Connect with us

Published

on

Editor’s note: The Hill’s Morning Report is our daily newsletter that dives deep into Washington’s agenda. To subscribe, click here or fill out the box below. Close Thank you for signing up!

Subscribe to more newsletters here The latest in politics and policy. Direct to your inbox. Sign up for the Morning Report newsletter Subscribe

Former President Trump may use the legal system to try to delay the government’s case against him, argue a reasoned defense under law about stockpiling secret U.S. documents at his club or try to influence the judicial system in the court of public opinion, reports The New York Times.

If the past is prologue, Trump will try it all.

▪ Washington Monthly: How delay and recusal might save Trump.

▪ Politico: Here’s how U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon could help Trump’s case.

▪ Bloomberg News: Trump indictment highlights the perils of being his lawyer.

The former president, who flew aboard his private jet to South Florida on Monday, will appear before a magistrate judge in federal court in Miami today to formally face 37 criminal charges brought by the government following a special counsel probe. Trump plans to plead not guilty, he told talk radio host Howie Carr (ABC News).

He’ll fly back to his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., where he plans to deliver a speech tonight. On Wednesday, he’ll mark his 77th birthday as the first former president and current candidate to face separate criminal charges in two courts in little more than two months. 

The Justice Department alleges that Trump violated the Espionage Act and other statutes when he took classified documents with him out of the White House, failed to relinquish all sensitive materials to the National Archives, conspired to interfere with a federal probe and knowingly shared national security secrets with individuals not authorized to see the information.

▪ The Hill’s Niall Stanage previews the day ahead with five things to watch.

▪ The New York Times: What to expect when Trump makes a court appearance today. 

▪ The Washington Post: Trump aide Walt Nauta, alleged by the government to have conspired with Trump to try to defy a federal subpoena, also will be arraigned in Miami today.

Alert to combative rhetoric from some Republicans and vows of pro-Trump demonstrations and protests, police and security personnel will be out in force. The Miami Herald reports the city is prepared for protests and Proud Boys rallies.

Trump vowed Monday to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate President Biden and his family if Trump wins another term as president. He wants to whip up his defenders and encourages supporters to join a planned protest at the Miami courthouse today (The Hill).

“We need strength in our country now,” Trump said Sunday, speaking to longtime friend and adviser Roger Stone in an interview on WABC Radio. “And they have to go out and they have to protest peacefully. They have to go out.”

“Look, our country has to protest. We have plenty to protest. We’ve lost everything,” Trump said.

Expected to accompany the former president today are lawyer Todd Blanche and Boris Epshteyn, who has acted as a legal adviser (Politico). Trump’s search for an experienced Florida trial attorney to represent him is in flux, reports The Washington Post.

In a future trial, South Florida would provide the jury pool, although it’s unclear if the case would draw jurors from Miami-Dade or West Palm Beach counties, reports The New York Times during interviews with residents.

“From my personal perspective, up till now, they don’t have anything on him,” said Modesto Estrada, 71, a retiredMiamibusinessman, of Trump. “And nothing’s going to happen to him. He’s not going to jail. The case is going to fall apart and that’s what I’m hoping.”

Related Articles

▪ The Hill: Dissecting Trump’s defenses: Allies test versions (Justice Department is politically motivated, classified documents weren’t sold, the Mar-a-Lago bathroom was locked, the former president is not a spy).

▪ The Hill: Trump-Gen. Mark Milley feud played role in classified documents case. 

▪ The Hill: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) steers clear of defending Trump on indictment.

▪ Reuters: President Biden underwent root canal procedures at the White House on Sunday and Monday, which required local anesthetic and rescheduling of his official itinerary.

LEADING THE DAY

➤ CONGRESS

House conservatives said Monday that they’re ready to end their blockade of the House floor — at least temporarily — while they continue discussions with Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) about ways to give the House Freedom Caucus members more power and curb deficit spending in future funding packages. The conservative rebels essentially held the floor hostage since last Tuesday, when 11 hard-liners blocked a procedural measure in protest of McCarthy’s handling of the debt limit negotiations with Biden, which led to the passage of a bipartisan debt limit deal last month. 

