logo
How Trump pushed Republicans to yes — again and again — on his landmark bill

How Trump pushed Republicans to yes — again and again — on his landmark bill

The Hill2 days ago
On a late February evening, President Trump sealed the deal for the first vote on his 'one big, beautiful bill' with a conversation that brought one House Republican to tears.
And into the wee hours of Thursday morning, Trump's conversations with GOP holdouts helped unlock the final vote on the major legislation, getting it to the president's desk by his July 4 deadline.
Over and over as House Republicans crafted, debated and headed for topsy-turvy, history-making votes on Trump's marquee legislation, holdouts on both the moderate and conservative ends of the conference threatened to derail the bill.
Some aides and members thought that even after initial successes in the House, there was a chance it could all fall apart.
But at nearly every major juncture, Trump — working closely with House GOP leaders —- came in to close the deal, often without having to make concessions or alter his strategy.
'He truly does have, to steal a phrase from Steve Jobs, a reality distortion field,' one top Republican aide said. 'People come into that field, they go beyond the limits of what they think are possible for themselves.'
Conversations with more than a dozen House GOP members, Republican aides in Congress and the White House, and other sources over the last five months demonstrated that Trump's influence was essential to get the legislation across the finish line in the razor-thin House GOP majority that is notoriously difficult to keep united.
Months before the 2024 election, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and other House Republicans began preparing for the possibility of a Republican trifecta that could use the special budget reconciliation process to bypass the threat of a Democratic filibuster and deliver major Republican wish list items along party lines.
The wish list eventually turned into the most significant single Republican bill in decades that extended tax cuts, added new tax cuts, gave funding boosts for immigration enforcement and defense — offset with slashes to spending on Medicaid, food assistance, clean energy initiatives and student loans.
But when House Republicans gathered for their annual policy retreat at Trump's resort in Doral, Fla., in January, deficit hawks were highly skeptical of what they were hearing from leadership. Republicans were slow to make progress on a framework, and were divided about whether to tackle the president's agenda in one or two bills. An antsy Senate threatened to take the wheel if the House GOP couldn't get its act together.
'The catalyst for accelerating progress was the meeting with the President' in early February, said Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), the chair of the hardline conservative House Freedom Caucus — referring to a marathon meeting with House GOP leaders and an ideological cross-section of the conference. Trump opened the meeting and set the tone for the lawmakers to dig into some nitty-gritty budget details.
What really got the Freedom Caucus on board was a novel mechanism in the budget resolution — a framework that sets parameters for the final bill — to tie a minimum of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts to $4 trillion in tax cuts, requiring the number of spending cuts to go up dollar-for-dollar if tax cuts went up too. Pitched to leadership in a late-night meeting in the Speaker's suite the night before a committee vote that had already been delayed, deficit hawks thought the tools would be the key to forcing the Senate — notorious for moderating legislation — to swallow the House's plans.
Not every deficit hawk was sold, though, by the time the resolution hit the House floor in late February. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio,) and Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) were sticks in the mud — and Johnson made a public 'prayer request' ahead of the vote.
At the time, Republicans could only afford to lose one GOP vote and pass the party-line measure. They were down two members who resigned after being picked for Trump administration roles. House Democrats brought back a member who had given birth a month earlier and another who was in the hospital to squeeze Republicans as much as they could.
In the cloakroom off the House floor, Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) worked to win over Davidson. Around the corner was Spartz, with House Majority Leader Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) going between her and Davidson. Once Davidson agreed to vote yes, leaders tried to get Massie to vote present rather than no to unlock the vote, to no avail.
Spartz huddled in a phone booth and spoke to Trump for around 25 minutes. The tears-prone Ukrainian-born Indiana congresswoman cried during the conversation, multiple sources said — and emerged saying she was still a no.
Leaders were devastated. They moved to punt the vote, sending members away.
But then, Spartz had another brief conversation with Trump — and suddenly changed her mind.
That sent leaders scrambling to text members telling them to come back just minutes after they had sent them away — a stunning reversal and marked one of the wildest floor votes most could remember.
