Spirits giant Diageo suggests alternative to Trump's tariffs
LONDON, March 14 (Reuters) - Spirits giant Diageo (DGE.L), opens new tab has suggested the U.S. government consider tougher rules of origin requirements in trade agreements as an alternative to tariffs, a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative showed.
In the March 11 letter, Diageo, the world's top spirits maker caught in the crossfire of U.S. President Donald Trump's effort to remake global trade, argued that new rules of origin could support his aims and benefit the industry.
Such rules could give preference to goods, including alcoholic drinks, in which all ingredients and subcomponents are substantially sourced within the U.S. or via its key trading partners, Alden Schacher, vice president of government relations at Diageo North America wrote.
This would deepen U.S. supply chains, prevent "foreign adversaries" from using U.S. trade partners to circumvent tariffs and support the administration's policy objectives such as growing the U.S. economy, said the letter, one of hundreds published by the USTR from firms and trade associations about tariffs.
Diageo's proposed rules of origin would require that plants or grains used in the production of imported alcohol come from the United States or the territory of a strategic trade partner - any country that has a trade agreement with the U.S., such as Mexico and Canada.
The company also suggested that the rules ensure the distillation also occurs in the U.S. or the territory of the same partner, with any barrels used in ageing also sourced from one of those places.
Diageo sells billions of dollars worth of tequila and Canadian whisky in the United States. Executives have warned Trump's threatened 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada could deal a $200 million hit to operating profit in the company's second half alone, before mitigation measures.
Trump on Thursday also threatened to slap a 200% tariff on wine, cognac and other alcohol imports from Europe.
In the letter, Schacher wrote that trade in distilled spirits is largely reciprocal and therefore actions to address imbalances are not necessary.
Schacher pointed out that Diageo employs thousands of U.S. workers, has 11 U.S. manufacturing sites, and spends $650 million every year on U.S. inputs including barrels, glass and cans.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
35 minutes ago
- NBC News
A judge resisted Trump's order on gender identity. The EEOC just fired her
The federal agency charged with protecting workers' civil rights has terminated a New York administrative judge who opposed White House directives, including President Donald Trump's executive order decreeing male and female as two "immutable" sexes. In February, Administrative Judge Karen Ortiz, who worked in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's New York office, called Trump's order "unethical" and criticized Acting Chair Andrea Lucas — Trump's pick to lead the agency — for complying with it by pausing work on legal cases involving discrimination claims from transgender workers. In an email copied to more than 1,000 colleagues, Ortiz pressed Lucas to resign. Ortiz was fired on Tuesday after being placed on administrative leave last month. The EEOC declined Wednesday to comment on the termination, saying it does not comment on personnel matters. In response to the president's order declaring two unchangeable sexes, the EEOC moved to drop at least seven of its pending legal cases on behalf of transgender workers who filed discrimination complaints. The agency, which enforces U.S. workplace anti-discrimination laws, also is classifying all new gender identity-related cases as its lowest priority. The actions signaled a major departure from the EEOC's prior interpretation of civil rights law. In her mass February email criticizing the agency's efforts to comply with Trump's order, Ortiz told Lucas, "You are not fit to be our chair much less hold a license to practice law." The letter was leaked on Reddit, where it gained more than 10,000 "upvotes." Many users cheered its author. The EEOC subsequently revoked her email privileges for about a week and issued her a written reprimand for "discourteous conduct." Ortiz said she continued to "raise the alarm" about the agency's treatment of transgender and gender-nonconforming complainants, and convey her opposition to the agency's actions. She sent an April 24 email to Lucas and several other internal email groups with the subject line, "If You're Seeking Power, Here's Power" and a link to Tears for Fears' 1985 hit "Everybody Wants to Rule the World." She contested her proposed termination earlier this month, arguing in a document submitted by a union representative that she was adhering to her oath of office by calling out behavior she believes is illegal. Ortiz "views the Agency's actions regarding LGBTQIA+ complainants to have made the EEOC a hostile environment for LGBTQIA+ workers," and believes that leadership has "abandoned the EEOC's core mission," the document says. The judge was hired to work at the EEOC during the first Trump administration, and while she disagreed with some policies then, "she did not take any action because there was no ostensible illegality which compelled her to do so," the document stated. "What is happening under the current administration is unprecedented." The letter requested the withdrawal of Ortiz's proposed termination, the removal of all disciplinary documents from her personnel file, and that Ortiz be allowed "to continue doing her job." The six-page termination notice came anyway. In it, Chief Administrative Judge Regina Stephens called Ortiz' actions "distasteful and unprofessional," and concluded that Ortiz's "work performance is affected" by her disagreements with the current executive orders and direction of EEOC leadership. The notice also alleged that media circulation of Ortiz's emails had "affected the reputation and credibility of the Agency." It cited an Associated Press article that quoted Ortiz saying she stood by her email statements as evidence that her behavior would not change with "rehabilitation." In a Wednesday phone interview with The Associated Press, Ortiz said the news of her termination is "very sad," although not surprising. "I think the agency has now become something that, I don't know if I'd even really want to work there anymore. They've lost their way," she said. Lucas defended her decision to drop lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers during her confirmation hearing before a Senate committee last week. She acknowledged that transgender workers are protected under civil rights laws but said her agency is not independent and must comply with presidential orders. Ortiz said she traveled from New York to Washington "on my own dime, on my own time" to attend the hearing. "I needed to be there," she said, adding that she left thank-you notes for Senators who "put Andrea Lucas' feet to the fire." Ortiz said she isn't sure what comes next for her, only that it will involve fighting for civil rights. And in the short-term, picking up more volunteer dog walking shifts. "I will keep fighting for the LGBTQ community in whatever way I can," she told AP. She added: "It takes courage to take a stand, and be willing to be fired, and lose a six-figure job, and health insurance, and the prestige of the title of 'judge,' but I think it'll also serve an example to future lawyers and young lawyers out there that a job title isn't everything, and it's more important to stay true to your values."
