Trump Derides Musk's Third Political Party Plan as Bound to Fail
'Third parties have never worked, so he can have fun with it, but I think it's ridiculous,' Trump told reporters on Sunday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says US nears trade deals as tariff deadline delayed
(Corrects paragraph 3 to show new date offers three-week reprieve) By Andrea Shalal MORRISTOWN, New Jersey (Reuters) -The United States is close to finalizing several trade pacts in coming days and will notify other countries of higher tariff rates by July 9, President Donald Trump said on Sunday, with the higher rates set to take effect on August 1. Since taking office, Trump has set off a global trade war that has roiled financial markets and sent policymakers scrambling to protect their economies, through efforts such as deals with the United States and other countries. In April Trump unveiled a base tariff rate of 10% on most countries and additional duties of up to 50%, but later gave a three-week reprieve until Wednesday for all but 10% of them. Trump, whose remarks to reporters on Sunday came just before his return to Washington from a weekend golfing in New Jersey, had flagged the August 1 date earlier, but it was unclear if all tariffs would increase then. Asked to clarify, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters the higher tariffs would take effect on August 1, but Trump was "setting the rates and the deals right now." In a posting on his Truth Social website, Trump later said the U.S. would start delivering tariff letters from 12:00 pm ET (1600 GMT) on Monday. In a separate post, he rolled out a wholly new tariff policy, calling for countries "aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies" of the BRICS developing nations to be charged an extra 10% tariff, with no exceptions to be granted. The first BRICS summit in 2009 was attended by leaders from Brazil, China, India and Russia, with South Africa joining later while Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were included last year. Trump has close ties to leaders of some of those countries, such as Saudi Arabia and UAE, and has been touting the prospect of a trade deal with India for weeks. On Sunday, BRICS leaders condemned attacks on Gaza and Iran, called for reforms to global institutions and warned that the rise in tariffs threatened global trade. It was not immediately clear if Trump's tariff threat would derail trade talks with India, Indonesia and other BRICS nations, however. Earlier on Sunday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNN's "State of the Union" that several big trade agreements would be announced in the next days, adding that European Union talks had made good progress. Trump would also send letters to 100 smaller countries with which the United States does not have much trade, notifying them of higher tariff rates, he added. "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," Bessent said. "So I think we're going to see a lot of deals very quickly." Kevin Hassett, who heads the White House National Economic Council, told CBS's "Face the Nation" program there might be wiggle room for countries engaged in earnest negotiations. "There are deadlines, and there are things that are close, and so maybe things will push back past the deadline," Hassett said, adding that Trump would decide. 'I HEAR GOOD THINGS' Stephen Miran, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told ABC News' "This Week" program that countries needed to make concessions to get lower tariff rates. "I hear good things about the talks with Europe. I hear good things about the talks with India," Miran said. "And so I would expect that a number of countries that are in the process of making those concessions ... might see their date rolled." Bessent told CNN the Trump administration was focused on 18 important trading partners that account for 95% of the U.S. trade deficit. But he said there had been "a lot of foot-dragging" among countries in finalizing trade deals. Thailand, keen to avert a 36% tariff, is now offering greater market access for U.S. farm and industrial goods and more purchases of U.S. energy and Boeing jets, Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira told Bloomberg News on Sunday. India and the United States are likely to make a final decision on a mini trade deal in the next 24 to 48 hours, local Indian news channel CNBC-TV18 reported on Sunday, with average tariffs of 10% on Indian goods shipped to the U.S., it said. Hassett told CBS News that framework agreements already reached with Britain and Vietnam offered guidelines for other countries. He said Trump's pressure was prompting countries to move production to the United States. The Vietnam deal was "fantastic," Miran said. "It's extremely one-sided. We get to apply a significant tariff to Vietnamese exports. They're opening their markets to ours, applying zero tariff to our exports." Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
37 minutes ago
- USA Today
Now that Supreme Court is out for the summer, will Congress finally do its job?
