in close communication with our counterparts at the U.S. Treasury,” it added. “We will not hesitate to conduct further joint intervention.”

The joint intervention is the first since a 2011 coordinated action to weaken the yen after the devastating earthquake in eastern Japan.

Tokyo may have sold as much as $58.97bn to buy yen when it intervened in New York markets on Thursday, Bank of Japan data indicated, before Friday’s confirmed joint intervention with Washington.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also confirmed Friday’s effort, noting on Sunday that Washington “will not hesitate to participate in further joint intervention”.

“We strongly support Japan’s decisive market and monetary steps to correct the substantial undervaluation of the yen,” Bessent said in a separate statement on X, repeating his calls for further interest rate hikes by the Bank of Japan.

In line with Bessent’s repeated calls for higher Japanese interest rates, the Bank of Japan on Friday offered its most explicit signal to date of an early rate hike, even as it kept monetary policy steady.

In a sign of broader policy coordination, South Korea also stepped in to buy its won currency on Thursday.

Japan intervened in April and May, buying yen, but the move triggered only a brief rebound. The Bank of Japan’s June rate hike to a 31-year high of 1 percent also gave the struggling currency little lasting boost.

A Pacific island has become one of the biggest economic success stories of the year so far.

Taiwan has witnessed a dramatic boom in recent months driven by the mania for artificial intelligence (AI). Earlier this year, its stock exchange soared to become the fifth largest in the world based on market capitalisation, the value of its publicly traded shares, overtaking the United Kingdom, Canada and India.

Much of that upward momentum has been driven by AI and other technology exports highly sought after by the United States.

Last year, the US imported $201bn worth of goods from Taiwan, nearly double its rate from 2024, when it acquired $116bn in imports. In May, Taiwan eclipsed China to become the third-largest source of US imports, after Mexico and Canada.

Experts have described Taiwan’s market acceleration as a return to its status as a “tiger economy” — a term used to capture surging growth in East Asia. Much of the credit, they say, falls to its flourishing technology sector.

“Artificial intelligence helps explain the rising importance of Taiwan,” said Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

But critics warn that, while Taiwan’s market remains strong, factors like tumultuous international relations, as well as demographic concerns, could complicate the island’s long-term outlook.

“It seems to be a win-win for now,” said Reza Hasmath, an academic faculty adviser at The China Institute at the University of Alberta. “But Taiwan is just postponing a reality that’s not sustainable.”

An economic boom

Taiwan’s thriving export market helped boost its gross domestic product (GDP) to 8.63 percent in 2025.

That rocket-ship trajectory continued into the first quarter of this year, when the GDP saw an exhilarating 13.69 percent rise.

Government data released on Friday showed that the island is continuing that momentum, with its economy growing an impressive 12.92 percent in the second quarter of the year, which ended in June.

“The GDP growth is going like gangbusters,” said Dexter Tiff Roberts, nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub.

Roberts expects the trend to be “long term”, as Taiwan produces about 90 percent of the advanced chips used to power leading AI models.

“That’s not going to go away. We know the world, and the US, needs this,” he added.

While the AI boom is a global phenomenon, the US has become a major market for such chips, with billions of dollars flowing into the industry each year.

US President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has pledged to bolster his country’s status as “the world leader in artificial intelligence”. His administration has claimed to attract more than $2.7 trillion in tech and AI investments since the start of his second term.

To secure US access to Taiwan’s cutting-edge semiconductor technology, the Trump administration signed an agreement under which Taiwan will invest $500bn in the US.

Half of that amount is expected to come in the form of direct investments by Taiwanese semiconductor and tech firms, including through the development of onshore tech manufacturing.

The rest is largely comprised of credit guarantees for additional investments from Taiwan in the US.

Under the agreement, Taiwanese firms would be allowed to import 2.5 times the capacity of their US factories, without fear of steep tariffs.

In a subsequent trade agreement, Taiwan agreed to reduce its tariffs on 99 percent of US exports.

Taiwan has also boosted its tech exports to the US through investments in nearby Mexico, with cross-border plants manufacturing inputs for data centres in Texas.

‘Unbalanced relationship’

But Hasmath, the faculty adviser at the University of Alberta, warns that there are troubling signs on the horizon for Taiwan-US relations.

Trump has long sought to eliminate trade deficits with US economic allies, and he has lashed out at countries that export more to the US than they import.

Hasmath pointed out that Taiwan is building a robust trade surplus with the US, close to $200bn and counting. That could spark a backlash.

“This is an unbalanced relationship and not conducive to Taiwan in the long term,” Hasmath warned.

Trump will not tolerate a hefty trade surplus for long, he added. Hasmath believes the US president will soon look to renegotiate his country’s deals with Taipei.

Roberts at the Atlantic Council, meanwhile, warned that Trump is “mercurial” — and with such a temperament comes “uncertainty”.

Then there’s the question of political upheaval in the US. Trump’s approval ratings are low, and he is ineligible under US law to run for a third term as president.

Demographic problems

While Taiwan’s economic boom is “very real” and “very obvious”, Roberts said there are clear vulnerabilities even on the domestic front.

Taiwan’s traditional export sectors like plastics and textiles are underperforming. Plus, Roberts pointed out that only a small fraction of the Taiwanese population is involved in the AI sector.

“A majority of the younger population is not in hi tech, so that’s a real problem,” he said.

While the booming stock market has sparked a “wealth effect” — those with rising portfolios feel richer and are more inclined to spend — that helps the wider population only to an extent.

With most of Taiwan’s employment concentrated outside of the AI sector, economists have warned that the island could develop what’s called a K-shaped economy, where the wealthy see growth, while the poorer segments of society stagnate or decline.

The chip industry employs up to 350,000 people at most, experts say.

Meanwhile, TSMC, Taiwan’s biggest chip company, makes up to 40 percent of the stock market and provides four percent of the island’s GDP growth. That lopsided proportion is “unsustainable”, according to Hasmath.

Plus, Taiwan has a rapidly ageing population, with roughly a fifth of its population over the age of 65.

The island also has other vulnerabilities. For example, it relies heavily on foreign imports of energy products, particularly oil, and has struggled with water scarcity.

Then, there’s the superpower next door: China. The government in Beijing considers Taiwan, a self-governing island, as its own territory, and it has taken aggressive measures to limit the island’s ability to establish diplomatic relations of its own.

That conflict has added fuel to the debate around Taiwan’s growth, with a spokesperson for the Chinese government reportedly saying the island’s growing proximity to the US tech sector will “drain Taiwan’s economic interests” and “hollow out” the country’s major industry.

Hasmath said that, if the AI boom backfires on Taiwan, all of that ultimately adds up to a “recipe for electoral change, a shift in government” in Taipei.

A sweeping package of new Russian sanctions has cleared its first hurdle in the United States Congress, and, if passed, could trigger huge tariffs for countries such as India and China which continue to buy oil from Moscow.

The bill, which was advanced in the US Senate this week, has been named for the late Lindsey Graham, whose funeral was attended by world leaders including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier in the week.

Here’s what we know:

What happened in the Senate?

The “Lindsey O Graham Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026” was advanced overwhelmingly by the Senate this week in a vote of 86 to 12, meaning it can now proceed to the House of Representatives for further deliberation.

Named for the late Senator Graham, a staunch Ukraine supporter who died unexpectedly this month, the bill moved forward with the support of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was in Washington to attend Graham’s funeral and watched the proceedings from the gallery.

“It was an honour to be present as the votes were counted – 86 senators supported the bill,” he wrote on X afterwards. “This is the first step towards implementing Lindsey [Graham]’s plans, and certainly a step towards peace. It is important that this tool works.”

After clearing the Senate, there will be a delay before the bill can move forward to the House, which is now in summer recess.

On Wednesday this week, US President Donald Trump ordered lawmakers to amend the bill to include tariffs covering Iran as well. This will likely delay the bill further if it deters Democrats from supporting it, analysts said.

David Smith, an associate professor at the University of Sydney’s US Studies Centre, told Al Jazeera: “One of the things they’re worried about is how the tariff power in relation to Iran is going to be expanded. They’re going to be ok with tariff powers on Russia but they’re worried about tariff power on countries buying Iranian oil, which means China. I think there are going to be a lot of Democrats that are going to say these powers should be limited to sanctions and not tariffs.”

Without the Iran addition, he said he would have expected the bill to pass once the House resumes given strong Democratic support for Ukraine.

“Democrats have been genuinely worried about the Trump administration abandoning Ukraine. Something like this, which is ramping the pressure up on Russia so much, I just think there will be a large critical mass of Democrats who will vote for this,” he said.

What’s in the bill?

The bill makes use of sanctions and tariffs to target Russia and cut off the economic pipeline that has kept the Ukraine war going.

Major provisions include new sanctions on Russian President Vladimir Putin as well as on more than 20 top officials and companies which work with the Russian defence industry. It also targets Russia’s “shadow fleet” of oil tankers and the network it uses to evade international sanctions on its energy exports.

The bill gives the president authority to impose sanctions by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Under it, he would be able to apply tariffs of up to 100 percent on exports to the US from the top five purchasers of Russian energy, military equipment or countries facilitating Russian sanctions evasion.

Tariffs of up to 500 percent can also be applied to Russian imports directly into the US. The US imported $3.8bn in goods from Russia in 2025.

Which countries are likely to be targeted?

China, India and Türkiye are potential targets of the bill, as they are among the largest buyers of Russian energy, according to data compiled by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

China has historically responded to Trump’s tariffs with tariffs of its own on US exports. Even Pay, a director at the Beijing-based consultancy Trivium China, told Al Jazeera that the US may wait to impose tariffs as Trump is due to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping later this year.

