Tariffs War: Trump Escalates US-EU Trade Tensions
The US President, Donald Trump, has escalated trade tensions with the European Union (EU), triggering fears of a trade war that could roil global markets.
On Friday, Trump threatened to impose a 50% tariff on all goods coming from the EU, citing lack of progress in the trade talks with Brussels. The US President's remarks prompted the block to vow revenge if Trump moved on with his threats. New EU Tariff
Trump expressed frustration with trade negotiations with the EU, describing the bloc as 'very difficult to deal with.' He further said that the EU's 'powerful Trade Barriers, Vat Taxes, ridiculous Corporate Penalties, Non-Monetary Trade Barriers, Monetary Manipulations, unfair and unjustified lawsuits against Americans Companies, and more, have led to a Trade Deficit with the US of more than $250,000,000 a year, a number which is totally unacceptable.'
The US President cited lack of progress in the trade talks. 'Our discussions with them are going nowhere! Therefore, I am recommending a straight 50% Tariff on the European Union, starting on June 1, 2025,' Trump announced on Truth Social. He added that products built or manufactured in the US will not be subject to tariffs. Threat Escalation
Later Friday, Trump told reporters at the White House that he would implement the tariffs as planned. 'I'm not looking for a deal – we've set the deal, it's at 50%,' he said, according to CNN. However, Trump suggested that a big EU investment in the US might make him consider a delay. 'If somebody comes in and wants to build a plant here, I can talk to them about a little bit of a delay,' he noted.
According to the US government figures, cited by The Guardian, the EU is one of the US' largest trading partners, exporting goods worth more than $600 billion in 2024 and importing US goods worth $370 billion. Trump's Tariffs War
On April 2, 2025, Trump sparked a trade war, announcing sweeping tariffs on all imports to the US, with the EU facing a 20% tariff on all goods. In response, the bloc imposed 25% tariffs on a range of US products worth around $23 billion.
The US President decided later to halve the tariffs, keeping in place 25% import taxes on steel, aluminum and vehicle parts. The EU also announced a pause on its retaliatory tariffs to allow for trade negotiations, set to expire on July 9.
Following Trump's post on Truth Social, the US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, told Fox News that 'EU proposals have not been of the same quality that we've seen from our other important trading partners.' He expressed his hope that Trump's announcement 'would light a fire under the EU,' adding that the bloc has what he called a 'collective action problem.' EU Response
Several European politicians were frustrated with Trump's announcement. The EU Trade Commissioner, Maroš Šefčovič, said that the EU is committed to a trade deal that works for both sides.
'The European Commission is ready to work in good faith. EU-US trade is unmatched and must be guided by mutual respect, not threats. We stand ready to defend our interests,' he posted on X following a call with the US Trade Representative, Jamieson Greer, and Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnik.
The Irish Prime Minister, Micheál Martin, said that Trump's threat was 'extremely disappointing,' warning that tariffs would be damaging to both sides. 'We do not need to go down this road. Negotiations are the best and only sustainable way forward,' he posted on X.
Similarly, the French Trade Minister, Laurent Saint-Martin, said that Trump's threats were not helping the negotiations between the EU and the US. 'We are maintaining the same line: de-escalation, but we are ready to respond,' he wrote on X.
Meanwhile, the German MEP, Bernd Lange, who is also head of the EU's trade committee, threatened counter-tariffs against the US. 'We will not allow ourselves to be pressured and will objectively attempt to begin negotiations next week,' he was quoted by the German Die Welt newspaper.
Lange added that in case of negotiations failure, the EU is strong enough to implement countermeasures, such as counter-tariffs, to offset the economic damage.' Backup Plan
Earlier in May, the EU reviewed a retaliatory plan, worth around $108 billion, should the trade talks go unsuccessful. The plan covered 'a broad range of industrial and agricultural products,' according to a statement by the European Commission.
