Connect with us

Published

on

From midnight on Monday, Donald Trump’s tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China came into effect. But what are they and what do they mean for the UK?

The second-time president claims the tariffs – taxes on goods imported into the US – will help reduce illegal migration and the smuggling of the synthetic opioid fentanyl to the US.

In a White House speech on Monday, Mr Trump confirmed 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada and the doubling of tariffs on Chinese imports – from 10% to 20%. Canadian energy will be levied at 10%, he added.

China responded immediately, with 15% taxes on food and agricultural products it sends to the US – worth around $21bn (£16.5bn).

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also retaliated with extra tariffs worth $100bn (£78.7bn) over the next 21 days. Mexico has not yet announced any countermeasures.

Both Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Mr Trudeau have promised extra troops at their US borders to combat illegal migration, in a bid to stop an all-out trade war with Mr Trump.

But he appears determined to go even further, targeting other countries, including those in the European Union, which he claims was created to “screw” the US.

Will Trump target UK with tariffs?

No new US tariffs have been announced on the UK.

And Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s successful White House visit raised hopes Britain could avoid Mr Trump’s recent wave of them.

“I think there’s a very good chance that in the case of these two great, friendly countries, I think we could very well end up with a real trade deal where the tariffs wouldn’t be necessary. We’ll see,” the president told reporters afterwards.

Mr Trump is largely concerned with trade deficits – when you import more goods from another country than you send there in return.

The US does not have a trade deficit with Britain – so UK ministers have previously suggested this could be good news for avoiding new levies.

Ed Conway analysis:
How UK could avoid Trump’s trade war by accident

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

How Trump’s tariffs will affect Britain

Why tariffs could cost you – even if Trump spares UK

But even if no tariffs are put on UK exports, consumers will still be impacted by the wider trade war.

Mr Trump’s Monday announcement sparked an immediate downturn in US and European stocks, with share prices for car manufacturers, including General Motors, which produces a lot of its trucks in Mexico, falling in particular.

Economists believe that tariffs will raise costs in the US, sparking a wave of inflation that will keep interest rates higher for longer. The US central bank, the Federal Reserve, is mandated to act to bring inflation down.

More expensive borrowing and costlier goods and services could bring about an economic downturn in the US, the world’s largest economy – and global movements could hit the UK.

Forecasts from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) predict lower UK economic growth due to higher global interest rates.

It estimates UK GDP (a measure of everything produced in the economy) could be between 2.5% and 3% lower over five years and 0.7% lower this year.

Read more:
Trump pauses military aid to Ukraine

Analysis: Fine line between negotiations and blackmail

Some economists argue, though, that the UK might not be hurt too badly – even if Mr Trump imposes tariffs on British goods.

The UK doesn’t send a lot of goods to the US, exporting its banking and consulting services to them instead, which do not tend to be subject to tariffs.

However, the Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy thinktank said a 20% across-the-board tariff, impacting the UK, could lead to a £22bn reduction in exports in the UK’s US exports, with the hardest-hit sectors including fishing and mining.

How will it impact US consumers?

The flags of Mexico, the United States and Canada. Pic: Reuters
Image:
The flags of Mexico, the United States and Canada. Pic: Reuters

Although the Trump administration said the 10% Canadian energy tariff will boost domestic energy production, there are likely to be wide-ranging negative consequences for the US consumer.

Economists argue supply chains will be disrupted and businesses will suffer increased costs – leading to an overall rise in prices.

Both Mexico and Canada rely heavily on their imports and exports, which make up around 70% of their Gross Domestic Products (GDPs), putting them at even greater risk from the new tariffs.

China only relies on trade for 37% of its economy, having made a concerted effort to ramp up domestic production, making it relatively less vulnerable.

Avocados – and other fruit and veg

Avocados from Mexico at a store in the US. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Avocados from Mexico at a store in the US. Pic: Reuters

The US imports between half and 60% of its fresh produce from Mexico – and 80% of its avocados, according to figures from the US Department of Agriculture.

