Trump 'very busy' rushing backdoor deals with ONE day left to new tariff doomsday as coffee, cars and wine face major price increases
Trump announced he had reached an agreement with South Korea, claiming to having scored $350 billion in U.S. investments 'selected by myself,' as well as with Pakistan.
Treasury Secretary Howard Lutnick added late Wednesday that the U.S. had secured deals with Cambodia and Thailand as well. And on Thursday, Trump said he had hatched a deal with Mexico for 25 percent tariffs on cars and a 50 percent levy on steel, aluminum and copper for 90 days.
But it looks like rough straits for the U.S. neighbor to the north, with Canada 's recognition of Palestine statehood triggering the ire of the president.
'That will make it very hard for us to make a trade deal with them. Oh Canada,' he posted.
That put the total number of deals announced at a dozen, with a mix between formal signed agreements and announced frameworks. It was still far short of the '90 deals in 90 days' touted by Trump trade advisor Peter Navarro back in April.
'We are very busy in the White House today working on Trade Deals,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday evening. 'I have spoken to the Leaders of many Countries, all of whom want to make the United States 'extremely happy.''
Once again, there were signs that the store was open for deals, 'frameworks,' and new investment commitments, along with presidential threats of massive tariffs.
The president repeated his typical take-it-or-leave it posture, leaving India's fate to twist in the wind. 'We'll see what happens,' he said Wednesday with his trademark ambiguity.
The latest trade drama comes after Trump announced a new deal with the European Union on his trip to Scotland.
He reassured markets that the EU would follow through with grand pledges of more than $600 billion in new U.S. investments.
Trump has been using the deadline – and the threats of high U.S. tariffs he has announced publicly – to try to leverage the opening of foreign markets while bringing down the tariffs paid on imports.
To sell the push to Americans, he has been touting new tariff revenues, with $150 billion collected in July, while floating new rebate checks.
The president said he was meeting with a delegation from South Korea, which has sought to lower the threatened 25 percent tariff on cars, semiconductors, and household products.
Trump has been hammering Brazil, a member of the BRICS block that he said exists to battle the U.S. dollar.
On Wednesday, the administration hiked the tariff on Brazil to 50 percent by citing an 'unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.'
Since Brazil supplies more than a third of U.S. coffee, analysts forecast the 50 percent tariff could add roughly 25 cents more per cup within the coming months.
If deals with auto-exporting countries fail, U.S. tariffs could add $4,700 to a vehicle's price tag.
The 20 percent tariff negotiated on EU wines mean bottles could spike by $4 each if the full hike is passed on to the consumer, according to hicork.com.
Trump has been mixing trade and politics and blasting the country's handling of the prosecution of ousted conservative leader Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally.
But a new White House fact sheet carves out a list of exceptions – signaling a wariness of a sweeping policy that could disrupt U.S. markets.
Earning exceptions are silicon metal, which is used in solar cells, as well as civilian aircraft, pig iron, wood pulp, tin ore, metallurgical grade alumina, precious metals, energy, and fertilizers.
The status of India, the world's fourth-largest economy and a strategic partner to counter a rising China, was murky.
Trump posted on Truth Social Wednesday that India is 'our friend' yet its tariffs are 'far too high,' while chiding the country for the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary trade barriers of any country.'
'Also, they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia's largest buyer of energy, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to stop the killing in Ukraine.'
That led him to say India would pay a 25 percent tariff, plus a 'penalty' beginning August 1.
At the same time, the Trump administration announced a deal with India's longtime rival, Pakistan, rooted in developing Pakistan's oil reserves.
'Who knows, maybe they'll be selling oil to India some day!,' he quipped.
It was the most concrete demonstration of the 'secondary tariffs' he threatened to impose on Russia for its brutal war on its neighbor, after spending months repositioning away from continuous support for Ukraine in his push to bring an end to the war.
He criticized so-called BRICS countries, which include India, as 'anti the United States. 'They sell a lot to us, but we don't buy from them.'
Japan's deal with Trump to open markets and have the country pay 15 percent tariffs on exports to the U.S. intensified the pressure on the South Koreans to make a deal.
Officials in Europe indicated that alcohol and wine were left out of Trump's 15 percent tariff agreement with the EU, creating uncertainty for a market with $1 billion in sales to the U.S.
