World Leaders React to Trump's Tariffs
Trump is not imposing his new 10% global tariff rate on goods from top trading partners Canada and Mexico while his previous order remains in place for up to 25% tariffs on many goods from the two countries over border control and fentanyl trafficking issues, the White House said in a fact sheet.
Here are some reactions from top officials and governments around the world: EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT URSULA VON DER LEYEN "President Trump's announcement of universal tariffs on the whole world, including the EU, is a major blow to the world economy.Uncertainty will spiral and trigger the rise of further protectionism. The consequences will be dire for millions of people around the globe.We are already finalizing a first package of countermeasures in response to tariffs on steel. And we are now preparing for further countermeasures, to protect our interests and our businesses if negotiations fail."
CHINA COMMERCE MINISTRY "China firmly opposes this and will take countermeasures to safeguard its own rights and interests.There are no winners in trade wars, and there is no way out for protectionism. China urges the US to immediately lift unilateral tariffs and properly resolve differences with its trading partners through dialogue on an equal footing."
JAPAN PRIME MINISTER SHIGERU ISHIBA "The US government's broad trade restrictions will have a significant impact not only on the economic relationship between Japan and the US, but also on the global economy and the multilateral trading system as a whole.We have serious concerns about the consistency of these measures with the WTO Agreement and the Japan-US Trade Agreement.We will continue to strongly urge the US to review its measures."
CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER MARK CARNEY "(Trump) has preserved a number of important elements of our relationship, the commercial relationship between Canada and the United States. But the fentanyl tariffs still remain in place, as do the tariffs for steel and aluminum.We are going to fight these tariffs with countermeasures, we are going to protect our workers, and we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7."
BRAZILIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY "The Brazilian government regrets the decision made by the North American government today, April 2, to impose additional tariffs of no more than 10% on all Brazilian exports to that country.The Brazilian government is evaluating all possible actions to ensure reciprocity in bilateral trade, including resorting to the World Trade Organization, in defense of legitimate national interests."
AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER ANTHONY ALBANESE "The (Trump) administration's tariffs have no basis in logic and they go against the basis of our two nations' partnership. This is not the act of a friend. Today's decision will add to uncertainty in the global economy and it will push up costs for American households."
SOUTH KOREAN ACTING PRESIDENT HAN DUCK-SOO "As the global trade war has become a reality, the government must pour all its capabilities to overcome the trade crisis."
NEW ZEALAND TRADE MINISTER TODD MCCLAY "New Zealand's interests are best served in a world where trade flows freely ... New Zealand's bilateral relationship with the US remains strong. We will be talking with the administration to get more information, and our exporters to better understand the impact this announcement will have."
SPANISH PRIME MINISTER PEDRO SANCHEZ "Spain will protect its companies and workers and will continue to be committed to an open world."
SWEDISH PRIME MINISTER ULF KRISTERSSON "We don't want growing trade barriers. We don't want a trade war ... We want to find our way back to a path of trade and cooperation together with the US, so that people in our countries can enjoy a better life."
SWISS PRESIDENT KARIN KELLER-SUTTER "(The Federal Council) will quickly determine the next steps. The country's long-term economic interests are paramount. Adherence to international law and free trade remain core values."
IRISH PRIME MINISTER MICHEAL MARTIN "The decision by the US tonight to impose 20% tariffs on imports from across the European Union is deeply regrettable. I strongly believe that tariffs benefit no one. My priority, and that of the government, is to protect Irish jobs and the Irish economy."
ITALIAN PRIME MINISTER GIORGIA MELONI "We will do everything we can to work towards an agreement with the United States, with the goal of avoiding a trade war that would inevitably weaken the West in favor of other global players."
MANFRED WEBER, PRESIDENT OF THE EPP, LARGEST PARTY IN EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT "To our American friends, today isn't liberation day - it's resentment day. Donald Trump's tariffs don't defend fair trade; they attack it out of fear and hurt both sides of the Atlantic. Europe stands united, ready to defend its interests, and open to fair, firm talks."
