The Week in Numbers: tariff whiplash, tech earnings
STORY: From fresh whiplash over U.S. tariffs, to good news, bad news at Nvidia, this is the Week in Numbers.
::50%
50% was… and then wasn't set to be the U.S. tariff on EU products from June 1.
Trump threatened to set that levy, frustrated by the pace of talks.
But he then backed off after a call with European Commission chief Ursula Von der Leyen.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said tough talking had proved effective:
'And as we saw with the president's threat of 50% tariffs last Friday, the EU came to the table very quickly over the weekend. So now we've got the EU in motion also.'
::69%
69% was the surge in sales for Nvidia over the latest quarter.
The news cheered markets, and sent shares higher.
But the firm warned that U.S. curbs on shipments to China would cut $8 billion off sales in the coming period.
That forced it to offer a forecast below Wall Street expectations.
::49%
49% was the plunge in European sales for Tesla in April.
That drop came even as the region's overall market for EVs jumped.
Analysts say the number suggests an updated Model Y crossover isn't boosting Tesla sales in Europe, where the brand has been hurt by Elon Musk's embrace of right-wing politics.
::$15.5 billion
Almost $15.5 billion was the record revenue at Xiaomi.
The all-time high comes as the phonemaker steps up its move into the car market.
This week its YU7 SUV hit showrooms, aimed squarely at taking another chunk out of Tesla sales.
::$327 million
And close to $327 million was the record box office for the top 10 films at North American cinemas over any Memorial Day weekend.
Takings were boosted by the latest 'Mission: Impossible' blockbuster, as well as Disney's live-action remake of 'Lilo & Stitch'.
The numbers offered a desperately needed boost for the movie industry, with ticket sales still below pre-pandemic levels.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. just radically changed its COVID vaccine recommendations: How will it affect you?
As promised, federal health officials have dropped longstanding recommendations that healthy children and healthy pregnant women should get the COVID-19 vaccines. "The COVID-19 vaccine schedule is very clear. The vaccine is not recommended for pregnant women. The vaccine is not recommended for healthy children," the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a post on X on Friday. In formal documents, health officials offer "no guidance" on whether pregnant women should get the vaccine, and ask that parents talk with a healthcare provider before getting the vaccine for their children. The decision was done in a way that is still expected to require insurers to pay for COVID-19 vaccines for children should their parents still want the shots for them. The new vaccine guidelines were posted to the website of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday. It wasn't immediately clear whether insurers will still be required under federal law to pay for vaccinations for pregnant women. The Trump administration's decision came amid criticism from officials at the nation's leading organizations for pediatricians and obstetricians. Some doctors said there is no new evidence to support removing the recommendation that healthy pregnant women and healthy children should get the COVID vaccine. "This situation continues to make things unclear and creates confusion for patients, providers and payers," the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement Friday. Earlier in the week, the group's president, Dr. Steven Fleischman, said the science hasn't changed, and that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe during pregnancy, and protects both the mom-to-be and their infants after birth. "It is very clear that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic," Fleischman said in a statement. Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, criticized the recommendation change as being rolled out in a "conflicting, confusing" manner, with "no explanation of the evidence used to reach their conclusions." "For many families, the COVID vaccine will remain an important way they protect their child and family from this disease and its complications, including long COVID," Kressly said in a statement. Some experts said the Trump administration should have waited to hear recommendations from a committee of doctors and scientists that typically advises the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on immunization recommendations, which is set to meet in late June. The California Department of Public Health on Thursday said it supported the longstanding recommendation that "COVID-19 vaccines be available for all persons aged 6 months and older who wish to be vaccinated." The changes come as the CDC has faced an exodus of senior leaders and has lacked an acting director. Typically, as was the case during the first Trump administration and in the Biden administration, it is the CDC director who makes final decisions on vaccine recommendations. The CDC director has traditionally accepted the consensus viewpoint of the CDC's panel of doctors and scientists serving on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Even with the longstanding recommendations, vaccination rates were relatively low for children and pregnant women. As of late April, 13% of children, and 14.4% of pregnant women, had received the latest updated COVID-19 