Aurelia Butler

Donald Trump’s global tariff regime is endangering his ambitions of encouraging domestic chip production while hampering US goals of dominating the race to develop world-beating artificial intelligence.Industry insiders, including tech executives, supply chain experts and analysts, said the US president’s escalating trade war is likely to hinder the expansion of American computing power. This is because the measures may drive up costs for building semiconductor fabrication plants and AI data centres in the US.The tech sector’s concern is that the effort to force greater onshoring of the chip and electronics manufacturing will have the unintended effect of holding back the likes of OpenAI, Google and Microsoft which are seeking to beat counterparts in China in building advanced AI.“The economic uncertainty induced by Trump tariffs could become the single largest barrier to American AI supremacy,” said Sravan Kundojjala of consultancy SemiAnalysis.Big Tech groups, including Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Meta have pledged to spend $300bn on the computing infrastructure that underpins AI in 2025 alone. Other projects, such as a $100bn commitment by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company to boost chipmaking capacity in the US, will help to support such ambitionsIndustry figures warned these efforts face uncertainty and disruption as tariffs hit the complex global supply chains that serve large AI computing projects.“I am much more worried about the impact on a single component in a given data centre that may be delayed now because some [overseas] supplier is making a decision about their business,” said a person involved in the development of Stargate, the US $500bn data centre project being led by OpenAI, SoftBank and Oracle.“These are fairly complex builds [which can be] delayed because of a switch for the fans.”Semiconductors and related chipmaking equipment, materials and components were exempted from the US president’s now paused “reciprocal” tariffs announced against dozens of US trading partners.But analysts said that the tariff regime that remains, including the 145 per cent duties on goods from China, would still push up the cost of construction and financing for fabrication plants and AI data centres in the US. Altana, a research group which maps global supply chains said the China tariffs alone mean American data centre developers face an increase in annual costs of more than $11bn.The US announced this week it is investigating the national security implications of importing semiconductors and swaths of related chipmaking equipment, materials and components, as it seeks to force companies to shift production of advanced AI-related hardware to the US.The probe, known as a Section 232 investigation which could take up to 270 days to complete, could result in even more onerous demands on the industry. Trump has already invoked Section 232 powers to impose 25 per cent tariffs on the steel, aluminium and auto sectors.“NOBODY is getting ‘off the hook’”, Trump wrote in a social media post on Sunday, adding his administration will be “taking a look at Semiconductors and the WHOLE ELECTRONICS SUPPLY CHAIN.”However, analysts said imposing new duties on semiconductor imports would prove difficult because most chips enter the US as components already integrated into other products such as smartphones, laptops or the graphics processing units used in AI data centres.That includes Nvidia’s most advanced GPUs, which are used by cloud service providers such as Amazon and Microsoft to train and operate the large language models of companies including OpenAI, Google and Elon Musk’s Grok.Mohammad Ahmad, chief executive of supply chain data analysis platform Z2Data, said that most AI GPUs enter the US in the form of servers or racks of servers, which themselves are assembled in a multi-step process involving several different countries.The GPUs contain chips produced predominantly in Taiwan or South Korea but often sent on for packaging and testing in south-east Asian countries like Malaysia and the Philippines.The chips are then sent either back to Taiwan or to Mexico for printed circuit board assembly, where new components are added before integration into the servers exported to the US for use in AI data centres.“Even if the GPU itself is exempt from tariffs, you are still going to get hit by massive costs in the US if tariffs still apply to the components,” said Ahmad. “The number of product categories is so vast, and the smallest component can bring your supply chain down.”SemiAnalysis’ Kundojjala noted that even with the 32 per cent tariff proposed by the Trump administration for imports from chip manufacturing leader Taiwan, semiconductor production in the US would still be more expensive because the tariffs push up prices for key tools and materials.