Donald Trump’s trade war has been difficult to keep up with, to put it mildly.

For all the threats and bluster of the US election campaign last year to the on-off implementation of trade tariffs – and more threats – since he returned to the White House in January, the president‘s protectionist agenda has been haphazard.

Trading partners, export-focused firms, customs agents and even his own trade team have had a lot on their plates as deadlines were imposed – and then retracted – and the tariff numbers tinkered.

Money latest: Why your internet feels slower

While the UK was the first country to secure a truce of sorts, described as a “deal”, the vast majority of nations have failed to secure any agreement.

Deal or no deal, no country is on better trading terms with the United States than it was when Trump 2.0 began.

Here, we examine what nations and blocs are on the hook for, and the potential consequences, as Mr Trump’s suspended “reciprocal” tariffs prepare to take effect. That will now not happen until 7 August.

Why was 1 August such an important date?

To understand the present day, we must first wind the clock back to early April.

Then, Mr Trump proudly showed off a board in the White House Rose Garden containing a list of countries and the tariffs they would immediately face in retaliation for the rates they impose on US-made goods. He called it “liberation day”.

The tariff numbers were big and financial markets took fright.

Just days later, the president announced a 90-day pause in those rates for all countries except China, to allow for negotiations.

The initial deadline of 9 July was then extended again to 1 August. Late on 31 July, Mr Trump signed the executive order but said that the tariff rates would not kick in for seven additional days to allow for the orders to be fully communicated.

Since April, only eight countries or trading blocs have agreed “deals” to limit the reciprocal tariffs and – in some cases – sectoral tariffs already in place.

Who has agreed a deal over the past 120 days?

The UK, Japan, Indonesia, the European Union and South Korea are among the eight to be facing lower rates than had been threatened back in April.

China has not really done a deal but it is no longer facing punitive tariffs above 100%.

Its decision to retaliate against US levies prompted a truce level to be agreed between the pair, pending further talks.

There’s a backlash against the EU over its deal, with many national leaders accusing the European Commission of giving in too easily. A broad 15% rate is to apply, down from the threatened 30%, while the bloc has also committed to US investment and to pay for US-produced natural gas.

Where does the UK stand?

We’ve already mentioned that the UK was the first to avert the worst of what was threatened.

While a 10% baseline tariff covers the vast majority of the goods we send to the US, aerospace products are exempt.

Our steel sector has not been subjected to Trump’s 50% tariffs and has been facing down a 25% rate. The government announced on Thursday that it would not apply under the terms of a quota system.

UK car exports were on a 25% rate until the end of June when the deal agreed in May took that down to 10% under a similar quota arrangement that exempts the first 100,000 cars from a levy.

Who has not done a deal?

Canada is among the big names facing a 35% baseline tariff rate. That is up from 25% and covers all goods not subject to a US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that involves rules of origin.

America is its biggest export market and it has long been in Trump’s sights.

Mexico, another country deeply ingrained in the US supply chain, is facing a 30% rate but has been given an extra 90 days to secure a deal.

Brazil is facing a 50% rate. For India, it’s 25%.

What are the consequences?

This is where it all gets a bit woolly – for good reasons.

The trade war is unprecedented in scale, given the global nature of modern business.

It takes time for official statistics to catch up, especially when tariff rates chop and change so much.

Any duties on exports to the United States are a threat to company sales and economic growth alike – in both the US and the rest of the world. Many carmakers, for example, have refused to offer guidance on their outlooks for revenue and profits.

Apple warned on Thursday night that US tariffs would add $1.1bn of costs in the three months to September alone.

Barriers to business are never good but the International Monetary Fund earlier this week raised its forecast for global economic growth this year from 2.8% to 3%.

Some of that increase can be explained by the deals involving major economies, including Japan, the EU and UK.

US growth figures have been skewed by the rush to beat import tariffs but the most recent employment data has signalled a significant slowdown in hiring, with a tick upwards in the jobless rate.