vaccine, according to the CDC. About 23% of adults overall received the updated vaccine, as did 27.8% of seniors age 65 and over. The CDC estimates that since October, there have been 31,000 to 50,000 COVID deaths and between 270,000 and 430,000 COVID hospitalizations. Here are some key points about the CDC's decision: Previously, the CDC's guidance was simple: everyone ages 6 months and up should get an updated COVID vaccination. The most recent version was unveiled in September, and is officially known as the 2024-25 COVID-19 vaccine. As of Thursday, the CDC, on its pediatric immunization schedule page, says that for healthy children — those age 6 months to 17 years — decisions about COVID vaccination should come from "shared clinical decision-making," which is "informed by a decision process between the healthcare provider and the patient or parent/guardian." "Where the parent presents with a desire for their child to be vaccinated, children 6 months and older may receive COVID-19 vaccination, informed by the clinical judgment of a healthcare provider and personal preference and circumstances," the CDC says. The vaccine-skeptic secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., contended in a video posted on Tuesday there was a "lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children." However, an earlier presentation by CDC staff said that, in general, getting an updated vaccine provides both children and adults additional protection from COVID-related emergency room and urgent care visits. Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, a UC San Francisco infectious diseases expert, said he would have preferred the CDC retain its broader recommendation that everyone age 6 months and up get the updated vaccine. "It's simpler," Chin-Hong said. He added there's no new data out there that to him suggests children shouldn't be getting the updated COVID vaccine. A guideline that involves "shared decision-making," Chin-Hong said, "is a very nebulous recommendation, and it doesn't result in a lot of people getting vaccines." Kressly, of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the shared clinical decision-making model is challenging to implement "because it lacks clear guidance for the conversations between a doctor and a family. Doctors and families need straightforward, evidence-based guidance, not vague, impractical frameworks." Some experts had been worried that the CDC would make a decision that would've ended the federal requirement that insurers cover the cost of COVID-19 vaccines for children. The out-of-pocket cost for a COVID-19 vaccine can reach around $200. In its adult immunization schedule for people who have medical conditions, the CDC now says it has "no guidance" on whether pregnant women should get the COVID-19 vaccine. In his 58-second video on Tuesday, Kennedy did not explain why he thought pregnant women should not be recommended to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Chin-Hong, of UCSF, called the decision to drop the vaccination recommendation for pregnant women "100%" wrong. Pregnancy brings with it a relatively compromised immune system. Pregnant women have "a high chance of getting infections, and they get more serious disease — including COVID," Chin-Hong said. A pregnant woman getting vaccinated also protects the newborn. "You really need the antibodies in the pregnant person to go across the placenta to protect the newborn," Chin-Hong said. It's especially important, Chin-Hong and others say, because infants under 6 months of age can't be vaccinated against COVID-19, and they have as high a risk of severe complications as do seniors age 65 and over. There are some questions that don't have immediate answers. Will some vaccine providers start requiring doctor's notes in order for healthy children and healthy pregnant women to get vaccinated? Will it be harder for children and pregnant women to get vaccinated at a pharmacy? In a statement, CVS Pharmacy said it "follows federal guidance and state law regarding vaccine administration and are monitoring any changes that the government may make regarding vaccine eligibility." The insurer Aetna, which is owned by CVS, is also monitoring any changes federal officials make to COVID-19 vaccine eligibility "and will evaluate whether coverage adjustments are needed." Blue Shield of California said it will not change its practices on covering COVID-19 vaccines. "Despite the recent federal policy change on COVID-19 vaccinations for healthy children and pregnant women, Blue Shield of California will continue to cover COVID-19 vaccines for all eligible members," the insurer said in a statement. "The decision on whether to receive a COVID-19 vaccine is between our member and their provider. Blue Shield does not require prior authorization for COVID-19 vaccines." Under California law, health plans regulated by the state Department of Managed Health Care must cover COVID-19 vaccines without requiring prior authorization, the agency said Friday. "If consumers access these services from a provider in their health plan's network, they will not need to pay anything for these services," the statement said. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Explains Reason For Doubling Steel, Aluminum Tariffs
