It's Liberation Day III - and from today, dozens of countries will face painful Trump tariffs
From today, countries without bilateral trade agreements face reciprocal tariffs - ranging from 25% to 50% - with a baseline of 15% to 20% for any not making a deal.
He has delayed twice, from April to July and from July to August, but hammered this date home in his trademark caps-on style: "THE AUGUST FIRST DEADLINE STANDS STRONG, AND WILL NOT BE EXTENDED. A BIG DAY FOR AMERICA!!!"
"Will not be extended" for anyone but Mexico, it seems. The country secured a 90-day extension at the last minute, with Mr Trump citing the "complexities" of the border.
By close of business on the eve of deadline, he had a handful of framework deals - some significant - including the UK (10%), the EU, Japan and South Korea (15%), Indonesia and the Philippines (19%), Vietnam (20%).
On the EU agreement, which he struck in Scotland, the president said: "It's a very powerful deal, it's a big deal, it's the biggest of all the deals."
But what happened to the "90 deals in 90 days" touted by the White House earlier this year?
The short answer is they were replaced by letters of instruction to pay a tariff set by the US.
Amid of flurry of late activity, the US played hardball with major trading partners like Canada.
"For the rest of the world, we're going to have things done by Friday," said US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick - the "rest of the world" meaning everyone but China.
There is, apparently, the "framework of a deal" between the world's two largest economies, but talks between Washington and Beijing are continuing.
Read more US news:
In terms of wins, he can claim some significant deals and point to his tariffs having generated an impressive $27bn (£20.4bn) in June, not bad for a single month.
But the legality of the approach is under siege - with the US Court of International Trade ruling that the "Liberation Day" tariffs exceeded the president's authority, with enforcement paused pending appeal.
The deadline has stirred the pot, forcing a handful of deals onto the table. Whether they stick or survive legal scrutiny is far from settled.
But the playbook remains the same - threaten the world with trade chaos, whittle it down, celebrate the wins, and pray no one checks what's legal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
a minute ago
Trump's long history of bashing jobs report numbers dates back to 2016: Analysis
President Donald Trump's history of criticizing the Bureau of Labor Statistics' jobs report has surfaced in the wake of his decision to fire commissioner Erika McEntarfer on Friday. Trump's public frustrations with the economics and statistics agency appear to date back to his 2016 presidential campaign. "Don't believe those phony numbers," then-candidate Trump said in his New Hampshire victory speech during his first campaign for the White House. Last August, Trump claimed without evidence that former President Joe Biden's administration was "caught fraudulently manipulating" job statistics, when the agency publicly disclosed that the economy created fewer than 818,000 jobs between April of 2023 and March of 2024 than initial estimates suggested. "There's never been any revision like this," Trump said at a campaign rally in North Carolina on Aug. 21, 2024. "They wanted it to come out after the election, but somehow it got leaked," he claimed at the time. Trump did not provide evidence that the information publicly disclosed by the agency was leaked. Then-Labor Secretary Julie Su in November 2024 defended the figures, and also suggested the numbers were impacted by Hurricane Helene's impact on the southeastern United States, and labor strikes. "The labor market remains very strong, and this shows what happens when you have a president and a vice president who are fighting for workers every single day," Su said at the time. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) uses several surveys for estimating employment levels in the U.S. and revisions are common. Every monthly Jobs Report has a blurb at the end that updates the figures from the previous two months based on new data. The revision that Trump was referencing was made public on Aug. 21, and updated with final figures in February 2025, according to the BLS website. The same downward revisions also took place during Trump's first term, under then-BLS commissioner William W. Beach. The agency determined 518,000 fewer jobs were created in March 2019 than it had initially reported. Alternatively, Trump had no complaints about the jobs report produced under McEntarfer -- a Biden appointee -- right before the 2024 election, which showed the U.S. gained 12,000 jobs in October. The then-candidate referenced the low numbers while criticizing the Biden-Harris administration at a rally in Milwaukee. "They did 12,000 jobs," Trump said to boos at the rally on Nov. 1. "It's hundreds of thousands of jobs less than it should be," he added. Trump was also quick to embrace the jobs reports as president -- when they were favorable. In March 2017 -- when the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the economy added 235,000 jobs the prior month -- then-Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Trump had full faith in the positive report, despite calling it "phony" in the past. "I talked to the president prior to this and he said to quote him very clearly: 'They may have been phony in the past, but it's very real now,'" Spicer said to reporters at the time. Trump's decision to fire McEntarfer on Friday came after the report found the U.S. had added 73,000 jobs in July, according to data from the BLS. The figure marked a slowdown from 147,000 jobs added in the previous month. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.2%, keeping it at near-historic lows, according to the report. The report provided new estimates for two previous months, significantly dropping the government's estimate of jobs added in May and June. The fresh data indicated a notable slowdown in hiring as Trump's tariffs took hold over recent months. Trump criticized McEntarfer over the revisions, saying without evidence that the revisions suggested jobs statistics had been "manipulated." ABC News has reached out to McEntarfer for a comment. The Trump administration described the downward revisions as an unwelcome sign for the U.S. economy but did not dispute the data. "Obviously, they're not what we want to see," Stephen Miran, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said on Friday morning. Asked by reporters as he departed the White House on Friday about the reason for McEntarfer's firing, Trump said he believes the economy is doing well and claimed the latest jobs numbers were "phony." "I believe the numbers were phony just like they were before the election, and there were other times," Trump said, pointing to a previous revision in the jobs numbers last year that he claimed, without evidence, was an attempt to benefit Democrats heading into the election. He said this despite using the numbers as a talking point in his campaign.
Newsweek
a minute ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Effort to Overturn Birthright Citizenship Struggles in Court
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 three-judge panel in the Boston-based appeals court expressed deep skepticism about arguments from President Donald Trump's Department of Justice as the administration seeks to overturn birthright citizenship, according to Reuters. Why It Matters Trump's executive order, signed on Inauguration Day in January, seeks to restrict birthright citizenship and could potentially affect the rights of millions of U.S.-born children. The order directs U.S. agencies to refuse citizenship to children unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The crux of the issue sits in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which will determine whether the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for children born on American soil to non-citizen or undocumented parents remains intact. The case has already gone before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month ruled that the order is unconstitutional, upholding a lower-court decision that blocked nationwide enforcement. A stock photo of a new USA passport. A stock photo of a new USA passport. Stock Photo - Getty Images What To Know The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday grilled Justice Department lawyer Eric McArthur over the core arguments of the administration's position on birthright citizenship, who reiterated Trump's argument that the 14th Amendment was only meant to extend citizenship to the children of former slaves—not the children of immigrants in the country either temporarily or unlawfully. The judges, all appointed by Democratic presidents, pointed to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which guaranteed citizenship to any child born in the country to non-citizen parents. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron mused that the judges "aren't free to disregard" the Supreme Court's previous ruling. Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued before the court that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens." While the Supreme Court in June ruled in favor of limiting nationwide injunctions, it allowed certain exceptions within the limits of a certified segment of people for class-action lawsuits to retain that power. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts in July ruled that a previously granted nationwide injunction against Trump's order could stay in place, even in light of the new Supreme Court restrictions, because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. A New Hampshire court in the same month also acted within the new ruling to certify a nationwide class of plaintiffs, which included all children born on U.S. soil. The Trump administration has sought to appeal this ruling alongside Sorokin's. What People Are Saying Judge Patrick Bumatay, who dissented in the 9th Circuit's ruling, wrote: "We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions." Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg via X, formerly Twitter, to Newsweek in July: "Easy decision. If President Trump wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, he needs to change the Constitution. But he can't repeal the language of the 14th Amendment via executive order." Representative Claudia Tenney, a New York Republican, posted to X on Wednesday: "Birthright citizenship was never meant to be a reward for breaking our immigration laws. The Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act makes it clear: No citizenship for children born to illegal aliens, foreign spies, or terrorists." What Happens Next Legal experts and state attorneys general anticipate that the Supreme Court's possible review will provide a landmark ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment—a decision that may reshape the rights of children born on U.S. soil and the future of American immigration policy. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