Daily Mail
38 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS 'Trump and Netanyahu agreed to end Gaza war in two weeks after US strike on Iran,' Israeli media claims
Donald Trump and Netanyahu agreed on a rapid end to the war in Gaza during a phone call after the US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, Israeli media has reported quoting a source 'familiar with the conversation'. The two leaders agreed that four Arab states, including the UAE and Egypt, would jointly govern the strip in place of Hamas, Israel Hayom is reporting.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Ro Khanna calls on Democrats to reclaim identity as ‘the anti-war party'
In the days since Donald Trump authorized strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, and then forged a shaky ceasefire agreement, Congressman Ro Khanna has called on Democrats to reclaim a political identity he says they lost: being the party of peace. 'Now is the time for the Democratic party to be the anti-war party – the party against wars of choice,' Khanna said in an interview. 'We should be the party of peace abroad, good jobs at home. Donald Trump took that from us in 2016 and 2024 and my leadership this past week has been trying to reclaim the anti-war mantle.' On Capitol Hill, Khanna is at the center of a renewed push to reassert congressional authority over war-making. But away from the House floor, the California progressive, viewed as a potential 2028 contender, is challenging Democrats to act like an opposition party that is determined to prevent another 'forever war'. It is, in his view, both a morally correct position and politically wise one. 'The reality is that the Washington beltway is out of touch with where most Americans are,' he said. 'Most Americans are very opposed to these wars. They're opposed to this increase of defense contractor spending. They want to focus on building jobs here, building prosperity here.' Recent polling by CNN and Reuters/Ipsos found that a majority disapproved of the president's decision to bomb three nuclear sites in Iran. Khanna argues that the Democratic party's foreign policy – especially the Biden administration's unwavering support for Israel's war in Gaza – has damaged its standing with young voters. He sees a chance to rebuild trust with those disillusioned by a president who once pledged to be judged by 'perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into', but has instead backed military strikes and later mused about the possibility of 'regime change' in Iran. 'This is something that can help us build a majority coalition – help us win back disaffected young men who don't want to see more wars,' he said. 'They want to see investments in their communities and it should really be something the Democratic Party should get out in front of.' It's not a new argument for Khanna, who launched one of the first anti-Iraq war primary challenges against a sitting House Democrat in 2004. During Trump's first term, he partnered with Senator Bernie Sanders and a coalition of anti-interventionist Republicans to pass a War Powers resolution–the first ever to reach a president's desk–which Trump ultimately vetoed. The measure aimed to end US military support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. 'What the American people want is for politicians and leaders to stand up and say, 'I'm going to take on the defense establishment. I'm going to take on the foreign policy bloc. I'm going to stand up against these wars,'' Khanna said. 'They want us to speak with clarity, not process arguments.' This time, Khanna has joined forces with Republican congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, to sponsor a war powers resolution that would require congressional approval before the US military engages in further hostilities against Iran. According to Khanna, the resolution that, as of Wednesday, had nearly 70 Democratic co-sponsors, is on track to come up for a vote in mid July. But its fate is uncertain. Massie, who has faced withering criticism from Trump over his support for the resolution, has suggested the measure might not be necessary if the peace agreement endures. Khanna hopes Trump's ceasefire holds – but he does not believe that matters of war and peace should be left to the whims of a mercurial president. 'We need to have this resolution in case, over the next few weeks, [Trump] decides to threaten Iran again or gets pushed into Iran again,' he said. 'And more importantly, it should be given a vote so that we know that Congress is going to be willing to step up in the future when he's tempted to go into war.' Nearly all of Trump's Republican allies on Capitol Hill have rallied around the president, arguing that he had the right to order the strikes as commander-in-chief. On Tuesday, House speaker Mike Johnson said that he believed the War Powers Resolution, the law Congress passed in 1973, overriding a presidential veto from Richard Nixon, to require congressional authorization for the use of military force, was itself 'unconstitutional'. The White House has hailed the strikes as a strategic success – a show of strength that blunted Iran's nuclear ambitions at minimal cost. US officials characterized Iran's retaliatory missile attack on a US base in Qatar as largely symbolic. But an initial US intelligence assessment has suggested that Iran's nuclear program was not 'obliterated' as Trump claimed, but set back only by a few months. It also found that much of Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium that could be used to build a nuclear weapon was moved before the strikes. The White House has rejected the report as 'flat-out wrong'. Citing both the intelligence findings and signs of hardline resistance inside Iran, Khanna warns the risk of escalation remains high. Trump has threatened further bombing if Iran restarts its nuclear program, and what Khanna calls the 'neo-con wing' is already agitating for more aggressive action–including talk of regime change in Tehran. The Senate may vote as soon as this week on a similar resolution led by Tim Kaine, a Democrat of Virginia. Kaine has said he expects the measure to receive the support of all but one Democrat and at least some Republicans, but it remains unclear if it will garner enough votes to pass. 'Too many members of Congress, especially the tough talking Iran hawks on the Republican side, they're okay with war, but by God, they're too chicken to vote for it,' Kaine said, speaking shortly before Khanna on a Tuesday night livestream hosted by the progressive activist group MoveOn. A growing number of Democrats are now publicly calling Trump's decision to strike Iran not only dangerous, but unconstitutional – an act of war carried out without congressional authorization. For Khanna, it's a sign his party may finally be rediscovering its anti-war roots. 'In the beginning, there was a muddled message and silence,' he said of the Democrats' response. 'But I think as the week has progressed, more and more people are coming around to my view.'