President Donald Trump at the U.S. Steel Corporation—Irvin Works in West Mifflin, Penn., on Friday, May 30, 2025. Credit - Rebecca Droke—Getty Images President Donald Trump announced on Friday that he plans to double the tariffs on steel and aluminum—increasing the charge from 25% to 50%. The tariff escalation comes at a precarious time, as Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs are immersed in legal trouble at the court level and many U.S. businesses are struggling to contend with the back-and-forth nature of the levies. Trump's announcement also coincides with the 'blockbuster' agreement between U.S. Steel and Japanese steel company Nippon, a deal which he promised will include no layoffs and the steelmaker will be "controlled by the USA." The steepened tariffs could potentially further escalate tensions between the U.S. and its previous top steel partners, which include Canada, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, and Vietnam. As the U.S.' number one steel importer, Canada—with whom the U.S. has already escalated tensions due to Trump's other tariffs—stands to feel the pressure of this latest move. Here's what to know about Trump's doubled tariffs and what experts have to say about it. Trump announced his decision during a rally at U.S. Steel's Mon Valley Works–Irvin Plant near Pittsburgh in West Mifflin, Penn., surrounded by hardhat-donned steel workers. 'We're going to bring it from 25% percent to 50%—the tariffs on steel into the United States of America—which will even further secure the steel industry in the United States,' Trump told the crowd, offering his reasoning that the increased charges will ultimately help the domestic industry. 'Nobody's going to get around that.' He later posted about his decision on social media, revealing that the tariffs would also be raised for aluminum.'Our steel and aluminum industries are coming back like never before,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'This will be yet another BIG jolt of great news for our wonderful steel and aluminum workers.' In Trump's announcement post on Truth Social, he said that the doubled tariffs would come into effect on Wednesday, June 4. Although it's worth noting that other tariff threats—such as the proposed 50% charge on the E.U. and the majority of Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs that he announced on April 2—have been temporarily paused to allow time for negotiations. It remains to be seen if an extension will be granted for this new June 4 date. The back-and-forth on tariff dates and rates has left many businesses in limbo, though Felix Tintelnot, professor of economics at Duke University, says that with steel and aluminum, the Administration has generally followed through on the timings they've announced. The question, he says, is how long the 50% will stand, as he's seen the rates 'flip-flopping all the time.' Tintelnot argues that the resulting uncertainty is causing real harm to U.S. businesses and thus, in turn, impacting workers, despite Trump's claims that the tariffs will bring large amounts of money to the U.S. steel industry. 'We're talking about expansion of capacity of heavy industry that comes with significant upfront investments, and no business leader should take heavy upfront investments if they don't believe that the same policy is there two, three, or four years from now,' Tintelnot says. 'Regardless of whether you're in favor [of] or against these tariffs, you don't want the President to just set tax rates arbitrarily, sort of by Executive Order all the time.' Though Tintelnot agrees that the escalated tariffs should help the domestic steel industry, he says it will be coinciding with struggles in other U.S. industries as a result of the increase. 'So, this is expected to raise the price of aluminum, which is important in inputs for downstream industries like the automotive industry, as well as construction, so there's sort of a distributional conflict here,' Tintelnot warns. 'Yes, it does help the domestic steel sector, but [it's] hurting these other sectors of the economy, and they are already hard hit by other tariffs.' The USW (Unity and Strength for Workers, most commonly referred to as United Steelworkers)—a trade union of steelworkers across North America— said in a statement that the increase will have a negative impact on Canada's industries and jobs. 'This isn't trade policy—it's a direct attack on Canadian industries and workers,' said Marty Warren, United Steelworkers national director for Canada. 'Thousands of Canadian jobs are on the line and communities that rely on steel and aluminum are being put at risk. Canada needs to respond immediately and decisively to defend workers.' Meanwhile, Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said that the plan to double tariffs is a 'direct attack on Canadian workers and a reckless move' and warned that it "could shut Canadian steel and aluminum out of the U.S. market entirely and put thousands of good union jobs at risk." Speaking about the tariffs overall, Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Friday that he intends to jumpstart and fast track national building projects throughout the country to respond to Trump's trade war, 'ensuring that the Canadian government becomes a catalyst for, not an impediment to, nation-building projects that will supercharge growth in communities, both large and small.' Other international lawmakers, meanwhile, have voiced their disapproval of Trump's tariffs escalations. Australia's Minister for Trade and Tourism, Don Farrell, said that Trump's doubled charges were 'unjustified and not the act of a friend.' Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Marco Rubio declares war on the global censors