Trump would still welcome the option, she said, after the Supreme Court struck down many of his tariffs in February.

“If passed and signed into law [which is still a big if at this point], the legislation would give Trump something he’s wanted for a while, namely, the legislature’s permission to impose high tariffs on China, alongside the small handful of other countries that import Russian oil,” Pay told Al Jazeera.

India is in a tricky position as its attempts to diversify away from Russian energy were disrupted by the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, according to Maia Nikoladze, a deputy director of the Economic Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council.

Due to the disruptions, it has also applied for and received US sanction waivers to continue buying Russian oil in the interim, Nikoladze wrote in a report this week, and it is expected to do the same in the future.

“India will face a trade-off between maintaining energy security and managing the risk of US tariffs, potentially prompting it to again seek waivers and exemptions,” Nikoladze said.

What do critics say about the bill?

Critics like Senator Maggie Hassan say the bill gives Trump too much power to impose tariffs while also potentially harming both the US taxpayer and allied countries.

Turkiye, for example, buys Russian energy but it is also a US ally and NATO member, while “major non-NATO ally” Brazil and “major security cooperation partner” Singapore both buy Russian oil products, according to CREA.

In a post on X, Hassan wrote that while she supports sanctioning Russia, she does “not think tariffs, which are paid for by American businesses and consumers, will help Ukraine win”.

The bill is also opposed by lobby groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce, which also says the true cost will be passed on to US businesses and consumers, as with past tariffs.

While many of Trump’s tariffs have already been struck down by the Supreme Court, the Russia tariffs could have more staying power because they would be imposed on a stronger legal basis, according to Smith.

That’s because it is new legislation which has been crafted using the powers of the IEEPA.

“Previously what Trump has done is to go back to old pieces of legislation and invoke from those his power to use tariffs in ways they haven’t been used before and in ways courts have subsequently found less lawful, whereas this looks like new legislation that is going to lawfully expand his tariff authority,” he told Al Jazeera.

United States economic growth slowed in the second quarter of 2026 amid a growing deficit and increasing inflationary pressures.

US gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 1.5 percent between April and June. That is a sharp decline from 2.1 percent growth in the first quarter of the year, according to a Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) report released on Thursday.

A widening trade deficit is a key reason why GDP is slowing, as is a jump in petrol prices, experts say.

“It’s a classic supply shock. The combination of tariffs and oil price spikes is exactly what a macroeconomist would expect to happen,” Michael Klein, professor of international economic affairs at The Fletcher School at Tufts University, told Al Jazeera.

The US has increased purchases of goods like semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, and industrial equipment, according to BEA data. Business investment in equipment rose by more than 15 percent in the second quarter. Those are essentially the elements needed for the ongoing investment boom to support the growth of artificial intelligence (AI).

“Imports rose due to the investment and consumption driver, and so net exports were a drag on overall growth. Overall, the US is investing and consuming more but not producing more,” Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera.

Exports have not kept pace. The trade deficit in May grew to $77.6bn, a 42 percent increase from the month before, according to BEA data.

Exports tumbled by 3.2 percent to $317.7bn, and imports rose by 3.3 percent to $395.3bn.

This comes as countries around the globe seek to reduce their dependence on the US due to President Donald Trump’s tariff policies.

Among them is Canada, historically one of the US’s biggest trading partners. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has pursued new trade deals with China and Saudi Arabia in recent months, for example, as Trump has slapped steep tariffs on the country, threatened to annex it and called it the 51st state, and refused to renew a trade deal with Canada and Mexico.

Are US tensions with Iran a factor?

In the second quarter, energy prices fluctuated greatly over the past few months. For US consumers, that was mostly reflected in petrol prices. During the second quarter, US petrol prices hit $4.48 per gallon (3.78 litres) in May.

They later retreated to $3.96 per gallon by the end of June. But the reprieve was short-lived as a fragile peace deal failed to take hold, with petrol prices increasing throughout July after the deadline for data to be included in second-quarter GDP had passed. Prices have since moved back above the $4 mark.

Petrol prices drove inflation for much of the second quarter. Between March and April, petrol prices jumped 5.4 percent. The next month, they jumped another 7 percent. They eased between May and June, falling 9.7 percent as global benchmark prices pulled back.

According to analysis from Bank of America, discretionary spending surged in June, the final month of the second quarter, as spending on products outside of petrol jumped while fuel prices temporarily eased.

“With gasoline prices easing in June, total card spending excluding gas surged 5.6% YoY [year over year] – also the strongest growth since April 2022,” the report said.

How can the GDP recover?

US consumers have ramped up spending on prescription drugs, automobiles like light trucks, and new furniture. There was also increased spending in areas like restaurants and hotels, suggesting that consumers remain somewhat resilient.

But, says Fletcher School’s Klein, that spending is by high-income earners, a trend that indicates a K-shaped economy, which is when the wealthy thrive, while lower-income consumers and small businesses face tougher economic conditions.

“The continued consumption growth of those who are better off depends upon things like the stock market staying strong and housing prices staying strong, because people feel wealthier through the value of their house or their stock portfolios, so they’ll spend more. But by a number of measures, the stock market seems to be very highly valued,” Klein, who also authors the EconoFact economic analysis website, told Al Jazeera.

Overall, consumer confidence fell for the third straight month in July, according to a Conference Board report released on Tuesday. Consumers attributed the decline to “current business conditions”, and the organisation expects “little improvement” for the remainder of the year.

Business investment would also need to surge more broadly to lift the wider economy. While there has been a boom in the AI sector, other industries have not been as eager to keep their inventories stocked.

Klein says consistent trade policies would change that.

“The pervasive uncertainty in the economy will affect businesses’ decisions on hiring and investing. That can also contribute to the slowdown, because, in an uncertain environment, businesses don’t want to make decisions that have long-lasting consequences when they have little idea of what the future will look like,” Klein said.

Creating economic conditions that encourage consumers and businesses to spend would help drive up GDP in the coming quarters. However, uncertain trade policies and concerns about widespread layoffs, as has been the case in several tech companies, have made consumers more cautious with the pocket books.

“If people were more secure and felt that their jobs would be there next year; if they felt that things weren’t more expensive and they could afford to spend more. But those are not easy fixes, right? And talk is not going to change what people rightly perceive as a fraught situation,” Klein added.

Tehran, Iran – Iran and the United States have returned to mediated talks, and their military action is temporarily suspended, but the war continues to impact international maritime corridors beyond the Strait of Hormuz as well as domestic markets.

The near-total closure of the strategic waterway, disruptions in the Red Sea by the Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen and Ukraine attacking an Iranian vessel in the Caspian Sea have all kept tensions high.

Iran’s government is also facing more tough choices, including a potential fuel price hike amid high social and economic discontent, as the US military enforces a naval blockade of the country’s southern ports for a second time.

The Ministry of Petroleum said on Saturday that Iran has sold $11.5bn of crude oil during the war without specifying the exact dates and $6.5bn during the period of the now-suspended memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed with the US last month. It said the combined figure represented 60 percent of the full-year oil revenue target in the budget.

The signing of the June 17 MoU led to the partial reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and lifting of the US naval blockade on Iran, which eased some of the pressure on global oil markets and allowed Iran to export oil stored on supertankers waiting to sail from its territorial waters. Iran’s Petroleum Ministry said increased oil prices generated about $3bn in additional value in the first half of the year and $11bn from the yields has so far been transferred to government coffers despite US embargoes.

During the previous blockade that was imposed on April 13 and lasted a little over two months, Iranian authorities attested to near-zero crude exports. A prolonged second blockade risks further reducing Iran’s export revenues and piling pressure on Kharg Island, through which about 90 percent of Iran’s crude oil exports pass, and other Iranian storage and export sites, which could in turn affect production at petrochemical plants and make an eventual restart costlier and slower.

The US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) said that as of Saturday, soldiers had redirected 12 commercial vessels trying to run the blockade that has been in place since mid-July, disabled two that did not comply and boarded two “to ensure total compliance”.

The US military also showed footage of heavily armed soldiers rappelling down from a helicopter onto the deck of the Charminar, an Iran-linked oil tanker subject to US sanctions since last year for allegedly being part of the Shamkhani network. The US says Iranian oil magnate Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani plays a central role in Iranian and Russian shadow fleet operations.

Iran has also said it has been redirecting multiple ships each day to keep the strait closed as its armed forces emphasised that they will not bow to pressure. On Sunday, Iranian media reports said a vessel blew up after hitting a naval mine in the Strait of Hormuz.

Still, CENTCOM has stopped extensive bombing strikes against Iran for two nights with US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz saying President Donald Trump is giving talks with Tehran “some space”.

Iran has also stopped retaliatory attacks across the region while Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said discussions with Oman on reopening the Strait of Hormuz have been productive.

The domestic picture

The oil export constraints, however, are still adding to Iran’s existing economic woes, which are linked to domestic structural issues and mismanagement as well as years of harsh sanctions.

Iran’s infrastructure has also suffered significant damage during the war launched by the US and Israel in late February and may fare worse if the conflict escalates.

The government said last month that about 230 million cubic metres (300 million cubic yards) per day of Iran’s pre-war natural gas output of roughly 650 million cubic metres (850 million cubic yards) was lost due to US and Israeli bombing, worsening electricity and petrochemical shortages.

Sekhavat Asadi, managing director of the Pars Special Economic Energy Zone, said on Sunday that Iran expects to restore more than 100 million cubic metres (130 million cubic yards) per day of that lost production capacity within the coming months.

