Trump Takes on Apple — and Harvard, BlackRock and the E.U.

New York Times

23-05-2025

Just in: President Trump threatened Apple with stiff levies if it doesn't start making iPhones in the U.S. instead of India or China: 'If that is not the case, a Tariff of at least 25% must be paid by Apple to the U.S.' Shares in Apple are down sharply in premarket trading. He also vowed a 50 percent tariff on the European Union, starting next month, as 'our discussions with them are going nowhere!
The stakes of Harvard's latest fight
The Trump administration's escalation of its war against Harvard — this time, by restricting the university's ability to enroll international students — is another blow to the school.
But the scope of the hit goes beyond tuition fees. If it stands, the administration's move could dent the university's finances for years to come.
A recap: The Department of Homeland Security said it would revoke Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, forcing international students at the school to transfer or lose their legal status in the U.S.
Harvard called it 'unlawful,' saying the move was based on an unreasonable demand for records on international students.
Tallying the costs: About 6,800 international students attended Harvard for degree-granting courses in the 2024-2025 academic year, comprising about 27 percent of the student body. There are also thousands who attend nondegree courses, such as Harvard Business School's executive education program.
International students can qualify for financial aid, but tend to pay full freight.
Harvard collected $1.4 billion in total student income for the 2024 fiscal year, meaning a ban could cost it hundreds of millions.
The potential long-term effects are staggering. Harvard has long been a destination for many of the world's brightest academic minds. (Among other things, the institution serves as a valuable link between the U.S. and China, which makes up the biggest share of the school's overseas students.)
Clamping the school's ability to recruit them could, along with the Trump administration's freeze of federal funding, drain its ability to produce cutting-edge research that wins acclaim and revenue.
And it could also cost Harvard a generation of alumni who could later donate to the school. Philanthropy accounted for about 45 percent of total revenue last year.
'This will destroy the university as we know it,' Kirsten Weld, a professor of Latin American history at the school, told The Times.
Harvard is fighting Washington on other fronts. It has already sued the Trump administration over efforts to change its curriculum and hiring policies. President Trump has also called on the I.R.S. to strip the school of its tax-exempt status, a legally questionable move that could vastly increase the school's financial burden.
Then there are provisions in Republicans' budget legislation that would raise taxes on wealthy universities' endowments. Harvard specifically would face a 21 percent rate on investment earnings from its endowment, or about $800 million each year, according to research cited by The Times.
The Supreme Court insulates the Fed from some presidential interference. The court ruled that the White House can terminate agency officials at independent federal agencies (as Trump has done at the National Labor Relations Board and other agencies) — but not at the central bank, which it called 'a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.' That could take some heat off Jay Powell, the Fed chair, whom Trump has repeatedly threatened to fire for not cutting interest rates.
The F.T.C. opens an investigation into an Elon Musk nemesis. The agency is seeking internal documents from Media Matters, according to Reuters, escalating the Trump administration's efforts to crack down on organizations that seek to police objectionable speech online. Musk has sued the media watchdog, accusing it of orchestrating an advertiser boycott of his X social media platform.
Crypto moguls dine with Trump. Protesters condemned a gala for holders of a meme coin linked to the president, for which some investors flew in from overseas explicitly to schmooze. Crypto has risen as Republicans have moved to deregulate the industry, but there was one hitch: The value of the Trump meme coin is down nearly 10 percent on Friday (perhaps because of selling post-dinner).
An antitrust broadside against BlackRock
For months, Republican state attorneys general have waged a war against BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, accusing the fund managers of conspiring to keep coal prices down via their huge stock holdings in coal producers.
Now the companies, which have strongly denied the accusations, face greater opposition — from the Trump administration's antitrust regulators.
The TL;DR: The Justice Department and the F.T.C. on Thursday filed a brief supporting the states suing the Wall Street giants. The main contention: The fund managers used their stakes in publicly traded coal companies — collectively up to 34 percent in seven of nine producers — to press management to drop production, as part of their efforts to help lower carbon emissions.
That purported move, the federal regulators wrote, was tantamount to 'anticompetitive behavior' that undermined America's energy industry, raised prices for consumers and bolstered the money managers' profits.
