European Central Bank cuts interest rate as Trump tariffs threaten economy
The European Central Bank has cut its benchmark interest rate for an eighth time, aiming to support businesses and consumers with more affordable borrowing as US president Donald Trump's trade war threatens to slow already tepid growth.
The bank's rate-setting council cut interest rates by a quarter of a point on Thursday at the bank's skyscraper headquarters in Frankfurt.
Analysts expected a cut, given the gloomier outlook for growth since Mr Trump announced a slew of new tariffs on April 2 and subsequently threatened to impose a crushing 50% tariff, or import tax, on European goods.
The bigger question remains how far the bank will go at subsequent meetings. Bank president Christine Lagarde's remarks at a post-decision news conference will be scrutinised for hints about the bank's outlook.
Much depends on whether trade tensions can be resolved through negotiations, the bank indicated.
'A further escalation of trade tensions over the coming months would result in growth and inflation being below the baseline projections,' the bank said in its accompanying monetary policy statement.
'By contrast, if trade tensions were resolved with a benign outcome, growth and, to a lesser extent, inflation would be higher.'
While the trade war and the uncertainty that goes with it is holding back growth, the ECB said the economy should get additional stimulus from higher government spending on defence and infrastructure.
European governments are stepping up plans for defence purchases to counter Russia and its invasion of Ukraine. The spending boosts arrive amid concern that the US is no longer a fully committed ally in support of Ukraine.
US defence secretary Pete Hegseth did not attend a recent meeting of allied nations created to organise Ukraine's military aid. It was the first time the US was not present since the group was set up three years ago.
Mr Hegseth's predecessor, Lloyd Austin, created the group after Russia launched all-out war on Ukraine in 2022.
Given the different possible outcomes the bank said that it was 'not committing to a particular rate path' for future policy meetings.
Thursday's decision took the bank's benchmark rate to 2%, down from a peak of 4% in 2023-24.
The bank raised rates to suppress an outbreak of inflation in 2021 to 2023 that was triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and by the rebound from the pandemic.
But as inflation fell, the bank shifted gears towards supporting growth by lowering rates.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
White House tries to water down Russia sanctions
Donald Trump is pressuring a US senator to weaken a Bill that would impose sweeping sanctions on Russia. White House officials hoping to mend relations with Moscow have been quietly contacting senator Lindsey Graham's office urging him to water down his Bill, which aims to cripple Vladimir Putin with huge sanctions. The Bill, backed by nearly the entire Senate, would impose 500 per cent tariffs on countries that continue to buy Russian oil and gas, which bankrolls Putin's war effort. Officials have been demanding the Bill include waivers that would allow Mr Trump to choose who or what was sanctioned, congressional aides told the Wall Street Journal. Other attempts to weaken the legislation include softening the language, replacing 'shall' with 'may' to avoid making the reprimands mandatory. Removing the mandatory nature of the sanctions would render the Bill effectively toothless and do little to hamper Putin's war machine, aides fear. 'We're moving ahead and the White House is included in our conversations,' Richard Blumenthal, senator and lead Democratic co-sponsor of the Bill, told the paper. Russia's war effort is funded by fossil-fuel exports. Moscow has adapted to existing sanctions with relative ease, turning to North Korea and China for support. Fearing the impact on pump prices, Joe Biden, former president, was unwilling to crack down on Russian energy exports. Mr Trump, has threatened to impose sanctions on Ukraine, as well as Russia, if the two sides fail to reach a peace agreement. 'Any sanction package must provide complete flexibility for the president to continue to pursue his desired foreign policy,' a White House official said. They added that the constitution 'vests the president with the authority to conduct diplomacy with foreign nations'. Speaking in the Oval Office alongside Friedrich Merz, German chancellor, on Thursday, the US president said that the Bill should not move forward without his express approval. 'They'll be guided by me. That's how it's supposed to be,' he told reporters. 'They're waiting for me to decide on what to do.' Last week, Mr Graham and Mr Blumenthal visited Ukraine where they applauded the country's drone attack that destroyed 40 aircraft deep inside Russian territory. However, they were ridiculed and accused of 'stirring up' the conflict by key allies of Mr Trump, including Steve Bannon. 'By trying to engage Putin – by being friendly and enticing – it's become painfully clear [Putin's] not interested in ending this war,' Mr Graham said earlier this week. '[Putin] needs to see and hear that message as well from us, from the American people,' said Mr Blumenthal. Both said that failing to act now could pull the US deeper into the conflict later. If Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, Mr Blumenthal said, Nato treaty obligations could compel US troops into battle. Earlier this week, Russian negotiators tabled a long memorandum, resembling a complete capitulation for Ukraine, in a second round of direct talks with Kyiv in Istanbul. They demanded Ukraine must withdraw its troops from four eastern regions that Russia only partially occupies and that international recognition of Russian sovereignty over them and Crimea must be granted.