In a separate statement on May 8, the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, said that the bloc made a 'zero-for-zero' tariff offer, 'but if and where negotiations fail, we also will act,' she added. The European Commission President warned that 'all instruments, all options stay on the table.'
Short link :
Post Views: 23
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Israel stands condemned, but why has it taken so long?
Since the EU's recent decision to initiate a review of Israel's compliance with its obligations under international law in the EU-Israel Association Agreement, and after the UK suspended trade talks with Israel and the leaders of Canada, France, and the UK issued a joint statement condemning the expansion of Israel's military operations in Gaza, hundreds of Palestinians have been killed in Gaza in Israeli military operations. In one incident, nine siblings of the same family were killed, and the war is still raging. So, forgive me if I find it difficult to get too excited about these latest diplomatic maneuvers to stop the senseless bloodshed, especially as this approach is still toothless, with no work on any time frame for introducing tangible measures. It is also the case that the argument 'better late than never' hardly holds water. Yes, if those baby-steps are the start of a concerted international effort to bring the war to an end, they will become immensely valuable, but there is much doubt about how effective they will be — and if they are not, what those countries intend to do. There is also the painful and lingering question: What has taken them so long? After all, every single day of delay in stopping the war has resulted in the deaths of many dozens of people, sometimes up to 100 a day, most of them noncombatants. In late May, nine of the 10 children of Dr. Alaa Al-Najjar and her husband Dr. Hamid were killed in an Israeli airstrike while she was on duty in the Nasser medical hospital. Only Hamid and one of their children survived, although both were badly injured. How could anyone remain indifferent in the face of such a tragedy, and one that could have been avoided, had the terms of the ceasefire agreed in January been adhered to? This is just one case of an entire family or a large part of them being wiped out in this war. If this heartbreaking tragedy does not move the world sufficiently to ensure that the Israeli government stops this war, what will? All the alarm bells regarding how Israel would conduct the war in Gaza were ringing from the first week of the conflict. Without taking anything away from the genuine anger at what Hamas inflicted on Oct. 7, the wish for revenge, and not only against those who carried out the attack, but against the entire population of Gaza, was instantly apparent. The unsubstantiated claim that every person in Gaza was complicit in the massacre should have been a warning sign. Moreover, between a government that failed to defend its people with horrendous consequences and would not admit to that failure, and senior Cabinet ministers who harbor messianic fantasies of expelling the Palestinians from Gaza, annexing the Strip and rebuilding settlements there, the likelihood of a proportionate response was always close to nil. Hence, it should not have taken the EU, UK, and Canada 19 long and blood-soaked months to figure this out. Every single day of delay has resulted in the deaths of dozens of people. Yossi Mekelberg Part of the explanation for the lack of will on the part of those who have suddenly found their voice in the past week or two and described what some Israeli ministers are suggesting will be the next stage in the war in Gaza as 'extremist,' 'dangerous' and 'monstrous' is that their working assumption has been that only Washington can make a difference, and that at best they could only play a supporting role. This has been more a case of relinquishing responsibility and avoiding friction, with Israel particularly, in the hope that either the US would use its influence to end the war, or the conflict would just run its course. This has proved to be misguided. In the immediate aftermath of Oct. 7, most of the world, and with good reason, showed its support for Israel's collective pain and trauma. However, at the same time it was irresponsible and shortsighted to give an extreme right-wing government led by a populist leader who happens also to be on trial for corruption, and whose sole interest is political survival at any cost, a blank check to respond to the massacre. For Europe, including the UK, what happens in the region is consequential and can have an immediate impact, whether it affects energy security, trade routes, radicalization within their own societies, or threatens a refugee crisis. Notwithstanding Europe's declared commitment to ensure human rights, Brussels also underestimates the enormous economic, diplomatic, and social power it has over Israel, not to harm its security, but to do the exact opposite: to save the country from itself when it is being governed by a reckless government. Moreover, at least some European powers should feel a moral and historical obligation for being the root cause of this conflict and for