Republicans adopted the budget resolution with the libertarian-leaning Massie being the only Republican 'no.' Publicly, Spartz only later said that Trump made a 'personal commitment to save healthcare.'
While fiscal hawks got to yes because they were heartened by the broad outline of the House bill, several moderate Republicans who were worried about steep cuts to Medicaid had voted yes because they believed the Senate would moderate the framework.
Instead, the Senate passed a budget resolution that gave two separate sets of fiscal target instructions for each chamber — infuriating the fiscal hawks who had wanted commitments from the upper chamber about the final bill hitting at least $1.5 trillion in cuts. Even House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said in a scathing statement that the Senate resolution was 'unserious and disappointing.'
When it came back to the House for approval in April, fiscal hawks deemed it 'DEAD ON ARRIVAL,' with some Freedom Caucus members pitching ideas like sending the legislation back to the Senate with an amendment, which would add steps to the legislative process.
Trump wooed some members with an Oval Office meeting the week of the vote.
And he made another direct appeal at a National Republican Congressional Committee fundraiser dinner: 'You just gotta get there. Close your eyes and get there.'
But when the time of the vote came, enough holdouts remained to stall the vote for hours as fiscal hawk holdouts and leadership talked in a ceremonial room of the House floor.
The air in the hallway outside grew thick with cigar smoke as other members passed the time in the neighboring room — before GOP leaders eventually pulled the vote as negotiations on possible fixes continued.
Emmer, the House GOP Whip, was furious. He wanted to call the deficit hawks' bluff and force a vote that night. Pulling it, he thought, could embolden members to make demands and make leadership look weak. He didn't think ideas like sending an amendment to the Senate was feasible, and didn't attend discussions the rest of the night as Scalise and Johnson remained.
Johnson eventually hatched the idea with the members to hold a press conference the following morning with Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to calm their concerns and make public commitments.
Thune stopped short of explicitly committing to the $1.5 trillion number, but said it was his 'ambition' to do so — while some fiscal hawks claimed he made more explicit promises behind the scenes, satisfying them enough to vote to advance the bill while only delaying more clashes on policy.
After House Republicans endured weeks of marathon committee sessions crafting the specifics of their legislation, Trump made a rare and significant journey down Pennsylvania Avenue ahead of a vote on the package before a self-imposed Memorial Day deadline. The two-hour speech was more like a political rally, members said.
But both deficit hawks pushing for even more conservative policies and blue state Republicans seeking a deal to boost the state and local tax deduction (SALT) cap still had issues with the bill — which Harris, the Freedom Caucus chair, made clear to reporters immediately after the meeting.
'The president I don't think convinced enough people that the bill is adequate the way it is,' Harris said.
It wasn't Harris's first dismissal of Trump. The month before, he had turned down an opportunity to go meet with Trump at the White House, saying 'there's nothing I don't understand about this issue.'
White House officials were extremely frustrated by many of the public statements made by House conservatives throughout the process. And in May, their sense was that the Freedom Caucus members were trying to extract too much.
Trump held an intense Oval Office meeting with Freedom Caucus members the next day — where his patience ran out.
The president tore into Harris, multiple sources present and briefed on the meeting said. The president had seen Harris's comments and didn't like them — and told Republicans needed to unite and get the job done.
One member who was in the meeting jokingly described it as 'intense fellowship' — borrowing a favorite phrase of the Speaker.
'The two of us are both pretty passionate about what we believe in,' Harris later said of the exchange.
Both the SALT holdouts and the Freedom Caucus members eventually secured some deals ahead of the vote — a higher $40,000 SALT deduction cap for the blue-staters; speedier phase-in Medicaid work requirements and phase-out of green energy initiatives for the conservatives.
The bill passed with two Republican 'nays'— Massie and Davidson — while Harris, who later said the vote was the hardest one of the whole process, voted 'present.'
While the deficit hawks required the most personal touch from Trump, blue-state Republicans concerned with SALT were some of the toughest nuts to crack. But leaders had a more tangible path to win their votes: A deal to raise the SALT cap.
Weeks of intense negotiation had resulted in a deal between the SALT Republicans and House GOP leaders, but the deal had to face skeptical Senate Republicans, none of whom hail from high-tax blue states.
