America's trade war could mean 7 million fewer jobs across the world, U.N. says
International growth is slowing, fewer new jobs will be created, and the global income gap is rising — largely because of elevated trade tension spearheaded by U.S. President Donald Trump. That's according to the International Labour Organization (ILO), a UN agency, whose new report is based on the IMF's April 2025 'World Economic Outlook.' The IMF also singled out new tariffs and a 'highly unpredictable environment.'
'If geopolitical tensions and trade disruptions continue, and if we do not address fundamental questions that are reshaping the world of work, then they will most certainly have negative ripple effects on labour markets worldwide,' said ILO Director-General Gilbert F. Houngbo in a release accompanying the report.
The ILO had previously anticipated 60 million new jobs being created in 2025; that has been downgraded to 53 million. Global GDP growth is expected to slow 0.4%. The ILO says that 84 million jobs in 71 countries are tied to U.S. consumer demand; most of those jobs are in the Asia-Pacific region, but Canada and Mexico are in particular danger, with 17.1% of their job markets exposed to uncertainty due to U.S. policy.
Meanwhile, the proportion of GDP going to global workers, known as the labour income share, fell 0.6% in 2024. Income inequality could get much worse soon: High-skilled occupations are at risk of being displaced by generative AI, reports the ILO.
Some good news: More women are working in high-skilled occupations, up two percentage points between 2013 and 2023 to 23.3%.
Houngbo said the overall economic numbers are 'sobering, but they can also act as a roadmap for the creation of decent jobs,' advising countries to focus on 'strengthening social protection, investing in skills development, promoting social dialogue, and building inclusive labour markets to ensure that technological change benefits all.
'And we must do so with urgency, ambition, and solidarity,' he concluded.
For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
6 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Approval Rating Surges Among Millennials
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's approval rating among millennials has surged, according to a new poll. The latest YouGov/Yahoo poll, conducted May 22-27 among 1,560 adults, shows that Trump's job approval among 30- to 44-year-olds is at 41 percent, up from 33 percent in April. Disapproval is down to 51 percent from 59 percent in April. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points. Why It Matters Millennials, typically defined as born between 1981 and 1996, represent the largest bloc of the U.S. electorate. Trump reduced the Democrats' lead among voters aged 30 to 44 by 9 points between 2020 and 2024, from 12 points to 3. However, since the beginning of his second term, polls have shown signs of waning support for Trump among millennials. But the new poll shows his approval rating among this demographic may be creeping up again. For Trump, a rebound in support from voters age 29 to 44 could help stabilize his approval ratings at a time when he has faced discontent over issues such as immigration and the economy. While millennials have historically leaned Democratic, even a modest uptick in support during his second term could strengthen his political leverage and influence the landscape for the 2026 midterms and beyond. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House on May 28, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House on May 28, 2025, in Washington. Evan Vucci/AP What To Know The boost for Trump comes as more millennials now say the country is headed in the right direction. According to the poll, 32 percent are optimistic about the direction of the country, up from 26 percent. Trump's approval ratings have generally been ticking up in recent weeks after a period of decline following the introduction of his "Liberation Day" tariffs in April. The policy move rattled markets, prompting a sharp sell-off before an eventual recovery and a pause on the tariffs by the Trump administration. Since then, economic anxiety has died down. Consumer confidence saw a surprising increase in May. The Conference Board reported a rise to 98.0, much higher than both the expected 87.1 and April's 86.0 reading. It was the biggest one-month jump in more than a year. At the same time, Trump's general approval ratings are on the rebound. Newsweek's tracker currently shows that 46 percent approve of Trump's job performance, while 51 percent disapprove. Earlier this month, his approval rating stood at 44 percent, while his disapproval rate was firmly in the 50s. Other polls have shown the same trend. The latest Insider Advantage poll, conducted May 17-19 among 1,000 likely voters, gave Trump a net approval rating of +11 points, with 55 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving. That was up from a net approval rating of +2 points in early May, when 46 percent approved and 44 percent disapproved. Poll Date Approve Disapprove Rasmussen May 29 52 47 YouGov/Economist May 23-26 44 52 Morning Consult May 23-25 48 50 YouGov/Yahoo May 22-27 41 54 Quantus May 18-20 48 48 Civiqs May 17-20 47 52 American Research Group May 17-20 41 55 Insider Advantage May 17-19 55 44 Reuters/Ipsos May 16-18 42 52 Navigator Research May 15-18 44 54 However, the overarching trend in the polls is one of stability, with some showing that his ratings have not substantially changed beyond a 1- or 2-point dip—within the margin of error—or have not changed at all. That includes the most recent Navigator Research poll, conducted May 15-18 among 1,376 registered voters which showed