Congress is lazy and will inevitably take the path of least effort. The legislative branch needs to reclaim its role as policymakers, rather than allowing the president to usurp its responsibilities. The Supreme Court's term may have ended, but we'll still be sifting through the fallout of the justices' final decisions for some time. On June 27, the Supreme Court ended universal injunctions, the controversial orders that judges used to block executive actions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was very combative with her liberal dissenters, namely Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, for focusing on the ramifications of this decision, rather than attempting to decipher what the law says. While Barrett is right to be frustrated with her ideological opposites, it doesn't mean that their pragmatic concerns are not very real. The end of universal injunctions opens doors for the executive branch to further expand its power, if Congress does not step up to the plate. Opinion: Supreme Court's birthright citizenship opinion reveals rising hostility, tension Ending universal injunctions has real fallout Not only have recent presidents become more lawless, but they also have become more ambitious in their lawmaking authority. Rather than going through Congress, the constitutionally intended legislative body, the executive has broadly usurped those responsibilities. The result has been a higher volume of executive orders. These orders also continue to push the bounds of what the president can accomplish with the stroke of his pen. As brazenly unconstitutional as the Trump administration's position is when it comes to its redefinition of birthright citizenship, the executive action at the center of this case, I completely understand why President Donald Trump's detractors are genuinely concerned about this Supreme Court holding. The universal injunction had become the primary tool for blocking policies that are as constitutionally suspect as this one, at least until their merits can be evaluated. These injunctions provided instant and broad relief against unconstitutional policies. However, there is another side to that coin, which is that some perfectly appropriate executive actions get blocked under the broad authority of universal injunctions. This problem is exacerbated in that litigants can bring cases in favorable districts anywhere in the country, and have the resulting injunctions impact the entire United States. Presidents like Donald Trump and Joe Biden, who both have acted outright lawlessly, haven't helped their case. Presidents who act lawlessly are obviously more likely to have courts block policies that fit that same pattern, rather than give them the benefit of the doubt. Opinion: Trump delaying the TikTok ban is the most lawless thing he's done yet Surely, as injunctions become the chief tool for combating these actions, the system has developed a level of reliance on them. Now, a new framework for combating executive overreach needs to be developed. Alternatives to injunctions are more cumbersome While the Supreme Court said that 'universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,' the majority opinion did not rule out the prospect of similar relief being granted when states sue the federal government. Opinion: Senate just passed Trump's Big Beautiful Bill – and made it even uglier The primary form of relief expected to fill the void of universal injunctions is class action lawsuits, which are more procedurally burdensome on those seeking relief than the recent history of universal injunctions, but lawsuits still are an effective way for those impacted by unlawful executive orders to challenge them. However, class actions aren't the only possible alternative. Congressional members, if they ever decide they want to speak up, could also pass legislation clarifying in what circumstances universal injunctions can be levied against executive actions. The Supreme Court has begrudgingly tossed the ball back into Congress' court, but it's unlikely it will do anything productive with this opportunity. Instead, members of Congress are likely to allow more and more power to be ceded to the presidency, because the executive is doing much of the work they should be doing. My thesis for years at this point has been that Congress is outright lazy and will inevitably take the path of least effort. Congress needs to reclaim its role as policymakers, rather than allowing the president to usurp its responsibilities further. However, none of this undermines the idea that the Supreme Court did its job on nationwide injunctions, determining what the law says on the matter. All of this simply reinforces just how damaging it is to our government that Congress refuses to work. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will continue to be blamed by Americans for the problems that are really created by Congress. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
CNN
38 minutes ago
- CNN
Tariffs, explained: What Trump wants from all these trade deals
