trade

The Lakers’ new big man went to the free throw line. The team’s former big man was on the mind of fans.

“I miss you, AD!” a Lakers fan shouted into the silence as Deandre Ayton prepared to shoot a free throw in the first quarter Friday.

Former Lakers star Anthony Davis played his first game in L.A. since being traded to the Mavericks last season, finishing with 12 points, five assists, five rebounds and three blocks in the Lakers’ 129-119 win at Crypto.com Arena.

The Lakers (14-4) won their sixth consecutive game and clinched West Group B in the NBA Cup, securing homecourt advantage for the tournament quarterfinals. The Lakers will host the San Antonio Spurs, who won West Group C, on Dec. 10 at 7 p.m.

The Mavericks (5-15) lost their third straight as the blockbuster trade that sent Luka Doncic to L.A. has only become more lopsided in the 10 months since it shocked the NBA.

Doncic had 35 points and 11 assists for the Lakers. Former Laker guard Max Christie, who was also involved in the trade, had 13 points and has become a regular starter for the Mavericks.

After two emotional matchups against his former team last year, Doncic said some of the feelings have subsided, but games against Dallas will always have special meaning for him.

Friday’s game was a well-timed return for Davis, who played in his first game after missing a month with a calf strain. The injury stretched for weeks as the Mavericks fell into the basement of the Western Conference.

LOS ANGELES, CA – NOVEMBER 28, 2025: Los Angeles Lakers guard Austin Reaves (15) scores two of his 38 points against Dallas Mavericks guard Klay Thompson (31) in the second half at Crypto.con Arena on November 28, 2025 in Los Angeles, California.(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Meanwhile, the Lakers have the second-best record in the West. Doncic leads the league in scoring with 35.1 points per game.

Doncic’s continued ascent to superstardom and Davis’ growing injury list has only made the trade more bitter for Mavericks fans. They got their form of revenge when former general manager Nico Harrison was fired on Nov. 11, but the change only signaled a new low for the franchise that went to the NBA Finals two short seasons ago.

Now the player who was supposed to help fill the void left by Doncic has been included in trade rumors. The Mavericks went 3-11 without Davis.

To ensure Davis stayed in a positive mental state during the time of turmoil for the franchise, Mavericks coach Jason Kidd encouraged him to simply stay focused on getting healthy.

“The train keeps moving,” Kidd said. “No matter of a trade or a dismissal, you got to keep moving. And so for AD, [it] was to focus on his body, come back healthy. … Can’t get everything solved in 24 minutes tonight, but as we go forward, we feel like we have a chance to win when he’s in uniform.”

Davis was on a 24- to 27-minute limit Friday. To adhere to the restriction, he had to leave the game with 6:56 left in the fourth quarter with the Mavericks down by just three points.

Leaving the court hurt, Davis said. He had gotten two blocks, an assist and a basket during the first five minutes of the fourth quarter, then the Lakers went on a 9-1 run after Davis went to the bench.

To Kidd, Davis is still one of the best in the world when he is healthy. The coach pointed to Davis’ impressive play in the Paris Olympics when he averaged 8.3 points, 6.7 rebounds and 1.5 blocks while shooting 62.5% from the field.

The Lakers didn’t need to be reminded of Davis’ talent. Coach JJ Redick said Davis would get the respect that all star players deserve because of his versatile skillset. But more than the shots he blocked or baskets he scored with the Lakers, Redick valued Davis for his support during Redick’s first year as a head coach.

“Very grateful that I had buy-in from him coming in Day 1 never had coached before,” Redick said. “So, it’s one of those things like you’re rooting for certain guys. … There are certain teammates you had, there’s always going to be guys that I coached [who] I either root for them after they are not your teammate and they are not one of your players. Just not when they play against us. Not tonight.”

The Lakers played a tribute video last year when Davis was sidelined with an abdominal injury for his first game back after the trade. Fans were showered him with cheers when he was introduced in the starting lineup Friday. LeBron James playfully bumped Davis at the center of the court before the game then they did the same intricate handshake they performed before games as teammates.

Lakers guard Luka Doncic puts up a jumper between Dallas Mavericks forward P.J. Washington and guard Max Christie on Friday at Crypto.com Arena.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

After the game, Lakers players lined up to hug Davis. Austin Reaves, who dominated with 38 points on 12 for 15 shooting with eight rebounds and three assists, gave him a two-armed bear hug. Davis grabbed the strap of his jersey and pointed toward Reaves.

“I always liked his game, what he was able to do,” Davis said. “Just now he’s doing it on a more consistent basis, putting up elite numbers. … He’s a player who I always knew could play to this level.”

Reaves left the Lakers locker room with Davis’ blue No. 3 jersey signed by his former teammate.

“He’s one of the best players to ever touch a basketball. I don’t know why he wanted my jersey,” Reaves said. “But for me to get his, it’s pretty fun. … From Day 1, he was telling me to be myself, don’t be anybody else. Continue to work and really be myself on the court. So I owe him a lot.”

Published on 28/11/2025 – 17:03 GMT+1
•Updated
17:16

The EU member states agreed on Friday to cut tariffs on US imports as outlined in a controversial trade deal agreed last summer between the European Commission and the Trump administration to the detriment of European goods.

The move comes as US trade representatives urge EU capitals to fast-track the implementation of the deal which foresees the EU dropping tariffs to zero on most US industrial goods. A US delegation visited Brussels this week for talks.

The idea of adding a so-called “sunset clause” – a mechanism that would end the tariff concessions after a period of five years if the deal is not renewed – sparked a debate among EU countries but did not go ahead, signalling that member states do not want to antagonise Trump.

The EU-US trade agreement was concluded in July after months of tensions after US President Donald Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on partners worldwide in what he called “Liberation Day” for America. Under the deal, the EU will pay 15% tariffs on its exports to the US, while reducing its own tariffs on most US industrial products to zero.

No ‘sunset clause’ yet, but the Parliament could fight it

The deal has been widely criticised as a humiliation for Europe, although the Commission has defended it since arguing that it was the best possible outcome in the face of Trump’s aggressive trade stance. The alternative, Brussels argued, would have been worse.

Still, on Friday, the 27 backed the Commission’s much-maligned deal with a majority.

They also approved a clause allowing the Commission to suspend the deal if the US fails to implement it, as well as a safeguard mechanism enabling the Commission to temporarily halt the agreement if US imports surge and disrupt the European single market as a result of tariff concessions.

Member states also debated the introduction of a “sunset clause” that would permanently end the tariff reductions after five years if the deal is not renewed – an idea they expect the European Parliament to champion in upcoming talks.

Both institutions must agree on a common text by next spring to finalise the tariff cuts. According to an EU diplomat, most member states could accept adding the clause, but Germany opposes it as it fears retaliation.

The head of the Parliament’s trade committee, German MEP Bernd Lange (S&D), has already included the idea of a sunset clause in his report on the deal’s implementation which will serve as the basis for the European Parliament’s debate.

Inside the Commission, officials hope the Council and Parliament will refrain from unravelling the agreement negotiated with Washington on the basis that it could trigger another round of escalation and amplify a trade war.

The new plan comes amid stalled trade talks between Ottawa and Washington.

Canada will offer more support to help the steel and lumber industries deal with United States tariffs and create a domestic market, as well as ramp up protections for steel and lumber workers.

Prime Minister Mark Carney outlined the new plan on Wednesday in a news conference.

Ottawa will reduce the quota for steel imports from countries that do not have a free trade agreement with Canada to 20 percent from 50 percent of 2024 levels, Carney said.

Countries with a free trade agreement (FTA) with Canada will see their quotas cut to 75 percent from 100 percent of the 2024 level. This does not include the US and Mexico, which are bound by the United States-Canada-Mexico free trade deal.

Canada will also impose a global 25 percent tariff on targeted imported steel-derivative products, and incorporate border measures to combat steel dumping.

In July, Ottawa set a quota of steel imports at 50 percent of the 2024 level from non-FTA countries in a bid to stop the dumping of foreign steel into Canada.

The measures are being tightened to open up the domestic market for Canadian-produced steel, said a government official.