letting it fester for so long. It is nothing short of shocking that only in the past two weeks have there been some signs of concerted effort in Europe, out of despair at being unable to talk any sense into the Israeli government, or to stop the war and allow adequate humanitarian aid to enter the enclave. The EU's top diplomat Kaja Kallas explained the reason for its review of the association agreement that gives Israel many economic and scientific advantages as being the 'catastrophic' situation in Gaza, with Israel 'potentially' in breach of its commitments to human rights in the agreement. In the UK Parliament, David Lammy, the foreign secretary, said that the suspension of trade talks was a response to both the prevention of humanitarian aid reaching Gaza, and Israel's intention, as stated by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, to 'cleanse' the enclave, with resident Palestinians 'being relocated to third countries.' And, out of character, Germany, which traditionally refrains from criticizing Israel, has felt that it can no longer stand on the sidelines, with its new Chancellor Friedrich Merz declaring that to cause such suffering to the civilian population 'can no longer be justified as a fight against Hamas terrorism.' Declarations and statements aside, reviewing agreements and suspending talks are not going to change Israel's course of action. At this juncture in the war, as it once more deploys massive forces on the border and inside Gaza, and with the government's ill intentions out in the open, Europe, the UK, and Canada will have to go beyond 'suspending' and 'reviewing.' If they do, it might also serve as a wake-up call for more Israelis to take to the streets and stop this murderous madness by its government.
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Global threat report reveals Trump's strategic priorities
The US Defense Intelligence Agency recently released its annual threat assessment report. While these official government documents are often bland and filled with bureaucratic language, this year's publication stands out — both for its substance and what it reveals about how the new administration views today's geopolitical challenges. This is the first threat assessment of President Donald Trump's second term, and it offers an early insight into the administration's strategic priorities. A few things jump out right away. This year's threat assessment is longer than last year's, and offers a more detailed and nuanced analysis across multiple sections. But two major changes in this year's report, when compared with the final assessment produced under the Biden administration, are particularly striking. The most notable difference is the inclusion of a dedicated section on US homeland defense and border security — placed not as an afterthought but as the first item in the report. This marks a sharp departure from last year's assessment, which focused almost exclusively on global threats and challenges. The placement and tone of the new homeland security section clearly bear Trump's personal stamp. One of his most effective political narratives has been that US policymakers focus too much on problems abroad, while neglecting the security of Americans at home. This report reflects that view. The homeland security section places particular emphasis on the national security implications of illegal immigration, transnational organized crime, and the influx of deadly narcotics by drug cartels into small American communities. These are not just political talking points; they represent real and growing threats to the safety and well-being of Americans. But the political savvy of the framing should not be overlooked. While the average American may not be deeply familiar with issues such as Taiwan's security or freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, they are certainly familiar with the devastating impact of fentanyl or cartel violence. Including homeland security at the top of the Defense Intelligence Agency's global threat assessment makes the report more relevant to the American public and highlights Trump's emphasis on border security as a matter of national defense. The second striking difference is the prominent section, entitled 'Growing Cooperation Among US Competitors and Adversaries,' which comes immediately after the homeland security section. For the first time, a US threat assessment explicitly links and highlights the emerging coordination among America's adversaries and competitors. The report states: 'Building on activities over the past two years, leaders in Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang will strengthen their nations' ties in their drive to undermine the influence of the US and its allies.' This is an important — and overdue — acknowledgment of a multipolar and interconnected world. For years, much of the US foreign policy establishment has resisted the concept of multipolarity, preferring to see the world in unipolar or bipolar terms. This resistance is rooted in Cold War-era thinking, when power was viewed through a US-versus-Soviet lens. But a new generation of American strategists understands that multiple centers of power exist — and