President Trump gives bungled response when asked about when tariffs will return after 90-day pause
A week after implementing his so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April, which sent the stock market tumbling, the president announced a pause to his plan, delaying the 'reciprocal' levies from taking effect for 90 days. That pause is set to expire on Wednesday, July 9.
Speaking at Morristown Municipal Airport on Sunday evening, a reporter asked Trump to clarify when the tariff rates are set to resume: 'Mr. President, do the tariff rates change at all on July 9 or do they change on August 1?'
Perhaps not hearing clearly over the roar of Air Force One nearby, Trump leaned in and asked the reporter to repeat her question. He then didn't answer the question at all.
'They're going to be tariffs. The tariffs are going to be the tariffs. I think we'll have most countries done by July 9. Either a letter or a deal,' he said.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick then stepped in: 'But they go into effect August 1. Tariffs go into effect August 1.' Lutnick added: 'But the president is setting the rates and the deals right now.'
Earlier in the day, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said about 100 letters will be sent to small countries 'where we don't have very much trade,' many of which are 'already at the baseline 10 percent' rate.
"President Trump's going to be sending letters to some of our trading partners saying that if you don't move things along, then on August 1 you will boomerang back to your April 2 tariff level. So I think we're going to see a lot of deals very quickly," Bessent told CNN's 'State of the Union' on Sunday.
The president has already touted trade agreements with the United Kingdom, China, and Vietnam.
"We are close to several deals. As always, there's a lot of foot-dragging on the other side," Bessent said. "I would expect to see several big announcements over the next couple of days."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
We banned cigarette ads for the good of public health – fossil fuels must be next
There was a time when doctors in both the United States and the UK were only too happy to promote 'the health benefits of smoking '. From the 1920s right through to the 1950s, actors were taken on to play the part of doctors to promote different cigarette brands, with the companies vying in their claims for the level of support they had among the medical profession, as in 'more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette'. Today, this sounds completely outlandish. But I'm reminded that my own father, an eminent surgeon here in the UK, would have been completely comfortable about these adverts. As someone who smoked cigarettes (and then a pipe) enthusiastically for 60 of his 90-year lifespan, he was slow to embrace the increasingly authoritative research links between smoking and cancer. It was clear to me, as a rebellious teenager, that he was a complete addict. As was my mother. As was my sister. And brother. Unfortunately, many people are still addicted to nicotine today. But it's our addiction to fossil fuels that is causing by far the greatest damage to people and the planet. Improbably, back in 2006, it was the then US president, George W Bush, who acknowledged in his State of the Union address that 'we have a serious problem'. 'America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.' He was particularly concerned about imports from Iran. What comes around … That's why today's debate in Parliament is so important. MPs are discussing a petition calling for a ban on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship, much like the existing bans on tobacco advertising. The petition, signed by more than 110,000 people, argues that such advertisements 'encourage the use of products and sponsorship promotes a positive reputation and creates a social licence of trust and acceptability'. The debate reflects growing public concern about the legitimacy of fossil fuel companies sponsoring cultural, sporting and educational events. Societal addiction is even more of a problem than individual addiction. And those whose job it is today to reinforce that collective addiction to fossil fuels – through advertising, public relations, marketing and sponsorship – are no less reprehensible than those agencies which profited so handsomely from promoting cigarettes over many, many decades. It's a surreal situation we find ourselves in. Governments are committed in principle – with varying degrees of ambition, integrity and policy consistency – to transitioning away from fossil fuels, by far the most important priority in terms of getting to grips with the climate crisis. Yet their actions belie that intent at every turn. To cite but one example, government subsidies to fossil fuel companies in 2023 amounted to an astonishing $1.4 trillion. And this is just the tip of the problem, as the level of advertising by fossil fuel companies at the Formula 1 British Grand Prix at Silverstone at the weekend demonstrated. The easiest way to understand the astonishing reach of the fossil fuel incumbency is to see it as a global imperial power, operating in every corner of the Earth, regardless of the political status of countries – whether democracies, autocracies or failing states – subject only to partial and ineffective regulation by those countries once they've been effectively 'captured'. This is achieved by the limitless amounts of money and other inducements the industry has deployed throughout that time to persuade politicians where their best interests lie. Equally limitless amounts of money are available for marketing and advertising campaigns of every description, for sponsorship arrangements and for high‑profile charitable activities. What is even more extraordinary is that none of these companies has ever, at any stage in their