Bond Vigilantes Make Their Presence Known at the White House
For all of the attention paid to the slump in stocks since Donald Trump announced his tariffs, in the end it was the bond market that prompted him to reverse course.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
3 hours ago
- Washington Post
Trump's incomplete Alaska summit
President Donald Trump arrived at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson on Friday with a clear goal: extract a ceasefire agreement from Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, the Russian president came to Alaska not to end his war against Ukraine but to avoid expanded economic sanctions. Although only one side got what it initially wanted, what happens in the coming days will be more consequential. 'We've made some headway,' Trump told the press after talks ended early. Contradicting Putin's earlier assertion that they had reached an agreement, Trump added that 'there's no deal until there's a deal.' The two did not take questions. In an interview with Fox News, Trump declined to disclose the biggest sticking point, which nevertheless seems to have been his desire for a ceasefire. Yet the president is plowing ahead. 'It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up,' Trump posted Saturday morning on Truth Social. That followed a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who will fly to Washington for a visit with Trump in the Oval Office on Monday. Trump and Zelensky are open to trilateral meeting after that. Is Putin? The key for Zelensky in the coming days is to ensure that Moscow, not Kyiv, is rightly blamed for any lack of progress. That means maintaining an openness to negotiations and not being baited into public debating, like in their last Oval Office meeting. Despite the summit's inconclusive end, Trump and Zelensky reportedly discussed security guarantees that ought to be appealing to the vulnerable nation. Indeed, the core Ukrainian goal remains to survive the current onslaught while ensuring Ukrainian sovereignty for the long haul. Praising Trump's acumen and showing an openness to dealing with Putin is a morally unsatisfying but necessary approach for Zelensky — especially if he can win promises to deter a future invasion once hostilities end. For weeks, Trump had threatened secondary sanctions that would prevent countries such as India and China from buying fossil fuels from Putin's regime. Such sanctions crippled Iran's already fragile economy during Trump's first term and would have a material effect on the Russian war machine. Oil and gas revenue account for around a third of the country's federal budget, which is increasingly strained. Our preference is to impose sanctions now. We understand the worry that this would blow up negotiations, but the bigger risk is that Putin believes he can string along talks to avoid punishment, as Iran did during Joe Biden's presidency. Putin is driven by the logic of power and force, not diplomatic niceties. If the White House really believes a deal is close, the least the administration can do is outline exactly what penalties Putin should expect if he does not sit for a trilateral meeting — and what will come if that meeting does not produce tangible results. This would place the onus on Putin to take negotiations seriously while making it easier to swiftly impose them if talks fall apart. Criticism of Trump for meeting with Putin doesn't quite land. Like it or not, the Russian strongman is firmly in power and remains the driving force behind the war. Trump's praise of hostile leaders is too often over-the-top, but this summit doesn't permanently bring Putin into the civilized world. Recall that Trump met Kim Jong Un three times; the North Korean dictator got some propaganda photos, but he remains isolated. The real danger now is not that Putin gets a small public-relations victory but that he continues his war without further consequences. Despite his unorthodox approach, Trump demonstrated a clear-eyed understanding of American interests when dealing with Iran and North Korea. In the end, he was willing to increase pressure and walk away from bad deals. The time for that might not have come yet, but it is fast approaching.
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
You probably forgot about some of 2025's most viral moments. Here's a recap.