The steel industry contributes more than 4 billion Canadian dollars ($2.8bn) to Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP) and employs more than 23,000 people directly. It is, however, one of the two sectors hit hardest by US President Donald Trump’s 50 percent tariffs on steel imports from Canada.

Trump has imposed 50 percent tariffs on steel, and softwood lumber, long subject to US tariffs, is currently taxed at 45 percent after the Trump administration’s hike last month.

Carney said the decades-long process of an ever-closer economic relationship between Canada and the US is now over.

“As a consequence, many of our strengths have become vulnerabilities. Last year, more than 75 percent of our exports went to the United States. Ninety percent of our lumber exports, 90 percent of our aluminium exports, and 90 percent of our steel exports, all bound for a single market,” Carney said.

Ottawa will work with railway companies to cut freight rates for the inter-provincial transfer of Canadian steel and lumber by 50 percent, beginning in early 2026.

“We will make it more affordable to transport Canadian steel and lumber across the country by cutting freight rates,” Carney said.

The government said it would also support the use of locally made steel and lumber in homebuilding, and financial aid for companies dealing with tariff-related impacts, such as on their workforce, liquidity crunch, and for restructuring operations.

Trump tensions

Trump cut off trade talks with Canada last month after the Ontario provincial government ran television advertisements in US markets that criticised Trump’s tariffs by citing a speech by former US President Ronald Reagan.

Carney said he would be in Washington for the final draw on December 5 for the FIFA World Cup 2026 tournament. He said he would speak to Trump then and said he spoke briefly to the president on Tuesday.

“We are ready to re-engage on those talks when the United States wants to re-engage,” Carney said.

Carney’s announcement comes even as there is increased pressure on US businesses reeling from Trump’s tariffs.

Deere & Co, the maker of John Deere tractors, said on Wednesday that it expects a bigger hit from tariffs in 2026. The company expects a pre-tax tariff hit of around $1.2bn in fiscal 2026, compared with nearly $600m in 2025.

China’s Foreign Ministry said Trump initiated call with Xi Jinping and that communication was crucial for developing stable US-China relations.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has “more or less agreed” to increase purchases of goods from the United States, President Donald Trump said, a day after a phone call between the two leaders was described by Beijing as “positive, friendly and constructive”.

Speaking to reporters on board Air Force One on Tuesday evening, Trump said he asked the Chinese leader during the call to accelerate purchases from the US.

“I think we will be pleasantly surprised by the actions of President Xi,” Trump said.

“I asked him, I’d like you to buy it a little faster. I’d like you to buy more. And he’s more or less agreed to do that,” he said.

Trump’s upbeat forecast on trade with China comes after Beijing announced last month that it would resume purchases of US soya beans and would halt expanded curbs on rare earths exports to the US amid detente in the tariff war with Washington.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that China had pledged to buy 12 million metric tonnes of soya beans from US farmers this year, but the Reuters news agency reports that the pace of Chinese purchases had been less than initially expected.

China has so far ordered nearly two million metric tonnes of US soya beans, according to data by the US Department of Agriculture, Reuters reports.

The call on Monday between Trump and Xi comes just weeks after the two leaders met in South Korea, where they agreed to a framework for a trade deal that has yet to be finalised.

“China and the United States once fought side by side against fascism and militarism, and should now work together to safeguard the outcomes of World War II,” Xi was quoted as telling Trump in the call, China’s official Xinhua news agency reports.

Xi also told Trump that “Taiwan’s return to China is an integral part of the post-war international order”.

China regards Taiwan as part of its territory and has not ruled out the use of force to unite the self-ruled, democratic island with the Chinese mainland.

The US has been traditionally opposed to China’s potential use of force to seize Taiwan and is obligated by a domestic law to provide sufficient military hardware to Taipei to deter any armed attack.

But Trump has maintained strategic ambiguity about whether he would commit US troops in case of a war in the Taiwan Strait, while his administration has urged Taiwan to increase its defence budget.

Trump made no mention of Xi’s comments on Taiwan in a later post on Truth Social, where he spoke of a “very good” call with the Chinese leader, which he said covered many topics, including Ukraine, Fentanyl and US farm products.

“Our relationship with China is extremely strong! This call was a follow up to our highly successful meeting in South Korea, three weeks ago. Since then, there has been significant progress on both sides in keeping our agreements current and accurate,” Trump said.

“Now we can set our sights on the big picture,” he said.

The US leader also said that he had accepted Xi’s invitation to visit Beijing in April, and had invited Xi for a state visit to the US later in the year.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Tuesday that Washington had initiated the call between Trump and Xi, which spokesperson Mao Ning called “positive, friendly and constructive”.

Mao also said that “communication between the two heads of state on issues of common concern is crucial for the stable development of China-US relations”.

Additional reporting by Bonnie Liao.

DALLAS — Ross Perot, outlining how he would mend the U.S. economy, proposes a combination of tax cuts and loans for small business and tougher trade policy to create more jobs at home.

“We cannot be a superpower if we cannot manufacture here,” the Texas billionaire said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. He called for the United States to make almost everything it needs at home. “We have to manufacture here,” he said.

Perot, whose undeclared presidential candidacy has surged in opinion polls, described himself as a “fair and free trader” but believes that “agreements we’ve cut with countries around the world are not balanced at all.”

He said he would adjust the “tilted deck” of trade with Japan “in a very nice, diplomatic way. In this case (make) the Japanese say: ‘We’ll take the same deal on cars we’ve given you.’ ”

The effect, he said, would be to drastically reduce imports from Japan. “You are going to see the clock stop,” said Perot. “You could never unload the ships to this country; just could never unload the ships.”

In a similar vein, he opposes a free-trade agreement with Mexico, believing it would drain manufacturing jobs from a U.S. economy that cannot afford to lose them.

Perot said he is willing to have his mind changed. “This is a complicated, multi-piece equation that we need to think through very carefully. In carpenter’s terms, measure twice, cut once,” he said.

But in Mexico, “labor is a 25- year-old with little or no health-care expense working for a dollar an hour. You cannot compete with that in the U.S.A., period,” he said. “So you would have a surge in building factories down there but a long-term drought here at a time we cannot pay our budget deficits.”

The interview centered on Perot’s agenda on the issues of trade, taxes and the federal deficit. In Perot’s view, problems of the U.S. economy are interrelated, from trade to the national debt and the troubled public school system–which he calls “the least effective public education system in the industrialized world.”

“We’ve got a country $4 trillion in debt, adding $400 billion this year,” he said in his Dallas office–graced by portraits of his family and the painting “Spirit of ‘76” on a wall behind his desk.

“And we have a declining job base, which gives us a declining tax base at a time when we’ve run our debt through the ceiling. In business terms, that’s a ticket for disaster. Never forget that every time you lose a worker–who goes on welfare–the welfare check exceeds the tax payment that used to come to the IRS.”

Perot’s reference to a declining job base reflects his belief–disputed by some scholars–that jobs created in the 1980s were at lower wages than the jobs they replaced as manufacturing companies restructured. Most analysts and government data agree that wages for less educated, industrial workers have fallen over the last two decades. But there have been rising incomes at the same time for educated employees–especially those in new, computer-based information industries.

Perot, who will turn 62 this month, is a pioneer of the information-based industry. In 1962 he founded Electronic Data Systems, which innovated the business for organizing computer data for large companies and the government. It made Perot one of the nation’s wealthiest men. But Perot says that advanced industries alone cannot be the solution for the United States.

“Don’t bet the farm on high tech,” he said. “Information industry is all about intellectual acuity. And in a country with the least effective public education in the industrialized world, it kind of makes you grimace.

“What I’m saying is, right now, we can’t take people out of factories and send them to Microsoft (the leading computer software firm). If their children had a great education, we could. That’s generational change. But their children are not getting a great education.”

Perot made great efforts on behalf of educational reform in Texas in 1984, and has said he supports greatly expanded funding for education starting at preschool levels for all children. “It’s the best investment we can make,” he has said.

But education is for the future, and there is a need to create jobs now in the United States, not overseas, Perot declared.

“Do we need to make clothing in this country? Of course we do. Do we need to make shoes in this country? Of course we do. We have places in our country where people would be delighted to work in a shoe factory for reasonable wages.