The clock is ticking for those countries who haven't been able to resolve differences and get to a framework.
On Thursday, the president is anticipated to sign executive orders setting higher tariffs for those who haven't gotten a deal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump has taken bullying to a whole new level – and not just with tariffs
You know that famous bit of chaos theory where a butterfly flutters its wings in the Amazon and a hurricane results in another part of the world? It's the idea that a minute change in complex interlinking structures can have huge consequences elsewhere. Well, forget butterflies in the Amazon and replace it with an electronic ankle tag put on a 70 year old Brazilian bloke who was considered a flight risk, and the whirlwind it has produced thousands of miles north in Washington DC. The 70 year old is Jair Bolsonaro, the former president of Brazil who is facing prison for his attempts to mount a coup to stop Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking over the reins of power in 2023 after the Brazilian general election. Donald Trump and Bolsonaro back in the day were kindred spirits: swashbuckling, anti-establishment wrecking balls who were going to make their respective countries great again, even if that meant refusing to accept the results of each country's respective democratic elections. Now this won't be the first sentence written which has the words Trump and chaos alongside each other. The first six months of his presidency have given endless examples of surreal moments. Some might argue that tariffs policy, where import penalties have gone up and down with dizzying rapidity, is a prime example of chaos theory. Just look at what has unfolded this week. Dozens of countries have been punished for failing to reach agreement with the US. We've seen a small section of Amazon rainforest felled for newsprint to explain the tariffs policy. The arguments have become familiar. America has been ripped off by its friends and neighbours for too long, with non-tariff barriers by all and sundry putting the US at a trading disadvantage. Only by the US imposing tariffs will those trade imbalances be corrected. And at Trump's famous (or maybe that should be infamous) 'liberation day' event in the White House rose garden the size of the tariff to be imposed was in direct correlation with the size of the trade deficit. It was a blunt instrument and terribly calculated, but you could see the theory. So what has this to do with Jair Bolsonaro? Well, President Trump has now imposed Brazil with crippling 50 per cent tariffs on all goods exported to the US that will remain in place unless and until the charges against Bolsonaro are dropped. But hang on, I hear you say, aren't tariffs imposed depending on size of the trade deficit (and between Brazil and the US there is more or less no surplus or deficit on either side)? And what the hell business is it of Donald Trump to interfere in the judicial independence of another country? Isn't this the independent supreme court in Brasilia going about its work – wheels of justice and all that? Yes, I grant you, these are good questions. But this is becoming the preferred weapon of an authoritarian president: impose blunt force trauma by thwacking over the head with devastating financial penalties if you don't do what I want. It's not just Brazil. Canada too is now facing increased tariffs from 25 up to 35 per cent on certain goods. Why? Because it has announced that – like the UK – it will recognise Palestine if certain conditions aren't met by the Israeli government. If you're next question is 'why isn't he threatening the same to us seeing as we are in pretty much the same boat as Mark Carney's government in Ottawa?' then all I can offer you is a shrug emoji. The former US president, Theodore Roosevelt, used to talk about the 'bully pulpit' enjoyed by the inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. By it he meant a president's unrivalled ability to shape the national conversation. When you spoke from that pulpit you had the ability to command the nation's attention and bully your enemies in a way they never could to you. Trump has taken that to a whole different level. There isn't much that is under-reported about the doings of Donald Trump in these first six months in the White House, but the shakedown – and it's hard to know what other word to use – of some of America's biggest law firms has had scant attention. On the most spurious grounds Trump threatened to ban them from doing all government work worth billions of dollars unless they agreed to do pro bono work for causes dear to the president's heart. A couple of firms have agreed to each do $125 million of free work for him. A lawyer I know at one of these firms said it was extortion, pure and simple. Harvard University is looking to make peace with Trump for $500 million. A number of media companies who had big mergers in the balance have coughed up millions of dollars after the president sued them on the most vexatious grounds. CBS, to their eternal discredit, have axed The Late Show with Stephen Colbert – because Colbert has been a longstanding thorn in Trump's side, and presumably executives at the parent company, Paramount, thought offering him up as roadkill would grease the wheels of their proposed multi-billion dollar -merger with Skydance Media. And guess what? It worked. The deal was given the go-ahead last week. Trump crowed about the demise of Colbert on Truth Social. Colbert who is always punchy addressed his being cancelled by saying to the president: 'Go f*** yourself'. Brazil for the moment is using more diplomatic language, but it is not bending either; a rare example of a country that is prepared to stand up to Trump. Canada has also to work out what it intends to do. Blackmail is an ugly word, but it does look as though regardless of whether you are a sovereign nation, an independent media company, an academic institution or a law firm, if you don't do what Donald Trump demands then you'd better be prepared for the consequences.
