Democrat Warren raises concerns that US tariff deals will favor Big Tech over workers
By David Lawder
(Reuters) -Democratic U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday expressed concern the Trump administration's tariff negotiations would favor big technology firms at the expense of consumers and workers.
In a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Warren said Big Tech has long sought to use trade negotiations to "undermine pro-consumer, pro-competition policies." She asked for details on the officials' interactions with tech industry executives.
WHY IT'S IMPORTANT
Warren has for years argued in favor of stronger regulation on big technology firms.
President Donald Trump has taken a stance favorable to the technology sector, taking aim at foreign governments' regulatory restrictions and digital services taxes aimed at capturing revenue from Meta, Apple, Alphabet's Google, Amazon and other U.S. tech firms.
Trump in February ordered a revival of tariff retaliation probes over digital services taxes, and Greer and Bessent have raised U.S. opposition to digital services taxes as part of trade negotiations.
In her letter, Warren said she was concerned by a list of 10 digital trade grievances against U.S. trading partners posted by USTR on X, including the European Union's Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act and South Korea's cross-border data flow restrictions.
KEY QUOTE: Warren said that given the industry's large donations, presence at Trump's inauguration and its success in lobbying for temporary tariff exemptions, "I am gravely concerned renegotiated trade deals will be used to advance Big Tech's anti-consumer agenda while doing nothing to promote U.S. manufacturing or help American workers."
Spokespersons for USTR, the Treasury and the Commerce Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Entrepreneur
15 minutes ago
- Entrepreneur
3 remarkable winners amid an unseen surge
Oil prices have been falling as OPEC increases production. Like Trump with trade, the cartel is looking to re-shape the chess board. Here's what investors need to know This story originally appeared on WallStreetZen The dominant story of 2025 has been President Trump using tariffs to restructure global trade. So, many investors are missing another major development as OPEC has been increasing oil production. Notably, this increase in production has come about despite already weakening oil prices. This is not an accident as OPEC is looking to increase its market share. Over the last decade, steadily rising US shale oil production has eroded OPEC's control of the market and resulted in the US becoming a net exporter of energy. WTI Crude oil started the year at around $74 per barrel and currently trades below $60 per barrel. However, shale oil production is only viable at prices above $70 per barrel. 2020 and 2014 The last two major instances of OPEC members increasing oil production were in early-2020 and 2014. And, both instances marked the beginning of multi month declines in oil prices. In 2014, WTI crude dropped from $105 per barrel in June 2014 to below $55 by the end of the year. The major impetus for this increase was the growth in US shale production which was starting to affect OPEC's market share and pricing power. In early 2020, Saudi Arabia decided to increase oil production in an effort to discipline other OPEC members who were not abiding by the cartels' production quotas. As the chart below shows, this resulted in oil prices sliding lower and eventually collapsing as the pandemic temporarily crippling oil demand. Both experiences contain important lessons for investors. 2025 In its first production surge, OPEC didn't materially cut back on supply increases until there was a material decrease in rig counts and shale production. 2020 gives us few clues, since the production surge ended quickly, once the nature and challenge of the pandemic became clear in early March. However, the biggest takeaway is that investors should not ""fight OPEC." A common adage on Wall Street is "don't fight the Fed." Essentially, this means don't be bearish when the Fed is aggressively easing or don't be overly bullish if the Fed is tightening policy. Similarly, investors should have a more risk-averse approach when investing in oil, whenever OPEC is increasing production. What Opportunities Does the OPEC Surge Create? Instead, investors should focus on the consequences of a multi month decline in oil prices, as these are where investment opportunities can be found. For instance, many airline stocks enjoyed spectacular rallies in 2014 and 2015 as lower oil prices boosted margins and profits. In 2020, many shippers enjoyed