tariff

July 20 (UPI) — President Donald Trump signed orders Monday to impose a new 50% tariff on many Canadian imports, saying it’s because of “discriminatory treatment” of U.S. products.

The tariffs take effect Aug. 19 and affect a wide range of goods including wine, hockey sticks, electrical equipment and concrete.

Trump cited part of the Tariff Act of 1930 that allows a U.S. president to mandate a tariff up to 50% without congressional approval if a country is believed to be discriminating against U.S. goods. However, the law has not been applied this way before, CNN reported.

The Trump administration said the tariffs cover $20 billion worth of imports. They join ongoing tariffs from 15% to 50% imposed by the United States on Canadian steel, aluminum and copper, as well as Canadian softwood lumber, BBC News reported.

Last week, Trump threatened new tariffs on Canada as punishment for the smoke from hundreds of wildfires that drifted over the border and affected some U.S. cities. However, there was no mention of the wildfires in the orders signed Monday.

The tariffs affect all the goods in each category even if they are included under the existing free trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico.

The Trump administration named dairy products, U.S. motor vehicles and alcohol Monday as the three U.S. products it says Canada discriminates against.

“President Trump is taking action to hold Canada accountable for its continued discrimination against and unreasonable and unequal treatment of U.S. commerce that has burdened and disadvantaged hard-working Americans,” a statement released by the White House said.

A few key Canadian imports are excluded from the new tariffs. These include energy products, potash, critical minerals, fish and some other goods.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the international tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Trump said at the time that he would find other ways to impose tariffs.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford said Monday that Canada should retaliate against the new tariffs.

“If these tariffs proceed, Canada should respond tariff fortariff, dollar for dollar,” Ford posted on social media.

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.

BRASILIA, Brazil, July 17 (UPI) — Brazil’s government has delayed plans to invoke its Reciprocity Law after the United States imposed a 25% tariff on Brazilian exports. It opted instead for a more cautious strategy aimed at avoiding a broader trade conflict.

After meetings between the government’s economic team and the country’s leading industrial groups, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva‘s administration paused previous plans for immediate retaliatory measures.

According to Brazilian media reports, officials are concerned that reciprocal tariffs could trigger a trade war, increase the cost of imported inputs and drive up consumer prices in Brazil.

Industrial associations argued that the production chains of both countries are highly integrated, and that making U.S. imports more expensive would also hurt Brazilian manufacturers, CNN Brasil reported.

The Brazilian government also announced a support program for companies affected by the U.S. tariff.

“We already have mechanisms to protect our companies and our jobs,” Deputy Finance Minister Dario Durigan said. He added that, in coordination with affected industries, the government will strengthen the Brazil Sovereign Plan, which supports businesses “unfairly harmed by the increase in U.S. tariffs,” according to G1.

Analysts say Lula’s administration is expected to exhaust all negotiation channels before escalating the dispute, although they acknowledge that the prospects for direct bilateral negotiations with Washington are limited.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has concluded its Section 301 investigation, determining that Brazil maintains “unfair trade practices.” That finding has left Brazilian diplomats with little room to continue technical negotiations.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira on Thursday rejected Washington’s demands as “excessive and unreasonable.” He said U.S. negotiators had sought concessions that would undermine Brazil’s economic sovereignty in sensitive areas, including the country’s Pix instant payment system and environmental regulations.

Brazil’s manufacturing sector, particularly higher value-added industries, is expected to suffer the greatest impact from the 25% tariffs scheduled to take effect July 22. The measure will affect about 3,000 Brazilian products, representing nearly 18% of Brazil’s exports to the U.S. market, according to O Globo.

To limit the impact on everyday consumer goods in the United States, the Trump administration excluded products such as coffee, oranges and concentrated orange juice, beef and grains from the new tariffs.

With little indication that the White House will soften its position, Brazil has shifted its strategy away from direct bilateral negotiations and toward legal challenges before the World Trade Organization and the gradual use of its Reciprocity Law.

The government’s primary legal strategy will be to challenge the legality of the unilateral tariffs before the World Trade Organization.

Brazil has not ruled out using the Reciprocity Law, which was unanimously approved by Congress. The legislation authorizes Brazil to impose tariffs on the 76% of U.S. products that currently enter the country duty-free and even suspend intellectual property rights.

However, officials said implementation will be delayed while the government evaluates the economic impact of the U.S. measures.

“It is important to emphasize that we have the Reciprocity Law, unanimously approved by the National Congress, and the government will know how to implement it at the appropriate time,” Vice President Geraldo Alckmin said.