Trump's approval rating at 44 percent, while 54 percent disapprove. That is unchanged from April. Similarly, in Quantus' latest poll, conducted May 18-20, Trump's approval rating stood at 48 percent, while 48 percent disapproved. That is unchanged from a poll conducted earlier in May, and an April poll also showed his approval rating stood at 48 percent, while his disapproval rating at 50 percent. Marquette's most recent poll also showed his approval rating unchanged from March, while an American Research Group poll, conducted March 17-20 among 1,100 adults, put Trump's approval rating at 41 percent, down just 2 points from April. His disapproval grew from 53 percent to 55 percent. And the latest Civiqs poll, conducted May 17-20 among 1,018 registered voters, put Trump's approval up by 1 point, and his disapproval down by 1 point. The same trend occurred in the latest YouGov/Economist poll, conducted May 23-26 among 1,660 adults, which put his approval at 44 percent and disapproval at 52 percent. The latest YouGov/Yahoo poll put Trump's approval down 1 point to 41 percent and his disapproval up 1 point to 54 percent. In Morning Consult's latest survey, conducted May 23-25 among 2,237 registered voters, Trump's approval rating was unchanged at 48 percent while his disapproval was up 1 point to 51 percent. What Happens Next Trump's approval rating among millennials could fluctuate in the coming weeks, depending on the outcome of key events, including critical negotiations in the Russia-Ukraine war, the evolving tariff situation and concerns about a recession.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Courts to Trump: You can't teach old laws new tricks
It's become a familiar cycle: Donald Trump dusts off a long-settled law, reinterprets it and attempts to wield it in unprecedented, far-reaching ways. The courts slam the brakes, saying the president's creative reimagining is just plain illegal. It happened again this week — with an exclamation point — when two federal courts invalidated the central plank of Trump's economic agenda: a slate of emergency tariffs that spurred uncertainty across the globe. Both courts found that Trump severely exceeded his authority when he invoked a 1977 law as the legal basis for the tariffs. That law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, permits the president to impose tariffs on an emergency basis — but only in limited circumstances and for limited purposes. In the words of one judge, Trump broke with 'five decades' of practice by presidents who never claimed the power that Trump says IEEPA gives him. Both court rulings are on hold for now while the administration appeals. But they point to a broader strategy Trump has used in his effort to swiftly enact his second-term agenda: He repurposes old or obscure statutes, especially those that give presidents special powers during times of war or other national crises. Beyond the realm of tariffs, he's used the same playbook to try to supercharge his deportation program and to try to kneecap public-employee labor unions. One problem for Trump, though, is that courts are increasingly skeptical of Trump's claims about the supposed emergencies or national-security exigencies that he has claimed as justifications for deploying these seldom-used statutes. The White House insists it's the judges — not the president — who have gone rogue, routinely referring to courts that rule against the administration as activist or politically motivated. The roster of these purported wayward jurists includes judges appointed by every president since Ronald Reagan, including by Trump himself. 'There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves in the presidential decision-making process,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a press briefing Thursday. Others point out that the administration is relying on laws that have been used by presidents of the past — albeit in more limited ways that did pass muster in the courts. Trump's boldest attempt to exploit an old law for his own purposes is his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The founding generation enacted that law to help repel 'invasions' or 'predatory incursions' perpetrated by rival governments. At the time, a war with France loomed. And for more than two centuries, presidents invoked the law only three times: during the War of 1812 against British subjects, World War I against German immigrants and World War II against nationals of Japan, Germany, Italy and several other countries. Then, in March, Trump tried to wield it against alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, so that he could deport them with little or no due process. The strategy immediately strained the definitions of 'invasion' and 'predatory incursion' envisioned by the framers. The courts noticed. 'There is nothing in the AEA that justifies a finding that refugees migrating from Venezuela, or TdA gangsters who infiltrate the migrants, are engaged in an 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion,'' U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled earlier this month. 