Trump deputized Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to negotiate with the House moderates and reach a deal that could pass muster in both chambers. Over a 24-hour period in June, members of the SALT Caucus met with Bessent three times in his conference room for 'direct' and 'blunt' conversations. In the end, the group settled on a $40,000 cap for five years, which would snap back to $10,000 after.
Still, when the Senate put its stamp on the legislation over marathon sessions in late June, neither the moderates nor the deficit hawks in the House were happy.
The Senate was forced to strip some provisions that the chamber's parliamentarian found didn't meet the requirements for the budget reconciliation process. It softened reforms on food assistance programs and lessened some rollbacks of green energy initiatives. It didn't follow the dollar-for-dollar framework on cuts. And the chamber approved late-stage deals and carve-outs to win over moderate Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). The changes infuriated conservatives.
Moderates, meanwhile, balked at the Senate taking a tougher approach on the provider tax mechanism that states use to extract more Medicaid matching dollars from the federal government. Particularly in rural areas with many Medicaid patients, moderates worried the provision 'jeopardizes the stability of hospitals.'
It was personal assurances from Trump — and from Vice President Vance — that swayed members like Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.), a practicing physician in rural North Carolina.
Murphy was undecided on the Senate version of the bill for much of the week, but said that Trump on Wednesday gave him assurances that a $50 billion fund intended to give relief to rural hospitals will ensure the transition to implementing reforms goes 'as smooth as possible.' That conversation, he said, helped get him to a yes.
For other moderates like Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a swing-seat member who recently announced he will retire after this term, the main thrust of the bill — tax cuts and a boost to defense spending — were good enough policies to overlook the Medicaid reforms he did not like, a testament to the one-bill strategy keeping the fractious House GOP conference together in the end.
House GOP leaders summoned members back to Washington in what was supposed to be a recess week so they could take up the bill the day after the Senate passed it, rushing to try to meet Trump's Independence Day deadline.
But the deficit hawks threatened to derail that timeline.
Wednesday morning, the Speaker tried to sway the deficit hawks at a meeting a few blocks away from the Capitol. Harris emerged saying nothing changed — warning that members would sink a procedural rule vote to tee up the bill, and that Johnson needed to send changes back to the Senate.
There was nothing else leaders could do. Trump had to close the deal.
Trump summoned the Freedom Caucus members to the White House, meeting with them for around two hours and making significant progress with some.
Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who that morning had pledged to sink the rule vote, said he would support the bill after assurances from Trump about how the bill would be implemented and additional money-saving actions the administration would take.
Separately, Davidson — who voted no on the initial bill — said he would support it after seeing how mad Democrats were about the bill.
A technical procedural vote stayed open for over seven hours on Wednesday, breaking the record for longest House vote in history, as members went in and out of meetings with more Trump administration officials. Bessent went over revenue projections with members; Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought talked to members about his plan to use executive authority to claw back funding.
Freedom Caucus holdouts said they wanted more time, and votes should resume in the morning. But leaders decided to call their bluff: They started the rule vote at around 9:30 p.m., pledging to hold it open for as long as it took to win over the holdouts, even if it meant all night.
Trump posted furiously on social media: 'What are the Republicans waiting for??? What are you trying to prove??? MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT'S COSTING YOU VOTES!!!'
Breakthroughs came in the wee hours of Thursday morning. Trump called a group of the holdouts, including Massie and Spartz. Massie suggested he was ready to drop his opposition to support the procedural vote if Trump stopped attacking him (though he ultimately voted against the final bill).
The rest of the holdouts were ready to advance, too — but Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) had left to drive home to his House two hours away to get a change of clothes, and they waited for him to drive back to Washington, D.C. Suggestions from leadership that Perry skip the rule vote and vote yes on the bill were shut down; the holdouts all wanted to flip together.
Johnson prayed with the holdouts — and snapped a picture of them on the House floor.
Bill passage was on the horizon. After a record-breaking, nearly nine-hour speech from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), House Republicans sent the bill to Trump's desk with just two GOP defections: Massie and moderate Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.).