“When I think of shoes, I think of Valley Forge (the winter encampment during the American Revolution where George Washington’s soldiers wrapped their feet in bandages and rags),” said Perot, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy.

“My mind bounces back and forth between the world I hope we have and the world that might be. We might be fighting barefooted.”

Perot contended that jobs can be created fastest in small companies.

“The quickest way to stimulate the economy and have a growing, dynamic job base is to stimulate small business. You’ll create more jobs faster by going through small business than through the huge industries,” said Perot, who started his business career as a salesman for IBM.

He said small-business people today are starved for credit and capital since banks are cautious of lending in the aftermath of the speculative 1980s, and small business doesn’t have access to big stock and bond markets.

But if he should become President, solving the credit problem will be “easy,” Perot said. “Change the regulations and the banks will loan the money,” he said, indicating that bank examiners should loosen their definitions about prudent loans and reduce the amount banks must reserve against potential losses.

Perot would attract investors to small business ventures by reducing the tax on capital gains. “I’ve got to give you a reason to take money out of Treasury bills to invest in a high-risk, wildcatting venture,” Perot explained.

“I can’t force you to take your money out of T-bills, so I have to create an environment where you want to take this risk.” That means a tax preference. “But I’m not changing capital gains for everybody. This is for the really high-risk start-up of a small company,” Perot said.

But “you will rarely hear me use the word ‘capital gains tax rate.’ I’ll be talking about money to create jobs,” he said.

Perot’s own considerable fortune, estimated by various business publications at $3.3 billion, is invested mostly in T-bills and corporate and high-rated municipal bonds. He has $200 million invested in Perot Systems, $350 million in real estate and about $40 million in funds for start-up companies, including a stake in Next Inc., the computer company headed by Apple co-founder Steven P. Jobs.

Perot also spoke of pushing for legislation to allow, and encourage, banks to make equity investments in start-up companies–a form of government-backed development bank.

“Or some other vehicle will emerge,” he said. “You find what seems to be the best way out–and then you adjust 1,000 times as you go. That’s the way you do anything, whether it’s cutting grass or making rockets.”

Perot’s views on big business are harsh. He believes a ruinous gap opened up between management and labor in large corporations, between executives who paid themselves handsomely while demanding reductions in the pay of ordinary workers. The result was a reduction in American competitiveness and hurt the U.S. economy, he says, repeating a theme he sounded often in two stormy years on General Motors’ board of directors.

Today, he is not surprised that the chief executives of more than a dozen major corporations, meeting last month at the Business Council in Hot Springs, Va., uniformly disapproved of him and his candidacy.

“They’re part of the Establishment,” Perot said. “The status quo works for them right now, and I’m talking about major, major change.”

Still, big companies should be enlisted in a drive to turn the U.S. economy to pursuits of peace, from what Perot terms “45 years of Cold War which drained us. The Cold War broke Russia, but it drained us.”

For all his distrust of foreign trade agreements, Perot admires the way Japanese companies do business–in particular Toyota, which he studied while a director of GM. “They work as a team and their products have quality,” Perot said. “Have you spent time in a Lexus dealership? All those guys selling Lexuses have to do is get you to drive it around the block.”

Perot himself drives an ’87 Oldsmobile. But he said U.S. industry should start doing things the way Japanese industry does, having senior business figures help small start-ups, “targeting industries of the future and making sure sacrifice in corporations starts at the top.”

Perot acknowledges that many things he admires in Japanese industry stem from that country’s different way of organizing society. “But my point is, you and I, our company is failing. And we have a competitor who’s winning. I would say, let’s go study him and figure out why he wins.”

To pay for his programs, Perot said, “We are not going to raise taxes unless we have to. But I ain’t stupid enough to say ‘Watch my lips.’ ”

He would “go to a new tax system because the one we have now is paper-laden, inefficient, not fair and so on.” But he claims to have no specific ideas yet on how to change taxes. “I would get people in, and in 60 days I’d have half a dozen new tax systems,” he said.

“My points on taxes are basically three: We’ve got to raise the revenues to make the country go.

“Two, we’ll get rid of the waste. The Department of Agriculture, with 2% of our people engaged in farming, is bigger than it was when a third of our people were farming. You’ve got to cut it down and you need a strong consensus to do that.”

He has been criticized for not being more specific on what other programs he would cut, and by how much. But as a third step, he said he would demand authority to selectively cut programs approved by Congress. “Give me the line-item veto, or don’t send me there,” said Perot, echoing a demand first raised by Ronald Reagan.

Perot has become linked with the idea that wealthy people might help reduce the federal deficit by giving up their rights to Social Security and Medicare. By one calculation, which Perot ascribes to Bush Administration chief economic adviser Michael J. Boskin, such a sacrifice by the wealthy could save the Treasury $100 billion a year–although Perot says that figure has proved dubious.

“I’d give up Social Security in a minute,” said the Texas billionaire. “And if a lot of people would give it up who did not need it, that’s worth looking at.”

Would that be subjecting the venerable Social Security program to a “means test,” which would adjust individual benefits based on income or assets.

“I never got down to what means testing is,” Perot said. “We’ve just got to go through and look at every single item. We have work to do.”

The United States’ Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick are arriving in Brussels on Monday for what is expected to be a tense showdown with EU trade ministers.

After months of recriminations on both sides of the Atlantic over the implementation of this summer’s trade deal, the EU and the US are now expected to confront their most contentious differences head-on.

Washington will press to fast-track the deal’s rollout while pushing the bloc to scrap EU legislation it considers unfair to US companies, while Brussels will seek additional exemptions from the 15% US tariffs on its exportsand warn its counterparts about the potential fallout of US investigations into European products.

Ahead of the meeting, EU diplomats said they expected the discussion to be “frank”.

Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and US president Donald Trump clinched a trade deal in July after weeks of negotiations in which the EU tried to minimise the impact of Washington’s newly aggressive trade agenda. In the end, von der Leyen was able to strike a deal that EU-produced goods arriving in the US would be taxed at a rate of 15% while Brussels lifted its duties on most US products.

Presented by the Commission as the most advantageous deal it could get, the agreement has been widely criticised across the EU. The European Parliament, which has to vote on the Commission’s proposal to remove tariffs on US goods, is set to amend the deal and is discussing a 18-month suspension clause.

The US is complaining that the EU’s legislative agenda is moving too slowly. EU lawmakers will vote on the text in January and they should agree on a common text with EU member states next March or April – a timescale radically longer than the Trump administration’s preference.

Greer raised the issue in a meeting with European Parliament president Roberta Metsola last Friday.

EU faces criticism “with good confidence”

The EU is ready to face US criticism “with good confidence” an EU diplomat said, noting that the legislative process in Brussels could have taken a lot longer.

“To my knowledge, the US administration has not taken its decisions through Congress, so it doesn’t take quite as long in the US,” another EU diplomat said, implyingthat the US trade agenda was mainly decided from the White House.

The EU plans to show unity by handing over a list of proposed exemptions to the 15% tariffs they hope to obtain from the Americans. The list includes products such as wines, spirits and pasta.

“American friends are very much aware of where the European Union would like to see tariff reductions,” the same EU diplomat said.

For the Commission, which has competence to negotiate with Washington, the list of exemptions “remains a priority,” according to its deputy chief spokesperson, Arianna Podesta.

The EU is also concerned about the future of its steel exports. The US already imposes 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium, and has extended them to some 407 derivatives. A consultation already underway may see further derivatives added to the list.

As EU diplomats see it, adding tariffs on steel derivatives would go against the whole “spirit” of this summer’s agreement. The same goes for investigations still open by Washington into products such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and medical devices.

EU investments will also be on the agenda. Greer and Lutnick will meet in the afternoon, EU business representatives with EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič.

The trade deal includes an EU pledge of €600 billion in investments in the US even though Brussels has no direct control over the private sector, which is the only force capable of actually delivering those investments.

Monday’s meetings will not be an easy task for the Europeans, as US pressure has been unrelenting since Donald Trump returned to the White House, with the president repeatedly threatening new tariffs or targeting EU legislation he deems too restrictive for US companies.