Canada also supplies a lot of the US’s fruit and vegetables, which are mainly grown in greenhouses on the other side of the US border.

This means new tariffs will quickly be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

The US still grows a considerable amount of its own produce, however, so the changes could boost domestic production.

But economists warn an overreliance on domestic goods will see those suppliers increase their prices too.

Petrol and oil prices

Oil and gas prices are likely to be impacted – as Canada provides around 60% of US crude oil imports and Mexico roughly 10%.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, the US received around 4.6 million barrels of oil a day from Canada last year – and 563,000 from Mexico.

Most US oil refineries are designed specifically to process Canadian products, which would make changing supply sources complex and costly.

Oil tariffs could see an increase in fuel prices of up to 50 cents (40p) a gallon, economists have predicted.

Cars and vehicle parts

General Motors plant in Ramos Arizpe, Mexico. Pic: Reuters
Image:
General Motors plant in Ramos Arizpe, Mexico. Pic: Reuters

The US car industry is a delicate mix of foreign and domestic manufacturers.

The supply chain is so complex that car parts and half-finished vehicles can sometimes cross the US-Mexico border several times before they are ready for the showroom.

If this continues, the parts will be taxed every time they move countries, which will lead to an even bigger increase in prices.

As a result, Gustavo Flores-Macias, public policy professor at Cornell University, says “the automobile sector, in particular, is likely to see considerable negative consequences”.

To mitigate this, General Motors has said it will try to rush through Mexican and Canadian exports – while brainstorming how to relocate manufacturing to the US.

Mr Trump said of this dilemma on Monday: “They’re going to have a tariff. So what they have to do is build their car plants, frankly, and other things in the United States, in which case they have no tariffs.”

Electronic goods

When Mr Trump imposed a 50% tariff on imported washing machines during his first term in 2018, prices suffered for years afterwards.

China produces a lot of the world’s consumer electronics – and smartphones and computers specifically – so tariffs are likely to have a similar effect on those devices.

The Biden administration tried to legislate to promote domestic production of semiconductors (microchips needed for all smart devices) – but for now, the US is still heavily reliant on China for its personal electronics.

This will mean an increase in prices for electronics consumers globally – unless tech companies can relocate their operations away from Beijing.

Boost for the steel industry

The sector that could actually benefit from the Trump tariffs is the steel and aluminium industry.

It has long been lobbying the US government to impose levies on foreign suppliers – claiming they are dominating the market and leaving domestic factories without enough business and at risk of closure.

Steel imports increasing in price could therefore promote domestic production – and possibly save some of the plants.

But when Mr Trump increased steel tariffs during his first term, prices also increased – which business leaders said forced them to pass on costs and left them struggling to complete construction projects on budget.

Continue Reading

Business

Harrods plots legal action against estate of former owner al-Fayed

Published

on

By

Harrods plots legal action against estate of former owner al-Fayed

Harrods is preparing to take legal action against the estate of its former owner, Mohamed al-Fayed, as the multimillion-pound legal bill for compensating his sexual abuse victims continues to escalate.

Sky News has learnt that the Knightsbridge department store, which has been owned by a Qatari sovereign wealth fund since 2010, plans to file a so-called passing-over application in the High Court as early as next week.

The intention of the application is to secure the removal of Mr al-Fayed‘s estate’s current executors, and replace them with professional executors to administer it instead.

Professional executors would be expected to investigate the assets and liabilities of the estate, while Harrods insiders claimed that the current executors – thought to be close family members of the deceased billionaire – had “ignored” correspondence from its lawyers.

Sources close to Harrods said the passing-over application paved the way for it to potentially seek to recover substantial sums from the estate of the Egyptian tycoon as it contends with a compensation bill likely to run to tens of millions of pounds.

In a statement issued to Sky News on Saturday, a Harrods spokesperson said: “We are considering legal options that would ensure that no doors are closed on any future action and that a route to compensation and accountability from the Fayed estate remains open to all.”

