trade

U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday warned countries against backing away from recently negotiated trade deals with the U.S. after the Supreme Court struck down his emergency tariffs, saying that if they did, he would hit them with much higher duties under different trade laws.

Trump, in a series of social media posts, said he also may impose license fees on trading partners as uncertainty over his next tariff moves gripped the global economy and sent stocks lower.

“Any Country that wants to ‘play games’ with the ridiculous supreme court decision, especially those that have ‘Ripped Off’ the U.S.A. for years, and even decades, will be met with a much higher Tariff, and worse, than that which they just recently agreed to. BUYER BEWARE!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump said that despite the court’s decision to invalidate his tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), its decision affirmed his ability to use tariffs under other legal authorities “in a much more powerful and obnoxious way, with legal certainty, than the Tariffs as initially used.”

He suggested that the U.S. could impose new license fees on trading partners but did not provide further details. A spokesperson for the U.S. Trade Representative’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Trump’s plans.

EU Trade Deal on Hold

In Brussels, the European Parliament decided on Monday to postpone a vote on the European Union’s trade deal with the U.S. after Trump said he would impose a new temporary import duty of 15% on imports from all countries.

EU goods under the deal would face a 15% U.S. tariff, with exemptions for hundreds of food items, aircraft parts, critical minerals, pharmaceutical ingredients, and other goods, while the EU would remove duties on many imports from the U.S., including industrial goods.

Trump initially announced the temporary duty under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 at 10% but promised on Saturday to raise it to 15%, the maximum allowed under the statute. An initial 10% tariff came into effect at a minute past midnight on Tuesday, though it is unclear when the 15% rate would take effect, as Trump has only signed an executive order for the 10% tariff so far.

Markets React

Wall Street stocks ended lower on Monday as renewed tariff uncertainty following the Supreme Court decision, coupled with concerns about AI-fueled disruption, unnerved investors.

• The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 1.65%
• The S&P 500 fell 1.02%
• The Nasdaq Composite fell 1.01%

The dollar weakened against the euro and the yen, reflecting market anxiety over potential trade escalation and economic uncertainty.

Global Trade Uncertainty

The path forward for Trump’s foreign trade deals remains unclear:

• China has urged Washington to scrap tariff measures.
• The EU has frozen its approval process.
• India delayed planned talks.

The U.S. Trade Representative, Jamieson Greer, said the administration expects to open new Section 301 unfair trade practices investigations on several countries, potentially paving the way for new tariffs.

Meanwhile, a group of 22 Democratic U.S. senators introduced legislation to force the Trump administration to issue refunds for all now-illegal IEEPA-based tariffs within 180 days, although the bill faces an uncertain path to a vote.

Trump also criticized the Supreme Court justices who ruled against him, including two he appointed, and expressed concern that the Court could rule against his administration in a forthcoming birthright citizenship case.

Analysis

Trump’s latest moves reflect his ongoing use of tariffs as a negotiating tool and political messaging device, rather than a targeted economic strategy. By threatening higher tariffs and potential license fees, he is signaling to trading partners that backing away from deals could carry immediate financial consequences.

However, the approach carries multiple risks:

1. Market Volatility: Investors are already responding with caution, as uncertainty over tariffs can disrupt supply chains, raise costs for U.S. companies, and weigh on stock prices.
2. Diplomatic Strain: Allies such as the EU, as well as emerging partners like India, may view the moves as destabilizing, complicating future trade negotiations.
3. Legal Vulnerabilities: Section 122 of the Trade Act has rarely been invoked, and using it in place of IEEPA may invite further litigation, leaving Trump’s administration open to judicial challenges.
4. Global Trade Ripple Effects: A 15% tariff on broad imports could increase prices for U.S. consumers, provoke retaliatory tariffs, and shift global supply chains, particularly in sectors like tech, automotive, and pharmaceuticals.

Economists suggest that while Trump’s threats may pressure trading partners, the overall economic rationale is weak, since the U.S. is not in a balance-of-payments crisis, and broad-based tariffs risk collateral damage to U.S. businesses and consumers.

In sum, Trump’s tariff strategy highlights a blend of economic pressure and political signaling, but it comes with high uncertainty and potential unintended consequences for both the U.S. and global markets.

