US Senate begins voting on Trump tax-cut and spending bill
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
No peace, just pause: Iran and Israel's fragile standoff
Following President Donald Trump's announcement of a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel, many questions remain about the durability of such an arrangement after years of proxy conflict – culminating recently in a direct 12-day aerial exchange of fire. The nature of the agreement itself remains shrouded in ambiguity. Trump has yet to disclose the terms accepted by the Iranian and Israeli sides, and it is still unclear whether Washington and Tehran will return to the nuclear negotiation table, talks that had previously collapsed. At this stage, all involved parties share an interest in halting hostilities, suggesting that the agreement may hold – at least temporarily – until strategic calculations shift. The United States, exhausted by protracted Middle East conflicts, has little appetite for a new drawn-out war. Iran, for its part, appears more open to temporary deals due to its declining capabilities and escalating internal crises. Trump himself faced a divided political base: Between isolationists wary of foreign entanglements and pro-Israel hawks who see American and Israeli interests as inherently aligned. From Israel's perspective, continuing the war may have yielded diminishing returns, especially after achieving key strategic goals – such as depleting Iran's missile stockpiles and weakening the IRGC through targeted strikes – without triggering a full-scale confrontation. Preserving unity with Washington and avoiding embarrassment for the Trump administration were also decisive factors in accepting a truce. Tehran, meanwhile, has little desire to provoke the US and seeks to end Israeli strikes on its facilities. Continued escalation raises the risk of direct confrontation with Washington – not just Tel Aviv – at a time when Iran is facing severe domestic pressures. With each passing day of war, the risk of regime collapse – or at least conditions that could lead to it – increases. A ceasefire may reassure regional actors concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions, though they are even more alarmed by the prospect of a devastating war to prevent them. Still, Tehran remains cautious about offering nuclear concessions without real guarantees that Israel will not resume its attacks – especially given past episodes where Trump greenlit Israeli strikes despite ongoing negotiations. Since the October 7, 2023, attack, Netanyahu's government has embraced a national security doctrine focused on regional dominance rather than peace, making any long-term deal with Iran appear unlikely. Despite suffering serious blows to its nuclear infrastructure and missile capabilities, the Iranian regime remains intact and is seeking opportunities to rebuild its military strength. While this task will be difficult and expensive, it is not impossible, given the Iranian regime's history of resilience. The region has just witnessed one of the most dangerous flashpoints in the long-standing tension between Tehran and Tel Aviv. Israel views its latest strikes as a 'relative success,' having neutralized much of Iran's air defenses and secured near-total aerial freedom over Iranian skies. Iran responded with a barrage of missiles and drones – some of which penetrated Israeli defenses – focusing on dense population centers like Tel Aviv and employing a staggered timing strategy to stretch Israeli response capabilities. However, Tehran's retaliation failed to deter further Israeli escalation. Tel Aviv describes its operations as 'preemptive strikes,' though their scope and context suggest objectives beyond halting Iran's nuclear program – possibly even undermining the regime or dismantling its high command structure. Since the Iran-Iraq war, Tehran has demonstrated political flexibility that often surprises its adversaries. Its leadership follows a strategy of 'tactical retreats' that serve broader long-term goals. The regime may concede when cornered but consistently aims to regain lost ground. While Tehran may express readiness for sanctions relief and deals with the West, it still views resistance to Western domination as the cornerstone of its ideology. Any major retreat would be interpreted as a defeat after decades of struggle. Though frequently floated as a response to Israeli or American aggression, the threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz remains largely impractical. Such a move would not serve Iran's interests – it could provoke a harsh international backlash and alienate China, Iran's largest oil customer. Alternative routes through the UAE and Oman also limit the effectiveness of such a threat. In fact, Iran itself would suffer most from the closure, as the bulk of its imports pass through the strait. Furthermore, much of the strait lies in Omani waters and spans up to 60 miles in width, making complete Iranian control virtually impossible. Overall, Israel has used successive airstrikes to dismantle Iranian defenses and maintain aerial superiority, effectively forcing Iran to divert its missile arsenal from offensive operations to defense – thus constraining Tehran's ability to take initiative. In response, Iran has embraced a policy of escalation-for-escalation, calculating that showing weakness would cost it dearly in future negotiations. Tehran also appears to be betting that such escalation will generate internal pressure on Netanyahu's government and destabilize Israel's economy through precise, intermittent strikes on populated and strategic areas. Ultimately, this ceasefire does not signal a strategic shift toward peace. Rather, it reflects a moment of 'mutual deterrence' within a fragile balance – one that could shift quickly with any change in power dynamics or political will.