Authorities are also managing a fuel imbalance as the country faces a deficit of more than 20 million litres (5.3 million gallons) per day of petrol. The shortage is managed through limited but costly imports, blending fuel components, tapping inventories stocked before the war and repeatedly asking citizens to consume less.

The Petroleum Ministry said tighter monthly fuel consumption caps may be imposed if the imbalance persists.

The government said this week that it is seriously considering doubling the price of a third tier of monthly petrol quotas allocated to individuals.

Another petrol price hike was made in December, weeks before the country was swept by a wave of nationwide protests, in which thousands of people were killed in a government crackdown in January. An overnight fuel price increase in November 2019 also triggered deadly nationwide protests.

The capital, Tehran, and cities across the country are facing rolling electricity cuts, which also create water and communications disruptions. President Masoud Pezeshkian said he has ordered industries not to be cut off until late September to avoid further inflaming a bruised jobs market.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has also hit Iran’s commerce with China, its largest trading partner and buyer of oil, which has considerably curtailed its overall crude oil imports to adapt to conditions created by the war.

But nonoil trade with China has also deteriorated since the start of the war, falling by 75 percent in March and June when compared with a year before, according to Chinese customs data.

Two near-total internet shutdowns imposed by the authorities, first during the January protests and then during the war, only worsened conditions for Iran’s economy this year as it battles chronic inflation and a rapid dwindling of public purchasing power.

A report last year by the Saba Pension Strategies Institute, a think tank affiliated with Iran’s state-run pension fund, found that while a little more than 30 percent of Iranians lived below the poverty line five years ago, that rate was projected to have reached 45 percent this year – and was still rising.

Spread to Bab al-Mandeb, Caspian Sea

After repeated Iranian threats that escalating the war could spread the scope of maritime disruptions to the Red Sea, the Houthis in Yemen last week declared a blockade against Saudi Arabia, turning back or hitting vessels transiting near the strait of Bab al-Mandeb while also bombing Saudi oil facilities.

Dozens of commodity vessels have still continued their transit through the strait, including Chinese supertankers, but war-risk premiums have increased, raising import and insurance costs for all.

Saudi authorities, who lead a coalition backing Yemen’s internationally recognised government against the Houthis, have responded by launching major air attacks across Yemen.

And farther north, Ukraine has confirmed that it struck a vessel in the Caspian Sea with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy alleging it was carrying Iran-linked military cargo.

Iran’s authorities said it was a commercial vessel importing iron from Astrakhan, a port on the Volga River in Russia, and bound for Bandar Anzali in northern Iran. They said one sailor was killed and three were wounded.

The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned Kyiv’s charge d’affaires in Tehran to deliver a strong protest and a warning that “the act will not go unanswered”.

The incident has raised concerns that the Caspian Sea, a waterway previously used safely for trade, could also become the scene of more military confrontations.

Iran’s Caspian trade is primarily with Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. It imports essential goods, such as wheat and other grains, corn, barley and animal feed as well as timber and fertiliser.

The country’s exports through the northern maritime route include construction materials, steel products, agricultural goods and some refined petrochemical products.

The war’s expanding disruptions have only prompted hardline state-linked analysts to advocate closer strategic partnerships with China and Russia.

“We can now say that the two war fronts in the Middle East and Ukraine are increasingly intertwined,” Mahdi Kharratiyan, a political analyst linked with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, wrote on X on Sunday.

Tariffs apply to Canadian wine, hockey sticks, cement, and other products, sparking fears of escalating trade tensions.

US President Donald Trump will impose new 50 percent tariffs on many Canadian goods, claiming “discriminatory treatment” by Ottawa against US alcohol, automobile and dairy products.

The tariffs, ordered by Trump on Monday, will take effect in 30 days and cover a range of items, including wine, hockey sticks, and cement, according to a White House fact sheet.

Trump, who saw many of his tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court earlier this year, is using an untested legal provision for the new duties: Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

The latest duties will not apply to energy, potash, and goods already impacted by sector-specific tariffs, the White House said.

Crucially, however, they will hit products covered under the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement (USMCA).

The tariff announcement quickly raised concerns of escalation among some businesses.

While Trump has slapped sweeping duties on US trading partners since returning to the presidency last year, the orders generally exempted goods entering his country under the North American free trade pact.

His latest actions threaten to further strain ties with the second-largest US trade partner and come just days after he threatened Canada with increased tariffs over a wave of wildfire smoke that descended on the US.

The White House, in announcing the new tariffs, said Canada was one of only two countries – along with China – to retaliate against Trump’s tariffs last year.

It also took aim at the fact that most Canadian provinces have stopped buying US alcohol, boycotting the products over Trump’s tariff threats and repeated calls for annexation of Canada as America’s “51st state”.

“Canada has taken US alcohol products off Canadian shelves, given better market access to dairy products from the European Union, and has put a cap on US vehicle exports to Canada from companies reshoring to the United States,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer charged in a statement.

The tariff announcement aims to “hold Canada accountable for its retaliation and discrimination”, he added.

United States President Donald Trump has threatened to impose additional tariffs against Canada, as a penalty for the wildfire smoke that has clouded cities across North America.

On Friday, Trump complained about the air quality on social media, as officials in Canada continue to battle 896 active blazes across the country.

Roughly 200 are burning in the province of Ontario, where Premier Doug Ford said 81 are still out of control. Trump, however, blamed the fires on Canadian governance.

“We are holding Canada responsible for the fact that they are not properly maintaining their Forests, and Brush,” Trump wrote.

“The United States is being unnecessarily invaded by filthy, polluted, and unhealthy air, the quality of which is dangerous, and totally unacceptable!”

He pledged to call Prime Minister Mark Carney, accusing the Canadian leader’s government of negligence.

“The cost is incalculable,” Trump added, saying the expense would be added to existing tariffs against Canadian exports to the US.

The post is the latest example of the US president wielding the threat of heightened tariffs to impose a wide range of demands on foreign countries.

Since returning to the White House for a second term in January 2025, Trump has ratcheted up pressure against Canada, using tariffs as a means of pressuring the country to increase border security and change trade practices he considered unfair.

Trump has also pushed Canada to cede its sovereignty and become the “51st” US state.

Scientists have attributed the proliferation of wildfires across North America to a range of factors, including hot and dry conditions worsened by climate change.

But the right-wing Trump has repeatedly blamed left-leaning and centrist politicians for mismanagement when powerful wildfires erupt.

Trump, for example, repeatedly attacked California Governor Gavin Newsom when his state was fighting wildfires around the city of Los Angeles in 2025.

He blamed the fire destruction on the state’s approach to water management and its endangered species protections.

“I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this,” Trump wrote at the time, though experts say his accusations had little basis in fact.

During his first term, Trump also attacked California, saying that the state should have raked its forest floors to prevent wildfires.

“I said, you’ve got to clean your floors. You’ve got to clean your forests,” Trump told a rally in 2020.

Scientists say that multiple factors can contribute to large wildfires, including heightened heat, drought and overly repressive fire policies that prevent natural burns, resulting in overgrown landscapes.

The risk of damage is also heightened by the increasing number of people living in areas where the wildlands meet urban development.

In mid-July, Ontario saw its largest conflagration of the year so far, when several smaller fires merged in Wabakimi Provincial Park, destroying First Nations communities.

Ford, Ontario’s premier, said on Friday morning that 10 communities had been evacuated.

He thanked leaders across Canada, as well as in US states like Massachusetts and Minnesota, for providing support.

“Neighbours have each other’s backs, which is why Ontario has always been there for our American partners in their time of need,” he wrote on social media.

But Republicans, including Trump and US Representative Bill Huizenga of Michigan, have used the recent blazes to criticise Canada for its fire policy.

“Canada’s inability to mitigate, contain, and prevent its wildfires must be addressed,” Huizenga wrote on social media on Thursday. “These annual fires significantly harm not only our health and quality of life, but also our economic prosperity.”

On Friday, Trump reiterated his position that Canada’s fires could have been prevented through debris removal.

“Canada has refused to engage in basic Forest Management and Debris Removal, knowing that such refusal will lead to exactly this result,” Trump wrote.

“This is Willful Negligence, and becoming a yearly occurrence, costing the United States Billions of Dollars, which cost of this pollution must of necessity be added to the TARIFFS Canada is currently paying.”

The wildfire smoke has prompted concerns about the viability of hosting the FIFA World Cup final in New Jersey this weekend.

But the Trump administration itself has faced pushback over its wildfire preparedness.

The New York Times reported on Friday that the Trump administration had slashed funding for wildfire research, including laboratories that study the effects of wildfire smoke on human health.

Islamabad, Pakistan – A wooden panelled bookshelf behind him, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif signed the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran, aimed at extending their ceasefire by creating a pathway towards long-term peace.

Sharif then held up the document for the cameras. That was June 17, the high point of a frenzied diplomatic effort led by Pakistan spanning weeks, which had culminated in the MoU that Sharif signed as a mediator.

Yet less than four weeks later, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has, in just the past few days, issued two statements expressing “deep concern” over renewed US-Iran hostilities, with the MoU Islamabad had helped pull together seemingly in shreds.

On Monday morning, the US launched the latest in a series of attacks on Iran, which responded by firing missiles and drones at multiple Gulf and Arab nations that it blamed for hosting US military bases.

Hours later, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei told reporters that mediators, including Pakistan, Qatar and Oman, remained engaged and were continuing their efforts, even as he warned that Iran would continue responding to what it viewed as US non-compliance with the MoU.

So far, those efforts have failed to slow down the fighting, even as Pakistan has pressed on with diplomatic outreach.

