More stories

  • in

    The Guardian view on Donald Trump’s tariffs: protectionism is no longer taboo in politics | Editorial

    Donald Trump’s broadside against America’s three largest trading partners, with whom it runs a $500bn trade deficit, should surprise no one. Since 2016, both Mr Trump and Mr Biden have departed from established norms in international trade. The two presidencies diverged significantly in approach: Mr Biden emphasised systemic reform while Mr Trump relied on rhetoric and theatrics. Although both administrations faced criticism for driving up costs through tariffs and industrial policy, global events were primarily behind rising prices.Mr Trump’s self-declared fondness for tariffs is closely tied to his ability to authorise them unilaterally, bypassing Congress under claims of national security. This may explain his recent announcement of plans to impose 25% tariffs on all goods from Canada and Mexico, and an additional 10% on Chinese imports, unless these countries address alleged issues of illegal immigration and fentanyl smuggling. The US president-elect clearly sees tariffs as more than mere policies; they are a calculated means of gaining leverage. By threatening to impose them, Mr Trump is signalling a desire to negotiate – but only on his terms.Mr Trump’s trade tactics reshaped relations with Mexico and Canada, setting the stage for a 2026 review of the 2019 agreement he secured with the US’s neighbours. However, his approach faltered with China. Despite the first Trump administration imposing $112bn in tariffs and threatening to levy $500bn more, Beijing negotiated a 2020 trade deal but did not, after Covid, meet its commitments, leaving Mr Biden to continue the confrontation.Trade involves sacrifices to achieve gains. Cheaper consumer goods might lead to fewer domestic jobs or lower wages in certain industries. Increased imports can mean a reduction in local manufacturing. Running a trade deficit is not necessarily harmful, but it requires an activist policy to ensure that the pain is not geographically concentrated. For decades, the neoliberal economic order championed a vision of a borderless world, where goods and services flowed freely with minimal barriers. This ideal dominated global trade policy and corporate strategy, rendering “protectionism” taboo in mainstream debate. However, since the global financial crash, scepticism about globalisation has steadily grown.An increasing focus on justice, sustainability and better working conditions has reshaped trade priorities worldwide. There has also been a growing shift toward producing goods closer to home, either through increased domestic manufacturing or by developing nearby supply chains. However, wealthy nations, led by the US, have consistently resisted granting poorer countries the flexibility to modernise, while claiming exceptions to rules they enforce on others. During the pandemic, the US prioritised its pharmaceutical industry profits over global vaccine access, blocking life-saving doses for developing countries.Globalisation’s decline began long before Mr Trump, with his protectionist policies reflecting rather than driving this shift. The retreat from globalisation will probably continue, fuelled by geopolitical tensions, post-pandemic supply chain restructuring, and rising demands for equitable trade. Mr Trump’s policies, however, will make an uncertain world even more volatile. His suspicion of win-win deals will make it harder for policymakers around the world who seek to balance their national interests with the need for global cooperation. More

