tariffs

May 8 (UPI) — President Donald Trump threatened to raise tariffs to “much higher levels” on the European Union if it doesn’t agree to a trade deal by July 4.

“I had a great call with The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. We discussed many topics, including that we are completely united that Iran can never have a Nuclear Weapon. We agreed that a regime that kills its own people cannot control a bomb that can kill millions. I’ve been waiting patiently for the EU to fulfill their side of the Historic Trade Deal we agreed in Turnberry, Scotland, the largest Trade Deal, ever! A promise was made that the EU would deliver their side of the Deal and, as per Agreement, cut their Tariffs to ZERO! I agreed to give her until our Country’s 250th Birthday or, unfortunately, their Tariffs would immediately jump to much higher levels,” the president said Thursday afternoon on Truth Social.

The threat came after The EU has struggled to agree on the terms of the Turnberry Accord, which was for the United States to lower tariffs on EU products and for the EU to remove tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and invest billions in U.S. industries, including energy.

Von Der Leyen said on X that the bloc is still committed to the deal.

“I had a very good call with @POTUS. We discussed the situation in the Middle East and our close coordination with regional partners. We are united that Iran must never possess a nuclear weapon. Recent events have clearly shown that the risks to regional stability and global security are too great.

“We also discussed the EU-U.S. trade deal. We remain fully committed, on both sides, to its implementation. Good progress is being made towards tariff reduction by early July.”

Last week, Trump threatened to raise tariffs on European autos to 25%. It’s unclear if his renewed threat is specifically for vehicles or if it encompasses all EU exports.

Complicating matters is that Trump’s current method of levying tariffs was blocked Thursday by the U.S. Court of International Trade.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the administration’s tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Trump then added a 10% across-the-board tariff and then later upped it to 15%.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in an interview with Politico Thursday that the EU is moving slowly.

“With the tariffs, they’ve at least started a process. They’re working it through,” Greer said. “It’s a pain. I understand it’s slow. We’re not patient. But there are other things where they haven’t even started a process.”

“We’re 95% compliant for nine months … and they’ve been 0% compliant during that time. What am I supposed to do?” he said.

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.

Taiwan has downplayed the impact of new Chinese sanctions targeting European defense companies involved in arms sales to the island. The measures, announced by China, restrict exports of dual use goods to seven firms, marking a rare move against European entities over Taiwan related issues.

Despite the escalation, Taiwan’s Defence Minister Wellington Koo said the sanctions would not disrupt the island’s ability to procure military equipment.

China’s Expanding Use of Sanctions

Beijing has increasingly used economic and trade restrictions to respond to foreign involvement in Taiwan’s defense. While similar sanctions have frequently targeted U.S. arms manufacturers, extending them to European companies signals a broader willingness to pressure multiple partners simultaneously.

The move reflects China’s ongoing effort to isolate Taiwan internationally and deter military cooperation with the island.

Limited European Military Role

Europe’s direct role in arming Taiwan has historically been limited. Major defense exports such as fighter jets have not been supplied for decades due to concerns about damaging relations with China.

However, smaller scale cooperation and component level trade have continued, making these sanctions symbolically significant even if their immediate practical impact is modest.

Diversified Supply Strategy

Taiwan relies heavily on the United States for its defense needs, but it has also worked to diversify procurement channels in recent years. According to Koo, this strategy ensures that disruptions from any single source, including sanctioned European firms, can be mitigated.

Growing support from parts of Central and Eastern Europe, particularly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has also provided Taiwan with additional diplomatic and logistical avenues.

Geopolitical Context

The sanctions come amid heightened global tensions and shifting alliances. China views Taiwan as its own territory and strongly opposes any foreign military assistance to the island.

At the same time, Taiwan’s security concerns have intensified, prompting it to strengthen international partnerships and defense preparedness.

Analysis

China’s decision to target European companies represents an escalation in its economic statecraft, aiming to widen the cost of supporting Taiwan beyond the United States. While the immediate impact on Taiwan’s military capabilities appears limited, the move could have a chilling effect on future European involvement.

Taiwan’s confidence reflects its reliance on U.S. support and its broader diversification strategy. However, repeated sanctions and pressure campaigns could gradually narrow its options, especially if European firms become more risk averse.

For Europe, the sanctions pose a strategic dilemma between economic ties with China and growing political alignment with Taiwan and its partners. For China, they reinforce its stance on sovereignty while testing how far it can push back against international support for Taiwan without triggering broader backlash.

Overall, the episode underscores how economic tools are increasingly being used in geopolitical competition, even when their direct material impact remains limited.

With information from Reuters.

The Jamieson Greer has told Mexican industry leaders that tariffs imposed by Donald Trump will remain in place, even as negotiations to revise the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement intensify ahead of a July review deadline.

