Trade War

In its deal with Alberta, Canada will scrap emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, among other moves.

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney has signed an agreement with Alberta’s premier that will roll back certain climate rules to spur investment in energy production, while encouraging construction of a new oil pipeline to the West Coast.

Under the agreement, which was signed on Thursday, the federal government will scrap a planned emissions cap on the oil and gas sector and drop rules on clean electricity in exchange for a commitment by Canada’s top oil-producing province to strengthen industrial carbon pricing and support a carbon capture-and-storage project.

Carney is counting on the energy sector to help the Canadian economy weather uncertainty from United States President Donald Trump’s tariffs, and is seeking to diversify from the US market, which currently takes 90 percent of Canada’s oil exports.

He has relaxed some environmental restrictions implemented by his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, while reaffirming his commitment to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Alberta is also exploring the feasibility of a new crude oil pipeline to British Columbia’s northwest coast in order to increase exports to Asia, but no private-sector company has committed to building a new pipeline.

Pipeline companies and the Alberta government have repeatedly said significant federal legislative changes – including removing a federal cap on oil and gas sector emissions and ending a ban on oil tankers off British Columbia’s northern coast – would be required before a private entity would consider proposing a new pipeline.

Thursday’s agreement includes a commitment by the federal government to adjust the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act in order to facilitate oil exports to Asia.

British Columbia Premier David Eby, who opposes a new pipeline through his province, said on Wednesday the legislation should stay in place.

Other pipeline opponents are also speaking out. A coalition of Indigenous groups in British Columbia said this week it will not allow oil tankers on the northwest coast and that the pipeline project will “never happen”.

The Trans Mountain pipeline from Alberta to the British Columbia coast, which is owned by the Canadian government and is currently the only option to ship Canadian oil directly to Asian markets, tripled its capacity last year with a 34 billion Canadian dollar ($24.2bn) expansion.

The federal government and Alberta also said they would conclude an agreement on industrial carbon pricing by April 1 next year.

In addition, the two agreed to cooperate on building the Pathways Plus project, expected to be the world’s biggest carbon capture project and designed to capture emissions from Canada’s oil sands.

The federal government will also assist Alberta in building and operating nuclear power plants, strengthening its electricity grid to power AI data centres, and building transmission lines to neighbouring provinces.

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.

It has been a whiplash-inducing month for the American rancher, one of United States President Donald Trump’s most steadfast voting blocs.

Starting with an October 19 quip from Trump that the US would increase beef imports from Argentina to the ensuing rancher backlash against the announcement of an investigation into the hyperconsolidated US meatpacking industry and the dropping of tariffs on Brazilian beef, ranchers have found themselves caught between the president’s desires to appease both them and the American consumer in the face of high beef prices.

US ranchers have enjoyed rising cattle prices, largely the result of the lowest herd numbers for beef cattle since the 1950s. Other factors constricting supply include the closure of the Mexican border to live cattle due to concerns over screwworm and steep tariffs on foreign beef.

Cattle prices paid to ranchers are separate from consumer beef prices, which, as of September, were $6.32 for a pound (453 grams) of ground beef, an 11 percent rise from September 2024 when they were $5.67 a pound. The Bureau of Labor Statistics did not release economic data, including the consumer price index for last month, because of the government shutdown.

Trump had no patience for the typically loyal ranchers objecting to his plan to import more Argentinian beef, which they saw as a threat to their recent economic gains.

“If it weren’t for me, they would be doing just as they’ve done for the past 20 years – Terrible! It would be nice if they would understand that,” Trump wrote in an October post on his Truth Social platform.

While Corbitt Wall, a commercial cattle manager and market analyst, is clear that he “totally supports Trump and everything he does”, he also saw hubris and a misunderstanding of the cattle industry by the president.

“There was not a person in the cattle business on any level that was not insulted by that post,” he told Al Jazeera.

Wall religiously follows prices across the cattle trade from ranch to slaughterhouse and has watched the futures market for cattle slide down by more than 15 percent since Trump’s October 21 announcement.

Futures prices dictate what ranchers can expect to sell cattle for down the line and sway current sale prices as well. For ranchers’ sake, Wall said he hopes Trump leaves the cattle market alone.

“He doesn’t live in this world, in this cattle world, and doesn’t realise the impact that a statement can make in our business,” Wall said.

Years of rough seasons

Oregon rancher David Packham said that while cattle prices have jumped in ranchers’ favour, many are still struggling in the face of years of rough seasons.

Years of drought across the country raised feed costs for all and pushed some ranchers to sell off cattle. Sticker prices on farm equipment from tractors to pick-up trucks have ballooned as well, especially on the back of supply chain challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, and are expected to rise further on account of Trump’s tariffs.