Mr al-Fayed is believed to have raped or sexually abused hundreds of women during his 25-year tenure as the owner of Harrods.

More on Mohamed Al Fayed

He died in 2023, since when a torrent of details of his abuse have been made public by many of his victims.

Earlier this year, Sky News revealed details of the compensation scheme designed by Harrods to award six-figure sums to women he abused.

In a form outlining the details of the Harrods redress scheme overseen by MPL Legal, which is advising the department store, it referred to the potential “for Harrods to recover compensation paid out under this Scheme from Mohamed Fayed’s estate”.

“You are not obliged to assist with any such claim for recovery,” the form told potential claimants.

“However, if you would be willing to assist Harrods including potentially by giving evidence against Fayed’s estate, please indicate below.”

This weekend, there appeared to be confusion about the legal representation of Mr al-Fayed’s estate.

In March, the BBC reported that Fladgate, a UK-based law firm, was representing it in an article which said that women who worked for him as nannies and private air stewards were preparing to file legal claims against the estate.

This weekend, however, a spokesman for Fladgate declined to comment on whether it was acting for Mr al-Fayed’s estate, citing confidentiality restrictions.

A source close to the law firm, meanwhile, insisted that it was not acting for the estate.

KP Law, another law firm acting for some al-Fayed abuse survivors, has criticised the Harrods-orchestrated process, but has itself faced questions over proposals to take up to 25% of compensation awards in exchange for handling their cases.

Harrods insiders said there was a growing risk that Mr al-Fayed’s estate would not be responsibly administered given that the second anniversary of his death was now approaching.

They added that as well as Harrods itself seeking contribution for compensation paid out for Mr al-Fayed’s abuse, its legal action would also potentially open way for survivors to claim directly against the estate.

Victims with no direct connection to Harrods are not eligible for any compensation through the store’s own redress scheme.

Even if Harrods’ passing-over application was approved by the High Court, any financial recovery for the department store would be subject to a number of additional legal steps, sources said.

“The passing-over action would achieve the goals of acknowledgement and accountability from the estate for survivors who don’t have the resource to undertake a passing-over application themselves,” an insider said this weekend.

Continue Reading

Business

High street lender Metro Bank receives takeover approach

Published

on

By

High street lender Metro Bank receives takeover approach

The high street lender Metro Bank has been approached about a private equity-backed takeover in a move that could lead to the disappearance of another company from the London Stock Exchange.

Sky News has learnt that Metro Bank was approached in the last fortnight about an offer to take it private spearheaded by the financial services-focused buyout firm Pollen Street Capital.

Pollen Street is one of the major shareholders in Shawbrook, the mid-sized bank which in the past has approached Metro Bank about a merger of the two companies.

In recent months, Shawbrook’s owners have stepped up efforts to identify a prospective corporate combination, holding tentative talks with Starling Bank about a £5bn tie-up, while also drawing up plans for a stock market listing.

The takeover approach to Metro Bank comes as it puts a traumatic period in which it came close to insolvency firmly behind it.

In November 2023, the lender was rescued through a £925m deal comprising £325m of equity – a third of which was contributed by Jaime Gilinski Bacal, a Colombian billionaire – and £600m of new debt.

Mr Gilinski now holds a near-53% stake through his investment vehicle, Spaldy Investments, and sits on the company’s board.

More from Money

Since the bailout deal, Metro Bank has cut hundreds of jobs and sold portfolios of loan assets, at the same time as chief executive Daniel Frumkin has improved its operating performance.

Shares in Metro Bank have more than trebled in the last year as its recovery has gathered pace.

On Friday, the stock closed at 112.2p, giving it a market capitalisation of just over £750m.

At one point in 2018, the lender – which promised to revolutionise retail banking when it opened its first branch in London in 2010 – had a market capitalisation of £3.5bn.