The rapid change even surprised Vance, who posted: 'At times I even doubted we'd get it done by July 4!'
Even though the deficit hawks did not get any tangible changes before flipping, they insisted they got new commitments from the administration — and defended their months-long strategy.
'Six months ago, we were being told we'd be lucky to get $300 billion in savings,' said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), policy chair of the Freedom Caucus. 'We kind of threw down, and we're fiscal hawks, and we got $1.6 trillion.'
But everyone agreed that passage wouldn't have happened without the push from Trump.
'President Trump was so generous with his time answering questions himself. Vice President JD Vance was directly engaged. We had cabinet secretaries at a number of different federal agencies answering questions from members,' Johnson said after the bill passed.
One GOP leadership aide said of Trump: 'We needed him.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Analysis: Why Trump's hold on the GOP Congress may threaten its hold on power
Analysis: Why Trump's hold on the GOP Congress may threaten its hold on power

CNN

time30 minutes ago

  • CNN

Analysis: Why Trump's hold on the GOP Congress may threaten its hold on power

Back-to-back retirement announcements last week from a Republican representative and senator represented a victory for President Donald Trump that could yet become a revealing liability for him and his party. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, two of a bare few congressional Republicans who have sought any independence from Trump, joined a long list of other GOP legislators in recent years who have either retired or been defeated in primaries after crossing Trump, including former Sens. Jeff Flake and Bob Corker and former Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. The choice by Tillis and Bacon to announce their retirements during the final throes of debate over the party's budget and tax legislation underlines Trump's success at eliminating almost all tolerance in the party for dissent from him and his agenda. By stepping away, Tillis and Bacon have made clear that 'their style of Republicanism, that seeks some level of pragmatism and bipartisan compromise, is unwelcome,' says Charlie Dent, a centrist Republican former representative who retired in 2018 after resisting key elements of Trump's agenda. 'Because they have heterodox views on some issues, they feel that they're not particularly welcome within the broader Republican conference.' But while the twin retirement announcements testify to Trump's success at mastering the GOP, they leave open the question of whether a party reshaped so completely in his image can consistently win majorities in the House and Senate. With the roster of congressional Republicans displaying any separation from the president dwindling, the GOP is testing whether at least 218 House districts and 50 Senate seats will accept candidates offering themselves as unalloyed Trump acolytes. Few strategists in either party believe that question has a definitive answer. But many on both sides agree that the GOP's path to maintaining its majority in both chambers is narrower if even candidates in swing states and districts feel compelled to endorse the most polarizing aspects of Trump's agenda. 'In a post-Trump world, 100% loyalty is the party litmus test,' said GOP consultant Ken Spain, a former communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee. 'There is very little room for nuance, even if it means putting the House and Senate majorities to the test.' For most of the 20th century, it was common for members of Congress to break from their party's dominant position on key votes — even when that placed them in opposition to a president from their own side. That tendency was visible for years among Republicans from the East and West Coasts, and even more pronounced among the Southern and rural Democrats who became known as 'blue dogs.' But tolerance for defection on big congressional votes has waned over the past generation. The engine of the change has been the ideological re-sorting of the electorate, which has left each party with a voter base that holds more uniform views on major issues. In both parties and in both chambers, that has encouraged a transition toward a quasi-parliamentary system, with legislators from each party voting more in lockstep with their own side, and in opposition to the other. When Democrats held a narrow congressional House majority during President Joe Biden's first two years, only one of their members (Maine's Jared Golden) voted against Biden's version of 'One Big Beautiful Bill' — his 'Build Back Better' plan. In this environment, legislators who break from their side on big votes, as Tillis did on Trump's agenda bill, have faced greater pushback. Republicans sympathetic to Trump's iron-fisted approach to party loyalty point out that liberal interest groups also now regularly attack Democrats who vote too often against their party; during the Biden years, both Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, the two Democratic senators who defected most often, ultimately chose to identify as independents and not to seek reelection in 2024. But the pressure for conformity from Trump on Republicans dwarfs the coercion that liberal groups can apply to Democrats. 