Jobs Take Massive Downward Revisions: Uncertainty And Risk Ride High
Economists were wrong. They expected 100,000 new jobs in July. Instead, there were 73,000. Unemployment was up to 4.2% from 4.1%. Disappointing as those are, neither was the truly crushing news. This was, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics release: 'Revisions for May and June were larger than normal. The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for May was revised down by 125,000, from +144,000 to +19,000, and the change for June was revised down by 133,000, from +147,000 to +14,000. With these revisions, employment in May and June combined is 258,000 lower than previously reported.' Jobs Saw A Massive Downward Revision BLS has explained jobs revisions for previous months as resulting from additional business and government agency reports as well as recalculation of seasonal factors. But it still comes to the same conclusion in this case: more than a quarter million fewer new jobs than had been reported. Late last month I wrote about how getting a job was getting harder. ManpowerGroup President and Chief Strategy Officer Becky Frankiewicz wrote at the time about June jobs, 'The top-line numbers look positive, but our real-time data reveals underlying shifts. June marked the weakest hiring month of the year, with new postings down 7% month-over-month and 2% year-over-year. Open postings fell 8% from May.' New monthly job openings in the aggregate have been lagging far behind jobs added, as the graph below, using data available from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, shows. Companies can't keep adding new real hires every month when they've reduced the number of job openings they have. President Trump claimed on Truth Social that BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer had 'RIGGED the numbers in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad' and then reportedly fired her according to The Hill. It seems odd that this would only happen now and sounds like another attempt to sweep problems under the rug. More Economic Bad News More likely that the July number and downgrade of May and June had more to do with companies concerned about the administration's tariff strategies. Uncertainty has had impact on the economy over the last few months. Many economists said the increase in the Consumer Price Index, another measure of inflation, was a result of tariffs finally affecting the economy, as The Hill reported. Inflation from the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows personal expenditures (PCE, another inflation measure) up 0.3% month over month, versus the 0.2% expected by economists according to Dow Jones. Year over year, it was 2.6%. Look at core PCE without energy or food and it was up 2.8% since June 2024. 'Looking ahead, spending should come under pressure in H2 2025 as the labor market loses energy, interest rates stay high, and tariffs push inflation up,' wrote Nationwide Financial Markets Economist Oren Klachkin. 'We foresee slower income growth as the main reason behind sub-1% GDP growth in H2 2025.' The 3% annualized growth in GDP for the second quarter, announced in July, was more happenstance. When the Trump administration initially announced broad tariffs, many companies decided to sharply boost their imports in advance to avoid the additional charges, which are paid by the importers, not the exporters. Imports are subtracted from gross domestic product, just as things like foreign students in the U.S. paying tuition adds to GDP because what they pay is technically an export. Why did none of this appear before? 'Looking at the headline consumer price index isn't where the tariffs are visible, it's in goods prices and the increase in household appliances, apparel and toys highlight that tariffs are being passed onto the consumer, it just takes time,' Oxford Economics wrote two weeks ago. Tariff concerns are again boiling over. One example came in Apple's July 31, 2025, earnings call. 'Finally, the situation around tariffs is evolving, so let me provide some color there,' said CEO Tim Cook. 'For the June quarter, we incurred approximately $800 million of tariff-related costs. For the September quarter, assuming the current global tariff rates, policies and applications do not change for the balance of the quarter, and no new tariffs are added, we estimate the impact to add about $1.1 billion to our costs.' A well-known German tool company called Festool announced that all prices starting August 1 would go up because of tariffs. This may be an unsatisfying look at the economy and state of the country, but that is where we are. In the short and long runs, no one knows what will happen.