With information from Reuters.

CK Hutchison says the Panamanian government has taken ‘administrative and operational control’ of its two ports on the canal.

The government of Panama has seized control of two ports on either end of the Panama Canal from a Hong Kong conglomerate following a recent ruling by the country’s Supreme Court.

Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison said on Tuesday that Panama’s government had “made direct physical entry into the terminals at Balboa and Cristobal” and assumed “administrative and operational control” over the two ports on the Panama Canal.

The company said the “unlawful” takeover reflects the culmination of a campaign by the Panamanian state against its subsidiary, Panama Ports, following the Supreme Court ruling last month.

According to a government decree, the Panama Maritime Authority has been authorised to occupy the ports for “reasons of urgent social interest”, according to The Associated Press (AP) news agency.

The maritime authority also has the right to take over port property, including computer systems and cranes, according to the decree.

The state takeover marks the latest twist in a yearlong saga for CK Hutchison, which has been caught in a three-way fight between China, the United States, and Panama following US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House last year.

Starting in December 2024, Trump began to allege that the Panama Canal was being operated by China and promised to “take it back” – using military force if necessary – as part of a greater effort to reassert US dominance over the Western Hemisphere.

Last month, Panama’s Supreme Court ruled that CK Hutchison’s concession to operate the two ports was “unconstitutional” despite the company renewing its concession in 2021 for another 25 years.

The Chinese government’s Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office (HKMAO) weighed in on the controversy, describing the ruling as “absurd” and “shameful”, while warning that the Latin American country would pay “heavy prices both politically and economically”.

Panama’s President Jose Raul Mulino responded, saying he “strongly” rejected China’s threat against his country and that Panama was a country that upholds the rule of law “and respects the decisions of the judiciary, which is independent of the central government”.

The White House is set to impose a 15 percent tariff through Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the US Supreme Court ruled against Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

United States President Donald Trump has ramped up tariff threats following last week’s US Supreme Court decision that ruled that Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, were unlawful.

On Monday, Trump said that any countries that wanted to “play games” after the high court’s ruling would be hit “with a much higher tariff ” in a post on his social media platform Truth Social.

In a separate post on the platform, Trump claimed that he does not need the approval of the US Congress for tariffs.

“As President, I do not have to go back to Congress to get approval of Tariffs . It has already been gotten, in many forms, a long time ago! They were also just reaffirmed by the ridiculous and poorly crafted supreme court decision!” Trump said in the post.

Trump does have some authority to impose other tariffs, but they are much more limited.

Following the court’s 6–3 decision on Friday, the president said he would introduce a 10 percent tariff, raising it to 15 percent by Saturday under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, the maximum limit under the statute that enables the White House to impose tariffs for 150 days.

The statute only requires a presidential declaration and does not require further investigation. Section 122 is only temporary; the tariffs would then expire unless Congress extends them.

Trump’s tariffs are overwhelmingly unpopular. A new Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that 64 percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of tariffs.

Looming uncertainty

Experts warn that Trump’s newly imposed tariffs will fuel further economic uncertainty.

“What we do know is that it would continue to require all those parties affected to continue to live in uncertainty and, as many have already pointed out, such uncertainty is not good for our economy and has negative impacts on American consumers,” Max Kulyk, partner and CEO of Chicory Wealth, a private wealth advisory firm, told Al Jazeera.

“It’s impossible to plan. You hear that tariffs are off, and you are considering how to get refunds. Then a few hours later, it’s 10 percent. Then it’s 15 percent the next day…. Not having that stable framework is hurtful for activity, hiring, investment,” Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon, told the Reuters news agency.

Gold, which is considered a safe investment in times of economic uncertainty, surged by 2 percent on Monday, hitting a three-week high as tariff pressures remain unclear.

US markets are also taking a hit. The tech-heavy Nasdaq is down 1.1 percent in midday trading. The S&P 500 is also down by 1 percent, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped by 1.5 percent since the market opened on Monday.

Stalling trade deals

Trump’s erratic approach has also deterred movement on looming trade deals.

