Trump Announces 25% Tariffs on Goods From Japan and South Korea
The tariffs will take effect on Aug. 1, according to letters from Trump addressed to the countries' leaders.
The correspondence also confirms Trump's new deadline gives countries some wiggle room to come to a trade deal with the U.S. heading into August. Trump wrote that if the countries made adjustments to their trade practices with the U.S., then the tariff rate could come down or go up depending on the results.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk wants to start a 3rd party — the America Party — to take on Trump and the Democrats. Could it work?
In 1992, Ross Perot — a billionaire frustrated with America's ballooning budget deficits and fed up with its two-party system — ran for president as an independent. He won 19% of the vote against the Republican incumbent (George H. W. Bush) and his Democratic challenger (Bill Clinton). A few years later, Perot formed a third party — the Reform Party — and ran again in 1996 as its first White House nominee. Now Tesla CEO Elon Musk, another frustrated billionaire, seems to want to follow in Perot's footsteps and build an even bigger, better third party of his own. 'When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,' the world's richest man wrote earlier this month on X, the social media platform he owns. 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.' Is Musk serious? And could his plan really work? It wasn't so long ago that Musk was calling himself Trump's 'first buddy.' After spending more than $250 million to help his friend win the 2024 election, Musk spent the first few months of Trump's second term waging a largely unchecked war against the federal bureaucracy as head of the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But then in early June the two tycoons had a major falling out over Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill.' Trump claims Musk was 'upset' about 'losing his EV mandate' — i.e., the $7,500 consumer tax credit that has long made buying or leasing electric vehicles such as Teslas more attractive and affordable for consumers. Musk insists he is concerned only with the legislation's effect on federal spending — namely, initial estimates that showed it would 'massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit [by] $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America[n] citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt,' as he wrote last month on X. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk continued. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' When a revised version of Trump's bill passed the Senate earlier this month with an even heftier $3.3 trillion deficit projection, Musk unveiled his America Party scheme. 'Independence Day is the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system!' he wrote on X. 'Should we create the America Party?' More than a million X users responded to Musk's snap poll; 65% said yes; 35% said no. 'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!' Musk vowed the following day. Of course, there's more to launching a third party than posting about it on social media. And so far, it appears that Musk hasn't taken any of the steps required to get his America Party off the ground. For one thing, Musk can't officially start a new party until after 2028. Like Perot, a new, independent presidential candidate would first have to secure ballot access nationwide; in many states, they would actually have to compete in the 2028 election — and earn enough votes — to keep that ballot access. Then, and only then, could the so-called America Party petition the Federal Election Commission to become a real national political party — again, like Perot did with his Reform Party in 1995, three years after his initial presidential run. In the meantime, Musk could file with the FEC to start an 'America Party' political committee to assist his preferred candidates. In fact, some filings under that name did appear on the FEC website right after Musk's X announcement; two even list Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja as treasurer and custodian of records. But according to Musk, those filings are bogus. For now, the America Party seems short on substance. All we know is that Musk himself could never be its presidential candidate; he was born in South Africa, and the U.S. constitution requires the president to be 'a natural born Citizen.' And, at least to start, the party might not even concern itself with the presidency. 'One way to execute on this would be to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts,' Musk hypothesized on July 4. 'Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people.' It depends how you define 'successfully.' The Libertarian Party launched in 1971 and fielded its first presidential ticket the following year. By 1980, it had clinched ballot access in all 50 states. It remains America's third-largest political party today. Yet none of its recent presidential candidates have earned more than 3.3% of the national vote. Meanwhile, the Reform Party slowly collapsed after the high-water mark of Perot's 1996 campaign (8.4%). In 2000, it briefly flirted with Trump before nominating Pat Buchanan (0.4%). By the time Ralph Nader joined forces with the Reform Party four years later, it had lost its ballot line in all but seven states. Nader won just 0.38% of the vote. The most successful third party, at least on the presidential level, was the Progressive (or 'Bull Moose') Party. In 1912, former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt broke with his protege and successor William Howard Taft and decided to run for a third term. Ultimately, Roosevelt earned 27% of the national vote — more than Taft (23%) and any other third-party candidate in U.S. history. But note that it took a figure as familiar and well-credentialed as a former president to get that far — and even he didn't win. Because Roosevelt and Taft divided the GOP, Democrat Woodrow Wilson wound up flipping the White House with just 42% of the vote. 