He said the law is not intended as retaliation but rather as a measure “that defends the national interest, the interests of Brazilians and the Brazilian economy.”

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva criticised a proposal by US President Donald Trump to impose charges on goods passing through the Strait of Hormuz, saying such a measure would amount to “piracy.”

Speaking at a public event in São Paulo state on Monday, Lula said “In the past, that would have been considered piracy.”

“The United States is an important country, and I believe it fought piracy for a long time. It cannot act like a pirate today” he added.

Lula’s comments followed Trump’s announcement that the United States would seek to impose a 20 percent tariff on goods transported through the Strait of Hormuz while reimposing a naval blockade on Iran.

According to Trump’s statement, the measure was presented as a response to Iran’s announcement that it intended to close the strategic waterway. He argued that the United States would ensure freedom of navigation through the strait and that commercial shipping benefiting from that protection should contribute to its cost.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote: “The Strait of Hormuz is open, and will remain open, with or without Iran. We will reimpose the blockade on Iran.”

The proposed tariff has drawn international attention because the Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important maritime trade routes, carrying a significant share of global oil and liquefied natural gas exports. Any changes to shipping arrangements or transit costs could have broad implications for international trade and energy markets.

Based on the words of President Trump, America is well on the way to becoming a “global superpower in manufacturing” — indeed, as he declared in a Father’s Day social media post, we are already experiencing the “BEST ECONOMY EVER.” (Capitalization’s his.)

Here’s what the government’s own statistics tell us: Manufacturing investment has crashed during his watch, with construction spending in the manufacturing sector down 26.4% from Trump’s inauguration through May, to $174.8 billion. That’s the lowest figure since February 2023, when the economy was in the midst of a post-pandemic recovery.

White House spokesman Kush Desai told me by email that “the last two jobs reports” showed manufacturing job growth. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a seasonally-adjusted decline of 2,000 manufacturing workers in May and a gain of 3,000 in June. But the June 2026 figure was 38,000 jobs, or about 0.3% below the level in June 2025, and 75,000 or about 0.6% below the level in January 2025, when Trump took office.

Desai said that “thanks to President Trump’s proven agenda of tariffs, deregulation, and tax cuts, American manufacturing will continue to rebound.”

There’s little mystery about what has come between Trump’s ambition and the real world. To a large extent it’s Trump’s economic program, particularly his tariff policies and, more recently, his war with Iran. Those have injected a level of uncertainty for corporate managements pondering whether to spend money on expansion that they haven’t had to confront in years.

The tariffs and the war have driven up manufacturers’ costs for raw materials and overseas shipping. The general economic atmosphere doesn’t help. U.S. gross domestic product growth came in at a 2.1% annualized rate in the first quarter of this year, but the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta expects it to have fallen to 1.3% in the second quarter ended June 30.

Meanwhile, the University of Michigan consumer confidence index reached 44.8 in May, its lowest level ever (though it improved to 49.5 in June). Wages have been rising modestly, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but those gains have been eaten up by higher prices, especially for gasoline and food.

To put things another way, the actual figures show the U.S. economy to be sputtering, and the “vibe economy” as measured by consumer confidence is doing even worse.

Now that Trump’s second term is about to reach its 18-month mark, let’s unpack the factors causing the discrepancy between his ambitions and claims, and the reality.

Trump declared economic victory just as his term was starting. On March 20, 2025, he proclaimed a “manufacturing renaissance” in the U.S. That was based on what he said were “trillions of dollars in new investments” he had “already secured in tech-based manufacturing.”

A White House statement said “the list of manufacturing wins is endless.” The provided list was a roster of announcements, not groundbreakings, much less completed ventures.

Business executives quite properly have taken these pledges with mounds of salt. “Announcements are what people say they’re going to do, but dollars spent is what’s actually happening,” Didi Caldwell, chief executive of a firm that helps companies find factory sites, told the Financial Times. “From where we’re standing, we are not seeing signs of a manufacturing renaissance in the U.S.”

Indeed, at least some of these announcements have had the flavor of performative efforts to satisfy Trump’s amour propre and extract government concessions.

For example, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook appeared with Trump at the White House in August to announce a $600-billion U.S. spending plan to take place over four years. That was a $100-billion increase over its previously-announced program.

More to the point, however, it incorporated spending with suppliers that Apple had been working with for years. Mentioned in the news announcement was a commitment to buy cover glass for iPhones from Corning. But Corning has been supplying that glass since the first iPhone appeared in 2007. In any case, the announcement appeared to secure a commitment from Trump to exempt Apple from tariffs imposed on imported chips.