Metro Bank became the first new lender to open on Britain’s high streets in over 100 years when it launched in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

Its branch-based model, which included gimmicks such as offering dog biscuits, proved costly, however, at a time when many rivals have been shifting to digital banking.

Reporting first-quarter results last month, Mr Frumkin said: “During the first quarter of 2025, we have continued to deliver the strategic repositioning of Metro Bank’s business, maintaining strong cost control while driving higher net interest margin by changing the mix of assets and remaining disciplined about deposits.”

“We have seen further growth in our corporate and commercial lending, with Metro Bank’s relationship banking and breadth of services creating differentiation for us in the market.”

Metro Bank operates from about 75 branches across the country, and saw roughly 30,000 new personal and business current accounts opened during the last quarter.

In 2019, customers formed sizeable queues at some of its branches after suggestions circulated on social media that it was in financial distress.

Days later, it unveiled a £350m share placing in a move designed to allay such concerns.

The company has had a chequered history with City regulators, despite its relatively brief existence.

In 2022, it was fined £10m by the Financial Conduct Authority for publishing incorrect information to investors, while the PRA slapped it with a £5.4m penalty for similar infringements a year earlier.

The lender was founded in 2009 by Anthony Thompson, a financial services entrepreneur, and Vernon Hill, an American who eventually left in controversial circumstances in 2019.

Last month, it sailed through a shareholder vote unscathed after drawing opposition to a proposal which could see top executives paid up to £60m apiece.

Metro Bank and Pollen Street both declined to comment on Saturday

Continue Reading

Business

Rachel Reeves ‘a gnat’s whisker’ from having to raise taxes, says IFS

Published

on

By

Rachel Reeves 'a gnat's whisker' from having to raise taxes, says IFS

Rachel Reeves is a “gnat’s whisker” away from having to raise taxes in the autumn budget, a leading economist has warned – despite the chancellor insisting her plans are “fully funded”.

Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said “any move in the wrong direction” for the economy before the next fiscal event would “almost certainly spark more tax rises”.

‘Sting in the tail’ in chancellor’s plans – politics latest

Speaking the morning after she delivered her spending review, which sets government budgets until 2029, Ms Reeves told Wilfred Frost hiking taxes wasn’t inevitable.

“Everything I set out yesterday was fully costed and fully funded,” she told Sky News Breakfast.

Her plans – which include £29bn for day-to-day NHS spending, £39bn for affordable and social housing, and boosts for defence and transport – are based on what she set out in October’s budget.

That budget, her first as chancellor, included controversial tax hikes on employers and increased borrowing to help public services.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Spending review explained

Chancellor won’t rule out tax rises

The Labour government has long vowed not to raise taxes on “working people” – specifically income tax, national insurance for employees, and VAT.

Ms Reeves refused to completely rule out tax rises in her next budget, saying the world is “very uncertain”.

The Conservatives have claimed she will almost certainly have to put taxes up, with shadow chancellor Mel Stride accusing her of mismanaging the economy.

Taxes on businesses had “destroyed growth” and increased spending had been “inflationary”, he told Sky News.

New official figures showed the economy contracted in April by 0.3% – more than expected. It coincided with Donald Trump imposing tariffs across the world.

Ms Reeves admitted the figures were “disappointing” but pointed to more positive figures from previous months.

Read more:
Chancellor running out of levers to pull
Growth stats make for unpleasant reading
Your spending review questions answered

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Tories accuse Reeves over economy

‘Sting in the tail’

She is hoping Labour’s plans will provide more jobs and boost growth, with major infrastructure projects “spread” across the country – from the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk, to a rail line connecting Liverpool and Manchester.

But the IFS said further contractions in the economy, and poor forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, would likely require the chancellor to increase the national tax take once again.

It said her spending review already accounted for a 5% rise in council tax to help local authorities, labelling it a “sting in the tail” after she told Sky’s Beth Rigby that it wouldn’t have to go up.

Continue Reading

Trending