  • in

    Trump’s tariff threat sets stage for bitter global trade war

    Donald Trump’s threat to impose steep tariffs on goods imported into the US has set the stage for a bitter global trade war, according to trade experts and economists, with consumers and companies warned to brace for steep costs.The president-elect announced on Monday night that he intended to hit Canada, Mexico and China with tariffs on all their exports to the US – until they reduce migration and the flow of drugs into the country.As officials in the three countries scrambled to respond, Keith Rockwell, a former director at the World Trade Organization, predicted that Trump’s move could spark a trade war. “The United States exports hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods to these countries,” he said. “Anyone who expects that they will stand pat and not retaliate has not been paying attention.”China promptly suggested that both sides would lose from an escalation in economic tensions. “No one will win a trade war or a tariff war,” Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson at the Chinese embassy in Washington, wrote on X, formerly Twitter. Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s deputy prime minister, and Dominic LeBlanc, its public safety minister, touted the country’s “balanced and mutually beneficial” economic ties with the US.Hours after Trump issued the announcements on Truth Social, his social media platform, economists at ING released research that estimated his broader campaign proposals on trade – including a universal tariff of between 10% and 20% on all goods imported from overseas, and a 60% tariff on all goods from China – could cost each US consumer up to $2,400 each year.“This potential increase in consumer costs and inflation could have widespread economic implications, particularly in an economy where consumer spending accounts for 70% of all activity,” James Knightley of ING said.It is unclear whether Trump, who has described “tariff” as “the most beautiful word in the dictionary”, will follow through on this plan. Tariffs – levies paid for by the company importing foreign goods – are not popular with voters, even Trump’s voters. A Harris poll conducted for the Guardian found 69% of people believe they will increase the prices they pay.And while he threatened universal tariffs while campaigning for the White House, this proposal – a 25% duty on all goods from Mexico and Canada, and a 10% duty on China, on top of existing duties – is more targeted.“Trump’s statements clearly herald the dawn of a new era of US trade protectionism that will sweep many US trading partners into its ambit,” said Eswar Prasad, former head of the IMF’s China division. “Such tariffs will have a disruptive effect on US as well as international trade, as countries around the world jockey to soften the blow of US tariffs on their own economies and try to find ways to evade the tariffs.”On the campaign trail, Trump and his allies claimed such measures would help strengthen the US economy and “make America wealthy again”. Many economists took a different view, warning that sweeping tariffs would increase the price of goods for US consumers, and risk prompting other nations to retaliate, hitting US businesses exporting goods to the world.But in his announcements on Tuesday, Trump did not focus on the economic benefits has claimed tariffs would bring. Instead, he blamed Mexico and Canada for “ridiculous Open Borders” he alleged were prompting an immigration crisis, and China for “the massive amounts of drugs, in particular Fentanyl” arriving in the US – and pledged to impose tariffs on these countries until they addressed his concerns.“Trump apparently sees tariffs as a tool with broad uses in tackling a variety of malign external factors that have adverse effects on the US economy, society and national security,” noted Prasad, now a professor of trade policy at Cornell University.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, who endorsed Trump, wrote on X that the president-elect “is going to use tariffs as a weapon to achieve economic and political outcomes which are in the best interest of America”, in a bid to deliver on his “America First” policy strategy.Making such announcements on social media “is a great way for Trump to effect foreign policy changes even before he takes office”, Ackman claimed.As Trump builds out his broader trade strategy, Rockwell, formerly of the WTO, said a 10% universal tariff would me “more manageable” than 20%. “But if you raise it 20%, that creates a different dynamic,” he said. “You’re going to see much, much less demand for these products coming in.“There will also be, without any doubt, retaliation,” he added. European officials “have got their list drawn up”, he said. “It’s the most closely guarded secret in Brussels, but it’s drawn up.”Countries will hit back with tariffs on “political pinch points”, Rockwell predicted. Under the last Trump administration, the European Union targeted US exports including Harley-Davidson bikes, Levi’s jeans and Kentucky bourbon. More