COLOMBIAN PRESIDENT GUSTAVO PETRO "We will only make US imports more expensive if they take away our jobs. But we won't raise tariffs if their goods help create higher-value jobs."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Regional tensions bring Turkiye and Armenia closer
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan last month paid a historic visit to Turkiye, marking the first official trip by an Armenian leader — aside from President Serzh Sargsyan's 2009 attendance at a football match in Turkiye. Pashinyan was received by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan at Dolmabahce Palace in Istanbul. The visit sought to foster the normalization process between Ankara and Yerevan that formally began in 2022 with the appointment of special envoys by both sides. The diplomatic efforts are being strongly supported at the leadership level. Erdogan and Pashinyan have met at several international summits in recent years. Pashinyan also visited Turkiye in 2023 to attend Erdogan's inauguration. As confirmed by Pashinyan, Ankara and Yerevan are now able to communicate directly, without relying on third-party intermediaries. Since assuming office in 2018, Pashinyan — who is seen as a pragmatic leader — has placed great importance on the normalization process with Turkiye. He has been trying to pursue a significant shift in Armenia's foreign policy, with economic incentives playing a critical role. He has increasingly engaged in high-level discussions and strategic partnerships with Western institutions, some of which Turkiye is also a part. For Armenia, Turkiye's membership of both the EU Customs Union and NATO is significant. However, the steps taken toward normalization in Turkish-Armenian relations, and Pashinyan's visit in particular, cannot be separated from the regional context, as the latter took place while Iran — a neighbor to both Turkiye and Armenia — was being hit by Israeli airstrikes. Like Turkiye, Armenia was deeply concerned about the escalating tensions unfolding on its doorstep. Armenia has faced heightened security and economic challenges due to this tension. Iran and Georgia are Armenia's only land gateways to international markets, given that the Turkish and Azerbaijani borders remain closed. More than 30 percent of Armenia's trade passes through Iran. Following Israel's strikes on Iran, Armenia's economy minister stated that Armenian goods were stuck at the Iranian border and warned that the country might face shortages of certain items. Pashinyan — who is seen as a pragmatic leader — has placed great importance on the normalization process with Turkiye. Dr. Sinem Cengiz Armenia has also been facing difficulties in the transit of its goods via Georgia. The situation with Tbilisi, combined with the Israel-Iran tensions, further raises the strategic importance and urgency of opening the border with Turkiye after decades of closure. Gaining access to new markets via Turkiye, which serves as an energy hub connecting Europe and Central Asia, could drastically reduce Armenia's dependence on both Iran and Russia. A senior diplomat from Armenia's Foreign Ministry recently shared Yerevan's approach with me, saying: 'Opening the border with Turkiye, a member of the EU Customs Union, is significant for Armenia's regional connectivity and further engagement with Western institutions.' The Turkish side sees opening the border as an opportunity to increase economic integration with Armenia, while also viewing the country as a key route to the so-called Middle Corridor, which would directly connect Turkiye to Central Asia. Armenia and Turkiye also share a common concern over the potential influx of people from Iran due to the tensions with Israel. In January, for the first time since its independence in 1991, Armenia assumed full control of the Agarak border checkpoint along its border with Iran. Armenian border guards replaced Russia's Border Service, which had managed the checkpoint for more than three decades. This transition reflected broader geopolitical shifts related to Armenia's approach to Russia. Historically, Yerevan's security was linked to its alliance with Moscow, whose credibility as Armenia's security guarantor has suffered a significant blow in recent years. Turkiye and Armenia also share common concerns about the Israel-Iran conflict spilling into the South Caucasus — a region in which several countries have significant stakes. Armenia, which is aligned with Iran, condemned the Israeli strikes, while Azerbaijan, a close Israeli ally, reassured Tehran it would not allow Tel Aviv to use its territory to launch operations against Iran. Turkiye and Armenia share common concerns about the Israel-Iran conflict spilling into the South Caucasus. Dr. Sinem Cengiz However, as Iranian influence wanes and Russia remains preoccupied with Ukraine, Turkiye's influence in the South Caucasus is growing. Within this context, Ankara is working behind the scenes to prevent any renewed tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Ankara is also pushing Baku to sign a peace agreement with Yerevan, as the path to Turkiye's normalization with Armenia goes through a peace agreement between Baku and Yerevan. It has been reported that Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev will meet in Dubai this month to negotiate this long-awaited peace deal — which is to be welcomed by Ankara. Within this context, Armenia is recalibrating its defense and foreign policy approach to achieve both economic relief and a sense of security. Turkiye fits squarely into this new approach. Armenia is effectively seeking to end its landlocked status by opening its border with Turkiye, breaking away from Russia's sphere of influence by engaging in strategic partnerships with Western institutions, and preventing any negative repercussions of the Israel-Iran tensions on its security and economy. Unlike previous moves toward normalization, this time, in addition to goodwill, the escalating tensions in the region serve as a significant driving force. Like Turkiye, Armenia has to navigate the volatile environment caused by the Israel-Iran tensions with a balanced policy — a task that may become difficult if regional tensions flare again. However, their shared concerns and mutual interest in the stability of the South Caucasus could help mitigate the repercussions and pave the way toward normalization.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Pentagon has undermined Trump's goal of Ukraine peace
