European stocks set to extend gains after White House hints at tariffs extension
Good morning from London.
European equities look set to extend yesterday's gains at the open on Friday.
Futures tied to the FTSE 100 are marginally higher, while those tied to Germany's DAX and France's CAC 40 indexes are up by 0.8% and 0.6%, respectively.
It comes after the Trump administration said the July deadlines for so-called reciprocal tariffs "could be extended" and are "not critical."
— Chloe Taylor
U.S. President Donald Trump arrives for a "One Big Beautiful" event at the White House in Washington, DC., U.S., June 26, 2025.
Nathan Howard | Reuters
President Donald Trump could extend looming deadlines for reimposing steep tariffs on imports from most of the world's countries, the White House said Thursday.
Trump's July 8 and 9 deadlines for restarting tariffs on those nations are "not critical," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters.
"Perhaps it could be extended, but that's a decision for the president to make," Leavitt said.
Leavitt also said Thursday that if any of those countries refuse to make a trade deal with the United States by the deadlines, "The president can simply provide these countries with a deal."
In late May, Trump threatened to impose tariffs of 50% on imports from European Union nations, all of whom had already been subject to the reciprocal tariffs imposed in April.
Read more here.
— Kevin Breuninger
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
6 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks. The justices reversed lower-court rulings in favor of the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington. The high court ruled that the schools likely could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in the case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The school district introduced the storybooks, including 'Prince & Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a niece worries that her uncle won't have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years and the case is among several religious-rights cases at the court this term. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. Many of the removals were organized by Moms for Liberty and other conservative organizations that advocate for more parental input over what books are available to students. Soon after President Donald Trump, a Republican, took office in January, the Education Department called the book bans a 'hoax' and dismissed 11 complaints that had been filed under Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing in the Maryland case that the objecting parents wanted 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. Parents initially had been allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. At arguments in April, a lawyer for the school district told the justices that the 'opt outs' had become disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though they didn't send their children to public schools. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at END PREP The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Tuesday signaled support for the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters. The court seemed likely to find that the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The case is one of three religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. Parents initially were allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though none sent their children to public schools. 'I guess I am a bit mystified as a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. Kavanaugh also expressed surprise that the school system was 'not respecting religious liberty,' especially because of the county's diverse population and Maryland's history as a haven for Catholics. Pressed repeatedly about why the school system couldn't reinstitute an opt-out policy, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said, 'It tried that. It failed. It was not able to accommodate the number of opt-outs at issue.' Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, Schoenfeld said. Justices referred to several of the books, but none as extensively as 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in which a niece worries that her uncle will not have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor and conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who are on opposite sides of most culture-war clashes, offered competing interpretations. 'Is looking at two men getting married, is that the religious objection?' Sotomayor said, noting there's not even any kissing involved. Alito described the book as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. 'The book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with,' he said. In all, five books are at issue in the high court case, touching on the same themes found in classic stories that include Snow White, Cinderella and Peter Pan, the school system's lawyers wrote. In 'Prince and Knight,' two men fall in love after they rescue the kingdom, and each other. 'Love, Violet' deals with a girl's anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl. 'Born Ready' is the story of a transgender boy's decision to share his gender identity with his family and the world. 'Intersection Allies' describes nine characters of varying backgrounds, including one who is gender-fluid. Billy Moges, a board member of the Kids First parents' group that sued over the books, said the content is sexual, confusing and inappropriate for young schoolchildren. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing what the parents want is 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by early summer.