On Sunday, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar spoke by phone with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, telling him that dialogue and diplomacy remained “the only viable path” to resolving the crisis.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also spoke to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Friday, warning that “hard-earned” peace gains were at risk, while Dar held a separate call on Saturday with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud.

To many analysts, one question, above all, now stares at Pakistan and other mediators like Qatar: With the deep distrust between the US and Iran only further expanding following the new bout of fighting, can Islamabad or any other capital once again bring Washington and Tehran back to the negotiating table?

Repeated breakdowns

The renewed fighting marks at least the third occasion since the US-Iran ceasefire signed on April 8 appeared to have collapsed.

Days after that truce was agreed on, the breakdown of the first round of Islamabad talks led to the US imposing a naval blockade on Iranian ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The US and Iran both attacked ships in the days that followed.

Then, after the MoU was signed on June 17, Iran attacked several ships that it claimed were passing through the Strait of Hormuz without its permission, prompting another escalation with Washington.

But the Iranian tanker strikes last week appear to have raised tensions to new heights.

US attacks on Iran since then have hit at least 10 provinces, killing a soldier, several fishermen in the southern province of Hormozgan, and a firefighter in Sistan and Baluchestan, according to Iranian authorities.

A railway bridge on a trade corridor linking Iran with Central Asia and China was also struck, along with a bridge near Mashhad used by mourners travelling to former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s funeral.

The renewed hostilities have also pulled Qatar, a fellow mediator alongside Pakistan, more directly into the conflict. On Sunday, Iranian missiles and drones hit the Gulf state, with debris from interceptions injuring three people, including a child, according to Qatar’s Ministry of Interior.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has accused Washington of violating “nearly all parts” of the June agreement within 25 days of its signing, citing attacks on transport infrastructure and fishing vessels.

Baghaei said on Monday that Iran had “acted in good faith” throughout, but that “each time the other party has failed to meet its obligations, we did not uphold ours, and we will continue to act in this manner.”

Since the war began on February 28, Islamabad has played the role of mediator.

It hosted talks in April, the first time in four decades that US and Iranian officials sat in a room together.

Its army chief and interior minister have travelled to Tehran several times. In late March, Pakistan also helped secure a Chinese-backed peace framework alongside its own diplomatic efforts.

In June, it helped produce the MoU signed by Pezeshkian and US President Donald Trump, along with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, which was then discussed at the Burgenstock summit in Switzerland.

Yet analysts say Pakistan lacks the means to enforce the agreements it helps broker.

Javad Heiran-Nia, director of the Persian Gulf Studies Group at the Center for Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran, said the MoU was never intended to resolve the underlying dispute.

“The MoU deferred key and substantive issues to future negotiations and functioned primarily as a tactical instrument to halt hostilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping,” he told Al Jazeera.

Iran, he said, sees control of the waterway as “a strategic asset; not merely a coercive lever, but a deterrent tool”, and appears “prepared to accept the risk of war to preserve this strategic advantage”.

Mediators, he added, lack the instruments to resolve the dispute “unless a shift in the balance of power between Iran and the United States emerges as a result of limited military engagements”, pointing to a potential US naval blockade as one of the few developments that could alter the strategic calculus.

Dania Thafer, executive director of the Gulf International Forum in Doha, said Pakistan’s room for manoeuvre had narrowed as both sides hardened their positions over the strait.

“Pakistan is in a situation where it is highly dependent on both parties, as it always has been, but right now, Iran is bent on establishing its control over the Strait of Hormuz,” she told Al Jazeera.

According to Thafer, there is little Pakistan can do to de-escalate while both Washington and Tehran remain in “an escalatory phase”.

“Once they feel they have reached a point where the balance tips in favour of one side or the other, then perhaps they will return to the negotiating table,” she added.

But Qamar Cheema, head of the Islamabad-based Sanober Institute, pushed back on the idea that Pakistan is operating without real tools.

He pointed to US Vice President JD Vance’s recent remarks, where he credited Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir’s role in the process, as evidence that Islamabad’s military-diplomatic channel carries real weight in Washington.

Access itself, he argued, is the instrument.

“Pakistan enjoys trust, and that’s why both sides pick up the phone and call Pakistani leadership any time to remove a stumbling block,” Cheema told Al Jazeera.

Crowded diplomacy, narrowing options

But Pakistan has not been the only diplomatic channel, and according to Heiran-Nia, the dispute over the strait was never really Islamabad’s to mediate.

“Iran had previously removed the Strait of Hormuz issue from Pakistan’s mediation agenda, as the matter was essentially bilateral between Tehran and Muscat,” he said.

Tehran, he explained, did not want the issue to be “defined within a broader negotiation package under Pakistani auspices, which would have afforded Washington room for political manoeuvre”.

Direct Iran-Oman talks followed, but “US military pressure and economic sanctions threats against Oman have placed Muscat under considerable strain, preventing meaningful progress,” according to the Tehran-based analyst.

Meanwhile, he cautioned that Sunday’s attacks on Qatar “could have adverse effects on Qatar’s mediatory role”, although Doha “does not currently appear inclined to withdraw”, adding that “Iran should not assume that Doha’s patience is limitless.”

Mustafa Hyder Sayed, executive director of the Pakistan-China Institute in Islamabad, described the GCC states as caught in an uncomfortable position.

“The GCC countries are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. They want a functional relationship with Iran while not openly declining the use of their bases and territory by the United States, because they understand they cannot choose their neighbours,” he told Al Jazeera.

Meanwhile, Israel, which is not a party to the MoU, has continued military operations in Lebanon, which Tehran cites as an ongoing violation of the agreement.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Saturday that southern Lebanon “would become Gaza”, raising the prospect of further regional escalation.

Who blinks first?

Despite a week of escalating attacks, the core dispute remains unchanged.

Washington and Tehran remain divided over the same issue that stalled negotiations even before the latest round of fighting: Who controls passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and under what conditions?

Iran insists the MoU gave it authority over transit through the waterway. The US disputes that.

On Monday, Trump announced that the US was reinstating a naval blockade of Iranian ships and would charge a 20 percent tariff on all other ships trying to pass through the strait.

Yet, earlier, a possible compromise had briefly emerged.

Heiran-Nia said the parties explored a formula under which commercial vessels would coordinate passage with both Iran and a designated Arab Gulf state, allowing “both parties [to] claim a degree of victory”.

The talks stalled before reaching a conclusion, however, interrupted by the funeral of Iran’s former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who was killed on the first day of the war in joint US-Israeli air strikes.

The conflict has since moved in the opposite direction, with military action aimed at shifting the balance of power rather than reviving negotiations.

“The prevailing trajectory now is the continuation of military strikes in an effort to shift the balance of power. Yet, there remains a risk that strategic calculations on either side could spiral beyond control,” Heiran-Nia said.

Thafer believes that, despite the violence, neither side has formally abandoned the MoU.

“Iran is framing this current round of escalation as a violation of the MoU rather than a reason to exit it, which means there could still be light at the end of the tunnel,” she said.

In her assessment, both sides bear responsibility for violating the agreement, from Iran’s attacks on shipping to Washington’s revocation of Iran’s oil sale licence and the military attacks. Yet the agreement remains, at least formally, in place.

Its future, she said, depends on which side ultimately gives ground over the strait. Iran retains what Thafer described as a “snapback capability” to disrupt shipping whenever it chooses.

“It is, militarily, very difficult to fully neutralise that Iranian capability. We will have to wait and see where the leverage finally sits,” she said.

Cheema, for his part, argued that Iran’s own conduct, more than any mediator’s diplomacy, is what will decide how this settles.

“Iranian authorities seem ambitious and aggressive, and are looking to take risks to project power, which makes it less likely that any agreement will reach a final conclusion. That means interventions from mediators will keep coming.”

The United States-Israel war on Iran has inflicted the greatest disruption to merchant shipping since the back-to-back shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Since the start of the war in late February, shipping lines have faced attacks on their vessels, lengthy delays and steep rises in operating costs.

Yet even after more than four months of turmoil for the industry, the most enduring legacy of the war for shipping may end up being just how little it ultimately changes.

While shipping firms are expected to more explicitly factor risk into their expenses and diversify supply chains where possible in the future, the indispensable nature of seaborne trade means the industry is likely to continue much as before over the long term, analysts say.

That is likely to be especially the case for the container shipping industry, which, unlike the operators of the oil and gas tankers whose dislocation has roiled energy markets, is not heavily reliant on the Strait of Hormuz to transport its cargoes, which range from agricultural produce to apparel and consumer electronics.

While there is no alternative to the strait to access oil-producing Gulf nations by sea, container shipping firms have had the option of redirecting their vessels along longer alternative routes to avoid conflict in the region, including attacks by the Iran-aligned Houthis in the Red Sea.

The global shipping industry has long stood apart for its resilience in the face of crises, bouncing back from major upheaval at remarkable speed.

In 2020, the first year of the COVID pandemic, global container shipping volumes fell by just 1.2 percent compared with the previous year, according to the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), one of the world’s largest associations for shipowners.

By January 2021, the volume of cargo handled at ports worldwide had already surpassed pre-pandemic levels, rising 6.4 percent year-on-year, according to data from the Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics.

By contrast, it took more than four years for global air travel to fully recover from the shock of COVID-19.

While the Iran war and Houthi attacks in the Red Sea since 2023 scrambled regional supply chains, shipping companies have been rapidly adding capacity since Washington and Tehran signed their memorandum of understanding on ending the conflict on June 17.

After plummeting from 3.2 million TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit of cargo) to 74,000 TEU as of mid-June, container capacity in the region has already rebounded to pre-war levels on some routes, according to Xeneta, an ocean and air freight rate market analytics platform.