“The threat of the US kneecapping itself in the ability to rebuild onshore manufacturing is real,” he said. “It will be cheaper to build manufacturing capacity outside the US, while companies with the highest share of US manufacturing stand to lose the most.”An executive at a Taiwanese chip design house that supplies Amazon said that if hefty tariffs are imposed on the sector, his company’s US customers would have to absorb the costs for years to come. “Amazon’s first reaction is to go to their supplier and say, ‘you guys produce this in Taiwan, and that creates extra cost for me, so reduce your prices,’” they said.“[Amazon is] not going to demand that we have the chip made in the US because it will take years to build the capacity and build the product,” the person added. “But we will not lower our prices — if we do, we’ll be screwed by the US government because we would be frustrating their policy of forcing people to make all chips in America.”Geoffrey Gertz, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington, said that the Trump administration still had the capacity to address the risks to its AI industry following the section 232 investigation with “a much broader potential toolkit using government procurement policies, changes to tax laws, and other trade or non-trade policies to adjust the national security risk arising from these imports.”He added: “The question is whether this process ends quickly with a 25 per cent tariff on chips, or whether this will be a more creative policy process that considers a broader range of potential outcomes.”Additional reporting by Melissa Heikkilä in London More

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for freeYour guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the worldSix months ago, the chipmaker Nvidia epitomised what investors liked about the American economy: it had sky-high profits, impressive innovation, and a charismatic — leather jacket-clad — founder, Jensen Huang.Now, however, the company has inadvertently become a symbol of the business nightmares being unleashed by US President Donald Trump. On Wednesday, Nvidia warned of a looming $5.5bn earnings hit from new US export restrictions on the sales of its chips to China. Huang duly dashed to China, in a bid to salvage his deals. But Congress has unleashed a probe. So — unsurprisingly — Nvidia’s stock price has tumbled, along with other tech companies, as investors digest an unpleasant truth: Nvidia’s woes are just one tiny (highly visible) sign of a far wider wave of impending tech disruption from Trump’s trade wars.There are at least three big lessons here. The first is that our modern political economy is haunted by a cultural dissonance. In our everyday lives we tend to act and think as if the digital platforms on which we depend exist in a disembodied, borderless, sphere. In fact, cyber space relies on physical infrastructure we tend to ignore — and the “most complicated supply chains [ever seen] in human history,” as Chris Miller, a Tufts professor, told a military and security conference at Vanderbilt University last week. Those supply chains cross so many borders that “no one [country] is self sufficient — not even close,” Miller added, noting that while Japan dominates the wafer business (with a 56 per cent market share), the US has a 96 per cent share in electronic design automation software and Taiwan controls more than 95 per cent of advanced chipmaking. Meanwhile, China processes more than 90 per cent of many critical minerals and magnets needed to make digital goods. The second lesson is that the White House seems ill-prepared for the consequences of disruptions to this complex supply chain. Consider, say, the issue of critical minerals.This week Beijing imposed export controls over seven such minerals, after Trump imposed 145 per cent tariffs on China. That was no surprise, since 15 years ago China imposed similar curbs on Japan amid a fight.Indeed, the 2010 move sparked such shock in Japan that its companies and government agencies subsequently created massive stockpiles of these minerals and developed some alternative sources, cutting their dependency on China from 90 per cent to 58 per cent.But American entities apparently did not follow suit: at Vanderbilt I was told that American companies have (at best) a few months of stockpiles. Even the Pentagon seems ill-prepared. And while the White House is now seeking alternative sources — from the seabed or places such as Ukraine — that will probably take a few years to materialise, as the Centre for Strategic International Studies warned this week. That means America will “be on the back foot for the foreseeable future”, the CSIS adds.Of course, Trump’s advisers insist this challenge is a temporary one, since America will eventually create a homegrown tech supply chain. That is the argument being advanced by Trump acolytes