On Monday, the European Parliament opted to postpone voting on a trade deal with the US. It is the second time the bloc has pushed back the vote. The first was in protest against Trump’s unsolicited attempts to acquire Greenland.

The assembly had been considering removing several European Union import duties on US goods. Committee chair Bernd Lange said the new temporary US tariff could mean increased levies for some EU exports, and no one knew what would happen after they expire in 150 days. EU lawmakers will reconvene on March 4 to assess if the US has clarified the situation and confirmed its commitment to last year’s deal.

Feb. 23 (UPI) — A meeting on trade negotiations between the United States and India this week has been postponed in light of Friday’s Supreme Court ruling on President Donald Trump‘s tariffs.

Officials representing the United States and India were scheduled to meet for three days in Washington, D.C., to discuss their interim trade deal but the meeting has been delayed, CNBC, the BBC and Hindustan Times reported.

India’s top trade negotiator, Darpan Jain, was slated to travel to the United States for the meeting.

India is under a 25% reciprocal tariff imposed by the United States. It was expected to be reduced to 18% as part of an interim agreement between the countries earlier this month. The sides have continued to discuss future trade plans virtually since reaching the interim deal.

The United States and India were slated to finalize the interim agreement in March with it likely to go into effect in April. The framework for the agreement noted that any changes to the deal would allow the other country to “modify its commitments.”

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump improperly applied the Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose a swath of tariffs. With those tariffs ruled unlawful, Trump announced a 15% global tariff, citing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to impose temporary tariffs.

The act allows for the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days.

The Trump administration continues to consider new plans to continue with its tariff policy, exploring other legal routes, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a social media post.

“We will immediately shift to other proven authorities — Actions 232, 301, and 122 — to keep our tariff strategy strong,” Bessent wrote.

Published on 23/02/2026 – 13:58 GMT+1•Updated
14:24

EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič is set to meet G7 trade ministers on Monday after United States President Donald Trump upped the pressure on trading partners with a 15% across-the-board tariffs on imports entering the American market.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump’s move came after a US Supreme Court ruling last week struck down several global duties he had imposed from the White House last year, overturning a central part of his trade policy.

Brussels is now demanding legal clarity. The EU is bound to Washington by a trade pact clinched in July 2025 by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Trump, setting tariffs on EU exports at 15% while committing the bloc to slash its own duties to zero.

“Full clarity on what these new developments mean for the EU-US trade relationship is the absolute minimum that is required in order for us the EU to make a clear-eyed assessment and decide on next steps,” Commission deputy spokesperson Olof Gill said on Monday.

Key Parliament vote expected

Šefčovič’s G7 talks come ahead of a closed-door meeting of EU ambassadors to assess the fallout from the latest developments in the US.

Some member states, including France, are prepared to deploy the bloc’s Anti-Coercion Instrument – the so-called “trade bazooka” that allows restrictions on public procurement, licenses and intellectual property rights if necessary to push back against external pressure.

Attention is now shifting to the European Parliament, which was set to vote Tuesday on implementing the EU-US agreement by cutting tariffs on US goods, as included in the deal. Instead, MEPs are meeting on Monday afternoon to decide on the future enforcement of the agreement.

The Parliament has led resistance to the US administration, arguing the deal signed in Scotland last summer was unbalanced.

German MEP Bernd Lange, who chairs the Parliament’s Committee on International Trade, said on Sunday that he will urge negotiators to suspend the agreement. But Zeljana Zovko, lead negotiator for the EPP – the Parliament’s largest group – struck a cooler tone, telling Euronews that MEPs “keep calm and do our [their] part.”

“No need to add any more fuel to an already existing fire,” she said.

South Korea and Brazil have agreed to significantly deepen cooperation across key minerals, trade, technology and security, as President Lee Jae Myung hosted Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Seoul for the first Brazilian state visit in more than two decades. The summit, held at the Blue House, marked a symbolic reset in bilateral ties and produced an ambitious roadmap aimed at elevating relations to a strategic partnership.

The two leaders endorsed a four-year action plan designed to anchor cooperation in strategic minerals, advanced manufacturing, defence, space industries and food security. They also oversaw the signing of 10 memorandums of understanding covering trade and industrial policy, rare earths and other critical minerals, the digital economy including artificial intelligence, biotechnology and health, agricultural collaboration, small-business exchanges, and joint efforts to combat cybercrime and narcotics trafficking.

