In a deal with Trump, Europe gets an elusive agreement. But everyone's a little annoyed
European Union
Prescription drugsFacebookTweetLink
Follow
The United States and the European Union avoided the worst-case scenario: a damaging, all-out trade war between allies that threatened to raise prices on a large number of goods and slow two of the world's largest economies. The framework delivered a sense of relief for both sides – but few are cheering the arrangement itself.
The agreement, which sets a 15% tariff on most European goods entering the United States, is higher than the 10% tariff Trump put in place on April 2 and significantly higher than the average of around 2% from before Trump's presidency. But it's significantly less than the enormous numbers Trump had been threatening if an agreement wasn't reached.
A deal with the United States felt like an impossibility in late May. Frustrated by a lack of progress in negotiations with the 27-member European Union, Trump on May 24 told the world he was done talking to some of America's strongest allies.
'Our discussions with them are going nowhere!' Trump posted on Truth Social.
'I'm not looking for a deal,' he said later that day in the Oval Office. 'We've set the deal — it's at 50%.'
The statement — and the shockingly high tariff threat — stunned European trade negotiators and rallied Europe's leaders into action. They quickly agreed to kick talks into high gear.
Trump, who has taken a particular liking to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, was swayed after she called him to say the EU would commit to moving 'swiftly and decisively.' Trump soon backed off his threat and said negotiations would continue.
But a deal between the United States and the European Union, one of America's top trading partners, had remained elusive for months. The two sides squabbled over America's insistence on high tariffs for steel and aluminum, looming tariffs on pharmaceuticals and the tariff floor for virtually all goods that the Trump administration appears set to raise to 15%.
Negotiators were unable to come up with a resolution before the initial July 9 deadline — one of the reasons the Trump administration postponed the effective day for its 'reciprocal' tariffs to August 1. With just days to go before the extended deadline, while Trump was visiting Scotland, he met with van der Leyen and finalized a framework for an agreement — one that was thin on details, heavy on caveats, but was nevertheless a hard-sought relief for both sides.
With the agreement in place, two of the world's largest economies avoided a potential economically crippling trade war. The United States held a 50% tariff threat over Europe's head, and Europe threatened America with strategic retaliatory tariffs that threatened to damage key US industries.
Both sides appeared to embrace the fact that a deal was in place more than they celebrated it.
'We made it,' Trump said while announcing the deal with von der Leyen. 'It's going to work out really well.'
'I think we hit exactly the point we wanted to find,' von der Leyen said. 'Rebalance but enable trade on both sides. Which means good jobs on both sides of the Atlantic, means prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic and that was important for us.'
Markets cheered, somewhat: Dow futures rose 150 points, or 0.3%, poised to open near record territory. S&P 500 futures gained 0.3% and Nasdaq futures were 0.4% higher.
The United States and Europe 'seem to have avoided a self-destructive trade war for now in the biggest and deepest commercial and investment relationship the global economy knows,' said Jörn Fleck, senior director of the Atlantic Council's Europe Center.
Nevertheless, the details remain murky. Europe will increase its investment in the United States by $600 billion and commit to buying $750 billion worth of US energy products. It eliminates tariffs on a variety of items, including aircraft and plane parts, semiconductors, generic drugs and some chemicals and agricultural products.
Industries in the zero-tariff arrangement cheered.
'The zero-for-zero tariff regime will grow jobs, strengthen our economic security and provide a framework for U.S. leadership in manufacturing and safety,' Airlines for America said in a statement.
But the 15% baseline tariff applies to most goods, so the EU member states – and American importers — will have to come to terms with the fact that higher tariffs will raise prices for European goods in America.
'Higher tariffs mean higher prices for US consumers—and that will seriously dent EU companies' bottom lines,' said Alex Altmann, vice president of the British Chamber of Commerce in Germany. 'EU companies aiming to stay competitive in the US market will think twice when deciding where to produce or assemble.'