'It's orders of magnitude worse for Republicans,' said Matt Bennett, executive vice president for external affairs at Third Way, a centrist Democratic group. Left-wing interest groups 'are a problem for our moderates without question and occasionally they can beat them or hurt them. But Trump is an extinction-level event for Republican moderates.' Dent, now the executive director of the Aspen Institute's congressional program, believes independent thinking is under siege in both parties. But he agrees that no source of pressure in the Democratic Party approaches Trump. In fact, Dent argues, no president has ever been as relentless as Trump about crushing internal dissent. 'We haven't seen that, because most presidents … understood that today's dissenter is tomorrow's ally,' Dent said. 'They recognize there's always another vote. But Trump always treats the next vote as the last. Everything is a litmus test with him.' In a critical shift, the Republican congressional leadership is mostly reinforcing Trump's pressure, Dent noted. Historically, he said, congressional leaders from both parties worried intently about how to protect their members in marginal seats and tried to structure votes that reduced their risk of backlash from swing voters. But now, Dent went on, the GOP leadership seems more focused on pacifying Trump — and more attentive to the demands of senators and representatives from reliably red areas who fear the president and his allies will launch primary challenges from their right. 'It seems,' Dent said, 'the Republican leadership is more interested in protecting the president than protecting their most vulnerable members.' Trump doesn't appear totally unaware that Republicans running in swing areas may need some flexibility in their votes. Maine Sen. Susan Collins is the only GOP senator left from the 19 states that voted against Trump in all three of his presidential campaigns and he has not publicly attacked her for voting against the budget bill last week. (She, in turn, did not criticize the bill nearly as sharply as Tillis did.) Trump has also indulged hardline conservatives in both chambers who have delayed the package to tilt it further to the right, as long as they vote with him in the end — which explains why Trump has promoted a primary challenge against Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who has opposed the measure at each step. But, as the floor debates in both chambers over the budget bill showed, virtually no congressional Republican feels comfortable criticizing any significant aspect of Trump's agenda, much less voting against it, no matter the effect on their own constituents. Trump is 'not worried about what a bill means to somebody's home state or district,' said longtime Republican pollster Glen Bolger. 'It's his way or the highway. You cannot cross the president because he will cross you off.' Over the past several decades, voters' attitudes toward an incumbent president have increasingly shaped how they vote in House and Senate races. But Trump may push that trend even further. His unrelenting demands for loyalty have created an environment in which GOP candidates are running with his logo stamped on them as visibly as if they were one of his hotels or office buildings. Can Republicans win enough seats with that positioning to consistently control the House and Senate? The party's electoral performance since Trump's emergence gives them some reason for optimism, particularly in the Senate. Trump has won 25 states in all three of his presidential campaigns, and Republicans incredibly now control all 50 of those states' Senate seats, up from 42 in 2017. Democrats have high hopes next year of contesting one of the 50 (the North Carolina seat that will become open with Tillis' retirement announcement). But until they can compete for more, in places such as Ohio, Iowa or Texas, Republicans will have the easier path to a Senate majority, notes Kyle Kondik, managing editor for the Sabato's Crystal Ball election newsletter of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. At first glance, the trends in House races may seem equally encouraging for a Trump-stamped GOP. Trump won 230 House districts in 2024 (the same number he did in 2016), which would provide the GOP a relatively comfortable majority by modern standards if their House candidates also won those districts. But it may be harder for a uniformly Trumpist GOP to hold the House than the Senate. In the more difficult electoral climate of 2020, Trump only won 202 House districts, and even last year, he won about 40 of the districts he carried only by single-digit margins. To Kondik and other analysts, that suggests Democrats could recapture enough of those seats to flip the majority in a more favorable national environment — which widespread public disapproval of the 'big beautiful bill' might help create for them. 