Russia Responds to Donald Trump's Tariff Threat
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Thursday that the BRICS alliance does not respond to threats and does not target its efforts against other countries, following President Donald Trump's announcement of new tariffs on several BRICS nations.
"BRICS does not respond to threats," Peskov told Russian state news agency TASS. "BRICS never directs its activities against any countries. That is not the purpose of BRICS."
Peskov said the bloc—comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—was founded to foster cooperation among emerging economies, not to confront or oppose other states.
"The purpose of BRICS is to develop cooperation in areas of mutual interest for mutual benefit," he added.
Trump signed an executive order earlier this week imposing new tariffs on imports from BRICS nations. Beginning Aug. 1, a 25 percent tariff will apply to Indian goods entering the U.S., while Brazilian imports will face a 50 percent tariff increase.
This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Europe to Escape New Trump Pharmaceutical Tariffs
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. The trade deal struck between the U.S. and the European Union will allow the EU to escape the latest tariffs President Donald Trump has threatened to place on pharmaceuticals, Newsweek understands. On Tuesday, Trump said he was planning to place a "small tariff" on drug imports that will eventually grow to 250 percent. But thanks to the pact agreed in late July, the EU will see its pharmaceuticals hit with only a 15-percent tariff, far below the rates other countries may encounter. Why It Matters This aligns with the terms of the deal published by the White House, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's assurance that pharmaceuticals were among the sectors for which the 15 percent rate represented a firm "ceiling." However, Trump's comments on new pharmaceutical tariffs sparked uncertainty over whether these would apply on top of agreed rates, triggering the share prices of many European drug companies to plummet. What To Know During an interview with CNBC on Tuesday, Trump said he was planning to impose new sectoral duties on pharmaceuticals, like the tariffs already placed on steel, aluminum and auto imports. "On pharmaceuticals, we'll be putting a initially small tariff on pharmaceuticals," Trump said. "But in one year, one and a half years maximum, it's going to go to 150 percent, and then it's going to go to 250 percent, because we want pharmaceuticals made in our country." The president went on to say that he would be announcing specifics "within a week or so," and that this new tariff would be separate from country-specific duties. President Donald Trump pauses while speaking in the Oval Office, Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump pauses while speaking in the Oval Office, Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2025, in Washington. Alex Brandon/AP Photo The statement rocked drug companies worldwide, including those in the EU. Shares in Denmark-based Novo Nordisk fell more than 5 percent over the course of Wednesday's trades, with those in Germany-based Bayer AG dropping by nearly 10 percent. According to The Guardian, the Europe's Stoxx Health Care index, which tracks the performance of major health care sector firms across Europe, dropped to its lowest level since mid-April. EU exports of medicinal and pharmaceutical products to the U.S. totaled over $100 billion for the first time in 2024, according to Eurostat, equating to 38 percent of its total exports in this area. What People Are Saying White House deputy press secretary Kush Desai previously told Newsweek: "President Donald Trump is committed to safeguarding our national and economic security, and that includes ensuring that Americans are never again left in the lurch as they were during the COVID era when shortages of imported drugs and other lifesaving medical equipment put lives at risk." The White House, in a fact sheet published following the EU trade deal, said: "As part of President Donald Trump's strategy to establish balanced trade, the European Union will pay the United States a tariff rate of 15%, including on autos and auto parts, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors. However, the sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and copper will remain unchanged—the EU will continue to pay 50% and the parties will discuss securing supply chains for these products." What Happens Next? While the U.S. has officially handed the bloc a 15 percent tariff on most of its imports as of Thursday, certain disagreements remain over the terms of the EU trade deal. Some member nations have framed this as an informal understanding rather than a finalized pact. "This is not the end of the story, the negotiation has to continue," French President Emmanuel Macron told his ministers shortly after the deal was signed, according to Euractiv. Meanwhile, Trump told CNBC that if the EU fails to follow through on the investment commitments outlined in the deal, then he will hike their tariff rates to 35 percent. Regarding the 250-percent tariff on pharmaceuticals, White House deputy press secretary Kush Desai told Newsweek that no decisions should be considered final "until officially announced by President Donald Trump."
Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Judge Denies Trump Request as Newsom National Guard Case Is Set To Start
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. A federal judge has denied President Donald Trump's attempt to halt a lawsuit brought by Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom, effectively allowing the case to proceed as scheduled on Monday, August 11. The ruling sends a signal that the court potentially views Newsom's claims—centered on the alleged unlawful federalization of the California National Guard in 2025—as legally viable. Trump's legal team had argued that the claims under the Posse Comitatus Act "fail as a matter of law," but the judge rejected that argument, allowing the trial to move forward. Why It Matters The case could shape up to be a significant constitutional test of presidential authority. At issue is Trump's decision in June 2025 to take control of California's National Guard and send troops to Los Angeles following protests that sprung up following federal immigration raids. Newsom said the move was unlawful, violated the Posse Comitatus Act, and infringed on California's sovereign control of its National Guard. Trump's legal team argues the deployment was justified under the Insurrection Act. The outcome could set an important precedent for how and when a president may use military forces domestically, especially in politically charged situations. The case is being closely watched for its implications on civil-military relations. California Governor Gavin Newsom at Downey Memorial Christian Church in Downey, California, on July 16, 2025. California Governor Gavin Newsom at Downey Memorial Christian Church in Downey, California, on July 16, 2025. Patrick T. Fallon/Getty Images What to Know Why Was the National Guard Deployed? In early June 2025, following unrest sparked by immigration enforcement operations, Trump ordered the federalization of the California National Guard, citing what he called a breakdown in law and order. The administration said the deployment was necessary to protect federal property and maintain public safety, invoking the Insurrection Act. Newsom, however, insisted the state had the situation under control and accused the administration of overreach. Legal Framework: Two Laws in Conflict The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878, prohibits the use of the U.S. military for civilian law enforcement unless expressly authorized by Congress. It is designed to preserve civilian control and prevent the use of military force for domestic political purposes. The Insurrection Act, originally passed in 1807, serves as an exception. It allows the president to deploy the military in limited situations, such as to suppress rebellion, enforce federal authority, or address serious obstruction of the law when states cannot or will not act. Filed shortly after the deployment, Newsom v. Trump challenges the legality of the president's decision to take control of the California National Guard. California argues that the criteria under the Insurrection Act were not met, saying that there was no rebellion, no state request for help and no breakdown in governance. Therefore, they say Trump's order amounts to an unlawful use of the military and a violation of both constitutional and statutory protections. This picture taken on June 8, 2025 shows California Highway Patrol using smoke grenades to advance and push protesters off the 101 freeway during a demonstration following federal immigration operations in Los Angeles. This picture taken on June 8, 2025 shows California Highway Patrol using smoke grenades to advance and push protesters off the 101 freeway during a demonstration following federal immigration operations in Los Angeles. BLAKE FAGAN/AFP via Getty Images The Stakes Though the case is being heard as a bench trial—which means without a jury—the implications could be broad. If the court rules in Newsom's favor, it could reaffirm limits on when the federal government can intervene in state-managed military affairs and reinforce protections against domestic use of force. A ruling for Trump could expand the scope of presidential authority in crisis situations, potentially weakening restrictions intended by the Posse Comitatus Act. What People Are Saying Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom, said June 9, 2025: "Donald Trump is creating fear and terror by failing to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and overstepping his authority. This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic. Every governor, red or blue, should reject this outrageous overreach. This is beyond incompetence—this is him intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities, and endangering the principles of our great democracy. It is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism. We will not let this stand." Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta, said at the same meeting: "Let me be clear: There is no invasion. There is no rebellion. The President is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends. Federalizing the California National Guard is an abuse of the President's authority under the law—and not one we take lightly. We're asking a court to put a stop to the unlawful, unprecedented order." U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, said in his June 12 order: "His [Trump's] actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith." Adding: "We're talking about the president exercising his authority. And the president is, of course, limited in his authority. That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George." What Happens Next The trial is scheduled to begin Monday, August 11, with evidence presented first and legal arguments expected to follow the next day. Both parties have been ordered to submit updated witness lists and exhibits in preparation. The case will be heard in San Francisco before Breyer. Whatever the outcome, the case is expected to influence future interpretations of federal power in domestic security matters—particularly when political conflict intersects with military authority on American soil.
Politico
25 minutes ago
- Politico
Putin must meet with Zelenskyy before Trump, White House says
It sets a new precondition for an in-person meeting between Trump and the Russian leader. President Donald Trump stops and talks to the media before he boards Marine One on the South Lawn at the White House on June 15, 2025 in Washington, DC. |By Myah Ward and Felicia Schwartz 08/07/2025 01:39 PM EDT Russian President Vladimir Putin must meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy before he can secure a bilateral with President Donald Trump, a White House official said Thursday. The new precondition outlined by the White House comes after Trump told European leaders he intends to meet with Putin in person, followed by a trilateral with the leaders of Russia and Ukraine. Trump told reporters late Wednesday that while there was a 'really good prospect' of a meeting taking place, he wouldn't classify it as a 'breakthrough.' The official was granted anonymity to share private conversations around the potential meetings.