Apple’s announcement Wednesday that it will spend $30 billion to buy chips from Broadcom was similarly ambiguous. The announcement didn’t provide details about the terms of the commitment or the timing of its expenditures. I asked Apple for details and whether the deal was related to a desire to remain in Trump’s favor, but didn’t hear back.

A similar phenomenon occurred during Trump’s first term; Trump had built much of his 2016 presidential campaign on a promise to increase manufacturing jobs in the United States. He blamed shrinkage in the manufacturing sector on trade agreements such as NAFTA and the policies of the Chinese, and took credit when an American manufacturer agreed to create or save jobs in the United States.

As I reported in 2019, many of those arrangements turned out to be exaggerated or bogus, or predated Trump’s claim. Some disappeared as soon as public attention turned elsewhere, or were outweighed by job cuts made elsewhere by the same companies.

Trump’s tariffs appear to have had a direct effect on manufacturing employment in the U.S. Since Trump’s inauguration, the manufacturing sector has shed about 75,000 jobs, or 0.6%. After April 2, 2025, when he announced global “liberation day” tariffs supposedly as a response to years of unfair treatment of American exports, the decline picked up pace, with a shrinkage of 68,000 manufacturing jobs.

The Supreme Court invalidated those tariffs in February, but others are still in place, including tariffs on imported steel and aluminum and on goods from China. Nor has he ceased threatening partners with trade wars. As recently as Tuesday, he said he would cut off all trade with Spain because of that country’s disagreement with him over its defense spending and its criticism of his Iran war.

As it happens, Spain is one of the few countries with which the U.S. has a trade surplus. That means that any cutoff, which trade experts think will be unlikely, would come at a cost to the U.S.

One might have hoped that Trump had learned a lesson from his first-term trade war with China. That conflict provoked a sharp contraction in the manufacturing economy, with the Institute for Supply Management’s purchasing managers index falling to 49.1 by mid-2019. (A reading below 50 signifies contraction.)

The ISM index began to recover toward the end of Trump’s term but fell again during the pandemic. Lately it has been falling again, to 53.3 in June from 54 in May.

The Iran war is another deadweight on domestic manufacturing. That’s partially the consequence of blockages of the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial thoroughfare not only for middle eastern oil, but also for such industrial inputs as fertilizer and aluminum. Cement, concrete, olive oil and spices are also among commodities produced in the region that use the strait as an outlet to reach the outside world.

Uncertainties in the region, tensions between the U.S. and China, and heightened concerns over the safety of shipping overall have driven up shipping costs between the far east and the U.S. The price of shipping a benchmark 40-foot container from China to the West Coast has nearly quadrupled to $6,687 now from about $1,700 just before the Iran war began, according to an index maintained by the cargo firm Freightos — even though shipping prices typically decline during this time of year.

There can be little doubt that the U.S. would benefit from an industrial policy — if it’s coherent. China supplanted America as the world’s leading exporter of manufactured goods in 2010, and the gap has only widened since then. China’s dominance may be hard to reverse, as it’s built on lower labor costs and transport infrastructure that enjoys focused government investment.

Tariffs could be a component of a new industrial policy, but Trump’s tariffs aren’t rationally geared to protecting domestic industries that need protection. They’re expressions of his whims, and as such they’re totally ineffective. If there are government investment policies targeting industries that need assistance, they’re not apparent to economists or industrialists.

Trump can talk as much as he likes about a golden age for U.S. manufacturing, but from his first term through this one, it’s nothing but talk. And talk, of course, is cheap.

WASHINGTON — The relationship between President Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron started simply enough, with a handshake, nearly a decade ago.

But even then, there were signs of strain in their relationship — tensions that could be on full display during next week’s G7 summit in France.

Back in 2017, Trump was a brash businessman just elected to America’s most powerful office, and Macron was an upstart politician who had won his race in a landslide. At a NATO summit in Brussels, they clinched hands far longer than most people do when they meet for the first time. Neither seemed to want to be the first to break a grip so tight that it exposed white knuckles.

Nevertheless, a friendship was born. And early on, Macron seemed to be the one European leader with a knack for managing his mercurial, three-decades-older counterpart.

Macron invited the Republican president to join him for Bastille Day celebrations in July 2017, including an Eiffel Tower dinner date with their wives. Trump reciprocated by making Macron the guest of honor the following year at his first White House state dinner, the highest diplomatic honor the United States can extend to an ally.

