World economies reel from US tariffs punch
Global markets reeled Friday after President Donald Trump's tariffs barrage against nearly all US trading partners as governments looked down the barrel of a seven-day deadline before higher duties take effect. Trump announced late on Thursday that dozens of economies, including the European Union, will face new tariff rates of between 10 and 41 percent.
However, implementation will be on August 7 rather than Friday as previously announced, the White House said. This gives governments a window to rush to strike deals with Washington setting more favorable conditions. Neighboring Canada, one of the biggest US trade partners, was hit with 35 percent levies, up from 25 percent, effective Friday — but with wide-ranging, current exemptions remaining in place.
The tariffs are a demonstration of raw economic power that Trump sees putting US exporters in a stronger position, while encouraging domestic manufacturing by keeping out foreign imports.
But the muscular approach has raised fears of inflation and other economic fallout in the world's biggest economy. Stock markets in Hong Kong, London and New York slumped as they digested the turmoil, while weak US employment data added to worries.
Trump's actions come as debate rages over how best to steer the US economy, with the Federal Reserve this week deciding to keep interest rates unchanged, despite massive political pressure from the White House to cut. Data Friday showed US job growth missing expectations for July, while unemployment ticked up to 4.2 percent from 4.1 percent.
On Wall Street, the S&P 500 dropped 1.6 percent, while the Nasdaq tumbled 2.2 percent.
Trump raised duties on around 70 economies, from a current 10 percent level imposed in April when he unleashed 'reciprocal' tariffs citing unfair trade practices. The new, steeper levels listed in an executive order vary by trading partner. Any goods 'transshipped' through other jurisdictions to avoid US duties would be hit with an additional 40 percent tariff, the order said.
But Trump's duties also have a distinctly political flavor, with the president using separate tariffs to pressure Brazil to drop the trial of his far-right ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro. He also warned of trade consequences for Canada, which faces a different set of duties, after Prime Minister Mark Carney announced plans to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September.
In targeting Canada, the White House cited its failure to 'cooperate in curbing the ongoing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs' — although Canada is not a major source of illegal narcotics.
By contrast, Trump gave more time to Mexico, delaying for 90 days a threat to increase its tariffs from 25 percent to 30 percent. But exemptions remain for a wide range of Canadian and Mexican goods entering the United States under an existing North American trade pact.
Carney said his government was 'disappointed' with the latest rates hike but noted that with exclusions the US average tariff on Canadian goods remains one of the lowest among US trading partners.
With questions hanging over the effectiveness of bilateral trade deals struck — including with the EU and Japan — the outcome of Trump's overall plan remains uncertain. 'No doubt about it — the executive order and related agreements concluded over the past few months tears up the trade rule book that has governed international trade since World War II,' said Wendy Cutler, senior vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute. On Friday, Trump said he would consider distributing a tariff 'dividend' to Americans. Notably excluded from Friday's drama was China, which is in the midst of negotiations with the United States.