Capacity between Asia and the United States’ West Coast last week surpassed its pre-conflict record, hitting 350,000 TEU, according to Xeneta.

On Monday, Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, the second- and fifth-largest container shipping firms, respectively, announced that they would begin sailing through the Suez Canal again for the first time since February, following an assessment of the security situation in the Red Sea.

Shipping is indispensable to global trade, in large part because no other mode of transport comes close in terms of capacity and cost-effectiveness.

The world’s largest container ships have capacities exceeding 24,000 TEU – the equivalent of roughly 12,000 trucks, 2,240 cargo planes, or 360 freight trains.

Lacking genuine competition in the transport of goods in huge volumes, shipping facilitates about 90 percent of global trade.

Shipping will look “remarkably familiar” in five years from now because it is an industry driven by demand, said Punit Oza, the head of the consultancy Maritime NXT and the former executive director of the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration.

Even the most severe conflict cannot change the “physics or the economics” of seaborne trade, he said.

“Ships do not sail because shipowners want them to; they sail because consumers somewhere want grain, iron ore, gas, or televisions,” Oza told Al Jazeera.

“It is the consumers of shipping – the cargo interests, the economies, the households – who ultimately shape the industry, and their demand will endure long after the headlines fade.”

Judah Levine‏, head of research at freight booking company Freightos, said container shipping in the future is likely to look “quite similar” to how it did before the war, with Dubai’s Port of Jebel Ali continuing to serve as the region’s main hub for both Gulf-bound goods and cargoes destined for Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas.

But Levine said diversion of cargoes to smaller hubs – such as the UAE’s Port of Fujairah and Khor Fakkan Port, and Port Sultan Qaboos in Oman – during the war offers a preview of the contingencies shipping firms are likely to deploy in future crises.

“All of a sudden, they were handling much larger volumes, and then creating these land bridges, usually to go on to Jebel Ali,” Levine told Al Jazeera.

“Containers find a way,” Levine said.

“It’s kind of like water. They’ll trickle, you know, to where they need to go by other paths.”

Another lasting impact of the war could be greater international cooperation on maritime security and safety.

The International Maritime Organization, the UN body responsible for shipping and seafarers, has listed the protection of shipping lanes as one of its top agenda items for discussion at its biannual meeting taking place from Monday to Friday.

“Seafarers have tragically lost their lives in connection with this conflict, and the impact has been felt well beyond the region, with real consequences for global trade, energy and food security,” IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez said in opening remarks to the session on Monday.

Ruth Banomyong, a professor of logistics and supply chain management at Thammasat Business School in Bangkok, Thailand, said he expects to see international coordination to strengthen trade routes that integrate both land and sea even as shipping networks remain “largely the same”.

“This means ensuring that maritime transport, ports, inland logistics, customs procedures and alternative land transport options work together as an integrated system when disruptions occur,” Banomyong told Al Jazeera.

“Maritime freedom is no longer just about freedom of navigation. It is about ensuring the continuity of global trade.

“The long-term lesson is not to replace the Strait of Hormuz, but to reduce overdependence on any single transport corridor,” Banomyong added.

Oza, the head of Maritime NXT, said the ad hoc naval coalitions deployed to ensure freedom of navigation during times of conflict could ultimately be succeeded by a multilateral security framework with “regional ownership rather than purely external enforcement”.

“Freedom of navigation is too important to be left to improvisation,” Oza said.

“If there is one consistent lesson from shipping’s long history, it is that human ingenuity always finds a way – pipelines get built, reserves get repositioned, technologies emerge, and trade, like water, finds its path. It will do so again,” Oza added.

“The innovations that follow this war will be a tribute to human resilience; the tragedy is that it took a war to summon them.”

President Lula accuses Jair Bolsonaro’s son, now a presidential hopeful, of helping triggered proposed US tariffs.

Brazilian presidential hopeful Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, is asking the Trump administration to delay proposed tariffs on Brazilian goods until after October’s election, as he tries to counter allegations from President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva that his family helped bring them about.

The Trump administration proposed the 25 percent tariffs in June, citing alleged trade violations including illegal deforestation and what it called unfair electronic payment practices, catching Brazil’s government by surprise. Lula had said relations were improving after a White House meeting with Trump in May.

The announcement came shortly after Bolsonaro met senior US officials in Washington, prompting accusations back home that he had invited US pressure on Brazil, with Lula accusing the right-wing senator of lobbying Washington to impose the tariffs.

He has since doubled down on those accusations, saying in a social media post last week, “the origin of all this was motivated by the Bolsonaro family itself” and that Bolsonaro’s request to delay the tariffs until after the election was “yet another act of treason against the Fatherland”.

Bolsonaro rejects the allegation, arguing instead that it’s Lula who would gain a political advantage if the tariffs were imposed.

“New US tariffs on Brazilian products would hand the current Brazilian government precisely the political victory it has been engineering,” Bolsonaro wrote in a submission to the Office of the US Trade Representative.

Brazilian officials have spent months trying to persuade Washington not to move ahead with the tariffs. But Bolsonaro says the government hasn’t gone far enough to find common ground with the US and is calling for a 180-day delay before any final decision is made.

“Brazil holds general elections in October 2026, and the political landscape that determines the viability of any negotiated resolution will be redefined within roughly ninety days,” he wrote.

So far, there is little sign his efforts are paying off. In a response to a letter Bolsonaro sent last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said US officials still had “substantial differences” with Brazil over the issues they say justify the proposed tariffs.

The dispute has left Brazilians split over who’s telling the truth. A Quaest poll published last month found 47 percent of Brazilians agreed with Lula’s claim that Bolsonaro had encouraged the United States to impose tariffs, while 35 percent agreed with Bolsonaro that he had tried to stop them.

Washington has until July 15 to decide whether to impose the tariffs which, if approved, would still exempt beef, coffee, rare earth minerals and aircraft parts. They would come on top of the tariffs Trump imposed last year over what he described as a “witch hunt” against Jair Bolsonaro, who was convicted months later.

Bolsonaro has made Brazil’s relationship with the United States a central part of his campaign, as Trump has taken a more active role in Latin American politics. That has included the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas and backing right-wing candidates across the region, including Abelardo De La Espriella, who narrowly won Colombia’s presidential election last month.

Military command issues threat a day after Qatari mediators hailed ‘positive progress’ in indirect US-Iranian talks.

Iran’s military command has threatened ships that attempt to cross the Strait of Hormuz using unapproved routes with a “forceful response,” casting new doubt over trade flows in the critical conduit for global energy supplies.

Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters issued the threat on Thursday, a day after Qatari mediators hailed indirect negotiations between US and Iranian officials as making “positive progress” towards a peace deal.

“Any failure to comply with and depart from the designated route or disregard for the navigation protocols of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Strait of Hormuz will be met with an immediate and forceful response from the armed forces, and will endanger the security of the offending vessels,” the military command said in a statement carried by the country’s semi-official Tasnim news agency.

While Tehran did not specify what prompted the warning, it came after US Central Command (CENTCOM) on Wednesday said it had presided over a security dialogue in Bahrain during which regional leaders expressed their commitment to the “free flow of commerce” in the strait.

Iranian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Kazem Gharibabadi hit out at CENTCOM’s statement on Thursday, saying the forum “cannot establish legal order and security for the Persian Gulf”.

“The region’s security will be ensured through the end of interventions and the US withdrawal from the area, respect for countries’ sovereignty, and acceptance of new geopolitical realities – not under the military umbrella of America,” Gharibabadi said in a post on X.

The Strait of Hormuz, which facilitated about one-fifth of the global trade in oil and liquefied natural gas before the US-Israel war on Iran began in late February, has become a major sticking point in Washington and Tehran’s talks aimed at turning their fragile ceasefire into a lasting peace.

While Iran agreed to make its “best efforts” to arrange the safe passage of ships in the strait in the memorandum of understanding it signed with the US on June 17, Tehran has repeatedly threatened to attack ships that do not use its preferred route close to the Iranian shoreline.

At least 49 attacks on commercial vessels have been recorded in the strait since the start of the war on February 28, according to MarineTraffic.

Most of those incidents, including drone attacks on a Singapore-flagged cargo ship and Panama-flagged merchant vessel on Thursday and Saturday, respectively, have been blamed on Tehran.

While transits through the waterway have risen since US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed their MoU on June 17, they remain far below the roughly 130 daily crossings that took place before the conflict.

At least 45 vessels crossed the strait on Wednesday, up from 34 on Tuesday, according to MarineTraffic data.

After dropping to pre-war levels on Thursday on reports of productive talks in Doha, oil prices largely held steady as markets opened in Asia on Friday.

Brent futures for August delivery stood at $72.07 per barrel as of 02:30 GMT, after dropping below $71 for the first time since the war the previous day.

Research published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) has found that a United Kingdom-United States pharmaceutical deal could cause 229,000 excess deaths as a result of the diversion of billions of pounds away from Britain’s National Health Service (NHS).

In December, the UK and US signed a pharmaceutical trade deal, under which the US government agreed not to impose tariffs on UK pharmaceutical and medical technology exports for the next three years.

In return, the British government committed to increasing NHS spending on new US medicines from 0.3 percent in 2026 to at least 0.6 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) by 2036. This means that medicine spending overall should increase from 10 percent to 12 percent of the NHS budget.

UK politicians defended the deal with Science Minister Patrick Vallance saying in April that the arrangement gives patients across the NHS access to “life-changing new medicines that they previously would have been denied”.

