US tariff of 30% on EU could ‘stop trade as we know it'
Simon Harris was echoing comments from the EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic who said on Monday that such a tariff would effectively 'prohibit' trans-Atlantic trade.
US President Donald Trump indicated at the weekend that the EU would face a 30% tariff from August 1 if a deal is not struck.
The Irish drinks industry has described it as a 'nightmare' scenario and concern has also been expressed on the effect such tariffs could have on US pharma multinationals based in Ireland.
Simon Harris, who is also Ireland's deputy premier, said Mr Sefcovic was sharing a 'grim message' but it was 'important to be truthful'.
The Tanaiste said a 30% tariff would be 'extraordinary' and urged businesses to prepare for all scenarios, but added that a negotiated agreement was still possible.
'He (Mr Trump) knows as a businessman that tariffs at that level would not just disrupt trade, it would in many ways stop trade as we know it functioning between Europe and the US,' he told Newstalk radio.
'So I do still believe there is a landing zone here for a deal, there is a landing zone for an agreement.'
He said that Mr Trump had previously threatened tariffs that did not come into effect. In May, Mr Trump said he was recommending that a 50% tariff rate come into effect on June 1.
He added: 'This is a time of huge volatility but, let me be clear, there is a way forward.
'I know from the conversations I've been having with colleagues, I know from my meetings with the US administration there is a deal here to be done, there is a landing zone, the question is if and when the US is up for it.'
Mr Harris met the US ambassador to Ireland, Ed Walsh, on Monday, and is to meet Irish-based US pharmaceutical multinationals online on Wednesday.
Ireland has consistently called for zero-for-zero tariffs in as many areas as possible, with particular concern about Irish beef, dairy and alcohol exports.
The Irish government has also expressed concern at how tariffs could affect pharma multinationals based in Ireland.
The US has previously signalled that it intends to target the pharmaceutical industry, which employs about 45,000 people in Ireland.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
a few seconds ago
- CNN
Could Trump strip citizenship from Elon Musk, Zohran Mamdani or Rosie O'Donnell?
What do the world's richest man, a candidate for New York City's top job and a comedian who once co-hosted 'The View' have in common? In recent weeks, President Donald Trump has made comments implying their US citizenship could be in jeopardy. Trump told reporters he'd look into the possibility of deporting Elon Musk. He threatened to arrest Zohran Mamdani. And he posted on social media that he's seriously considering revoking Rosie O'Donnell's citizenship. The comments come as his administration is also sharing broader plans to prioritize denaturalization, the legal process used to strip individuals of their citizenship. What exactly did Trump say, how likely is any of this to happen, and what's the broader context around these statements? Here's a look at some key questions and answers. Asked by a reporter earlier this month whether he'd deport Musk, Trump said, 'I don't know, I mean, we'll have to take a look.' He made a similar statement when asked by another reporter what he'd do if Mamdani defies US Immigration and Customs Enforcement in New York City. 'We'll have to arrest him. Look, we don't need a communist in this country, but if we have one, I'm going to be watching over him very carefully on behalf of the nation,' Trump said. The president went on to add: 'A lot of people are saying that he's here illegally. We're going to look at everything.' There is no evidence that Mamdani is in the country illegally, though a conservative lawmaker has called for an investigation into his citizenship. Musk and Mamdani are both naturalized US citizens. Musk was born in Pretoria, South Africa, and became a US citizen in 2002, according to biographies of the billionaire. Mamdani was born in Kampala, Uganda, and became a US citizen in 2018. Regarding O'Donnell, Trump posted on Truth Social that the comedian 'is not in the best interests of our Great Country.' 'I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship,' Trump wrote, calling the US-born actress a 'Threat to Humanity.' It was the latest volley in a longrunning feud between Trump and O'Donnell that's frequently played out on social media. Trump hasn't said what prompted his latest post. O'Donnell, who moved to Ireland with her 12-year-old child in January, had recently criticized how his administration handled devastating floods in Texas. O'Donnell said earlier this year that she was in the process of getting Irish citizenship as she has Irish grandparents. Musk: In response to a video of Trump's remarks shared on X, Musk said: 'So tempting to escalate this. So, so tempting. But I will refrain for now.' Musk hasn't responded to an inquiry from CNN about Trump's comments. In the past, the billionaire has denied accusations that he began his career working illegally in the US. Mamdani: The New York mayoral hopeful decried the president's comments in a press briefing the next day: 'Yesterday, Donald Trump said that I should be arrested, he said that I should be deported, he said that I should be denaturalized, and he said those things about me, someone who stands to be the first immigrant mayor of this city in generations, someone who would also be the first Muslim and the first South Asian mayor in the city's history. And he said these things less so because of who I am, because of where I come from, because of how I look or how I speak. And more so because he wants to distract from what I fight for.' O'Donnell: The onetime cohost of 'The View' fired back on Instagram, comparing Trump to a notoriously petulant and evil 'Game of Thrones' character: 'you want to revoke my citizenship? go ahead and try, king joffrey with a tangerine spray tan. i'm not yours to silence. i never was.' Musk, Mamdani and O'Donnell are all high-profile figures whose political differences with the president are well known. But Trump's comments regarding their citizenship aren't happening in a vacuum. In the recent past, denaturalizations were rare, averaging only 11 cases per year between 1990 and 2017, according to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. The number of filings increased after the Justice Department opened an office focused on denaturalization during Trump's first term. That office was quietly closed during the Biden administration, but the second Trump administration has made no secret of its desire to increase denaturalization as part of its immigration crackdowns. Stephen Miller has vowed the renewed effort will be 'turbocharged.' And a memo issued by the Justice Department last month directed attorneys in the civil division to prioritize denaturalization 'in all cases permitted by law.' The memo also suggests that US attorneys' offices across the country should flag cases where they may be able to initiate denaturalization proceedings. It's unclear whether the Trump administration will act on the President's comments referencing the citizenship of Musk, Mamdani or O'Donnell. 