Washington and Beijing at one point brought tit-for-tat tariffs to triple-digit levels, but have agreed to temporarily lower these duties and are working to extend their truce. Those who managed to strike deals with Washington to avert steeper threatened levies included Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea and the European Union. Among other tariff levels adjusted in Trump's latest order, Switzerland now faces a higher 39 percent duty.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
14 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Tourists from Malawi and Zambia are first to face $15,000 visa bonds in US
The United States Department of State has announced the first foreign citizens to be subject to bonds of up to $15,000 should they visit the country on tourist visas. On Tuesday, Zambia and Malawi, both African countries, were the inaugural entries on a list of countries that the State Department will subject to visa bonds. The idea, announced earlier this week, is to impose bonds on countries whose citizens have high rates of overstaying their US visas. Tourists from those countries would have to pay an amount ranging from $5,000 to $15,000 at the time of their visa interview to enter the US. Then, if the tourist departs on or before their visa's expiration, that amount would be refunded to them. The money would also be returned if the visa were cancelled, if the travel does not occur, or if the tourist is denied entry into the US. Should a tourist overstay their visa — or apply for asylum or another immigration-related programme while in the US — the federal government would keep the money. More countries, in addition to Malawi and Zambia, are expected to be added to the list. The bond requirement is slated to take effect for those two countries starting on August 20. 'This targeted, common-sense measure reinforces the administration's commitment to US immigration law while deterring visa overstays,' State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said on Tuesday. President Donald Trump has taken a hardline approach to immigration since his return to office in January for a second term. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order called 'Protecting the American People Against Invasion', which was denounced the 'unprecedented flood of illegal immigration' into the US. It pledged to forcefully execute US immigration laws. That executive order was ultimately cited as the basis for the new visa bonds. The bonds are part of a pilot programme announced on Monday, slated to last 12 months. 'This [temporary final rule] addresses the Trump Administration's call to protect the American people by faithfully executing the immigration laws of the United States,' a filing to the Federal Register reads. Every year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) releases a report about visa overstays in the US. The most recent report, released in 2024, found that there were 565,155 visa overstays for fiscal year 2023. That amounted to only 1.45 percent of the total non-immigrant admissions into the US. 'In other words, 98.55 percent of the in-scope nonimmigrant visitors departed the United States on-time and in accordance with the terms of their admission,' the report explains. In its breakdown of country-by-country overstay rates, the report indicated that both Malawi and Zambia had relatively high visa overstay rates, at 14.3 and 11.1 percent respectively. But Zambia and Malawi are both smaller countries with relatively few tourism- or business-related arrivals in the US. According to the report, only 1,655 people arrived from Malawi in fiscal year 2023 for business or pleasure. Of that total, 237 overstayed their visas. Meanwhile, 3,493 people arrived from Zambia for tourism or business during the same time frame. Of that total, 388 surpassed their visa limits. Those numbers are dwarfed by the sheer numbers from larger, more populous countries with larger consumer bases. An estimated 20,811 Brazilians stayed in the US longer than their tourism or business visas allowed, for instance, and 40,884 overstays were from Colombia. Critics have also pointed out that the newly imposed bonds put travel to the US — already a pricey prospect — further out of reach for residents of poorer countries. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an advocacy group, was among those that denounced the new bond scheme as discriminatory. It described the system as a form of exploitation — a 'legalised shakedown' — in a statement on Tuesday. 'This is not about national security,' said Robert McCaw, CAIR's government affairs director. 'It's about weaponizing immigration policy to extort vulnerable visitors, punish disfavored countries, and turn America's welcome mat into a paywall.' Citizens of countries that are part of the US's visa waiver programmes are not subject to the visa bonds unveiled this week.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Rwanda agrees to accept ‘third-country' deportations from the US
Rwanda has confirmed it will accept deported migrants from the United States, as President Donald Trump continues to push for mass deportation from the North American country. On Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo, acknowledged that the African country had agreed to receive up to 250 deported individuals. Rwanda is now the third African country, after South Sudan and Eswatini, to strike a deal with the US to accept non-citizen deportees. 'Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation,' Makolo said in a statement obtained by the Reuters news agency. But the Trump administration's efforts to rapidly deport migrants from the US have raised myriad human rights concerns, not least for sending people to 'third-party countries' they have no personal connections to. Some of those countries, including Rwanda, have faced criticisms for their human rights records, leading advocates to fear for the safety of deported migrants. Other critics, meanwhile, have blasted Trump for using African countries as a 'dumping ground' for migrants with criminal records. In this week's statement, Makolo appeared to anticipate some of those criticisms, underscoring that Rwanda would have the final