But by the end of Trump’s first term, the bromance had faded. And in his second term, the leaders now openly trade barbs, disagreeing over tariffs, Ukraine and the Iran war. That dynamic will be scrutinized next week when Trump and the leaders of Britain, Canada, Germany, Italy and Japan join Macron in the French lakeside resort of Evian-les-Bains for the G7 summit.

Trump’s long-simmering frustrations with US allies could be on display

There could be awkward moments between Trump and Macron, as well as among Trump and the other G7 leaders he’s criticized for not joining him in Iran.

“But I also think European leaders are quite professionals when it comes to politics, and in some ways diplomacy at this point, and will maybe see it as an opportunity as well,” Max Bergmann, director of the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an interview.

Kurt Volker, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, said the Trump-Macron relationship has been further complicated by the Iran war and Trump’s complaints “that Europeans weren’t helping, when they hadn’t been consulted, and their interests are very much affected by this.”

“I think that was a negative for Macron,” Volker said.

Trump joined Israel in a war against Iran over its nuclear program back in February without consulting other U.S. allies. He then complained publicly when European countries spurned his requests for their help.

Waning support for Ukraine in its war against Russia from the Trump administration “has really irritated the French,” Volker said. “They feel this is important and we’re not paying attention to it.” Macron invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to join the leaders’ discussions on Tuesday.

Macron is the G7 member who has dealt with Trump the longest

In Trump’s first term, Macron appeared confident that he could persuade and influence the U.S. leader, but the relationship increasingly has come to be defined by their disagreements.

Macron now says he is “careful” about Trump’s statements, suggesting he no longer takes them at face value. Their relationship remains cordial as each calls the other “my friend.” But the relationship has also experienced some ups and downs.

As president-elect, Trump attended the reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris in late 2024 at Macron’s invitation. After Trump began his second term in 2025, Macron was an early Oval Office visitor. The president wrote on social media that he was “delighted” to welcome Macron back to the White House and said the relationship with France has been “very special.”

But at one point during the meeting, the French president publicly corrected Trump after he wrongly suggested that Europe would recover the money it had provided to support Ukraine. With a smile, Macron touched Trump’s forearm and replied, “We provided real money.”

Macron also condemned as “brutal and unfounded” new tariffs that Trump slapped on steel, aluminum and a broader range of European imports in early 2025.

But there have also been some lighter moments mixed with the tensions.

A documentary aired last year on French television showed Macron telling Trump during a phone call that Zelenskyy had agreed to a U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal. Trump replied, “You’re the greatest.”

Macron has often said he can reach Trump directly whenever he needs to — and proved his point during last year’s U.N. General Assembly session in New York. After police officers blocked the French leader from crossing a street because traffic had been halted for Trump’s motorcade, Macron whipped out his cellphone and dialed the U.S. president.

“How are you?” Macron said. “Guess what? I’m waiting in the street because everything is frozen for you!”

‘This is not a show,’ Macron has said about Trump’s NATO ambiguity

Macron has argued that Trump’s “America first” policies bolstered his case for a stronger European defense capability that would lessen reliance on the United States.

In April of this year, as Trump sent mixed signals about Washington’s commitment to NATO after the start of the war in Iran, Macron delivered some of his sharpest criticism of the U.S. president.

“There is too much talk, and it’s going in all directions,” Macron said. “We all need stability, calm and a return to peace. This is not a show.”

“You have to be serious, and when you want to be serious, you don’t say the opposite every day of what you said the day before,” he said.

Trump, while mimicking a French accent, recently has taken to reenacting a conversation he says he had with Macron over drug prices and tariffs. Trump also poked Macron by telling a private luncheon in April that his wife, Brigitte Macron, treats her husband badly. The comments were in a video the White House had posted on its YouTube channel before blocking access.

Macron didn’t see any humor in Trump’s comments. “The remarks I heard were neither elegant nor appropriate,” he said. “They do not deserve a response.”

Still, Macron has tried to accommodate Trump’s schedule to ensure his presence at the summit in Evian-les-Bains, knowing that he has a record of leaving such gatherings early.

Macron originally had set Sunday, which is Trump’s 80th birthday, as the opening day of the summit, but he pushed the start back a day because Trump is celebrating the occasion with a UFC show staged on the White House grounds.

Superville and Corbet write for the Associated Press. Corbet reported from Paris.

NEW YORK — President Trump’s 10% global tariffs were declared unlawful by a federal trade court in a fresh blow to the administration’s economic agenda, several months after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated earlier levies he’d imposed.