The US Department of Defense halted deliveries of Patriot air defense systems and other precision weapons to Ukraine last week following an internal assessment of its own stockpiles. Some of these weapons were already in Poland waiting for final transfer. The news came as a shock. While the Trump administration has taken a more nuanced approach to Ukraine and Russia than its predecessor, it had continued the flow of weapons to Kyiv as leverage in its effort to bring Moscow to the negotiating table. The timing could not be worse. Russia has launched some of the most intense aerial bombardments in the history of its invasion, including night-time barrages of more than 400 drones and ballistic missiles at a time. For Ukraine, already stretched thin on ammunition and air defense capabilities, this freeze in support threatens to make a difficult situation even more dire. The decision also undermines President Donald Trump's stated goal of ending the war. On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly emphasized the need to bring Russia and Ukraine to a negotiated settlement and made it a cornerstone of his foreign policy. But six months after he returned to the Oval Office, the war appears no closer to resolution than it was on his first day. There is no doubt the president has been sincere in his desire to bring the two sides to the table. He has called for a ceasefire and for negotiations, and Ukraine has signaled its willingness to work with the White House. The Kremlin, however, has been far more reluctant. Trump has hinted at increasing pressure on Russia to engage more seriously in diplomacy. That's precisely why the Pentagon's decision to halt aid is so surprising — and damaging. Trump appeared to have geopolitical momentum on his side. His bold military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, an action many believed he would never take, restored a sense of American credibility abroad, especially after what many saw as the Biden administration's appeasement of Tehran. Then, at the NATO summit in The Hague, Trump had a major win. He convinced European allies to commit to significantly increased defense spending, including a landmark pledge to reach 5 percent of GDP by 2035 — spending levels not seen even during the Cold War. At that same summit, a Ukrainian journalist asked Trump about the urgent need for air defense systems to protect civilians from Russian missile attacks. The president responded with genuine emotion. He said he would return to Washington and explore the possibility of sending more Patriot missile interceptors to Ukraine. Days later, however, his own Department of Defense contradicted both his words and apparent intent. There is no doubt Trump has been sincere in his desire to bring the two sides to the table. Luke Coffey This is not the first time the Pentagon has acted out of sync with the president. In February, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered a temporary halt to military assistance to Ukraine without coordinating with the White House. That pause lasted only a few days, but it rattled allies and partners across Europe and sent shockwaves through Kyiv. At the time, the White House quietly aired its frustration. Now, it appears the Pentagon may be repeating the same mistake. This latest move underscores a deeper problem: an ideological struggle within the Trump administration over US foreign policy. On one side are the isolationists who believe America should retreat from global commitments and focus exclusively on domestic concerns. They see little value in supporting Ukraine or NATO, or even maintaining a robust defense budget, since their vision of America's role in the world is minimal at best. Opposing them are the so-called prioritizers, who believe the US should focus nearly all of its strategic energy and resources on Asia, and particularly on countering the growing threat from China. In this view, America must prepare for a potential conflict over Taiwan, even if doing so means deprioritizing Europe or the Middle East. Every dollar spent and every missile deployed must serve the Indo-Pacific theater first. Both factions, for different reasons, see Ukraine as a distraction, so when aid is withheld, both are satisfied. As long as this internal tug-of-war continues, behind closed doors and in public, the president will struggle to implement a coherent and effective foreign policy. Trump may be most comfortable dealing with issues such as trade, the economy, and border security, but the reality is that global leadership also requires strategic clarity on defense and diplomacy. To succeed, he needs a team aligned with his vision — not one that undermines it. Now is the time for Trump to reassert control and redouble efforts to end Russia's war in a way that promotes lasting European stability and delivers a fair, just outcome for Ukraine. Achieving this will probably be one of the most difficult foreign policy challenges of his presidency. But he cannot meet that challenge with a divided administration. He needs a unified front — particularly from his Department of Defense. The sooner Trump reverses the Pentagon's decision to halt military aid to Ukraine, the better the prospects for peace. Time is of the essence, and any further delay could cost lives — and squander the strategic gains he has worked hard to achieve.