A recap might be in order. Between a 24-hour news cycle and a never-ending loop of social media trends, remembering what happened yesterday, much less at the start of the year could prove difficult. From American Eagle's controversial jeans ad and the ongoing Labubu pandemonium, 2025 (at least so far) has been chock-full of viral moments. In an effort to remind you, our readers, what some of those big moments were, we've rounded them up and recapped them (in case the train passed you by on one or more of these.) See some of the moments that perfectly capture the zeitgeist of 2025, at least so far. Americans say 'goodbye' to TikTok Before TikTok "went dark" for 12 hours in January, some of its American users had already prepared for the worst, issuing last goodbyes and posting heartfelt tributes in case they would never be able to use the social media platform again. Influencers, content creators and casual users shared memories and posted memes and for an app they said fostered a sense of community and belonging, in addition to income. The federal legislation that required ByteDance, TikTok's parent company, to the divest the app's U.S. assets, was designed to assuage national security concerns, i.e., fears that the Beijing-based company was sharing U.S. user data with China. Fortunately, for TikTok, President Donald Trump came through with an executive order that delayed the ban for 75 days so ByteDance could find an owner in the U.S. Trump has since issued three executive orders to delay the ban, with the most recent deadline being Sept. 17. The fate of the short-form video app now lies in the hands of Chinese officials, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said, and they have yet to approve a U.S.-drafted deal to sell the app's American assets. If Chinese officials don't approve the deal before the deadline, and if Trump does not issue another executive order to delay the ban, TikTok could go dark again. What's the latest on a TikTok ban? There's just a month until the app could be banned – again. Here's where things stand. Gulf of Mexico? Gulf of America. Gulf of Mexico? More like Gulf of America, President Donald Trump decreed on Inauguration Day. The name change went into effect on Feb. 10, a day after Trump declared Feb. 9 as the "first-ever Gulf of America Day" while en route to Super Bowl 59. Tech giants Google and Apple moved quickly to honor Trump's order after the new name was formally adopted by the Geographic Names Information System. Trump's executive order ruffled more than a few feathers, most notably Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum, who threatened legal action against Google and joked that she would start calling the United States "Mexican America" in retaliation. Kendrick Lamar brought the heat to Super Bowl LIX Between the fashion and the set list (featuring SZA), Kendrick Lamar's halftime show performance at Super Bowl 59 was one for the books. Not to mention surprise cameos from Uncle Sam, i.e., Samuel L. Jackson and tennis legend (Drake's ex) Serena Williams, who crip-walked onstage. Kendrick Lamar and Drake rap beef: What makes this music feud so significant? Within the span of 13 minutes, the Grammy- and Pulitzer-winning rapper dropped easter eggs, trolled Drake with famed diss trick "Not Like Us" and performed a total of 11 tracks (with stunning visuals and an ensemble, to boot.) Troves of spectators, including fans, took to social media to either react (live) and/or discuss all things related to Lamar's performance. But the fun did not stop there, as Lamar and SZA took "GNX" collaborations on the road for the Grand National Tour, which concluded at Northwest Stadium in Washington, D.C. on June 18. Katy Perry hate (space?) train Haters gonna hate. And Katy Perry, one of six notable women catapulted to the edge of space, got a lot of it. Because of billionaire Jeff Bezos' private space company Blue Origin, Perry and her crewmates got the chance to take a quick trip beyond Earth's atmosphere, complete with out-of-this-world views and a dose of microgravity. The internet, including fellow celebrities Olivia Munn and Emily Ratajkowski, were critical of the voyage, which some considered "out of touch," even a "bit gluttonous." The hate train, mostly aimed at Perry, continued through the end of the mission, which took place on April 14. Perry, for her part, did not comment on the controversy until weeks later, telling a fan who congratulated the "Dark Horse" singer on the opening of her tour, that the online world tries to make her a "human Piñata." "I take it with grace and send them love, cause I know so many people are hurting in so many ways and the internet is very much so a dumping ground for unhinged and unhealed," Perry wrote. Instant replay: Katy Perry, Gayle King, 4 other women head to space on Blue Origin launch 100 men vs. 1 gorilla debate Could 100 men defeat a gorilla in a fight? The hypothetical question sparked discourse (and inspired memes) across social media platforms for several days in late April. We, like everyone else involved, were just as curious about the answer so we decided to ask an expert. Tara Stoinski, president and chief scientific officer of the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund, told us to think about the numbers. 