However, the EU has so far not looked intimidated, and is continuing to enforce the digital legislation that Trump and his administration have condemned.

In the last few weeks, Brussels has launched antitrust investigations against Amazon and Microsoft and hit Google with a €2.95 billion for abusing its dominant position in the advertising technology industry – moves that have not gone unnoticed in Washington.

The unions demand the laws be withdrawn before nationwide protests they plan to hold on Wednesday.

Ten large Indian trade unions have condemned the government’s rollout on Friday of new labour codes, the biggest such overhaul in decades, as a “deceptive fraud” against workers.

The unions, aligned with parties opposing Prime Minister Narendra Modi, demanded in a statement late on Friday that the laws be withdrawn before nationwide protests they plan to hold on Wednesday.

One of the trade unions, Centre of Indian Trade Unions, organised protest marches on Saturday in the eastern city Bhubaneswar, where hundreds of workers gathered and burned copies of the new labour codes.

Modi’s government implemented the four labour codes, approved by parliament five years ago, as it seeks to simplify work rules, some dating to British colonial rule, and liberalise conditions for investment.

It says the changes improve worker protections. While the new rules offer social security and minimum-wage benefits, they also allow companies to hire and fire workers more easily.

Unions have strongly opposed the changes, organising multiple nationwide protests over the past five years.

The Labour Ministry did not immediately respond on Saturday to a Reuters news agency request for comment on the union demands. The government has held over a dozen consultations with unions since June 2024, an internal ministry document on the labour codes shows.

The rules allow longer factory shifts and night work for women, while raising the threshold for firms that need prior approval for layoffs to 300 workers from 100, giving companies greater flexibility in workforce management.

Businesses have long criticised India’s work rules as a drag on manufacturing, which contributes less than a fifth to the country’s nearly $4 trillion economy.

But the Association of Indian Entrepreneurs expressed concern that the new rules would significantly increase operating costs for small and midsize enterprises and disrupt business continuity across key sectors.

It asked the government for transitional support and flexible implementation mechanisms. Not all unions oppose the overhaul.

The right-wing Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, aligned with Modi’s party, called on states to implement them after consultations on some of the codes. Indian states are expected to craft rules aligning with the new federal codes covering wages, industrial relations, social security and occupational safety.

Diplomatic dispute deepens between Tokyo and Beijing over Taiwan remarks by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi.

China will again ban all imports of Japanese seafood as a diplomatic dispute between the two countries escalates, Japanese media report.

Japanese public broadcaster NHK and Kyodo News agency said on Wednesday that the seafood ban follows after China earlier this month lifted import restrictions on Japanese marine products, which were imposed by Beijing in 2023 after the release of treated radioactive water from Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea.

Kyodo News, referencing sources with knowledge of the matter, said China has told Japan that the reimposition of the ban was due to the need for further monitoring of the water from Fukushima released into the Pacific Ocean.

But the ban comes amid a deepening crisis in relations between Beijing and Tokyo over remarks by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi. The premier told parliament on November 7 that a Chinese attack on Taiwan, which threatened Japan’s survival, was one of the few cases that could trigger a military response from Tokyo.

Takaichi’s comments were met with a wave of criticism by Chinese officials and state media, prompting Japan to warn its citizens in China to take safety precautions and avoid crowded places.

In a post on X following Takaichi’s comments, the Chinese consul general in Osaka, Xue Jian, threatened to “cut off that dirty neck”, apparently referring to the Japanese prime minister. Tokyo said it had summoned the Chinese ambassador over the now-deleted social media post.

Beijing has also advised Chinese citizens to avoid travelling to Japan and demanded that Takaichi retract her remarks, though Tokyo said they were in line with the government’s position.

Seeking to defuse the row, Masaaki Kanai, Japan’s top official in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the Asia Pacific region, held talks on Tuesday in Beijing with his Chinese counterpart, Liu Jinsong.

“During the consultations, China once again lodged a strong protest with Japan” over “Takaichi’s erroneous remarks”, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Mao Ning said.

“Takaichi’s fallacies seriously violate international law and the basic norms governing international relations”, Mao said, adding the Japanese premier’s comments “fundamentally damage the political foundation of China-Japan relations”.

‘Very dissatisfied’

Al Jazeera’s Katrina Yu, reporting from Beijing, said the visit by Kanai to Beijing was seen as an effort by Tokyo to de-escalate tensions and communicate to China that Japan’s stance on independently-ruled Taiwan, which Beijing claims as its own territory, has not changed despite Takaichi’s remarks.

“It seems there were no concrete outcomes, but what we have seen, though, is some footage following the meeting of these two diplomats parting ways, and I think it really speaks for itself. We have very cold body language from both of these diplomats,” Yu said.

“Liu Jinsong had his hands in his pockets, refusing to shake hands with the Japanese senior diplomat,” Yu said, adding that the Chinese official said afterwards that he was “very dissatisfied” with the meeting.

Liu Jinsong, director-general of the Department of Asian Affairs of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, met with Masaaki Kanai, director-general of the Japanese Foreign Ministry’s Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau, on Tuesday.

Following the meeting, Masaaki Kanai has left the Chinese… pic.twitter.com/rdAy2YJruQ

— China News 中国新闻网 (@Echinanews) November 18, 2025

Before the most recent seafood ban, China accounted for more than one-fifth of Japan’s seafood exports, according to official data.

The dispute has also engulfed other areas of China-Japan relations, with China Film News, which is supervised by the state-backed China Film Administration, announcing that the release of two imported Japanese movies would be postponed amid the dispute.

The two movies were originally expected to be released on December 6 and November 22, respectively, according to review site Douban.

Published on 17/11/2025 – 17:31 GMT+1
•Updated
17:34

The European Commission confirmed on Monday that US trade representative Jamieson Greer will meet EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič on 23 November in Brussels.

The meeting is expected to be tense as the US is pressuring the European Union to revise legislative action it considers restrictive for US companies and speed up the implementation of the deal agreed between President Donald Trump and Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen which would cut tariffs for all American industrial goods to zero, deploy massive investments in the US and commit to purchase US energy.

The Commission introduced a legislation in August, mostly lowering tariffs on US goods, to secure some relief on duties in cars and car parts, deemed crucial for the European industry. Still, the European Parliament and the Council have not adopted the legislation, testing Washington’s patience.

Greer and Šefčovič will meet the day before US secretary for commerce Howard Lutnick, a close ally of President Trump, attends a gathering of EU trade ministers next Monday in Brussels.

The “Turnberry agreement” concluded between the EU and the US in July includes that the EU will pay 15% tariffs on its exports to the US and will reduce to 0% its tariffs on most of US goods arriving in the EU.

Still, the US is pushing for more, pressuring on the EU to scrap its digital and climate regulations regarded as “non-tariff” barriers to trade by Washington.

EU lawmakers hope to amend EU-US trade deal

Brussels has insisted that it will not cede on its “sovereign” right to legislate, including big US tech.

On 13 November, the Commission launched an investigation into whether Google is unfairly deprioritising news in search listing. The probe was opened under the Digital Market Act (DMA), designed to track abuse of dominance in the tech market. The US has criticised European digital legislation for what they consider is an unfair tax on US Big Tech.

Washington’s offensive also targets the landmark EU corporate supply-chain legislation adopted last year which requires companies to check their supply chains for dodgy environmental and labour practices.

At the beginning of October, it sent a document to the Commission requesting that US companies be exempted from this legislation on corporate due diligence.

Tensions may increase further as Brussels insists it wants to see some of the terms of the July deal changed to reflect a more balanced relation. The Commission came under intense scrutiny from the European parliament over a deal that was considered detrimental to Europe’s interests and too favorable for the US.

EU lawmakers say they are ready to amend the terms of the EU-US deal.

The head of the European Parliament’s trade committee, German MEP Bernd Lange (S&D) has presented a draft report that calls for maintaining EU tariffs on US steel and aluminium steel since the US continue to impose theirs at a rate of 50%.

It also proposes that the tariff removal on US goods should apply for 18 months and only be extended based ⁠on a Commission’s report of their impact on the EU market.