“Not only this, but as the first country in the world to benefit from a zero percent tariff on pharmaceuticals to the US, Britain’s life sciences sector will be further boosted,” Vallance argued.

But the research published in the BMJ found that the commitment to spend so much more on new branded medicines over the next decade without any increase in NHS funding will “create substantial opportunity costs elsewhere, having a direct effect on population health”.

Samuel Cross, a professor in the department of pharmacology and therapeutics at the University of Liverpool, who coauthored the report, said the agreement “benefits pharmaceutical companies and comes at a cost of NHS patients”.

“There’s really no way to sugar-coat that. The numbers speak for themselves,” Cross told Al Jazeera.

Here’s what we know about the report:

What is in the US-UK deal?

The agreement signed on December 1 was hailed as a landmark deal between British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and US President Donald Trump on pharmaceutical trade and pricing.

The US agreed not to impose tariffs on UK pharmaceutical and medical exports for the following three years – until January 19, 2029.

According to a policy paper published by the British government, the preliminary understanding of the agreement recognised that the US and UK shared a “mutual interest in developing a global medicines system that supports development and commercialisation of new innovations”.

 What did the research find?

In February, Vallance disclosed that funding for the increased spending on medicines would come from the Department of Health and Social Care, which funds the NHS in England, rather than the Treasury.

The study in the BMJ forecast that if spending targets are met and the economy grows as forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the NHS would need to spend an extra 1.3 billion pounds ($1.73bn) a year by 2028 – about 25 million pounds ($33.4m) a week. By 2036, this would rise to an extra 8.8 billion pounds ($11.74bn) a year – about 170 million pounds ($227m) a week). Over the course of the agreement, that would add up to about 44.7 billion pounds ($59.7bn) by the end of 2036.

“Costs are even higher if the impact on publicly funded adult social care is also considered – modelling of English local authority data indicates that every £1bn [$1.33bn] the NHS must find to fund this deal will increase the costs of adult social care by £118m [$157.5m] because of increases in morbidity and mortality,” the report found.

Ultimately, the study predicted, excess deaths are likely as a result.

“Even if we restrict attention to the direct effect of reductions in available NHS expenditure, by 2036 this deal is likely to result in roughly 229,000 excess deaths – more than during the COVID-19 pandemic between March 2020 and June 2022 (137,000). If the indirect effect on adult social care is also included, the increase in excess deaths is even greater (291,000),” the report stated.

The report added that the findings are “unsurprising” given the existing pressures on the NHS and the “large burden of unmet need in highly cost-effective areas of care”.

It also referred to shortfalls in NHS funding and pharmaceutical pricing as “opportunity costs”.

Cross said that in health economics, opportunity costs are the “key to all of this”.

“In the NHS, we have a finite budget – we’re not made of money – and if you take money away to pay for, in this case, more medicines. then that comes at an opportunity cost of the places that the money has been diverted away from,” he explained.

Which health sectors will be worst affected?

The research predicted that the greatest number of deaths would occur in cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal and cancer patients.

It added that there will also be broader harm caused to quality of life for patients in those sectors as well as “neurological, endocrine, musculoskeletal, and mental health problems”.

“Despite this evidence and reassurances that ‘frontline services’ will be protected, the NHS will need to fund this deal from allocations made six months before the deal was agreed. The evidence suggests that if additional public expenditure was available, it could be more effectively deployed within the NHS itself,” it added.

The report also called the government’s claims that the US-UK agreement would encourage pharmaceutical innovation in the country “uncertain”.

“Pharmaceutical research and development operate within a global market, of which the UK represents a relatively small share. As such, there is limited evidence that UK domestic pricing materially influences global investment decisions,” the report stated.

“Even so, evidence suggests in most cases the UK is already paying more than 100 percent of the long-term value of new medicines; incentivising production of new medicines under this deal will do long-term harm to the public health objective of the NHS,” it added.

Cross added that because money has in effect been diverted away from the NHS, there is no way for the government to offset the impact on the service.

“If the funds are used to pay for new medicines, we will lose positive health outcomes elsewhere, and that is as simple as that,” he said.

He called for the government to release an impact assessment to trigger a public discussion about how good the US-UK deal really is for Britain.

EXPLAINER

China and Sudan signed off on a waiver of $50m as Sudan’s military-led government seeks support amid Western sanctions.

China has waived loans worth $50m that it had given to Sudan, the two countries said over the weekend. The agreement comes three years into a war between Sudan’s army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) that has shrunk the country’s economy by roughly 40 percent, according to the United Nations.

The sum is small compared with what Sudan owes overall to external governments or agencies, an amount estimated at more than $56bn before the war. But the waiver lands at a moment when Khartoum has few other international lenders extending any financial support.

China’s relationship with Sudan predates the war by decades, built on oil and infrastructure interests that survived multiple changes of government in Khartoum. But the war has narrowed Sudan’s options elsewhere, as Western governments have largely held back or imposed sanctions.

Here’s why this deal is significant for Sudan and China:

What do we know about the deal?

The signed protocol in Port Sudan cancels four interest-free loans worth 344 million yuan, about $50m, with immediate effect, according to Sudan’s official news agency, SUNA.

Sudan’s Finance Minister Gibril Ibrahim welcomed the move, reportedly saying that China has continued investing in the country throughout the war while Western governments, including the United States and European Union members, have largely held back. Gibril himself was added to the US Treasury sanctions list in September 2025 for his alleged “involvement in Sudan’s brutal civil war and … connections to Iran”.

China’s charge d’affaires in Sudan, Xu Jian, reportedly said at the signing ceremony that China was ready to help rebuild what was destroyed during the war in Sudan.

What’s in it for Sudan?

Sudan’s external debt of more than $56bn before the war is expected to have ballooned since.

The $50m debt relief amounts to not even 1 percent of the total external pre-war debt. In fact, Sudan was close to a far bigger debt write-off in 2021. It was on track with the IMF and the World Bank Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative to have more than $50bn of its debt forgiven within three years. The 2021 military coup in October derailed that debt relief plan, and the process was formally suspended a year later.

Still, China’s waiver arrives at a moment of acute need for the country. The war is now in its third year. More than 1.5 million people have been killed, according to the UN, and the war has displaced about 14 million people – about a quarter of the Sudanese population. The World Health Organization says less than 14 percent of health facilities are still functioning. Jobs have vanished in many parts of the country, and the rising cost of living has made it difficult for households to survive.

The Sudanese pound has collapsed since the start of the war. It went from roughly 600 to the dollar before the war to more than 5000 to the dollar by June 2026.

What’s in it for China?

In many ways, Beijing’s decision to waive the $50m loan is in keeping with a broader approach it has taken in recent years, one that has helped cement China as Africa’s largest trading partner for 17 consecutive years.

China has provided interest-free loan forgiveness as a diplomatic gesture to multiple countries, and these decisions are recurrent announcements at Beijing’s frequent leader-level summits with African nations. This is especially true for smaller loans. Research from the Johns Hopkins China Africa Research Initiative found that China forgave at least $3.4bn of these kinds of debts across the African continent between 2000 and 2019.

By contrast, larger loans are usually commercial loans through state banks that come with interest, and waiving those is harder.

At a time when the West is largely trying to isolate Sudan’s leadership, a small loan waiver gives China outsized influence in a country that sits at the intersection of the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa.

What have China-Sudan ties been like historically?

Oil has long served as a catalyst for their relationship. From the mid-1990s on, China’s National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) poured billions of dollars into Sudanese oil fields and the pipelines carrying that crude oil to Port Sudan. This was a time when many Western companies were pushed out due to sanctions.

The relationship changed when the southern part of the country voted in favour of independence in 2011. The world’s newest country, South Sudan, left the north and took most of the country’s oil fields with it.

Chinese investment largely dried up afterwards, but Sudan still has more than $5bn of outstanding debt to China. The war has aggravated Sudan’s economic challenges. The CNPC requested a formal exit from Sudan in December 2025.

China has added 10 United States-based companies to its export control list and barred government procurement from nearly 50 US companies two weeks after the Pentagon blacklisted some of China’s best-known companies for their alleged ties to the Chinese military.

China’s Ministry of Commerce announced the export order on Monday, barring Chinese companies from exporting “dual-use” items that can be used for civilian or military purposes to the US firms.

The list of companies includes rare-earth mine operator MP Materials Corp, rare-earth magnet maker USA Rare Earths, and US defence contractors specialising in fields such as aerospace, drones, synthetic-aperture radar, and shipbuilding and repairs.

Under the order, “foreign institutions and individuals worldwide are also prohibited from transferring or providing Chinese dual-use goods to them” while ongoing export transactions must be suspended immediately.

The Commerce Ministry said the export ban had been issued to “safeguard national security and interests and fulfil international obligations such as non-proliferation”.

China’s Ministry of Finance on Monday separately barred Chinese government procurement from 46 companies, including subsidiaries of major US defence contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Atomics and General Dynamics. US-funded, locally registered companies, however, have been given an exemption by the ministry.

Experts described Beijing’s orders as a retaliation, albeit a largely symbolic one, against the US after the Pentagon in early June added about 80 Chinese companies and their subsidiaries to its list of “Entities Identified as Chinese Military Companies Operating in the United States”.

The designation means the Pentagon either believes the companies are owned or controlled by the Chinese military or they are “military-civil fusion contributors”, a term for commercial companies that contribute to China’s military development despite their civilian status.

The updated list includes Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Holdings, search engine giant Baidu and electric automaker BYD, some of China’s largest and best-known companies.

While the order does not bar US companies from doing business with them, it does impact US defence contractors and their future supply chains.