The remarks, delivered during meetings in Mexico City, signal a major shift from decades of tariff free trade under USMCA and its predecessor NAFTA.

End of Zero Tariff Era

According to multiple sources, Greer made it clear that the United States does not intend to return to a zero tariff framework.

This marks a fundamental change in North American trade policy, where free trade in autos and parts had been the norm for over 30 years. The introduction of tariffs, including a 25 percent duty on automotive imports, has disrupted deeply integrated supply chains across the region.

Impact on Key Industries

The implications for Mexico are significant:

• More than half of Mexico’s auto and steel exports go to the United States
• Vehicle exports have already declined, with job losses in the auto sector
• Steel and aluminum industries face steep duties, some as high as 50 percent

These pressures have weakened Mexico’s competitive position, especially as the United States has negotiated lower tariffs with other partners.

Shifting Trade Rules

U.S. negotiators are also pushing for stricter rules of origin.

Proposals include requiring 100 percent North American sourcing for key components such as engines and electronics, up from current thresholds of around 75 percent. This would force manufacturers to further regionalize supply chains, potentially increasing costs but aligning with Washington’s goal of boosting domestic production.

Mexico’s Position

The Mexican government, led by Claudia Sheinbaum, is seeking relief from tariffs as part of the USMCA review. Officials aim to secure at least partial reductions, particularly in the auto and steel sectors, before finalizing broader trade revisions.

However, the latest signals from Washington suggest that while some easing may be possible, a full rollback is unlikely.

Why It Matters

This development underscores a broader shift in global trade policy away from pure free trade toward managed trade and economic security.

For Mexico, the stakes are high due to its deep economic integration with the United States. Persistent tariffs could reshape manufacturing patterns, investment decisions, and employment across North America.

What’s Next

Formal negotiations are set to begin in late May, with both sides aiming to resolve key disputes before the July deadline.

Key areas of focus will include:

• Tariff levels on autos and metals
• Rules of origin requirements
• Broader economic security cooperation

The outcome will determine the future structure of North American trade.

Analysis

The U.S. position reflects a strategic recalibration rather than a temporary policy shift. By normalizing tariffs, Washington is prioritizing domestic industry and supply chain control over traditional free trade principles.

For Mexico, this creates a structural challenge. Its export driven model, built on open access to the U.S. market, now faces persistent barriers. While some adjustments may preserve competitiveness, the era of frictionless trade appears to be over.

Ultimately, the negotiations will test whether North America can adapt to a new trade paradigm or whether tensions will deepen within one of the world’s most integrated economic regions.

With information from Reuters.

Published on
15/04/2026 – 11:25 GMT+2

The European Commission on Wednesday imposed anti-dumping duties on glass fibre —a key input for the EU’s renewable industry— produced by Chinese companies operating in Egypt, Bahrain and Thailand.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The move confirms the EU’s push to curb Chinese imports entering the bloc via Belt and Road routes to sidestep tariffs on products officially labelled “made in China.”

Brussels seeks to shield its market from a surge of low-cost imports from the Asian giant, targeting goods it considers heavily subsidized or sold in the EU below production cost in China.

The tariffs on glass fibre from the three countries will range from 11% to 25.4% of the product’s value.

“The investigation confirms the existence of unfair practice, which is an important signal,” Ludovic Piraux, President of Glass Fibre Europe, said.

But he added that the measures adopted “remain insufficient to fully address the predatory strategies pursued through these investments in third countries.”

Job losses loom

China has invested $1 trillion through the Belt and Road initiative – a large-scale infrastructure programme which replaced the former silk road initiative and is aimed at strengthening connectivity, trade and communication across Eurasia, Latin America and Africa. The programme spans more than 150 countries, supporting infrastructure, transport, raw materials extraction and the relocation of industries and state-owned enterprises abroad.

As early as 2010, following an industry complaint, the Commission imposed anti-dumping duties on Chinese glass fibre imports. In the years that followed, Chinese producers established factories in Bahrain and Egypt, from which exports to the EU resumed.

By 2024, glass fibre imports from those countries, along with Thailand, accounted for 24% of the EU market. Egyptian imports alone reached 18%, with Glass Fibre Europe warning the situation could worsen.

This is not the first time the Commission has targeted Chinese products made in third countries under Belt and Road arrangements. It has previously imposed measures on aluminium foil from Thailand and glass fibre produced in Türkiye.

European glass fibre manufacturers have been pushing for action for more than a decade, alongside unions seeking to protect jobs in the sector.

The complaint which lead to Wednesday’s anti-dumping duties was first reported by Euronews in January 2025.

The industry directly employs more than 4,500 workers in the EU and says it supports hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs along the value chain.

Judith Kirton-Darling, General secretary of industriAll Europe, warned that “in the longer term”, the situation could worsen if the EU does not take “a stronger” stance on Chinese dumping.