are increasingly coordinating with one another to challenge US interests around the globe. The coming months will be critical for the future of America's role in the world. Luke Coffey Recognizing the reality of this multipolar environment does not mean conceding that all powers are equal. It simply acknowledges the complexity of today's geopolitical landscape. The inclusion of this section in the threat assessment is a necessary step toward grappling with the way these regimes are learning from each other, cooperating diplomatically, militarily, and economically, and exploiting US vulnerabilities. To illustrate the shift, if you took a diplomat from 1980 and one from 1880 and brought them both to 2025, it might be the latter — accustomed to a world of competing empires and power centers — who would better recognize the dynamics at play today. Recognizing these trends is one thing, acting on them another. Within the new administration, there are competing schools of thought on how to respond. Some believe China is the primary threat and argue that all instruments of US power should be directed toward countering Beijing. Others, often aligned with more isolationist instincts, believe the US should focus exclusively on homeland security and reduce its global footprint. Then there are more traditional Republican voices who argue that the US must be able to address multiple threats simultaneously and maintain its global leadership role. Though the administration is still filling out its national security team, the contents of the Defense Intelligence Agency report suggest that the latter group is gaining the upper hand, at least for now. That could signal a more balanced approach in future, one that prioritizes US security at home, while maintaining engagement and vigilance abroad. In the coming months, the Department of Defense is expected to publish a new National Defense Strategy, which should provide additional clarity on how the US plans to counter the threats identified in the Defense Intelligence Agency assessment. Likewise, the National Security Council is likely to release a similar document outlining a more comprehensive, whole-of-government approach to these challenges. Importantly, all these strategies must be backed by resources. The White House will need to work with Congress to ensure that the budget aligns with these stated priorities. It is one thing to acknowledge that America's adversaries are coordinating their efforts, but quite another to craft a strategy — and appropriate the funds — to counter them effectively. Some in the Biden administration may have understood that this emerging coordination by America's competitors posed a threat, but were reluctant to spotlight it publicly for fear of being forced to act. The Trump administration, by contrast, has put these challenges front and center. But in doing so, it has also raised the stakes. Having declared that homeland defense is national security — and that America's adversaries are working together — the administration will now be judged on how it responds. The coming months will be critical, not only for America's national security and that of its allies, but also for the future of America's role in the world.
Leaders
2 hours ago
- Leaders
Irish Politician Describes Israel's Military Campaign in Gaza as ‘Barbaric'
A video went viral on social media showing Irish Politician Barry Andrews condemning Israel's war in Gaza and describing Netanyahu's campaign as 'barbaric'. Andrews noted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that his war in Gaza was a battle against barbarism. However, the civilized world has concluded that Israel is the one who conducted a campaign of barbarism, acceding to Andrews. 'A majority of European countries have finally concluded that it is barbaric to use starvation as a weapon of war,' Andrews added. He also described the statement of Bezalel Smotrich, Israeli Minister of Finance, regarding ethnic cleansing in Gaza as 'barbaric'. @palestinegaza11357 ♬ son original – palestinegaza11357 Meanwhile, Andrews called 'Gideon's Chariots' operation as 'barbaric' and blatant violation of the international humanitarian law. 'But we cannot just focus on access for aid, we also have to make sure that violence has to come to an end,' he added. What hostage has ever been released as a result of a military action? And today we read that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) fired warning shots at French diplomats and others visiting the West Bank,' he said. 'If this is the way European diplomats are treated, imagine how Palestinians are treated in the West Bank,' the politician said. At the end of his speech, Andrews said that it was unavoidable to conclude that it was the IDF that was conducting a barbaric campaign. Since the beginning of Hamas-Israel War in Gaza in 2023, the Israeli strikes have killed more than 53,500 Palestinians and wounded more than 118,000, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Related Topics: Arab Ministers Condemn Israel's Ban on West Bank Visit Israel Plans to Build Jewish Israeli State in West Bank France May Toughen Stance on Israel Over Gaza Aid Blockage Short link : Post Views: 1