100 men vs. 1 gorilla? Expert weighs in on viral debate Haunted doll blamed for New Orleans hijinks Annabelle was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or the right place at the wrong time. (Depends on who you ask.) The haunted "Raggedy Ann" doll, which served as inspiration for a horror movie of the same name, was minding her own business when the internet turned on her. Annabelle, on a multi-city tour across the U.S., was accused of orchestrating the escape of 10 inmates from an Orleans Parish jail and a fire that decimated a plantation just south of Baton Rouge, event thats coincided with her visit to Louisiana. Some were amused by the coincidence, while others, like the X user above, were certain Annabelle had something to do with it. Once the rumor mill gets going, especially on social media, its hard to stop, something Ghost City Tours learned quicky. Tim Nealon, founder of Ghost City Tours, told USA TODAY they had received death threats. Most of them came from people who were "absolutely convinced" that the company had something to do with all of the hijinks, Nealon said. "I did not think people were taking it seriously, (because) I kept seeing jokes about it on Instagram and TikTok," Nealon said. "But, I didn't realize people were out here like, actually thinking that this was legit." Ghost City Tours also released a statement on social media, writing that they while they were of the comments being thrown around, they could confirm Annabelle had nothing to do with the fire. In photos: Original 'Annabelle' doll of paranormal infamy visits Gettysburg orphanage Labubu craze Labubus are to 2025 like Stanley cups were to 2024. And the monster plushies, so popular it spawned a knockoff, are this season's fashion accessory of choice. The doll was designed a decade ago by Kasing Lung, a Hong Kong-born artist. The toy, part of "The Monsters" line, and other figurines are currently sold by Beijing-based toy maker Pop Mart in "blind boxes," a sealed package that contains a mystery toy, typically from a themed series. But the craze for Labubus began to surge in popularity months after Lisa of K-pop girl group BLACKPINK mentioned her "secret obsession" with Pop Mart collectibles in a December 2024 interview with Vanity Fair. "The video that started all the Labubu craze.." one user wrote in VF's comment section. Labubus have become a hot commodity since then, as consumers worlwide struggle (and sometimes fight each other) to nab the real thing for themselves. While those lucky enough to get one, or more are either already plotting their next kill or buying outfits for the one, or ones they already own. Is your Labubu real? We spot differences between Pop Mart dolls and 'Lafufus' Jeans or genes? American Eagle ad starring Sydney Sweeney blasted American Eagle sought to promote its jeans through its campaign starring Sydney Sweeney, but somehow managed to elicit controversy online and support from the White House in the process. "Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color," the "Euphoria" star said in the ad. "My jeans are blue." Critics were quick the slam the ad, arguing that the wordplay was a subtle attempt at endorsing eugenics. By glorifying the actor's white genetics as "good," many argued the ad promoted the belief that some genetic features are better than others. President Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz and White House Communications Director Steven Cheung rushed toward the ad's defense saying that the backlash was just nonsense coming from liberals. Sydney Sweeney is everywhere: A look at her viral ad campaigns. 'Kiss Cam' incident at Coldplay concert Things got a little uncomfy for a couple attending a Coldplay concert in Foxborough, Massachusetts last month. You know the one. Two concertgoers (and tech company Astronomer, by proxy) were thrust into the spotlight after a "Kiss Cam" cameo. The clip shows a man and a woman leap out of close embrace and duck out of view after they realized everyone at Gillette Stadium, including front man Chris Martin, could see them on the jumbotron. "Come on, you're OK!" Martin told the pair. "Uh oh, what? Either they're having an affair or they're just very shy." Internet sleuths were on the case shortly after the clip went viral, with many curious and determined to uncover the identity of the couple. And some of them did. Days later, Astronomer CEO Andy Byron and the company's chief people officer, Kristin Cabot, resigned. Then Astronomer hired Martin's ex-wife Gwyneth Paltrow, a "temporary spokesperson" to be the face of its newest advertisement. The scandal also became a sort of spectacle, spawning reenactments and prompting musical artists to issue warnings ahead of shows.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's unprecedented, potentially unconstitutional deal with Nvidia and AMD, explained: Alexander Hamilton would approve