Packham said he has regularly sold cattle at a loss and doesn’t want consumers to think ranchers are living high off the hog.

“I’m looking at a 40-year-old tractor that I use on a daily basis just to keep putting off replacing it, making repairs, although it’s difficult to find parts for now, just to keep it limping along because I couldn’t afford $100,000 for a new tractor,” Packham said. “When I say we’re not really making a whole lot of money, it’s because we have all this loss carryover.”

Packham was a registered Republican until Trump’s first term. The president’s Argentina comments and the subsequent chaos for the cattle industry have propped open a door for ranchers critical of Trump, but they represent a minority within the community, he said.

“I’m noticing more and more of them [ranchers] that had been cautiously neutral, that are now kind of like me and just saying, ‘You know what? No. This is bulls***. He’s a train wreck,’” Packham said.

‘Perennial issue’

One action ranchers can support, however, is Trump’s November 7 announcement of a Department of Justice investigation into the big four US meatpackers – Tyson, JBS, Cargill and National Beef – “for potential collusion, price fixing and price manipulation”.

Historically, ranchers looking to sell cattle have held little negotiating power as the four companies control more than 80 percent of the market.

However, a prior Department of Justice investigation into meatpacker price-fixing was started under the first Trump administration in 2020 due to a gulf created by falling cattle prices and rising consumer beef prices. The investigation continued under President Joe Biden’s administration but was never publicly concluded. According to Bloomberg News, the investigation was quietly closed with no findings just weeks before Trump announced the November antitrust probe.

James MacDonald, a research professor in agricultural and resource economics at the University of Maryland, views the administration’s antitrust investigation announcement as “entirely for political consumption”.

“It is a perennial issue that p***es off ranchers, and you can gain some political ground by attacking the packers,” MacDonald said.

Packham would prefer the new investigation to come at a different time and said that given the squeeze from the tight cattle market, packers are operating under slimmer margins and not from a position of absolute power.

On Friday, Tyson announced the closure of a Nebraska beef-processing plant that employed more than 3,000 people. MacDonald called the decision a “shock” indicative of the depths of the US beef shortage. The current low cattle inventory in the US came from years of drought, which wiped out grazing lands and slowed herd rebuilding. Replenishing the cattle supply chain is a years-long process.

“That’s sort of a fact and a fundamental, and it’s not going to change for a while,” MacDonald said.

MacDonald also doesn’t believe the increased Argentina imports will ease this shortage or lower prices as the country largely sends lower-grade, lean beef to the US, accounting for only 2 percent of imports. He expected that while the reintroduction of largely lean Brazilian beef will impact the import market, it holds less weight on overall beef supply.

McDonald also cited heifer retention numbers, which indicate how many female cattle that ranchers hold back to produce future herds years down the line, which are still low.

Tyson likely factored in these numbers when making the decision to shutter its Nebraska plant, and it doesn’t seem like the industry is expecting herd numbers to rebound either, McDonald told Al Jazeera.

“It’s Tyson saying we don’t think cattle supplies are going to recover anytime soon,” MacDonald said.

While the actual mechanisms of Trump’s recent policies might not budge consumers’ bottom lines or change the cattle market for the time being, Wall is more concerned about the ripple effects from the news cycle, saying ranchers “live and die” by the cattle markets. While his faith is shaken, Wall regardless believes that ranchers, conservative as ever, will show up for Trump when election time comes around.

“You look at what the other side has to offer, and there’s no way people are going to go for that,” Wall said. “So in the long run, they’ll stick with him.”

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.

China on Friday took its feud with Tokyo over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Taikachi’s recent comments on Taiwan to the United Nations, as tensions between the East Asian neighbours deepened and ties plunged to their lowest since 2023.

“If Japan dares to attempt an armed intervention in the cross-Strait situation, it would be an act of aggression,” China’s permanent representative to the UN, Fu Cong, wrote in a letter on Friday to the global body’s Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, referring to the strait that separates mainland China from self-governing Taiwan, which Beijing insists belongs to China. Beijing has not ruled out the possibility of forcibly taking Taiwan.

The diplomatic spat began earlier in November when Taikachi, who took office only in October, made remarks about how Japan would respond to a hypothetical Chinese attack on Taiwan. Those remarks angered Beijing, which has demanded retractions, although the Japanese PM has not made one.

However, the spat has now rapidly escalated into a trade war involving businesses on both sides, and has deepened security tensions over a contested territory that has long been a flashpoint for the two countries.

Here’s what we know about the dispute:

What did Japan’s PM say about Taiwan?

