More stories

  • in

    Trump Tariffs Leave No Country Room for Exemptions, U.S. Tells Canada

    In talks aimed at finding common ground on tariffs, Canadian officials were told April 2 will be a crucial day in setting the Trump tariff doctrine, and any relief could come later.Top U.S. representatives told a Canadian delegation on Thursday that there was no way Canada, or any other country in President Trump’s cross hairs, could avoid a new round of sweeping tariffs on April 2, according to two people with direct knowledge of their conversation.Any negotiations to remove some tariffs or even strike a more comprehensive trade deal would come after that date, American officials told their Canadian counterparts at a meeting in Washington, D.C. Mr. Trump, through an executive order, has ordered an in-depth examination of trade between the United States and several partners, including Canada, and the imposition of “reciprocal” tariffs beginning on April 2, to match surcharges other countries impose on U.S. goods.The United States was represented in the meeting by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Canada was represented by Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc, Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Canada’s ambassador to the United States, Kirsten Hillman.The Canadian officials left the meeting, which lasted more than an hour, with a clearer — but not necessarily more optimistic — sense of what lies ahead, according to two of them with direct knowledge of what transpired, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to brief the press about it.While the Trump officials made clear their pledge on reciprocal tariffs, Mr. Trump has shown a repeated penchant for vowing to press ahead with tariffs only to decide at the last minute to back down or grant a reprieve.The meeting was a an effort to inject a calmer approach to the relationship between the two countries, even as Mr. Trump on Thursday continued to level threats against Canada’s sovereignty.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

    Gavin Newsom’s Podcast Hosts Steve Bannon, Covering Musk, Trump and Taxes

    The California governor hosted one of the architects of President Trump’s political movement on his new podcast, and their friendly sparring revealed a few points of agreement.Gov. Gavin Newsom of California is one of the most powerful Democrats in America, but this week he used his perch not to push back on the Trump administration but to instead podcast with an intellectual architect of the MAGA movement: Stephen K. Bannon.Their fast-paced, hourlong discussion was both good-natured and peppered with predictable disagreements. But the conversation revealed some curious policy overlap and potentially exposed each man’s views to supporters of the other.“This is part of the process to unwind you from being a globalist to make you a populist nationalist,” Mr. Bannon said. “It’s a long journey.”Mr. Newsom seemed amused: “This is part of the deprogramming, is it?”But Mr. Bannon didn’t so much use the opportunity to press Mr. Newsom on his positions as he did to advance his own perspective during their cursory coverage of some of the most complex issues facing the nation and the world.The podcast was the latest episode of “This Is Gavin Newsom,” a new show in which he has hosted several prominent conservatives. The Bannon conversation focused on economic issues, avoiding culture-war topics that dominated an earlier episode in which he broke with other leaders of his party in speaking out on transgender athletes.The tenor with Mr. Bannon was set early on, when Mr. Newsom did not push back on his guest’s repeated false claims that President Trump won the 2020 election. The governor does not appear to view the discussions as fact-checking sessions: He interjected only intermittently, including when Mr. Bannon referred to Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as “Pocahontas.”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

    30 Charts That Show How Everything Changed in March 2020

    We left a world we might not get back to. Many things that we took for granted never returned to their former levels, with no guarantee they ever will. The pandemic took a hammer to society and left us struggling to climb back from shutdowns, from fear and from illness. It can be easy, in […] More