“It is more than likely that we will face plant closures in Europe which will fundamentally undermine our industry,” she said.

April 10 (UPI) — Ecuador raised tariffs to 100% on imports from Colombia, and Colombian President Gustavo Petro ordered the immediate return of his ambassador from Quito.

This represents a new escalation of the diplomatic and trade crisis between the two countries, according to an Ecuadorian statement and remarks from both leaders.

Ecuador said it will implement the tariff increase May 1, according to the Ministry of Production, Foreign Trade and Investment. It argued that Colombia has not taken concrete steps to curb drug trafficking and organized crime along the shared border.

“It is not possible to reach agreements with someone who does not have the same commitment to fighting narco-terrorism,” Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa said Thursday night.

Petro described the tariff increase as “a monstrosity” and announced immediate measures.

“Our ambassador to Ecuador must return immediately,” he wrote on X, where he also called for a Cabinet meeting at the border between the two countries.

The Colombian president also defended his anti-drug policy.

“The president of Ecuador insults the Colombian government that has seized more cocaine than in the entire history of the world,” he said.

Ecuador’s decision marks a new critical point in a dispute that has intensified in recent months and is affecting bilateral trade, energy cooperation and diplomatic channels, according to local media reports.

Negotiations between the two countries within the Andean Community of Nations are suspended, Ecuador’s foreign minister Gabriela Sommerfeld said.

Relations deteriorated further after Petro’s recent statements about former Ecuadorian Vice President Jorge Glas, whom he described as a “political prisoner” and to whom Colombia granted nationality. Glas is serving corruption sentences in Ecuador.

The case dates to 2024, when Noboa’s government ordered his capture inside the Mexican embassy in Quito — an operation that led to a break in diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Ecuador maintains that tightening its trade policy also responds to the need to strengthen security along the roughly 373-mile shared border, where networks linked to drug trafficking, arms smuggling, human trafficking and illegal mining operate.

The Ecuadorian government estimates these efforts imply additional spending of about $400 million.

Since the start of the trade dispute, Colombia has responded with reciprocal measures, including tariffs on Ecuadorian imports and suspending energy sales to Ecuador, which in 2024 experienced power outages of up to 14 hours per day.

The economic impact is raising concerns in both countries.

In Colombia, business groups have called for de-escalation, while in Ecuador, companies in the pharmaceutical and cosmetics sectors have reported disruptions due to restrictions on Colombian imports, according to local media.

The figures reflect the scale of the exchange. In 2025, Colombia exported $1.846 billion in goods to Ecuador, making it its sixth-largest trading partner and second destination for non-mining, non-energy exports. Ecuador, exported about $857 million to Colombia, in a trade balance historically favorable to Bogotá.

Colombia’s National Business Council warned that with a 30% tariff, losses for exporters could reach $750 million annually and affect 82% of bilateral trade. With the increase to 100%, the impact would be far greater.

The new increase by Noboa “definitively closes any possibility of trade between Colombia and Ecuador,” Javier Díaz, president of the National Association of Foreign Trade, said to Clarín, Argentina’s largest newspaper.

On the Ecuadorian side, Pablo Cerón, a transport representative in the border province of Carchi, described the decision as “unilateral, improvised, misguided.”

The bilateral crisis comes at a politically sensitive time in Colombia, just months before general elections.

April 10 (UPI) — President Donald Trump‘s tariffs are back in court Friday to decide on their legality.

The U.S. Court of International Trade will consider the president’s 10% global tariff that he created on Feb. 20 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his previous tariffs over his use of emergency powers. The new tariffs are based on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

That law allows the president to unilaterally surcharge imports up to 15% for up to 150 days “to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.”

Challenging the new levies are Democratic-led states and small businesses.

“This is another case where the president invokes a statute to impose whatever tariffs he wants, its limits be damned,” the states wrote in court filings.

Timothy C. Brightbill, a trade lawyer for the Washington law firm Wiley Rein, told The New York Times that he expects the court to be “skeptical of President Trump’s ability to impose broad tariffs,” including the global 10% rate.

Brightbill said it could be months before the legal system can give a full verdict.

“By then, there will most likely be a new tariff regime in place,” Brightbill said.

The White House said in a statement that Trump was “lawfully using the executive powers granted to him” and the administration was “committed to robustly defending the legality of the president’s actions in court.”

“For over a century, Congress has supplemented the president’s constitutional power over foreign affairs and national security by delegating to him the authority to manage foreign trade in response to international conditions, including by imposing tariffs,” the administration said.

But critics say Trump’s position only includes the U.S trade deficit. They argue that the president is ignoring inflows of foreign capital and financial investment. Those help “balance” the deficit.

They argue that a balance-of-payments crisis is impossible because the United States stopped using the gold standard and a fixed exchange rate system in the 1970s.

