logo
Stocks reach record highs as Trump trade fears ease on Wall Street

Stocks reach record highs as Trump trade fears ease on Wall Street

The Hill4 hours ago

A key stock market index reached a record high Friday, capping off a comeback from the selloff driven by President Trump's tariffs this spring.
The S&P 500 index was up 0.5 percent Friday morning, rising roughly 32.6 points and exceeding the all-time high of 6,147 points set in February. The Nasdaq composite was up 0.3 percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 0.4 percent.
After falling sharply in March and April as Trump rolled out his trade agenda, stocks have rallied back to their previous highs after the president dramatically reduced the scale and scope of his import taxes.
Trump shook markets in April by announcing he would impose roughly $600 billion in tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partners. His new 'Liberation Day' tariffs followed import taxes he levied on Canada, Mexico and China earlier in his term, along with additional taxes on foreign metals, autos and auto parts.
Despite initially brushing off the market's reaction, Trump adjusted his trade agenda two weeks later by reducing and delaying his April tariffs on all other countries, but ramping them up to levels as high as 145 percent on China.
The U.S. and China have since struck several smaller agreements to reduce tariffs on each other's goods and open up Chinese exports of rare metals to the states.
The Chinese Ministry of Commerce confirmed further details of the deal on Friday, which includes
'China will, in accordance with the law, review and approve eligible export applications for controlled items. In turn, the United States will lift a series of restrictive measures it had imposed on China,' a Ministry spokesperson said in a statement, which did not go into detail.
Estimates for the current overall U.S. tariff rate range between 10 and 15 percent now, down from 25 percent when China and the U.S. had triple-digit tariffs in place on each other. The Yale Budget Lab puts the overall number at 15.8 percent now.
Major new tariffs include a 10-percent general tariff, 30-percent tariffs on China, 25-percent tariffs on autos and auto parts, 25-percent tariffs on steel and aluminum, and 25-percent tariffs on select goods from Canada and Mexico.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier in June that the new tariffs would reduce primary deficits by $2.5 trillion. Accounting for macroeconomic effects, the deficit reduction increases to $2.8 trillion.
Also potentially boosting optimism on Wall Street was the downward revision to first-quarter gross domestic product that came this week, which could potentially increase the chances of a rate cut from the Federal Reserve.
However, a hotter than expected inflation print on Friday likely works against that option. Inflation rose 2.3 percent in May on an annual basis, up from just 2.1 percent in April, the Commerce Department said Friday.
Removing the more volatile categories of food and energy, core prices increased 2.7 percent from a year earlier, a rise from 2.6 percent in April.
'Today's report is not good for economic activity and inflation and will continue to keep the Federal Reserve on the sidelines for now,' Raymond James economist Eugenio Aleman said in a commentary.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

California Gov. Gavin Newsom sues Fox News over alleged defamation in story about call with Trump
California Gov. Gavin Newsom sues Fox News over alleged defamation in story about call with Trump

Associated Press

time18 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

California Gov. Gavin Newsom sues Fox News over alleged defamation in story about call with Trump

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued Fox News on Friday over alleged defamation, saying the network knowingly aired false information about a phone call he had with President Donald Trump around the time the National Guard was sent Los Angeles. The lawsuit alleges Fox News anchor Jesse Watters edited out key information from a clip of Trump talking about calling Newsom, then used the edited video to assert that Newsom had lied about the two talking. Newsom is asking for $787 million in punitive damages in his lawsuit filed in Delaware court where Fox is incorporated. That's the same amount Fox agreed to pay in 2023 to settle a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems. The company said Fox had repeatedly aired false allegations that its equipment had switched votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden during the 2020 election, and the discovery process of the lawsuit revealed Fox's efforts not to alienate conservatives in the network's audience in the wake of Biden's victory. 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences -- just like it did in the Dominion case,' Newsom said in a statement. 'I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet.' He asked a judge to order Fox News to stop broadcasting 'the false, deceptive, and fraudulent video and accompanying statements' that Newsom said falsely say he lied about when he had spoken to Trump regarding the situation in Los Angeles, where protests erupted on June 6 over Trump's immigration crackdown. Fox News called the lawsuit 'frivolous.' 'Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,' the company said in a statement. The law makes it difficult to prove defamation, but some cases result in settlements and, no matter the disposition, can tie up news outlets in expensive legal fights. Particularly since taking office a second time, Trump has been aggressive in going after news organizations he feels has wronged him. He's involved in settlement talks over his lawsuit against CBS News about a '60 Minutes' interview last fall with Democratic opponent Kamala Harris. This week, Trump's lawyers threatened a lawsuit against CNN and The New York Times over their reporting of an initial assessment of damage to Iran's nuclear program from a U.S. bombing. Newsom's lawsuit centers on the details of a phone call with the president. Both Newsom and the White House have said the two spoke late at night on June 6 in California, which was already June 7 on the East Coast. Though the content of the call is not part of the lawsuit, Newsom has said the two never discussed Trump's plan to deploy the National Guard, which he announced the next day. Trump said the deployment was necessary to protect federal buildings from people protesting increased immigration arrests. Trump later announced he would also deploy Marines to the area. On June 10, when 700 Marines arrived in the Los Angeles area, Trump told reporters he had spoken to Newsom 'a day ago' about his decision to send troops. That day, Newsom posted on X that there had been no call. 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail,' Newsom wrote. On the evening of June 10, the Watters Primetime show played a clip of Trump's statement about his call with Newsom but removed Trump's comment that the call was 'a day ago,' the lawsuit said. Watters also referred to call logs another Fox News reporter had posted online showing the phone call the two had on June 6. 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?' Watters asked on air, according to the lawsuit. The segment included text across the bottom of the screen that said 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call.' Newsom's suit argues that by editing the material, Fox 'maliciously lied as a means to sabotage informed national discussion.' Precise details about when the call happened are important because the days when Trump deployed the Guard to Los Angeles despite Newsom's opposition 'represented an unprecedented moment,' Newsom's lawyers wrote in a letter to Fox demanding a retraction and on-air apology. 'History was occurring in real time. It is precisely why reporters asked President Trump the very question that prompted this matter: when did he last speak with Governor Newsom,' the letter said. ___ Associated Press journalist David Bauder contributed to this report.