such as Peter Navarro, Bob Lighthizer and Stephen Miran, and writers such as Ian Fletcher and the three-generational trio of Jesse, Howard and Raymond Richman. Indeed, if you want to understand the impulse behind the country-specific tariffs recently announced by Trump, it is worth looking at the Richmans’ book Balanced Trade, and a subsequent 2011 essay. “Trump’s formula for calculating specific country tariff rates is remarkably similar to our proposal[s],” says Jesse Richman, who cites figures such as Warren Buffett and John Maynard Keynes as the intellectual forefathers of this tariff philosophy.Maybe so. But even if you embrace the theories driving such tariffs — which most modern pundits, including myself, do not — it is profoundly foolish to impose them without careful preparations. Starting a trade war with China without stockpiling critical minerals is a particularly obvious and stupid mistake. So might this force Trump to retreat? Perhaps. Some of Trump’s advisers are ideologues but the president himself is (in) famously transactional.That in itself simply highlights the third key lesson here: the White House seems to have badly underestimated China’s leverage in a trade war. After all, as the CSIS notes, “China [has been] preparing with a wartime mindset” for a conflict for a long time. However, “the United States continues to operate under peacetime conditions”, at least in the corporate world. This is now changing, fast. And that means investors should brace for more tech supply shocks. Nvidia is just the leading edge in a potential storm. [email protected] More

The writer is a historian, philosopher and authorThe surprising thing about Donald Trump’s policies is that people are still surprised by them. Headlines express shock and disbelief whenever Trump assaults another pillar of the global liberal order — for example by supporting Russia’s claims for Ukrainian territory, contemplating the forced annexation of Greenland or unleashing financial chaos with his tariff announcements. Yet his policies are so consistent, and his vision of the world so clearly defined, that by this stage only wilful self-deception can account for any surprise. Supporters of the liberal order see the world as a potentially win-win network of co-operation. They believe that conflict is not inevitable, because co-operation can be mutually beneficial. This belief has deep philosophical roots. Liberals argue that all humans share some common experiences and interests, which can form the basis for universal values, global institutions and international laws. For example, all humans abhor illness and have a common interest in preventing the spread of contagious diseases. So all countries would benefit from the sharing of medical knowledge, global efforts to eradicate epidemics and the establishment of institutions like the World Health Organization that co-ordinate such efforts. Similarly, when liberals look at the flow of ideas, goods and people between countries, they tend to understand it in terms of potential mutual benefits rather than inevitable competition and exploitation. In the Trumpian vision, by contrast, the world is seen as a zero-sum game in which every transaction involves winners and losers. The movement of ideas, goods and people is therefore inherently suspect. In Trump’s world, international agreements, organisations and laws cannot be anything but a plot to weaken some countries and strengthen others — or perhaps a plot to weaken all countries and benefit a sinister cosmopolitan elite. What, then, is Trump’s preferred alternative? If he could reshape the world according to his wishes, what would it look like? Trump’s ideal world is a mosaic of fortresses, where countries are separated by high financial, military, cultural and physical walls. It forgoes the potential of mutually beneficial co-operation, but Trump and like-minded populists argue that it will offer countries more stability and peace.There is, of course, a key component missing from this vision. Thousands of years of history teach us that each fortress would probably want a bit more security, prosperity and territory for itself, at the expense of its neighbours. In the absence of universal values, global institutions and international laws, how would rival fortresses resolve their disputes?Trump’s solution is simple: the way to prevent conflicts is for the weak to do whatever the strong demand. According to this view, conflict occurs only when the weak refuse to accept reality. War is therefore always the fault of the weak. When Trump blamed Ukraine for the Russian invasion, many people couldn’t understand how he could hold such a preposterous view. Some assumed he’d been hoodwinked by Russian propaganda. But there is a simpler explanation. According to the Trumpian worldview, considerations of justice, morality and international law