Trade representative backs Trump's punitive approach to global tariffs
But Trump is standing by Bolsonaro and drawing connections to his own entanglements with the U.S. legal system.
'This is nothing more, or less, than an attack on a Political Opponent — Something I know much about!' he charged on Truth Social in July. 'It happened to me, times 10, and now our Country is the 'HOTTEST' in the World! The Great People of Brazil will not stand for what they are doing to their former President.'
Greer on Sunday said Trump's tariffs on Brazil had full legal backing under a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This is true, he said, even though the U.S. has long enjoyed a trade surplus with the South American country.
'The president of the United States, historically, whether it's a Democrat or Republican, they have used IEEPA to impose sanctions for all kinds of geopolitical reasons in all kinds of countries,' he told Brennan. 'Sometimes it's countrywide, sometimes it's specific to certain, you know, individuals and often foreign leaders and foreign officials. So, this is not way outside the market.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pfizer CEO details talks with Trump administration on tariffs, Most Favored Nations pricing
Pfizer (PFE) CEO Albert Bourla said Tuesday he has a "special relationship" with President Trump, cemented during the COVID-19 pandemic when the two were in regular contact to help speed up vaccine production. That relationship, he said, has created a direct line to discuss some of the headwinds the company faces out of Washington, D.C. In his second term, Trump is targeting the drug industry for high prices and overseas production — threatening tariffs as high as 250% on imported drugs. But Bourla told Yahoo Finance he believes Trump and other officials in D.C. are having productive conversations with industry leaders about tariffs and drug pricing. "I think [Trump] is educated, of course he doesn't go into the details, it's not his job, but he understands the dynamics [of the industry]," Bourla said. When asked about the tariff threat, Bourla shared his understanding from his ongoing discussions. "I don't want to speak for the president, but what he said today, which was very important also, was that it would be a very small tariff in the first couple of years. And then he opened the window for a grace period. Because I had this discussion with him and I had this discussion with multiple other members of the administration," Bourla said. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet The industry is awaiting the results of an investigation by the administration into how those tariffs will be implemented — and Bourla said the devil will be in the details. Currently, more than 90% of prescriptions in the US are from generics, which are often the cheapest drug type. Branded drugs are often the most expensive and are largely produced in the US. But some early components of the manufacturing process, key chemicals known as active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), are often made overseas in Europe or Asia. That will be important to understand when the final ruling for the tariffs is made. "We need to understand if the API will dictate the country of origin, or where the final product is made," Bourla said. Pfizer is also one of the companies that received a letter from Trump last week detailing demands to reduce prices for Medicare and Medicaid enrollees to match the lowest price paid by developing nations, known as Most Favored Nations (MFN). The company is currently planning for the implementation of reduced prices, as well as working on how to mitigate negative impacts, Bourla said. "We are still discussing it with the president. ... The devil could be in the details in these stages," he said. Anjalee Khemlani is the senior health reporter at Yahoo Finance, covering all things pharma, insurance, provider services, digital health, PBMs, and health policy and politics. That includes GLP-1s, of course. Follow Anjalee as AnjKhem on social media platforms X, LinkedIn, and Bluesky @AnjKhem. 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
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How US jobs data is collected — and why it's regularly revised
Recent data on the health of the nation's job market cost Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, her own employment after President Trump lashed out when revisions to earlier months' numbers suggested the economy could be in worse shape than previously thought. 'Last weeks Job's Report was RIGGED,' Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday. The July employment numbers, released last week, showed the US added 258,000 fewer jobs in May and June than what was reported previously. Economists were quick to note the changes, while larger than normal, are routine, factoring in survey data from employers that's slower to arrive, while Trump's actions risk politicizing a crucial economic indicator. Here's how the jobs report is pieced together and why data within it is regularly updated. How 'jobs data' works Every month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes an 'employment situation' report that includes employment, hours, and wage data for workers on nonfarm payrolls from an 'establishment survey' of businesses representing varied sectors of the economy. The report also includes data from a separate 'household survey' on the labor force, employment, and unemployment. The report is closely watched by economists, traders, and businesspeople because it can move markets, influence monetary policy, and reflect the overall health of the economy. The revisions that upset Trump were from the establishment survey, which relies on a survey of about 121,000 