“A balance-of-payments crisis is a currency crisis that was of great concern when Congress enacted Section 122, but which can no longer exist,” the states wrote in court filings.

There are 24 states in the suit, along with two small businesses: spice and e-commerce business Burlap & Barrel and Basic Fun!, a toy company that designs and markets Tonka, Lincoln Logs, K’nex and others. They filed separate suits against the tariffs, but the cases will be heard together.

“When these tariffs were first announced last April, we made two promises: we would not raise our prices, and we would not ask our partner farmers to absorb the costs,” Burlap & Barrel wrote on its website. “A year later, we’re proud to say we’ve kept those promises. This lawsuit is about protecting our ability to continue doing that.”

The plaintiffs are represented by the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian firm that worked on the tariff case that the administration lost at the Supreme Court. The three-judge panel is made up of different judges from the previous panel at the Court of International Trade.

The government of Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa has surged its tariffs on the neighbouring country of Colombia to 100 percent, effective May 1.

On Thursday, Ecuador’s Ministry of Production issued a statement blasting Colombia for failing to adequately address drug-trafficking and border security.

It was the latest salvo in an ongoing cross-border dispute between the right-wing Noboa and his left-wing counterpart in Colombia, Gustavo Petro, who have been feuding for months.

“After noting the lack of implementation of concrete and effective measures regarding border security on the part of Colombia, Ecuador is obliged to take sovereign actions,” the Ministry of Production wrote in its statement.

It justified the tariff hike as a necessary incentive to “confront the presence of drug trafficking on the border”.

“For Ecuador, security, as well as the fight against corruption and drug trafficking, are a non-negotiable priority,” the ministry said. “This measure reaffirms the country’s commitment to protecting its citizens and safeguarding the integrity of its territory.”

Already, Noboa had slapped Colombia with 50 percent tariffs on its exports to Ecuador as of March. That, in turn, was a spike from a 30 percent tariff rate announced in January and implemented in February.

Just over an hour after the new tariff rate was announced, Petro responded on social media that Ecuador’s actions were causing the collapse of the Andean Pact, a regional free-trade agreement whose origins stretch back to the 1960s.

“This is simply a monstrosity, but it signifies the end of the Andean Pact for Colombia. We have no business there anymore,” Petro wrote.

He called on Colombia to shift its focus away from its Andean trading partners and towards Mercosur, a trade alliance helmed by Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina and Bolivia.

“The Foreign Minister must initiate the process for us to become full members of Mercosur and steer us — with greater vigor — toward the Caribbean and Central America,” Petro added.

The escalating tensions between Ecuador and Colombia come within the final months of Petro’s presidency. Elected in 2022, Petro is Colombia’s first left-wing president and a former rebel involved in the country’s six-decade-long armed conflict.

But his government has faced stiff opposition from right-wing political movements both domestically and abroad.

Leaders like Noboa and United States President Donald Trump have repeatedly condemned him for not doing enough to tackle the illicit drug trade, despite historic drug seizures during Petro’s term in office.

Just last November, Petro’s government seized a shipment of cocaine worth roughly $388m, the largest drug bust in a decade.

But Petro has also championed a policy he calls “Total Peace”, which involves negotiations with rebel groups and criminal networks to put an end to the country’s internal conflict.

Trump and Petro have been at odds over multiple issues, including US immigration policies and its boat-bombing campaign in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.

In September, however, the Trump administration took the extraordinary step of decertifying Colombia as an ally in its “war on drugs”, saying that it had “failed demonstrably” in its efforts.

Then, in October, Trump sanctioned Petro and his family, blaming the Colombian president for having “allowed drug cartels to flourish”.

Noboa has echoed Trump’s stance on several foreign policy issues, including its pressure campaign on another left-wing government, Cuba.

He was among the right-wing leaders in Latin America to join Trump’s “Shield of the Americas” coalition, designed to confront criminal networks and cartels in the region.

In announcing the initial volley of tariffs in January, Noboa claimed his country had shown a “genuine commitment” to combatting drug trafficking, while Colombia had not.

“We have made genuine efforts to cooperate with Colombia, even while facing a trade deficit exceeding $1bn annually,” Noboa wrote.

Colombia remains the world’s largest producer of cocaine, a persistent trend that has existed since before Petro’s presidency.

But other factors have aggravated tensions between the two neighbours.

On Wednesday, for instance, Ecuador recalled its ambassador from Colombia over statements Petro made about its imprisonment of left-wing politician Jorge Glas, calling the former vice president a “political prisoner”.

Noboa had warned earlier in the week that he considered such rhetoric an “assault on [Ecuador’s] sovereignty”. He had previously faced criticism for authorising a raid on Mexico’s embassy to arrest Glas, which prompted Mexico to sever its relations with Ecuador.