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
A day in the life, in photos, of one family's search for food in Gaza
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The inside story of the Murdoch editor taking on Donald Trump
The danger posed to Donald Trump was obvious. It was a story that not only drew attention to his links to a convicted sex offender, it also risked widening a growing wedge between the president and some of his most vociferous supporters. The White House quickly concluded a full-force response was required. It was Tuesday 15 July. The Wall Street Journal had approached Trump's team, stating it planned to publish allegations that Trump had composed a crude poem and doodle as part of a collection compiled for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday. The claim would have been damaging at any moment, but the timing was terrible for the president. The Epstein issue was developing into the biggest crisis of his presidency. Strident Maga supporters had been angered by the Trump administration's refusal to release government files relating to the late sex offender. Trump and his loyal press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, reached for the nuclear option. From Air Force One, they called the Journal's British editor-in-chief, Emma Tucker. They turned up the heat. Trump fumed that the letter was fake. Drawing wasn't his thing. Threats were made to sue, a course of action he had previously unleashed against other perceived media enemies. Washington DC began to hum with rumours that the Journal had a hot story on its hands. When no article materialised on Wednesday, some insiders perceived a growing confidence within the White House that their rearguard action had killed the story. They were wrong. DC's gossip mill had reached fever pitch by Thursday afternoon. The article finally emerged in the early evening. The city collectively stopped to read. In the hours that followed publication, the tension intensified. Trump revealed he had confronted Tucker, stating the story was 'false, malicious, and defamatory'. By Friday, he had filed a lawsuit suing the Journal and its owners for at least $10bn (£7.6bn). Tucker was at the centre of a maelstrom of stress and political pressure. It was the greatest challenge of her two and a half years heading the Journal, but far from the first. Two months in, having been parachuted in from London, she was fronting a campaign to have the reporter Evan Gershkovich returned from a Russian prison. She had also faced denunciations from journalists as she pushed through a modernisation drive that included brutal layoffs. Her plans focused on giving stories a sharper edge. On that metric, the Trump call suggested she was overachieving. Throughout her rise, an enigmatic quality has surrounded Tucker. Friends, colleagues and even some critical employees describe an amiable, fun and disarmingly grounded person. Many regarded her ability to retain such qualities in the treacherous terrain of the Murdoch empire as uncanny. The puzzle is exacerbated by the assumption she does not share the rightwing, pro-Brexit views of Rupert Murdoch, News Corp's legendary mogul. Yet Murdoch doesn't hand the Journal to just anyone. While the pro-Maga Fox News is his empire's cash cow, the Journal is his prized possession, giving him power and respectability in wider US political circles, as the Times does in the UK. So, why Tucker? The answer, according to people who have worked with her, is her possession of two qualities Murdoch rates highly: a willingness to make unpopular decisions for the sake of his businesses and a lust for a politically contentious scoop. Lionel Barber, a former Financial Times editor who also worked with Tucker for the FT in Brussels, said: 'She has a very sharp nose for a good news story – always did.' Tucker edited the University of Oxford's student magazine, the Isis, and joined the FT as a graduate trainee. 'She was a very convivial colleague, great company and good on a night out, but you knew when it came down to the work, she would nail it,' said a colleague. 'Very hard-nosed.' After stints in Brussels and Berlin, she won a powerful ally in Robert Thomson, then the FT's foreign editor. Thomson became a close friend to Murdoch, a fellow Australian, while working in the US for the FT. Thomson jumped ship to edit the Times of London in 2002 and in 2008 was dispatched to New York to oversee Murdoch's freshly acquired Journal. Before he went, Thomson helped lure Tucker to the Times, where she eventually became deputy editor. It was her elevation to editor of the Sunday Times in 2020 that seems to have impressed Murdoch. She showed a willingness to make difficult staffing decisions and widened the Sunday Times's digital ambitions, recasting the pro-Brexit paper to appeal to a wider audience. It was there she made an enemy of her first populist world leader. Just months into her tenure, the Sunday Times published a damning account of how Boris Johnson, the then UK prime minister, had handled the Covid pandemic. Downing Street erupted, taking the unusual step of issuing a lengthy rebuttal, denouncing 'falsehoods and errors'. The paper was called 'the most hostile paper in the country' to Johnson's government, despite having backed him at the previous year's election. Rachel Johnson, the former prime minister's sister, is one of Tucker's closest friends. 