'I think it's ridiculous to start a third party,' Trump told reporters earlier this month. 'The Democrats have lost their way, but it's always been a two-party system, and I think starting a third party just adds to confusion.' 'Third parties have never worked, so he can have fun with it — but I think it's ridiculous,' the president added. The idea of another option — something different from business as usual — is perennially popular. According to Gallup, a full 58% of Americans said last October that the United States needs a third party because Republicans and Democrats 'do such a poor job' representing their interests. Over the past two decades, that number has averaged 56%; in 2023 it hit a record high of 63%. Likewise, 43% of Americans told Gallup last year that they identify as independents rather than Democrats (28%) or Republicans (28%) — a number that has been rising for some time, especially among younger voters. The problem is that the vast majority of self-described independents are actually just loyal Republicans or Democrats in disguise — and the few that remain generally seem unwilling to 'waste their vote' by casting it for a non-Democrat or non-Republican. Political data journalist G. Elliott Morris recently attempted to estimate the size of Musk's potential coalition by taking the total U.S. voter pool and subtracting hardcore Republicans (24%), hardcore Democrats (32%), soft Republicans (22%) and soft Democrats (20%). The America Party was left with less than 2% of the vote. When Morris took a slightly different approach — removing (1) devoted partisans (67.5%); (2) any remaining pro-Trump voters (14%); (3) any remaining pro-spending voters (16%); and (4) any remaining anti-Musk voters (1.75%) — the America Party wound up with an even smaller slice of the electorate (0.75%). Which isn't to say that Musk has zero chance of 'disrupting' America's partisan status quo the way he's already disrupted electric vehicles and space technology; no other third-party maestro has ever had his $400 billion fortune or his social-media megaphone. Earlier this month, Nate Silver of the Silver Bulletin expressed skepticism about anchoring a new party to milquetoast 'No Labels' centrism — but suggested Musk could find some long-term success by exploiting 'blind spots in the major party agendas' on forward-facing issues such as AI and the fertility crisis. 'That's what I'd be thinking about instead of just wanting to get revenge on Trump, or applying a template for third parties that has failed so often before,' Silver said. In the meantime, perhaps Musk will start that political committee after all — and spend millions in the 2026 midterms lavishly funding challengers to MAGA lawmakers who backed Trump's big, beautiful bill (while lambasting them on X). If he does, he could potentially spoil the election for the GOP, according to a new poll by Echelon Insights, and head into the 2028 cycle with some third-party momentum. 'The way we're going to crack the uniparty system is by using a variant of how Epaminondas shattered the myth of Spartan invincibility at Leuctra,' Musk predicted on X. 'Extremely concentrated force at a precise location on the battlefield.' Or he could simply go back to posting about other things on X and wait for everyone to forget about his latest big promise — as he has been known to do in the past.
Time Magazine
28 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
What Happens When Big Tech Goes Nuclear?
Silicon Valley firms are advocating for the U.S. to embark on a nuclear energy renaissance. They have received support from President Donald Trump, who recently signed four executive orders which seek to quadruple domestic production of electricity from nuclear power within the next 25 years. The massive energy needs of the data centers required to run artificial intelligence (AI) operations have led Big Tech firms like Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta to buy electricity from preexisting nuclear power plants, push for reopening closed ones, and encourage the construction of new reactors. Microsoft even signed an agreement in September 2024 to restart Unit 1 reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania—the site of the worst civil nuclear accident in U.S. history when the reactor core of Unit 2 melted down in March 1979. The role of private enterprise is not new in driving technological innovation in nuclear fission. The Manhattan Project itself had companies such as Dupont, Union Carbide, Bechtel, and Westinghouse heavily involved under the guidance of the federal government. After World War II, the federal government took the lead in nurturing the U.S. nuclear energy industry. It subsidized and regulated nuclear energy in an attempt to promote this new source of electricity to utility providers while also reducing the public health risks from accidents. The Trump Administration's executive orders on nuclear energy gut regulation in the name of efficiency and cost-cuts. But if the history of nuclear energy's emergence and expansion offers us any lessons on this, it's that the federal government has been pivotal for nuclear energy's growth, reliability, and safety. Read More: Nuclear Power Is the Only Solution For almost a decade after the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the federal government kept the scientific knowledge tied to nuclear energy