While speaking to parliament on November 7, Taikachi, a longtime Taiwan supporter, said a Chinese naval blockade or other action against Taiwan could prompt a Japanese military response. The response was not typical, and Taikachi appeared to go several steps further than her predecessors, who had only in the past expressed concern about the Chinese threat to Taiwan, but had never mentioned a response.

“If it involves the use of warships and military actions, it could by all means become a survival-threatening situation,” Taikachi told parliament, responding to an opposition politician’s queries in her first parliamentary grilling.

That statement immediately raised protests from China’s foreign and defence ministries, which demanded retractions. China’s consul general in Osaka, Xue Jian, a day after, criticised the comments and appeared to make threats in a now deleted post on X, saying: “We have no choice but to cut off that dirty neck that has been lunged at us without hesitation. Are you ready?”

That post by Xue also raised anger in Japan, and some officials began calling for the diplomat’s expulsion. Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara protested to Beijing over Xue’s X message, saying it was “extremely inappropriate,” while urging China to explain. Japan’s Foreign Ministry also demanded the post be deleted. Chinese officials, meanwhile, defended the comments as coming from a personal standpoint.

On November 14, China’s Foreign Ministry summoned the Japanese ambassador and warned of a “crushing defeat” if Japan interfered with Taiwan. The following day, Japan’s Foreign Ministry also summoned the Chinese ambassador to complain about the consul’s post.

Although Taikachi told parliament three days after her controversial statement that she would avoid talking about specific scenarios going forward, she has refused to retract her comments.

How have tensions increased since?

The matter has deteriorated into a trade war of sorts. On November 14, China issued a no-travel advisory for Japan, an apparent attempt to target the country’s tourism sector, which welcomed some 7.5 million Chinese tourists between January and September this year. On November 15, three Chinese airlines offered refunds or free changes for flights planned on Japan-bound routes.

The Chinese Education Ministry also took aim at Japan’s education sector, warning Chinese students there or those planning to study in Japan about recent crimes against Chinese. Both China and Japan have recorded attacks against each other’s nationals in recent months that have prompted fears of xenophobia, but it is unclear if the attacks are linked.

Tensions are also rising around territorial disputes. Last Sunday, the Chinese coastguard announced it was patrolling areas in the East China Sea, in the waters around a group of uninhabited islands that both countries claim. Japan calls the islands the Senkaku Islands, while Beijing calls them the Diaoyu Islands. Japan, in response, condemned the brief “violation” of Japanese territorial waters by a fleet of four Chinese coastguard ships.

Over the last week, Chinese authorities have suspended the screening of at least two Japanese films and banned Japanese seafood.

Then, on Thursday, China postponed a three-way meeting with culture ministers from Japan and South Korea that was scheduled to be held in late November.

‘Symbol of defiance’

On November 18, diplomats from both sides met in Beijing for talks where the grievances were aired.

Senior Chinese official Liu Jinsong chose to wear a five-buttoned collarless suit associated with the rebellion of Chinese students against Japanese imperialism in 1919.

Japanese media have called the choice of the suit a “symbol of defiance.” They also point to videos and images from the meeting showing Liu with his hands in his pockets after the talks, saying the gesture is typically viewed as disrespectful in formal settings.

The Beijing meeting did not appear to ease the tensions, and there seems to be no sign of the impasse breaking: Chinese representatives asked for a retraction, but Japanese diplomats said Taikachi’s remarks were in line with Japan’s stance.

What is the history of Sino-Japanese tensions?

It’s a long and – especially for China – painful story. Imperial Japan occupied significant portions of China after the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-95), when it gained control of Taiwan and forcefully annexed Korea. In 1937, Japan launched a full-scale invasion of China during the Second Sino-Japanese War. Amid strong Chinese resistance, Japan occupied parts of eastern and southern China, where it created and controlled puppet governments. The Japanese Empire’s defeat in World War II in 1945 ended its expansion bid.

The Chinese Communist Party emerged victorious in 1949 in the civil war that followed with the Kuomintang, which, along with the leader Chiang Kai-shek, fled to Taiwan to set up a parallel government. But until 1972, Japan formally recognised Taiwan as “China”.

In 1972, it finally recognised the People’s Republic of China and agreed to the “one China principle”, in effect severing formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan. However, Japan has maintained firm unofficial ties with Taiwan, including through trade.

Japan has also maintained a policy of so-called “strategic ambiguity” over how Tokyo would respond if China were to attack Taiwan — a policy of deliberate ambivalence, aimed at leaving Beijing and the rest of the world guessing over whether it would intervene militarily. The stance is similar to that of the United States, Taiwan’s most powerful ally.

How important is trade between China and Japan?

He Yongqian, a spokesperson for China’s commerce ministry, said at a regular news conference this week that trade relations between the two countries had been “severely damaged” by PM Takaichi’s comments.