Critical Minerals at the Core

At the heart of the agreement lies a shared recognition of the growing geopolitical importance of critical minerals. Brazil holds significant reserves of rare earth elements and nickel, both essential to electric vehicles, renewable energy systems and high-tech manufacturing. South Korea, a manufacturing powerhouse heavily reliant on imported raw materials, is seeking to diversify supply chains amid intensifying global competition for resource security.

For Seoul, closer ties with Brasília offer an opportunity to secure stable access to strategic inputs while reducing exposure to concentrated supply routes. For Brazil, the partnership represents a chance to attract South Korean investment into mining, processing and downstream industries, potentially moving up the value chain rather than remaining primarily a raw-material exporter.

Trade Expansion and Industrial Policy Alignment

Brazil is South Korea’s largest trading partner in South America, and both governments signaled an intent to broaden the scope of commerce beyond traditional commodity flows. Industrial policy coordination featured prominently in the discussions, suggesting a shift toward co-development in sectors such as semiconductors, batteries and green technologies.

The emphasis on the digital economy and artificial intelligence reflects a convergence of economic strategies. South Korea’s advanced technological ecosystem complements Brazil’s expanding digital market, creating potential for joint ventures and technology transfers. Cooperation in biotech and health also indicates a recognition of demographic and public health challenges that transcend borders.

Security, Stability and Shared Democratic Narratives

Beyond economics, the leaders framed their partnership within a broader narrative of stability and democratic resilience. Lee emphasized support for peace on the Korean Peninsula, while Lula underscored Brazil’s interest in a balanced and rules-based international order.

Their personal rapport, shaped by shared experiences of early-life factory work and social mobility, added a human dimension to the diplomacy. Lee publicly praised Lula’s life story as emblematic of democratic progress, reinforcing a symbolic alignment that may help sustain political goodwill between the two administrations.

The inclusion of joint policing initiatives against cybercrime and transnational threats signals that the partnership extends into non-traditional security domains. As digital connectivity deepens, cyber resilience and coordinated law enforcement become integral to safeguarding economic integration.

Strategic Diversification in a Fragmented World

The timing of the summit is notable. As global trade faces renewed uncertainty and supply chains continue to recalibrate, middle powers such as South Korea and Brazil are seeking to hedge against volatility by strengthening bilateral and regional ties. By formalizing cooperation in minerals, technology and defence, both governments aim to insulate their economies from external shocks while positioning themselves within emerging industrial ecosystems.

The ceremonial elements of the visit including a state banquet blending Korean and Brazilian cultural traditions underscored the leaders’ intent to broaden engagement beyond transactional trade. Whether the newly signed agreements translate into measurable investment flows and industrial integration will depend on sustained political commitment and private-sector participation. Yet the framework established in Seoul suggests that both countries see strategic partnership not as a symbolic upgrade, but as a practical response to an increasingly fragmented global landscape.

With information from Reuters.

US President Donald Trump’s tariff regime has been ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court, removing a central policy plank of his second term.

Trump’s promised replacement tariffs will take effect within days.

What is the impact of the court’s ruling? And how will it play out internationally?

Presenter: Tom McRae

Guests:

Melanie Brusseler – US programme director at the think tank Common Wealth

James Davis – founder and president of Touchdown Strategies and Republican adviser

Claire Finkelstein – Algernon Biddle professor of law and philosophy, University of Pennsylvania

President Trump calls Supreme Court justices an ’embarrassment to their families’ in 45-minute address to the media.

United States President Donald Trump and his vice president, JD Vance, have launched personal attacks on the justices of the US Supreme Court and their families, after the country’s top court struck down trade tariffs imposed by the White House.

In a 45-minute address to reporters at the White House, the US president heaped criticism on the six justices who ruled against his signature tariff policy in the 6-3 decision by the court on Friday, including Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump appointed to the court during his first term.

“I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, you wanna know the truth, the two of them,” Trump said, referring to Justices Gorsuch and Barrett.

“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court – absolutely ashamed – for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump added.