Petro, meanwhile, has accused Noboa of bombing close to the Colombian border, as part of joint military operations with the US. Colombian officials have said they recovered 27 charred bodies from the border region.

Since Ecuador first imposed its tariffs, Colombia has suspended cross-border energy sales, which have been vital in helping Ecuador’s government navigate electricity shortages prompted by recent droughts. It has also issued retaliatory tariffs on certain Ecuadorian products.

It’s not clear under what legal authority Trump can tack on this tariff, and analysts called it an ’empty threat’.

United States President Donald Trump has said imports from countries supplying Iran with military weapons will face immediate 50 percent tariffs with no exemptions, announcing the threatened duty in a social media post just hours after agreeing to a two-week ceasefire with Tehran.

Trump’s Truth Social post on Wednesday did not specify which legal authority he would invoke to impose such tariffs, as the Supreme Court in February struck down his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [IEEPA] to impose broad global tariffs, prompting a lower court to order refunds of some $166bn collected over the course of a year.

The 1977 IEEPA law has been used extensively for decades to back financial sanctions against Iran, Russia and North Korea, but the court ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in using it to impose trade tariffs.

“A Country supplying Military Weapons to Iran will be immediately tariffed, on any and all goods sold to the United States of America, 50%, effective immediately. There will be no exclusions or exemptions! President DJT,” Trump wrote.

However, “it’s a lot more complicated to do that after IEEPA was struck down”, Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera. “There’s no immediate policy lever and authorisation that is available for the US to do that. So they need either an act of Congress or need to adapt some other trade tool, and there isn’t really a national security-oriented trade tool.”

Trump did not name any countries that could face punitive tariffs. China and Russia have helped Iran build military capacity to counter US and Israeli pressure, supplying missiles, air defence systems and technology intended to bolster deterrence.

But that support appeared capped during the US-Israeli attacks on Iran. Both Beijing and Moscow have denied supplying any weapons recently, although allegations against Moscow have persisted.

The Reuters news agency has previously reported that Tehran was considering a purchase of supersonic antiship cruise missiles from China. In March, Reuters reported that China’s top semiconductor maker, SMIC, has sent chipmaking tools to Iran’s military, according to two senior Trump administration officials.

“This is a China-related threat, the way I read it. And China will read it that way,” said Josh Lipsky, vice president and chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council.

Although drone and missile parts routinely flow from Chinese entities to Iran, evading US sanctions, Lipsky said Trump was unlikely to follow through with new tariffs in the near term because that would derail his planned trip to Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in mid-May.

“US tariffs on Chinese products have gone down a lot since the court ruling,” said Ziemba, “and slapping on 50 percent tariffs now would be very expensive, especially for US importers and consumers.”

Moreover, with the Trump-Xi meeting looming, “this is kind of an empty threat, but shows that when push comes to shove, Trump comes back to tariffs”, Ziemba said.

Trump does have active “Section 301” unfair trade practices tariffs on Chinese goods from his first term, to which he may be able to add duties and similar pending cases related to excess industrial capacity and China’s compliance with a 2020 trade deal. But these would require a public notice period before they could take effect.

Trump also may be able to invoke Section 232 of the Cold War-era Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows sector-specific tariffs to protect strategic domestic industries on national security grounds, but using this law would require a new months-long investigation and public comments.

Russia has been another source of arms technology for Iran, but US imports of Russian goods have fallen sharply since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the wave of financial sanctions imposed on Moscow as a result.

US imports from Russia, one of the only countries not subject to Trump’s now-cancelled “reciprocal” tariffs, jumped 26.1 percent to $3.8bn in 2025. These are dominated by palladium used in automotive catalytic converters, fertilisers and their ingredients, and enriched uranium for nuclear reactors. The US Department of Commerce is already moving to impose punitive tariffs on Russian palladium after an anti-dumping investigation.

WASHINGTON — One year ago, Donald Trump stood in a sun-kissed, unpaved Rose Garden and defiantly announced a new era of global trade, raising tariffs on countries worldwide and sending shock waves through the global economy.

The president promised short-term pain rippling through American households would make way for a U.S. economy that would soon take off. But experts say they are still waiting for receipts — and question whether they will ever come.

A year of turbulence

Tariff rates shifted so unpredictably for so long — across countries and with remarkable speed — that companies are still struggling to build stable, long-term supply chains capable of supporting future planning and growth. U.S. markets recorded one of the most volatile years in history, marked by extreme swings and modest gains driven by a handful of stocks for tech companies largely inoculated from import duties.

A customer visits a Costco food court in San Diego on March 18.

(Kevin Carter / Getty Images)

Federal customs duties brought in tens of billions of dollars. But a study published this week by the European Central Bank found that U.S. importers and consumers, not foreign exporters, bore the brunt of the costs that paid for it — and that an even larger share of the burden will fall on American households and companies the longer Trump’s tariff policies stay in place.