China is Japan’s second-largest export market after the US, with Tokyo selling mainly industrial equipment, semiconductors and automobiles to Beijing. In 2024, China bought about $125bn worth of Japanese goods, according to the United Nations’ Comtrade database. South Korea, Japan’s third-largest export market, bought goods worth $46bn in 2024.

China is also a major buyer of Japan’s sea cucumbers and its top scallop buyer. Japanese firms, particularly seafood exporters, are worried about the effects of the spat on their businesses, according to reporting by Reuters.

Beijing is not as reliant on Japan’s economy, but Tokyo is China’s third-largest trading partner. China mainly exports electrical equipment, machinery, apparel and vehicles to Japan. Tokyo bought $152bn worth of goods from China in 2024, according to financial data website Trading Economics.

It’s not the first time Beijing has retaliated with trade. In 2023, China imposed a ban on all Japanese food imports after Tokyo released radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific. Beijing was against the move, although the UN atomic energy agency had deemed the discharge safe. That ban was lifted just on November 7, the same day Taikachi made the controversial comments.

In 2010, China also halted the exports of rare earth minerals to Japan for seven weeks after a Chinese fishing captain was detained near the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.

US President Donald Trump’s decision to snub the G20 summit in South Africa this year has handed an opportunity to China, as it seeks to expand its growing influence in the African continent and position itself as an alternative to the dangers of a unilateralist United States.

Washington said it would not attend the two-day summit set to kick off on Saturday over widely discredited claims that the host country, previously ruled by its white minority under an apartheid system until 1994, now mistreats white people.

South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa hit back at Trump’s claim that hosting the summit in Johannesburg was a “total disgrace”. “Boycott politics doesn’t work,” Ramaphosa said, adding that the US was “giving up the very important role that they should be playing as the biggest economy in the world”.

By Friday morning, Trump appeared to have backtracked on his stance somewhat, when speculation that Washington might send a US official to Johannesburg after all circulated.

Regardless, the spat comes as Chinese President Xi Jinping sends Premier Li Qiang to represent him on the world stage. China’s 72-year-old president has dialled back foreign visits, increasingly delegating his top emissary.

“The US is giving China an opportunity to expand its global influence,” Zhiqun Zhu, professor of political science and international relations at Bucknell University, told Al Jazeera. “With the absence of the US, China and EU countries will be the focus of the summit and other countries will look for leadership [from them].”

But observers say that while Trump’s absence will direct heightened attention to Beijing’s statements and behaviour, it does not spell the end of the US-led order altogether.

Jing Gu, a political economist at the United Kingdom-based Institute of Development Studies, said the US’s failure to attend “does not automatically make China the new leader, but it creates visible space for China to present itself as a more stable, reliable partner in governance”.

“It reinforces the perception that the US is stepping back from multilateralism and the shared management of global problems,” she said. “In that context, China can present itself as a more predictable, stable actor and emphasise continuity, support for open trade and engagement with the Global South.”

Expanding influence in the African continent

This year’s G20 will, for the first time, have an African chair and take place on the African continent. The African Union (AU) will also participate fully as a member.

South Africa, which holds the G20 presidency, is expected to push for consensus and action on priority issues for African countries, including debt relief, economic growth, climate change and transition to clean energy.

Zhu, who also serves as editor-in-chief of the academic journal, China and the World, said South Africa’s themes were a “natural fit” for China, Africa’s largest trading partner.

“China aims to become a leader in green energy, and there’s a lot of room for China and African countries to work on that,” he said.

The African continent, with its mineral wealth, booming population and fast-growing economies, offers huge potential for Chinese firms. Li, China’s premier, travelled to Zambia this week, marking the first visit to the country by a Chinese premier in 28 years. The copper-rich nation has Beijing as its largest official creditor for $5.7bn.

Eager to secure access to Zambia’s commodities and expand its exports from resource-rich East Africa, China signed a $1.4bn deal in September to rehabilitate the Tazara Railway, built in the 1970s and connecting Tanzania and Zambia, to improve rail-sea transportation in the region.

“The Chinese economy and African economy are complementary; they both benefit from trade,” Zhu said. The G20 “is a great platform for China to project its global influence and seek opportunities to work with other countries”, he added.

Africa’s growing demand for energy and China’s dominance in manufacturing make the two a good fit, observers say. This is playing out. A report by energy think tank Ember, for instance, found Africa’s imports of solar panels from China rose a whopping 60 percent in the 12 months to June 2025.

According to Gu at the Institute of Development Studies, China will be looking to tap into this growing synergy with Africa and will deliver a three-fold message at this year’s G20.

“First, it will stress stability and the importance of global rules and regulations,” she said. Second, “it will link the G20 to the Global South and highlight issues like development and green transformation”.