The agreement also deals another blow to Detroit automakers, which objected to a similar deal the Trump administration reached with Japan. The 15% auto tariff on EU cars imported to the United States undercuts the 25% tariff American automakers pay if their cars are built in Mexico.
Although von der Leyen said pharmaceuticals were included in the early framework, she acknowledged that Trump may ultimately place higher tariffs on drugs imported to the United States, undercutting the agreement.
Still, in the eyes of the hard-working negotiators — and for the sake of the global economy — a deal is better than no deal. Now comes the hard part: figuring out the details.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class
President Donald Trump's latest trade deal with China may look like a diplomatic win, but for the American middle class, it comes with hidden costs. Trending Now: Find Out: While tariffs are being reduced in exchange for promises from Beijing, households could still face higher prices, disrupted supply chains and reduced job growth. Here are four reasons Trump's trade deal with China is bad news for the middle class and what families can do to protect their finances. Higher Consumer Prices Despite Tariff Relief Even as the U.S. and China approach an August trade deal deadline, prices on many consumer goods remain elevated, and middle-class households continue to feel the strain. Some experts argue that the new tariffs may not drastically shift average import prices. However, middle-class families are more likely to feel the impact in specific categories, such as electronics, tools and household goods. 'U.S. companies scrambled to import as many goods as possible to stockpile before new tariffs were fully implemented, mitigating the immediate impact of tariffs on prices,' said Bryan Riley, Director of the Free Trade Initiative at the National Taxpayers Union. Riley said that since imports from China account for just 13.2% of total U.S. imports, increases in the price of specific Chinese goods may not push up the overall import average. However, they can still significantly affect middle-class budgets for everyday items. Read More: Erosion of Real Incomes and Job Losses An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco warned that Trump's trade measures could cut national real income by around 0.4%, while losses in services and agriculture might offset job gains in manufacturing. 'What's pitched as economic growth is actually a slow bleed: Manufacturing jobs won't magically return, and small businesses relying on predictable import costs are about to face more whiplash,' said Patrice Williams Lindo, CEO of Career Nomad. 'Wages stay stagnant while everyday costs climb. And here's the kicker — there's no workforce investment baked into this deal. That means your job security, benefits and opportunities to grow could evaporate, especially if your industry leans heavily on exports or global sourcing.' Volatile Markets and Supply Chain Instability Although the China deal eased recession fears, experts said that uncertainty around ongoing tariffs still disrupts manufacturing and logistics. Businesses may hold back investment or retool supply chains, raising costs for middle-class consumers and slowing hiring. For example, uncertainty remains one of the most significant threats to economic momentum, particularly for businesses making long-term decisions. 'The real issue is that this deal doesn't create clarity. It reinforces an environment of 'wait and see,' Robert Khachatryan, CEO and founder of Freight Right. 'That's not how you build confidence in the economy.' Khachatryan added, 'You can't expect small and midsize businesses, who employ a huge portion of America's middle class, to plan for the future when they're stuck playing defense against the next round of tariffs.' Missed Middle-Class Priorities in the Deal While the latest Trump-China deal touts manufacturing wins, some economists warn it overlooks the broader economic trade-offs that directly affect the middle class. 'We have an experiment,' said Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a recent interview on Conversations with Jim Zirin. 'In 2018, President Trump imposed 25% tariffs on steel. Seven years later, we have 1,000 more steelworkers, but 75,000 fewer workers in manufacturing sectors that relied on steel, and a 30% drop in steel sector productivity.' This kind of trade-off may deliver political wins, but it overlooks how tariff-driven policies ripple into everyday life for the middle class. 'Over time, reduced job stability in trade-sensitive sectors and a slowdown in wage growth may exacerbate economic insecurity for families already stretched thin by inflation and debt servicing costs,' said Jean-Baptiste Wautier, a private equity CIO and World Economic Forum speaker. How To Protect Your Budget Middle-class families can shield themselves by using rewards or rebate programs and strategically stockpiling essentials before potential tariff increases. Julian Merrick, founder and CEO of Supertrader, a fintech firm focused on global markets, recommends starting with a small emergency fund, even setting aside $200 to $300, which can help families avoid debt when unexpected expenses arise. 'It also helps to cut back on spending in categories where prices are rising — things like tech, clothes or imported goods,' Merrick said. 'Families should avoid taking on new high-interest debt right now, especially for non-essentials. And for those with investments, make sure the money is spread out across different industries.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 6 Hybrid Vehicles To Stay Away From in Retirement This article originally appeared on 5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Fast Company
