Trump Tariffs

Labour bezeichnete den Ersten Minister der SNP, John Swinney, als „schamlos“ dafür, den Erfolg für sich zu beanspruchen, obwohl dieser das Ergebnis des US-Besuchs des Königs war. Donald Trumps Ankündigung, die belastenden US-Zölle auf Scotch Whisky aufzuheben, wurde von einem Streit zwischen rivalisierenden schottischen Parteiführern darüber überschattet, wer das Verdienst für die Entscheidung für sich beanspruchen darf. Die Whisky-Industrie und Wirtschaftsvertreter zeigten sich erfreut über die plötzliche Ankündigung des US-Präsidenten in seinem Netzwerk Truth Social am Donnerstag, die Zölle anlässlich des Besuchs von König Charles und Königin Camilla zu beenden. Weiterlesen...

• Präsident sagt, Entscheidung wurde „zu Ehren des Königs und der Königin“ getroffen, während Branchenvertreter das Abkommen als „bedeutenden Aufschwung“ bezeichnen

Claims system launches months after supreme court ruled Trump had no legal authority to impose tariffsSign up for the Breaking News US email to get newsletter alerts in your inboxThe Trump administration began on Monday accepting applications from businesses seeking refunds for more than $166bn in tariffs, months after the supreme court ruled that the president had no legal authority to impose them.The administration launched on Monday the digital claims system, named Cape, which they said in court filings could handle about 63% of affected import filings, with the remainder to follow. Continue reading...

• The Trump administration plans to implement tiered tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, with 50% duties on many derivative goods based on import value, 25% on others, and lower rates for some products. • This policy aims to protect US industry amid global trade tensions exacerbated by Middle East conflicts. • The measures could reshape international supply chains and provoke retaliatory actions from trading partners.

Last April, the president unleashed a tidal wave of tariffs on ‘liberation day’. Analysts say the policy has failed, even by the Trump administration’s own termsBefore Donald Trump declared “liberation day” on 2 April 2025 and shocked the world by raising import tariffs on nearly every country the US did business with, he had spent almost three months causing chaos in Washington.The wholesale slashing of government jobs under Doge (the “department of government efficiency”) and the defunding of US aid agencies had shown White House watchers that the US president was in a hurry to upset institutions he considered profligate or useless. Continue reading...

• President Donald Trump launched a series of social media posts on Sunday night criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court as having 'RANSACKED' the country after it rejected his tariffs decision. • Trump acknowledged potential backlash, stating 'This statement about the United States Supreme Court will cause me nothing but problems in the future, but I feel it is my obligation to speak the TRUTH,' amid broader losses including failed prosecutions and coalition splits over Iran war. • The outbursts highlight Trump's frustration with judicial setbacks, such as U.S. District Judge James Boasberg tossing a grand jury subpoena against Fed Chair Jerome Powell on Friday.

President accuses court of having ‘unnecessarily RANSACKED’ the US and claims he has ‘absolute right’ to impose new tariffsSign up for the Breaking News US email to get newsletter alerts in your inboxGood morning and welcome to the US politics liveblog.In a late-night social media post, Donald Trump has claimed he has the “absolute right” to impose new tariffs after the supreme court ruled many of the import duties he imposed last year were illegal.Our Supreme Court has made these Countries very happy but, as the Court pointed out, I have the absolute right to charge TARIFFS in another form, and have already started to do so.” Continue reading...

US supreme court has ‘ransacked’ the country, president argues, in wake of its ruling against his trade agendaDonald Trump has claimed he has “the absolute right” to impose new tariffs after the US supreme court ruled many of the import duties he imposed last year were illegal.The president attacked the court in a late night broadside on Sunday, accusing it of having “unnecessarily RANSACKED” the US – and failing to show him sufficient loyalty. Continue reading...

Democratic leaders project that President Trump's proposed tariffs on imports will increase costs for the typical American family by more than $2,500 per year, exacerbating affordability challenges amid midterm election debates. The estimate factors in higher prices for consumer goods, with critics linking it to broader economic policies including energy waivers. GOP supporters counter that tariffs protect domestic industries and jobs, though polls show voter concerns over inflation. This fiscal warning intensifies partisan divides as Congress considers related legislation.

A Friday report from congressional Democrats highlights that President Trump's tariffs, enacted after Supreme Court invalidation of prior measures, could impose over $2,500 in annual costs on average U.S. households amid efforts to replace lost federal revenue. The analysis critiques the policy as regressive, exacerbating affordability pressures from recent economic strains like energy prices. Trump administration officials defend the tariffs as essential for domestic industry protection and national security. The report fuels midterm election debates on fiscal policy as Democrats push alternative revenue strategies.

A Friday report from congressional Democrats reveals President Trump's expanded tariffs, following Supreme Court invalidation of prior measures, could impose over $2,500 in annual costs on average U.S. households amid efforts to replace lost federal revenue. The analysis highlights economic burdens as Trump pushes replacements for struck-down tariffs, exacerbating affordability concerns. This development matters as it fuels partisan clashes ahead of midterms, with Democrats using the figures to critique GOP economic policies. Upcoming congressional hearings may scrutinize the report's projections and potential legislative offsets.