'They do not seek to occupy territory, to oust American jurisdiction from any territory, or to ravage territory.' Hellerstein's ruling echoed similar decisions by judges in Colorado and Texas, who said Trump's reinterpretation of the old law exceeded his legal power. One judge, however, sided with Trump on that central question: U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines, a Trump appointee from Pennsylvania, concluded that 'while the 'meaning' of a statute is fixed at its enactment, new 'applications' may arise in light of changes in the world.' She said the founders might have viewed foreign terrorist groups — the label Trump has given TdA — as capable of committing a 'predatory incursion.' In his bid to root out undocumented immigrants and criminalize their presence, Trump has also dusted off an 85-year-old statute aimed at requiring all immigrants in the country for more than 30 days — regardless of their legal status — to register with the federal government. The law, known as the Alien Registration Act, was passed shortly before the U.S. entered World War II. Its purpose was to discover foreigners who advocated for overthrowing the government, and it was later used against suspected communists. But it fell into disuse for decades — until Trump, in an executive order, instructed the Department of Homeland Security to issue new guidance and start enforcing the registration requirement. A federal judge in Washington, D.C. swept aside a challenge to this effort on procedural grounds. But a magistrate judge in Louisiana dismissed the first charges brought by the Trump administration under this statute, saying prosecutors had failed to show that the five targeted defendants were even aware of the requirement to register. The magistrate judge noted that the requirement, which was last reaffirmed by Congress in the 1950s, 'was essentially defunct and abandoned for the past 70 years.' The Trump administration is appealing the decision to a district court judge. Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked yet another obscure statutory provision to target another group of immigrants: foreign-born pro-Palestinian academics at American universities. Rubio has used the provision to revoke the legal status of several prominent students and professors. The provision, adopted during a 1990 overhaul of immigration laws, gives the secretary of State the power to initiate the deportation of any immigrant if the secretary determines that the immigrant's presence could cause 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.' The provision has been used just a handful of times since, and nearly always in cases that involved serious allegations of terrorism or subversive activities in the targets' home countries. Rubio, on the other hand, has deployed the provision to target campus activists who participated in anti-Israel protests. Rubio's letter revoking green cards or visas for Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, Rumeysa Ozturk and other people studying in the United States indicated that their conduct had been legal but that their continued presence and activities in the United States nevertheless 'would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.' Federal judges who have weighed in on the effort have said Rubio's use of the provision appears to run afoul of the Constitution, punishing foreign students and academics for exercising free speech rights. The judge presiding over the case of Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate student facing deportation, went further, noting this week that the provision used by Rubio was rooted almost entirely in concerns about people whose 'relevant conduct took place entirely abroad.' 'The legislative and enforcement history do not suggest … that removal might be sought in these circumstances,' U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz wrote. 'Rather, they underscore that a … removal of the kind at issue here is unprecedented.' Trump has also dredged up a rarely used power in federal labor law to try to strip most federal employees of collective-bargaining rights. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 gives the president the ability to exclude federal agencies from unionization rights if he determines that the agencies are primarily engaged in national-security work. Trump designated dozens of agencies and subdivisions — including the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Justice and Veterans Affairs — as focused on national security. His directive threatens to remove collective bargaining from an estimated two-thirds of the federal workforce. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman blocked Trump's move. 'The President's interpretation of 'national security' exceeds the scope of the meaning intended by Congress,' Friedman wrote. A panel of a federal appeals court, however, has put Friedman's ruling on hold while the administration appeals.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tariff Legal Battle Plays Out
Reverse, reverse: Yesterday, I reported that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade had issued a ruling that would put a pause on President Donald Trump's tariffs announced on "Liberation Day," as well as those levied on Canada, Mexico, and China the month prior. "The decision would have forced the Trump administration to unwind many of the president's steep tariffs over the next 10 days, but the government quickly petitioned a federal appeals court to intervene," reports The New York Times. The administration "asked a panel of judges to hold that order at bay while it weighed the administration's fuller arguments that its tariffs were lawful." This bid was successful, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a pause yesterday, allowing the tariffs to remain in place. This essentially gives the courts more time to consider the legal issues at play and to determine what type of authority the administration has, in a case that will probably be ruled on by the Supreme Court. The case hinges on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that Trump has invoked, allows him to levy tariffs. The IEEPA gives the executive sweeping authority "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy or economy" of the