huge gains as the world was awash in excess oil which had to be stored and transported. Investors should identify stocks with strong fundamentals that have strong quantitative ratings. Then, they can narrow down this list of stocks to find the ones that will benefit from this specific catalyst. The Zen Ratings can help you screen for these stocks. For instance, investors can screen for stocks with an overall A or B rating along with strong component grades for defensive categories like Safety, Value, or Financials. Currently, there are a handful of stocks that fit this criteria. In today's article, I want to discuss 3 companies: United Airlines (UAL), CVR Partners (UAN), and Hallador Energy (HNRG). 1. United Airlines (UAL) United Airlines (UAL) is a major beneficiary of lower oil prices as it reduces costs, boosts margins, and leads to an increase in consumer spending. As oil prices dropped by more than 50% between June 2014 and February 2015, UAL's stock was up by nearly 70%. UAL also brings outstanding financials given a solid balance sheet, low debt-to-equity ratio, and a rock-bottom forward P/E of 6.6 which is significantly cheaper than the S&P 500's forward P/E of 22. The company is also well-regraded by Wall Street analysts as it has 8 Strong Buy ratings and 3 Buy ratings with no Sell or Hold ratings. It also has a consensus price target of $103 which implies 30% upside. Another indication of strong performance is that the company has topped analysts' earnings expectations for 11 straight quarters. Similarly, the Zen Ratings are also bullish on the stock as it has a Strong Buy (A) rating. A-rated stocks have an average annual performance of 32.5% which beats the S&P 500's average annual gain of 10.8%. 2. CVR Partners (UAN) CVR Partners (UAN) produces nitrogen fertilizer, providing farmers with ammonia and other products. A byproduct of reduced shale oil production will be higher natural gas prices, and fertilizer prices tend to rise with natural gas prices. Like UAL, UAN offers a strong balance sheet, low leverage ratios, and an attractive valuation with a P/E of 11. UAN also pays an 8% dividend yield and has consistently hiked dividend payouts over the last decade. While certain segments of the economy are going to lose from tariffs, agriculture is an exception. Either the administration is going to strike deals that will boost exports, or it will provide aid to farmers given their political importance as was the case during the previous trade war in 2018-2019. Given these strong fundamentals, it's not surprising that UAN is rated a Strong Buy (A). The stock has appeal to both value and growth investors. The company's recent earnings reports reveal strong cash flow. Over the last 12 months, the company generated nearly $100 million in cash which is impressive given its total market cap of $825 million. This combination ensures a margin of safety while providing exposure to positive catalysts. 3. Hallador Energy (HNRG) While UAN will benefit from higher fertilizer prices, HNRG will benefit from higher coal prices. Coal prices and natural gas prices tend to move in the same direction. Further, the Trump administration's embrace of coal also removes another major headwind for the industry which led to underperformance for most of the last decade. Essentially, coal stocks were mired in a brutal bear market from 2010 to 2020. Low natural gas prices made it less competitive. At the same time, the government was embracing environmental policies to reduce coal consumption. Now, both of these headwinds have eased, and investors are finding opportunities in the sector. Wall Street analysts are also bullish on the stock as it has 2 Strong Buy ratings and 1 Buy rating with 0 Sells or Holds. In terms of the Zen Ratings, it's rated a Buy (B). B-rated stocks have produced an average annual return of 19.5% which beats the S&P 500's average annual gain of 10.8%. The stock is also a standout in terms of component grades. Out of our universe of 4,500 stocks, it's in the top 3% for Growth. This is consistent with the company's improving outlook given increasing coal production and rising prices. Additionally, it ranks in the top 4% for Safety due to its low levels of debt, leverage, and collection of high-quality assets. What's the Endgame For OPEC's Production Uptick? While the endgame and path for Trump's trade war is unclear, the fallout and conclusion of OPEC's production surge is much more predictable. While North American energy producers are likely to struggle, commodities like natural gas, coal, and fertilizer will benefit. Another winner will be airlines as consumer spending remains strong while fuel costs decline. What to Do Next?