11 minutes ago
- Fast Company
3 things the pronatalist movement gets wrong about birth rates
Pronatalism—the belief that low birth rates are a problem that must be reversed— is having a moment in the U.S. As birth rates decline in the U.S. and throughout the world, voices from Silicon Valley to the White House are raising concerns about what they say could be the calamitous effects of steep population decline on the economy. The Trump administration has said it is seeking ideas on how to encourage Americans to have more children as the U.S. experiences its lowest total fertility rate in history, down about 25% since 2007. As demographers who study fertility, family behaviors, and childbearing intentions, we can say with certainty that population decline is not imminent, inevitable or necessarily catastrophic. The population collapse narrative hinges on three key misunderstandings. First, it misrepresents what standard fertility measures tell us about childbearing and makes unrealistic assumptions that fertility rates will follow predictable patterns far into the future. Second, it overstates the impact of low birth rates on future population growth and size. Third, it ignores the role of economic policies and labor market shifts in assessing the impacts of low birth rates. Fertility fluctuations Demographers generally gauge births in a population with a measure called the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate for a given year is an estimate of the average number of children that women would have in their lifetime if they experienced current birth rates throughout their childbearing years. Fertility rates are not fixed—in fact, they have changed considerably over the past century. In the U.S., the total fertility rate rose from about 2 births per woman in the 1930s to a high of 3.7 births per woman around 1960. The rate then dipped below 2 births per woman in the late 1970s and 1980s before returning to 2 births in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since the Great Recession that lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009, the U.S. total fertility rate has declined almost every year, with the exception of very small post-COVID-19 pandemic increases in 2021 and 2022. In 2024, it hit a record low, falling to 1.6. This drop is primarily driven by declines in births to people in their teens and early 20s —births that are often unintended. But while the total fertility rate offers a snapshot of the fertility landscape, it is not a perfect indicator of how many children a woman will eventually have if fertility patterns are in flux—for example, if people are delaying having children. Picture a 20-year-old woman today, in 2025. The total fertility rate assumes she will have the same birth rate as today's 40-year-olds when she reaches 40. That's not likely to be the case, because birth rates 20 years from now for 40-year-olds will almost certainly be higher than they are today, as more births occur at older ages and more people are able to overcome infertility through medically assisted reproduction. A more nuanced picture of childbearing These problems with the total fertility rate are why demographers also measure how many total births women have had by the end of their reproductive years. In contrast to the total fertility rate, the average number of children ever born to women ages 40 to 44 has remained fairly stable over time, hovering around two. Americans continue to express favorable views toward childbearing. Ideal family size remains at two or more children, and 9 in 10 adults either have, or would like to have, children. However, many Americans are unable to reach their childbearing goals. This seems to be related to the high cost of raising children and growing uncertainty about the future. In other words, it doesn't seem to be the case that birth rates are low because people are uninterested in having children; rather, it's because they don't feel it's feasible for them to become parents or to have as many children as they would like. The challenge of predicting future population size Standard demographic projections do not support the idea that population size is set to shrink dramatically. One billion people lived on Earth 250 years ago. Today there are over 8 billion, and by 2100 the United Nations predicts there will be over 10 billion. That's 2 billion more, not