Associated Press
6 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Hungary's LGBTQ+ community defies government ban on Pride march
BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — Hungary's LGBTQ+ community is preparing for a face-off with the country's autocratic government, and plans to push ahead with a march in the capital on Saturday despite a government ban and threats of legal repercussions. The populist party of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in March fast-tracked a law through parliament that made it an offense to hold or attend events that 'depict or promote' homosexuality to minors aged under 18. Orbán earlier made clear that Budapest Pride — marking its 30th anniversary this year — was the explicit target of the law. But on Friday, Pride organizers along with Budapest Mayor Gergely Karácsony, European Commissioner Hadja Lahbib and Vice President of the European Parliament Nicolae Stefanuta said the march will take place Saturday despite official threats of heavy fines for participants and even jail time for the liberal mayor. They expect the march to be the largest ever Pride event in Hungary. 'The government is always fighting against an enemy against which they have to protect Hungarian people ... This time, it is sexual minorities that are the target,' Karácsony told a news conference. 'We believe there should be no first and second class citizens, so we decided to stand by this event.' A crackdown on LGBTQ+ rights Critics of the Pride ban and other Hungarian legislation targeting LGBTQ+ communities say the policies are reminiscent of similar restrictions against sexual minorities in Russia. Hungary's recent law allows authorities to use facial recognition tools to identify individuals that attend a prohibited event. Being caught could result in fines of up to 200,000 Hungarian forints ($586.) Orbán, seen as Russian President Vladimir Putin's closest ally in the European Union, has in recent years prohibited same-sex adoption and banned any LGBTQ+ content including in television, films, advertisements and literature that is available to minors. His government argues exposure to such content negatively affects children's development. But opponents say the moves are part of a broader effort to scapegoat sexual minorities and consolidate his conservative base. Fines and facial recognition After police rejected several requests by organizers to register the Pride march, citing the recent law, Karácsony joined with organizers and declared it would be held as a separate municipal event — something he said does not require police approval. But Hungary's government has remained firm, insisting that holding the Pride march, even if it is sponsored by the city, would be unlawful. In a video on Facebook this week, Hungary's justice minister, Bence Tuzson, warned Karácsony that organizing Pride or encouraging people to attend is punishable by up to a year in prison. At the news conference Friday, Karácsony sought to dispel fears that police would impose heavy fines on Pride attendees. 'Police have only one task tomorrow: to guarantee the safety and security of those gathered at the event,' he said. Speaking to state radio on Friday, Orbán said that attending Pride 'will have legal consequences, but it can't reach the level of physical abuse.' 'The police could disperse such events, they have the right to do so. But Hungary is a civilized country,' he said. Right-wing counter-demonstrations On Thursday, radical right-wing party Our Homeland Movement announced it had requested police approval to hold assemblies at numerous locations across the city, many of them on the same route as the Pride march. Later, a neo-Nazi group said it too would gather Saturday at Budapest City Hall, from which the Pride march is set to depart. The group declared that only 'white, Christian, heterosexual men and women' were welcome to attend its demonstration. European officials respond Hungary's Pride ban has prompted a backlash from many of the country's partners and allies. Over 30 foreign embassies signed a joint statement this week expressing their commitment to 'every person's rights to equal treatment and nondiscrimination, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.' European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen posted on social platform X on Wednesday, calling on Hungarian authorities to allow Pride to proceed 'without fear of any criminal or administrative sanctions against the organizers or participants.' More than 70 members of the European Parliament, as well as other officials from countries around Europe, are expected to participate in Saturday's march. Lahbib, the European Commissioner, said Friday that 'all eyes are on Budapest' as Pride marchers defy the government's ban. 'The EU is not neutral on hate,' she said. 'We cannot stay passive. We cannot tolerate what is intolerable.'
Politico
7 minutes ago
- Politico
30 days and then what on birthright citizenship?
The Supreme Court has preserved the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance companies to cover preventive health services like colonoscopies and HIV prevention drugs at no cost to patients. It's the fourth time in the past 13 years that the high court has rejected major challenges to the 2010 health law. This time around, the vote was 6-3, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion for a cross-ideological majority. Three of the court's conservatives dissented. The case centered on a panel of experts known as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The Affordable Care Act authorized the task force to specify health screenings and other preventive services that insurers must cover without charging patients copayments, deductibles or other cost-sharing. Tens of millions of Americans rely on those services, including cancer screenings, heart disease medications and the drug, known as PrEP, that prevents the transmission of HIV. Opponents of the ACA who object to the HIV drug argued that the task force — which is chosen by the secretary of Health and Human Services — was unconstitutionally appointed. The task force members, the opponents argued, wield so much power that they amount to 'principal officers' under the Constitution's appointments clause and must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, reasoning that the members are not principal officers because the health secretary can ignore their recommendations, fire them and replace them. 'Task Force members issue preventive-services recommendations of critical importance to patients, doctors, insurers, employers, healthcare organizations, and the American people more broadly. In doing so, however, the Task Force members remain subject to the Secretary of HHS's supervision and direction, and the Secretary remains subject to the President's supervision and direction,' Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. 'The structure of the Task Force and the manner of appointing its officers preserve the chain of political accountability that was central to the Framers' design of the Appointments Clause.' Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The Trump administration surprised many when it revealed earlier this year that it would continue the Biden administration's defense of the Obamacare provision. But it shifted the focus of the federal government's legal argument. The Biden Justice Department had argued in lower courts that free preventive care was crucial for the health of millions of American patients. The Trump DOJ, on the other hand, focused during oral arguments before the Supreme Court in April on preserving executive power and fending off judicial and legislative encroachments. Health policy experts and patient advocates who expressed relief that the Trump administration opted to defend Obamacare remain concerned that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other officials will now deploy that power to reshape what services must be covered by insurance without copays. 'They really pointed out how much authority they think their Secretary wields, which is kind of foreboding given who the Secretary is and his ideas about science and health,' said Andrew Twinamatsiko, the director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute. 'Somebody could be fairly concerned that there could be weaponization of the task force.' And, while this case focused solely on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the decision could also empower Kennedy to overhaul other advisory panels at HHS.