say over who could arrive in the country. 'Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement,' she said. 'Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.' Trump's mass deportation campaign In 2024, Trump successfully campaigned for re-election in the US on the premise that he would expel the country's population of undocumented immigrants, a group estimated to number around 11 million. But many of those people have been longtime members of their communities, and critics quickly pointed out that Trump lacked the infrastructure needed for such a large-scale deportation effort. In response, the Trump administration has surged money to immigration-related projects. For example, his 'One Big Beautiful Bill', which was signed into law in July, earmarked $45bn for immigration detention centres, many of which will be run by private contractors. An additional $4.1bn in the law is devoted to hiring and training more officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with another $2.1bn set aside for bonuses. But the Trump administration has made expelling migrants from the country a top priority, prompting legal challenges and backlash to the rapid pace of such deportations. Critics say deported migrants have been denied their right to due process, with little to no time allotted to challenge their removals. Then, there are the cases where undocumented migrants have been deported to 'third-party countries' where they may not even speak the language. Within weeks of taking office in January, Trump began deporting citizens of countries like India, China, Iran and Afghanistan to places like Panama, where migrants were imprisoned in a hotel and later a detention camp. Trump also accused more than 200 men, many of them Venezuelan, of being gang members in order to authorise their expedited removal to El Salvador in March. Lawyers have since cast doubt on Trump's allegations, arguing that many of their clients were deemed to be gang members based on little more than their tattoos and fashion choices. El Salvador reportedly received $6m as part of a deal to hold the men in a maximum security prison, the Terrorism Confinement Centre or CECOT, where human rights abuses have been documented. The men were ultimately released last month as part of a prisoner exchange with Venezuela, but a federal court in the US continues to weigh whether the Trump administration violated a judge's order by allowing the deportation flights to leave in the first place. Deportations to Africa In May, the Trump administration unveiled efforts to start 'third-party' deportations to countries in Africa as well, sparking further concerns about human rights. Initially, Libya was floated as a destination, and migrants were reportedly loaded onto a flight that was prepared to take off when a judge blocked its departure on due process grounds. The Libyan government later denied reports that it was willing to accept deported, non-citizen migrants from the US. But the Trump administration proceeded later that month to send eight migrants on a flight to South Sudan, a country the US State Department deems too dangerous for Americans to travel to. That flight was ultimately diverted to Djibouti, after a judge in Massachusetts ruled that the eight men on board were not given an adequate opportunity to challenge their removals. Seven of them hailed from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico and Myanmar. Only one was reportedly from South Sudan. The Trump administration said all eight had criminal records, calling them 'sickos' and 'barbaric'. A spokesperson pledged to have them in South Sudan by the US Independence Day holiday on July 4. The US Supreme Court paved the way for that to happen in late June, when it issued a brief, unsigned order allowing the deportation to South Sudan to proceed. The six conservative members of the bench sided with the Trump administration, while the three left-leaning justices issued a vehement dissent. They argued that there was no evidence that the Trump administration had ascertained the eight men would not be tortured while in South Sudan's custody. They also described the deportations as too hasty, depriving the men of their chance to appeal. 'The affected class members lacked any opportunity to research South Sudan, to determine whether they would face risks of torture or death there, or to speak to anyone about their concerns,' the justices wrote, calling the government's actions 'flagrantly unlawful'. In mid-July, the Trump administration also began deportations to Eswatini, a tiny, landlocked country ruled by an absolute monarchy. It identified the five deported individuals as hailing from Laos, Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba and Yemen. 'This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back,' administration spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote on social media. Lawyers for the five men have since reported they were denied access to their clients, who are being held in a maximum-security prison. Cosying up to Trump? Little is known so far about the newly announced deportations to Rwanda. It is not yet clear when deportation flights to Rwanda will begin, nor who will be included on the flights. Reuters, however, reported that Rwanda will be paid for accepting the deportations in the form of a grant. The amount is not yet known. Rwanda also has set parameters for whom it may accept. No child sex offenders will be allowed among the deportation flights, and the country will only accept deported individuals with no criminal background or whose prison terms are complete. But the deportation announcement continues a trend of Rwandan authorities seeking closer relations with the Trump administration. In June, President Trump claimed credit for bringing peace between Rwanda and its neighbour, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). He invited leaders from both countries to attend a ceremony at the White House and sign a peace deal. Critics, however, noted that the deal was vague and did not mention Rwanda's support for the M23 paramilitary group, which has carried out deadly attacks in the DRC. The deal also appeared to pave the way for Trump to pursue another one of his priorities: gaining access to valuable minerals in the region, like copper and lithium, that are key to technology development. In an interview with The Associated Press news agency, Rwandan political analyst Gonzaga Muganwa said that his government's recent manoeuvres seem to reflect the mantra that 'appeasing President Trump pays'. Muganwa explained that Tuesday's agreement to accept migrants from the US will strengthen the two countries' shared bond. 'This agreement enhances Rwanda's strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,' he said. Rwanda previously struck a deal in 2022 with the United Kingdom to accept asylum seekers from that country. But the British Supreme Court nixed the agreement in 2023, ruling that Rwanda was not a safe third country to send asylum seekers to.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump accuses banks of discriminating against his supporters
