Latest news with #EugeneHoshiko
The Star
a day ago
- Business
- The Star
Asian stocks track Wall St up after jobs data, Seoul surges on Lee win
People walk in front of an electronic stock board showing Japan's Nikkei index at a securities firm Wednesday, June 4, 2025, in Tokyo. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko) HONG KONG: Asian shares extended a global rise Wednesday (June 4) following data indicating the US economy remained resilient, with South Korean equities and the won standing out as the election of a new president ended months of political paralysis. Speculation that US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping will speak this week stoked optimism for a soothing of trade tensions between Washington and Beijing. However, Trump's ramped-up tariffs on aluminium and steel imports -- announced Friday -- are due to kick in later Wednesday, highlighting the uncertainty caused by the White House's off-the-cuff policies. Traders in Asia took the baton from a positive Wall Street, where all three main indexes were lifted by data showing US job openings unexpectedly rose in April, calming worries about the impact of Trump's tariff blitz on the world's number one economy. The reading came ahead of crucial non-farm payrolls figures Friday, which are closely followed by the US Federal Reserve as it maps monetary policy in light of weak growth and fears of tariff-fuelled inflation. "Growth is sputtering, the second half looks increasingly cloudy, and everyone knows the Fed's rate-cut cavalry will ride in eventually. It's already priced, already scripted -- no one's shocked by the plot twist unless, of course, inflation proves stickier than expected," said Stephen Innes at SPI Asset Management. "But what's genuinely keeping equities ticking higher is the soft hum of hope -- that US-China tensions could thaw into something warmer than their current frosty detente," Innes said. He added that the risk of tariffs, "once a terrifying monster, now looks more like a toothless terrier's wag, comforting investors enough to hold their ground despite the global economy's chills". Traders are awaiting further developments on the China-US front after White House officials said the two nations' leaders could talk this week, even after Trump accused Beijing of violating last month's detente that slashed tit-for-tat tariffs. News that eurozone inflation had eased in May to its lowest level in eight months -- and slipped back below the European Central Bank's two-per cent target -- added to the upbeat mood. Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sydney, Wellington, Taipei, Manila and Jakarta all rose. Seoul rallied more than two per cent -- pushing into a bull market after rising more than 20 per cent from its recent low -- as Lee Jae-myung won South Korea's snap presidential election. The won gained around 0.3 per cent. The poll was called after the impeachment of predecessor Yoon Suk-yeol over his brief martial law attempt and ended six months of political turmoil in the country. It has also raised hopes that Lee will introduce fresh measures to boost the export-dependent economy, which faces a hefty hit from Trump's tariffs, particularly the huge levies on steel and aluminium. In his inauguration speech on Wednesday, the new president warned protectionism posed a threat to the country's "survival". On the campaign trail, Lee said Seoul needed to start tariff negotiations with Washington "immediately" but also stressed there was no need to "rush" a deal. - AFP
Toronto Sun
6 days ago
- Politics
- Toronto Sun
China set to resume imports of Japanese seafood halted over Fukushima water discharge
Published May 30, 2025 • 3 minute read Visitors check seafood sold at the seafood market "Lalamew" near the Onahama fish port in Iwaki City, Fukushima Prefecture, on Oct. 19, 2023 in Iwaki, northeastern Japan. Photo by Eugene Hoshiko, File / AP Photo TOKYO — China will resume Japanese seafood imports it banned in 2023 over worries about Japan's discharge of treated but slightly radioactive wastewater from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the sea, a Japanese minister said Friday. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Agriculture Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said the agreement was reached after officials met in Beijing and the imports will resume once paperwork is complete. China said talks this week made 'substantial progress,' but did not confirm an agreement with Japan on the issue that has been a significant political and diplomatic point of tension. 'Seafood is an important export item for Japan and a resumption of its export to China is a major milestone,' Koizumi said. Japan's Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya also welcomed the move, saying: 'It will be a big first step that would help Japan and China to tackle a number of remaining issues between the two countries.' But officials said China's ban on farm and fisheries products from 10 Japanese prefectures, including Fukushima, is still in place and that they will keep pushing toward their lifting. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. China's General Administration of Customs said in a statement Friday that the two sides had on Wednesday held 'a new round of technical exchanges on the safety issues of Japanese aquatic products … and achieved substantial progress,' but did not mention an agreement. Disagreement over seafood imports China blocked imports of Japanese seafood because it said the release of the treated and diluted but still slightly radioactive wastewater would endanger the fishing industry and coastal communities in eastern China. Japanese officials have said the wastewater will be safer than international standards and its environmental impact will be negligible. They say the wastewater must be released to make room for the nuclear plant's decommissioning and to prevent accidental leaks. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Tokyo and Beijing have held three rounds of talks since March on the issue before reaching the agreement this week on the 'technical requirements' necessary for Japanese seafood exports to China to restart, Japan's Foreign Ministry said in a statement. It did not say how long it may take before the actual resumption. Mainland China used to be the biggest overseas market for Japanese seafood, accounting for more than one-fifth of its seafood exports, followed by Hong Kong. The ban became a major blow to the fisheries industry, though the impact on overall trade was limited because seafood exports are a fraction of Japan's total exports. Japan's government set up an emergency relief fund for its exporters, especially scallop growers, and has sought alternative overseas markets. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, which operates the Fukushima Daiichi plant, has said it would compensate Japanese business owners appropriately for damages from export bans. 'Mutual understanding' The nuclear plant had meltdowns in three reactors after being heavily damaged in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami that struck northeastern Japan. Water used to cool the reactor cores has been accumulating ever since, and officials say the massive stockpile is hampering the cleanup of the site. The wastewater was treated and heavily diluted with seawater to reduce the radioactivity as much as possible before Japan began releasing it into the sea in August 2023. Last September, then-Prime Minster Fumio Kishida said the two sides reached 'a certain level of mutual understanding' that China would start working toward easing the import ban and join the International Atomic Energy Agency's expanded monitoring of wastewater discharges. People inside and outside Japan protested the initial wastewater release. Japanese fishing groups said they feared it would further damage the reputation of their seafood. Groups in China and South Korea also raised concerns. Crime World Olympics Sunshine Girls Toronto Raptors
North Wales Chronicle
7 days ago
- Business
- North Wales Chronicle
A look at what happens to Trump's tariffs following federal court ruling
A three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade ruled that Mr Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to declare a national emergency and justify the sweeping tariffs. The tariffs overturned decades of US trade policy, disrupted global commerce, rattled financial markets and raised the risk of higher prices and recession in the United States and around the world. The US Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over civil cases involving trade. Its decisions can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington and ultimately to the Supreme Court, where the legal challenges to Mr Trump's tariffs are widely expected to end up. -Which tariffs did the court block? The court's decision blocks the tariffs Mr Trump slapped last month on almost all US trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada. A person walks in front of an electronic stock board showing Japan's Nikkei index at a securities firm in Tokyo (Eugene Hoshiko/AP) On April 2, Mr Trump imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else. He later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to agree to reduce barriers to US exports. But he kept the baseline tariffs in place. Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, he justified the taxes under IEEPA by declaring the United States' longstanding trade deficits 'a national emergency'. In February, he had invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the US border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Mr Trump has made the most of it. The tariffs are being challenged in at least seven lawsuits. In the ruling on Wednesday, the trade court combined two of the cases — one brought by five small businesses and another by 12 US states. The ruling does leave in place other Trump tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminium and autos. But those levies were invoked under a different law that required a Commerce Department investigation and could not be imposed at the president's own discretion. The legal challenges to Mr Trump' tariffs are widely expected to end up in the Supreme Court (Evan Vucci/AP) -Why did the court rule against the president? The administration had argued that courts had approved then-president Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic and financial crisis that arose when the United States suddenly devalued the dollar by ending a policy that linked the US currency to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEPPA. The court disagreed, deciding that Mr Trump's sweeping tariffs exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEEPA. It also said the tariffs did nothing to deal with problems they were supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America's trade deficits hardly amount to a sudden emergency. The United States has racked them up for 49 straight years in good times and bad. -So where does this leave Mr Trump's trade agenda? Wendy Cutler, a former US trade official who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, says the court's decision 'throws the president's trade policy into turmoil'. She said: 'Partners negotiating hard during the 90-day day tariff pause period may be tempted to hold off making further concessions to the US until there is more legal clarity. 'Likewise, companies will have to reassess the way they run their supply chains, perhaps speeding up shipments to the United States to offset the risk that the tariffs will be reinstated on appeal.' The trade court noted that Mr Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and only for 150 days with countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits. For now, the trade court's ruling 'destroys the Trump administration's rationale for using federal emergency powers to impose tariffs, which oversteps congressional authority and contravenes any notion of due process', said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University. 'The ruling makes it clear that the broad tariffs imposed unilaterally by Trump represent an overreach of executive power.'