Despite the president’s pronouncements, tariff earnings have barely made a dent in the federal debt.

Tax cuts and additional spending on defense and immigration enforcement have increased the annual deficit. In the months of January and February alone, net customs duties hit an average of $27 billion — a significant figure that has essentially offset the costs of Trump’s war with Iran, now estimated to be more than $57 billion since its start.

In February, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority by bypassing Congress to impose tariffs on an emergency basis. But the decision has merely prompted the Trump administration to look for ways to bypass the high court, as well.

“Even after the court ruling, the Trump administration continues to wield tariffs in a haphazard and ill-conceived fashion,” said Kimberly Clausing, a professor of tax policy and law at UCLA School of Law. “One year in, Trump’s tariffs have only generated higher prices, economic disruption, frayed alliances, and manufacturing job loss.”

Farmers in New Delhi take part in a March 19 protest demanding a minimum support price for crops.

(Sajjad Hussain / AFP / Getty Images)

Since the court ruling, Trump has moved away from using broad emergency powers to justify tariff rates, now citing laws on national security and unfair trade practices to keep them in place. Those are being challenged, as well.

“Trump’s tariff mania injected uncertainty into global business supply chains that he is refusing to let the Supreme Court undo,” said Aaron Klein, chair of economic studies at the Brookings Institution.

“It would be one thing if Trump replaced the existing tariff system with a coherent strategy approved by the very Republican Congress he controls,” Klein added. “Instead, Trump’s on-again, off-again tariff by tweet and let the courts figure it out months later destroys business’ ability to plan and undermines global confidence in America’s trustworthiness.”

‘Mounting downside’

Whether or not the president’s tariff policies survive, they have succeeded in ushering in a new era of international trade, shifting global reliance on the U.S. dollar and on the American consumer market, experts said.

“The euro, the Chinese yuan and crypto will be the biggest beneficiaries as the dollar loses market share,” said Kenneth Rogoff, an economist and professor at Harvard. “Future historians may well look back some day and see Liberation Day as marking the beginning of the end of the dollar’s absolute dominance in global markets, and the ‘exorbitant privilege’ it has given to the United States as issuer of what once upon a time was the world safest currency.”

Mary Lovely, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said that Trump’s tariff policies have upended global shipping, prompted China to increase offshore investments in countries like Vietnam to process Chinese inputs for the U.S. market, and elevated long-term uncertainty over investing in North America — a trifecta that has ensured that U.S. companies and consumers bear the costs.

“While the president promised an American ‘industrial renaissance,’ manufacturing jobs have been lost every month since early 2023,” Lovely said. “Easy to see the mounting downside of his tariff barrage, hard to find much upside.”

More than 100,000 net jobs in the U.S. manufacturing sector have been lost over the last year, in part due to the increased costs facing U.S.-based manufacturing companies for parts and inputs, said Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

That has made domestic manufacturing less competitive. “The trade war has also increased the prices facing consumers at a time when affordability is their top concern,” Strain added.

Customers shop at the Sanya International Duty Free City in Sanya, in south China’s Hainan province, on Jan. 10. In December 2025, China launched special customs operations in the Hainan Free Trade Port, allowing easier entry of overseas goods and expanding zero-tariff coverage.

(Guo Cheng / Xinhua / Getty Images)

The policy has become a political albatross for the president, who now proceeds through a midterm year with a bipartisan majority of Americans dissatisfied with his approach to their top concern. Seven in 10 Americans believe that tariffs have increased their costs of living, according to a recent poll, including 64% of Republicans and 67% of independents.

Sung Won Sohn, a former commissioner at the Port of Los Angeles, said that inflation aggravated by Trump’s tariff actions has complicated policy at the Federal Reserve, fueling uncertainty in the U.S. stock market.

The Supreme Court’s decision, which prompted legal ambiguity on the administration’s path forward and opened the door to a flood of litigation for potential tariff refunds, further added to uncertainty. “The net result is decreased economic efficiency,” Sohn said.

Trump faces worse poll numbers on inflation than former Presidents Carter and Biden, both of whom faced challenges with increased prices on goods. Today, 72% of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of rising prices, according to a CNN poll released this week.

“The real damage from the tariffs — and their uneven unwinding — is not captured in headline GDP figures,” Sohn added. “It shows up in slower decision-making, reduced productivity, and a persistent fog over the economic outlook.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: A serial arsonist terrorized Hollywood. It ended only after two sisters died in a house fire, authorities say
The deep dive: The books that created the César Chávez myth — and those that brought him down
The L.A. Times Special: Electric bikes can be fast and dangerous. Here’s how to stay safe

On a personal note, hats off to my colleagues for stepping in during my parental leave — it’s great to be back.