New York Post
16 minutes ago
- New York Post
Cuomo flip-flops on flip-flop, supports NYC congestion pricing — after telling The Post he wanted it paused
Mayoral hopeful Andrew Cuomo brazenly flipped his flip-flop on congestion pricing – after last year penning a Post op-ed walking back his past support for the scheme. When Cuomo was asked by The New York Times in an interview Tuesday whether he supports congestion pricing now that it shows signs of success, the former governor gave a blunt response: 'Yes.' The supportive stance contrasted with Cuomo's op-ed urging leaders pump the brakes on the controversial plan – which he championed and approved as governor. He had said at the time that imposing the toll on vehicles entering Manhattan south of 60th Street would drive people into an increasingly violent subway system. 3 The op-ed suggested an analysis on the effect of a $15 toll on the city's post-pandemic recovery. 'The people of New York know this is not the time to implement congestion pricing, but where are their local leaders passing resolutions condemning the policy?' he said then. But felony assaults in the subways are 19% percent higher so far this year compared to the same point in 2024, months after Cuomo penned his opinion piece, NYPD data shows. Overall crime in the transit system is down 4.5% over the same span, according to the data. Cuomo insisted during the Times interview that his opinion on congestion pricing has never wavered. 'All I said was, let's study this before we do it in this moment, to make sure people aren't going to say, 'you know what, another reason for me to stay home,'' he said. But Cuomo's apparent flip-flop-flip quickly drew outrage from Cuomo's opponents, political insiders and even supporters of congestion pricing. 3 'He'll say anything and everything to get elected,' Mayor Eric Adams said of Cuomo's congestion pricing about-face. 'He really believes that people don't know his history.' Cuomo had muscled congestion pricing through the state Legislature in 2019, arguing at the time that only 'very rich people' can afford the 'luxury' to drive into Manhattan. After Cuomo resigned as governor in 2021 amid a sexual harassment scandal, he returned from the political wilderness in part by calling to pause congestion pricing. He argued that New Yorkers financially hit by the COVID-19 pandemic couldn't be expected to pay another charge, as well as be shunted into dangerous subways. Curtis Sliwa, the presumptive Republican nominee for mayor, however, saw Cuomo's latest about-face on congestion pricing as yet another craven political calculation. 'Andrew Cuomo isn't interested in governing, he's already scheming for the national stage,' he said. 'He's the king of flip flops, who stands for nothing, puts himself above everyone, and says whatever he thinks will help him get ahead.' Democratic operative Ken Frydman said Cuomo won't be the last politician to change his tune on congestion pricing. 'But now that he's running for mayor of New York City instead of governor of New York State, he's clearly appealing for votes from motorists in the five boroughs,' he said. Another Democratic operative was less charitable. 3 'Andrew Cuomo has no core principles, he'll say whatever it takes to claw his way back into power,' the operative said. 'He's exactly why so many people have lost faith in politics: a flip-flopping wannabe king who ran to the Hamptons when things got tough.' Danny Pearlstein, a spokesman for the pro-congestion pricing NYC Riders Alliance, argued Cuomo has a poor record as governor for mass transit. 'We need a mayor we can trust, not one who lies and falsifies history when it's convenient for him,' Pearlstein said. Cuomo told reporters just after he kicked off his campaign in March that 'preliminary data' pointed to the early success of congestion pricing goals, but added he didn't believe 'all data was in yet.' His campaign officials maintained the ex-gov's stance hasn't changed. 'Governor Cuomo passed congestion pricing in 2019 and nearly two years ago – after being held up for years in Washington – asked the reasonable question about whether we were in the right place economically in our post-pandemic recovery and whether or not drivers had enough confidence in the subways to ditch their cars, or were they just going to work remotely,' his spokeswoman Esther Jensen said. 'These were logical questions that many people were asking. As the governor said yesterday – the indicators are that the program is working.'