While vague in their demands, the detractors were essentially asking for assurances that the Speaker would hold a harder line on spending in the budget fights to come. While the hard-liners said Monday evening that no firm agreement has been reached with the Speaker, they added they’re encouraged by the direction of the talks and will release their stranglehold on the House this week while those discussions continue (The Hill).

“Here’s what everyone understood: The power-sharing agreement that we entered into in January with Speaker McCarthy must be renegotiated,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said after leaving McCarthy’s office. “He understood that, we understood that. And it has to be renegotiated in a way so that what happened on the settlement vote would never happen again, where House conservatives would be left as the less desirable coalition partner than Democrats.”

The end of the blockade comes just in time — the Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to mark up a GOP tax-cut bill today, while the Appropriations Committee is poised to tackle the first of the 12 annual appropriations bills. Next week, the House Armed Services Committee is set to vote on the annual defense authorization bill (as is its Senate counterpart). 

▪ Politico: Capitol Hill reckons with a government funding fight that just got tougher.

▪ Roll Call: Democrats call for investigation into Homeland Security watchdog.

▪ The Daily Beast: McCarthy rolls out his Trump defense: “A bathroom door locks.”

➤ POLITICS

As a number of states are seeking further restrictions to abortion access, the next big battle in the reproductive rights fight is set to take place in August in Ohio, where voters will consider a ballot measure that could make it harder for the state to enshrine protections for the medical procedure, writes The Hill’s Caroline Vakil. 

Ohioans are set to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that, if passed, would require at least 60 percent of voters to pass any amendment to the state’s constitution – up from the current threshold of more than 50 percent. Though the amendment doesn’t explicitly mention abortion, the election, which has sparked bipartisan backlash, comes as Democrats seek to put an abortion measure on the ballot this November that would enshrine abortion protections in the state’s constitution. Should the proposed constitutional amendment pass, it could make it harder for abortion rights advocates to pass their own initiative. 

“It’s such a power grab on so many levels, and I think it really is an attempt to silence the voice of the people,” Ohio state Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio (D) told The Hill.

▪ The Hill: Ohio’s top court rules parts of ballot measure at center of abortion fight must be rewritten.

▪ The Washington Post: In post-Roe Virginia, a doctor-state senator stakes out a nuanced abortion stance.

▪ Rolling Stone: Former Vice President Mike Pence may have inadvertently protected abortion rights in Indiana.

2024 headlines: GOP presidential candidate former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said he believes the indictment against Trump was “a very tight, very detailed, evidence-laden indictment, and the conduct in there is awful.” During a CNN town hall on Monday, Christie characterized Trump as “angry” and “vengeful” and said he believes prosecutors have more evidence than put forward so far (CNN). … Presidential primary contender Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) counts endorsements from more than 140 politicians in the Palmetto State (The Associated Press). 

IN FOCUS/SHARP TAKES

➤ INTERNATIONAL 

Ukrainian troops are probing Russian defenses as spring gives way to a second summer of fighting, and Kyiv’s forces are launching a counteroffensive against an enemy that has made mistakes and suffered setbacks in the 15-month-old war. But analysts say Moscow also has learned from those blunders and improved its weapons and skills. The changing Russian tactics along with increased troop numbers and improved weaponry could make it challenging for Ukraine to score any kind of quick decisive victory, threatening to turn it into a long battle of attrition (The Associated Press).

Civilians were killed in an overnight attack on a residential building in the city of Kryvyi Rih, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s hometown, according to a regional governor (The Washington Post and Reuters).

▪ The New York Times: Attacks from Ukraine have killed at least a dozen Russian civilians and displaced thousands. But they have not fundamentally changed the calculus for President Vladimir Putin.

▪ The New York Times: South Africa is accused of helping supply Russia with weapons for the Ukraine war, a charge that the country denies.