Third, “by offering issue-based leadership on topics such as digital economy, artificial intelligence and governance, it will position itself as a problem-solver rather than a disruptor”, the economist added.

China as a bastion of multilateralism

An absence of American officials at this year’s G20 – after skipping the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Korea as well as the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Brazil – would be “another opportunity for China”, Rosemary Foot, professor of politics and international relations at the University of Oxford, told Al Jazeera.

“It can contrast, yet again, its declared commitment to multilateralism and responsible behaviour as a major state versus the dangers of a unilateralist America focusing not on public goods but on benefits to itself only.”

China has been looking to expand its influence in Africa as a counterweight to the US-led world order. In stark contrast to Trump’s decision to end Africa’s duty-free era and slap 15-30 percent tariffs on 22 nations, Xi announced at the APEC summit last month a zero-tariff policy for all African nations with diplomatic ties to Beijing.

On that occasion, Xi emphasised China’s commitment “to joint development and shared prosperity with all countries”, stressing the country’s goal to “support more developing countries in achieving modernisation and opening up new avenues for global development”.

Similarly, Li, China’s premier, marked the United Nations’ 80th anniversary at the General Assembly in September by expressing the need for stronger collective action on climate change and emerging technologies, calling for greater solidarity to “[lift] everyone up, while division drags all down”.

His remarks were in stark contrast to Trump’s, who, in his speech, described climate change as the “greatest con job ever perpetrated” and called renewable sources of energy a “joke” and “pathetic”.

Foot said the spotlight will now be on Beijing as it seeks to strike a similar conciliatory pose – and in doing so, set itself apart from the US – at the G20. “Whether Beijing will have a major impact on the G20 agenda is more difficult to determine,” she said.

United States job growth accelerated in September despite a cooling job market as the unemployment rate rose.

Nonfarm payrolls grew by 119,000 jobs after a downwardly revised 4,000 drop in August, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report released on Thursday.

The unemployment rate rose to 4.4 percent, up from 4.3 percent in August.

The healthcare sector had the most gains, totalling 43,000 jobs in September. Food and beverage services sectors followed, adding 37,000 jobs, and social assistance employment grew by 14,000.

Other sectors saw little change, including construction, wholesale trade, retail services, as well as professional and business services.

The federal workforce saw a decline of 3,000, marking 97,000 jobs cut from the nation’s largest employer since the beginning of the year. Transportation and warehousing, an industry hit hard by tariffs, also saw declines and shed 25,000 jobs in September.

Average wages grew by 0.2 percent, or 9 cents, to $36.67.

Government shutdown hurdles

The September jobs report was initially slated for release on October 3, but was pushed out because of the US government shutdown. The jobs report typically comes out on the first Friday of each month. Because of the 43-day-long shutdown, the US Labor Department was unable to collect the data needed to calculate the unemployment rate for the month of October.

Nonfarm payrolls for the month of October will be released as part of the November employment report, which is slated to be released on December 16.

Heading into the economic data blackout, the BLS had estimated that about 911,000 fewer jobs were created in the 12 months through March than previously reported. A drop in the number of migrant workers coming into the US in search of work – a trend which started during the final year of former US President Joe Biden’s term and accelerated under President Donald Trump’s administration – has depleted labour supply.

“Today’s delayed report shows troubling signs below the topline number: the underlying labour market remains weak, leaving working Americans with shrinking opportunities and rising insecurity. Month after month, the Trump economy is producing fewer jobs, more instability, and fewer pathways for families trying to get ahead,” Alex Jacquez, chief of policy for the economic think tank the Groundwork Collaborative, said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera.

Economists estimate the economy now only needs to create between 30,000 and 50,000 jobs per month to keep up with growth in the working-age population, down from about 150,000 in 2024.

Behind the stalling growth

The rising popularity of artificial intelligence is also eroding demand for labour, with most of the hits landing on entry-level positions in white collar jobs, and locking recent college graduates out of work. Economists said AI was fueling jobless economic growth.

Others blamed the Trump administration’s trade policy for creating an uncertain economic environment that had hamstrung the ability of businesses, especially small enterprises, to hire.

The US Supreme Court earlier this month heard arguments about the legality of Trump’s import duties, with justices raising doubts about his authority to impose tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Despite payrolls remaining positive, some sectors and industries are shedding jobs. Some economists believed the September employment report could still influence the Federal Reserve’s December 9-10 policy meeting on interest rate decisions.

US central bank officials will not have November’s report in hand at that meeting, as the release date has been pushed to December 16 from December 5. Minutes of the Fed’s October 28-29 meeting published on Wednesday showed many policymakers cautioned that lowering borrowing costs further could risk undermining the fight to quell inflation.