  • in

    Shaming Child-Free People Doesn’t Raise the Birthrate

    On Thursday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new data on fertility trends from 1990 to 2023, showing that the birthrate declined slightly in 2023 to 1.62 from 1.66 in 2022. The demographer Jennifer Sciubba summarized the statistics in her newsletter, noting that overall, fertility has declined 22 percent since 1990 in the United States but that “the real decline is much more recent, taking a turn around 2007, just before the Great Recession.”The biggest drop in fertility is among teenagers, Sciubba writes, and the birthrate among women over 30 has increased, with a particular surge in births among women over 40. Sciubba predicts that the birthrate overall will plateau, continuing to hover between 1.55 and 1.7 for the next decade.Being below replacement birthrate presents economic challenges, including to Social Security, though this may not yet be cause for immediate alarm. I don’t know how you can argue that fewer teenage parents is a bad thing, since very few teenagers are emotionally or financially equipped to raise children.I’m not worried that the United States is going to become South Korea. That country, which has the world’s lowest birthrate at 0.75, is the subject of a recent article by The New Yorker’s Gideon Lewis-Kraus, who does a good job describing what a truly anti-natal society looks like. A 20-something South Korean woman tells him: “People call moms ‘bugs’ or ‘parasites.’ If your kids make a little noise, someone will glare at you.”Governmental and societal pressure has not really worked to increase the birthrate in South Korea. It’s a society that enforces traditional gender roles and that blames feminists and working women for the decline in fertility. “The insinuation that women are at fault for the demographic crisis has turned gender friction into gender war,” Lewis-Kraus writes, with women swearing off men entirely with the 4B movement rather than become tradwives.In the United States, we see our own very muted version of this dynamic playing out. Religious conservatives slam “childless cat ladies,” and in return, some liberal young women are going “boy sober.” Again, I do not predict that this is going to greatly affect the birthrate in the near term; the United States is a much more gender-progressive and diverse country than South Korea is.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

    The Thing That Could Be Trump’s Undoing

    If there are Martian scholars examining the United States right now, they might be puzzling over the great Trump paradox.It’s that President Trump is doing immense long-term damage to the United States by undermining democratic norms, vandalizing the federal government and siding with alleged war criminals in the Kremlin, yet if support for him falls, I doubt it will have anything to do with all this. Rather, it may be … egg prices.American voters have been, to my mind, surprisingly comfortable with a felon who pardons other, violent felons and engages in reckless attacks on our rule of law and the global system that we created in 1945 and that has hugely enriched and empowered us. Trump doubled down on his, er, “cultural revolution” in his speech to Congress a few days ago, and about three-quarters of those who watched the speech approved of it to some degree (largely because those who watched were disproportionately Republican).Attacks by Democrats on Trump as undemocratic never got much traction among working-class voters; they cared less about issues at 30,000 feet and more about economic and cultural concerns at three feet. So in a strange way, what may impede Trump and preserve American democracy is not popular revulsion at the historic damage that he is doing to America but rather alarm at the myriad banal impacts on our daily lives because of Trumpian mismanagement.Trump’s tariffs, even if partly delayed, presumably will raise consumer prices and hurt the financial markets and thus our retirement savings; they will create a mess of supply chains for manufacturing goods. One gauge of what to expect: The latest estimate from the Atlanta Federal Reserve is an astonishing 2.4 percent decline in American G.D.P. in the first quarter of 2025.Americans may put up with a president calling journalists enemies of the people, may even accept a president pardoning felons who club police officers while trying to overturn an election. But historically, they’ve not been very forgiving of presidents who preside over recessions.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 Tariffs by Whim Keep Allies and Markets Off Balance