country. Trump has, of course, made bold "national security" arguments in an attempt to politically make the case for tariffs: First, the flow of fentanyl through our country's borders justified the imposition of tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and—most especially—China. Then, national security arguments were used to justify further ratcheting-up of tariffs on China, with the administration arguing that the risk of relations with China souring at some point in the future means we must take steps to reshore critical industries right now. And, more broadly, the current trade deficit we run with many other countries has been portrayed as a threat to American competitiveness—whether true or false. This is the first time IEEPA has been used by a president to impose tariffs, though. In the past "presidents have imposed tariffs in response to national security threats using Section 232 of a 1962 trade law," reports The New York Times. "That legal provision differs from IEEPA in part because it requires an investigation and report that has to be issued within 270 days. The provision also focuses on certain imports that 'threaten to impair' U.S. national security." In other words, there are slightly more strings attached when done via that mechanism, and the tariffs are generally expected to be more targeted and narrow in scope. You might expect the administration to be in a sort of waiting posture, given that Trump's use of the IEEPA might at a future date be struck down by the Supreme Court. Instead, Trump has decided to attack the judges who initially ruled against his use of the act, asking "Where do these initial three Judges come from?…Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?'" Well, for Judge Timothy Reif—a Trump appointee—probably not. Trump, never one to take responsibility for his choices or appreciate the independence of the judiciary, appears to recognize his culpability in appointing Reif (who committed the heresy of ruling against him!) and has now taken to attacking the Federalist Society, which helped recommend conservative judges during his first term. More deportations in defiance of court orders: Earlier this month, a panel of federal judges with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals granted Salvadoran man Jordin Melgar-Salmeron permission to remain in the United States while his immigration case made its way through the court system. Twenty-eight minutes after that ruling was issued, Melgar-Salmeron was on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) flight from Louisiana, where he was being detained, to El Salvador's Izalco prison. "ICE officials argue in court filings that a communication breakdown left them unaware of the court's order until after his flight had departed," reports Investigative Post. His lawyer "said he plans to seek criminal contempt of court charges against the Trump administration. Such a request is due in court June 2." I'm sorry, I love him: "After denouncing it as a propaganda tool for the left, Argentina's libertarian President Javier Milei is relaunching a state-run TV channel for kids set to feature a cartoon teaching free market economics while stressing the evils of taxes and communism," reports Bloomberg. The channel is Paka Paka, which was originally created by former President Cristina Kirchner in 2010, and it will soon start showing Dragon Ball Z, Tuttle Twins, and Zamba, a cartoon about history. "Thrilled to announce that Tuttle Twins will be coming to millions of Argentine kids on Paka Paka!" write the show's creators on X. "They're replacing literal Marxist cartoons with hilarious education about freedom, economics and individual rights." "On the series, Ethan and Emily Tuttle travel through time and space with their libertarian grandma to learn about the glories of capitalism," adds Bloomberg. "In one episode, the siblings discover the evils of government overreach in a ravaged, garbage-strewn Cuba run by Fidel Castro. In another, they realize money loses its value when governments print too much." Here's a sampling: Obviously, the best possible approach would be no state-run TV at all. But Milei is probably correct that decades of Peronism have led to plenty of citizens having an insufficient appreciation for free markets. If these cartoons can help restore a little bit of balance, then that may be a good thing. My hopes that THC products will become legal here have been somewhat dashed, with Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick going on quite the tirade against them earlier this week. "Roughly a half-dozen GOP lawmakers from Pennsylvania and other states with U.S. Steel operations launched a series of meetings and group text chains shortly after Trump's November election victory, developing a plan to pitch his top economic officials on the merits of the [Nippon Steel] sale," reports Politico. "Eventually, and somewhat unexpectedly, they got an audience with the president himself. The message the group delivered: If the incoming president did not reverse his predecessor, Joe Biden's, decision to block Nippon Steel's purchase of the country's second-largest steel producer, it would lead to major manufacturing job losses in Pennsylvania and other states in the steel production supply chain." "China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!," Trump wrote on Truth Social this morning, portending escalations in the trade war. It's not clear which violations Trump is referring to. Lol: Just wildly unhinged takes from someone who used to be employed by The New York Times and The Washington Post (and we wonder why trust in media is low!): The post Tariff Legal Battle Plays Out appeared first on