'We negotiated a little deal,' President Donald Trump told reporters on August 11, about the developing situation with leading chip makers Nvidia and AMD continuing to do business in China. He explained that he originally wanted a 20% cut of Nvidia's sales in exchange for the company obtaining export licenses to sell H20 chip to China, but he was persuaded to settle at 15%. The H20 chip is 'obsolete,' Trump added … 'he's selling a essentially old chip.' The chips do appear to be quite significant to China, considering that the Cyberspace Administration of China held discussions with Nvidia over security concerns that the H20 chips may be tracked and turned off remotely, according to a disclosure on its website. The deal, which lifted an export ban on Nvidia's H20 AI chips and AMD's MI308, and followed heated negotiations, was widely described as unusual and also still theoretical at this point, with the legal details still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce. Legal experts have questioned whether the eventual deal would constitute an unconstitutional export tax, as the U.S. Constitution prohibits duties on exports. This has come to be known as the 'export clause' of the constitution. Indeed, it's hard to find much precedent for it anywhere in the history of the U.S. government's dealings with the corporate sector. Erik Jensen, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University who has studied the history of the export clause, told Fortune he was not aware of anything like this in history. In the 1990s, he added, the Supreme Court struck down two attempted taxes on export clause grounds (cases known as IBM and U.S. Shoe). Jensen said tax practitioners were surprised that the court took up the cases: 'if only because most pay no attention to constitutional limitations, and the Court hadn't heard any export clause cases in about 70 years.' The takeaway was clear, Jensen said: 'The export clause matters.' Columbia University professor Eric Talley agreed with Jensen, telling Fortune that while the federal government has previously applied subsidies to exports, he's not aware of other historical cases imposing taxes on selected exporters. Talley also cited the export clause as the usual grounds for finding such arrangements unconstitutional. Rather than downplaying the uniqueness of the arrangement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been leaning into it. In a Bloomberg television interview, he said: 'I think you know, right now, this is unique. But now that we have the model and the beta test, why not expand it? I think we could see it in other industries over time.' Bessent and the White House insist there are 'no national security concerns,' since only less-advanced chips are being sold to China. Instead, officials have touted the deal as a creative solution to balance trade, technology, and national policy. How rare is this? The arrangement has drawn sharp reaction from business leaders, legal experts, and trade analysts. Julia Powles, director of UCLA's Institute for Technology, Law & Policy, told the Los Angeles Times: 'It ties the fate of this chip manufacturer in a very particular way to this administration, which is quite rare.' Experts warned that if replicated, this template could pressure other firms—not just tech giants—into similar arrangements with the government. Already, several unprecedented arrangements have been struck between the Trump administration and the corporate sector, ranging from the 'golden share' in U.S. Steel negotiated as part of its takeover by Japan's Nippon Steel to the federal government reportedly discussing buying a stake in chipmaker Intel. Nvidia and AMD have declined to comment on specifics. When contacted by Fortune for comment, Nvidia reiterated its statement that it follows rules the U.S. government sets for its participation in worldwide markets. 'While we haven't shipped H20 to China for months, we hope export control rules will let America compete in China and worldwide. America cannot repeat 5G and lose telecommunication leadership. America's AI tech stack can be the world's standard if we race.' The White House declined to comment about the potential deal. AMD did not respond to a request for comment. While Washington has often intervened in business—especially in times of crisis—the mechanism and magnitude of the Nvidia/AMD deal are virtually unprecedented in recent history. The federal government appears to have never previously claimed a percentage of corporate revenue from export sales as a precondition for market access. Instead, previous actions took the form of temporary nationalization, regulatory control, subsidies, or bailouts—often during war or economic emergency. Examples of this include the seizure of coal mines (1946) and steel mills (1952) during labor strikes, as well as the 2008 financial crisis bailouts, where the government took equity stakes in large corporations including two of Detroit's Big three and most of Wall Street's key banks. During World War I, the War Industries Board regulated prices, production, and business conduct for the war effort. Congress has previously created export incentives and tax-deferral strategies (such as the Domestic International Sales Corporation and Foreign Sales Corporation Acts), but these measures incentivized