'Trump's words don't always tell us what he's going to do. It's sort of hard to know what to make of it,' says Matthew Hoppock, an immigration attorney in Kansas who's represented clients in denaturalization proceedings. 'I don't know if we should take him at his word, because a lot of these (comments) are not planned statements; they're in response to things that journalists say,' he adds. And in the past, when the Trump administration announced plans to increase denaturalization during his first administration, the number of cases officials ultimately pursued was smaller than promised. During the first Trump administration, US Citizenship and Immigration Services announced it would refer 1,600 denaturalization cases to the Department of Justice. In the end, just over 100 denaturalization cases were filed during Trump's first term, according to the Justice Department. The US law used to revoke the citizenship of naturalized Americans outlines two general grounds for such cases: -Illegal procurement of naturalization -Concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation For years the statute was used largely to target war criminals, including former Nazis who lied their way into becoming American citizens. But denaturalization is rare. And for the government, accusing someone of concealing a material fact in their application or becoming a citizen illegally is just the beginning. 'It still has to be a process which happens before a federal district court, and … the government has the burden of proving it by clear and convincing evidence,' says Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. And winning that case in court can be difficult. 'Trump cannot denaturalize either Musk or Mamdani. Only a court can. And there's a process. And a high bar for that,' Chishti says. O'Donnell is a US citizen who was born on New York's Long Island. Experts say a president can't unilaterally take away the citizenship of someone who, like O'Donnell, was born in the US. The law outlines a series of circumstances under which someone can lose their citizenship if they perform certain actions voluntarily 'with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.' 'Under the law, there is no mechanism for any natural-born United States citizen to lose their citizenship other than by renunciation (giving it up voluntarily) or death,' Hoppock says. 'Even if Congress created some law making it possible, the Supreme Court has held that such a law would be unconstitutional.' Earlier this month, Justice Department spokesman Chad Gilmartin said five denaturalization cases had been filed since Trump's return to power. 'MORE TO COME,' he wrote on X in a series of posts that included a page from the memo outlining the Justice Department's updated guidelines for the practice. Gilmartin's post did not provide additional details about the filed denaturalization cases. A June press release from the department describes the recent denaturalization of a former US Army soldier who pleaded guilty in 2014 to receiving child pornography. The Justice Department's recent memo notes that attorneys should aim their denaturalization work to target anyone who poses 'a potential danger to national security.' It also says people who've committed violent crimes, are members or associates of gangs and drug cartels or have committed fraud should be prioritized. Some immigration law experts have expressed concern that the memo could lead to the administration retroactively searching for missteps in the naturalization process of perceived political opponents. 'The politicization of citizenship rights is something that really worries me,' Cassandra Burke Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, told CNN. The Justice Department told CNN in a statement earlier this month that denaturalization proceedings 'will only be pursued as permitted by law and supported by evidence against individuals who illegally procured or misrepresented facts in the naturalization process.' Chishti, of the Migration Policy Institute, says Trump's comments about Musk and Mamdani signify a notable shift in the way denaturalization is being discussed. 'This is a totally different chapter of going after your political enemies that has no precedent really,' he says. 'It's not that we have had no record of denaturalization. But political animus has never raised its ugly head in our process. This seems clearly driven by political motivation. And that's unfortunate.' Hoppock says the president's recent comments about O'Donnell appear to be in a similar vein. 'It's an extremely concerning signal from a President that seems to have no concern for the Constitution,' he wrote in an email. When asked for a response, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson did not address the specific claims made by Chishti and Hoppock, but questioned their expertise and noted they'd donated in the past to Democrats. Taken alone, Chishti said Trump's comments about Musk and Mamdani might not have much of an impact. But coupled with the government deciding to revoke visas and green cards for people based on political opinions and foreign policy, he says, the potential chilling effect is clear. 'People, even naturalized citizens, will start being careful about anything they say. Because…even the success of the case is not important. It's the fact that…exercising your First Amendment right of expressing your opinion could land you in a denaturalization proceeding. That's very troubling,' Chishti says. CNN's Hannah Rabinowitz, Donald Judd, Kit Maher and Hadas Gold contributed to this report.