and weapons as top-secret 'restricted data.' But in 1954, Congress shifted gears and passed the Atomic Energy Act. Unlike its 1946 predecessor, this Act allowed for the commercialization of nuclear knowhow. The role of government was vital in creating an atomic marketplace because it had to determine which technologies private companies could trade in, without posing risks to U.S. national security—a most important tenet during the early Cold War to prevent nuclear proliferation. This early technological ambiguity posed security challenges. In one case, the American company Vitro International ended up selling blueprints for a plutonium reprocessing plant to India—a key piece of infrastructure useful both for generating nuclear power and for developing a nuclear weapon. The sale ended up helping advance India's nuclear weapons program, exposing the need for clear rules and laws governing the sale of nuclear information, which only the federal government could devise. In addition to setting rules about what companies could do with nuclear information, the government offered subsidies to spur nuclear energy growth within the United States. It also encouraged U.S. companies to sell nuclear reactors abroad as part of broader goal of maintaining American technological primacy in the postwar world order. The federal government also enacted regulation to ensure nuclear energy's safety and security. In 1957, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, which limited the liability of the nuclear industry for accidents and also provided the public with mechanisms for seeking compensation when they occurred. In other words, the nuclear industry accepted regulation because the government was providing the majority of funding to build nuclear power plants. This acceptance, however, would change within a decade. By the late 1960s, the federal government's willingness and capacity to support nuclear energy had diminished—for reasons having little to do directly with energy policy. The U.S. had to accumulated large deficits due to military escalation in Vietnam, which prompted a budget crunch. Moreover, as the public became more skeptical of political elites and the government due to anti-war sentiments against Vietnam, and later, the Watergate scandal, opposition to large state-led projects such as nuclear power grew. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission was even reorganized, beginning under President Richard Nixon's administration, to curtail the power of the Commission. By the Carter years, the Commission had become the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which exists till this today, but whose regulatory powers the Trump Administration plans to drastically reduce. As government funding for the nuclear energy industry dropped, private finance stepped into the void. But, being primarily motivated by profit, private banks did not find nuclear energy lucrative enough, especially owing to frequent cost overruns of reactor construction projects, red tape, and regulation. Thus, private funding did not match the same levels of economic support that the state had once provided. Without government subsidies, the nuclear energy industry experienced financial difficulties— years before the accident at Three Mile Island shocked the nation in 1979. The Reagan Administration attempted to revive the industry by cutting regulations, or what it called 'Carter-era anti-growth policies,' while also boosting funding for nuclear energy by 36% in 1981. But the effort to save the industry failed. While the funding boost was quite generous in the context of an administration that was cutting spending on social service programs, it was not enough to cover the constant cost overruns of nuclear energy projects. Additionally, the general public came to mistrust and reject nuclear energy projects, further disillusioned by the Three Mile Island disaster. New operators even feared financial liability in the event of future accidents. Read More: The U.S. Is Losing a New Nuclear Arms Race In 1986, the severe nuclear accident in Chernobyl in the Soviet Union further increased opposition to nuclear power globally. In the U.S., the construction of new nuclear power plants halted. The only new nuclear units to be added to the grid in the 1980s were those whose construction began in the 1960s and 1970s. The current push for nuclear energy looks very different from the original one in the 1950s. Unlike in the past when the majority of funding for nuclear energy came from the state, private investments from the Silicon Valley are now flowing to the U.S. nuclear energy sector at unprecedented levels. Nuclear energy startups have mushroomed, a large number of these funded by Big Tech. This threatens to tilt the technocratic and regulatory power away from the state. President Trump's executive orders support this tilt through a variety of measures, including reducing power of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and emphasizing advanced reactor testing outside the national laboratories that are hubs of American scientific and technological innovations resulting from the Manhattan Project. And yet, historically, the U.S. nuclear energy industry has thrived when government provided strong guidance. When the federal government stepped back, the industry suffered immensely. China, Russia, and France have all learned this lesson too, embracing state-led and majority state funded industries. The ethos of Big Tech to 'move fast and break things' could spur unprecedented innovation in nuclear energy, especially through the construction of small modular reactors, microreactors, and even fusion. But, just like Silicon Valley itself, which has historically flourished through the invisible hand of the state, the nuclear energy industry might also need increased guidance from the government in order to be safe, secure, and reliable. Jayita Sarkar is Professor of Global History of Inequalities at the University of Glasgow and author of the award-winning book, Ploughshares and Swords: India's Nuclear Program in the Global Cold War (Cornell University Press, 2022). She is currently finishing her next book, Atomic Capitalism (Princeton University Press, under contract). She is a British Academy Global Innovation Fellow for 2024-25 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
