Global shares tumble after Trump tariff blitz
The Stoxx 600 fell around 1% in the first hour of trading. It was 1.7% lower on the week, on track for its biggest weekly drop since early April.
Both Nasdaq futures and S&P 500 futures were down around 1%.
Late on Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing tariffs ranging from 10% to 41% on U.S. imports from foreign countries. Rates were set at 25% for India's U.S.-bound exports, 20% for Taiwan's, 19% for Thailand's and 15% for South Korea's.
He also increased duties on Canadian goods to 35% from 25% for all products not covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, but gave Mexico a 90-day reprieve from higher tariffs to negotiate a broader trade deal.
"The August 1 announcement on reciprocal tariffs are somewhat worse than expected," said Wei Yao, research head and chief economist in Asia at Société Générale.
Market reaction was not as volatile as April's global asset declines, she added. "We are all getting much more used to the idea of 15-20% tariffs being manageable and acceptable, thanks to the worse threats earlier."
MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan (.MIAPJ0000PUS), opens new tab fell 1.5%, bringing the total loss this week to roughly 2.7%.
Japan's Nikkei (.N225), opens new tab closed 0.6% lower, Chinese blue chips (.CSI300), opens new tab ended 0.5% down and Hong Kong's Hang Seng index (.HIS), opens new tab lost more than 1%.
Overnight, Wall Street failed to hold onto an earlier rally. Data showed inflation picked up in June, with new tariffs pushing prices higher and stoking expectations that price pressures could intensify, while weekly jobless claims signalled the labour market remained on a stable footing.
Fed funds futures imply just a 39% chance of a rate cut in September, compared with 65% before the Federal Reserve held rates steady on Wednesday, according to the CME's FedWatch.
Much now will depend on the U.S. jobs data due later in the day and any upside surprise could price out the chance for a cut next month. Forecasts are centred on a rise of 110,000 in July, while the jobless rate likely ticked up to 4.2% from 4.1%.
The greenback found support from fading prospects of imminent U.S. rate cuts, with the dollar index up 1.5% this week against its peers to 100, in the biggest weekly rise since late 2022.
The tariff news appeared to have little impact on the Canadian dollar , which was last up 0.15%.
The yen was the biggest loser overnight, but recovered 0.2% to 170.5 yen. The Bank of Japan held interest rates steady on Thursday and revised up its near-term inflation expectations, but Governor Kazuo Ueda sounded a little dovish in the press conference.
Two-year Treasury yields fell one basis point to 3.9428%, while benchmark 10-year yields ticked up 2 basis points to 4.382%, after slipping 2 bps overnight.
In commodity markets, oil prices continued to fall after a 1% overnight plunge. Brent fell 24 cents to $71.46 per barrel, while U.S. crude fell 27 cents to $68.99 per barrel.
Spot gold prices were up 0.1% to $3,294 an ounce.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
26 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Why it just got harder to become a doctor or lawyer
For people like her, navigating that maze just became far more challenging. Major changes are coming to higher education in the United States after President Donald Trump signed his major domestic policy bill into law. Among them is an end to Grad PLUS loans, a program that helps people pay for medical school and law school. Since Congress created the loans, direct from the federal government, in 2006, they have covered the full cost of attending graduate and professional school for nearly 2 million students. Beginning July 1, 2026, that won't be an option anymore. Trump's tax and spending law will eliminate the Grad PLUS program for new borrowers (students who take out loans before that date will be grandfathered in for up to three years). The measure imposes new borrowing caps - $50,000 annually and $200,000 overall - on the amount of federal direct loans students can take out for degrees in law and medicine. And it limits their repayment options after they graduate. Read more: Trump just made it harder to close the Education Department All those technicalities mean that some students like Tran may have fewer options for law school or medical school - or could be steered down a different career path altogether. "There's no way I can graduate early enough to avoid the Grad PLUS change," she said. The reforms represent the culmination of years of conservative efforts to rein in student lending. However, there has been bipartisan consensus about the causes of the underlying problem Republicans are trying to solve. Left-leaning groups and policymakers have also been highly critical in recent years of the crippling debt that some graduate programs impose on students. Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, a doctor from Louisiana and chairman of the Senate education committee, said the new legislation will put a stop to a vicious cycle that has kept college costs too high. "The increasing availability of federal loans has resulted in skyrocketing tuition prices, trapping students in a cycle of overwhelming debt that they can't pay back," he said in a statement to USA TODAY. "By capping inflationary graduate loan programs, we prevent students from overborrowing and put downward pressure on rising college costs." Read more: Is grad school worth the investment? Our exclusive data shows some surprising answers. In 2024, the average annual law school tuition at a private university was nearly $60,000, according to American Bar Association data analyzed by the Law School Admission Council. For in-state residents attending public institutions, it was roughly $32,000. It's hard to know exactly how the loan limits will impact law schools, said Austen Parrish, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law. It's likely, in his view, that higher-ranked, more expensive schools will