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.

United States President Donald Trump is committed to providing Americans with $2,000 cheques using money that has come into government coffers from Trump’s tariffs.

On Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump’s staff is exploring how to go about making the plan a reality.

The president proposed the idea on his Truth Social media platform on Sunday, five days after his Republican Party lost elections in Virginia, New Jersey and elsewhere largely because of voter discontent with his economic stewardship — specifically, the high cost of living.

A new AP-NORC poll finds that 67 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy, while 33 percent approve.

The tariffs are bringing in so much money, the president posted, that “a dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.’’

“Trump has taken to his favorite policymaking forum, Truth Social, to make yet another guarantee that Americans are going to receive dividend [cheques] from the revenues collected by tariffs,” Alex Jacquez, who served on the National Economic Council under former US President Joe Biden, said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera.

“It’s interesting that Trump’s arguments—which he has been pushing forward for several months now on Truth Social—do not match the arguments that his lawyers are making in court. It seems he is trying to pressure the Justices by implying that this will be some massive economic disaster if they rule against the tariffs.”

Budget experts have scoffed at Trump’s tariff dividend plan, which conjured memories of the Trump administration’s short-lived plan for Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) dividend cheques financed by billionaire Elon Musk’s federal budget cuts.

“The numbers just don’t check out,″ Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, told the Associated Press.

Details are scarce, including what the income limits would be and whether payments would go to children.

Even Trump’s US Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, sounded a bit blindsided by the audacious dividend plan.

Appearing on Sunday on the ABC News programme This Week, Bessent said he hadn’t discussed the dividend with the president and suggested that it might not mean that Americans would get a cheque from the government. Instead, Bessent said, the rebate might take the form of tax cuts.

The tariffs are certainly raising money — $195bn in the budget year that ended September 30, up 153 percent from $77bn in fiscal 2024. But they still account for less than four percent of federal revenue, and have done little to dent the federal budget deficit, a staggering $1.8 trillion in fiscal 2025.

Budget wonks say Trump’s dividend math doesn’t work.

John Ricco, an analyst with the Budget Lab at Yale University, reckons that Trump’s tariffs will bring in $200bn to $300bn a year in revenue. But a $2,000 dividend — if it went to all Americans, including children — would cost $600bn. “It’s clear that the revenue coming in would not be adequate,” Ricco said.

The analyst also noted that Trump couldn’t just pay the dividends on his own. That would require legislation from Congress.

Legal challenges

Moreover, the centrepiece of Trump’s protectionist trade policies — double-digit taxes on imports from almost every country in the world — may not survive a legal challenge that has reached the US Supreme Court.

In a hearing last week, the court’s justices sounded sceptical about the Trump administration’s assertion of sweeping power to declare national emergencies to justify the tariffs. Trump has bypassed Congress, which has authority under the US Constitution to levy taxes, including tariffs.

If the court strikes down the tariffs, the Trump administration may be refunding money to the importers who paid them, not sending dividend cheques to American families. Trump could find other ways to impose tariffs, even if he loses at the Supreme Court, but it could be cumbersome and time-consuming.

Mainstream economists and budget analysts note that tariffs are paid by US importers who then generally try to pass along the cost to their customers through higher prices.

The dividend plan “misses the mark,” the Tax Foundation’s York said. “If the goal is relief for Americans, just get rid of the tariffs.”

The carmaker first announced the plan for battery production in 2021.

Toyota Motor Corporation has begun production at its $13.9bn North Carolina battery plant as it ramps up hybrid production and confirms plans to invest $10bn over five years in United States manufacturing.

The Tokyo, Japan-based carmaker announced the developments on Wednesday.

It first introduced the plan in December 2021 to produce batteries for its hybrid and electric vehicles (EVs). Batteries from the plant are set to power hybrid versions of the Camry, Corolla Cross, RAV4, and a yet-to-be-announced, all-electric, three-row-battery vehicle. The plant is producing hybrid batteries for factories in Kentucky and a Mazda and Toyota joint venture in Alabama.

“Over the next five years, we are planning an additional investment of $10bn in the US to further grow our manufacturing capabilities, bringing our total investment in this country to over $60bn,” said Ted Ogawa, president of Toyota Motor North America.

Toyota’s 11th US factory, on a 1,850-acre (749-hectare) site, will be able to produce 30 gigawatt-hours of energy annually at full capacity and house 14 battery production lines for plug-in hybrids and full EVs. It will eventually employ 5,000 workers.

Last month in Japan, US President Donald Trump said Toyota planned a $10bn investment in the United States.

“Go out and buy a Toyota,” said Trump, who has been critical of Japanese and other auto imports and has imposed hefty tariffs on imported vehicles.