CNBC
a few seconds ago
- CNBC
'Trump accounts' come with a $1,000 baby bonus. Then the rules get complicated, tax experts say
President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending package includes a new child savings account with a one-time deposit of $1,000 from the federal government for newborns. The premise is simple: So-called "Trump accounts," a type of tax-advantaged savings account, will be available to all children who are U.S. citizens starting in July 2026. Beyond that, the rules get somewhat confusing, tax experts say. Under Trump's "big beautiful bill," children born in 2025 through 2028 will also receive a $1,000 deposit each in their Trump account, funded by the Department of the Treasury. There are no income requirements. Parents and others will be able to contribute up to $5,000 a year in after-tax dollars up until the year before the beneficiary turns 18. Employers could also contribute up to $2,500 to an employee's account, which wouldn't be counted as income to the recipient. Both caps will be indexed to inflation. The balance will be invested in a low-cost fund that tracks a U.S. stock index. From a tax perspective, the accounts would function like an individual retirement account. Earnings grow tax-deferred, and qualified withdrawals are generally taxed as ordinary income. Here's where it starts to get tricky. Trump account funds may not be easily accessed for decades. Money in a Trump account generally can't be withdrawn before the beneficiary turns 18. After that, "it turns into a traditional IRA," said Ben Henry-Moreland, a certified financial planner with advisor platform Because the final version adheres to IRA rules, savers would pay a 10% tax penalty on withdrawals before age 59½. In earlier versions of both the House and Senate bill, withdrawals could begin at age 18, at which point account holders would have been able to tap the funds for education expenses or college alternative programs, the down payment on a first home or as capital to start a small business. "The IRA distribution rules requiring owners to wait until they reach age 59½ to make penalty-free withdrawals would presumably still be in effect," according to Henry-Moreland's analysis of the legislation. More from Personal Finance:Trump's 'big beautiful bill' slashes CFPB funding78% say Trump's tariffs will make it harder to deal with debtTax changes under Trump's 'big beautiful bill' — in one chart There are ways to avoid the IRA early withdrawal penalty for those under 59½, including if the funds are used to pay for qualifying higher-education expenses or first-time home purchases, as well as for emergency expenses, among certain other exceptions. However, since Trump accounts include a mix of after-tax contributions, initial seed money and investment income, distributions are still partially taxable. That means there are fewer tax planning opportunities compared with traditional and Roth IRAs, where there's either a tax break on contributions or on withdrawals. Trump accounts have neither. "It seems like this is a good idea, complicated with unfavorable tax characteristics," said Zach Teutsch, a managing partner at Values Added Financial in Washington, D.C. For example, "in a Roth account, you don't have to pay tax on the income or the gains, and that just seems better," he said. Experts say that additional details on the tax treatment of distributions will need further clarification from the Treasury Department or Internal Revenue Service. "This is really a retirement account for children," Henry-Moreland said. "It's a way to put money in an account at a young age that gets saved but doesn't have the earned income requirement that a traditional or Roth IRA would have." But because Trump accounts are also restricted to stock funds, that means that savers won't be able to benefit from rebalancing with less risky fixed-income options, such as bonds or cash. After age 18, the "eligible investment" rules may no longer apply and the beneficiary can invest the funds in any way allowed within an IRA, according to Henry-Moreland. Republican lawmakers have said Trump accounts will introduce more Americans to wealth-building opportunities, particularly by investing in the stock market. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who spearheaded the effort, said in a May "Squawk Box" interview that the accounts give children "the miracle of the compound growth, the ability to accumulate wealth, which is transformational." A $1,000 initial deposit boosts the attractiveness of these accounts, too. Although some states, including Connecticut and Colorado, already offer a type of "baby bonds" program for parents, most tax professionals agree that the biggest benefit of Trump accounts is the seed money for children born from Jan. 1, 2025, through Dec. 31, 2028. "There's going to be a nice big check coming into the account," said Evan Morgan, a certified public accountant and tax principal at Kaufman Rossin, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Just as advisors recommend deferring enough into a 401(k) plan to benefit from your employer's full 401(k) matching contribution, there is no reason to pass this up. "If the government is giving you free money, you should take it," said Teutsch. Otherwise, most experts say a 529 college savings plan is a better alternative for families because of the higher contribution limits and tax advantages. This year, individuals can gift up to $19,000 to a 529, or up to $38,000 