Shockingly, Trump also claimed that the Supreme Court “has been swayed by foreign interests”, without providing any evidence.

Trump then warmly praised the three members of the court who dissented in the ruling.

“I’d like to thank and congratulate Justices [Clarence] Thomas, [Samuel] Alito, and [Brett] Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is, right now, very proud of those justices,” Trump said.

“When you read the dissenting opinions, there’s no way that anyone can argue against them,” he said.

Vice President Vance also sharply criticised the justices for their ruling, accusing them of “lawlessness” in a post on X.

“Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to ‘regulate imports’, didn’t actually mean it,” Vance wrote in a post on X.

“This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple,” said Vance, whose political profile rose to prominence after writing a memoir about his time at Yale Law School.

Trump and Vance’s comments mark a rare rebuke of the nine-member Supreme Court, which currently has six members appointed by Trump’s Republican Party and has often ruled in favour of his administration’s policies.

The United States Supreme Court ruling against the administration of US President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs has left a question unanswered on what is the refund process for the funds collected over the past several months through the tariffs that had been imposed on most US trading partners .

In a 6–3 decision issued on Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts upheld a lower court ruling that found the president’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded his authority.

The high court did not specify how the federal government would refund the estimated $175bn collected under the tariffs. In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that issuing refunds would present practical challenges and said it would be “a mess”.

The case will now return to the Court of International Trade to oversee the refund process.

More than 1,000 lawsuits have already been filed by importers in the trade court seeking refunds, and a wave of new cases is expected. Legal experts say the administration will likely require importers to apply for refunds individually. That process could disproportionately burden smaller businesses affected by the tariffs.

“The government is probably not going to voluntarily pay back the money it unlawfully took. Rather, the government is going to make everyone request a refund through different procedures by filing formal protests. They’re going to delay things procedurally as long as they can. Hiring lawyers and going through these procedures costs money and time,” Greg Shaffer, a law professor at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

“I imagine the largest companies, who have been prepared for this eventuality, will eventually get their money back. But smaller importers, it’s a cost-benefit analysis where they might shrug their shoulders and say it’s not worth going through the hassle to get the unlawfully imposed taxes paid back to them.”

Trump’s path forward

Despite Friday’s ruling, other sweeping levies remain in place. Trump had invoked Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act to impose sector-specific tariffs on steel and aluminium, cars, copper, lumber, and other products, such as kitchen cabinets, worldwide.

On Friday, Trump said he would impose a 10 percent global tariff for 150 days to replace some of his emergency duties that were struck down. The order would be made under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the duties would be over and above tariffs that are currently in place, Trump said.

The statute allows the president to impose duties of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days on any and all countries related to “large and serious” balance of payments issues. It does not require investigations or impose other procedural limits.

The president also has other legal avenues available to continue taxing imports aggressively.

“Our trading partners were well aware of the risks the President faced in using IEEPA as the basis for reciprocal and other tariffs. Nevertheless, they chose to conclude deals with Washington, convinced by Washington that other statutes would be utilised to keep the tariffs in place,” Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, told Al Jazeera in a statement.

“With respect to China, USTR [United States trade representative] still has an active Section 301 investigation on China’s compliance with the Phase One agreement, which could be a major feature of the back-up plan for Beijing.”

The president is expected to travel to Beijing next month to meet his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, to discuss trade.

“The two main options include Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the traditional mechanism for imposing tariffs in response to unfair trade practices by other countries. It requires an investigation and a report, but ultimately gives the president considerable discretion to impose tariffs. It has been used in the past and will likely be the most frequently used measure going forward,” Shaffer, the law professor, said.

He noted, however, that the administration’s tariff options could not be applied retroactively, meaning any new tariffs would apply only to future imports rather than covering duties already paid.

Raj Bhala, professor of law at The University of Kansas School of Law, argues there are remedies at the president’s disposal in addition to Section 122. Bhala said that Trump could use Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (also known as the Smoot-Hawley Act). That allows the president to impose a 50 percent tariff to challenge discriminatory trade practices from other countries.

“Each option involves procedural hurdles,” Bhala said.