'Basically, by all the vulnerable Republican members voting for the bill, you are making it easier for the opposition to nationalize your race, which is what Democrats are going to want to do,' Kondik said. By falling into line behind Trump so reliably, Republicans in more competitive areas (apart from maybe Collins) have denied themselves one of the most common arguments legislators from such places have historically used to win reelection: that they will support their party's agenda when it helps their constituents and oppose it when it doesn't. Dozens of House Republicans whose districts face big losses from the budget bill's Medicaid and clean energy cuts voted for it anyway. Democrats see that as a huge vulnerability, particularly in the House seats they plan to contest. 'They make a ton of noise, but at the end of the day they are not going to step out of line with Trump and DC leaders, and for the districts we are competing in that is the worst type of thing you can do,' said Courtney Rice, communications director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Dent agreed the pattern is a grave risk for the GOP majority. Pressuring swing district Republican representatives to fall in line on every major issue 'is a recipe to elect a Democratic House,' he said. 'Trump might want to get used to that now and get ready for all the subpoenas and aggressive oversight that will come with it.' Bolger said he long believed that, too, but now has doubts. 'I'm a guy who always said you've got to win independent voters to win. I don't know if that's true anymore,' he said. Legislators who 'show independence' from Trump, Bolger said, risk depressing turnout among his core supporters, which could offset any gains they might see among independent voters by distancing themselves from the president. 'That's a math thing they are all going to be doing in those swing seats,' he said. No matter the national environment next year, the Senate map will make recapturing that chamber very tough for Democrats. And the sorting out of the electorate — combined with the growing sophistication of gerrymandered Congressional districts — makes it highly unlikely that Democrats in 2026 can win as many House seats as the opposition party captured in other midterms characterized by a backlash against the sitting president's agenda (including 1994, 2006, 2010 and 2018). But more than enough swing seats remain in play to give Democrats a very plausible chance of overturning the GOP's historically narrow House majority. In the provisions of their budget bill, Republican leaders made extraordinarily few concessions to the political needs of their representatives in those marginal seats (or vulnerable senators such as Collins and Tillis). They placed much higher import on cramming in as many of Trump's priorities as possible and meeting the demands of the hardcore conservatives in safe seats who constitute a much larger share of GOP legislators in both chambers. If that increases the odds some of those swing-district Republicans lose next fall —endangering the GOP majority in the House and conceivably, though less likely, the Senate — that seemed a price Trump and Congressional leaders were willing to pay. 'They want to get as much as they can in the bill,' Dent said, 'and these guys are going to be the collateral damage.' In the long arc of Trump's career, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' may stand as yet another transaction in which he claims the rewards and others around him pay the price.

US tariffs on European goods threaten to shake up trade relationship

time32 minutes ago

US tariffs on European goods threaten to shake up trade relationship

FRANKFURT, Germany -- FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — America's largest trade partner, the European Union, is among the entities awaiting word Monday on whether U.S. President Donald Trump will impose punishing tariffs on their goods, a move economists have warned would have repercussions for companies and consumers on both sides of the Atlantic. Trump imposed a 20% import tax on all EU-made products in early April as part of a set of tariffs targeting countries with which the United States has a trade imbalance. Hours after the nation-specific duties took effect, he put them on hold until July 9 at a standard rate of 10% to quiet financial markets and allow time for negotiations. Expressing displeasure the EU's stance in trade talks, however, the president said he would jack up the tariff rate for European exports to 50%. A rate that high could make everything from French cheese and Italian leather goods to German electronics and Spanish pharmaceuticals much more expensive in the U.S. The EU, whose 27 member nations operate as a single economic bloc, said its leaders hoped to strike a deal with the Trump administration. Without one, the EU said it was prepared to retaliate with tariffs on hundreds of American products, ranging from beef and auto parts to beer and Boeing airplanes. Here are important things to know about trade between the United States and the European Union. A lot of money is at stake in the trade talks. The EU's executive commission describes the trade between the U.S. and the EU as "the most important commercial relationship in the world.' The value of EU-U.S. trade in goods and services amounted to 1.7 trillion euros ($2 trillion) in 2024, or an average of 4.6 billion euros a day, according to EU statistics agency Eurostat. The biggest U.S. export to Europe is crude oil, followed by pharmaceuticals, aircraft, automobiles, and medical and diagnostic equipment. Europe's biggest exports to the U.S. are pharmaceuticals, cars, aircraft, chemicals, medical instruments, and wine and spirits. Trump has complained about the EU's 198 billion-euro ($233 billion) trade surplus in goods, which shows Americans buy more stuff from European businesses than the other way around. However, American companies fill some of the gap by outselling the EU when it comes to services such as cloud computing, travel bookings, and legal and financial services. The U.S. services surplus took the nation's trade deficit with the EU down to 50 billion euros ($59 billion), which represents less than 3% of overall U.S.