  • in

    Trump’s Tariff Threat Roils Global Markets

    The dollar gained and investors sold off stocks after the president-elect promised to levy new restrictions on the United States’ biggest trade partners. President-elect Donald Trump’s economic policy is already roiling global markets.Brendan McDermid/ReutersThe other Trump trade Investors and policymakers are getting a dose of Trumponomics déjà vu this morning.Global stocks are falling, and the dollar is climbing. The volatility comes after President-elect Donald Trump’s vow to impose tariffs on the United States’ biggest trading partners — Canada, China and Mexico — on Day 1 in office in an apparent effort to clamp down on the flow of cross-border drugs, like fentanyl, and migrants.The latest:Trump wants to impose 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico “on ALL products coming into the United States,” he said on Truth Social. He also wants an “additional” 10 percent tariff on imports from China, which Trump blames for the fentanyl crisis, a charge that Beijing has repeatedly disputed.The Canadian dollar and Mexican peso fell sharply against the dollar. Europe, Japan and South Korea weren’t even mentioned in Trump’s announcement, but stocks have fallen there, too. That suggests rising fears that a new trade war could scramble global supply chains and dent profits.Automakers are some of the hardest hit stocks, with Volkswagen, Stellantis and Nissan, which run manufacturing operations in Mexico, all down.Today’s losses have reversed some of yesterday’s “Bessent bounce” rally. Investors were relieved after Trump picked Scott Bessent, the market-friendly hedge fund mogul, to run the Treasury Department.But the reverberations show that it’s Trump calling the shots. The president-elect has made no secret of his desire to use tariffs to further his America-first agenda, and he has yet to announce his pick to be U.S. Trade Representative. (Another tariff supporter, Robert Lighthizer, is in the running.)Trump’s latest threats may be just a negotiating tactic. That’s the belief of some Trump backers, including Bill Ackman, the billionaire financier. But they are a reminder of how Trump set off alarm bells across diplomatic channels and international markets during his first term often via social media posts. “Waking up to check the tweets for any policy announcements could become the norm,” Mohit Kumar, an economist at Jefferies, wrote in a note this morning.Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada spoke to Trump about trade and border security after the president-elect’s announcement, The Times reported. China pushed back. “No one will win a trade war,” a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington said in a statement.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump’s Dramatic Tariff Plan, and a Cease-Fire Takes Shape in Lebanon

    Listen to and follow “The Headlines”Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube | iHeartRadioSalman Masood and Jessica Metzger and On Today’s Episode:Trump Plans Tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China That Could Cripple Trade, by Ana Swanson, Matina Stevis-Gridneff and Simon RomeroJack Smith Seeks Dismissal of Two Federal Cases Against Trump, by Alan Feuer, Charlie Savage and Devlin BarrettTop Trump Aide Accused of Asking for Money to ‘Promote’ Potential Appointees, by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan SwanNetanyahu Signals Openness to Cease-Fire With Hezbollah, Officials Say, by Ronen Bergman, Patrick Kingsley and Jack NicasPakistan Deploys Army in Its Capital as Protesters and Police Clash, by Salman MasoodOzempic Could Crush the Junk Food Industry. But It Is Fighting Back, by Tomas WeberWho Needs Congress When You Have Cameo?, by Joseph BernsteinPresident-elect Donald J. Trump said that he would impose tariffs on all products coming into the United States from Canada, Mexico and China on his first day in office.Edmund D. Fountain for The New York TimesTune in, and tell us what you think at theheadlines@nytimes.com. For corrections, email nytnews@nytimes.com.For more audio journalism and storytelling, download the New York Times Audio app — available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter. More

  • in

    Trump Plans Tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico That Could Cripple Trade

    President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Monday that he would impose tariffs on all products coming into the United States from Canada, Mexico and China on his first day in office, a move that would scramble global supply chains and impose heavy costs on companies that rely on doing business with some of the world’s largest economies.In a post on Truth Social, Mr. Trump mentioned a caravan of migrants making its way to the United States from Mexico, and said he would use an executive order to levy a 25 percent tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico until drugs and migrants stopped coming over the border.“This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!” the president-elect wrote.“Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long simmering problem,” he added. “We hereby demand that they use this power, and until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price!”In a separate post, Mr. Trump also threatened an additional 10 percent tariff on all products from China, saying that the country was shipping illegal drugs to the United States.“Representatives of China told me that they would institute their maximum penalty, that of death, for any drug dealers caught doing this but, unfortunately, they never followed through,” he said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    COP29 Climate Talks Get a Deal on Money, but Only After a Fight