The Herald Scotland
7 days ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
A look at what happens to Trump's tariffs following federal court ruling
The tariffs overturned decades of US trade policy, disrupted global commerce, rattled financial markets and raised the risk of higher prices and recession in the United States and around the world. The US Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over civil cases involving trade. Its decisions can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington and ultimately to the Supreme Court, where the legal challenges to Mr Trump's tariffs are widely expected to end up. -Which tariffs did the court block? The court's decision blocks the tariffs Mr Trump slapped last month on almost all US trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada. A person walks in front of an electronic stock board showing Japan's Nikkei index at a securities firm in Tokyo (Eugene Hoshiko/AP) On April 2, Mr Trump imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else. He later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to agree to reduce barriers to US exports. But he kept the baseline tariffs in place. Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, he justified the taxes under IEEPA by declaring the United States' longstanding trade deficits 'a national emergency'. In February, he had invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the US border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Mr Trump has made the most of it. The tariffs are being challenged in at least seven lawsuits. In the ruling on Wednesday, the trade court combined two of the cases — one brought by five small businesses and another by 12 US states. The ruling does leave in place other Trump tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminium and autos. But those levies were invoked under a different law that required a Commerce Department investigation and could not be imposed at the president's own discretion. The legal challenges to Mr Trump' tariffs are widely expected to end up in the Supreme Court (Evan Vucci/AP) -Why did the court rule against the president? The administration had argued that courts had approved then-president Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic and financial crisis that arose when the United States suddenly devalued the dollar by ending a policy that linked the US currency to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEPPA. The court disagreed, deciding that Mr Trump's sweeping tariffs exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEEPA. It also said the tariffs did nothing to deal with problems they were supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America's trade deficits hardly amount to a sudden emergency. The United States has racked them up for 49 straight years in good times and bad. -So where does this leave Mr Trump's trade agenda? Wendy Cutler, a former US trade official who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, says the court's decision 'throws the president's trade policy into turmoil'. She said: 'Partners negotiating hard during the 90-day day tariff pause period may be tempted to hold off making further concessions to the US until there is more legal clarity. 'Likewise, companies will have to reassess the way they run their supply chains, perhaps speeding up shipments to the United States to offset the risk that the tariffs will be reinstated on appeal.' The trade court noted that Mr Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and only for 150 days with countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits. For now, the trade court's ruling 'destroys the Trump administration's rationale for using federal emergency powers to impose tariffs, which oversteps congressional authority and contravenes any notion of due process', said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University. 'The ruling makes it clear that the broad tariffs imposed unilaterally by Trump represent an overreach of executive power.'
Western Telegraph
29-05-2025
- Business
- Western Telegraph
A look at what happens to Trump's tariffs following federal court ruling
A three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade ruled that Mr Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to declare a national emergency and justify the sweeping tariffs. The tariffs overturned decades of US trade policy, disrupted global commerce, rattled financial markets and raised the risk of higher prices and recession in the United States and around the world. The US Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over civil cases involving trade. Its decisions can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington and ultimately to the Supreme Court, where the legal challenges to Mr Trump's tariffs are widely expected to end up. -Which tariffs did the court block? The court's decision blocks the tariffs Mr Trump slapped last month on almost all US trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada. A person walks in front of an electronic stock board showing Japan's Nikkei index at a securities firm in Tokyo (Eugene Hoshiko/AP) On April 2, Mr Trump imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else. He later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to agree to reduce barriers to US exports. But he kept the baseline tariffs in place. Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, he justified the taxes under IEEPA by declaring the United States' longstanding trade deficits 'a national emergency'. In February, he had invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the US border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Mr Trump has made the most of it. The tariffs are being challenged in at least seven lawsuits. In the ruling on Wednesday, the trade court combined two of the cases — one brought by five small businesses and another by 12 US states. The ruling does leave in place other Trump tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminium and autos. But those levies were invoked under a different law that required a Commerce Department investigation and could not be imposed at the president's own discretion. The legal challenges to Mr Trump' tariffs are widely expected to end up in the Supreme Court (Evan Vucci/AP) -Why did the court rule against the president? The administration had argued that courts had approved then-president Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic and financial crisis that arose when the United States suddenly devalued the dollar by ending a policy that linked the US currency to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEPPA. The court disagreed, deciding that Mr Trump's sweeping tariffs exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEEPA. It also said the tariffs did nothing to deal with problems they were supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America's trade deficits hardly amount to a sudden emergency. The United States has racked them up for 49 straight years in good times and bad. -So where does this leave Mr Trump's trade agenda? Wendy Cutler, a former US trade official who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, says the court's decision 'throws the president's trade policy into turmoil'. She said: 'Partners negotiating hard during the 90-day day tariff pause period may be tempted to hold off making further concessions to the US until there is more legal clarity. 'Likewise, companies will have to reassess the way they run their supply chains, perhaps speeding up shipments to the United States to offset the risk that the tariffs will be reinstated on appeal.' The trade court noted that Mr Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and only for 150 days with countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits. For now, the trade court's ruling 'destroys the Trump administration's rationale for using federal emergency powers to impose tariffs, which oversteps congressional authority and contravenes any notion of due process', said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University. 'The ruling makes it clear that the broad tariffs imposed unilaterally by Trump represent an overreach of executive power.'