sales rather than directly diverting a fixed share of export revenue to the government. Legal scholars stress that such arrangements were subjected to global trade rules and later modified after international complaints. Global lack of precedent The U.S. prohibition on export taxes dates back to the birth of the nation. Case Western's Jensen has written that some delegates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, such as New York's Alexander Hamilton, were in favor of the government being able to tax revenue sources such as imports and exports, but the 'staple states' in the southern U.S. were fiercely opposed, given their agricultural bent, especially the importance of cotton at that point. Still, many other countries currently have export taxes on the books, though they are generally imposed across all exporters, rather than as one-off arrangements that remove barriers to a specific market. And many of the nations with export taxes are developing countries who tax agricultural or resource commodities. In several cases (Uganda, Malaya, Sudan, Nigeria, Haiti, Thailand), export taxes made up 10% to 40% of total government tax revenue in the 1960s and 1970s, according to an IMF staff paper. Globally, most countries tax profits generated within their borders ('source-based corporate taxes'), but rarely as a direct percentage of export sales as a market access precondition. The standard model is taxation of locally earned profits, regardless of export destination; licensing fees and tariffs may be applied, but not usually as a fixed percent of export revenue as a pre-negotiated entry fee. Although the Nvidia/AMD deal doesn't take the usual form of a tax, Case Western's Jensen added. 'I don't see what else it could be characterized as.' It's clearly not a 'user fee,' which he said is the usual triable issue of law in export clause cases. For instance, if goods or services are being provided by the government in exchange for the charge, such as docking fees at a governmentally operated port, then that charge isn't a tax or duty and the Export Clause is irrelevant. 'I just don't see how the charges that will be levied in the chip cases could possibly be characterized in that way.' Players have been known to 'game' the different legal treatments of subsidies and taxes, Columbia's Talley added. He cited the example of a government imposing a uniform, across-the-board tax on all producers, but then providing a subsidy to sellers who sell to domestic markets. 'The net effect would be the same as a tax on exports, but indirectly.' He was unaware of this happening in the U.S. but cited several international examples including Argentina, India, and even the EU. One famous example of a canny international tax strategy was Apple's domicile in Ireland, along with so many other multinationals keeping their international profits offshore in affiliates in order to avoid paying U.S. tax, which at the time applied to all worldwide income upon repatriation. Talley said much of this went away after the 2018 tax reforms, which moved the U.S. away from a worldwide corporate tax, with some exceptions. The protection racket comparison If Trump's chip export tax is an anomaly in the annals of U.S. international trade, the deal structure has some parallels in another corner of the business world: organized crime, where 'protection rackets' have a long history. Businesses bound by such deals must pay a cut of their revenues to a criminal organization (or parallel government), effectively as the cost for being allowed to operate or to avoid harm. The China chip export tax and the protection rackets extract revenue as a condition for market access, use the threat of exclusion or punishment for non-payment, and both may be justified as 'protection' or 'guaranteed access,' but are not freely negotiated by the business. 'It certainly has the smell of a governmental shakedown in certain respects,' Columbia's Talley told Fortune, considering that the 'underlying threat was an outright export ban, which makes a 15% surcharge seem palatable by comparison.' Talley noted some nuances, such as the generally established broad statutory and constitutional support for national-security-based export bans on various goods and services sold to enumerated countries, which have been imposed with legal authority on China, North Korea, Iraq, Russia, Cuba, and others. 'From an economic perspective, a ban on an exported good is tantamount to a tax of 'infinity percent' on the good,' Talley said, meaning it effectively shuts down the export market for that good. 'Viewed in that light, a 15% levy is less (and not more) extreme than a ban.' Still, there's the matter, similar to Trump's tariff regime, of making a legal challenge to an ostensibly blatantly illegal policy actually hold up in court. 'A serious question with the chips tax,' Case Western's Jensen told Fortune, 'is who, if anyone, would have standing to challenge the tax?' In other words, it may be unconstitutional, but who's actually going to compel the federal government to obey the constitution? This story was originally featured on 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