3 Large-Cap Value Funds to Buy on Growing Uncertainty Over Rate Cuts
The uncertainty over the timing of the next interest rate cut is making investors jittery. The Federal Reserve has suggested that it is in no rush to cut rates, as it has adopted a cautious approach. Policymakers are particularly concerned about rising inflation, which could be intensified by tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. According to the minutes from the Fed's latest meeting, released last week, most officials are not inclined toward an immediate rate cut. This could keep markets volatile for a longer period. In such an unpredictable environment, investors may want to consider investing in large-cap value funds for safety. Three such funds are: Shelton Equity Income Investor EQTIX, Putnam Large Cap Value A PEYAX and Northern Income Equity NOIEX. The minutes of the Federal Reserve's latest meeting suggest that only a few officials believe that a rate cut might be appropriate as early as this month. Most officials are adopting a wait-and-watch stance, wary of potential inflation stemming from tariffs that are set to begin on Aug. 1. While the minutes acknowledge the inflation risk as 'considerable uncertainty,' most participants expect any impact to be minor or short-lived and don't see an urgent need for action. Meanwhile, Trump has been pressuring the Federal Reserve for immediate rate cuts and has even called for Chairman Jerome Powell's resignation, claiming that the delay in rate cuts is costing the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars. Though some investors remain hopeful for a 25-basis-point cut in July due to signs of slowing inflation and a weakening job market, it appears unlikely the Fed will move forward with a cut at the upcoming FOMC meeting, raising the possibility of renewed market volatility. Also, stocks retreated on Friday after Trump announced a 35% tariff on Canada, one of the biggest trading partners of the United States, and threatened higher duties across the board. This reignited fears of a trade war after indexes hit new all-time highs earlier in the week. We've identified three large-cap value mutual funds that have given impressive annualized returns over 3-year and 5-year periods. These funds also hold a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank of #1 (Strong Buy), require an initial investment of no more than $5,000 and have a low expense ratio. The question here is: why should investors consider mutual funds? Reduced transaction costs and diversification of portfolio without several commission charges that are associated with stock purchases are primarily why one should be parking money in mutual funds (read more: Mutual Funds: Advantages, Disadvantages, and How They Make Investors Money). Shelton Equity Income Investor fund seeks to achieve a high level of income and capital appreciation by investing primarily in income-producing U.S. equity securities. EQTIX invests primarily in securities that generate a relatively high level of dividend income and have the potential for capital appreciation. Shelton Equity Income Investor fund also invests at least 80% of its total assets in stocks. EQTIX's 3-year and 5-year annualized returns are 14.5% and 12.9%, respectively. Shelton Equity Income Investor fund has a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 and an annual expense ratio of 0.65%. To see how this fund performed compared to its category, and other 1 and 2 Ranked Mutual Funds, please click here. Putnam Large Cap Value A fund seeks current income. Capital growth is a secondary objective when consistent with seeking current income. PEYAX invests mainly in common stocks of U.S. companies, with a focus on value stocks that offer the potential for current income and capital growth. PEYAX's 3-year and 5-year annualized returns are 16.5% and 16.8%, respectively. Putnam Large Cap Value A fund has a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 and an annual expense ratio of 0.88%. To see how this fund performed compared to its category, and other 1 and 2 Ranked Mutual Funds, please click here. Northern Income Equity fund seeks to provide a high level of current income with long-term capital appreciation as a secondary objective. NOIEX's approach is to identify the securities of companies that generate high current yields and offer prospects for growth and possible capital appreciation. NOIEX's 3-year and 5-year annualized returns are 17.7% and 16.1%, respectively. Northern Income Equity fund has a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 and an annual expense ratio of 0.49%. To see how this fund performed compared to its category, and other 1 and 2 Ranked Mutual Funds, please click here. Zacks' free Fund Newsletter will brief you on top news and analysis, as well as top-performing mutual funds, each week. Get it free >> Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Get Your Free (EQTIX): Fund Analysis Report Get Your Free (PEYAX): Fund Analysis Report Get Your Free (NOIEX): Fund Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research Sign in to access your portfolio