▪ The Associated Press: Using high-tech laser gear, a U.N.-backed team scans Ukraine historical sites to preserve them amid war.

▪ Al Jazeera: NATO’s largest air force drill prepares for a “crisis situation.”

As Beijing and Washington move gingerly toward restoring high-level exchanges, Xi Jinping is stepping up his effort to gird China for conflict — including “extreme” scenarios. As the U.S. and China set plans for a rescheduled visit by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Beijing is playing up the possibility of worsening ties between the two countries (The Wall Street Journal).

▪ The Guardian: China concerns prompt U.S. move to rejoin UNESCO.

▪ The New York Times: How Silvio Berlusconi changed Italy, for better or worse.

▪ The Washington Post: Berlusconi’s testosterone-filled politics have been overtaken by women in Italy.

▪ Politico EU: Berlusconi’s nine most controversial moments.

OPINION

■ Another Biden defense, by James Freeman, columnist, The Wall Street Journal. 

■ Rep. Jim Jordan’s tortured defense of Trump points to a coming GOP split, by Greg Sargent, columnist, The Washington Post. 

WHERE AND WHEN

📲 Ask The Hill: Share a news query tied to an expert journalist’s insights: The Hill launched something new and (we hope) engaging via text with Editor-in-Chief Bob Cusack. Learn more and sign up HERE.

The House will meet at 10 a.m. for a vote to override the president’s veto of a joint resolution blocking a policing reform law in the nation’s capital.

The Senate will convene at 10 a.m.

The president will receive the President’s Daily Brief at 10 a.m. Biden will meet (after Monday’s postponement for unscheduled dental work) with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at 1 p.m. at the White House. Biden will speak at 5:15 p.m. at an East Room reception for Chiefs of Mission conferees (principal officers in charge of State Department diplomatic offices and missions from around the world). The president and first lady Jill Biden will host a Juneteenth concert at 7 p.m. on the South Lawn (the federal holiday is Monday, June 19).

Vice President Harris and second gentleman Doug Emhoff will attend the evening’s Juneteenth concert at the White House.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken attends Chiefs of Mission Conference events throughout the day. He will meet with Stoltenberg at 11 a.m. at the State Department, then join the president and the secretary general at the White House in the afternoon. Blinken will participate in the White House reception this evening for the Chiefs of Mission conferees.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen will testify before the House Financial Services Committee at 10 a.m.

First lady Jill Biden will be in San Francisco to headline a political fundraiser for the Biden Victory Fund at 5:15 p.m., followed by another one at 6:45 p.m. She will speak at 8 p.m. PT at the Giffords Law Center’s 30th anniversary celebration in San Francisco. The Associated Press reports on the first lady’s three-day campaign swing, which began in New York. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, who plans to leave the agency this month, will testify at 10:30 a.m. about COVID-19 policies to the House Oversight Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. 

Economic indicators: The Federal Reserve begins a two-day meeting before announcing monetary policy direction on Wednesday. The Fed faces a complicated situation (The Wall Street Journal). Separately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics at 8:30 a.m. will release the Consumer Price Index for May and a report on real earnings in May, both closely examined by the central bank. 

The White House daily press briefing is scheduled at 1:30 p.m.

ELSEWHERE

➤ TRENDS

🔥 In the past 20 years, California’s northern forests have experienced a stark increase in lands burned by fire — and now scientists have a better idea why. The culprit is a familiar one, reports The Hill’s Saul Elbein: human-caused climate change, driven primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, according to findings published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

But other aspects are new, and the paper presents a portrait of fires in an alternate California, in which human-caused climate change hadn’t happened. It offers a sobering warning for any ecosystem — notably Canada and the Western U.S.  — in which temperature, not the availability of trees, is the primary factor limiting the size of fires.

▪ Axios: Canadian officials warn historic wildfires could “last all summer.”

▪ The Washington Post: California’s 2020 smoke storm was horrific. What did the state learn?

🌎 Melissa Hoffer is the first state climate chief in the nation, appointed by Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D). If things go as Hoffer hopes, she will be the first in a long line of similar officials across other states, Hoffer told The Hill’s Zack Budryk. 