Al Arabiya
3 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Analysis Shows Trump's Tariffs Would Cost US Employers $82.3 Billion
An analysis finds that a critical group of US employers would face a direct cost of 82.3 billion dollars from President Donald Trump's current tariff plans–a sum that could be potentially managed through price hikes, layoffs, hiring freezes, or lower profit margins. The analysis by the JPMorgan Chase Institute is among the first to measure the direct costs created by the import taxes on businesses with 10 million to 1 billion dollars in revenue–a category that includes roughly a third of private-sector US workers. These companies are more dependent than other businesses on imports from China, India, and Thailand–and the retail and wholesale sectors would be especially vulnerable to the import taxes being levied by the Republican president. The findings show clear trade-offs from Trump's import taxes, contradicting his claims that foreign manufacturers would absorb the costs of the tariffs instead of US companies that rely on imports. While the tariffs launched under Trump have yet to boost overall inflation, large companies such as Amazon, Costco, Walmart, and Williams-Sonoma delayed the potential reckoning by building up their inventories before the taxes could be imposed. The analysis comes just ahead of the July 9 deadline by Trump to formally set the tariff rates on goods from dozens of countries. Trump imposed that deadline after the financial markets panicked in response to his April tariff announcements, prompting him to instead schedule a 90-day negotiating period when most imports faced a 10 percent baseline tariff. China, Mexico, and Canada face higher rates, and there are separate 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum. Had the initial April 2 tariffs stayed in place, the companies in the JPMorgan Chase Institute analysis would have faced additional direct costs of 187.6 billion dollars. Under the current rates, the 82.3 billion dollars would be equivalent on average to 2,080 dollars per employee or 3.1 percent of the average annual payroll. Those averages include firms that don't import goods and those that do. Asked Tuesday how trade talks are faring, Trump said simply: 'Everything's going well.' The president has indicated that he will set tariff rates given the logistical challenge of negotiating with so many nations. As the 90-day period comes to a close, only the UK has signed a trade framework with the Trump administration. India and Vietnam have signaled that they're close to a trade framework. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that more inflation could surface. The investment bank Goldman Sachs said in a report that it expects companies to pass along 60 percent of their tariff costs onto consumers. The Atlanta Federal Reserve has used its survey of businesses' inflation expectations to say that companies could on average pass along roughly half their costs from a 10 percent tariff or a 25 percent tariff without reducing consumer demand. The JPMorgan Chase Institute findings suggest that the tariffs could cause some domestic manufacturers to strengthen their roles as suppliers of goods. But it noted that companies need to plan for a range of possible outcomes and that wholesalers and retailers already operate on such low profit margins that they might need to spread the tariffs' costs to their customers. The outlook for tariffs remains highly uncertain. Trump had stopped negotiations with Canada only to restart them after the country dropped its plan to tax digital services. He similarly on Monday threatened more tariffs on Japan unless it buys more rice from the US. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a Tuesday interview that the concessions from the trade talks have impressed career officials at the Office of the US Trade Representative and other agencies. 'People who have been at Treasury, at Commerce, at USTR for 20 years are saying that these are deals like they've never seen before,' Bessent said on Fox News Channel's 'Fox & Friends.' The treasury secretary said the Trump administration plans to discuss the contours of trade deals next week, prioritizing the tax cuts package passed on Tuesday by the Republican majority in the Senate. Trump has set a Friday deadline for passage of the multitrillion-dollar package, the costs of which the president hopes to offset with tariff revenues.
Saudi Gazette
4 hours ago
- Saudi Gazette
Trump threatens Musk with DOGE and deportation as feud reignites
WASHINGTON — US President Donald Trump has suggested that his administration would "take a look" at deporting Elon Musk after a feud between the pair reignited in spectacular fashion. As the public war of words between the former political allies escalated on Tuesday, Trump also said that the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — which the tech billionaire formerly spearheaded — could review the massive US government subsidies awarded to Musk's businesses, which include Tesla and SpaceX. When asked by a reporter on Tuesday if he was considering deporting Musk, a South African national and a naturalized US citizen, Trump said: "I don't know, we'll have to take a look." "We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is. DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon," Trump said. "If DOGE looks at Musk, we're going to save a fortune," he added later on Tuesday. Although Musk heavily backed Trump during his reelection campaign and was rewarded with the DOGE project, their alliance appeared to come to a dramatic end a month beef between the pair began in early June when Musk criticised Trump's tax cuts and spending bill, calling it a "disgusting abomination".In response, Trump threatened to target Musk's companies, with the tech mogul in turn calling for the US president to be Musk backtracked on some of his attacks and Trump wished him well, hostilities resumed on Monday when the world's richest man once again criticised the tax cuts and spending bill, which the US president has described as "big and beautiful".Musk lashed out at Republicans for backing the bill, referring to it as "political suicide" and calling the GOP the "Porky Pig party".He also renewed threats to start a new political party, called the "America Party", if the bill passed. The legislation was passed by the US Senate on Tuesday by the narrowest of margins, and now goes back to the House for possible final US "needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a voice," Musk wrote on Monday on X, the social media platform he came after Musk, who spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Trump's reelection campaign, said in May that he would likely spend "a lot less" on politics in the response to Musk's latest criticism and threats, Trump on Tuesday suggested that Musk could lose subsidies for his businesses."No more rocket launches, satellites, or electric car production, and our country would save a fortune," the US president wrote on Truth subsidies, Musk "would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa," Trump for his part, has continued to criticise the tax cuts and spending bill on X, sharing posts that supported his view of the legislation, including memes and claims that it would drive up the national debt. — Euronews