More to come,
Michael Wilner

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Published on
27/03/2026 – 12:15 GMT+1

The EU approved a sweeping customs reform to handle growing trade volumes and streamline the application of its standards.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The agreement, which was reached on Thursday evening, introduces new tools to improve the collection of customs duties and increase controls on non-compliant or unsafe goods, without imposing excessive burdens for authorities and traders.

“Today’s agreement marks the greatest reform since the creation of the Customs Union in 1968”, Cypriot Finance Minister Makis Keravnos said in a statement following the adoption of the reform. “This modern toolbox will facilitate trade and ensure the proper collection of duties, in a simplified manner, and with the required legal certainty”, the minister added.

Customs management and trade have gained renewed urgency after trade volumes have sharply increased in the last years. Some €4.6 billion low-value items under €150 were imported to the EU in 2024, representing an average of 12 million parcels per day, according to European Commission data. That is a major increase from the €2.3 billion that entered in 2023 and €1.4 billion in 2022.

In addition, uncertainties over US tariffs, combined with new EU trade deals such as those with MERCOSUR and Australia, make this reform particularly timely.

EU customs data hub

The new rules foresee the creation of an EU customs data hub, which will be an online platform to facilitate the monitoring of trade flows without disrupting their smooth operation.

Businesses importing and exporting from the EU will only need to submit customs information on that single portal.

The hub, which will be operational for e-commerce from July 2028, will be managed by a new European Custom Authority, headquartered in Lille, France.

The Authority will oversee the EU customs by coordinating national offices and supporting them in the risk management. In particular, the Authority will analyse the import and export data to flag cargos that poses the highest risk for inspection.

The reform will also introduce simplified procedures for “trust and check traders” for transparent businesses that will not be subjected to active customs interventions.

For e-commerce operators that fail to comply with EU standards, it will be applied a new system of financial penalties.

The reform foresees a new EU handling fee for small parcels entering the EU starting November 2026, with the exact amount to be decided by the European Commission. From July to November, a temporary €3 tax will apply to all parcels under €150.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is stepping up its ambitious effort to replace about $1.6 trillion in lost tariff revenue that was eliminated by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a range of the president’s import taxes.

Recovering that lost revenue, which the White House was counting on to help offset the steep, multitrillion-dollar cost of its tax cuts, is possible but will be challenging, experts say. The administration has to use different legal provisions to impose new import taxes, and those provisions require longer, complex processes that U.S. companies can use to seek exemptions. It could be months or more before it is clear how much revenue the replacement tariffs will yield.

“I wouldn’t bet against this administration being able to get back on paper the same effective tariff rate they had before,” said Elena Patel, co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. But the new approach will “make it easier for people to contest the tariffs, which is going to put a big asterisk on the revenue until all that is settled.”

On Wednesday, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the administration will investigate 16 economies — including the European Union — over whether their governments are subsidizing excessive factory capacity in a way that disadvantages U.S. manufacturing. The investigation will also cover China, South Korea and Japan, Greer said.

In addition, he said, there would be a second investigation of dozens of countries to see whether their failure to ban goods made by forced labor amounts to an unfair trade practice that harms the United States. That investigation will also cover the EU and China, as well as Mexico, Canada, Australia and Brazil.

Both investigations are being conducted under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which requires the administration to consult with the targeted countries, as well as hold public hearings and allow affected U.S. industries to comment. A hearing as part of the factory capacity investigation will be held May 5, while a hearing on the forced labor investigation will occur April 28.

It’s a far cry from the emergency law that President Trump relied on in his first year in office, which allowed him to immediately impose tariffs on any country, at nearly any level, simply by issuing an executive order.

Moments after the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump imposed a 10% tariff on all imports under a separate legal authority, but that duty can only last for 150 days. The president has said he would raise it to 15%, the maximum allowed, but has yet to do so. Some two dozen states have already challenged the new taxes. The administration is aiming to complete its Section 301 investigations before the 10% duties expire.

The effort underscores the importance that the Trump White House has placed on tariffs as a revenue-raiser at a time when the federal government is facing huge annual budget deficits for decades into the future. Previous administrations, by contrast, used tariffs more sparingly to narrowly protect specific industries.

Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation, noted that the first investigation covers roughly 70% of imports, while the second would cover nearly all of them.

“That breadth suggests the goal isn’t to address the issues at hand, but instead to re-create a sweeping tariff tool,” she said.

Trump portrays tariffs as a way to force foreign countries to essentially help pay the cost of U.S. government services, even though all recent economic studies find that American companies and consumers are paying the duties, including analyses by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and economists at Harvard University. In his State of the Union address last month, Trump even touted his tariffs as a potential replacement for the income tax, which would return the United States’ tax regime to the late 19th century.