Toyota has been one of the slowest carmakers to move to full EVs, but has rapidly moved to convert its best-selling vehicles to hybrids.

“We know there is no single path to progress”, Ogawa said on Wednesday.

“That’s why we remain committed to our multi-pathway approach, offering fuel-efficient gas engines, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, battery electronics and fuel cell electronics.”

Other car companies like Volkswagen have said they will add more hybrids as the Trump administration has rescinded EV tax credits and eliminated penalties that incentivised EV sales.

US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said at the event that the administration plans to soon propose to ease fuel economy standards, saying prior rules were too aggressive.

Duffy in January signed an order to direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to rescind fuel economy standards issued under former US President Joe Biden, a Democrat, for the 2022-2031 model years that had aimed to drastically reduce fuel use for cars and trucks.

Toyota’s stock is up by about 0.4 percent in midday trading in New York.

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.

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.

US President Donald Trump has appeared on the CBS News programme 60 Minutes just months after he won a $16m settlement from the broadcaster for alleged “deceptive editing”.

In the interview with CBS host Norah O’Donnell, which was filmed last Friday at his Mar-a-Lago residence and aired on Sunday, Trump touched on several topics, including the ongoing government shutdown, his administration’s unprecedented crackdowns on undocumented migrants, the US’s decision to restart nuclear testing, and the trade war with China.

Trump, who regularly appears on Fox News, a right-wing media outlet, has an uneasy relationship with CBS, which is considered centrist.

In October 2020, the president walked out of a 60 Minutes interview in the lead-up to the 2020 election he lost, claiming that the host, Lesley Stahl, was “biased”.

Here are some key takeaways from the interview:

The interview took place one year to the day after Trump sued CBS

The president’s lawyers sued CBS owner Paramount in October 2024 for “mental anguish” over a pre-election interview with rival candidate Kamala Harris that Trump claimed had been deceptively edited to favour Democrats and thus affected his campaign.

CBS had aired two different versions of an answer Harris gave to a question on Israel’s war on Gaza, posed by host Bill Whitaker. One version aired on 60 Minutes while the other appeared on the programme Face the Nation.

Asked whether Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, listened to US advice, Harris answered: “We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States – to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”

In an alternative edit, featured in earlier pre-broadcast promotions, Harris had given a longer, more rambling response that did not sound as concise.

The network argued the answer was edited differently for the two shows due to time restrictions, but Trump’s team claimed CBS “distorted” its broadcasts and “helped” Harris, thereby affecting his campaign. Trump asked for an initial $10bn in damages before upping it to $20bn in February 2025.

Paramount, in July 2025, chose to settle with Trump’s team to the tune of $16m in the form of a donation to a planned Trump presidential library. That move angered journalist unions and rights groups, which argued it set a bad precedent for press freedom.

Paramount executives said the company would not apologise for the editing of its programmes, but had decided to settle to put the matter to rest.

The company was at the time trying to secure federal approval from Trump’s government for a proposed merger with Skydance, owned by Trump ally Larry Ellison. The Federal Communications Commission has since approved the merger that gives Ellison’s Skydance controlling rights.

On October 19, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff, US special envoy to the Middle East, were interviewed on 60 Minutes regarding the Israel-Gaza war.

He solved rare-earth metals issue with China

After meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea last Thursday, Trump praised his counterpart as a “strong man, a very powerful leader” and said their relationship was on an even keel despite the trade war. However, he blamed China for “ripping off” the US through its dominance of crucial rare earth materials.

Trump told 60 Minutes he had cut a favourable trade agreement with China and that “we got – no rare-earth threat. That’s gone, completely gone”, referring to Chinese export restrictions on critical rare-earth metals needed to manufacture a wide range of items including defence equipment, smartphones and electric vehicles.

However, Beijing actually only said it would delay introducing export controls for five rare-earth metals it announced in October, and did not mention restrictions on a further seven it announced in April this year. Those restrictions remain in place.

Xi ‘knows what will happen’ if China attacks Taiwan

Trump said President Xi did not say anything about whether Beijing planned to attack autonomous Taiwan.

However, he referred to past assurances from Xi, saying: “He [Xi] has openly said, and his people have openly said at meetings, ‘We would never do anything while President Trump is president’, because they know the consequences.”

Asked whether he would order US forces to action if China moved militarily on Taiwan, Trump demurred, saying: “You’ll find out if it happens, and he understands the answer to that … I can’t give away my secrets. The other side knows.”

There are mounting fears in the US that China could attack Taiwan. Washington’s stance of “strategic ambiguity” has always kept observers speculating about whether the US would defend Taiwan against Beijing. Ahead of the last elections, Trump said Taiwan should “pay” for protection.