fewer, people in the foreseeable future. Admittedly, that projection is plus or minus 4 billion. But this range highlights another key point: Population projections get more uncertain the further into the future they extend. Predicting the population level five years from now is far more reliable than 50 years from now—and beyond 100 years, forget about it. Most population scientists avoid making such long-term projections, for the simple reason that they are usually wrong. That's because fertility and mortality rates change over time in unpredictable ways. The U.S. population size is also not declining. Currently, despite fertility below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, there are still more births than deaths. The U.S. population is expected to grow by 22.6 million by 2050 and by 27.5 million by 2100, with immigration playing an important role. Will low fertility cause an economic crisis? A common rationale for concern about low fertility is that it leads to a host of economic and labor market problems. Specifically, pronatalists argue that there will be too few workers to sustain the economy and too many older people for those workers to support. However, that is not necessarily true—and even if it were, increasing birth rates wouldn't fix the problem. As fertility rates fall, the age structure of the population shifts. But a higher proportion of older adults does not necessarily mean the proportion of workers to nonworkers falls. For one thing, the proportion of children under age 18 in the population also declines, so the number of working-age adults—usually defined as ages 18 to 64—often changes relatively little. And as older adults stay healthier and more active, a growing number of them are contributing to the economy. Labor force participation among Americans ages 65 to 74 increased from 21.4% in 2003 to 26.9% in 2023 — and is expected to increase to 30.4% by 2033. Modest changes in the average age of retirement or in how Social Security is funded would further reduce strains on support programs for older adults. What's more, pronatalists' core argument that a higher birth rate would increase the size of the labor force overlooks some short-term consequences. More babies means more dependents, at least until those children become old enough to enter the labor force. Children not only require expensive services such as education, but also reduce labor force participation, particularly for women. As fertility rates have fallen, women's labor force participation rates have risen dramatically —from 34% in 1950 to 58% in 2024. Pronatalist policies that discourage women's employment are at odds with concerns about a diminishing number of workers. Research shows that economic policies and labor market conditions, not demographic age structures, play the most important role in determining economic growth in advanced economies. And with rapidly changing technologies like automation and artificial intelligence, it is unclear what demand there will be for workers in the future. Moreover, immigration is a powerful—and immediate—tool for addressing labor market needs and concerns over the proportion of workers. Overall, there's no evidence for Elon Musk's assertion that 'humanity is dying.' While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, in our view the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated. Strong investments in education and sensible economic policies can help countries successfully adapt to a new demographic reality.
Chicago Tribune
11 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern seek 1st transcontinental railroad through a massive merger
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Union Pacific wants to buy Norfolk Southern in a $85 billion deal that would create the first transcontinental railroad in the U.S, and potentially trigger a final wave of rail mergers across the country. The proposed merger, announced Tuesday, would marry Union Pacific's vast rail network in the West with Norfolk's rails that snake across 22 Eastern states, and the District of Columbia. The nation was first linked by rail in 1869, when a golden railroad spike was driven in Utah to symbolize the connection of East and West Coasts. Yet no single entity has controlled that coast-to-coast passage. The railroads argue a merger would streamline deliveries of raw materials and goods nationwide by eliminating delays when shipments are handed off between railroads. The AP first reported the merger talks earlier this month a week before the railroads confirmed the discussions last week. Any deal would be closely scrutinized by antitrust regulators that have set a very high bar for railroad deals after previous consolidation in the industry led to massive backups and snarled traffic. If the deal is approved, the two remaining major American railroads — BNSF and CSX — will face tremendous pressure to merge to create a second transcontinental railroad so they can compete. The continent's two other major railroads — Canadian National and CPKC — may also get involved. The Canadian