The battle casts a spotlight on the market power of big money managers. BlackRock is a mainstay of Americans' retirement accounts: Much of the $11 trillion in total assets that it oversees is in public equities, including in competing companies.
The Justice Department and the F.T.C. stressed that traditional passive investing, as in the money managers' index funds, is a backbone of American investing. Even shareholder activism to force operational improvements was allowable. The problem, the regulators argued, was using the funds' market clout to force companies to be less competitive.
The investment giants strongly pushed back. 'This case is trying to re-write antitrust law and is based on an absurd theory that coal companies conspired with their shareholders to reduce coal production,' BlackRock said.
State Street and Vanguard also denied wrongdoing.
It's a new line of attack in hitting this group's support of E.S.G. Republicans have long criticized money managers for their support of investing principles based on environmental and social aims. Introducing antitrust into the equation could bring a powerful weapon into that battle.
It adds new pressure on BlackRock, which in recent years has played down its E.S.G. commitments. Larry Fink, the money manager's C.E.O. and a longtime Democrat, has moved to mend ties to the Trump administration.
Some critics of money managers' huge power aren't persuaded by this case. Some suggested that Thursday's filing was a broadside aimed more at E.S.G. concerns: 'The current administration continues to try to pick winners and losers, the opposite of the rule of law in a free economy,' John Coates, a Harvard professor who wrote a book about stock-market concentration, wrote to DealBook in an email.
The Senate steps up to bat
Of all the numbers associated with the huge Republican spending bill working its way through Congress, the most significant one may be four: the tally of 'no' votes that could sink it in the Senate.
Washington is bracing for another pitched battle. Senators are vowing 'big, beautiful' revisions, including cuts to Medicaid and clean-energy subsidies, and whether to make business tax cuts permanent. A provision to lift the debt ceiling, a red line for the party's fiscal conservatives, is also drawing fire.
The latest market reaction: The yield on the 10-year Treasury note stood at 4.46 percent on Friday, after wild gyrations on Thursday. Investors are worried about the plan's fiscal impact, since it could add as much as roughly $3.3 trillion in federal debt over the next decade.
The White House is emphasizing potential economic gains. It argues that the bill's tax cuts would boost consumers' finances and business investment.
President Trump chided the Senate to 'send this Bill to my desk AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! There is no time to waste.'
But these Republican senators could stand in his way:
An unusual alliance between haves and have-nots
The proposed $300 billion cut to SNAP, the nation's primary nutrition assistance program, tucked into the just-passed House Republican spending bill, isn't drawing fire just from anti-hunger organizations.
It's also teeing up a surprising collaboration with some of America's largest food and grocery companies, Danielle Kaye reports. For these industry titans, the 40 million-plus Americans who rely on SNAP represent a unique source of revenue.
Walmart tops the list of companies that benefit from SNAP. It captured almost 26 percent of SNAP dollars. Kroger, Albertsons and Costco are big recipients too, with chains like Sam's Club, Ahold Delhaize, 7-Eleven and Dollar General among the top 10 retailers benefiting from the program. (Kroger and Walmart declined to comment to DealBook.)
Fighting the cuts is complicated. Retailers are wary of backlash from Trump if they go public with their opposition. So it remains unclear about how much of a legislative priority they will ultimately make of it.
A person familiar with retailers' lobbying said one major company, which earns revenue from SNAP purchases, is worried that publicly condemning the proposed cuts would put them at risk of retaliation from the Trump administration.
The bill proposes the largest SNAP cuts in the program's history, said Ed Bolen, the director of SNAP state strategies at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 'That's just a significant blow to the retail sector,' he said.
Some industry groups are speaking out, even as big retailers stay quiet. 'The bill's dramatic changes to SNAP funding are deeply concerning,' Greg Ferrara, C.E.O. of the National Grocers Association, said in a statement on Thursday.
SNAP 'fuels economic activity in neighborhoods where every dollar counts and is reinvested locally,' he said. The Food Industry Association also has been vocal in its push to protect SNAP.
Big Food has previously flagged SNAP cuts. Kraft Heinz, on an earnings call last year, said it had been hit in 2023 by the Biden administration's move to end enhanced pandemic-related SNAP benefits. And Ahold Delhaize last year reported a quarterly sales drop because of the cutback in shoppers' benefits.
Deals
Politics, policy and regulation
Best of the rest