Congressional pressure

Roberts wrote that the president must “point to clear congressional authorization” to impose tariffs. The ruling has increased pressure on both Trump’s allies and critics in Congress to clarify the scope of executive trade authority.

“What a fantastic ruling for a feckless branch of government. While its current tendency is to abdicate, the court has told Congress to do its job,” a former official in the White House Office of Management and Budget told Al Jazeera in response to the decision.

“Congress must either act with specific legislation, or declare war, which would grant the President the emergency powers to levy tariffs.”

“Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a post on the social media platform X.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, by contrast, welcomed the ruling, saying it will “finally give families and small businesses the relief they deserve” and that Trump should end “this reckless trade war for good.”

But how that money will get paid back, and if it was already spent, will require Congress to step in.

“If it has been spent, the money will have to be reallocated by Congress. Congress will have to determine how much is owed to importers, pass a law to fund it, and create a mechanism for repayment. There’s also the question of who is entitled to it. Is it only the importer, or does it extend to the end consumer? Where does the line stop?” Babak Hafezi, professor of international business at American University, told Al Jazeera.

“This is not something that will be fixed in 24 hours. It will most likely take years, possibly even a decade, to resolve all the issues this less-than-a-year-old law has imposed on Americans.”

The second straight monthly deterioration in the United States’ trade deficit occurred as US firms boosted imports of computer chips and other tech goods.

The United States trade deficit has widened sharply in December amid a surge in imports, and the goods shortfall in 2025 was the highest on record despite US President Donald Trump’s tariffs on foreign-manufactured merchandise.

The second straight monthly deterioration in the trade deficit reported by the US Commerce Department on Thursday suggested that trade made little or no contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) in the fourth quarter.

Exports rose 6 percent last year, and imports rose nearly 5 percent.

The US deficit in the trade of goods widened 2 percent to a record $1.24 trillion last year as American companies boosted imports of computer chips and other tech goods from Taiwan to support massive investments in artificial intelligence.

Amid continuing tensions with Beijing, the deficit in the goods trade with China plunged nearly 32 percent to $202bn in 2025 on a sharp drop in both exports to and imports from the world’s second-biggest economy. But trade was diverted away from China. The goods gap with Taiwan doubled to $147bn and shot up 44 percent, to $178bn, with Vietnam.

Trump last year unleashed a barrage of tariffs against trading partners with the aim, among other things, of addressing trade imbalances and protecting US industries. But the punitive duties have not yielded a manufacturing renaissance, with factory employment declining by 83,000 jobs from January 2025 through January 2026.

“There just isn’t any evidence out there in the economic research literature to suggest that tariffs have materially impacted trade deficits historically when countries have implemented them,” said Chad Bown, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

The trade gap ballooned by 32.6 percent to a five-month high of $70.3bn, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis and the US Census Bureau said. Economists polled by Reuters forecast the trade deficit would contract to $55.5bn.

The report was delayed because of last year’s government shutdown.

Imports increased 3.6 percent to $357.6bn in December. Goods imports surged 3.8 percent to $280.2bn, boosted by a $7bn increase in industrial supplies and materials, mostly non-monetary gold, copper and crude oil. Capital goods imports increased by $5.6bn, lifted by computer accessories and telecommunications equipment. That rise is likely related to the construction of data centres to support artificial intelligence.

But consumer goods imports fell, pulled down by pharmaceutical preparations. There have been large swings in imports of pharmaceutical preparations because of tariffs.

“But strong imports should also imply strength in details like inventories or business investment,” said Veronica Clark, an economist at Citigroup. “Surging computer imports in particular should correspond with stronger business equipment investment and could remain strong due to AI-related demand.”

Exports fell 1.7 percent to $287.3bn in December. But capital goods exports increased, boosted by semiconductors. There were increases in exports of consumer goods, including pharmaceutical preparations.

The world’s largest shipping company MSC has been moving goods to and from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and Syria’s occupied Golan Heights, with the help of European port operators.

Taipei agrees to buy some $85bn of US energy, aircraft and equipment in exchange for 15 percent tariff rate.

The United States and Taiwan have finalised a trade deal to reduce tariffs on Taiwanese exports and facilitate billions of dollars of spending on US goods.