He doesn’t know who the crypto boss he pardoned is

When asked why he pardoned cryptocurrency multibillionaire and Binance founder Changpeng Zhao last month, Trump said: “I don’t know who he is.”

The president said he had never met Zhao, but had been told he was the victim of a “witch hunt” by the administration of former US President Joe Biden.

Zhao pleaded guilty to enabling money laundering in connection with child sex abuse and “terrorism” on his crypto platform in 2023. He served four months in prison until September 2024, and stepped down as chief executive of Binance.

Binance has been linked to the Trump family’s cryptocurrency company World Liberty Financial, and many have questioned if the case is a conflict of interest.

In March 2025, World Liberty Financial launched its own dollar-pegged cryptocoin, USD1, on Binance’s blockchain and the company promoted it to its 275 million users. The coin was also supported by an investment fund in the United Arab Emirates, MGX Fund Management Limited, which used $2bn worth of the World Liberty stablecoin to buy a stake in Binance.

This part of the interview appeared in a full transcript of the 90-minute interview, but does not appear in either the 28-minute televised version or the 73-minute extended online video version. CBS said in a note on the YouTube version that it was “condensed for clarity”.

Other countries ‘are testing nuclear weapons’

Trump justified last week’s decision by his government to resume nuclear testing for the first time in 33 years, saying that other countries – besides North Korea – are already doing it.

“Russia’s testing, and China’s testing, but they don’t talk about it,” Trump said, also mentioning Pakistan. “You know, we’re an open society. We’re different. We talk about it. We have to talk about it, because otherwise you people are gonna report – they don’t have reporters that gonna be writing about it. We do.”

Russia, China, and Pakistan have not openly conducted tests in recent years. Analyst Georgia Cole of UK think tank Chatham House told Al Jazeera that “there is no indication” the three countries have resumed testing.

He’s not worried about Hamas disarming

The president claimed the US-negotiated ceasefire and peace plan between Israel and Hamas was “very solid” despite Israeli strikes killing 236 Gazans since the ceasefire went into effect. It is also unclear whether or when the Palestinian armed group, Hamas, has agreed it will disarm.

However, Trump said he was not worried about Hamas disarming as the US would force the armed group to do so. “Hamas could be taken out immediately if they don’t behave,” he said.

Venezuela’s Maduro’s ‘days are numbered’

Trump denied the US was going to war with Venezuela despite a US military build-up off the country’s coast and deadly air strikes targeting alleged drug-trafficking ships in the country’s waters. The United Nations has said the strikes are a violation of international law.

Responding to a question about whether the strikes were really about unseating Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro, Trump said they weren’t. However, when asked if Maduro’s days in office were numbered, the president answered: “I would say, yeah.”

US government shutdown is all the Democrats’ fault

Trump, a member of the Republican Party, blamed Democrats for what is now close to the longest government shutdown in US history, which has been ongoing since October 1.

Senators from the Democratic Party have refused to approve a new budget unless it extends expiring tax credits that make health insurance cheaper for millions of Americans and unless Trump reverses healthcare cuts made in his tax-and-spending bill, passed earlier this year.

The US president made it clear that he would not negotiate with Democrats, and did not give clear plans for ending the shutdown affecting 1.4 million governent employees.

US will become ‘third-world nation’ if tariffs disallowed

Referring to a US Supreme Court hearing brought by businesses arguing that the Trump government’s tariff war on other countries is illegal and has caused domestic inflation, Trump said the US “would go to hell” and be a “third world nation” if the court ordered tariffs to be removed.

He said the tariffs are necessary for “national security” and that they have increased respect from other countries for the US.

ICE raids ‘don’t go far enough’

Trump defended his government’s unprecedented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and surveillance on people perceived to be undocumented migrants.

When asked if the raids had gone too far, he responded: “No. I think they haven’t gone far enough because we’ve been held back by the judges, by the liberal judges that were put in by [former US Presidents Joe] Biden and [Barack] Obama.”

Zohran Mamdani is a ‘communist’

Regarding the New York City mayoral race scheduled for November 4, Trump said he would not back democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, and called him a “communist”. He said if Mamdani wins, it will be hard for him to “give a lot of money to New York”.

The United States and China have declared a truce in the trade war launched by US President Donald Trump in April, argues Evan Medeiros, former US National Security Council director for China.

Medeiros tells host Steve Clemons that the deal reached between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Trump resolves the urgent trade issues between the two sides – tariff rates, soya beans and rare earth minerals – but China “remains committed to ensuring that Russia doesn’t lose” in Ukraine.

The US has more than 200,000 soldiers surrounding China, Medeiros adds, but Washington knows that “nobody wants to choose between the US and China.”