businesses and government agencies across the week or pay period that includes the 12th of the month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Estimated data from this survey is always revised twice in the succeeding two months after it's initially published 'to incorporate additional sample receipts from respondents in the survey and recalculated seasonal adjustment factors,' the BLS says in a 'frequently asked questions' page. Put simply, some businesses are slow to respond, so their survey answers are added as they're received, leading to revisions — up or down — in the estimates of new jobs. Importantly, the most recent revisions were within the BLS's confidence interval — the measure of uncertainty in its own estimates — of 'plus or minus 136,000' for the monthly change in total nonfarm employment, said Ryan Sweet, chief US economist at Oxford Economics. May payroll data was revised down by 125,000 jobs to 19,000 jobs gained, while June was revised down by 133,000 to 14,000 jobs gained. Sweet noted that 'if you look at the size of the revisions relative to total employment, they're not significantly larger than what we've seen historically.' In a blog post earlier this year, Michael Madowitz, principal economist for the Roosevelt Institute, wrote that while revisions can lead to some confusion, it's worth reflecting on 'why incurring some temporary confusion, in this case, contributes to the universally respected economic statistics that are central to the long-term stability of the US financial system.' The BLS is showing its work, he noted, which is a good thing. The payroll estimates from establishment surveys are also revised annually to account for wage and employment data from state unemployment insurance tax records. One of these revisions made waves last August when the BLS announced the economy had 818,000 fewer positions in the 12 months ending in March 2024 than initially reported, though that revision itself was also revised earlier this year to 598,000 fewer jobs. Trump has referenced the 818,000 data point as another example of what he perceives as data manipulation to favor Democrats, though it wasn't exactly great news for the Biden administration. 'We were pretty devastated that in August of 2024 in an election year — right kind of in the home stretch there when people were starting to pay attention — BLS did its annual benchmark revision and found that we had added 800,000 fewer jobs than we had thought at that point,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive group. Why are the revisions happening? A bigger likely problem than data manipulation is fewer businesses answering the survey. Response rates for the establishment survey have declined sharply in recent years, leading to some worries that the data is becoming more vulnerable to errors. Still, researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco wrote in March of the monthly employment gains through 2024 that 'despite the substantial decline in response rates, the incoming data are reassuringly not subject to greater noise, and thus greater uncertainty, than in the past.' But 'it's becoming less of a clear picture of how the labor market is doing in the first estimate' due to the lower survey responses, Sweet said. That's not a knock on the BLS, he added. 'These revisions are normal,' Sweet said. 'It's the nature of the beast of trying to measure a $30 trillion economy.' Additionally, big revisions have occurred in other times of economic weirdness, including the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. 'This is why we had massive upwards revisions in the early months of the Biden administration, when a ton of people were coming back into the labor force after COVID lockdowns,' Jacquez said. The US indeed has some weirdness right now, including tariffs, business uncertainty, and immigrant workers leaving the labor force. '(Major revisions) tend to coincide with idiosyncratic times in the labor market, which would make sense. If there's a big recession, there's a bunch of churn and a bunch of things happening in the labor market that wouldn't normally be captured by the standard analysis and regressions that you pull out of the data,' he added. Sign up for the Mind Your Money weekly newsletter By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy Keep watch That's not to say the revisions aren't worth examining, though: the two-month revision was the biggest since 1968 when excluding recessions, economists at Goldman Sachs have said, and could point to some strain in the economy. Even before the most recent jobs report, economists had been watching for recession risks and a slowing job market, making reliable data all the more crucial. In a video appearance on Yahoo Finance, William Beach, McEntarfer's predecessor, said the BLS commissioner has nothing to do with the estimation or preparation of the jobs data, but 'the damage is done' — people who don't follow the BLS that closely may struggle to trust the numbers. 'We're going to take a long time to recover from this,' Beach said. Emma Ockerman is a reporter covering the economy and labor for Yahoo Finance. You can reach her at Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
What's known and not yet known about the Justice Department's scrutiny of Trump-Russia probe origins