A divided three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan on Thursday granted a request by a group of small businesses and two dozen mostly Democrat-led states to vacate the tariffs. Trump imposed the 10% duties in February under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which had never previously been invoked.

The court for now only immediately blocked the administration from enforcing the tariffs against the two companies that sued and Washington state, making clear that it was not issuing a so-called universal injunction. The panel found that the other states that sued lacked standing because they aren’t direct importers, instead arguing that they were harmed by having to pay higher prices for goods when businesses passed on tariff costs.

It wasn’t immediately clear what the ruling would mean for now for other importers that had been paying the contested levies.

The majority of the panel rejected the administration’s stance that “balance-of-payments deficits” — a key criterion for imposing the Section 122 tariffs — was “a malleable phrase.” They concluded that Trump’s proclamation imposing the levies failed to identify that such deficits existed within the meaning of the 1974 law, instead using “trade and current account deficits to stand in the place.”

The decision is the latest setback for the president’s effort to levy tariffs without input from Congress. Earlier duties — overturned by the Supreme Court on Feb. 20 — were issued under a different law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. In that case, the justices ruled Trump had exceeded his authority, kicking off a legal scramble by importers for almost $170 billion in refunds.

The U.S. Justice Department could challenge the trade court’s latest ruling by taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled against the Trump administration during the last tariff fight.

Section 122 allows presidents to impose duties in situations where the U.S. faces what the law defines as “fundamental international payments problems.” Even before Trump issued the tariffs, economists and policy experts debated whether the president would be able to build a solid legal framework using the statute.

In a proclamation declaring the use of Section 122, Trump said that tariffs were justified because the U.S. runs a “large and serious” trade deficit. He also pointed to the negative net flows of income from investments Americans have overseas and other things that showed the U.S. balance-of-payments relationship with the rest of the world was deteriorating.

Under the law, presidents have the ability to impose tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. on a short-term basis to address concerns about how money is flowing in and out of the country. Those concerns include “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” and an “imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar.”

Unlike other legal options Trump might pursue to impose tariffs, Section 122 can be invoked without waiting for a federal agency to conduct an investigation to determine whether the levies are justifiable. But they can still be challenged in court.

The small businesses and states that sued argued that Section 122 became outdated when the U.S. ditched the gold standard decades ago. They say Trump improperly conflated “balance-of-payments deficits” with U.S. trade deficits in order to justify using the law.

They also allege that Trump’s order announcing the Section 122 tariffs was “riddled with omissions and mischaracterizations” around the meaning of a balance-of-payments deficit. The trade deficit cited by Trump is just one part of calculating the country’s balance of payments position, the states say.

Under Section 122, the president can order import duties of as much as 15%. The executive action can last 150 days, at which point Congress would have to extend it. Trump has said he would aim to increase the rate to 15% from 10%.

The states argue that Trump’s new tariffs violate other requirements in Section 122, including that such duties not be discriminatory in their application. The states argue that Trump’s new tariffs improperly exempt some goods from Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.

According to the complaint, the Trump administration conceded during the previous litigation over his IEEPA tariffs that trade deficits “are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits.”

The clash over Section 122 emerged just as the legal fight over refunds from Trump’s IEEPA tariffs began to heat up. A different judge in the Court of International Trade, U.S. Judge Richard Eaton, is overseeing the massive refund effort and ordered Customs and Border Protection to give him regular updates on a largely automated process the government will use to issue most refunds.

Larson and Tillman write for Bloomberg.

Published on
05/05/2026 – 19:06 GMT+2

EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič on Tuesday urged the US to honour its side of the EU-US trade deal during a meeting in Paris with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Tensions have escalated in recent days over the implementation of the EU-US trade deal reached almost a year ago in Turnberry, Scotland, after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose 25% tariffs on EU cars, in breach of the agreement capping US tariffs on EU goods at 15%.

The agreement was further shaken in February after the White House introduced new tariffs following a US Supreme Court ruling declaring the 2025 tariffs illegal.

A European Commission spokesperson said Tuesday that during the 90-minute meeting with Greer, Šefčovič called for a “swift return” to the agreed Turnberry terms, meaning “a 15% all-inclusive tariff rate.”

The US currently imposes a 10% tariff on EU goods on top of duties already in place before Trump’s return to the White House in 2025, with rates varying across EU products. Combined duties can now reach as much as 30% on certain EU exports, such as cheese, exceeding the 15% cap established in the EU–US agreement.

