What Sky correspondents make of Trump's tariff announcement
Donald Trump has announced new tariffs which he is slapping on countries around the world on what he declared as "Liberation Day".
The president said at the White House that there would be a 10% baseline tax on imports from all nations and higher rates on goods from dozens of countries that run trade surpluses with the US.
Mr Trump held up a chart in the Rose Garden, showing the US would charge a 34% tax on imports from China, a 20% tax on imports from the EU, 25% on South Korea, 24% on Japan, and 32% on Taiwan.
The UK seemed to get off more tightly, with a 10% tariff.
Latest updates on Trump tariffs
So what do Sky's correspondents think of the president's tariff announcement?
:: David Blevins, Sky correspondent, in Washington DC
Donald Trump has left little ground for negotiation.
By declaring a national emergency due to national security and economic concerns arising from the trade deficit, the president has given himself the power to regulate imports.
He is regulating them by imposing a 10% baseline tariff on all countries exporting goods to the United States, and country-specific tariffs on the 60 "worst offenders".
The UK has escaped that worst offenders list with a 10% tariff, but the EU has not - a tax of 20% now imposed on its products.
But Trump stressed that those specific reciprocal tariffs are half what those "worst offending" countries charge the United States.
The combination of declaring a national emergency and framing the president as "lenient" and "kind" limits the ability of those on the receiving end to negotiate.
One senior White House source said: "This is not a negotiation. It's a national emergency.
"And any country that thinks that they can simply make an announcement promising to lower some tariffs is ignoring the big, central problem of their massive non-tariff barriers and the institutionalisation in their trade model."
:: Dan Whitehead, Sky correspondent, in Ontario, Canada
For Canada - this is all about cars.
Confirmation from President Trump that from Thursday, vehicles imported into the US will, as feared, be subject to a 25% tariff.
It is a bitter blow to the car makers - mainly in Ontario - but such is the integration of the auto industry in North America that it is bad news too for the industry in the US.
"He will single-handedly shut down the American auto industry," claims Flavio Volpe, head of Canada's Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association.
He told Sky News this tariff will lead to mass job losses among the 500,000 car workers in Canada within "one week".
More than a million vehicles are exported from Canada to the US each year - an industry worth tens of billions of dollars.
Even though there's not yet a specific tariff on auto parts, companies in Canada are already cutting staff and losing business; fewer car orders, fewer parts needed.
Canada may not have been on the billboard of highest tariff countries, but they are left in limbo that things could get worse if it doesn't address what Trump sees as a "massive" amount of fentanyl coming across the border.
Such is the turmoil between Canada and the US, that the new Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called a snap election for 28 April.
The US-Canada relationship is "no longer" reliable, he says - just how these North American neighbours fix it will be front and centre when Canadians head to the polls.
:: Adam Parsons, Europe correspondent, in Brussels
There will be a response from the European Union - the question is how soon, and how tough.
A symbolic reprisal is one choice - putting tariffs on classic American products such as Harley-Davidson motorbikes or bottles of bourbon. That won't damage the European economy, but it won't make much of a difference, either.
There's a reluctance to slap wide-ranging, indiscriminate tariffs simply because that would increase costs for many European manufacturers. So something more targeted may look appealing and that could mean going after the tech giants - Facebook, Apple, Google, Amazon, for example.
Companies who have already had rows with EU regulators and are seen as being, to varying extents, close to the White House. If Europe could specifically target Tesla, it probably would.
There are also those suggesting the EU should hold fire for the moment, confident that Trump's tariffs will backfire and keen that the effects are visible.
One fear is that some of the cheap goods that were destined for US markets will now be diverted to Europe, flooding its market. Another fear is how the Windsor Framework will be affected, now that there are different US tariffs on either side of the Irish border.
And finally there is that insult from the president, who called the European Union "pathetic". A few minutes later, a senior EU diplomat sent me a message saying "the US is Brexiting the world, but you can't stop the march of folly".