Winston Churchill once warned that 'appeasement is feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last.' When it comes to the crocodile of censorship, history is strewn with defenders who later became digestives. Censorship produces an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech limits, and today's censorship supporters often become tomorrow's censored subjects. This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stopped feeding the crocodile. On May 28, 2025, Rubio shocked many of our allies by issuing a new visa restriction policy that bars foreign nationals deemed 'responsible for censorship of protected expression' in the U.S. The new policy follows a major address by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich challenging our European allies to end their systematic attacks on free speech. Vance declared, 'If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.' At the time, I called the speech 'Churchillian' in drawing a bright line for the free world. Rubio's action is no less impressive and even more impactful. Europe has faced no consequences for its aggressive efforts at transnational censorship. Indeed, this should not be a fight for the administration alone. Congress should explore reciprocal penalties for foreign governments targeting American companies or citizens for engaging in protected speech. After Vance spoke in Munich, I spoke in Berlin at the World Forum, where European leaders gathered in one of the most strikingly anti-free speech conferences I have attended. This year's forum embraced the slogan 'A New World Order with European Values.' That 'new world order' is based on an aggressive anti-free speech platform that has been enforced for years by the European Union. At the heart of this effort is the Digital Services Act, a draconian law that allows for sweeping censorship and speech prosecutions. Most importantly, it has been used by the EU to threaten American corporations for their failure to censor Americans and others on social media sites. After the World Forum, I returned home to warn that this is now an existential war over a right that defines us as a people —the very 'Indispensable Right' identified by Justice Louis Brandeis, which is essential for every other right in the Constitution. The irony was crushing. I wrote about how this nation has fought to protect our rights in world wars, yet many in Congress simply shrug or even support the effort as other countries move to make Americans censor other Americans. What was most unnerving about Berlin was how Americans have encouraged Europeans to target their fellow citizens. At the forum was Hillary Clinton who, after Elon Musk purchased Twitter on a pledge to dismantle its massive censorship system, called upon the EU to use the Digital Services Act to force him to resume censorship. Other Americans have appeared before the EU to call upon it to oppose the U.S. Nina Jankowicz, the former head of President Joe Biden's infamous Disinformation Governance Board, has recently returned to he EU to rally other nations to oppose what she described as 'the autocracy, the United States of America.' She warned that the Digital Services Act was under attack, and that the EU had to fight and beat the U.S.: 'Do not capitulate. Hold the line.' Former European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton even threatened Musk for interviewing Trump before our last presidential election. He told Musk that he was being 'monitored' in conducting any interview with now-President Trump. The EU is doubling down on these efforts, including threatening Musk with prosecution and massive confiscatory fines if he does not resume censoring users of X. The penalties are expected to exceed $1 billion. Other countries are following suit. Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes shut down X in his entire country over Musk's refusal to remove political posts. These countries could remotely control speech within the U.S., forcing companies like X to meet the lowest common denominator set by the EU and anti-free speech groups. There are free speech concerns even in such measures designed to protect free speech. This policy should be confined to government officials, particularly EU officials, who are actively seeking to export European censorship systems worldwide. It should not extend to academics or individuals who are part of the growing anti-free speech movement. Free speech itself can counter those voices. These are the same voices that we have heard throughout history, often using the very same terms and claims to silence others. However, Rubio showed Europe that the U.S. would not simply stand by as European censors determined what Americans could say, read, or watch. As the EU threatens companies like X with billion-dollar fines, it is time for the U.S. to treat this as an attack on our citizens from abroad. Franklin Delano Roosevelt put it simply during World War II: 'No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it.' It is time to get serious about the European threat to free speech. And Rubio is doing just that — finally imposing real consequences for censorship. We are not going to defeat censors by yelling at them. Speech alone clearly does not impress them. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