During the meeting, Šefčovič also updated his counterpart on the EU’s implementation of the agreement, the spokesperson said, “to clarify” where the EU “stands.”

Washington wants Brussels to accelerate the EU legislative process needed to implement the deal, including the bloc’s commitment to cut tariffs on US industrial goods to zero.

But negotiations between EU governments and members of the European Parliament remain tense.

MEPs want to add safeguards that would make EU tariff cuts conditional on the US implementing its side of the agreement. They are also pushing for a “sunset clause” that would terminate the deal in March 2028 unless renewed.

The European Parliament’s position is backed by France, while Germany and other member states want to preserve the original agreement struck in July 2025 by Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

A round of negotiation is scheduled for Wednesday evening.

Published on
04/05/2026 – 14:17 GMT+2

The EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič is scheduled to meet his US counterpart Jamieson Greer on Tuesday amid rising tensions between the bloc and the US following President Donald Trump’s announcement of a potential 25% tariff on EU automobiles.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The discussions, scheduled ahead of a G7 trade ministers’ meeting in Paris, were planned before President Trump’s latest tariff threat, Euronews has learned.

But they now give both sides an opportunity to ease tensions after Trump signalled measures that would breach the EU-US trade deal agreed last summer in Turnberry, Scotland, between Trump and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, which caps US tariffs on EU goods at 15%.

On Monday, the Commission sought to project a sense of calm.

“It’s not the first time we have seen threats,” Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier said, adding: “We remain very calm, focused on enforcing the joint statement in the interests of our companies, of our citizens.”

Trump’s threat came after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz criticised the US approach to the war in Iran, and after Washington announced the withdrawal of 5,000 US troops from Germany, further straining transatlantic relations.

German MEP Bernd Lange (S&D), chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, told Euronews on Monday that Trump’s threats were aimed specifically at German car manufacturers.

“All options remain open”

The US president also accused the EU of moving too slowly to implement the agreement.

“Since day one we are implementing the Joint Statement [the EU-US deal] and we are fully committed to delivering on our shared commitments,” Regnier said, adding that the EU was seeking predictability in the EU-US trade relation.

The Turnberry deal is currently being negotiated between EU governments and lawmakers before it can enter into force on the EU side. Co-legislators must still agree on the modalities for cutting EU tariffs on US goods to zero, as outlined in the agreement.

MEPs have nonetheless introduced safeguards to ensure the EU is not the only party adhering to its commitments and to protect the bloc from future US threats.

The Commission reiterated Monday that if the US takes measures that are “inconsistent” with the trade deal, all “options” remain open.

Last year, during the trade dispute that followed Trump’s return to power, the EU executive prepared a package targeting €95 billion worth of US products, though the measures were later suspended.

At the time, several EU countries also urged the use of the bloc’s anti-coercion instrument, which enables the EU to respond to economic pressure from third countries with a wide range of trade defence tools, including restrictions on licences and intellectual property rights.

April 30 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Thursday lifted tariffs that he had levied but limited business between bourbon makers in Kentucky and Scotland.

Trump announced he was scrapping the tariffs after King Charles III and Queen Camilla were starting to wrap up their visit to the United States this week, which included the king addressing a joint session of Congress, a state dinner at the White House and a trip through Virginia before they head home.

King Charles and Queen Camilla have just wrapped up a four-day trip to the United States, which Trump scheduled and invited them for after a state dinner in the United Kingdom last year.

“In honor of the King and Queen of the United Kingdom … I will be removing the Tariffs and Restrictions on Whiskey having to do with Scotland’s ability to work with the Commonwealth of Kentucky on Whiskey and Bourbon, two very important Industries within Scotland and Kentucky,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

“People have wanted to do this for a long time, in that there had been great Inter-Country Trade, especially having to do with the Wooden Barrels used,” he said.

Trump reinstituted a tariff on whiskey and other spirits coming out of the European Union in March 2025 that he had instituted during his first term in the White House that had been discontinued by the Biden administration in 2021.

Some whiskey distilleries in Kentucky age their bourbon in barrels that have been used to age Scotch and the tariff had increased costs for U.S. whiskey manufacturers — and in the absence of a U.K. tariff on American spirits — had been a problem, USA Today reported.

In the reverse, bourbons that are sold as “Kentucky bourbon” — a specific product unique to Kentucky, and which includes brands such as Jim Beam, Woodford Reserve and Buffalo Trace, among many others — are required to be aged in new, charred oak barrels that are later sold to some scotch distillers who use them to age their spirits, Politico reported.