Business Journals
16 minutes ago
- Business Journals
Stadium funding, disaster aid set to be debated by divided Missouri Senate
Story Highlights Missouri Senate debates bills for stadium funding and disaster relief. Proposed stadium bill would divert $1.5 billion over 30 years. Disaster relief funding criticized as insufficient for affected areas. The first two days of the special legislative session called by Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe to allocate state money for Kansas City sports stadiums, disaster recovery and unfinished spending bills have gone as well as could be expected. The Missouri Senate is poised for Wednesday debates on all the legislation Kehoe wants passed. And that's when the legislation will move from friendly committees to a chamber compromised by clear Republican factional lines and simmering Democratic anger. GET TO KNOW YOUR CITY Find Local Events Near You Connect with a community of local professionals. Explore All Events Some of the potential problems could be solved by which bills go first. The simplest bill would alter the rules governing the Missouri Housing Trust Fund so it could use $25 million included in an appropriations bill to fund home repairs and other assistance in areas hit by natural disasters this year. The biggest gripes about that plan is that the money is too little and spread too thin — federal disaster declarations have been sought for 37 counties so far this year — to do a lot of good. The biggest disaster of the year, and one that has yet to receive a presidential directive allowing federal aid, is a May 16 tornado that carved a 22-mile path across the St. Louis region, damaging or destroying 16,000 structures including hundreds of old brick homes in North St. Louis. People are sleeping in cars to protect their damaged property while they work to rebuild and wait for help, said state Sen. Brian Wililams, a University City Democrat. 'I'm having a severe challenge with even entertaining this, because I don't know how anyone would be able to go back home and look at their neighbors,' Williams said. The bill with the biggest obstacles would use tax money collected from the economic activity at Arrowhead Stadium and Kauffman Stadium in Kansas City to finance renovated or new stadiums. The bill is estimated to divert almost $1.5 billion from state revenues over 30 years. State Sen. Kurtis Gregory, a Marshall Republican and a former NFL player, is sponsoring the bill. The damage it will do to Missouri's national image to lose one or both teams, especially the Chiefs, is as important as the transfer of the economic value to Kansas, Gregory said during a hearing of the Senate Fiscal Review Committee. Kansas is offering to pay 70% of the cost for new stadiums, an offer that is 'very viable,' Gregory said, and must be answered by the end of the month. 'I firmly believe these are Missouri's teams, and if Missouri doesn't have an offer on the table for the teams to even consider, that will speak for itself and how we view then what they bring to our state and our economy,' Gregory said. Lobbyists for the teams would not commit to staying in Missouri if the legislation is passed. That, said state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, is hard to take for residents of eastern Missouri who remember that Chiefs owner Clark Hunt supported moving the Rams from St. Louis to Los Angeles. 'There was a real begrudgement about whether we were going to root for the Chiefs after the ownership team voted to remove the Rams from this from our side of the state,' said Coleman, a Republican from Arnold. Along with the stadium financing, Gregory's bill includes expanded tax credits for major amateur sporting events and a tax credit of up $5,000 for insurance deductibles paid as a result of disaster damage. The bill where Kehoe's plan could make its biggest political gains is the spending bill. It is mirrored on a construction spending package that the Missouri House refused to consider for a final vote during the regular session. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved two versions Tuesday. One, based on Kehoe's requests, has all the non-general revenue items but only $50 million of the more than $300 million in general revenue spending. Kehoe said he left out the general revenue items because he is concerned about the trend of little growth in state revenues. He cut in half a line item to support a new research reactor at the University of Missouri, leaving $25 million and using the other half for the disaster relief funding. Some lawmakers have called the cut a broken promise to the university. University President Mun Choi, who attended the hearing on the spending bill, said he is happy with the $25 million and the remaining funds will be welcome next year as the multi-year project progresses. 'I am not upset at all,' Choi said. 'I am grateful that the governor and the legislature are considering supporting this very important project here today. There are many other competing interests, especially with the disaster relief in St. Louis, and I really feel for the St. Louisians that are affected.' The other version of the bill is exactly the same as the bill the House spiked. It includes more than 60 projects added by lawmakers, with money to rebuild a sheltered workshop that burned in December and provided needed upgrades at eight hospitals around the state. While many members worried about disaster recovery or the earmarked projects have said they are ready to consider the stadium legislation after those bills are finished, the members of the Missouri Freedom Caucus who have signaled they oppose stadium funding are against it as a government subsidy to wealthy owners. During testimony against the bill, Patrick Tuohey, a senior fellow at the Show Me Institute, summed up why conservatives oppose the bill. 'What's happening here is that the teams want to use Kansas, and want to use fear of losing the teams, to vacuum up as much state subsidies as they can,' said Touhey, who wrote an op-ed about the issue published by The Independent earlier this week. 'And then they are going to come to Jackson County and Clay County and do exactly the same thing, pit them against each other, and try to vacuum up as much public subsidies from taxpayers as possible,' This report originally appeared on Missouri Independent and is republished here under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