history, been required to pay for the social and environmental costs incurred in bringing their products to market. Governments have simply permitted them to 'externalise' the cost of all those billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. That doesn't mean those costs disappear: it means that they're paid by individuals and communities affected by their often grotesque polluting activities, by the environment – in the form of pollution of soil, water and forests – and, of course, by future generations. Which is why Elisa Morgera, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, is now urging the UN General Assembly to support a total ban on both lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel industry. She is pressing for its continuing, pernicious misrepresentations about the reality of the climate crisis to be criminalised. Emphasising the obligation that all states have to inform their citizens about climate change, she could not have been clearer that the 'fossil-fuel playbook' needs to be completely shredded. At the heart of her report to the UN General Assembly is the conviction that continuing to promote fossil fuels – directly and indirectly – represents an astonishing betrayal of young people today. There's never been an incumbency as pervasive and powerful as this one. It's not just the companies themselves, comprehensively dominating the visible foreground, that make up this incumbency, but just behind the scenes there is an even more extensive network of financial and professional interests that provides the funding; facilities; insurance, legal and consultancy services; and the vast array of transport, infrastructure, logistics and retail businesses that distribute and sell the industry's products. Whichever way you look at it, this is indeed such a shocking example of intergenerational injustice that it's hard to believe the level of invective young climate campaigners are subjected to simply for trying to get today's 'grown‑ups' to start paying a bit more attention. Any suggestion that the industries primarily responsible for these current and future bills should now be held to account – both politically and financially – is still peremptorily dismissed as unworldly or, worse yet, as prejudicial to shareholder interests and to capitalism itself. We must start to address these issues. A ban on fossil fuel advertising – which is already being adopted by cities like Edinburgh and Sheffield, and by other local authorities – would be an ideal first step. This would mean, for example, ending fossil fuel sponsorship of our leading cultural institutions – including BP's long-standing sponsorship of the British Museum and Science Museum; its arrangement with the Tate galleries ended in 2017 after protests by climate change activists. It would also put a stop to advertising by oil and gas companies on the London Underground. Only then can we say we're getting serious about undertaking the much‑needed total transformation in our relationship with the fossil fuel industry.
Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE The inside story of why Taylor Swift spectacularly snubbed Kamala Harris on the campaign trail
Despite whispers and building anticipation that she could join Beyonce or Lady Gaga for the biggest political and pop culture spectacle in history, she never showed up on the campaign trail in support of Kamala Harris. Despite a debate night endorsement of Harris in September that sent Donald Trump spiraling, Taylor Swift decided to sit out the remainder of the 2024 cycle. The forthcoming book, 2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America, reveals new details about who's at fault for there never being a Harris-Swift moment on the campaign trail that could've captivated and motivated the pop star's legion of fans. 'Swift proved to be a special challenge. Staffers who worked on celebrity appearances were instructed not to make any outreach to her universe; Doug Emhoff was handling it,' wrote journalists Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager and Isaac Arnsdorf. Emhoff, the authors explained, had an in with Swift's team. 'Before Harris became vice president, Emhoff had had a lucrative career as an entertainment lawyer in Los Angeles,' they wrote. 'He and Swift's lawyer, Doug Baldridge, were both partners at the firm Venable.' Emhoff, the authors wrote, had reached out to Baldridge to 'convey that the campaign would appreciate any efforts the pop star could make to help Harris.' 'Baldridge said Swift would do what Swift thought was best,' they said. Taylor Swift surprised the Harris campaign by endorsing the Democratic nominee directly following her September 10 debate against President Donald Trump. Second gentleman Doug Emhoff was the only person allowed to do outreach to Swift's team On September 10, Harris stepped onstage in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for a first and only debate against the GOP nominee, former President Donald Trump. 'Minutes after the debate ended, Taylor Swift surprised the campaign with a full- throated endorsement posted on her Instagram,' the authors noted. 'She shared a photo of her with her cat, Benjamin Button, and signed it "Childless Cat Lady," a dig at J.D. Vance.' With no audience in the actual debate hall, the Harris campaign had set up shop at the Cherry Street Pier, an old warehouse on the Delaware River converted into art galleries and a performance space. 'Harris asked if she should mention the endorsement when she spoke to supporters at a watch party,' the authors said. 