Transatlantic relations are getting even icier.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Europe Wants Green Steel but Can't Afford It
The European Union has pledged billions in rearmament spending. It also just pledged billions in higher NATO spending. Steel is a crucial part of the rearmament drive. Without it, you can't build tanks and make weapons. But Europe does not just want any steel—it wants it green. And green steel is so expensive, companies are walking away from green steel projects in droves. This week saw one of the world's largest steelmakers, ArcelorMittal, ditch its plans for the conversion of two plants in Germany to green hydrogen as an energy source because the costs were exorbitant. Importantly, the German government had promised the steelmaker $1.5 billion in subsidies for the conversion projects. Still, they turned out to be too expensive. Germany's ThyssenKrupp, meanwhile, is sticking with its green steel plans, although it noted the 'crisis' in the industry. At the same time, ThyssenKrupp is laying off 40% of its workforce and slashing production capacity by a quarter, the Financial Times reported at the end of 2024. 'The first electric arc forges are being built in countries that can offer competitive and predictable electricity provision,' ArcelorMittal said, as quoted by Reuters. 'Electricity prices in Germany are high both by international standards and compared to neighbouring countries.' There are two ways to decarbonize steelmaking, which is an important point on the EU's net-zero agenda. One way is hydrogen, and more specifically, green hydrogen, produced through electrolysis, enabled by wind and solar power. The other way is swapping blast furnaces fueled by coal to electric arc furnaces, fueled by, once again, wind and solar. Those electric arc forges that ArcelorMittal was referring to are being built in nuclear-heavy France. Because nuclear is cheap and reliable. Wind and solar appear to be the opposite of green hydrogen is several times costlier than any other variety. The reason is that electrolysis is, somewhat ironically, an energy-intensive process that uses electricity generated by wind or solar installations to split water molecules. Despite its net-zero desirability, the process cannot violate the fundamental laws of physics, meaning that the end product, in terms of energy, is considerably smaller in volume than the amount of energy expended on producing it—which is why green hydrogen's cost is unlikely to come down anytime soon. It is that cost that is sapping industrial appetite for making the switch from hydrocarbons to green hydrogen. 'The business case for green steel is not there in Europe,' the head of Eurofer, the EU's steel industry association, told the Financial Times. Some still had hopes for the future, Alex Eggert noted, but others had given up with 'I don't have time for this.' Europe itself does not really have time for this. Europe has stated quite clearly it plans to build a lot of things that require steel to replenish its depleted reserves after sending most of its inventory to Ukraine. And it needs to do that fast, based on its own claim that Russia is about to invade. But at the same time, Europe wants to do its rearmament in a green way—which is at odds with the need for speed. The problem becomes even bigger in the context of broader steel production. Steel is not only essential for weapons production. It is essential in construction, too, and a myriad other industries that feature the construction of something or other, up to and including wind turbine installation. Europe, then, needs a lot of steel—and it wants to reduce its import dependence by producing more of it locally, but also cheaply. Once again, the EU is trying to do two mutually exclusive things at the same time. The cost of electricity in the countries with the highest portion of wind and solar in their energy mix should proof enough that the transition is anything but cheap, and yet this fact continues to be overlooked in favor of ever more subsidy commitments and claims that ultimately this low-carbon energy will become cheap. The steel industry clearly does not have time to wait for this to happen. The steel industry is prioritizing energy affordability over emission footprints. Because the steel industry has realized that there is no other way to survive, especially with cheap, emission-heavy imports from China flooding the market. The EU introduced the carbon border adjustment mechanism to stem that flood. In fact, it introduced the carbon border adjustment mechanism to stem the flood of all sorts of cheap imports that undermine the competitiveness of European products—because of high energy costs. The EU is using CBAM to treat a symptom, and not the root cause of the energy cost disease. That root cause is the urgent transition. 'In the end, we will also have to discuss how quickly the transformation can take place, because the speed largely determines the cost,' RWE's Markus Krebber said this week, as quoted by the FT. It was this speed that prompted the conversion of 40% of Europe's steelmaking capacity to electric arc furnaces. It was this speed, and the lack of any desire for long-term planning that prompted talk about green hydrogen as replacement for coal. Now, the jig is up. Europe must decide between rearming and net zero. By Irina Slav for More Top Reads From this article on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A shadow Fed chief could lead to a ‘revolt' on the FOMC against Powell's successor, former vice chair warns
Former Federal Reserve Vice Chair Alan Blinder said naming a so-called shadow Fed chief well before Jerome Powell's term is up would sow confusion in financial markets and even set up a potential revolt against the eventual chair. Wall Street analysts also it is a self-defeating idea that would sink the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds. Naming a so-called shadow chair for the Federal Reserve well before Jerome Powell is due to step down as the top central banker could blow up spectacularly. President Donald Trump said earlier this month his pick to replace Powell is coming 'very soon,' and on Friday even vowed to tap someone who will do what he has been pressuring the Fed to do for months. 'If I think somebody's going to keep the rates where they are or whatever, I'm not going to put them in,' Trump said. 'I'm going to put somebody that wants to cut rates.' That's after repeated insults and name-calling directed at Powell, who has held off on lowering rates, citing the resilient economy and the risk that Trump's own tariffs could reaccelerate inflation. Powell's term as chair expires in May 2026, and the typical transition to a new one is about three to four months, meaning a replacement pick would be named as soon as January under normal circumstances. By naming a new chair well before that, the nominee could in theory jawbone markets into easing financial conditions, such as lowering bond yields, before taking office and undermine Powell's messaging in his final months. But in practice, the result could be chaos. Princeton professor Alan Blinder, who served as the Fed's vice chair in the 1990s, told CNN that a shadow chair is 'an absolutely horrible idea' because markets would have to sort through potentially very different stances at the same time. 