“We can interpret this as a tit-for-tat response, and that fits into China’s playbook any time we’ve seen escalation from the US side in terms of trade and investment tools,” said Nick Marro, global trade lead analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit.

China-based supply chain consultant Cameron Johnson said the Commerce Ministry’s order mirrors US semiconductor export controls designed to keep the most advanced chips out of Chinese hands.

“They basically say it doesn’t matter where or who you are, you are bound by this regardless of circumstance,” said Johnson, who is also a senior partner at the Shanghai consultancy Tidal Wave Solutions. “Organisations or individuals in any country or region are prohibited from transferring dual-use materials that originated in China.”

He said Beijing’s orders in practice may be hard to enforce and many of the companies named in those orders have already moved their supply chains out of China or begun to “de-risk” their operations there.

Johnson said the wide scope of companies included in Washington’s and Beijing’s directives could be a sign of more to come and may signal a new front in the US-China trade war.

“This is probably just the beginning of the back and forth,” he said. Last year, after returning to the White House for a second term, US President Donald Trump reignited the US-China trade war, leading Washington and Beijing to impose escalating rounds of tariffs on each other.

Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to a trade truce in October, which was extended during a summit between the two leaders in Beijing in May.

Despite promises to “enhance economic cooperation” during the meeting, observers like Singapore-based geopolitical analyst Steve Okun predicted the goodwill may be short-lived.

“The US’s recent closure of chip export loopholes and China’s continuing addition to its export bans show the national security lane remains active in both capitals regardless of the diplomatic niceties at the recent Trump-Xi summit,” Okun told Al Jazeera.

“There is no ‘truce’ in the US-China trade war. Expect further actions from both sides as well on export controls and investment restrictions,” he said.

Ship tracking data shows sharp fall in transits as US and Iranian officials hold talks to save fragile peace framework.

Shipping in the Strait of Hormuz has plunged following Iran’s announcement that it has closed the waterway once again over Israel’s strikes on Lebanon, according to ship tracking data.

A total of 12 vessels crossed the strait on Sunday, down from 35 transits the previous day, an analysis by maritime intelligence company Windward showed on Sunday.

Five of eight vessels entering the strait had their Automatic Identification Systems turned off, according to Windward.

“The current traffic profile: dark, sanctioned, Iranian-linked, resembling the late-blockade baseline more than a functioning open strait,” Windward said in a post on X.

Maritime traffic in the strait had been showing signs of recovery since US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Wednesday signed a memorandum of understanding on ending the US-Israel war on Iran.

Twenty-five vessels transited the strait on Thursday, the highest number since mid-April, according to data from maritime intelligence provider Kpler.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Saturday declared the waterway shut, citing Israeli “crimes” in Lebanon and the failure of the US to maintain a ceasefire in the country.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) on Saturday denied that Iran had closed the strait, which normally carries about one-fifth of global oil and liquified natural gas supplies, saying that safe passage through the waterway remained “intact”, with 55 merchant ships transiting that day.

The cause of the discrepancy between the transit figures provided by CENTCOM and commercial ship tracking providers is unclear.

US and Iranian negotiators on Sunday held make-or-break talks in Switzerland as the conflict in Lebanon threatened to derail efforts to turn their 60-day ceasefire extension into a permanent peace deal.

In a briefing to Iranian media after the talks, Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the sides had discussed the safe passage of ships through the strait, and “a mechanism was set up, which is important”.

Despite renewed tensions between Washington and Tehran and signs of slowing traffic in the strait, oil prices moved lower on Monday morning in Asia.

Brent crude, the primary international benchmark, was down about 0.9 percent as of 01:30 GMT, at just below $80 a barrel.

Asia’s major stock markets opened higher, with key indices in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan making substantial gains.

Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 and Seoul’s Kospi were up 1.8 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively, while the Taiex in Taipei surged 2.6 percent.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index bucked the rally, dipping 0.7 percent.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has signed a US-Iran memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the war between the two countries. US President Donald Trump and Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian signed on Wednesday.

For half a century, a handful of wealthy Western democracies wrote the rules of the global economy.

But the world order is becoming crowded, and even as the Group of Seven (G7) remains one of the world’s most influential clubs, a challenger has emerged.

BRICS has expanded, and says it wants a bigger voice for the Global South. This bloc of nations speaks for nearly half the world’s population – and accounts for a growing share of global output, energy and raw materials.

In the space between the two, a third force is gathering pace: the so-called middle powers, nations too big to ignore and unwilling to pick a side.

EXPLAINER

US President Donald Trump and Iranian leaders say a deal has been agreed to end more than 100 days of war that killed thousands.

United States President Donald Trump and Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said on Sunday that they had reached an initial deal to end the war and to resume traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump said the deal allows for toll-free shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely closed since the US and Israel launched an assault on Iran on February 28.

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday.

The US and Iran will sign a memorandum of understanding in Switzerland on Friday, said the prime minister of Pakistan, whose country has served as a mediator.

Monday marks 108 days since the war began, with the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran. Here is what’s happening:

What we know about the deal

• The content of the agreement, which follows weeks of fraught negotiations and periodic threats from Trump of new hostilities unless Iran reaches a deal, remained unclear.
• Strait of Hormuz to reopen: Iran’s semi-official Mehr news agency said the draft deal called for reopening the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days under Iranian arrangements. Trump, who turned 80 on Sunday, said the deal allows for toll-free shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely closed since the US and Israel launched an assault on Iran on December 28.
• Frozen assets to be released: Iran’s Mehr news agency reported that the US would release $12bn in frozen assets to Iran before the start of negotiations.
• Iran’s enriched uranium: In an interview with The New York Times on Sunday, Trump said Washington was still negotiating whether Iran would suspend its enrichment for 20 years. Trump hinted that he might settle for a 15-year suspension, but said he did not want to negotiate via the press.
• Israel has not commented: There has been no official comment from Israel about the peace agreement.

In Iran

• The secretariat of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said on Monday that the deal with the US includes the immediate suspension of hostilities on all fronts. “Based on the agreements reached, the war and military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, will end immediately and permanently as of tonight, and in addition, the naval blockade against Iran will end immediately and completely,” it said in a statement.

In the US

• Democrats slam Trump over war: While Democratic lawmakers welcomed the deal, they criticised the Trump administration’s decisions pertaining to the war. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware said that while the deal moves the situation in the “right direction”, several questions remain. He warned that competing interpretations of what was agreed upon could pose risks. Senator Chris Murphy, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the deal is a “surrender to Iran” but that the US should be “glad about it because every day this insane, illegal war continues, we get weaker”.

In Lebanon

• Trump rebukes Israeli attack on Beirut: On Sunday, shortly before the deal was announced by Trump, Israel launched an air attack on Beirut. Trump angrily blamed Israel for delaying the deal’s signing after launching this attack. In an expletive-laden phone interview with US news outlet Axios, Trump fumed about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying: “I was so pissed off. I let him know.”

Global response

• Western leaders praise deal: UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was ready to aid the further technical talks between the US and Iran, adding that he hopes the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz will stabilise energy markets.
• French President Emmanuel Macron also praised the deal and said Paris would support the Lebanese government.
• European Union chief Antonio Costa welcomed a deal between the US and Iran to end the Middle East war, adding that the bloc was ready to contribute to a strategy for “lasting peace”.
• UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said it was a “critical step” towards resolving the war in the Middle East.

Global economy

• Oil prices drop: Oil prices slipped to their lowest since March on Monday, with global benchmark Brent crude futures falling $4.08, or 4.7 percent, to $83.25 a barrel by 04:15 GMT. US West Texas Intermediate was at $80.53, down $4.35, or 5.1 percent. Both contracts fell to their lowest levels since March 10 on Monday after tumbling more than 3 percent on Friday.
• Asian markets soar: Markets in Japan soared, more than 5 percent up; in South Korea, they were up 5.3 percent; in Taiwan, they were up 2.4 percent. In Shanghai, they were up 1.3 percent; and in Hong Kong, they were up half a percent; while in Indonesia, they were up 2.07 percent; and in the Philippines, they were up 5.2 percent.

Volker Turk, the high commissioner for human rights at the United Nations, has issued some of his harshest criticism yet of the recent sanctions the United States has imposed on Cuba.

On Monday, Turk drew a line between the increasing restrictions on the Cuban economy and reports of heightened death rates, particularly among children.

“The fuel restrictions imposed since early 2026 and recent tightening of extraterritorial sanctions, taken together, are directly harming Cubans, especially the most vulnerable,” Turk said in a statement.

“Children are dying because doctors lack access to essential medical supplies and medicines. This is unacceptable.”

Such “severe sanctions”, he added, run contrary to the “basic principles of international human rights law”. He called for them to be “lifted immediately”.

Turk’s comments are a direct response to the suite of actions taken under US President Donald Trump to tighten pressure on Cuba, a Caribbean island that has already weathered a decades-long US trade embargo.

Starting in January, the Trump administration moved to cut off Cuba’s foreign oil supply, a linchpin for its ageing energy grid.

First, it severed supplies of oil and funds from Venezuela. Then, on January 29, Trump issued an executive order declaring Cuba to be an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security. As such, he said, any country that supplied it with oil would be subject to steep tariffs.

In the months since, the Trump administration has continued to layer sanctions on Cuba. In May, for instance, penalties were announced against Cuba’s Interior Ministry, its National Police and its Directorate of Intelligence.

Those were followed this month by sanctions targeting Cuba’s president, Miguel Diaz-Canel, as well as members of his family.

The sanctions are designed to penalise those “responsible for repression” in Cuba, an island whose communist government has been accused of stifling dissent, as well as imprisoning and torturing activists.