“Whether you are a state or local or federal government, or whether you run an institution or a business, you need to begin to have a formalized structure in place to consider climate change,” Hoffer said. “So our hope is that this will be a replicable model that could be used by other states, that it could also be adapted to other local governments.” 

The Boston Globe: “A defining issue of our time”: Massachusetts’s first climate chief is bringing an all-of-government approach to climate change.

🏥 A range of factors conspire to determine who dies from cancer, including genetics and where people live. U.S. cancer death rates have decreased over the past 25 years, according to the American Cancer Society, but the sharpest decrease in cancer deaths has occurred among Black people, Native Americans and Alaskan natives, according to a February 2022 report from Kaiser Family Foundation, The Hill’s Alejandra O’Conell-Domenech reports. This is in part due to improvements in cancer screening, treatments, early diagnosis and changes in behavior like reduced cigarette smoking, according to Latoya Hill, a senior policy analyst at KFF’s Racial and Health Policy Program.    

But even though white Americans have higher rates of new cancer diagnoses, some people of color, especially Black people, are still more likely to die from the disease, National Cancer Institute data shows. 

NBC News: Experimental brain cancer vaccine may slow growth of glioblastoma tumors.

👷 Manufacturing construction is surging across the country as legislative efforts to reinvigorate the U.S. industrial base are bearing fruit. As The Hill’s Tobias Burns reports, experts say these changes — led in part by administration’s policies — represent a watershed moment for U.S. heavy industry and a shift toward more environmentally friendly methods of production amid an ongoing climate emergency. 

“We waited for so long to have these kinds of initiatives,” Miki Banu, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Michigan, told The Hill. “This is probably the first time in my life when I’ve seen so many resources become available, which are able to let us put our ideas into practice.”

🗞️ Washington Post publisher and chief executive Fred Ryan, 68, announced Monday he will step down in August to lead a new Center on Public Civility at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation. Owner Jeff Bezos appointed Patty Stonesifer, the founding chief executive of the Gates Foundation and more recently the director of the Amazon board, to be interim Post CEO. Bezos provided the initial funding for planning and design of the Public Civility center. Ryan helped found Politico and early in his career was a Reagan aide both in the White House and when the former president returned to private life (The Washington Post).

THE CLOSER

And finally …  🌌 Many of us saw Matt Damon’s character survive (barely) on potatoes grown in an indoor, controlled-climate shelter on Mars. Hollywood’s adventure depicted in “The Martian” actually tracked science. “Let there be dark” is the catchy headline for new details about ongoing research to grow plants without sunlight to feed astronauts bound for the red planet (Science). It’s a journey that can take manned spacecraft nine months to years, although NASA’s Rover needed seven months to get to Mars.  House lawmakers push for troop pay boost Youth climate trial starts in Montana

Stay Engaged

We want to hear from you! Email: Alexis Simendinger and Kristina Karisch. Follow us on Twitter (@asimendinger and @kristinakarisch) and suggest this newsletter to friends!

Continue Reading

Politics

Tariffs, explained: How they work and why they matter

Published

on

By

Tariffs, explained: How they work and why they matter

Tariffs, explained: How they work and why they matter

What are tariffs?

Tariffs are taxes placed on imported goods by a government or a supranational union. Occasionally, tariffs can be applied to exports as well. They generate government revenue and serve as a trade regulation tool, often to shield domestic industries.

Four main categories of tariffs are:

  • Ad valorem tariffs: These are calculated as a percentage of the good’s value. For instance, a 20% tax might be placed on $100 of goods.
  • Specific tariffs: These are fixed fees based on the quantity of goods. For example, there might be a tariff of $5 per imported kilogram of sugar.
  • Compound tariffs: These combine a specific duty and an ad valorem duty applied to the same imported goods. Both tariffs are calculated together to determine the total tax. For example, a country might place a tariff on imported wine at $5 per liter plus 10% of the wine’s value.
  • Mixed tariffs: Mixed tariffs apply either a specific duty or an ad valorem duty, based on predefined conditions. For instance, for imported trucks, a country might charge either $5,000 per vehicle or 15% of the car’s value, whichever is greater.