President Donald Trump and his administration are racing to get trade deals done ahead of a self-imposed deadline, at which point tariffs are set to rise for dozens of countries across the world. News about the on-again, off-again tariffs have become such a daily fixture of the second Trump administration that, at times, it can be hard to remember why the president started down this path in the first place. Trump has given many different reasons for why he believes tariffs are a crucial part of his policy agenda, but they can be categorized into four main goals: Restore America's manufacturing prowess. Grow US revenue. Equalize the balance of trade. Pressure foreign countries into setting policies that benefit the United States. Trump has often treated tariffs like a panacea – a catch-all economic tool that can simultaneously restore blue-collar jobs, pay off the US deficit, bring foreign nations to heel on key disputes and reduce Americans' tax burdens. In his first months in office, Trump has used tariffs to make progress on each of those goals. Some companies have announced that they'll invest in US factories, citing the costly tariffs. Tens of billions of dollars of tariff revenue are coming into the United States every month. America's trade deficit was cut in half in April — a dramatic decrease. And Trump has brought several countries to the negotiating table after threatening high tariffs — all without dramatically increasing inflation. However, early indicators of success may be more of a sign of an initial shock to the system, as companies, consumers and businesses make rapid adjustments to the new reality of higher US tariffs. Economists and business leaders maintain that tariffs probably won't lead to a major American factory boom. They argue revenue from tariffs will remain a drop in the bucket compared to the massive budget deficit that was just exacerbated by Trump signing his expensive domestic policy agenda and tax cuts into law. Tariffs and trade deals probably won't dramatically increase demand for US goods in foreign countries. And some trading partners have already shown there's a limit to how much tariff threats can achieve. 'I'm telling you, you just watch. We're going to have jobs. We're going to have open factories. It's going to be great,' Trump said on Air Force One in March. To accomplish that, Trump has often advocated for lower taxes at home and higher taxes for goods made abroad. Trump during his joint address to Congress in March made an oft-since-repeated threat: 'If you don't make your product in America, … under the Trump administration, you will pay a tariff and, in some cases, a rather large one.' Trump has notched a handful of early PR victories after imposing tariffs. Apple in February said it would invest $500 billion in US manufacturing. GE Appliances said last month it would also spend a half a billion dollars to move a factory from China to make washing machines in the United States. And General Motors said in June it would spend $4 billion to increase its production in the United States. Many other companies have made similar announcements. However, many of those decisions were made prior to or independently of Trump's tariffs, the companies say. That's because factories can take years to plan, build and begin operations. Another major complication: Skilled manufacturing labor is hard to come by in the United States. That's why in May, the Labor Department reported 414,000 job openings in the manufacturing sector: There just aren't enough people in the United States who want to or are skilled enough to complete the work. And American labor can be much more expensive than in other countries. That's why some industry experts estimate the cost of an iPhone would surge to over $3,000 if it were made in the USA. Meanwhile, manufacturing jobs are not booming — quite the opposite. After Trump declared victory with gains of 9,000 manufacturing jobs in his first two full months in office, they have since tumbled by 7,000 jobs in each of the past two months, and the number of manufacturing jobs is now lower since Trump took office than when he started. Tariffs may ultimately help to restore some manufacturing in America. But as Trump routinely reminds companies: If you make products in America, you pay no tariffs. That means if companies do as Trump asks, then America can't raise tariff revenue from them. Trump has made astronomical estimates about how much money tariffs can raise, arguing tariffs could bring in trillions of dollars in annual revenue. 'We're going to make a lot of money, and we're going to cut taxes for the people of this country,' Trump said before boarding Air Force One for his return from Pope Francis' funeral in April. 