    On Tuesday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick went on Fox Business to reassure nervous allies and even more twitchy investors that the Trump administration was negotiating a deal to avoid tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada, and that the president is “gonna work something out with them.”“It’s not gonna be a pause” for Mr. Trump’s on-again, off-again tariffs, he insisted. “None of that pause stuff.”On Thursday, the world got what the president characterized as more of that pause stuff.Mr. Trump’s announcement that he had a good conversation with Mexico’s president, and would delay most tariffs until April 2, was only the latest example of the punish-by-whim nature of the second Trump presidency. A few hours after the Mexico announcement, Canada got a break too, even as Mr. Trump on social media accused its departing prime minister, Justin Trudeau, of using “the Tariff problem” to “run again for Prime Minister.”“So much fun to watch!” he wrote.Indeed, it appears that Mr. Trump is having enormous fun turning tariffs on and off like tap water. But others are developing a case of Trump-induced whiplash, not least investors, who sent stock prices down again on Thursday amid the uncertainty over what Mr. Trump’s inconstancy means for the global economy. (A later rise in stock futures pointed to rosier expectations for Friday.)When the White House finally released the text of Mr. Trump’s orders on Thursday evening, it appeared that some of the tariffs — those covered in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that Mr. Trump negotiated and celebrated in his first term — were indeed permanently suspended. Other tariffs were merely paused.Most everyone involved was confused, which may well have been the point.As Mr. Trump hands down tariff determinations and then pulls them back for a month or so, world leaders call to plead their case, a bit like vassal states appealing to a larger power. Chief executives put in calls as well, making it clear that Mr. Trump is the one you need to deal with if you are bringing in car parts from Canada or chips from China.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 Shifts From Lifting Up America’s Neighbors to Hurting Them

    When the United States signed a free-trade agreement with Canada and Mexico more than 30 years ago, the premise was that partnering with two other thriving economies would also benefit America.This week, President Trump abruptly scrapped that idea. He imposed a sweeping 25 percent tariff on the roughly $1 trillion of imports that Mexico and Canada send into the United States each year as part of that North American trade pact. Those tariffs are expected to significantly raise costs for Canadian and Mexican exports, undermining their economies and likely tipping them into recession.Mr. Trump’s decision to unwind decades of economic integration raises big questions about the future of North America and the industries that have been built around the idea of an economically integrated continent. While some factories in Canada and Mexico might move to the United States to avoid tariffs, the levies will also raise costs for American consumers and manufacturers that have come to depend on materials from their North American neighbors.“This is a day where the United States stopped seeing trade as force for mutual benefit, and began seeing it as a tool of economic warfare,” said Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He added that the levies were “a fundamental attack on the economic well being of our closest neighbors.”Mr. Trump suggested on Wednesday that this arrangement could be long-lived, as he gave automakers who were abiding by the terms of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or U.S.M.C.A., only a one month reprieve to prepare for the tariffs. Trump officials said that the president expected to issue more tariffs on Canada and Mexico next month, when he announces what he is calling “reciprocal” tariff measures.Howard Lutnick at Mr. Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress.Eric Lee/The New York TimesWe 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

    Macy’s Signals a Rocky Year Ahead as Trade War Looms

    The largest department store chain in the U.S., like other retailers recently, warned that consumers may be more cautious with their money in the months ahead.Macy’s, the largest department store in the United States, saw slightly improved sales across all of its stores during the holiday season, but like other retailers it warned of a potentially rocky year ahead. Macy’s said comparable sales at stores that it owns were down 1.1 percent in its fiscal fourth quarter, which ended Feb. 1. Across all of Macy’s nameplates, which include Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury, as well as its licensed business and online marketplace, sales rose 0.2 percent, the best result in many quarters.Macy’s entered the holiday season facing tough challenges, including more cost-conscious consumers, weakening profitability and a bizarre accounting error. It is in the midst of a turnaround plan that includes closing underperforming locations and improving its remaining stores with more staffing and better merchandise. It has closed about 66 of 150 planned stores so far. While Macy’s sees signs of optimism, the forecast it offered Wall Street showed that it expects to bring in less revenue than it did last fiscal year, in part because of the store closures. The retailer said it expects net sales to be $21 to $21.4 billion, down from the $22.3 billion this past year. It expects comparable sales to fall as much as 2 percent.David Swartz, a senior equity analyst at Morningstar, cautioned that investors and analysts like himself “need to see more” in order to be convinced that the department store’s strategy to reverse its fortunes is really working.“When you own hundreds of stores, some of them are going to be really good and some of them in the middle and some of them are terrible,” he said, adding that “the fact that the better stores are performing fairly well does not really tell you that much about the health of the whole company, unfortunately.”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