The objective of such policy is to influence international trade flows, protect domestic industries, and respond to unfair practices by foreign countries. When a tariff is applied to an imported good, it raises its cost, making domestically produced alternatives more lucrative for customers regarding price.

In the US, the Trump administration uses reciprocal tariffs as a key instrument in influencing the trade policies of other countries. Reciprocal tariffs are trade duties a country imposes in retaliation to tariffs or barriers set by another country. This policy seeks to correct trade imbalances and safeguard domestic industries.

Tariffs are generally collected by the customs departments of a country at ports of entry based on the declared value and classification of goods.

Did you know? Some countries use tariff-rate quotas, allowing a set quantity of a product to be imported at a lower tariff. Once the quota is exceeded, a higher tariff kicks in. This system balances domestic protection with access to global markets, especially in sectors like agriculture and textiles.

Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on April 2, 2025, a day he called Liberation Day, citing his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The order placed a minimum 10% tariff on all US imports effective April 5, 2025. Reciprocal tariffs went into effect on April 9, 2025. 

Trump stated that the US would apply reciprocal tariffs at roughly half the rate imposed by other countries. For instance, the US imposed a 34% tariff in response to China’s 67%. A 25% tariff on all automobile imports was also announced.

Breakdown of reciprocal tariffs by country

The Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy is rooted in the belief that the US faced long-standing trade imbalances and unfair treatment by global trading partners. To address this, his administration pushed for what it called reciprocal tariffs, aiming at setting a tariff structure that matched or at least was close to tariffs that foreign nations imposed on American exports.

Under this approach, the administration used tariff policies to pressure countries to lower their trade barriers or renegotiate trade deals. The policy drew support from domestic manufacturers and labor groups for attempting to rebalance trade and support the US industry. But it also sparked criticism from economists and international allies who viewed it as protectionist and destabilizing the prevalent economic system in the world. 

The reciprocal tariffs policy has reshaped US trade relations and marked a departure from decades of multilateral, open global trade policy.

Did you know? Tariffs can reshape supply chains. To avoid high import taxes, companies often relocate manufacturing to countries with favorable trade agreements. This shift doesn’t always benefit consumers, as savings are not always passed down, and logistics become more complex.

The US–China tariff war: A defining economic conflict

The US–China tariff war, which began in 2018 under the first Trump administration, marked a significant shift in global economic relations. The conflict between the world’s two largest economies had broad implications for global supply chains, inflation and geopolitical dynamics.

The trade conflict between the US and China wasn’t just a bilateral spat. It signaled a structural rethinking of trade policy in a multipolar world. The trade war began after the US imposed sweeping tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers by China. 

Over time, the US levied tariffs on more than $360 billion worth of Chinese goods. China retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion of US exports, targeting key sectors like agriculture and manufacturing.

The conflict disrupted major supply chains and raised costs for American businesses and consumers. American farmers were hit hard by retaliatory Chinese tariffs on soybeans, leading the US government to provide billions in subsidies to offset losses.

While the Phase One Agreement in 2020 eased tensions and required China to increase purchases of US goods and enforce intellectual property protections, many tariffs remained in place. The Biden administration retained most of the economic measures imposed by the first Trump administration, signaling bipartisan concern over China’s trade practices.

As of April 10, 2025, Trump had imposed 125% tariffs on China, while for 75 countries, he had paused the imposition of tariffs for 90 days.

Trump regime has imposed harsh tariffs on China

Compared to disputes with allies like the European Union or Canada, the stakes are higher in the US–China conflict, and the consequences are more far-reaching. 

Here are the responses of various governments to Trump’s tariffs:

  • Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney implemented a 25% tariff on US-made cars and trucks.
  • China will impose a 34% tariff on all US imports, effective April 10.
  • The French prime minister described the tariffs as an economic catastrophe.
  • Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni criticized the tariffs as wrong.
  • European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen pledged a unified response and prepared countermeasures.
  • Taiwan’s government denounced the tariffs as unreasonable.