The EU member states and the Parliament hope to agree on the legislation by the spring.

Nov. 14 (UPI) — The Trump administration has agreed to lower tariffs on Swiss goods imported to the United States, a statement from the Swiss government said Friday.

The agreement drops tariffs on Swiss imports from 39% to 15%. The higher rate went into effect in August after President Donald Trump raised tariffs on dozens of trading partners to correct what he described as a trade imbalance.

The United States had a $38 billion trade deficit with Switzerland in 2024, according to U.S. Commerce Department data cited by CNN.

“Switzerland and the U.S. have successfully found a solution: U.S. tariffs will be reduced to 15%,” the Swiss government said in a post on X.

“Thanks to President Trump @POTUS for the constructive agreement.”

The announcement came after Swiss officials met with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The Swiss government said further details about the agreement would be announced at 4 p.m. CET.

“They’re going to send a lot of manufacturing here to the United States — pharmaceuticals, gold smelting, railway equipment — so we’re really excited about that deal and what it means for American manufacturing,” Greer said in an appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

He said the deal had been in the works since April.

Nov. 14 (UPI) — The White House announced new “trade framework agreements” with Argentina, Ecuador, El Salvador and Guatemala, all governed by administrations aligned with president Donald Trump, with the goal of reducing certain tariffs, eliminating non-tariff barriers and expanding access for U.S. products in those markets.

According to a statement issued by Washington on Thursday, the agreements establish reciprocal commitments.

The Latin American countries will eliminate or ease requirements and licenses that restrict the entry of U.S. goods — including agricultural products, medical devices, machinery and automobiles — while the U.S. government will reduce or waive tariffs on some key exports from those countries, as long as the products are not produced in sufficient quantities domestically.

“These agreements will help American farmers, ranchers, fishermen, small businesses and manufacturers increase U.S. exports and expand trade opportunities with these partners,” the White House said.

The commitments agreed to range from the acceptance of U.S. standards for vehicles, auto parts, medical devices and pharmaceuticals in El Salvador’s case to preferential access in Argentina for machinery, technology products, chemicals and agricultural goods, along with reforms to its intellectual property regime.

Guatemala agreed to ensure a favorable framework for digital trade, including free data transfers and a pledge not to impose taxes on U.S. digital services, while also strengthening its labor rules to prohibit goods linked to forced labor.

Ecuador assumed stricter environmental obligations, such as improving forest governance and combating illegal logging, as well as fully complying with international rules on fisheries subsidies.

On the trade front, it will eliminate or reduce tariffs on key products — fruits, nuts, legumes, wheat, wine and spirits — and dismantle its variable agricultural tariff system, opening significant access for U.S. exports.

The governments of all four countries welcomed the initiative as an opportunity to boost their exports, attract foreign investment and strengthen their competitiveness.

Argentine Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno said on X that the agreement “creates the conditions to increase U.S. investment in Argentina” and includes tariff reductions for key industries.

In a statement, the government of Javier Milei said that as part of this understanding, the two countries agreed to significantly expand access for Argentine beef in the U.S. market and to work together to eliminate non-tariff barriers to bilateral agrifood trade.

It added that the United States will eliminate tariffs on products it does not produce, while Argentina will grant tariff preferences to facilitate the entry of capital goods and intermediate inputs.

Guatemalan President Bernardo Arévalo and Economy Minister Gabriela García said on social media that more than 70% of the products the country exports to the United States will now enter tariff-free. They added that most remaining products will face a 10% tariff, Prensa Libre reported.

In Ecuador’s case, as Agriculture, Fisheries and Livestock Minister Danilo Palacios had previously indicated, among the products that will no longer pay the 15% tariff imposed by the United States in August are bananas and cacao, two of the main goods in Ecuador’s export basket, the newspaper Primicias reported.

While Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele reposted the White House’s official statement on X with the caption “Friends” alongside both countries’ flags, the Salvadoran Association of Industrialists said the agreement is a “unique opportunity” for exports and for attracting investment.

The Trump administration’s announcement remains at the framework stage, and the agreements are expected to be formalized in the coming weeks.

However, they do not amount to full free trade agreements, but are designed as specific market-access and regulatory commitments, including a guarantee not to impose digital taxes on U.S. companies.

All critical strategic supplies can be used as a weapon against the European Union, Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič told Euronews in an exclusive interview.

The EU is dealing with the fallout from the Dutch government’s takeover of Nexperia, a chipmaker, citing national security. The move from the Hague has prompted a clash between Europe and China over who controls the company and its finished products, resulting in Chinese restrictions on chip exports.

Šefčovič, an experienced politician who oversees the all-important trade portfolio for the EU, said the episode highlights the complexities of the global supply chain as well as the risks associated with critical dependencies on third countries outside the EU.

“It very much underlines the lessons we’ve learned over the past years, and it doesn’t concern only China. Today, everything can be weaponised,” Šefčovič told Euronews. For Europe, he argued, “it started with [Russian] gas, then it continued with critical raw materials and high and low-end chips. It can all be weaponised.”

Šefčovič has been in contact with Chinese and Dutch authorities since the spat started more than a month ago. The Dutch government took control of Nexperia on September 30, fearing that the company would be dismantled and relocated to China. The Dutch authorities remain worried that the move could also involve a transfer of sensitive technology.

The Chinese responded by blocking chip exports, triggering concerns in Europe and around the world about a potential global shortage of automotive chips.

The impasse eased on 30 October following a meeting between the Chinese and the United States in South Korea, where both sides agreed to a truce in their bilateral trade dispute.

“China is taking appropriate measures to ensure trade from Nexperia’s facilities in China resumes, so that production of crucial chips can flow to the rest of the world,” a White House statement read.

Šefčovič suggested that the partial restoration of exports points to the start of a resolution to the standoff, but reiterated that the debacle was a warning of the urgent need to diversify.

“We are getting information from the car manufacturers to the spare parts producers that they are getting these chips,” he told Euronews.

“But we are only at the beginning of resolving this problem, so we will continue to talk with our Dutch colleagues and Chinese authorities.”

Vincent Karremans, the Dutch minister at the centre of the storm with Beijing, said in an interview that he would do it all again in the same manner and signalled that the episode is a warning of the large dependencies Europe has built over the years.

EU preparing new doctrine on economic security

The Nexperia saga is the latest incident between China and the EU over the supply of strategic components used across industries from cars to defence.

It also highlights how these materials are becoming a political tool for exerting economic pressure. After weeks of tensions that have impacted the European industry, the EU has secured a deal with China to ease restrictions on some rare-earth exports.

The Commission is working on a plan due to be presented next month that addresses some of these weaknesses. Šefčovič said the global competition to secure rare earths, critical components, and a stable supply chain required a unified approach.

“We have to work a little bit more like Japan, where they’re stockpiling some of the critical raw materials, some of that critical technologies and critical chips”, said Šefčovič.

“I think this would be one of the lessons which we want to bring in the new economic security doctrine, which we’ll be presenting before the end of the year.”

The EU has been actively pursuing a policy of de-risking, but not de-coupling from China, which would keep the door open to trade while applying safeguards in key areas deemed strategic for the EU and closing loopholes into the single market.

“Economic security and effective export controls would work only if they’re applied in harmony as homogeneous across the EU,” Šefčovič said.

“Those who want to abuse the system will always find a weak spot to penetrate the European market – and then put the whole European economy in jeopardy,” he concluded.

SEOUL, Nov. 14 (UPI) — The United States and South Korea on Friday released a joint fact sheet on a sweeping trade and security agreement that details a $350 billion investment pledge by Seoul and confirms Washington’s approval for its Asian ally to develop nuclear-powered submarines.

The document comes two weeks after U.S. President Donald Trump and South Korean President Lee Jae Myung finalized their trade negotiations on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Gyeongju on Oct. 29.

“With this, the Korea-U.S. trade and security negotiations, which have been one of the greatest variables affecting our economy and security, have finally been concluded,” Lee said in a televised press briefing and Facebook post on Friday.

Lee expressed “gratitude and respect” for Trump’s decision and said both sides “achieved the best possible outcome, based on common sense and reason.”