United States President Donald Trump said he believes that banks discriminate against him and his supporters, adding that Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase had previously refused to accept his deposits. 'They totally discriminate against, I think, me maybe even more, but they discriminate against many conservatives,' he told CNBC in an interview on Tuesday. 'I think the word might be Trump supporters more than conservatives.' Trump made the comments when asked about a report by the Wall Street Journal that said he planned to punish banks that discriminated against conservatives, but did not address the order specifically. The order instructs regulators to review banks for 'politicized or unlawful debanking' practices, according to a draft reviewed by the Reuters news agency. 'Well, they did discriminate,' Trump said of actions taken by JPMorgan Chase after his first term in office. 'I had hundreds of millions, I had many, many accounts loaded up with cash … and they told me, 'I'm sorry sir, we can't have you. You have 20 days to get out.'' Trump said, without providing evidence, that he believed that the banks' refusal to take his deposits indicated that the administration of former US President Joe Biden had encouraged banking regulators to 'destroy Trump'. Trump said he subsequently tried to deposit funds with Bank of America and was also refused, and eventually split the cash among a number of smaller banks. 'The banks discriminated against me very badly,' he said. In a statement, JPMorgan did not address the president's specific claim that it had discriminated against him. 'We don't close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed,' JPMorgan said. 'We commend the White House for addressing this issue and look forward to working with them to get this right.' Bank of America declined to comment. 'Reputational risk' During Biden's administration, regulators could have asked the banks why they were providing banking services to Trump because of the 'reputational risk' issue, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters news agency. Another source said that banks were under intense scrutiny and pressure with regards to what qualified as a reputational risk for banks and they needed to be careful due to Trump's legal entanglements. The source also added that at present JPMorgan continues to have a banking relationship with members of the Trump family that dates back to years ago and that they also bank a number of campaign accounts related to Trump. After Trump took power, the Federal Reserve announced in June it was directing its supervisors to no longer consider 'reputational risk' when examining banks, scrapping a metric that had been a focus of industry complaints. The Wall Street Journal reported late on Monday that the expected executive order would instruct regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions breach the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws or consumer financial protection laws by dropping customers for political reasons. It said the order could be signed as early as this week, authorising monetary penalties, consent decrees or other disciplinary measures against violators. The White House had no immediate comment on the reported order. Trump in January said the CEOs of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America denied services to conservatives. At the time, the two banks denied making banking decisions based on politics. 'This seems to be rhetoric that will likely be forgotten by lunchtime,' said David Wagner, head of equities at Aptus Capital Advisors. 'I don't see any material impact on banks, as there are many other drivers that will ultimately presage performance for banks, such as deregulation.' Both banks' stocks are taking a hit on Wall Street. As of 11am in New York (15:00 GMT), JP MorganChase is down 1.6 percent and Bank of America is down 1.4 percent. While Wells Fargo was not named in particular, the competing financial institution's stock is down 1.3 percent as well. Markets respond Banks have consistently argued that any complaints about 'debanking' should be aimed at regulators, as they argue that onerous rules and bank supervisors policing firms can discourage them from engaging in certain activities. 'The heart of the problem is regulatory overreach and supervisory discretion,' the Bank Policy Institute, an industry group, said in a statement. 'The banking agencies have already taken steps to address issues like reputational risk, and we're hopeful that any forthcoming executive order will reinforce this progress by directing regulators to confront the flawed regulatory framework that gave rise to these concerns in the first place.' In January, Trump claimed that Bank of America was debanking conservatives in a Q&A session at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland with Bank of America CEO, Brian Moynihan. 'I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives, because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that included a place called Bank of America,' Trump said at the time. Separately, in March, the Trump Organization, a holding company for the Trump family's business ventures, sued Capital One Financial for closing accounts for what the Trump Organization alleged were political reasons.