How do tariffs work?

When a tariff is applied — for example, a 30% tax on imported steel — it raises the price of that good for importers. They, in turn, pass these added costs to downstream businesses, which further transfer these costs to consumers.

For importers, tariffs mean higher purchase costs. If a US company imports machinery from abroad and faces a tariff, its total cost increases. This possibly reduces its profit margins or forces it to search for alternatives. Exporters in other countries may suffer if US buyers reduce orders due to higher prices, hurting their competitiveness.

Domestic producers may benefit initially from a high tariff regime. Tariffs can shield them from cheaper foreign competition, allowing them to increase sales and potentially make profits. But if their operations rely on imported components subject to tariffs, their input costs may rise, offsetting gains.

Consumers often bear the brunt. Tariffs can lead to price hikes on everyday goods — from electronics to apparel. In the long term, high tariffs contribute to inflation and reduce purchasing power.

Tariffs also disrupt global supply chains. Many products are assembled using components from multiple countries. High tariffs on one component can cause delays, prompt redesigns, or force companies to relocate manufacturing, increasing complexity and costs.

Overall, while tariffs aim to protect domestic industries, their impact is felt across the economy through altering prices, trade flows and business strategies. One way or another, tariffs influence everyone — from factory owners to workers and everyday shoppers.

Trump excluded various tech products, such as smartphones, chips, computers and certain electronics, from reciprocal tariffs, providing the tech sector with crucial relief from tariff pressure. This step of Trump eased pressure on tech stocks. 

Trump’s tariff announcement on April 2 triggered a sharp sell-off in both equities and Bitcoin (BTC), with BTC plunging 10.5% in a week. Once seen as a non-correlated asset, Bitcoin now trades in sync with tech stocks during macro shocks. According to analysts, institutional investors increasingly treat BTC as a risk-on asset closely tied to policy shifts. While some view Bitcoin as digital gold, recent behavior shows it reacting more like Nasdaq stocks — falling during global uncertainty and rallying on positive sentiment.

Bitcoin vs. tech stocks

Did you know? Tariff exemptions can be highly strategic. Governments may exclude specific industries or companies, allowing them to import goods tariff-free while competitors pay more. This creates an uneven playing field and can spark domestic controversy.

Why do tariffs matter for global markets?

Tariffs are a robust tool in the hands of governments to shape a nation’s economic and trade strategy. They are not merely taxes on imports but a tool that influences domestic production, consumer behavior and global trade relationships.

For the US, tariffs have historically been used to assert economic power on the global stage, protect emerging industries, and respond to unfair trade practices. 

When countries with large economies are involved, tariff decisions can impact global supply chains, shift manufacturing hubs, and alter the price of goods worldwide. Even for the smaller countries, in an interconnected world, tariffs matter because their impact goes far beyond national borders. 

Domestically, tariffs could boost local industries by making foreign goods more expensive. This can create jobs and support economic resilience in the short term. 

Governments getting larger revenue via tariffs will enable them to reduce direct taxes as Trump proposed. But they can also raise prices for consumers, hurt exporters, and trigger retaliation from trade partners.

As geopolitical tensions rise and nations reevaluate their economic dependencies, tariffs have reemerged as a central element of US trade policy. 

Whether used defensively or offensively, they shape the balance between protectionism and global engagement. This makes tariffs a matter not just of economics, but of national strategy and global influence.

Who sets tariff policy in the US?

In the US, tariff policy is shaped by a combination of legislative authority, executive power and administrative enforcement. Various agencies also help in the execution of tariff policy.

Congress holds the constitutional authority to regulate trade and impose tariffs. Over time, Congress has given the president significant power to change tariffs for national security, economic threats or trade violations.

The Office of the US Trade Representative plays a central role in formulating and negotiating US trade policy. It leads trade talks, manages disputes, and recommends tariff actions, often in coordination with the president and Congress.