Under the terms of the deal, Trump’s so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on South Korean goods, including automobiles, will drop from 25% to 15%, returning to the level initially established in July during Lee’s visit to the White House.

In exchange for the lower tariffs, South Korea has pledged to invest $350 billion in the United States, including $150 billion in the U.S. shipbuilding sector and $200 billion for strategic sectors under a memorandum of understanding to be signed by the two countries.

To minimize the impact on South Korea’s foreign exchange market, Seoul’s annual investment cap was set at $20 billion, the fact sheet said.

“The two governments confirmed that Korea’s investments will proceed only within a level our economy can fully sustain and only in commercially viable projects,” Lee said. “The mistrust and concerns of some who were worried this was a ‘de facto grant’ under the guise of investment in projects with difficult returns have been completely dispelled.”

The fact sheet also formalized Washington’s approval for Seoul’s plan to build nuclear-powered submarines, a capability South Korean leaders have pursued for years. Seoul has framed nuclear-powered vessels as essential for tracking North Korean ballistic missile submarines and for expanding its reach across the Indo-Pacific. Officials also see the program as a catalyst for the country’s nuclear energy and naval shipbuilding industries.

The agreement said Washington will work with Seoul to define requirements for the project, “including avenues to source fuel.” Securing enriched uranium for submarine reactors had been a sticking point in the release of the fact sheet, as Seoul has sought revisions to its bilateral nuclear cooperation pact to allow greater flexibility in enrichment and nuclear waste recycling.

Lee called the submarines “a decades-old dream of South Korea and a vital strategic asset for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.”

The agreement comes as Washington and Seoul undertake a broader effort to modernize their security alliance and reshape how the two countries share military responsibilities. The fact sheet noted that South Korea intends to raise defense spending to 3.5% of GDP “as soon as possible,” and reiterated a commitment to the eventual transition of wartime operational control to Seoul.

Seoul also pledged to spend $25 billion on U.S. military equipment purchases by 2030 and outlined plans to provide comprehensive support for U.S. Forces Korea amounting to $33 billion.

“The South Korea-U.S. alliance has evolved and deepened into a truly future-oriented strategic comprehensive alliance encompassing security, the economy, and cutting-edge technology,” Lee said.

As part of that broader strategic framework, the two governments reaffirmed their shared goal of a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and pledged to work together to implement the joint statement of the 2018 Singapore summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

The fact sheet called on North Korea to “return to meaningful dialogue and abide by its international obligations, including by abandoning its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.”

North Korea has rejected calls for denuclearization since declaring itself a nuclear-armed state in 2022. In September, Kim signaled a willingness to resume diplomacy with Washington but warned that any discussion of giving up his regime’s nuclear arsenal would be off the table.

TORONTO — Top diplomats from the Group of 7 industrialized democracies are converging on southern Ontario as tensions rise between the U.S. and traditional allies such as Canada over defense spending, trade and uncertainty over President Trump’s ceasefire plan in Gaza and efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war.

Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand said in an interview with the Associated Press that “the relationship has to continue across a range of issues” despite trade pressures as she prepared to host U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and their counterparts from Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Anand also invited the foreign ministers of Australia, Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, South Korea, South Africa and Ukraine.

She said “15 foreign ministers are coming from around the world to the Great White North and funnily enough on the week of our first large snowfall.”

“The work that Canada is doing is continuing to lead multilaterally in an era of a greater movement to protectionism and unilateralism,” Anand said. “And in an era of economic and geopolitical volatility.”

Canada’s G-7 hosting duties this year have been marked by strained relations with its North American neighbor, predominantly over Trump’s imposition of tariffs on Canadian imports. But the entire bloc of allies is confronting major turbulence over the Republican president’s demands on trade and various proposals to halt worldwide conflicts.

One main point of contention has been defense spending. All G-7 members except for Japan are members of NATO, and Trump has demanded that the alliance partners spend 5% of their annual gross domestic product on defense. While a number of countries have agreed, others have not. Among the G-7 NATO members, Canada and Italy are furthest from that goal.

There have also been G-7 disagreements over the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, with Britain, Canada and France announcing they would recognize a Palestinian state even without a resolution to the conflict. With the Russia-Ukraine war, most G-7 members have taken a tougher line on Russia than Trump has.

The two-day meeting in Niagara-on-the-Lake on Lake Ontario near the U.S. border comes after Trump ended trade talks with Canada because the Ontario provincial government ran an anti-tariff advertisement in the U.S. that upset him. That followed a spring of acrimony, since abated, over Trump’s insistence that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney apologized for the ad and said last week that he’s ready to resume trade talks when the Americans are ready.

“The work that we are doing in the G-7 is about finding areas where we can cooperate multilaterally,” Anand said. “This conversation will continue regardless of other efforts that we are making on the trade side.”

Anand said she will have a meeting with Rubio but noted that a different minister leads the U.S. trade file. The U.S. president has placed greater priority on addressing his grievances with other nations’ trade policies than on collaboration with G-7 allies.

“Every complex relationship has numerous touch points,” Anand said. “On the trade file, there is continued work to be done — just as there is work to be done on the numerous touch points outside the trade file, and that’s where Secretary Rubio and I come in because the relationship has to continue across a range of issues.”

Anand said Rubio asked her during a breakfast meeting in Washington last month to play a role in bringing countries to the table to ensure that Trump’s Gaza ceasefire plan has longevity.

U.S. officials said Rubio, who also may have meetings with other G-7 counterparts and at least one of the invited non-G-7 foreign ministers, would be focused on initiatives to halt fighting in Ukraine and Gaza, maritime security, Haiti, Sudan, supply chain resiliency and critical minerals.

Canada’s priorities include ending the war in Ukraine, Arctic security and security in Haiti. There will be a working lunch on energy and critical minerals that are needed for anything from smartphones to fighter jets. Canada has 34 critical minerals and metals that the Pentagon is eager for and investing in for national security.

Anand will probably try to use the meeting to improve the working relationship with Rubio, said Daniel Béland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal.

“Yet, a key factor shaping that relationship is beyond her control: President Trump’s mercurial behavior,” Béland said.

“The expectations are quite low, but avoiding drama and fostering basic common ground on issues like Ukraine and Russia would be helpful,” Béland said.

Gillies and Lee write for the Associated Press.

The chants never let up at American Airlines Arena.

“Fire Nico!”

They started in February after Dallas Mavericks general manager and president of basketball operations Nico Harrison initiated a trade that sent superstar Luka Doncic to the Lakers and continued to occur at home games throughout the end of last season and into the 2025-26 campaign.

On Tuesday morning, those vocal fans got their wish, as Mavericks governor Patrick Dumont announced that Harrison had been let go weeks into his fifth season with the team. Dallas went 182-157 under the former Nike executive, including a 3-8 start to this season.

Assistant general managers Michael Finley and Matt Riccardi were named co-interim general managers to oversee basketball operations.

“This decision reflects our continued commitment to building a championship-caliber organization, one that delivers for our players, our partners, and most importantly, our fans,” Dumont said.

Harrison spent nearly two decades with Nike before being hired by the Mavericks in June 2021. The team made it to the Western Conference finals the following season and to the NBA Finals in 2024, with Doncic as its undisputed star.

Then came Feb. 1, when the Mavericks traded Doncic, Maxi Kleber and Markieff Morris to the Lakers for Anthony Davis, Max Christie and a 2029 first-round draft pick. Harrison reportedly approached Lakers general manager Rob Pelinka about the possibility of the trade, and Dumont is said to have approved the deal before it was finalized.

The move shocked most people involved with the NBA, and Dallas fans felt blindsided. That’s when “Fire Nico” started. The words appeared on signs and T-shirts in addition to being yelled at home games, including the Mavericks’ 116-114 loss Monday to the Milwaukee Bucks.

During that game, Dumont was seen sitting courtside having a lengthy conversation with a fan in a Lakers jersey featuring Doncic’s name and number. That person, 18-year-old Mavericks fan Nicholas Dickason, told The Athletic that he had initiated the conversation to apologize to the team governor for yelling curse words at him and giving him the finger at a game earlier this season.

According to Dickason, Dumont accepted his apology and added an admission of his own.