'I don't think she was ever reckless,' said one Sunday Times staffer. 'But I think she absolutely wanted to push the boundaries of getting as much into the public domain as she possibly could.' Many assumed Tucker's destiny was to edit the Times, but she was catapulted to New York to run the Journal at the start of 2023, immediately embarking on a painful streamlining process. Senior editors were axed. Pulitzer prize winners ditched. The DC bureau, the most powerful, was particularly targeted with layoffs and new leadership. One reporter spoke of people crying, another of the process's serious mental impact. It made Tucker's editorship divisive, leading to the extraordinary spectacle of journalists plastering her unoccupied office with sticky notes denouncing the layoffs. Even some who accepted cuts questioned the methods. Several pointed to the use of 'performance improvement plans', with journalists claiming they had been handed unrealistic targets designed to push them out the door. One described it as 'gratuitously cruel'. A Journal spokesperson said: 'Performance improvement plans are used to set clear objectives and create a development plan that gives an employee feedback and support to meet those objectives. They are being used exactly as designed.' The Tucker enigma re-emerged at the Journal, as staff noted the same mix of personable demeanour, enthusiasm for stories and willingness to make cuts. 'She's very emotionally intelligent – like, the 99th percentile,' said one. They said morale had improved more recently. New hires have followed. A cultural shift on stories also arrived. What emerges is a Tucker Venn diagram. At its overlapping centre lie stories with two qualities: they cover legitimate areas of public importance and aim squarely at eye-catching topics with digital reach. Tucker gave investigative reporters the examples of Elon Musk and China as two potential areas. Some complained the topics were 'clickbaity'. However, one journalist who had had reservations conceded: 'Musk turned out to be a pretty good topic.' Tucker's use of metrics around web traffic and time spent reading a story irked some reporters. Headlines were made more direct. Honorifics such as 'Mr' and 'Mrs' were ditched. There was a ban on stories having more than three bylines. 'She loosened a lot of the strictures that we had,' said one staffer. 'We're encouraged to write more edgy stories.' Positioning the Journal as a punchy rival to the liberal New York Times juggernaut may be a good business plan, but doing so while not falling foul of Murdoch's politics remains a delicate balance. 'There's a particular moment now where the Wall Street Journal has to prove its mettle as the pre-eminent business and financial markets media organisation,' said Paddy Harverson, a contemporary of Tucker's at the FT, now a communications executive. 'They're up against Trump, yet they have an historically centre-right editorial view. She has guided the paper along that tightrope really well.' Allies said Tucker laid a marker of intent in terms of punchy stories when she published an article on the alleged cognitive decline of Joe Biden. It was initially described as a 'hit piece' by the Biden administration. Some see the Epstein story as the latest evidence of Tucker's shift. There are journalists, however, who blame Trump's response for giving the story attention it simply didn't warrant. Others disagree about the extent of Tucker's changes, pointing to the Journal's history of breaking contentious stories, including the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels. However, the net result of the Epstein letter saga has been to draw attention to Tucker's attempted change in tone. Trump's lawsuit means the furore may only just be beginning. Many seasoned media figures assume Murdoch, who does not respond well to bullying, will not back down. However, neither billionaire will relish having to face depositions and disclosures. Any settlement from Murdoch could put pressure on Tucker, depending on its details. Dow Jones, which publishes the Journal, has said it has 'full confidence in the rigour and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit'. The courts may yet reject Trump's case. 'I don't think [Murdoch] will just flop over,' said Barber. 'The issue here is that Trump went around boasting that he killed the story … For an editor, that's very difficult. But I'm pretty damn confident there's no way [Tucker] would publish without having it properly sourced.'