enroll a greater number of wealthy students who won't be as reliant on loans. Other, less privileged students may have to trade prestige for cost, he said. "You're going to see students having to make difficult decisions," he said. Medical schools brace for shift Watching from north-central Montana as Congress passed Trump's spending bill, Julianna Lindquist was happy she started medical school when she did. The 23-year-old, originally from Connecticut, is in her second year at Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine in Montana. (Of the two types of medical schools, osteopathic programs are the less-common version; their coursework is similar to that of other medical schools, but instead emphasizes a more holistic approach to patient care.) This semester, Lindquist is taking out the full amount of Grad PLUS loans she's eligible for - roughly $24,000. "I would not be anywhere without student loans," she said. "There's financial aid, but it's not enough." About half of all medical students rely on the Grad PLUS program, borrowing more than $1 billion annually, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Graduates of osteopathic schools, the vast majority of which take on Grad PLUS loans, often go on to serve rural areas or become primary care providers. With federal support disappearing, it'll be up to the private lending market to make up the difference, said Jane Carreiro, dean of the College of Osteopathic Medicine at the University of New England in Portland, Maine. "How are students going to navigate that?" she said. "That's a question that we're all asking." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Republicans slam Trump's firing of Bureau of Labor Statistics chief
Senior Republican lawmakers are condemning the decision of their party leader, Donald Trump, to fire the leading US labor market statistician after a report that showed the national economy added just 73,000 jobs – far fewer than expected – in July. The disappointing figures – coupled with a downward revision of the two previous months amounting to 258,000 fewer jobs and data showing that economic output and consumer spending slowed in the first half of the year – point to an overall economic deterioration in the US. Trump defended his decision to fire US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) commissioner Erika McEntarfer. Without evidence to back his claims, the president wrote on social media that were numbers were 'RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad' and the US economy was, in fact, 'BOOMING' on his watch. But the firing of McEntarfer, who had been confirmed to her role in January 2024 during Joe Biden's presidency, has alarmed members of Trump's own party. 'If the president is firing the statistician because he doesn't like the numbers but they are accurate, then that's a problem,' said Wyoming Republican senator Cynthia Lummis. 'It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for.' Lummis added that if the numbers are unreliable, the public should be told – but firing McEntarfer was 'kind of impetuous'. North Carolina senator Thom Tillis, a Republican, said: 'If she was just fired because the president or whoever decided to fire the director just … because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up.' Kentucky senator Rand Paul, another Republican, questioned whether McEntarfer's firing was an effective way of improving the numbers. 'We have to look somewhere for objective statistics,' he said. 'When the people providing the statistics are fired, it makes it much harder to make judgments that you know, the statistics won't be politicized.' According to NBC News, Paul said his 'first impression' was that 'you can't really make the numbers different or better by firing the people doing the counting'. Tillis and Paul were both opponents of Trump's recent economic legislative package, which the president dubbed the 'big, beautiful bill'. But Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who supported the legislation after winning substantial economic support for her state, remarked that the jobs numbers could not be trusted – and 'that's the problem'. 'And when you fire people, then it makes people trust them even less,' she said. William Beach, a former BLS commissioner appointed by Trump in his first presidency, posted on X that McEntarfer's firing was 'totally groundless'. He added that the dismissal set a dangerous precedent and undermined the BLS's statistical mission. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Beach also co-signed a letter by 'the Friends of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' that went further, accusing Trump of seeking to blame someone for bad news and calling the rationale for McEntarfer's firing 'without merit'. The letter asserted that the dismissal 'undermines the credibility of federal economic statistics that are a cornerstone of intelligent economic decision-making by businesses, families and policymakers'. The letter pointed out that the jobs tabulation process 'is decentralized by design to avoid opportunities for interference', adding that US official statistics 'are the gold standard globally'. 'When leaders of other nations have politicized economic data, it has destroyed public trust in all official statistics and in government science,' the letter said. Democrats have also hit out at Trump's decision. Vermont senator Bernie Sanders described it as 'the sign of an authoritarian type', and he said the decision would make it harder for the American people 'to believe the information that comes out of the government'. Paul Schroeder, executive director of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, described the president's allegation against McEntarfer as 'very damaging and outrageous'. He said: 'Not only does it undermine the integrity of federal economic statistics, but it also politicizes data which need to remain independent and trustworthy. This action is a grave error by the administration and one that will have ramifications for years to come.'