Read more:
Trump signs executive order for reciprocal tariffs
Aston Martin outlines plan to ease US tariff hit

The big risk ahead?

It’s the prospect of another self-inflicted wound.

The elephant in the room is inflation. Countries imposing duties on their imports force the recipient of those goods to foot the additional bill. Do the buyers swallow it or pass it on?

The latest US data contained strong evidence that tariff charges were now making their way down the country’s supply chains, threatening to squeeze American consumers in the months ahead.

It’s why the US central bank has been refusing demands from Mr Trump to cut interest rates. You don’t slow the pace of price rises by making borrowing costs cheaper.

A prolonged period of higher inflation would not go down well with US businesses or voters. It’s why financial markets have followed a recent trend known as TACO, helping stock markets remain at record levels.

The belief is that Trump always chickens out. He may have to back down if inflation takes off.

Donald Trump says he has ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned in the “appropriate regions” in a row with former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev.

It comes after Mr Medvedev, who is now deputy chairman of Russia‘s Security Council, told the US president on Thursday to remember Moscow had Soviet-era nuclear strike capabilities of last resort.

On Friday, Mr Trump wrote on social media: “Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that.

“Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

The spat between Mr Trump and Mr Medvedev came after the US president warned Russia on Tuesday it had “10 days from today” to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine or face tariffs, along with its oil buyers.

Moscow has shown no sign it will agree to Mr Trump’s demands.

Read more:
Who are the winners (if any) and losers of Trump’s tariffs?

Mr Medvedev accused Mr Trump of engaging in a “game of ultimatums” and reminded him Russia possessed a Soviet-era automated nuclear retaliatory system – or “dead hand” – after Mr Trump told him to “watch his words” and said he’s “entering very dangerous territory!”

Mr Medvedev, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, was referring to a secretive semi-automated Soviet command system designed to launch Russia’s missiles if its leadership was taken out in a decapitating strike.

He added: “If some words from the former president of Russia trigger such a nervous reaction from the high-and-mighty president of the United States, then Russia is doing everything right and will continue to proceed along its own path.”

He also said “each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war” between Russia and the US.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

The visit to Gaza by Trump’s envoy was an important gesture to show America cared about the humanitarian situation there amid mounting pressure at home and abroad.

It was also “to learn the truth”, according to US Ambassador Mike Huckabee, who accompanied Mr Witkoff to an aid site. They gave themselves around five hours to do this.

The American delegation will report their assessments back to Washington and “help craft a plan to deliver food and medical aid to the people of Gaza”.

There’s very little confidence in either of those objectives. Images of Mr Witkoff sitting around a table at a calm and ordered aid site in Gaza does not suggest Donald Trump will hear a full picture of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. And America’s plans to deliver aid to Palestinians in Gaza has proved deeply flawed in recent months.

When Mr Witkoff last visited Israel in May, it was a very different picture. Palestinians were suffering in Gaza and getting killed in airstrikes but deaths were not largely a result of hunger. It was around that same time the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) was launched as the new way of distributing food in the enclave by America and Israel.

“GHF delivers more than one million meals a day, an incredible feat!”, wrote Mike Huckabee after his visit to site 3 with Trump’s envoy. It paints a very different picture to the images and reports we receive on a daily basis of Palestinians getting killed and injured attempting to reach aid at these sites close to areas of conflict.

Read More:
Whole of Gaza facing food crisis
What is the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation?

People in Gaza have told me regularly going to these sites is a last resort because they’re so scared – but food is now so scarce for many there is little choice. Not enough aid is getting through and we’re hearing reports every day of deaths due to hunger. A UN-backed authority on food crises this week reported the “worst case scenario of famine” is now playing out in Gaza.

The UN has decades of experience as humanitarians distributing aid in Gaza yet it seems America is still backing its GHF model run by inexperienced armed security contractors. In light of this, reports that a new plan is being formed for Gaza between the US and Israel don’t instill a huge amount of confidence.