are irrelevant, and the only thing that matters in international relations is power. Since Ukraine is weaker than Russia, it should have surrendered. In the Trumpian vision, peace means surrender, and since Ukraine refused to surrender, the war is its fault. The same logic underlies Trump’s plan for annexing Greenland. According to Trumpian logic, if weak Denmark refuses to cede Greenland to the much stronger US and the US then invades and conquers Greenland by force, Denmark would bear sole responsibility for any violence and bloodshed. There are three obvious problems with the idea that rival fortresses can avoid conflict by accepting reality and cutting deals. First, it exposes the lie behind the promise that in a world of fortresses everyone will feel less threatened, and every country could focus on peacefully developing its own traditions and economy. In fact, the weaker fortresses would soon find themselves swallowed by their stronger neighbours, which would turn from national fortresses into sprawling multinational empires. Trump himself is very clear about his own imperial plans. While he builds walls to protect US territory and resources, he turns a predatory eye to the territory and resources of other countries, including erstwhile allies. Denmark is again a tell-tale example. For decades, it has been one of America’s most reliable allies. After the 9/11 attacks, Denmark fulfilled its Nato treaty obligations enthusiastically. Forty-four Danish soldiers died in Afghanistan — a higher per capita death rate than that suffered by the US itself. Trump didn’t bother saying “thank you”. Instead, he expects Denmark to capitulate to his imperial ambitions. He clearly wants vassals rather than allies. A second problem is that since no fortress can afford to be weak, all of them would be under enormous pressure to strengthen themselves militarily. Resources would be diverted from economic development and welfare programmes to defence. The resulting arms races would decrease everyone’s prosperity without making anyone feel more secure. Third, the Trumpian vision expects the weak to surrender to the strong, but it offers no clear method for determining relative strength. What happens if countries miscalculate, as often happens in history? In 1965 the US was convinced that it was much stronger than North Vietnam, and that by applying enough pressure it could force the government in Hanoi to cut a deal. The North Vietnamese refused to acknowledge American superiority, persevered against immense odds — and won the war. How could the US have known in advance that it actually had the weaker hand?Similarly, in 1914 both Germany and Russia were convinced they would win the war by Christmas. They miscalculated. The war took much longer than anyone expected and involved many unforeseen twists and turns. By 1917 the defeated Tsarist Empire was engulfed by revolution, but Germany was denied victory due to the unanticipated intervention of the US. So should Germany have cut a deal in 1914? Or perhaps it was the Russian tsar who should have acknowledged reality and surrendered to German demands? In the current trade war between China and the US, who should do the sensible thing and surrender in advance? You might respond that instead of seeing the world in such zero-sum terms, it is better for all countries to work together to ensure mutual prosperity. But if you think like that, you are rejecting the basic premises of the Trumpian vision. The Trumpian vision is not a novelty. It has been the predominant vision for thousands of years prior to the rise of the liberal world order. The Trumpian formula has been tried and tested so many times before that we know where it usually leads — to a never-ending cycle of empire-building and war. Even worse, in the 21st century the rival fortresses would have to deal not just with the old threat of war, but with the new challenges of climate change and the rise of superintelligent AI. Without robust international co-operation, there is no way to deal with these global problems. Since Trump has no viable solution for either climate change or an out-of-control AI, his strategy is to simply deny their existence.  Concerns about the stability of the liberal world order mounted after Trump was first elected US president in 2016. Following a decade of confusion and uncertainty, we now have a clear picture of the post-liberal world disorder. The liberal vision of the world as a co-operative network is replaced by the vision of the world as a mosaic of fortresses. This is being realised all around us — walls are going up and drawbridges are raised. If this continues to be implemented, the short-term results will be trade wars, arms races and imperial expansion. The ultimate results will be global war, ecological collapse and out-of-control AI. We can be saddened and outraged by these developments and do our best to reverse them, but there is no longer any excuse for being surprised. As for those wishing to defend Trump’s vision, they should answer one question: how can rival national fortresses peacefully resolve their economic and territorial disputes if there are no universal values or binding international laws? More