Perhaps no issue continues to aggravate President Donald Trump more than the assessment by intelligence officials that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on his behalf and the investigation by law enforcement into whether his campaign colluded with Moscow to tip the outcome of the contest. Robert Mueller, the former FBI director tapped as special counsel by Trump's first Justice Department to investigate, found that Russia had waged a multi-prong operation in Trump's favor and that the Republican president's campaign welcomed the aid. But Mueller did not find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up As president for a second time, Trump has made no secret of his desire to use the Justice Department as a weapon of retribution against perceived political adversaries he sees as having smeared him, including by calling for Obama-era officials to be jailed. Advertisement And his administration, now more broadly and across multiple agencies, has been engaged in a effort to reopen the long-accepted conclusion — including among prominent Republicans — of Russian interference and to scrutinize the officials involved in reaching that assessment. A Bondi grand jury directive Bondi, a Trump loyalist, has directed Justice Department prosecutors to present evidence related to the Russia inquiry to a grand jury. Grand juries are tools used by prosecutors to issue subpoenas for records and prosecutors and to produce indictments based on the evidence they receive. Advertisement The bar is low for an indictment given that the presentation of evidence by prosecutors is one-sided, though grand juries do have the option to decline to indict and have done so in the past. A person familiar with the matter confirmed Bondi's directive to The Associated Press but key questions remain. It was not disclosed, for instance, which prosecutors are pursuing the investigation, where the grand jury that might hear evidence is located and whether and when law enforcement officials might seek to bring criminal charges. The Justice Department, in an unusual statement last month, appeared to confirm the existence of an investigation into former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director James Brennan but provided no details or specifics. Potential targets of probe remain unclear It's not clear who might be targeted in the investigation, but the Trump administration has been aggressively challenging intelligence community conclusions about Russia's actions and intentions that had long ago seemed settled. It's been a welcome diversion for the administration as it confronts a wave of criticism from Trump's base and conservative influencers over the handling of records from the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation. In the last month, Trump administration officials and allies have released a series of documents aimed at casting doubt on the extent of interference and at portraying the original Russia investigation as an Obama administration frame-job. The documents have been hailed as incontrovertible proof of a conspiracy, but a close inspection of the records shows they fall well short of that. Among the documents released by Tulsi Gabbard, the administration's director of national intelligence, are emails from 2016 showing that Obama administration officials recognized in 2016 that Russians had not hacked state election systems to manipulate votes in favor of Trump. Advertisement But the absence of evidence that votes were switched — something the Obama administration never alleged — has no bearing on the ample evidence of other forms of Russia interference, including a hack-and-leak operation involving Democratic emails and a covert social media campaign aimed at sowing discord and spreading disinformation. Last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a previously classified annex of a 2023 report by John Durham, the special counsel appointed by the first Trump administration to hunt for government misconduct in the Russia probe. The annex included a series of emails, including one from July 2016 that was purportedly sent by a senior staffer at a philanthropic organization founded by billionaire investor George Soros, that referred to a plan approved by then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to falsely link Trump to Russia. But Durham's own report took pain to note that investigators had not corroborated the communications as authentic and said the best assessment was that the message was 'a composites of several emails' the Russians had obtained from hacking — raising the likelihood that it was a product of Russian disinformation. Fresh scrutiny has also centered around the intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference, which was published in January 2017. An annex in a classified version of the assessment contained a summary of the so-called Steele dossier — a compilation of opposition research that included uncorroborated rumors and salacious gossip about Trump and Russia. Advertisement The latest in a series of investigations Just as Russian interference has been heavily scrutinized, so too has the U.S. government's response to it. Multiple government reports, including not only from Mueller but also a Republican-led Senate intelligence committee that included current Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have documented Russia's activities in sweeping details. To be sure, reports from the Justice Department inspector general and Durham also identified significant flaws in the FBI's Russia investigation, including errors and omissions in applications the Justice Department submitted to a secretive surveillance court to eavesdrop on a national security adviser to the 2016 Trump campaign. But Durham found no criminal wrongdoing among government officials, bringing three criminal cases — two against private citizens that resulted in acquittals at trial and a third against a little-known FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to doctoring an email. It is unclear if there is any criminal wrongdoing that exists that Durham, who launched his investigation in 2019 and concluded it four years later, somehow missed during his sprawling inquiry.