“Basically Patrick was like, he feels horrible for the trade. And wants to make it up to us,” Dickason said. “That’s basically what he said. He accepted my apology for it as well.”

In April, after the Mavericks finished the 2024-25 season with a 39-43 record and missed the playoffs, Harrison admitted he underestimated the level of outrage the trade would cause.

“I did know that Luka was important to the fan base,” Harrison said. “I didn’t quite know it to what level.”

He added: “When you have 20,000 people in the stadium chanting ‘Fire Nico,’ you really feel it. … But my job is to make decisions I feel are in the best interest of this organization, and I gotta stand by the decisions, and some of them are going to be unpopular. This was clearly one that’s unpopular.”

U.S. President Donald Trump has targeted China with a cascade of tariffs on imports worth billions of dollars in 2025, aiming to narrow the trade deficit, revive domestic manufacturing, and curb the fentanyl trade. The year has seen a mix of escalating tariffs, export controls, partial trade truces, and diplomatic talks as both sides navigate the high-stakes economic and geopolitical confrontation.

Timeline of Key Events:

November 11: China announces it will broaden access and investment opportunities for U.S. companies, especially in the services sector.

November 10: China pauses port fees on U.S.-linked vessels and suspends sanctions on affiliates of South Korean shipbuilder Hanwha Ocean. The FBI director visited China to discuss fentanyl and law enforcement issues.

November 9: China suspends its ban on gallium, germanium, and antimony exports to the U.S., though licences are still required under dual-use controls.

November 7: Export control measures imposed on October 9, including restrictions on rare earths, lithium battery materials, and super-hard materials, are suspended. China begins forming a new rare earth licensing regime to potentially speed up shipments. U.S. soybean and log import licences are restored.

November 6: China purchases U.S. farm products, including wheat and sorghum shipments. COFCO holds a soybean procurement signing ceremony.

November 5: Beijing suspends retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports from November 10, including farm goods, while maintaining some duties in response to Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs.

October 30: Trump and Xi Jinping strike a new trade truce in South Korea, agreeing on tariff reductions, increased U.S. soybean purchases, and measures against illicit fentanyl trade.

October 25-26: Malaysia talks produce a trade deal framework to be finalized by leaders after U.S. and Chinese officials meet.

October 17: U.S. State Department condemns Chinese sanctions on Hanwha Ocean as coercive.

October 15-16: U.S. officials criticize China’s expanded rare earth export controls; Apple pledges investment in China.

October 14: Both nations impose additional port fees; China sanctions five U.S.-linked Hanwha Ocean units.

October 12-13: China calls new U.S. tariffs hypocritical; U.S. negotiators maintain Trump-Xi talks are on track.

October 10: Trump announces additional levies on imports and export controls on critical software, while threatening Boeing-related measures. China investigates Qualcomm over its purchase of Israeli Autotalks.

October 9: China widens rare earth export controls; U.S. plans to ban Chinese airlines from overflying Russia.

October 1-August 11: Both sides discuss soybean purchases, extend tariff truces, and negotiate rare earth and AI chip licences.

July-June: Framework deals reached for rare earths and magnets; trade truce discussions continue with limited breakthroughs.

May-April: U.S. and China escalate tariffs repeatedly, targeting key goods and tech sectors. Measures include punitive duties, export restrictions on dual-use items, and sanctions on companies.

March-February: Tariffs on Chinese imports rise sharply, with China retaliating on U.S. agricultural exports and key industrial sectors.

Why It Matters:
The trade war has disrupted global supply chains, affected technology access, and influenced agricultural markets. It also carries geopolitical consequences, particularly for U.S.-China relations and for allies in Asia relying on stable trade flows. Rare earths, semiconductors, and AI chips essential for defense and emerging technologies are central to the strategic stakes.

United States: Trump administration, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.

China: President Xi Jinping, Vice Premier He Lifeng, negotiators Li Chenggang and industry regulators.

U.S. Companies: Apple, Nvidia, Boeing, Qualcomm, among others, affected by tariffs, export controls, and investment restrictions.

Global Markets: Critical minerals, rare earths, semiconductors, agricultural commodities, and shipping sectors.

What’s Next:
Despite temporary truce agreements, negotiations remain fluid. Both countries must finalize terms for rare earths, agricultural imports, tariffs, and enforcement mechanisms. Any failure to do so could trigger new rounds of tariffs, impact global supply chains, and increase diplomatic tensions. Private investment and corporate strategy will continue to pivot in response to policy changes.

With information from Reuters.

Conflict Analysis Resource Center Director, Jorge Restrepo, says the US must change its domestic strategy on drugs, after President Donald Trump put sanctions on Colombia’s president.

The US Supreme Court has questioned US President Donald Trump’s authority to use emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on trading partners around the world.

In a closely watched hearing on Wednesday in Washington, DC, conservative and liberal Supreme Court judges appeared sceptical about Trump’s tariff policy, which has already had ramifications for US carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers.

The US president had earlier claimed that his trade tariffs – which have been central to his foreign policy since he returned to power earlier this year – will not affect US businesses, workers and consumers.

But a legal challenge by a number of small American businesses, including toy firms and wine importers, filed earlier this year, has led to lower courts in the country ruling that Trump’s tariffs are illegal.

In May, the Court of International Trade, based in New York, said Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs and “the US Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce”. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, in August.

Now, the Supreme Court, the country’s top court, is hearing the issue. Last week, the small business leaders, who are being represented by Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal, told the Court that Trump’s import levies were severely harming their businesses and that many have been forced to lay off workers and cut prices as a result.

In a post on his Truth Social Platform on Sunday, Trump described the Supreme Court case as “one of the most important in the History of the Country”.

“If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World,” he added.

What happened in Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing, and what could happen if the court rules against Trump’s tariffs?

Here’s what we know:

What was discussed at the Supreme Court on Wednesday?

During a hearing which lasted for nearly three hours, the Trump administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General D John Sauer, argued that the president’s tariff policy is legal under a 1977 national law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

According to US government documents, IEEPA gives a US president an array of economic powers, including to regulate trade, in order “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat”.

Trump invoked IEEPA in February to levy a new 25 percent tax on imports from Canada and Mexico, as well as a 10 percent levy on Chinese goods, on the basis that these countries were facilitating the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the US, and that this constituted a national emergency. He later paused the tariffs on Canada and Mexico, but increased China’s to 20 percent. This was restored to 10 percent after Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping last month.

In April, when he imposed reciprocal tariffs on imports from a wide array of countries around the world, he said those levies were also in line with IEEPA since the US was running a trade deficit that posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to the nation.

Sauer argued that Trump had imposed the tariffs using IEEPA since “our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe”.

He also told the court that the levies are “regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs”.

But Neal Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses that have brought the case, countered this. “Tariffs are taxes,” Katyal said. “They take dollars from Americans’ pockets and deposit them in the US Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone.”

What did the judges say about tariffs?

The judges raised another sticking point: Also, under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to regulate tariffs. Justice John Roberts noted that “the [IEEPA] statute doesn’t use the word tariff.”

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan also told Sauer, “It has a lot of actions that can be taken under this statute. It just doesn’t have the one you want.”

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump during his first term as president, asked Sauer, “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defence and industrial base?

“I mean, Spain, France? I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy,” Coney Barrett said.

Sauer replied that “there’s this sort of lack of reciprocity, this asymmetric treatment of our trade, with respect to foreign countries that does run across the board,” and reiterated the Trump administration’s power to use IEEPA.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor took issue with the notion that the tariffs are not taxes, as asserted by Trump’s team. She said, “You want to say that tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”

According to recent data released by the US Customs and Border Protection agency, as of the end of August, IEEPA tariffs had generated $89bn in revenues to the US Treasury.

During the court’s arguments on Wednesday, Justice Roberts also suggested that the court may have to invoke the “major questions” doctrine in this case after telling Sauer that the president’s tariffs are “the imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress”.

The “major questions” doctrine checks a US executive agency’s power to impose a policy without Congress’s clear directive. The Supreme Court previously used this to block former President Joe Biden’s policies, including his student loan forgiveness plan.

Sauer argued that the “major questions” doctrine should not apply in this context since it would also affect the president’s power in foreign affairs.

