Trump's 11th week in office set to focus on tariffs as president touts 'Liberation Day'
"Liberation Day, I call it Liberation Day in America," Trump said from the White House last week, previewing April 2. "You'll be seeing tariffs. And I think I've been very fair. I have them set. But I think I've been very fair to countries that have really abused us economically for many, many decades."
For weeks, April 2 has been touted as the day when Trump's trade policy emphasizing "America First" will be laid out in earnest and end the U.S.' reliance on goods made overseas. He is expected to roll out his reciprocal tariff plan on Wednesday, which will likely match other countries' higher tariff rates and aims to counter other trade barriers like burdensome regulations, value-added taxes, government subsidies and exchange rate policies and to negotiate with some countries to reduce those barriers.
"For DECADES we have been ripped off and abused by every nation in the World, both friend and foe. Now it is finally time for the Good Ol' USA to get some of that MONEY, and RESPECT, BACK. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!" Trump wrote on Truth Social of April 2 earlier in March.
The tariffs on Wednesday follow Trump already leveling a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports, 25% tariffs on goods imported from Canada and Mexico, and a 20% tariff on goods from China.
Another 25% tariff on all cars imported into the U.S. will also take effect late Wednesday of this week.
Trump is also expected to hold another conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week after the two world leaders also spoke last week as Trump and his administration continue working to help hash out a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine amid the ongoing war.
On Sunday, however, Trump told NBC News that he is "pissed off" with Putin after the Russian president slammed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's leadership last week. Russia also carried out a series of attacks on Ukraine over the weekend amid ongoing talks to reach a potential peace agreement.
"If Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia's fault — which it might not be — but if I think it was Russia's fault, I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia," Trump told NBC News.
"That would be that if you buy oil from Russia, you can't do business in the United States," he continued. "There will be a 25% tariff on all oil, a 25- to 50-point tariff on all oil."
Trump added that his anger will "dissipate quickly" if Putin "does the right thing."
This week, Trump is also expected to assess options for his "Golden Dome" missile-defense project, according to Defense One. Trump signed an executive order in January to build a "a next-generation missile defense shield for the United States against ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles, and other next-generation aerial attacks." Trump dubbed the system the "Golden Dome" earlier this month, which is a play on Israel's air defense system, called the "Iron Dome."
Trump's 11th week in office follows a break-neck pace of executive orders and actions since Jan. 20. Trump has signed at least 106 executive orders alone, which surpasses the number of executive orders signed by his predecessors in their respective first years in office since the Carter administration.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
16 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Trying To Ban ICE Agents Wearing Masks
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A growing coalition of Democratic-led states is pushing legislation that would prohibit federal agents from wearing face coverings during immigration enforcement operations. California, New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have introduced bills that would require federal officers to display visible identification—with limited exceptions for safety or undercover purposes—as part of a progressive effort to increase transparency and limit the agency's expanded powers under the Trump administration. Why It Matters Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has come under increased criticism for deploying agents in plain clothes and face coverings during operations, a tactic officials say is necessary to protect agents and their families from threats. The agency's approach has drawn heightened scrutiny amid the Trump administration's aggressive push to deport millions of undocumented migrants, placing ICE at the center of a highly visible crackdown on immigration. What To Know At the federal level, House Democrats have introduced the No Anonymity in Immigration Enforcement Act, which would require ICE agents conducting enforcement operations within the United States to display clear identification—with limited exceptions for public safety threats. Exceptions would be permitted only in limited circumstances, such as when there is an imminent threat to the agent's life or risk of serious bodily harm or when protective gear is necessary for health or safety reasons. In any case where an exception is used, a supervisor must review and document the incident within 48 hours to assess whether it was justified and determine whether disciplinary action is warranted. Senate Democrats have introduced the VISIBLE Act, which mandates that agents from ICE and Customs and Border Protection wear legible identification showing their names and agency affiliations. It would also prohibit the use of most face coverings during operations. Democratic Senators Alex Padilla of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced the bill, saying the measure seeks to increase transparency and accountability in federal immigration enforcement. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons defended agents' continued use of face coverings, even as the agency faces mounting criticism for obscuring personnel identities during enforcement actions. "I've said it publicly before, I'm not a proponent of the masks. However, if that's a tool that the men and women of ICE to keep themselves and their family safe, then I will allow it," Lyons said on CBS's Face the Nation. Representative Laura Friedman of California said in a news release: "I am deeply concerned about the prospect of ICE agents continuing to go about immigration raids in plainclothes, masks, and without identifiers that indicate what agency they're representing. The rules governing law enforcement should extend to federal immigration agents." Federal agents in a hallway awaiting individuals exiting hearings at an immigration court in New York. Federal agents in a hallway awaiting individuals exiting hearings at an immigration court in New York. Andrea Renault/STAR MAX/IPx At the state level, California is leading the way with its No Secret Police Act, introduced in June by Democratic state Senators Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguín. Senate Bill 627 would prohibit all law enforcement officers operating in the state, including federal agents, from covering their faces during enforcement actions unless in specific, limited circumstances such as SWAT deployments, medical masking or undercover work. The California Senate Public Safety Committee advanced the bill last week, but it faces a legal gauntlet, particularly over whether a state can dictate how federal officers dress. In New York, Democratic Assemblymember Tony Simone introduced the Mandating End of Lawless Tactics (MELT) Act earlier this week. The MELT Act mirrors California's SB 627 by banning masks for state, local and federal officers, and it would require law enforcement officers to clearly display their names or badge numbers and ban most mask use during public duties. Violations would constitute misdemeanors. In Massachusetts, Democratic state Representative Jim Hawkins filed a similar bill on July 9, focused specifically on ICE personnel. He argues that ICE's use of face coverings in routine operations blurs the line between law enforcement and intimidation. In Pennsylvania, Democratic state Representatives Paul Friel and Rick Krajewski are preparing to introduce the Officer Visibility Act in early August. The bill would ban face coverings during public enforcement operations unless medically required or part of a covert investigation. What People Are Saying Tom Decker, a former director of ICE's New York field office, told Newsweek: "President Trump and his administration are doing exactly what he promised in his campaign, strengthening our borders and removing public safety threats from our communities, to include aliens in violation of our immigration laws." Representative Laura Friedman of California said in a statement shared with Newsweek: "I'll keep fighting to pass commonsense legislation, like the No Masks for ICE Act, to keep our communities safe." Scott Mechkowski, a retired ICE agent who worked for the agency between the mid-1990s and 2019, previously told Newsweek: "I think everyone knows the reasons for the masks. Every agent knows they would be doxxed [publicly identified] as would their families." John Sandweg, who served as acting director of ICE under former President Barack Obama from August 2013 to February 2014, previously told Newsweek: "If you're getting arrested by an officer or agent in a mask, especially if at that point they've not yet identified themselves as a federal officer, it creates a risk of bystanders thinking, rushing in to help, which could create the risk of violence or harm caused to the bystanders." Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, previously told Newsweek: "ICE officers are being doxed, physically assaulted, and attacked—in some cases, their families are even being threatened. Instead of spending their time further demonizing heroic ICE officers, Democrat politicians should dial back the rhetoric and tell their supporters to stop attacking law enforcement." Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told CBS: "It's for the safety of those individuals or the work that they're doing as far as protecting their identity so they can continue to do investigative work."
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
After $220 million Columbia deal, Trump promises more to come
After commending Columbia University for "agreeing to do what is right," President Trump indicates his pressure campaign to reshape prestigious colleges isn't stopping any time soon. WASHINGTON – After announcing a $220 million deal with Columbia University to restore its federal funding, President Donald Trump indicated his pressure campaign to reshape prestigious colleges isn't stopping anytime soon. Not long after the settlement was reached, he wrote on his social media platform that similar agreements with "Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming." Columbia, a selective and wealthy Ivy League school in New York City, on July 23 agreed to pay more than $220 million in fines over several years to the government for allegedly violating federal civil rights laws. Last year, the campus became the epicenter of student protests related to the Israel-Hamas war. At the time, the tense environment drew nationwide concern over a spike in antisemitic and anti-Muslim incidents. The heightened scrutiny also focused the ire of many conservative politicians, who have long accused higher education more broadly of being too left-leaning. Read more: How Columbia University became the epicenter of disagreement over the Israel-Hamas war Trump's criticisms of the campus, however, have extended far beyond its compliance with antidiscrimination protections. In March, he demanded that the school overhaul its hiring, admissions and teaching practices. Columbia's president, Claire Shipman, said the university would appoint an independent monitor to oversee the campus in conjunction with federal officials, and to ensure administrators are abiding by the terms of the deal. The 22-page agreement contains sweeping concessions from the college, including handing over admissions data to the independent monitor, new faculty appointments, conducting reviews of some academic departments and more greatly scrutinizing foreign student enrollment. In return, the Trump administration promised to reroute more than $400 million in paused federal funding, largely for research, back to the college. In an interview on CNN the morning after the arrangement was announced, Shipman indicated billions more dollars were at stake. "It's not just money for Columbia," she said. "This is about science. It's about curing cancer, cutting edge, boundary breaking science that actually benefits the country and humanity." The unprecedented agreement came weeks after the administration struck a separate accord with the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, another member of the Ivy League, to unfreeze $175 million in return for apologizing to swimmers who competed against a transgender athlete years ago. "I also want to thank and commend Columbia University for agreeing to do what is right," Trump wrote. "I look forward to watching them have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before!" Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Forget trade wars — the future isn't about physical goods, but data, ideas and services
Despite a U.S.-driven trade war with China, voters turning to populism across the globe and the risk of a recession, reports of globalization's demise are — at least for now — overblown. Washington's trade hawks would do well to read the signs. True, that may seem like pie in the sky. Messages from Washington are all about reshoring and decoupling of trade. As President Trump's reciprocal tariffs aims to reindustrialize the American economy, his vision is one of the manufacture of cars and smartphones moving away from Asia to assembly lines of obedient workers in America. But the chief engine of the U.S. economy is no longer found in physical factories. Instead, it lies in intangible investments, such as research and development, software, organizational structures and intellectual capital. These immaterial assets eclipse physical capital such as machinery and equipment, now accounting for over 60 percent of corporate capital investment and, by some estimates, 90 percent of the S&P 500's market value. This has led to new patterns of globalization, defined by invisible items — data, ideas, modern services and cross-border teams. As trade in physical goods began to sputter in the beginning of the 21st century, these invisible flows have soared over the past decade. They are largely immune to tariffs, decoupling and attacks of populist politicians. Even with chips nearshored, global U.S. companies like Qualcomm still earn a quarter of their profits by licensing ideas globally. Although the U.S. may start soon a full-blown trade war with the European Union, data flows between the two trade giants are set to soar in the next decade, according to the European Commission. And as U.S. multinationals exit China, they remain reliant on cross-border teams within these companies. Meanwhile, modern services trade has continued to grow by 10 percent well into 2024 without interruption. Contrary to common belief, intangible flows span both manufacturing and services. Take Coca-Cola. The multinational rarely produces any of its famous beverages anymore. Instead, it licenses its recipe to non-affiliated contract producers called bottlers, from whom it receives property income. Google runs on worldwide data flows to power its services globally. McKinsey predicts that by 2040, modern sectors such as cloud computing, shared autonomous vehicles, AI, space and biotechnology will account for 16 percent of global GDP, nearly double the share of today's leading sectors like industrial electronics and semiconductors, which currently make up 9 percent. These emerging sectors fuse manufacturing and services. These sectors are also rife with global intangible flows. Consider BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine. The underlying mRNA technology was licensed from the biochemist Katalin Karikó. Cloud‑based trial data zipped across borders and Pfizer's partnership turbo‑charged the research and development and scale‑up. The same blueprint was later licensed to Moderna for its vaccine. Intangible flows like these are powering modern U.S. multinational production networks and their supply chains. Just as a quarter to half of the trade in U.S. goods in the 20th century occurred within multinationals, so too will U.S. intangible flows mostly take place within global firms this century. These new flows clash with Trump's trade narrative. For starters, the American economy is well positioned to benefit, as it holds strong comparative advantages in these emerging industries. Second, they don't fit with populist views on the evils of trade deficits. Data, for instance, transcends borders as a global commodity, contributing neither to a country's trade deficit nor surplus. U.S. cross-border research and development and global teams remain largely unnoticed as an international flow. But their output has surged by respectively 95 and 30 percent since 2009, boosting income at home. Meanwhile, the U.S. has held the world's largest trade surplus in modern services for years, backing both high- and low-skilled jobs at home. The overall U.S. trade deficit in goods is not the problem, but rather the byproduct of America's greatest modern globalization success. These new globalization flows are difficult to grasp, hard to monetize and challenging to rein in behind countries' borders. They do not rely on ships, airplanes and trucks, but instead on the internet, human minds and collaboration. The paradox is that they have continued to grow despite the ongoing global turmoil, and they could put the U.S. in the driver's seat this century. The outlook for globalization is more positive than the populist doomsayers in Washington are claiming. However, new intangible flows rely on attracting the world's top talent, without undermining universities; on maintaining a predictable environment for global business, without disregarding court rulings; and on avoiding questionable policy initiatives, without blindsiding allies. If the U.S. truly wants to capitalize on its strengths, policymakers should change their global engagement strategy and embrace the next wave of globalization before it's too late.