if you're married and file taxes jointly, per child without those contributions counting toward your lifetime gift tax exemption. Generally, 529 plans offer age-based portfolios, which start off with more equity exposure early on in a child's life and then become more conservative as college nears. By the time high school graduation is around the corner, families likely have very little invested in stocks and more in investments like bonds and cash. That can help blunt their losses. "At least in a 529 plan you have more flexibility on what to invest in," Morgan said. Although there are limitations on what 529 funds can be used for beyond higher-education costs, restrictions have loosened in recent years to include continuing education classes, apprenticeship programs and student loan payments. Withdrawals from 529s for nonqualified expenses can be subject to tax and a 10% penalty. Also, as of 2024, families can roll over unused 529 funds to the account beneficiary's Roth IRA without triggering income taxes or penalties, so long as they meet certain requirements. "If you were looking at this compared to a 529, I would almost pick a 529 every time," Henry-Moreland said. In some cases, wealthier families could benefit from fully funding a 529 plan and then putting additional funds in a Trump account, as a way to get a jump start on retirement savings without having to satisfy the earned income component of a traditional IRA or Roth, according to Teutsch. However, "most Americans don't even put one dollar into 529 plans, let alone maxing them out," he said.
Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
California Strikes Back at Trump Over High-Speed Rail Funding
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. California has escalated its fight against President Donald Trump's administration after the federal government rescinded $4 billion in funding earmarked for the state's ambitious high-speed rail project. On Thursday, the California High-Speed Rail Authority filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, seeking to overturn the decision that state officials alleged was an "arbitrary and capricious abuse of authority." Newsweek has contacted the rail authority and Governor Gavin Newsom's office for more information via email. Why It Matters The lawsuit could determine the fate of the biggest high-speed rail project in the U.S. Losing federal funds threatens tens of thousands of jobs and could delay or derail the completion of the Central Valley segment. The outcome could also have a knock-on effect on transit infrastructure, particularly as the project's cost estimate has soared to $128 billion. What To Know The California High-Speed Rail Authority, joined by state Attorney General Rob Bonta, filed the lawsuit after the Federal Railroad Administration pulled $4 billion in grants originally designated for construction in the Central Valley. The complaint said the Trump administration's decision was "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law." It added that the action could have severe economic implications for the state. The suit names U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and acting Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration Drew Feeley as defendants. President Donald Trump greeting California Governor Gavin Newsom at Beale Air Force Base in California on November 17, 2018. President Donald Trump greeting California Governor Gavin Newsom at Beale Air Force Base in California on November 17, 2018. Getty Images Newsom said in a statement shortly before the suit was filed, "California is putting all options on the table to fight this illegal action." Approved by state voters in 2008, California's high-speed rail was originally intended to link San Francisco and Los Angeles by 2020 at a projected cost of $33 billion. On Wednesday, Trump, who has been threatening to withdraw federal funding since the beginning of his second term, made the decision to withdraw $4 billion, branding the project a "boondoggle" that had been mismanaged by Democratic leaders in California. What People Are Saying California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement to Newsweek on Wednesday: "Trump wants to hand China the future and abandon the Central Valley. We won't let him. With projects like the Texas high-speed rail failing to take off, we are miles ahead of others. We're now in the track-laying phase and building America's only high-speed rail. California is putting all options on the table to fight this illegal action." California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Ian Choudri told Newsweek on Wednesday: "Canceling these grants without cause isn't just wrong—it's illegal. These are legally binding agreements, and the Authority has met every obligation, as confirmed by repeated federal reviews, as recently as February 2025. "America's only high-speed rail project underway is fast approaching the track-laying phase, with 171 miles under active construction and design, 15,500 jobs created, and more than 50 major structures completed. This is no time for Washington to walk away on America's transportation future." What Happens Next California's lawsuit is set to proceed in the U.S. District Court, with initial hearings anticipated in the coming months. The California High-Speed Rail Authority plans to submit an updated funding strategy to state lawmakers and is seeking private investment and legislative backing for increased cap-and-trade support.