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.The second act of Hamilton, the award-winning musical depicting the life of one of America’s founding fathers, features a song entitled “The Room Where It Happens”. The scene focuses on the economic arrangements of the new United States, as agreed by Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton himself in 1790.Fast forward 235 years and it was Donald Trump, Peter Navarro and who else in the room where it happened? Lots of people claim to have been present when the great tariff decisions, announced on April 2, were made, but their inability to explain the rationale behind them suggests they were elsewhere — or that the policies are inexplicable.Perhaps of more interest are suggestions that there were some who were definitely not there, but knew ahead of time of the April 9 decision to pause most of the “reciprocal” tariffs, and acted on that knowledge. It is certainly a short-term challenge if insiders are indeed trading around announcements, but it does not affect long-term stock value much.Long-term investors can take further comfort from the fact that, whoever benefited from the tariff pause, it was brought on by the US bond market. This is a huge problem for Trump 2.0 and his tariff ambitions. The US federal debt is a staggering $36tn — more than 120 per cent of GDP. The tax cuts Trump promised in the election could add $4.5tn to this — taking the debt to 137 per cent. There are claims that the tariffs would raise significant revenue, but it is more likely that there will be fewer imports to tax. Immediately after April 2 bond yields fell — usually a sign that investors think a recession is coming. Well, consuming less is certainly one way to cut the trade deficit.Since then they have risen. This does not mean recession fears have eased. Rather, it means the bond market is eyeing up how many bonds need to be issued and is concerned that this will be an unusual recession — with tariffs fuelling inflation when normally recession would cool it. In short, they want more reward for sticking with US treasuries.I started investing in the early 1980s, and neither my colleagues nor I have witnessed anything like the days before Trump’s partial climbdown on April 9. We have seen crises, crashes and inflation shocks. At times we have disagreed with US economic policy. Never have we gone so far as to call it “deranged”.Maybe Trump will backtrack further. However, even if sensible compromises are found, the events of the past couple of weeks have surely permanently damaged the confidence companies will have trading with the US and the access American companies will have in the rest of the world. So how should investors act? I and others have been warning for some time about the risks of having too much of your wealth in a global index tracker. A dozen years ago US equities made up just under half of the global index; recently that figure has risen to nearer 70 per cent. This seems out of kilter with the US share of world GDP. US companies have often looked more profitable than their peers in other countries, but some of the higher margins may have come from their large domestic market and easy access to overseas markets. Perhaps those days have ended. Reducing exposure to the US and tilting more towards European and Asian equities seems sensible.Some investors might still be tempted to buy fallen US tech stocks on the dip. I have no desire to bite into Apple. It seems extraordinary to me that this huge company had no substantial plan B for moving production outside China. Nervous investors might look at Nvidia and ask why it has not encouraged its Taiwanese chip manufacturer, TSMC, to build a plant in the US much sooner. TSMC is about to start production in Arizona, but this will only make five million chips and is delayed. The faster chips Nvidia needs may come from the next-generation fabrication plants, estimated to cost more than $50bn and maybe opening in 2029 — but Trump is trying to reduce his contribution.Any rally in technology stocks could be challenged by the EU response to tariffs. The “bazooka” may include EU sanctions on US companies. Maybe the EU will also suggest these companies pay some tax. Too many risks? It makes sense to me not to abandon, but to tilt away from the US and superpower multinational tech companies. These will arguably be affected most by a more protectionist world. Instead, you might search out “regional champions” less impacted by tariffs. One example we have held for some time is Wolters