Trump also wants tariffs to help pay for the tax cuts he extended in key legislation last year. The tax cut legislation is expected, according to the most recent estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, to add $4.7 trillion to the national debt over a decade, while all Trump’s import taxes, including ones not struck down by the court, were projected to offset about $3 trillion — or two-thirds of that cost.

The high court’s ruling Feb. 20 that he could no longer impose emergency tariffs eliminated about $1.6 trillion in expected revenue over the next decade, according to the CBO.

Some of Trump’s import taxes remain place, including previous tariffs on China and Canada that were imposed after earlier 301 investigations. The administration has also imposed tariffs on some specific products, including steel, lumber and cars. Those, combined with the 10% tariff for part of this year, should yield about $668 billion over the next decade, the Tax Foundation estimates.

“It’s going to take a really big patchwork of these other investigations to make up for the [lost] tariffs,” York said.

The administration’s efforts are also unusual because they reflect an overreliance on tariffs to bring in more government revenue. Trump has also said the import taxes are intended to return manufacturing to the United States — manufacturing jobs, however, are down since he returned to office — and he has used the tariffs to leverage trade deals.

“What makes this really different,” said Kent Smetters, executive director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, “it is really the first time tariffs have been mainly used as a revenue raiser.”

Patel, meanwhile, argues that raising revenue can be done more reliably and straightforwardly by Congress. Laws like Section 301 are traditionally intended to be used to address specific trade policy concerns in particular countries.

“It’s not supposed to be there to raise revenue,” she said. “If we want to raise revenue through tariffs, then Congress should impose a broad based tariff.”

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

EU lawmakers in Brussels are worried that the bloc is drifting into the crosshairs of US domestic politics, as the White House launched new trade investigations into EU goods accusing the European Union is “implementing close to zero” of trade commitments.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Next week could prove decisive for the EU–US trade deal struck last summer.

Washington has stepped up pressure on the EU in recent days to implement the agreement cut last summer cut between the head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and President Donald Trump, tripling tariffs on the EU.

Still, MEPs have kept the implementation process, which also includes investment pledges from the Europeans in the US, frozen, seeking clarity after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in February that US tariffs imposed in 2025 were illegal.

The fate of the deal remains uncertain after the White House launched new investigations into EU products this week that could lead to tariffs exceeding the 15% ceiling agreed under the pact.

“It is domestic politics and the worst-case scenario has happened: we got involved,” Croatian MEP Željana Zovko, lead negotiator for the European People’s Party, told Euronews.

She added: “We were waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision but now of course this administration will do its utmost to do it its own way.”

In the days following the court’s ruling, the US administration has looked for new legal grounds for tariffs and invoked Section 122 to impose fresh duties of 10% on EU goods, on top of the 4.8% tariffs already in place under most-favored nation regime.

The provision allows temporary duties for a maximum of 150 days, after which the US Congress would need to agree an extension. The Supreme Court suggested in its initial ruling that the President had exceeded his powers under emergency grounds.

As Washington looks for a way to make the tariff salvo permanent, it is also increasing the pressure on allies by opening new investigations into trading partners including the EU over alleged unfair trade practices. China and India were also targeted.

The probes could pave the way for tariffs above the 15% ceiling agreed in the deal struck in July 2025 by Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Trump in Turnberry, Scotland.

Next week will be pivotal for the EU-US deal

“Now uncertainty is increasing even more for our businesses,” Zovko said.

Since the court ruling, the EU has sought clarity from Washington on whether the Turnberry agreement signed last year still stands or has been broken.

US officials assured EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič they would stick to the deal, though they have not detailed how the 10% tariffs after the court ruling will be replaced in the long-term. In return, the US expects the EU to implement the agreement fully and quickly.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer raised the temperature on Wednesday, lashing at the Europeans on the basis that “the EU has done approximately zero percent of what they were supposed to do for their trade deal with us.”

This week’s investigations should be taken seriously, German MEP Bernd Lange (S&D) told Euronews, despite the erratic moves by the US administration since the court ruling.

“Section 301 will allow the US to differentiate between countries and therefore add pressure to each of them,” he said.

Next week could be pivotal for the EU–US trade deal.

Italian MEP Brando Benifei (S&D) will travel to Washington hoping to meet Greer. He may be joined by Lange, the chair of the EU trade committee, on Monday although a decision has not been made yet.

The trip comes as negotiators in the European Parliament must decide whether to resume work on the agreement or postpone the vote once more. A vote is required to cut EU duties on US goods to zero, as foreseen in the Turnberry deal.

But political groups remain divided.

“When I read what the socialists are saying, I’m losing hope that we will have a vote, despite reassurance given by Iratxe García Pérez [Spanish MEP, chair of the S&D] and Bernd Lange,” a source at the EPP told Euronews.

Benifei said the EU needs a clear political signal from Washington that it will stick to the deal, otherwise “there is no way we can vote on the file.”