    The financing plan, which calls for $300 billion per year in support for developing nations, was immediately assailed as inadequate by a string of delegates.Negotiators at this year’s United Nations climate summit struck an agreement early on Sunday in Baku, Azerbaijan, to triple the flow of money to help developing countries adopt cleaner energy and cope with the effects of climate change. Under the deal, wealthy nations pledged to reach $300 billion per year in support by 2035, up from a current target of $100 billion.Independent experts, however, have placed the needs of developing countries much higher, at $1.3 trillion per year. That is the amount they say must be invested in the energy transitions of lower-income countries, in addition to what those countries already spend, to keep the planet’s average temperature rise under 1.5 degrees Celsius. Beyond that threshold, scientists say, global warming will become more dangerous and harder to reverse.The deal struck at the annual U.N.-sponsored climate talks calls on private companies and international lenders like the World Bank to cover the hundreds of billions in the shortfall. That was seen by some as a kind of escape clause for rich countries.As soon as the Azerbaijani hosts banged the gavel and declared the deal done, Chandni Raina, the representative from India, the world’s most populous country, tore into them, saying the process had been “stage managed.”“It is a paltry sum,” Ms. Raina said. “I am sorry to say that we cannot accept it. We seek a much higher ambition from developed countries.” She called the agreement “nothing more than an optical illusion.”Speakers from one developing country after another, from Bolivia to Nigeria to Fiji, echoed Ms. Raina’s remarks and assailed the document in furious statements.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Keir Starmer played the China card in Rio – and sent a message to a hawkish Donald Trump | Simon Tisdall

    Both were lawyers before they became politicians, but that’s where the similarities between Keir Starmer and Richard Nixon end. The former US president resigned in disgrace at the height of the Watergate corruption scandal exactly 50 years ago. Britain’s prime minister may have been unwise to accept free tickets from Arsenal FC – but he’s not in Nixon’s league.Except, perhaps, was there just a touch of Tricky Dicky about Starmer’s meeting with China’s president, Xi Jinping, at last week’s G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro? Watergate aside, Nixon is famous for his groundbreaking 1972 visit to Beijing, which opened the way to normalised relations between the US and Red China.Nixon’s surprise démarche had another purpose: to show the Soviet Union, America’s cold war adversary, that the US and China could act in alliance against Moscow, which broke with Beijing in 1961. Nixon’s move, known as “playing the China card”, had significant geopolitical consequences. Starmer, dealt a weaker hand, had no aces up his sleeve.All the same, the prime minister’s eagerness to reset what, under previous governments, became a very rocky relationship was striking. Starmer said he sought “consistent, durable, respectful, predictable” ties. “A strong relationship is important for both of our countries and for the broader international community,” he said.It was a pointed statement. Doubtless Starmer was thinking primarily about boosting UK trade, investment and growth. But were his words also designed, Nixon-style, to send a message to a third party – namely, Donald Trump?skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe US president-elect is a vociferous foe of China, which he believes threatens American global hegemony. He plans to impose sweeping, punitive tariffs on Chinese imports, re-igniting the trade war he began in his first term. Conservative backers, such as commentator Ionut Popescu, egg him on. Containment of China must be “the driving principle of US foreign policy in the new cold war”, Popescu wrote.Leading China hawks are being offered senior positions in the new administration, which takes office on 20 January. They include Marco Rubio as secretary of state. As a senator, Rubio railed against human rights abuses in Xinjiang and the suppression of Hong Kong’s democracy – dramatised by last week’s jailings of activists and the show trial of British media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai. Rubio reviles “the wealth and corrupt activities of the leadership of the Chinese Communist party”.Trump’s choice of Pete Hegseth, a rightwing TV personality, as defence secretary, and Michael Waltz, a fierce defender of Taiwan’s independence, as national security adviser, reinforces a strong anti-China bias. These men constitute what the New York Times calls “a new class of cold warrior, guns pointed at China”. And, like Trump, they will be unimpressed by Starmer’s cosying up to Xi.Starmer surely knows that, which makes his repositioning all the more interesting. Many in Britain, Labour and Tories, share American concerns. A House of Commons Library briefing in July traced a “sharp deterioration” in China ties in recent years, pointing in particular to Beijing’s “expansive” foreign policy and cyber-attacks and espionage in the UK. It noted Britain formally deems China a “systemic competitor” and “the greatest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security”.Speaking in Rio, Xi was adamant that his stance on Taiwan, democracy and other core issues would not change. But he also offered reassurance with a smiley face, stressing that he sought “stable, healthy and sustainable” relations with the west – words that, like Starmer’s, may have been partly aimed at Trump.Very deep differences remain. But Chinese and UK geostrategic interests may actually be converging in the face of Trump’s prospectively disruptive, costly, dangerous return. Climate change and post-pandemic health are two key areas of cooperation. Ongoing confrontation between the world’s top two economic and military powers would not be to Britain’s advantage. If Trump, the disquieting American, cannot be befriended and influenced, perhaps Xi can?Other countries are making similar calculations. Germany, with its huge Chinese exports, wants to keep things friendly. The EU prefers “de-risking” to open, Trump-like ruptures, though it is divided and inconsistent. Hungary and Greece hold China close, Lithuania feuds. Europe as a whole would suffer greatly in any US-initiated global tariff war.Emmanuel Macron was another leader making nice with Xi in Rio. France’s president raised China’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine, then claimed, mysteriously, to have achieved a “convergence of views”. Distancing himself from Trump, Macron said France would continue to promote European strategic autonomy, “precisely to be able to talk with China in complete independence”.Not to be left out, Anthony Albanese, Australia’s prime minister, set aside thorny bilateral disputes and, like Starmer, shook hands with Xi on a new start. Australia, too, valued steady “calibrated” ties. Trade was flourishing again, Albanese said. “Dialogue is critical, and we’ve made encouraging progress.” Jolly Xi hugged him right back (figuratively speaking).All this must be music to Xi’s ears. He has long dreamed of China supplanting the US as the 21st century’s foremost superpower. Beset by economic problems and a “wolf warrior diplomacy” backlash, he has launched a foreign charm offensive. Last month, he patched up a festering Himalayan border dispute with India, an old rival wooed by the US.Trump’s victory was initially assessed as bad news for China. It may be the exact opposite. He’s unpredictable. His views change. But if “America first” means putting everyone else last, if Trump’s isolationism, aggressive nationalism and trade war threats end up screwing America’s allies, then those allies, including Starmer, may ultimately swallow their misgivings and look elsewhere for reliable friends – if only to achieve some balance. If Xi’s dream of dominance comes true, he will know who to thank. Donald Trump: Making China Great Again. More