'If they're not singing from the same playbook, which seems likely, this is just going to cause confusion in markets,' he warned. Similarly, Michael Brown, senior research strategist at Pepperstone, said in a note that a shadow chair would be self-defeating and create 'chaotic policy rhetoric, thus further weakening policy transmission.' And the perception of greater political influence over the Fed is likely to result in accelerated outflows from both the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds, pushing yields and other borrowing costs higher. 'Lastly, and probably of most annoyance for Trump, is that all of this nonsense actually makes the bar for the Fed to deliver a rate cut even higher, given mounting external pressure, and a desire to preserve policy independence,' Brown added. Fed officials make a point of sticking to central banking and not opining on politics, White House policies, or bills in Congress. On the flip side, they carefully guard the Fed's reputation for being independent from political pressure. Blinder flagged the risk that a shadow Fed chair would set up a big showdown in the usually consensus-driven Federal Open Market Committee, which sets rates. 'If he or she contradicts what Powell is saying, that will aggravate the FOMC, almost all of whose members will still be there when the new chair takes over,' he explained to CNN. 'It opens the door to an open or silent revolt against the chair, which is a rare thing in Fed history.' A schism is already emerging at the Fed. Trump-appointed governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman have said a rate cut in July could be justified, while Powell and other policymakers have said more months of data are necessary to make such a call. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed the idea of a shadow Fed chair in an interview on CNBC on Friday, but also pointed out that Adriana Kugler's term as Fed governor expires in early 2026. 'So there is a chance that the person who is going to become the chair could be appointed in January, which would probably mean an October, November nomination,' he said. This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate bill's Medicaid cuts draw some GOP angst
The Senate's deep cuts to Medicaid in the tax and spending megabill are setting off alarm bells among some Republicans, complicating leadership's effort to get the legislation passed by July 4. It seeks to clamp down on two tactics states use to boost Medicaid funding to hospitals: state-directed payments and Medicaid provider taxes. The restrictions are a major concern for rural hospitals, a key constituency for senators. Republicans have set an ambitious July 4 deadline to pass the bill and send it to President Trump to be signed into law. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has been warning his colleagues about making cuts to Medicaid for weeks, said the changes took him by surprise. 'I had no idea that they were going to completely scrap the House framework with this. I mean, this totally caught me by surprise. And I've talked to other senators, and that's what I've heard consistently from everybody I've talked to, that no one was expecting this entirely new framework,' Hawley told reporters Tuesday. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then direct back to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Critics argue it's a scheme for states to get more federal funding without spending any of their own money. But provider taxes have become ingrained into states' Medicaid financing systems. States and provider groups say the taxes provide a steady source of financing for hospitals that operate on thin margins and would otherwise face closure. 'The draconian Medicaid cuts contained in the Senate bill would devastate health care access for millions of Americans and hollow out the vital role essential hospitals play in their communities,' said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals, an organization that represents hospitals that serve low-income patients. The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027. Nonexpansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. All states except for Alaska finance part of their share of Medicaid funding through health care provider taxes, and 38 states have at least one provider tax that exceeds 5.5 percent. When asked if his concerns were enough to make him vote against the bill if it were brought to the floor as written, Hawley hedged. 'It needs a lot of work, so I would say maybe we could, I guess, try to fix it on the floor, but it'd be better to do it beforehand,' he told reporters. Republicans can afford to lose only three votes in the Senate and still pass their bill if Democrats remain united in opposition. Sen. Jim Justice ( said he was also surprised by the Senate's change. If provider tax changes are on the table, he said he wants leadership to keep the House version. Justice wouldn't say how he would vote if the provision was left unchanged but expressed some unease about the July 4 deadline. 'I promise you, I won't rubber-stamp anything,' Justice said. 'I want this thing to come out and come out quickly, but when it really boils right down to it, you may have to hold your nose on some things that you just absolutely don't like because we can't like everything.' Similarly, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) indicated he would also prefer the House-passed freeze on provider taxes but was still analyzing the impact on his state. Louisiana expanded Medicaid in 2016. Senate Republican leaders huddled with members Tuesday during a closed-door caucus lunch to talk through the details of the bill. Speaking to reporters afterward, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said leadership was listening to members' concerns, especially about provider taxes. 'We think [the changes] rebalance the program in a way that provides the right incentives to cover the people who are supposed to be covered,' Thune said. 'We continue to hear from members specifically on components or pieces of the bill they want to see modified or changed, and we are working through that.' Members were also briefed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, who downplayed the impact of a lower provider tax cap. 'We do not believe that addressing the provider tax effort is going to influence the ability of hospitals to stay viable,' Oz told reporters. Without weighing in on the exact details, Oz said some changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments should be included. 'The framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill, it should be in this bill,' Oz said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