rails span all of that nation and feed into America. CPKC rails stretch south into Mexico Some big shippers like chemical plants in the Gulf may be wary of the deal due to fears of a monopoly that could would wield immense influence over rates, but other major rail customers, like Amazon and UPS, may be in favor if it means packages will arrive more quickly and reliably. Those big companies, along with unions and communities across the country that the railroads cross, will have a chance to weigh before the U.S. Surface Transportation Board. Consumers could benefit if the transcontinental rail does reduce shipping rates and delivery times. Union Pacific said that combined, the railroads would improve delivery times. There's speculation that this deal might win approval under the pro-business Trump administration, but the STB is currently evenly split between two Republicans and two Democrats. The board is led by a Republican, and Trump will appoint a fifth member before this deal will be considered. Union Pacific is offering $20 billion cash and one share of its stock to complete the deal. Norfolk Southern shareholders would receive one UP share and $88.82 in cash for each one of their shares as part of the deal that values NS at roughly $320 per share. Norfolk Southern closed at just over $260 a share earlier this month before the first reports speculating about a deal. Union Pacific's stock fell nearly 2% to $224.98 in premarket trading, while Norfolk Southern's stock dipped more than 3% to $277.40. Union Pacific CEO Jim Vena, who has championed a merger, said lumber from the Pacific Northwest and plastics produced on the Gulf Coast and steel made in Pittsburgh will all reach their destinations more seamlessly. 'It builds upon President Abraham Lincoln's vision of a transcontinental railroad from nearly 165 years ago, and will usher in a new era of American innovation,' Vena told investors Tuesday. U.S. railroads have already undergone extensive consolidation. There were more than 30 major freight railroads in the early 1980s. Today, six major railroads handle the majority of shipments nationwide. Western rival BNSF, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, has the war chest to pursue an acquisition of CSX, to the east, if it chooses. CEO Warren Buffett is sitting on more than $348 billion cash and the consummate dealmaker may want to swing for the fences one last time before stepping down as planned at the end of the year. Buffett recently threw cold water on reports that he had enlisted Goldman Sachs to advise him on a potential rail deal in an interview with CNBC, but he rarely uses investment bankers anyway. Buffett reached an agreement to buy the parts of the BNSF railroad he didn't already own for $26.3 billion after a private meeting with its CEO more than a decade ago. Yet there's widespread debate over whether a major rail merger would be approved by the Surface Transportation Board, which has established a high bar for consolidation in the crucial rail industry. That's largely due to the aftermath of a consolidation in the U.S nearly 30 years ago that involved Union Pacific. It merged with Southern Pacific in 1996 and the tie-up led to an extended period of snarled traffic on U.S. rails. Three years later, Conrail was divvied up by Norfolk Southern and CSX, which led to more backups in the East. 'We're committed to making sure that doesn't happen in this case,' said Norfolk CEO Mark George. He added that the railroads will spend the next two years planning for a smooth integration before this deal might get approved. Just two years ago, the STB approved the first major rail merger in more than two decades. In that deal, which was supported by big shippers, Canadian Pacific acquired Kansas City Southern for $31 billion to create the CPKC railroad. There were compelling factors in that deal, however, that combined the two smallest major freight railroads. The combined railroad, regulators reasoned, would benefit trade across North America. The deal announced Tuesday would merge the nation's largest freight railroad, with the smallest. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern said they expect to submit their application for approval within the next six months and hope the deal would get approved by early 2027. They predict that they would be able to eliminate $1 billion in costs annually, but Vena said that every union worker at both railroads should still have a job. The railroads also predict they would be able to boost revenue by at least $1.75 billion each year by winning more business from trucking companies and other railroads. On Tuesday, Norfolk Southern reported a $768 million second-quarter profit, or $3.41 per share, as volume grew 3%. That's up from $737 million, or $3.25 per share, a year ago, but the results were affected by insurance payments from its 2023 East Palestine derailment and restructuring costs. Without the one-time factors, Norfolk Southern made $3.29 per share, which was just below the $3.31 per share that analysts surveyed by FactSet Research predicted.