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
Why Europe can postpone climate justice no longer
After considerable delay, the European Commission has presented its legislative proposal to set a 90 percent target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, which will now be deliberated by the European Parliament and the Council. The bloc had already positioned itself as a climate leader, setting an ambitious 2030 emissions reduction goal that it is on track to meet. But with its new focus on regaining economic competitiveness and military might, the EU is grappling with a practical and moral question: will it continue to set the global standard for climate action? To be sure, the EU stands to benefit from adopting the 2040 target. Increasing its use of renewables would bolster energy security, reduce geopolitical risk, and stabilize its economy, owing to lower and more predictable power costs. But the bloc's commitment to decarbonization also has global implications. The clean energy transition offers the best chance of achieving broad based prosperity, and the world cannot afford for the EU to reverse course. Such leadership is especially important as countries finalize their updated climate action plans for the next five years, ahead of COP30 in Belem, Brazil, in November. What may seem like a technocratic exercise in emissions accounting affects countless lives and livelihoods, particularly in the Global South countries that have borne the brunt of a crisis largely created by the Global North. Communities across Africa are already suffering the devastating effects of climate change, including heat waves, crop failures, and coastal erosion. Last year, flash floods affected more than one million people in Nigeria. In Uganda, where I live, families are losing their homes and land to landslides triggered by heavy rains. Despite contributing the least to global warming, we are facing its most severe consequences, and falling deeper into poverty as a result. Moreover, many Global South governments are caught in a debt trap, with high interest payments limiting their ability to invest in climate adaptation and mitigation. Their inability to manage worsening climate conditions could result in up to 216 million people being internally displaced by 2050, including nearly 86 million internal climate-change migrants in sub-Saharan Africa. With cross-border climate induced migration also likely to increase, EU leaders must decide whether to confront the root causes of displacement or treat its symptoms by fortifying the bloc's borders — an undertaking that could prove more challenging and costly than decarbonization. Increasing its use of renewables would bolster EU energy security, reduce geopolitical risk, and stabilize its economy. Vanessa Nakate Failure to adopt the 2040 target would be a betrayal of the people and countries with the least influence and the most to lose. But I do not expect the bloc to choose between its own interests and those of the Global South, because this target benefits everyone. Cutting emissions by 90 percent by 2040 would save the EU more than €850 billion in fossil-fuel imports, eliminate its dependence on foreign gas supplies, and create two million new jobs in green industries. This is why many European businesses and investors support the target. It would also substantially reduce household energy bills and toxic air pollution, improving financial and human health across the continent. Maintaining an ambitious climate policy would also offer the EU an opportunity to rebuild trust with Global South governments, many of which have grown disillusioned with the Western liberal order after broken climate finance promises, foreign aid cuts, vaccine hoarding during the COVID-19 pandemic, and limited support for the newly operationalized loss and damage fund. African countries, in particular, are closely following the EU's actions, wondering whether years of lofty rhetoric about climate justice will finally translate into decisive action. The signs are not promising. France, despite playing a crucial role in the ratification of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, is now leading efforts to weaken the 2040 target. Instead of displaying climate vision and leadership when they are needed most, Emmanuel Macron's government has argued for 'outsourcing' up to 7 percent of the emissions reduction to non-EU countries by incorporating carbon credits into the target proposal. Such indifference has a high cost. If the EU fails to submit an ambitious plan, it risks undermining the global fight against climate change. Other countries may follow the bloc's example and water down their own commitments. The chance to set bold collective goals ahead of COP30 will be lost, and Europe's credibility, especially among climate-vulnerable countries, will take another hit. Climate justice cannot be postponed any longer. The EU's decision on the 2040 target will shape the outcome of COP30 and, by extension, the crucial next phase of climate action. The world is watching to see if Europe will take responsibility for its historic role in the climate crisis and invest in a safe and dignified future for everyone. Given a chance to draw a clear line between past and future — between cowardice and courage — the EU must make the right choice.