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for enforcing tariffs at ports of entry. CBP collects duties based on the classification and value of imported goods according to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.

Several major trade laws have shaped tariff policy in the US. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, aimed at protecting US farmers during the Great Depression, led to retaliatory tariffs and worsened global trade. 

Later, the Trade Act of 1974 gave the president tools like Section 301, which was used extensively during the US–China trade war to impose retaliatory tariffs on unfair foreign practices.

Together, these actors and laws form the foundation of US tariff policy.

Criticism of Trump’s tariff policy

Criticism of Trump’s tariff policy surfaced following the announcement of reciprocal tariffs. Critics say this move bypasses Congress and sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive power in economic matters.

Detractors argue that these tariffs hurt American businesses more than their intended foreign targets. A Vox article argued that low-income people would be hit more by Trump’s tariffs than by the already reeling Wall Street. Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers fears that America may slip into recession due to tariffs, probably costing 2 million jobs nationwide.

A critic declares Trump's tariffs  a catastrophe

Legal challenges have also emerged regarding Trump’s tariff policy. The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a conservative legal group, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Simplified, a small business based in Florida that sells planners and sources goods from China. The lawsuit claims that the president overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when imposing tariffs in a non-emergency trade context.

Small and mid-sized businesses, many of which rely on global supply chains, will have to deal with rising import costs due to tariffs. This may lead to inflation and reduced competitiveness of such businesses. 

While the tariffs might hit China financially in the short term, the action could result in higher prices for US consumers and disrupt operations for American firms if the tariff policy continues for a long time.

Continue Reading

Business

Sports rights veteran Kogan in talks to chair Starmer’s football watchdog

Published

on

By

Sports rights veteran Kogan in talks to chair Starmer's football watchdog

A media industry veteran who has helped negotiate a string of broadcast rights deals across English football has emerged as the frontrunner to head Sir Keir Starmer’s new football watchdog.

Sky News can exclusively reveal that David Kogan, whose boardroom roles have included a directorship at state-owned Channel 4, is now the leading contender to chair the Independent Football Regulator (IFR) following a drawn-out recruitment process.

A Whitehall source said Mr Kogan had been interviewed for the post by a government-appointed selection panel in the last few days.

He was expected to be recommended to the prime minister for the role, although they cautioned that the appointment was not yet guaranteed.

Mr Kogan has had extensive experience at the top of English football, having advised clients including the Premier League, English Football League, Scottish Premier League and UEFA on television rights contracts.

Last year, he acted as the lead negotiator for the Women’s Super League and Championship on their latest five-year broadcasting deals with Sky – the immediate parent company of Sky News – and the BBC.

Outside football, he also worked with Premier Rugby, the Six Nations, the NFL on its UK broadcasting deals and the International Olympic Committee in his capacity as chief executive of, and majority shareholder in, Reel Enterprises.

More from Money

Mr Kogan sold that business in 2011 to Wasserman Media Group.

His other current roles include advising the chief executives of CNN, the American broadcast news network, and The New York Times Company on talks with digital platforms about the growing influence of artificial intelligence on their industries.

Mr Kogan has links to Labour, having in the past donated money to a number of individual parliamentary candidates, chairing LabourList, the independent news site, and writing two books about the party.

One source close to the process to appoint the IFR chair described him as “an obvious choice” for the position.

In recent months, Sky News has disclosed the identities of the shortlisted candidates for the role, with former Aston Villa FC and Liverpool FC chief executive Christian Purslow one of three candidates who made it to a supposedly final group of contenders.

The others were Sanjay Bhandari, who chairs the anti-racism football charity Kick It Out, and Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, who chaired the new parliamentary watchdog established after the MPs expenses scandal.

Sky News revealed last weekend, however, that government officials had resumed contact with applicants who did not make it onto that shortlist for the £130,000-a-year post.

The apparent hiatus in the appointment of the IFR’s inaugural chair threatened to reignite speculation that Sir Keir was seeking to diminish its powers amid a broader clampdown on Britain’s economic watchdogs.