Why is this case the ultimate test of Trump’s tariff policy?

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority and generally takes several months to make a decision. While it remains unclear when the court will make a decision on this case, according to analysts, the fact that this case was launched against Trump at all is significant.

In a recent report published by Max Yoeli, senior research fellow on the US and Americas Programme at UK-based think tank Chatham House, said, “The Supreme Court’s outcome will shape Trump’s presidency – and those that follow – across executive authority, global trade, and domestic fiscal and economic concerns.”

“It is likewise a salient moment for the Supreme Court, which has empowered Trump and showed little appetite to constrain him,” he added.

Penny Nass, acting senior vice president at the German Marshall Fund’s Washington DC office, told Al Jazeera that the verdict will be viewed by many as a test of Trump’s powers.

“A first impact will be the most direct judicial restraint at the highest level on Presidential power. After a year testing the limits of his power, President Trump will start to see some of constraints on his power,” she said.

According to international trade lawyer Shantanu Singh, who is based in India, the global implications of this case could also be huge.

“One objective of these tariffs was to use them as leverage to get trade partners to do deals with the US. Some countries have concluded trade deals, including to address the IEEPA tariffs,” he told Al Jazeera.

After the imposition of US reciprocal tariffs in April and again in August, several countries and economic blocs, including the EU, UK, Japan, Cambodia and Indonesia, have struck trade deals with the US to reduce tariffs.

But those countries were forced to make concessions to get those deals done. EU countries, for example, had to agree to buy $750bn of US energy and reduce steel tariffs through quotas.

Singh pointed out that an “adverse Supreme Court ruling could bring into doubt the perceived benefit for concluding deals with the US”.

“Further, trade partners who are currently negotiating with the US will have to also adjust their negotiating objectives in light of the ruling and how the administration reacts to it,” he added.

Other countries including India and China are currently actively engaged in trade talks with the US. Trade talks with Canada were terminated by Trump in late October over what Trump described as a “fraudulent” advertisement featuring former President Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about trade tariffs, which was being aired in Canada.

What happens if the judges rule against Trump?

Following Wednesday’s Supreme Court Hearing, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was at the court with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, told Fox News that he was “very optimistic” that the outcome of the case would be in the government’s favour.

“The solicitor general made a very powerful case for the need for the president to have the power,” he said and refused to discuss the Trump administration’s plan if the court ruled against the tariff policy.

However, Singh said if the Supreme Court does find these tariffs illegal, one immediate concern will be how tariffs collected so far will be refunded to businesses, if at all.

“Given the importance that the current US administration places on tariffs as a policy tool, we can expect that it would quickly identify other legal authorities and work to reinstate the tariffs,” he said.

Nass added: “The President has many other tariff powers, and will likely quickly recalibrate to maintain his deal-making efforts with partners,” she said, adding that there would still be very complicated work for importers on what to do with the tariffs already collected in 2025 under IEEPA.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Coney Barrett asked Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses contesting Trump’s tariffs, whether this process of paying money back would be “a complete mess”.

Katyal said the businesses he’s representing should be given a refund, but added that it is “very complicated”.

“So, a mess,” Coney Barrett stated.

“It’s difficult, absolutely, we don’t deny that,” Katyal said in response.

In an interview with US broadcaster CNN in September, trade lawyers said the court could decide who gets the refunds. Ted Murphy, an international trade lawyer at Sidley Austin, told CNN that the US government “could also try to get the court to approve an administrative refund process, where importers have to affirmatively request a refund”.

What tariffs has Trump imposed so far, and what has their effect been?

Trump has imposed tariffs of varying rates on imports from almost every country in the world, arguing that these levies will enrich the US and protect the domestic US market. The tariff rates range from as high as 50 percent on India and Syria to as low as 10 percent on the UK.

The US president has also imposed a 50 percent tariff on all copper imports, 50 percent on steel and aluminium imports from every country except the UK, 100 percent on patented drugs, 25 percent levies on cars and car parts manufactured abroad, and 25 percent on heavy-duty trucks.

According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, which analyses the US Treasury’s data, tariffs have brought in $223.9bn as of October 31. This is $142.2bn more than the same time last year.

In early July, Treasury Secretary Bessent said revenues from these tariffs could grow to $300bn by the end of 2025.

But in an August 7 report, the Budget Lab at Yale University estimated that “all 2025 US tariffs plus foreign retaliation lower real US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth by -0.5pp [percentage points] each over calendar years 2025 and 2026”.

Meanwhile, according to a Reuters news agency tracker, which follows how US companies are responding to Trump’s tariff threats, the first-quarter earnings season saw carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers take the worst hit from tariff threats. Levies on aluminium and electronics, such as semiconductors, also led to increased costs.

Reuters reported that as tariffs hit factory orders, big manufacturing companies around the world are also struggling.

In its latest World Economic Outlook report released last month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said the effect of Trump’s tariffs on the global economy had been less extreme.

“To date, more protectionist trade measures have had a limited impact on economic activity and prices,” it said.

However, the IMF warned that the current resilience of the global economy may not last.

“Looking past apparent resilience resulting from trade-related distortions in some of the incoming data and whipsawing growth forecasts from wild swings in trade policies, the outlook for the global economy continues to point to dim prospects, both in the short and the long term,” it said.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s skeptical questioning of former President Donald Trump’s global tariffs has fueled speculation that his trade measures may be struck down, potentially upending the already fragile trade landscape.

The case centers on Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on imports. The law grants presidents broad authority to regulate trade during national emergencies but makes no mention of tariffs, raising constitutional questions about the limits of executive power.

During oral arguments on Wednesday, justices across the ideological spectrum except Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas appeared doubtful that Trump had legal authority to levy such blanket global tariffs.

Trade experts now warn that if the court invalidates Trump’s tariff policy, it could trigger a new wave of economic uncertainty, as the administration is expected to pivot quickly to other trade laws to reimpose duties.

Why It Matters

The outcome of this case could reshape U.S. trade policy for years. Businesses have paid over $100 billion in IEEPA-related tariffs since 2025, and a ruling against Trump could open a complex refund battle or force the White House to seek alternative legal pathways for its protectionist agenda.

Corporate leaders, already weary of erratic trade shifts, say a ruling either way offers little stability. “Even if it goes against IEEPA, the uncertainty still continues,” said David Young of the Conference Board, who briefed dozens of CEOs after the hearing.

Trump Administration: Faces potential legal defeat but can pivot to Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962) or Section 122 (Trade Act of 1974), both of which allow temporary or national security-based tariffs.

U.S. Supreme Court: Balancing presidential powers with statutory limits on trade actions.

Businesses & Importers: Risk being caught in regulatory limbo over refunds and future duties.

Federal Reserve: Monitoring potential economic fallout from prolonged trade instability.

Refunds Could Get “Messy”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised concerns about how refund claims would be handled if the tariffs are ruled illegal, calling it “a mess” for courts to manage.
Lawyer Neal Katyal, representing five small businesses challenging the tariffs, said only those firms would automatically receive refunds, while others must file administrative protests a process that could take up to a year.

Customs lawyer Joseph Spraragen added that if the court orders refunds, the Customs and Border Protection’s automated system could process them, but he warned, “The administration is not going to be eager to just roll over and give refunds.”

Economic and Policy Repercussions

Analysts expect the administration to rely on alternative statutes if IEEPA tariffs are overturned. However, implementing new duties under those laws could be slow and bureaucratic, potentially delaying trade certainty until 2026.

Natixis economist Christopher Hodge said such a ruling would be only a “temporary setback” for Trump’s trade agenda, predicting renewed tariff rounds or trade negotiations in the coming year.

Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran warned the uncertainty could act as a drag on economic growth, though it might also prompt looser monetary policy if trade instability dampens business confidence.

What’s Next

A Supreme Court ruling is expected in early 2026, leaving companies in limbo over the future of U.S. tariff policy.
If Trump’s powers under IEEPA are curtailed, analysts expect a new wave of trade maneuvers potentially invoking national security provisions to maintain his “America First” economic approach, prolonging the climate of global trade unpredictability.

With information from Reuters.