Kluwer. This is a Dutch information services company that, among its services, offers digital access to lawyers of European case law.Before all the tariff turmoil, we bought Adyen, a European rival to Visa, and Mitsubishi Electric, which makes defence systems in Japan. We would expect both to benefit from the changed landscape. You might expect a rational tariff supporter (arguably an oxymoron) to go easy on pharmaceutical companies. Moving drug manufacturing to the US will take five years at least, so slapping tariffs on drugs is just going to add to the Medicaid bill. I am holding off on pharmaceuticals for now.Finally, I return to the “cockroach” stocks I discussed last month. These are resilient companies that can survive any disaster or stupidity thrown at them. Telecom stocks, reinsurance holdings and UK property shares have held up well.Confidence and trust were damaged on April 2. Protectionism started during Trump 1.0 and was not unwound under Biden — it just took a leap forward under Trump 2.0. However, good companies last a lot longer than governments, and the strong often get stronger during crises like this. The next few months may see grim downgrades and the start of a recession, but the cockroaches and regional champions will get through it. As noted in Hamilton, the key to “laughin’ in the face of casualties and sorrow” is “thinkin’ past tomorrow”.Simon Edelsten is a fund manager at Goshawk Asset Management More

US business executive Kinu Kelly came to the 137th China Import and Export Fair in Guangzhou this week with one goal: to find Chinese suppliers who could make the goods she needs outside the country.“Now, it’s imperative,” said the product development head from New York. “No exceptions.”Kelly’s eagerness to diversify her supply chains is one way attendees at China’s largest and oldest trade show — known as the Canton Fair — are adapting to a new reality for global commerce after US President Donald Trump raised levies on most Chinese goods to as much as 145 per cent this month.Established in 1957 during the leadership of Mao Zedong to help the Communist country overcome a US trade embargo, the twice yearly Canton Fair has become China’s pre-eminent export show, serving as a crucial link between the country’s sprawling manufacturing base and its eager clients across the globe.But Trump’s steep new levies — which China met with 125 per cent tariffs of its own — far exceeded what most exporters had viewed as a worst-case scenario before he took office, and have threatened to drive a decoupling between the world’s two largest economies.In a notice issued to exhibitors seen by the Financial Times, organisers described the global trade environment as “grim and complex” and warned that they would carry out inspections at the end of each of the fair’s three stages to ensure that exhibitors did not pack up early.Warehouses in China have filled up with goods since Donald Trump unveiled his new tariffs on China, which raised prices for many buyers above what they have been willing to pay More

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for freeYour guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the worldThe Trump administration will begin to impose fees on Chinese-built ships docking in US ports as it tries to spur US shipbuilding in a move likely to escalate trade tensions between Washington and Beijing.The US presented plans in a filing late on Thursday to phase in steep charges on Chinese owned or built ships carrying cargo to US ports over several years.The fees are part of an effort to increase the pressure on China over what Washington argues are unfair trade practices, while boosting the domestic manufacturing of ships. However, they have caused alarm among US exporters.US farmers have expressed dismay that an overly-punitive fee structure would harm their ability to export goods by forcing ships to visit fewer American ports in an attempt to reduce the fees they have to pay.Jamieson Greer, Donald Trump’s trade representative, said in a statement that the US would charge fees to vessel owners and operators from China of $50 per net ton beginning in 180 days, increasing by $30 per net ton over the following three years. Operators of Chinese-built ships would be charged a lower amount.“Ships and shipping are vital to American economic security and the free flow of commerce,” said Greer. “The Trump administration’s actions will begin to reverse Chinese dominance, address threats to the US supply chain, and send a demand signal for US-built ships,” he said.The US will also have “limited restrictions” on foreign vessels carrying liquefied natural gas, but restrictions would not begin for three years and would increase over a 22-year timeframe, Greer’s office said. The fees would be based on the number of voyages to the US, and not applied for each port in the country visited on the same trip, reducing the risk that ships would skip smaller ports and harm US exporters. The US trade representative’s office added that empty ships arriving to export goods from the country would not be charged. More