The agreement announced on Thursday lowers the general tariff on Taiwanese goods from 20 percent to 15 percent, the same level as Asian trade partners South Korea and Japan, in exchange for Taipei agreeing to buy about $85bn of US energy, aircraft and equipment.

Under the deal, Taiwan will eliminate or reduce 99 percent of tariff barriers and provide preferential market access to numerous US goods, including auto parts, chemicals, machinery, health products, dairy products and pork, the office of the US trade envoy said in a statement.

The US will, in turn, exempt a large range of Taiwanese goods from tariffs, including chalk, castor oil, pineapples and ginseng.

Taiwanese President William Lai Ching-te said Taipei had secured tariff exemptions for some 2,000 Taiwanese products, hailing the agreement as a “pivotal” moment for the self-governing island’s economy.

Lai said the deal, when various carve-outs are included, would take the average tariff rate on Taiwanese goods to 12.3 percent.

“From familiar items such as Phalaenopsis orchids, tea, bubble tea ingredients (tapioca starch), and coffee, to pineapple cakes, taro, pineapples, and mangoes – these products that represent Taiwan will become more price-competitive in the US market,” Lai said in a statement on social media.

“We aim not only to sell Taiwan’s great flavors overseas, but also to ensure Taiwanese brands truly enter international markets,” he said.

Lai made no mention of Taiwan’s chip industry, a crucial driver of the island’s economy that is estimated to account for up to 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

Taiwan’s exports rose by 35 percent in 2025 on the back of furious demand for its AI chips, hitting a record $640.75bn.

Thursday’s agreement notably does not include specific commitments from Taiwan to invest in the US chip industry, despite an announcement by US President Donald Trump’s administration last month that Taiwanese firms would pour $250bn into the sector.

A fact sheet released by the Office of the US Trade Representative said the two sides “take note” of the January deal, which included a prior commitment by chip giant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing to invest $100bn in the US.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said Thursday’s agreement built on the longstanding trade relations between Taiwan and the US and would “significantly enhance the resilience of our supply chains, particularly in high-technology sectors”.

“President Trump’s leadership in the Asia Pacific region continues to generate prosperous trade ties for the United States with important partners across Asia, while further advancing the economic and national security interests of the American people,” Greer said.

Nearly one-third of Taiwan’s exports went to the US in 2025, making the country the island’s biggest market for the first time since 2000.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom is heading to a conference of world leaders in Germany later this week as part of his ongoing effort to use the global stage to urge investment in California’s climate-related initiatives and challenge President Trump’s isolationist policies.

Newsom will appear at the Munich Security Conference to talk about trade and jobs and tell foreign leaders that “California is a stable and reliable partner,” he said Tuesday during an unrelated event.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is leading the official U.S. delegation to the conference, while Democratic leaders Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York are also expected, according to news reports.

The three-day event focuses on the intersections of trade, economics, security and foreign policy, and is expected to draw business leaders and heads of state.

Vice President JD Vance’s appearance at last year’s gathering caused a stir after he argued that European’s immigration policies are too relaxed and European nations are too reliant on the United States.

Ahead of the gathering, conference organizers released a report Monday that found that the “world has entered a period of wrecking-ball politics. Sweeping destruction — rather than careful reforms and policy corrections — is the order of the day.”

Newsom told reporters that he will appear on several panels, and suggested he will focus in part on staying competitive with China when it comes to new technologies and job growth.

“China is cleaning our clock as it relates to low-carbon green growth. They are cleaning our clock in terms of not just electric vehicles, because it’s not about electric power, it’s about economic power,” he said.

“It’s about exports, manufacturing, jobs — and this country is walking away,” he continued. “We are walking away from science and we are walking away from common sense.”

“Gavin Newscum is traveling to another international conference to whine about climate policies instead of doing his job as the governor of California?” said White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers, using President Trump’s derogatory nickname for the governor. “Nothing new to see here.”

Newsom is in his last year as California governor and is considering running for president in 2028. He last month traveled to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he criticized world leaders for not challenging Trump’s aggressive posture when it comes to his threats to acquire Greenland, as well as his tariffs.

Newsom also attended the U.N. climate policy summit in Belém, Brazil, in November.