US president Donald Trump says 50% copper tariff to take effect August 1
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
PRODUCT TARIFFS IN EFFECT
PRODUCT TARIFFS - THREATENED
COUNTRY TARIFFS IN EFFECT
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday a 50% tariff on copper, saying on social media that it would be effective August 1 and that the decision was made after a national security assessment."Copper is necessary for Semiconductors, Aircraft, Ships, Ammunition, Data Centers, Lithium-ion Batteries, Radar Systems, Missile Defense Systems, and even, Hypersonic Weapons, of which we are building many," Trump said in a post on Truth Social.Trump signaled on Tuesday that he was imposing fresh tariffs on copper, sending U.S. Comex copper futures to record highs.Trump has set a baseline tariff of 10% on all imports to the United States, as well as additional duties on certain products or countries.Here is a list of targeted tariffs he has implemented or threatened to put in place.Steel and aluminum - 50%Autos and auto parts - 25%Copper - 50%Pharmaceuticals - up to 200%Semiconductors - 25% or higherMovies - 100%Timber and lumberCritical mineralsAircraft, engines and partsCanada - 10% on energy products, 25% for other products not covered by the U.S.-Canada-Mexico AgreementMexico - 25% for products not covered by USMCA China - 30%, with additional tariffs on some productsUnited Kingdom - 10%, with some auto and metal imports exempt from higher global ratesVietnam - 20% for some products, 40% on transshipments from third countriesAlgeria 30%Bangladesh 35%Bosnia and Herzegovina 30%Brunei 25%Cambodia 36%Indonesia 32%Iraq 30%Japan 25%Kazakhstan 25%Laos 40%Libya 30%Malaysia 25%Moldova 25%Myanmar 40%Philippines 20%Serbia 35%Sri Lanka 30%South Africa 30%South Korea 25%Thailand 36%Tunisia 25%
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
8 minutes ago
- Time of India
Volt face
Grim results of EV makers raise a question about viability The future of mobility is electric, and it should have been here by now, considering that Morris & Salom's Electrobat cars were running on Philadelphia's streets in 1894. In 1909, an electric car beat a gasoline car in Boston's busy traffic by 15 minutes. But electric cars are still at the 25% sales mark globally, and like most averages that figure is misleading. When 70% of all electric cars are made in China, and 65% are sold there, the picture looks distinctly ICE-y – short for internal combustion engine – for the rest of the world. Then consider market leader Tesla's woes. Its quarterly revenue has slumped. Half-yearly sales in Europe are down 33%. But more worrying for it is the drying carbon credits market under Trump. So far, Tesla's made billions selling these credits to makers of ICE cars. It earned $2.1bn from them in just the first nine months of 2024. Tesla also has to worry about the phase-out of the $7,500 tax credit for EV buyers in Sept. Carbon and tax credits are nothing but subsidies for the EV business in US and Europe, and the Chinese EV miracle was also built on subsidies. By some accounts, China spent $231bn over a decade to prop up the industry, which now has spare capacity of 3mn cars, leading to cut-throat competition at home and dumping outside. That raises an important question. If EVs have truly come of age, why do they need state support? In 1900, US had only 8,000 cars. By 1915, there were over 2mn. Henry Ford's Model T – launched for $850 in 1908 and priced at just $300 in 1917, thanks to economies of scale – brought the horseless revolution without any state help. It's time electric cars learnt to stand on their own four wheels. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
Joy Taylor blasts Donald Trump over Epstein links just days after Fox firing amid sexual misconduct scandal
Joy Taylor takes a jab at Donald Trump over Epstein files (Getty Images) Just days after her departure from Fox Sports, Joy Taylor stirred public debate by weighing in on reports linking Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein 's files. Her pointed social media post signaled a bold return to the spotlight, suggesting she's no longer holding back when it comes to political commentary. Joy Taylor takes a jab at Donald Trump over Epstein files just days after Fox Sports firing On July 24, Joy Taylor reposted a story from Complex on her Instagram Stories revealing that Donald Trump had reportedly been notified by the Justice Department that his name appears in documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, the late convicted sex offender. Alongside the post, Taylor wrote a biting caption: 'Water is wet.' The cryptic remark quickly caught fire online, with many interpreting it as a sarcastic confirmation that Trump's name showing up in such files was unsurprising — or perhaps long suspected. While Taylor didn't expand on her message, her decision to comment so soon after her Fox Sports departure suggests she's no longer interested in playing it safe in the public sphere. Joy Taylor's exit from FS1 followed sexual misconduct lawsuit and internal shakeups Taylor's social media moment arrives amid lingering questions surrounding her firing from FS1, where she co-hosted Speak with Keyshawn Johnson and Paul Pierce. Her name was recently included in a January sexual misconduct and discrimination lawsuit filed by former FS1 hairstylist Noushin Faraji. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The suit also named Skip Bayless and former executive Charlie Dixon, accusing Taylor of downplaying a groping allegation and mocking PTSD symptoms. Taylor has denied the accusations outright, calling them 'meritless and attention-seeking.' However, internal reviews reportedly uncovered additional concerns behind the scenes. Former FS1 host Cris Carter commented on the matter during a podcast appearance, saying, 'They had to tear all those shows down… That thing was ugly… Had to happen.' Donald Trump's Epstein ties spark renewed scrutiny amid political pushback Meanwhile, the Trump-Epstein connection continues to make headlines. A report from The Wall Street Journal claims that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed Trump during a May briefing that his name had surfaced in DOJ files related to Epstein. The White House has dismissed the reports as 'fake news,' insisting that appearing in documents does not imply wrongdoing. Still, Joy Taylor's post suggests public figures are no longer willing to stay quiet — especially when they feel uncensored. Also Read: Joy Taylor's FOX Sports scandal: Everything about the backstage drama, show cancellations, and lawsuit that led to her exit FAQs 1. Why is Joy Taylor in the news after her Fox Sports exit? She posted a controversial reaction to reports linking Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein, sparking political backlash. 2. What led to Joy Taylor's departure from Fox Sports? Taylor was named in a sexual misconduct and discrimination lawsuit, prompting a major shakeup at FS1. 3. Did Joy Taylor comment directly on Donald Trump? Yes, she shared a cryptic post seemingly mocking the resurfaced Epstein allegations involving Trump. For real-time updates, scores, and highlights, follow our live coverage of the India vs England Test match here. Catch Rani Rampal's inspiring story on Game On, Episode 4. Watch Here!
India Today
37 minutes ago
- India Today
American-born babies are American: Judge halts Trump birthright citizenship order
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born in the US to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents, calling the move unconstitutional and legally ruling by US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston marks the third federal court to stop the executive order in its tracks since the Supreme Court last month narrowed the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide Sorokin ruled that an exception applied in this case, where more than a dozen states demonstrated real financial harm tied to the order. 'A patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states,' Sorokin wrote, noting the high mobility of residents between states and slamming the administration's failure to explain how a more limited injunction would function.'They have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic.'The decision maintains a nationwide injunction that preserves birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, pending further review by the courts. Sorokin added that his ruling is not the final word on the issue, but emphasized the constitutional implications of the executive action.'The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen,' Sorokin said. 'Trump and his administration are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment but for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.'The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of states led by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who hailed the ruling as a critical defence of constitutional norms.'American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' Platkin said in a statement. 'I'm thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.'Government lawyers had argued that the injunction should be limited in scope to states' financial interests. Still, Sorokin rejected the idea, saying the administration failed to offer any coherent legal or administrative plan for how such limits would is the third time the executive order has been blocked. Earlier this month, a federal judge in New Hampshire prohibited the rule in a class-action lawsuit. That decision went into effect after no appeal was filed. On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco also ruled against the order, upholding a nationwide injunction.A fourth ruling may be on the way. A Maryland judge said she would issue a similar decision if the appeals court agrees. - EndsWith inputs from Associated Press