Judge won't block DOGE access to sensitive government data
Judge won't block DOGE access to sensitive government data

The Hill

time18 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Judge won't block DOGE access to sensitive government data

A federal judge ruled Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can continue to access sensitive data on millions of Americans at certain agencies, handing at least a temporary defeat to the labor unions that have sued to block the practice. Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court in D.C. declined to grant the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services, pending further proceedings in the case. The AFL-CIO and other unions filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent DOGE employees from accessing information such as medical files, financial histories, social security numbers, and addresses. In his ruling, Bates said that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated sufficient evidence of harm to merit an injunction, although he remained concerned about the prospect of DOGE's access. 'Absent evidence those personnel will imminently misuse or publicly disclose that information, the Court cannot say that irreparable harm will clearly occur before the Court can make a final determination on the merits,' he wrote. 'And without irreparable harm, a preliminary injunction cannot issue.' Still, Bates acknowledged the sensitivity of the data access, writing that the 'DOGE Affiliates have their hands on some of the most personal information individuals entrust to the government.' '[T]he Court's concerns are as grave as ever, and it stands ready to remedy plaintiffs' harm should they ultimately succeed on the merits,' he wrote. Bates asked the parties to propose a schedule for reaching summary judgment. The ruling is yet another setback for the labor unions, who first brought their suit in February and have been twice denied temporary restraining orders. Bates himself has ruled on a number of Trump-related cases and has at times drawn ire from the president. He has ordered the administration to restore certain government websites and ruled that Trump's executive order targeting the law firm Jenner & Block was unconstitutional. A host of lawsuits over DOGE's access to private government data are slowly playing out across federal courts. A federal judge ruled last week that the government must submit a report detailing DOGE's level of access to personally identifiable information at the Office of Personnel Management in response to another lawsuit filed by the AFL-CIO. The Supreme Court earlier this month allowed DOGE to proceed in its efforts at the Social Security Administration, staying a preliminary injunction in a case brought by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

Post-Brexit food labelling branded ‘bureaucratic madness' by M&S boss
Post-Brexit food labelling branded ‘bureaucratic madness' by M&S boss

Yahoo

time18 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Post-Brexit food labelling branded ‘bureaucratic madness' by M&S boss

Marks and Spencer's chief executive has lambasted a key aspect of the Windsor Framework's final phase as "bureaucratic madness," as over 1,000 products destined for Northern Ireland will soon require "Not for EU" labelling. Stuart Machin revealed the significant operational challenge, describing the new requirement as "yet another layer of unnecessary costs and red tape for retailers." From next week, a substantial portion of M&S's product range for Northern Ireland will need these specific labels affixed. The "Not for EU" labels have been progressively introduced since the post-Brexit trading deal, known as the Windsor Framework, was agreed in 2023. This framework was negotiated between the UK and the European Union to resolve complexities arising from the Northern Ireland Protocol, which effectively maintains Northern Ireland within the EU's trade orbit. The stringent labelling rules are designed to prevent goods intended for the UK market from inadvertently entering the EU single market via the Republic of Ireland. Despite the current friction, the UK Government recently indicated its expectation for a more streamlined flow of trade once its new sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement with the EU is finalised. Mr Machin indicated he was hopeful that the stickers may become unnecessary following the new deal. He took to social media on Friday to express his frustration. 'Next week sees the final phase of the Windsor Framework come into effect, adding yet another layer of unnecessary costs and red tape for food retailers like M&S. – 1000+ M&S products destined for Northern Ireland will need to have a 'Not For EU' label stuck on them,' he posted on the social media platform X. 'Another 400 will need to go through additional checks in the 'Red Lane'. 'Quite frankly it's bureaucratic madness, confusing for customers, and completely unnecessary given the UK has some of the highest food standards in the world. 'The Government's SPS deal with the EU will be game-changing, and it can't come soon enough!'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store