Reuters
35 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court keeps DOGE records blocked in watchdog group's challenge
June 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court extended on Friday its block on judicial orders requiring the Department of Government Efficiency to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by President Donald Trump and previously spearheaded by his billionaire former adviser Elon Musk. The court put on hold Washington-based U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper's orders for DOGE to respond to requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information about its operations. The judge concluded that DOGE likely is a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The brief, unsigned order said that portions of one of the judge's decisions "are not appropriately tailored" and that "separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications." The court sent the case back to a lower appeals court to narrow the judge's directives. The court's three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - dissented from Friday's decision. In a separate case, the Supreme Court on Friday permitted DOGE broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. DOGE has played a central role in Trump's efforts to downsize and reshape the U.S. government including by slashing the federal workforce and dismantling certain agencies. The watchdog group, called CREW, said its intention was to shed light on what it called DOGE's secretive structure and operations. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and his once-close relationship with Trump has since unraveled publicly, a split that followed Musk's recent attacks on the president's sweeping tax and spending bill and played out dramatically on social media on Thursday. CREW sued to obtain an array of records from DOGE through the FOIA statute, a law that allows the public to seek access to records produced by government agencies. It sought information on DOGE's activities over its role in the mass firings and cuts to federal programs pursued since the Republican president returned to office in January. The Trump administration contends that DOGE is an advisory entity and not subject to FOIA. In response, CREW sought information to determine whether DOGE is subject to FOIA because it wields the kind of authority of an agency independent of the president. Cooper ruled in April that DOGE must turn over some records sought by CREW and that the group was entitled to question DOGE official Amy Gleason at a deposition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined on May 14 to put Cooper's order on hold. The administration urged the Supreme Court to act, saying that the judge's orders intruded on the powers of the executive branch and compromised the ability of a wide array of advisers to provide candid and confidential advice to the president. CREW told the justices that siding with the administration in the dispute would give the president "free reign" to create new entities that would "functionally wield substantial independent authority but are exempt from critical transparency laws." In one of his decisions, Cooper said DOGE's operations have been marked by "unusual secrecy." In another, the judge said that the language of Trump's executive orders concerning DOGE suggests that it is "exercising substantial independent authority."
The Guardian
41 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court rules Doge can access personal records during legal challenge
The US supreme court on Friday permitted the so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge), a key player in Donald Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to the personal information of millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. At the request of the justice department, the justices put on hold Maryland-based US district judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked Doge's access to 'personally identifiable information' in data such as medical and financial records while litigation proceeds in a lower court. Hollander found that allowing Doge unfettered access likely would violate a federal privacy law. The court's brief, unsigned order did not provide a rationale for siding with Doge. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented. Doge swept through federal agencies as part of the Republican president's effort, spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, to eliminate federal jobs, downsize and reshape the US government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on 30 May. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued to stop Doge from accessing sensitive data at the SSA, including social security numbers, bank account data, tax information, earnings history and immigration records. The agency is a major provider of government benefits, sending checks each month to more than 70 million recipients, including retirees and disabled Americans. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the SSA had been 'ransacked' and that Doge members had been installed without proper vetting or training and had demanded access to some of the agency's most sensitive data systems. Hollander in a 17 April ruling found that Doge had failed to explain why its stated mission required 'unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems'. 'For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records,' Hollander wrote. 'This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation.' Hollander issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited Doge staffers and anyone working with them from accessing data containing personal information, with narrow exceptions. The judge's ruling did allow Doge affiliates to access data that had been stripped of private information as long as those seeking access had gone through the proper training and passed background checks. Hollander also ordered Doge affiliates to 'disgorge and delete' any personal information already in their possession. Based in Richmond, Virginia, the fourth US circuit court of appeals in a 9-6 vote declined on 30 April to pause Hollander's block on Doge's unlimited access to SSA records. Justice department lawyers in their supreme court filing characterized Hollander's order as judicial overreach. 'The district court is forcing the executive branch to stop employees charged with modernizing government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court's judgment, those employees do not 'need' such access,' they wrote. The six dissenting judges wrote that the case should have been treated the same as one in which a fourth circuit panel ruled 2-1 to allow Doge to access data at the US treasury and education departments and the office of personnel management. In a concurring opinion, seven judges who ruled against Doge wrote that the case involving social security data was 'substantially stronger' with 'vastly greater stakes', citing 'detailed and profoundly sensitive Social Security records', such as family court and school records of children, mental health treatment records and credit card information.