'It'll take a little while before we do that, but we're going to be cutting taxes, and it's possible we'll do a complete tax cut, because I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.' To accomplish that, tariffs would need to be exceedingly high — significantly higher than the already historic levels at which the Trump administration has set them today, or even the 60% to 70% Trump threatened to impose on some countries beginning in August. The federal government raises about $3 trillion a year from income taxes. The United States also happens to import around $3 trillion worth of goods annually. So that means tariffs would have to be at least 100% on all imported goods for the levies to replace income taxes, said Torsten Slok, chief economist at Apollo Global Management. It's not quite that simple: Demand would fall as prices rise. So Slok estimates tariffs may have to be set at 200% to replace all federal income tax revenue. Tariffs aren't bringing in anything close to that amount right now: The Treasury Department said Trump has raised less than $100 billion in tariff revenue since taking office, bringing in around $20 billion a month in each of the past several months. But there's a problem: Some of the most punishing tariffs aren't designed to remain in place that long. The Trump administration, for example, has placed 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico and 20% on China to incentivize them to reduce the flow of fentanyl into the United States. If that is successful, Trump has said the tariffs will 'come off.' And his trade deals are set to lower the tariff rate on some countries' goods and services — not raise them. Trump has often spoken about tariffs in terms of 'fairness,' saying other countries are 'ripping off' Americans with high trade barriers. He has repeatedly said he envisions America as a highly desirable department store and views tariffs as a 'cost of doing business in America.' As a result, Trump on April 2 introduced 'reciprocal' tariffs, which were calculated by effectively measuring America's goods trade deficit with foreign countries and cutting that in half. So the countries from which America imported a large number of goods but exported little were punished with the highest reciprocal tariffs. When America is charged a higher tariff and has a trade imbalance with other countries, Trump has often incorrectly labeled that a 'subsidy' or a 'loss.' But economists largely agree that trade deficits are not losses or subsidies. In fact, they can be a reflection of a strong economy. Nevertheless, Trump's tariffs initially had a major effect on the goods trade deficit, narrowing it from about $130 billion in April to around $60 billion in May, according to the US Commerce Department. US imports tumbled, primarily as 145% tariffs the Trump administration imposed on Canada created an effective blockade on Chinese goods entering the United States. The trade gap widened again in May after tariffs fell on Chinese goods and as foreign countries reduced their purchases of US exports. Over time, however, tariffs aren't likely to meaningfully narrow the trade gap America has with other countries, economists argue. Many countries make goods more cheaply in other countries, and many products simply cannot be grown or produced in America. If the trade gap continued to fall, it could be a signal that America's spending power was diminishing. Trump has repeatedly threatened tariffs as a kind of anvil dangling over the heads of countries, companies or industries. The subjects of Trump's tariff threats have, at times, immediately come to the negotiating table. The most recent example was last week, when Canada backed off its digital services tax that was set to go into effect. Trump had railed against the tax on online companies, including US corporations that do business in Canada. He threatened to end trade talks with America's northern neighbor. Trump also said he would set a new tariff for Canada, which ultimately backed down, saying it would drop the tax to help bring the countries back to the table. But it doesn't always work. Trump's tariffs have not stopped the flow of fentanyl into the United States, although that was always an unreasonably lofty goal. The threat of tariffs have also failed to convince Apple to bring iPhone manufacturing to the United States, Hollywood to make more movies in Los Angeles, or US automakers to close their Canadian and Mexican factories. If and when targets of tariffs ultimately acquiesce to Trump's demands, those tariffs also have to go away, which hurts the administration's revenue-raising goals. Trump has notched several early wins with his tariffs — both politically and economically. But in the long run, tariffs probably can't achieve all of his lofty goals at the same time. That's because Trump's aims are often contradictory. For example, if tariffs are a pressure campaign, they have to go away once the countries acquiesce — meaning there will be no tariffs to restore the trade balance. If tariffs are designed to promote America's manufacturing sector, they can't also raise revenue to offset deficits. If Americans switch to made-in-the-USA goods, then who pays the tariff on foreign products? When used effectively, tariffs can help boost production at home by making foreign goods more expensive. Because America is an enormous and diverse economy that doesn't rely on trade as much as its neighbors, the United States could use tariffs to inflict serious damage on other countries' economies without plunging itself into a recession. Revenue raised by tariffs could help offset some of its deficits. Achieving all those outcomes simultaneously, however, may not be possible.