Turk on Monday acknowledged Cuba’s human rights record and called on the country to “release all those arbitrarily detained”.

But he also pointed to the mounting death toll associated with the US sanctions, which have isolated the island country from much of the world.

The sanctions freeze any US-based assets the target may have, but they also prohibit entities from conducting business with the sanctioned parties. That can result in difficulties accessing global financial systems and other international platforms.

The de facto oil blockade has also resulted in the increasing frequency of power outages, and essential services like public transportation and medical care have faced reductions. Turk pointed to those downstream effects in his remarks.

“Cuba faces increasing isolation,” he said. “Companies are leaving. Fewer airlines fly to the country. It is almost disconnected from international payment systems.”

Turk’s office has also highlighted the human costs of the sanctions. According to the statistics it cited, infant death rates have doubled, reaching 9.9 for every 1,000 births. The survival rate for childhood cancer, meanwhile, has declined from 85 to 65 percent.

In March, the Cuban government also warned of medical needs going unanswered as a result of the energy shortage. It estimated that there was a backlog of 96,387 people awaiting surgery, 11,193 of whom were minors.

It also underscored that 16,000 patients needed radiotherapy, and another 2,888 required dialysis, two treatments that depend on steady electrical supplies.

Turk’s remarks also pointed to the risks posed by the Atlantic hurricane season and other natural disasters. Within hours of his remarks, western Cuba was rattled by a powerful 6.1-magnitude earthquake. Summer heat alone could cost lives, he explained.

“Rising summer temperatures risk increasing the spread of vector borne and waterborne diseases,” Turk said.

“The hurricane season further increases exposure. This creates a perfect storm for social and economic deterioration and suffering for the Cuban people.”

Trump has repeatedly suggested that he is considering military action in Cuba to remove its leadership after the US-Israel war on Iran reaches an end.

Since January, only one Russian oil tanker has been allowed to reach the island, leaving its foreign fuel supplies largely depleted.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang on Sunday is significant for one reason.

It’s not that they are meeting: The two men met in Beijing just a year ago when China held a massive military parade to mark 80 years since Japan surrendered unconditionally to Allied forces, bringing an end to the second world war.

What’s surprising is that Xi is travelling at all.

The Chinese leader has not travelled to Pyongyang since 2019, having steadily cut down his travel in recent years, and world leaders like US President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin generally come to him these days.

“We need to remember that Xi Jinping has not really travelled abroad that much,” William Yang, Crisis Group’s senior analyst for Northeast Asia, told Al Jazeera. “The growing trend is foreign leaders heading to Beijing to meet with him.

“For Xi Jinping to be the one who decides to travel to Pyongyang, it shows the level of significance that China attaches to this trip.”

Xi averaged about 14 trips a year between 2013 and 2019, but dropped to approximately six a year between 2022 and 2025, according to the Asia Society. In 2020, he made just one overseas trip, and in 2021, he made none, as China grappled with the COVID-19 pandemic.

He may be travelling now, though, amid concerns about North Korea’s relationship with Russia, Yang said.

Senior partner no more?

Traditionally, Beijing played the role of senior partner in the China-North Korea relationship, with North Korea heavily dependent on China for as much as 95 percent of its trade, according to one 2022 estimate from the National Committee on North Korea, a US-based nonprofit.

That dynamic has been changing since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, however. North Korea has provided Russia with critical weapons, artillery and manpower and is credited by observers with helping to keep Moscow’s war machine going.

South Korea’s Institute for National Security Strategy, a government-funded research institute, estimates that since 2023, Moscow has paid North Korea as much as $14.4bn for troop deployments and the export of “artillery, shells, and guided and ballistic missiles”.

The report said that North Korea may only have received between $580m and $1.5bn of that in the form of “goods”, which means there is a “significant possibility that the majority of the payment from Moscow was in the form of ‘sensitive military technology or related precision parts and materials that are difficult to observe via satellite’,” according to a translation.

Although China shares a mutual defence treaty with North Korea, it is still wary of North Korea acquiring new military technology, Yang said.

“Beijing has always been very careful about providing military assistance to North Korea because they do not see a militarily stronger North Korea as necessarily in its favour,” he said. “A North Korea that is militarily emboldened through its relationship with Russia could be a potential source of disruption to the balance of power and status quo on the Korean Peninsula.”

North Korea has already carried out eight missile launches since the start of the year, and in May unveiled a new AI-guided tactical cruise missile, according to North Korean media and the US Naval Institute.

Earlier this week, North Korean state media also released photos of Kim touring a new “weapons-grade nuclear materials” factory, which would be used to expand Pyongyang’s nuclear capability at an “exponential rate”.

Fluctuating tensions

North Korea has technically been at war with South Korea since 1950, with the conflict suspended by a 1953 armistice agreement. The two countries are divided by a 250-kilometre-long (155-mile-long) Demilitarized Zone, splitting the Korean Peninsula.

Tensions have fluctuated dramatically over the years, reaching a recent low point in 2024 when Kim abandoned the long-term goal of Korean unification.

He has largely cut off communications ever since, according to observers. On Friday, South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that it hopes that Xi’s trip will “play a constructive role in addressing issues related to the Korean Peninsula” – suggesting that Seoul may have lobbied the Chinese leader to try to smooth over relations.

South Korean Minister of Unification Chung Dong-young separately told reporters last month that he expects the two leaders to discuss a possible meeting between Kim and Trump later in the year.

Xi may also be alarmed by other security developments in East Asia, including news of a possible military-logistics ‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌support pact between South Korea and Japan, which was raised at the Shangri-La Dialogue of regional defence officials in Singapore last weekend.

While China and South Korea’s relationship fluctuates, its ties with Japan are acrimonious due to longstanding grievances dating back to Imperial Japan’s occupation of China in the 1930s and 1940s. Beijing has also objected to recent moves by Tokyo to expand its de facto military.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has proposed new tariffs of up to 12.5 percent on imports from 60 economies after determining they had failed to curb trade in goods made with forced labour, an assertion that was rejected by US trading partners.

The proposal from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), issued late on Tuesday, comes from a Section 301 unfair trade practices investigation designed to help rebuild US President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs, struck down by a US Supreme Court decision in February.

Despite laws banning them, the products of forced labour are deeply embedded in supply chains across the world. European lawmakers bristle at the accusation that the region is less effective than the US at curbing the trade in such goods, with one describing the US findings as “utterly absurd”. Business leaders said the US move created more confusion for companies.

The USTR proposed 10 percent additional duties on imports from Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Malaysia, Taiwan and Britain. The USTR said all had plans or partial schemes in place.

The trade agency said it would impose additional duties of 12.5 percent on the remaining 45 countries that it investigated. These include China, India, Nigeria, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand.

“The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labour is unacceptable,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement. “This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field.”

The USTR said it would accept public comments on the proposed tariffs and other remedies through July 6, with a public hearing scheduled for July 7.

The announcement comes ahead of the July 24 expiration of a 10 percent temporary tariff imposed by the Trump administration on February 20, the day the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It also shows how determined the Trump administration is about building a wall of tariffs around the US economy, the world’s largest, despite repeated setbacks in court.

After the loss in the Supreme Court, Trump turned to another law to impose temporary 10 percent tariffs globally. But those stopgap levies expire July 24. And a specialised trade court ruled last month that they, too, were illegal – though the government can continue collecting them while that case works its way through the courts.

Unjustified tariffs

The European Commission said the tariffs were unjustified and reiterated its commitment to the trade deal sealed with Washington last year.

Bernd Lange, the chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, which voted on Tuesday to accept that trade deal, said the new tariffs were expected, but said the results of the US investigation were still “utterly absurd” given a 2024 EU law to ban imports of forced labour products.

“The impression is increasingly emerging that a tariff measure is sought first, and only then is a suitable legal justification found,” he said. However, he added that the key question would be whether the additional tariffs would exceed those agreed between both sides last July.

The US’s largest trading partner, the EU, agreed last July to accept tariffs of 15 percent on a broad range of its exports. In its report, the USTR said the EU anti-forced labour measures only came into force in December 2027 and lacked key elements.

It was unclear whether the proposed tariffs – which the US release described as “additional duties” – would come on top of levies agreed in bilateral deals signed with the US.

Britain said it was in regular talks with the US and was taking action to tackle forced labour. It added that the preferential access to US markets that it had negotiated for UK businesses remained in place.

Mexico said that goods that were compliant under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) would be exempt from the new tariffs.

Taiwan said it was “hopeful and confident” that the final results would reflect agreements already reached, securing relatively preferential treatment.

Beijing, facing 12.5 percent tariffs, said that it opposed all forms of unilateral tariffs and that there was no forced labour in China. India, confronted with the same rate, said it was engaged with Washington on the Section 301 proceedings, noting the proposed tariffs were not final.

“There will be deep concerns in the international business community that the US [forced labour law could] become a global template,” said Andrew Wilson, deputy secretary general of the International Chamber of Commerce.

“Anyone can make a claim, get a shipment impounded and the company has to prove no forced labour in supply chain.”

Certain exemptions

The USTR said it would exempt from tariffs products including energy, rare earths and some other metals, beef, coffee, certain fruits and vegetables, pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals and aircraft parts.

It also said it was proposing a textile mechanism that would allow for a certain volume of apparel and textile imports to enter the US at a reduced tariff rate, without giving details.

The ICC’s Wilson said the list of exemptions, stretching for more than 76 pages, suggested sensitivities over the potential cost-of-living hit to food and other goods with known forced-labour risks.

“It doesn’t make sense if the object of this is to enhance controls on modern slavery,” he said.