'They said that would sound too thirsty, but agreed to change her walk-off song to Swift's "The Man."' The mood in the room was electric - and it only seemed a matter of time before Swift, herself, would make some sort of appearance along Harris' side. Swift famously didn't step into politics until the 2018 campaign cycle - endorsing Tennessee Senate candidate Phil Bredesen and Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper - and expressing remorse in the documentary Taylor Swift: Miss Americana for not doing more to help Democrat Hillary Clinton beat Trump in 2016. She endorsed Joe Biden via social media in 2020 - though the COVID-19 pandemic and Biden's COVID-conscious campaign strategy meant that celebrity engagement was limited. But the Harris campaign 'dedicated huge resources in the final month to massive rallies with celebrity guests,' the authors noted. 'Harris and Walz said they were bringing joy back to politics, and massive celebrity-filled rallies - Meghan Thee Stallion performed in Atlanta, Maggie Rogers in Ann Arbor, Gracie Abrams and Mumford & Sons in Madison, Wisconsin - were key to that strategy.' Beyonce - who had been rumored to appear alongside Harris at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August - finally hit the campaign trail at a special abortion rights rally in the songstress' hometown of Houston, Texas in late October. 'But privately, some campaign staff raised concerns that the major rallies may not be worth the millions of dollars they cost to stage or the staff investment,' the authors said. 'There was scant evidence that the rallies were persuading voters or necessarily boosting turnout.' Federal Election Commission filings later showed the Harris paid Beyonce's production company, Parkwood Production Media LLC, $165,000 for that event. There were also concerns about some of the celebrity assignments - such as sending Bruce Springsteen, whose fans are predominantly white, to Clarkston, Georgia, where the city's population is 70 percent black and 50 percent foreign-born. 'The predominantly white press corps seemed more interested in Springsteen's performance than the 23,000 mostly black attendees,' the authors wrote. Still, the celeb-filled Harris-Walz campaign carried on. And still no Taylor. In the final hours before Election Day, there was some evidence that a Swift appearance may finally be happening. On Monday, November 4, Harris was heading to Pennsylvania and would door-knock with volunteers in Reading, the closest city to Swift's birthplace. 'Rumors flew that the town's most famous daughter, Taylor Swift, would join Harris there or perform at a last rally in Philadelphia,' the authors said. 'Low-level Harris aides did nothing to tamp down the speculation.' Instead the final night featured performances by 2 Chainz in Raleigh, Christina Aguilera in Las Vegas and Jon Bon Jovi in Detroit, which the authors called 'another head-scratcher for many black voters.' Reprising the role she played in 2016 and 2020, Lady Gaga was the main act for the final event, performing songs in front of the Rocky steps at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Emhoff had been told that Swift would do what Swift thought best. 'Nothing more than the endorsement ever materialized,' the authors said. A spokesperson for Swift did not respond to the Daily Mail's request for comment.
Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Las Vegas sees fall in tourists as 'ridiculous prices' hit
Las Vegas 's high prices could be putting off potential tourists, according to new visitor figures. Tourist numbers have fallen every month this year with 6.5 per cent fewer visitors than in 2024, according to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. International arrivals at Harry Reid Airport were 8.7 per cent lower in May than the same month in 2024. It is thought that Sin City's soaring prices could be to blame for its falling visitor numbers. A visitor recently shared her shock after she was charged $26/£19.11 for a bottle of Fiji water from the minibar in her room at the Aria Resort & Casino. And a British magician was also left outraged after he was billed $74.31/£54.63 for two drinks at Sphere in Las Vegas. Anthony Curtis, publisher of the Las Vegas Advisor website, told The Times: 'On the Strip, people get taken for a ride. 'Once they get here they're like, "I've had enough of this crap, I'm tired of being treated like this. I'm tired of having to pay these ridiculous prices".' The Vegas expert explained that many casinos have 'turned their back on the middle market' in order to focus on more affluent tourists. A 2024 study found that the average income of Las Vegas holidaymakers is now $93,000/£68,365, with many budget travellers priced out of the gambling capital. In a Reddit post, a person who recently visited Vegas describes the city as 'amazing' but 'absurdly priced'. The user writes: 'Walking around the different themed casinos was like a fever dream. Sadly I felt like a spectator instead of a participant. I have honestly never been to a place that was more absurdly priced.' They claim they had to spend $30/£22 on a glass of house wine and were charged $50/£36 for two bottles of water from the minibar. On another Reddit thread, a user says Las Vegas is 'extortionately expensive'. They wrote: 'I live in a very high cost of living area. 'Vegas is extortionately expensive. Shows. Restaurants. Everything is far more expensive in Vegas than here.' Meanwhile, another commenter says: 'I used to love going Vegas, but the last few times I had sticker shock on everything. 'It doesn't feel like a relaxing, exciting vacation when you're price gouged up to your ears and come home feeling robbed.' However, another traveller claims it is still possible to enjoy Vegas on a budget. They said: 'People come to Vegas expecting champagne on a beer budget. 'You can have an amazing time in Vegas on any budget, but if your budget is on the lower end, then you may have to forego some experiences and types of restaurants.' And another user writes: 'Yes Vegas is expensive, but it's a high end destination in a tourist area and you're getting some of the best food and service in the world.'