Both 10 Downing Street and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) have sought to dismiss those suggestions, with insiders insisting that the IFR will be established largely as originally envisaged.

The creation of the IFR, which will be based in Manchester, is among the principal elements of legislation now progressing through parliament, with Royal Assent expected before the summer recess.

The Football Governance Bill has completed its journey through the House of Lords and will be introduced in the Commons shortly, according to the DCMS.

The regulator was conceived by the previous Conservative government in the wake of the furore over the failed European Super League project, but has triggered deep unrest in parts of English football.

Steve Parish, the chairman of Premier League side Crystal Palace, told a recent sports industry conference that the watchdog “wants to interfere in all of the things we don’t need them to interfere in and help with none of the things we actually need help with”.

“We have a problem that we’re constantly being told that we’re not a business and [that] we’re part of the fabric of communities,” he is reported to have said.

“At the same time, we’re…being treated to the nth degree like a business.”

Initial interviews for the chair of the new watchdog took place last November, with an earlier recruitment process curtailed by the calling of last year’s general election.

Mr Kogan is said by officials to have originally been sounded out about the IFR chairmanship under the Tory administration.

Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, will also need to approve the appointment of a preferred candidate, with the chosen individual expected to face a pre-appointment hearing in front of the Commons culture, media and sport select committee as early as next month.

It forms part of a process that represents the most fundamental shake-up in the oversight of English football in the game’s history.

The establishment of the body comes with the top tier of the professional game gripped by civil war, with Abu Dhabi-owned Manchester City at the centre of a number of legal cases with the Premier League over its financial dealings.

The Premier League is also keen to agree a long-delayed financial redistribution deal with the EFL before the regulator is formally launched, although there has been little progress towards that in the last year.

The government has dropped a previous stipulation that the IFR should have regard to British foreign and trade policy when determining the appropriateness of a new club owner.

“We do not comment on speculation,” a DCMS spokesperson said when asked about Mr Kogan’s candidacy to chair the football watchdog.

“No appointment has been made and the recruitment process for [IFR] chair is ongoing.”

This weekend, Mr Kogan declined to comment.

Continue Reading

Politics

‘Return hubs’ get UN backing in boost for potential plans to deport failed asylum seekers

Published

on

By

'Return hubs' get UN backing in boost for potential plans to deport failed asylum seekers

“Return hubs” that would see Britain send failed asylum seekers to another country have been endorsed by the UN’s refugee agency.

There have been reports that Sir Keir Starmer’s government is looking into deporting illegal migrants to the Balkans.

According to The Times, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper met the UN’s high commissioner for refugees last month to discuss the idea.

It would see the government pay countries in the Balkans to take failed asylum seekers – a prospect ministers hope might discourage people from crossing the Channel in small boats.

A total of 9,099 migrants have made that journey so far this year, including more than 700 on Tuesday this week – the highest number on a single day in 2025.

One migrant died while trying to make the crossing on Friday.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

One dead in Channel crossing

The UN’s refugee agency has set out how such hubs could work while meeting its legal standards in a document published earlier this week.

It recommended monitoring the hubs to make sure human rights standards are “reliably met”.

The country hosting the return hub would need to grant temporary legal status for migrants, and the country sending the failed asylum seekers would need to support it to make sure there are “adequate accommodation and reception arrangements”.

A UK government source said it was a helpful intervention that could make the legal pathway to some form of return hub model smoother.

Read more from Sky News:
How Japan could shape future of NHS

Can the Lib Dems secure election success?

It comes after the EU Commission proposed allowing EU members to set up so-called “return hubs” abroad, with member state Italy having already started sending illegal migrants abroad.

It sends people with no right to remain to Italian-run detention centres in Albania, something Sir Keir has taken an interest in since coming to power.

With Reform UK leading Labour in several opinion polls this year, the prime minister has been talking tough on immigration – but the figures around Channel crossings have made for difficult reading.

Continue Reading

Trending