  • in

    China’s Hacking Reached Deep Into U.S. Telecoms

    The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said hackers listened to phone calls and read texts by exploiting aging equipment and seams in the networks that connect systems.China’s recent breach of the innermost workings of the U.S. telecommunications system reached far deeper than the Biden administration has described, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said on Thursday, with hackers able to listen in on telephone conversations and read text messages.“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” the Democratic chairman, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, a former telecommunications executive, said in an interview on Thursday.Mr. Warner said he had been stunned by the scope and depth of the breach, which was engineered over the past year by a group linked to Chinese intelligence that has been named Salt Typhoon by Microsoft, whose cybersecurity team discovered the hack in the summer. Government officials have been struggling to understand what China obtained and how it might have been able to monitor conversations held by a number of well-connected Americans, including President-elect Donald J. Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance.At first, the F.B.I. and other investigators believed that China’s hackers used stolen passwords to focus mostly on the system that taps telephone conversations and texts under court orders. It is administered by a number of the nation’s telecommunications firms, including the three largest — Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile. But in recent days, investigators have discovered how deeply China’s hackers had moved throughout the country by exploiting aging equipment and seams in the networks connecting disparate systems.U.S. officials said that since the hack was exposed, the Chinese intruders had seemingly disappeared, suspending their intrusion so their full activity could not be discovered. But Mr. Warner said it would be wrong to conclude that the Chinese had been ousted from the nation’s telecommunications system, or that investigators even understood how deeply they were embedded.“We’ve not found everywhere they are,” Mr. Warner said.The committee has received briefings from the government on the hack, and Mr. Warner has had conversations with telecommunications executives.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More