This article is an on-site version of our FirstFT newsletter. Subscribers can sign up to our Asia, Europe/Africa or Americas edition to get the newsletter delivered every weekday morning. Explore all of our newsletters hereGood morning, happy Friday and welcome back to FirstFT Asia. In today’s newsletter:US accuses Chinese firm of supporting Houthi attacksNvidia’s Jensen Huang visits ChinaJay Powell feels heat on interest ratesA Chinese satellite company linked to the country’s military is supplying Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen with imagery to target US warships and international vessels in the Red Sea, according to American officials.What the US said: The Trump administration has repeatedly warned Beijing that Chang Guang Satellite Technology Co Ltd, a commercial group with ties to the People’s Liberation Army, is providing the Houthis with the intelligence, according to the US officials. A senior state department official told the Financial Times that China had “ignored” the concerns. Tammy Bruce, the state department’s spokesperson, confirmed that CGSTL was “directly supporting Iran-backed Houthi terrorist attacks on US interests”.Beijing’s role in the Red Sea: China has expressed concern about the Houthis’ attacks in the critical maritime route for global trade and the US navy. The Biden administration urged Beijing to use its leverage with Iran to rein in the Houthis — but officials saw no evidence that Beijing had done so. Asked about the US claims about CGSTL, the Chinese embassy in Washington said it was “not aware of the relevant situation”. What is CGSTL?: The Chinese company was established in 2014 as a joint venture between the provincial government in Jilin and a branch of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Changchun, the province’s capital. It has previously come under US scrutiny, and was among groups hit by sanctions in 2023 for allegedly providing high-resolution satellite imagery to Russia’s Wagner Group.“Chang Guang is one of a handful of ‘ostensibly’ commercial Chinese satellite companies that are in fact deeply embedded in the military-civil fusion ecosystem, supplying global surveillance capabilities to both civilian and military customers,” said James Mulvenon, an expert on the Chinese military and intelligence services at Pamir Consulting. Read more about CGSTL’s “close connections” to the Chinese government.Here’s what else we’re keeping tabs on today and over the weekend:Economic data: Japan reports March inflation data and Malaysia publishes first-quarter GDP.US-Iran nuclear talks: US envoy Steve Witkoff is due to hold a second round of talks on Saturday with Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, days after calling for Tehran to “eliminate” its nuclear enrichment programme.How well did you keep up with the news this week? Take our quiz.Five more top stories1. Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang visited Beijing yesterday after new curbs from Washington on the chipmaker’s China sales sent its shares tumbling. According to people familiar with his travel schedule, Huang met the founder of Chinese AI start-up DeepSeek as well as Chinese vice-premier He Lifeng. Read more about the visit. 2. Trump has stepped up his attacks on Federal Reserve chair Jay Powell, accusing him of failing to cut interest rates quickly enough and claiming he would have the right to sack the US’s top central banker. Earlier yesterday Trump said on his Truth Social platform that “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!” Read the full story.3. Japan’s chief trade negotiator will leave Washington without an immediate agreement after meeting Trump as part of efforts to negotiate the removal of stiff US tariffs. Japanese officials said the unanticipated personal meeting with the US president was a possible sign of the president’s keenness to hammer out trade deals.4. A US federal judge has ruled Google illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly in digital advertising. The court’s decision marked the latest antitrust defeat for the technology giant that could result in it being forced to divest parts of its business.5. Chinese tea company Chagee surged on its Wall Street debut yesterday, defying concerns about weak investor demand for new US listings and the intensifying trade war between the world’s two largest economies. Shares in the Shanghai-based chain rose as much as 49 per cent on its first day of trading on Nasdaq. Read more about Chagee’s strong debut.The Big Read© Carolina Vargas/FT montage/Getty ImagesThe dollar, which normally strengthens in times of financial and economic strife, instead nosedived after Trump unveiled his “reciprocal” tariffs this month. Coupled with the administration’s hostility towards historical allies, investors have been forced to confront the possibility that the currency’s dominance might fade — or even end.We’re also reading . . . Chart of the dayChinese officials and businesses are seeking a rapprochement with the EU to compensate for the loss of the US market amid Donald Trump’s trade war. But a reset in EU-China ties would need to overcome deep differences over China’s huge trade surpluses, the barriers to accessing its own market and Beijing’s tacit support for Russia’s war in Ukraine.Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.Take a break from the newsIt is easier to acknowledge the less good parts of yourself when you’re told they were pre-determined by the stars, writes Jemima Kelly. Follow the FT’s resident contrarian as she tries to make sense of astrology.© Tabby Booth More

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.Chinese tea company Chagee surged on its Wall Street debut on Thursday, defying concerns about weak investor demand for new US listings and the intensifying trade war between the world’s two largest economies.Shares in the Shanghai-based chain, which specialises in coffee-style drinks such as “teaspressos” and oolong “teapuccinos”, rose as much as 49 per cent on its first day of trading on Nasdaq. The shares retreated during the afternoon to close 14 per cent higher.The listing made 30-year-old chief executive Junjie Zhang a billionaire, with his 19.9 per cent stake in Chagee now worth just under $1.1bn.Chagee sold 14.7mn shares at $28 each, raising $411mn, Bloomberg data show. The stock opened at $33.75, giving the company a fully diluted market capitalisation of more than $6bn. Thursday’s rally comes days after Donald Trump’s administration increased tariffs on Chinese goods to about 125 per cent, stepping up a trade war that economists expect to hit global economic growth.Chagee’s initial public offering is the largest Chinese listing in the US since electric vehicle group Zeekr raised $411mn last May, according to Renaissance Capital, a provider of IPO research. It also marks one of the most successful New York debuts this year.Bankers had expected the US IPO market to explode back to life under a Republican administration following a three-year dry spell, but several closely watched listings, including liquefied natural gas exporter Venture Global and data centre operator CoreWeave, earlier this year met with lukewarm investor interest.Several other large offerings were postponed shortly after Trump’s so-called “liberation day” tariff announcements on April 2, though broader market turbulence had not stopped “a wave” of 24, mostly microcap, Chinese companies from listing in the US this year, said Matthew Kennedy, a senior strategist at Renaissance.Chagee’s prospectus lists “trade disputes” and changing US “foreign investment laws” as crucial risk factors.Goldman Sachs this week highlighted growing concerns that Trump may force Chinese companies to delist from US stock exchanges, writing in a note to clients: “In an extreme scenario, US investors may have to liquidate $800bn worth of holdings in Chinese stocks.”A person close to Nasdaq told the Financial Times the exchange had not heard from the White House on the matter.Some market participants had questioned why Chagee, which hopes to expand overseas, chose the US, given rival Chinese tea companies Guming and Mixue have surged since they went public in Hong Kong in February and March, respectively.Those concerns appeared overblown on Thursday as Chagee’s stock surged, however.Chagee’s business in China was booming, according to the company’s IPO prospectus. It ran 6,440 tea houses — 97 per cent of which are in China — at the end of last year, up 83 per cent on 2023, while net revenues rose 167.4 per cent year on year to just under $1.7bn. Net income rose to $344mn.US coffee chain Starbucks, in comparison, has 7,600 stores across China.Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and investment bank China International Capital acted as lead underwriters.CDH Investment Management, RWC Asset Management, Allianz Global Investors Asia Pacific and Orix Asia Asset Management had indicated their “nonbinding” interest in purchasing 51.7 per cent of the shares set to go on sale, Chagee said in its prospectus.About 9 per cent of Chinese tea by volume was exported to the US last year as suppliers rushed to beat expected levies under Trump. Chinese tea shipped to the US are set to face a tariff above 100 per cent.“Serious [US] tea drinkers will be seriously impacted,” said Dan Bolton, tea editor at STiR Coffee and Tea Magazine, adding the drink had historically been one of China’s “greatest ambassadors” and “paved the way for trade and negotiations”. More