-EU trade. Before Trump returned to office, the U.S. and the EU maintained a generally cooperative trade relationship and low tariff levels on both sides. The U.S. rate averaged 1.47% for European goods, while the EU's averaged 1.35% for American products. But the White House has taken a much less friendly posture toward the longstanding U.S. ally since February. Along with the fluctuating tariff rate on European goods Trump has floated, the EU has been subject to his administration's 50% tariff on steel and aluminum and a 25% tax on imported automobiles and parts. Trump administration officials have raised a slew of issues they want to see addressed, including agricultural barriers such as EU health regulations that include bans on chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef. Trump has also criticized Europe's value-added taxes, which EU countries levy at the point of sale this year at rates of 17% to 27%. But many economists see VAT as trade-neutral since they apply to domestic goods and services as well as imported ones. Because national governments set the taxes through legislation, the EU has said they aren't on the table during trade negotiations. 'On the thorny issues of regulations, consumer standards and taxes, the EU and its member states cannot give much ground,' Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Germany's Berenberg bank, said. 'They cannot change the way they run the EU's vast internal market according to U.S. demands, which are often rooted in a faulty understanding of how the EU works.' Economists and companies say higher tariffs will mean higher prices for U.S. consumers on imported goods. Importers must decide how much of the extra tax costs to absorb through lower profits and how much to pass on to customers. Mercedes-Benz dealers in the US. have said they are holding the line on 2025 model year prices 'until further notice.' The German automaker has a partial tariff shield because it makes 35% of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles sold in the U.S. in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, but the company said it expects prices to undergo 'significant increases' in coming years. Simon Hunt, CEO of Italian wine and spirits producer Campari Group, told investment analysts that prices could increase for some products or stay the same depending what rival companies do. If competitors raise prices, the company might decide to hold its prices on Skyy vodka or Aperol aperitif to gain market share, Hunt said. Trump has argued that making it more difficult for foreign companies to sell in the U.S. is a way to stimulate a revival of American manufacturing. Many companies have dismissed the idea or said it would take years to yield positive economic benefits. However, some corporations have proved willing to shift some production stateside. France-based luxury group LVMH, whose brands include Tiffany & Co., Luis Vuitton, Christian Dior and Moet & Chandon, could move some production to the United States, billionaire CEO Bernaud Arnault said at the company's annual meeting in April. Arnault, who attended Trump's inauguration, has urged Europe to reach a deal based on reciprocal concessions. 'If we end up with high tariffs, ... we will be forced to increase our U.S.-based production to avoid tariffs,' Arnault said. 'And if Europe fails to negotiate intelligently, that will be the consequence for many companies. ... It will be the fault of Brussels, if it comes to that.' Some forecasts indicate the U.S. economy would be more at risk if the negotiations fail. Without a deal, the EU would lose 0.3% of its gross domestic product and U.S. GDP would fall 0.7%, if Trump slaps imported goods from Europe with tariffs of 10% to 25%, according to a research review by Bruegel, a think tank in Brussels. Given the complexity of some of the issues, the two sides may arrive only at a framework deal before Wednesday's deadline. That would likely leave a 10% base tariff, as well as the auto, steel and aluminum tariffs in place until details of a formal trade agreement are ironed out. The most likely outcome of the trade talks is that 'the U.S. will agree to deals in which it takes back its worst threats of 'retaliatory' tariffs well beyond 10%,' Schmieding said. 'However, the road to get there could be rocky.' The U.S. offering exemptions for some goods might smooth the path to a deal. The EU could offer to ease some regulations that the White House views as trade barriers. 'While Trump might be able to sell such an outcome as a 'win' for him, the ultimate victims of his protectionism would, of course, be mostly the U.S. consumers,' Schmieding said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store