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Polarising Donald Trump's North Sea comments tapped into growing frustration
It's time to listen to the point made by US president Donald Trump and turn his soundbite on the North Sea into a smart, sober policy, writes Ryan Crighton. Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Donald Trump's shoot-from-the-hip diplomacy was on full display in Aberdeen this week as he waded into the UK's energy debate, calling for lower taxes on North Sea oil and gas operators. The president's remarks – delivered both in person and online to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer – will have raised eyebrows in Westminster. However, in the north-east of Scotland, where redundancies are mounting, his comments tapped into a growing sense of frustration. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad US President Donald Trump on the first tee during the official opening of the New Course, the second championship course at Trump International Golf Links, on the Menie Estate in Balmedie, Aberdeenshire | PA He may be a polarising messenger, but his advocacy for the repeal of the Energy Profits Levy (EPL) aligns with what the data, the workers and the businesses on the ground have been saying for over two years – that the windfall tax is killing off a vital British industry and a crucial national asset. According to data from Offshore Energies UK, 10,000 jobs have already been lost since the levy's introduction by the Conservative government in 2022. Harbour Energy, the UK's largest oil and gas producer, has since laid off 600 people in Aberdeen alone. These aren't abstract statistics — they are highly skilled individuals, families, and communities being sacrificed on the altar of fiscal short-termism. The failure of the north east green freeport bid is a major blow for a regional economy transitioning away from fossil fuels. Picture: Andy Buchanan/Getty Worse still, the economic wreckage isn't even delivering the returns that were promised. Independent analysis from Stifel shows EPL revenues have consistently come in at the low end of government forecasts. Why? Because the supposed "windfall" they are taxing does not exist. Oil prices are down 50 per cent since the peak of the Ukraine crisis. Gas prices have collapsed by 80 per cent. The result is a textbook case of policy failure. Tax hikes intended to boost revenues have instead triggered a collapse in investment, with over £20 billion of planned capital spending now cancelled or paused. Exploration activity has ground to a halt. Fields are being decommissioned prematurely. The UK is forfeiting not just jobs and tax income, but its energy security. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This shouldn't just be of concern to those living and working in Aberdeen - this should alarm everyone, because the UK still needs oil and gas. Even in the most ambitious net-zero scenario, the country will require between 13 and 15 billion barrels of oil equivalent by 2050. Right now, we're on track to produce less than four. And that energy shortfall isn't going to be filled by wind turbines and hydrogen pipelines overnight. The reality is that we are swapping cleaner, domestically produced energy for dirtier, imported alternatives. According to the North Sea Transition Authority, gas extracted in the UK has less than a quarter of the carbon footprint of imported LNG. Yet we are allowing that domestic capacity to decline while increasing our reliance on higher-emission imports from the US and Qatar. It is environmental hypocrisy at its worst. All the while, the UK government continues to claim we are 'maximising value' from our domestic resources. But how? By driving capital offshore? By gutting the supply chain that is also needed to deliver renewables, carbon capture, and green hydrogen? By forcing energy companies to pay tax rates that, in some cases, exceed 100 per cent? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ryan Crighton, policy director at Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce and a senior partner at True North Advisors. | True North Advisors In 2024, Harbour Energy reported a pre-tax profit of £950 million. However, after accounting for an effective tax rate of 108 per cent, the company posted no net profit for the year. This level of taxation is without parallel in the UK economy. It's not just unfair - it's economically suicidal. The UK's approach also compares poorly to our North Sea neighbours in Norway. While their headline tax rate is similar, the Norwegian government supports exploration and shares risk through its fiscal regime. That's why Norway continues to attract investment and why its energy sector is thriving. We, by contrast, have taken the opposite path – penalising production, scaring off capital, and hoping for different results. What's even more galling is that the levy is being used to fund Great British Energy – the new public clean energy company set-up by the Labour Party. According to Stifel, EPL revenues are set to collapse from £5.5bn to under £1bn by 2029. You cannot fund the future of energy by strangling the very sector that underpins it. So yes, President Trump is right to shine a spotlight on this issue. But the solution isn't a populist soundbite or a quick political win. It is a long-overdue dose of energy pragmatism. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad That means abolishing the EPL – now – and restoring a stable, competitive tax regime that can unlock investment, extend production and retain the critical skills base we will need for the next generation of energy infrastructure. It also means rejecting the false binary between fossil fuels and renewables. The future is not oil or wind. It is oil and wind. And hydrogen. And carbon capture. We need all of it. Everything, everywhere, all at once. The UK cannot build a low-carbon future while dismantling the industrial engine required to deliver it. A managed transition must be just that – managed. And that means recognising the continuing role of oil and gas, treating our energy sector with the strategic seriousness it deserves, and stopping the ideological war against the basin that still powers Britain. So, let's take Trump's call and translate it into smart, sober policy. Not because he said it, but because the facts demand it. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The North Sea doesn't need special treatment, but it does deserve fair treatment. The alternative isn't a greener future – it's a weaker Britain.
