Politics and Government

Latest story

125 Shares37 Views

Trumps Threatens Tariffs Feb. 1 on Canada, Mexico and China

by

When President Trump did not follow through with his promise to immediately impose new tariffs on his first day in office, business executives and others who support international trade breathed a sigh of relief.That relief was short-lived. On Monday night, just hours after his inauguration speech, Mr. Trump said he planned to put a 25 percent tariff on products from Canada and Mexico beginning on Feb. 1, claiming that the countries were allowing “mass numbers of people and fentanyl” to come to the United States.On Tuesday evening, Mr. Trump said he would also put an additional 10 percent tariff on Chinese products by the same date, accusing China of sending fentanyl to Mexico and Canada, which was then crossing into the United States.Mr. Trump’s threats leave just 10 days before significant levies could go into effect on the United States’ three largest trading partners, a move that could throw American diplomatic relationships and global supply chains into disarray.Mexico, China and Canada account for more than a third of the goods and services that are imported to or bought from the United States, supporting tens of millions of American jobs. Together, the countries purchased more than $1 trillion of U.S. exports and provided nearly $1.5 trillion of goods and services to the United States in 2023, the last year government data is available.While tariffs have long been used by the United States as punishment for unfair trading practices, Mr. Trump’s first use of them is aimed at an entirely different outcome: tightening American borders against immigrants and illegal drugs.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

More stories

  • 125 Shares118 Views

    in Economy

    California’s Insurance System Faces Crucial Test as Wildfire Losses Mount

    by

    It’s too soon to know how the Los Angeles fires will change life in California, but it may heavily depend on the answer to a single question: Will a once-obscure insurance program run out of money?That program, the California FAIR Plan, was created by state lawmakers in 1968 to cover people who couldn’t get standard home insurance for various reasons. But as climate change makes wildfires more frequent and intense, causing commercial insurance companies to pull back from the state, the rapidly growing FAIR Plan has become the linchpin holding together California’s increasingly fragile insurance market.Because of the fires that started last week, that linchpin may be about to break, with consequences that would reverberate throughout California’s economy.As of last Friday, the FAIR Plan had just $377 million available to pay claims, according to the office of Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California. It’s not yet known how much in claims the plan will face but the total insured losses from the fires so far has been estimated at as much as $30 billion. Because the fires are still burning, that number could grow.Unlike regular insurance companies, the FAIR Plan can’t refuse to cover homes just because they’re in vulnerable areas. As a result, as the risk of wildfires grows, homes deemed too dangerous by major insurers have been piling up on the FAIR Plan’s books.Between 2020 and 2024, the number of homes covered by the plan more than doubled, to almost half a million properties with a value that tripled to about half a trillion dollars.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

  • 150 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Canadian Ministers Meet Trump Aides at Mar-a-Lago to Discuss Border, and Tariffs

    by

    President-elect Donald J. Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on Canadian exports unless the country stops the flow of migrants and fentanyl to the U.S.Two top Canadian ministers met on Friday with members of President-elect Donald J. Trump’s circle in Florida about a border security plan that Canada hopes will ward off Mr. Trump’s threats to impose economically damaging tariffs on imports from the country. But the ministers returned home without any assurances.The meeting was characterized in advance as an attempt to build on a dinner Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had with Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago over the Thanksgiving weekend as well as on a recent telephone conversation between members of Mr. Trudeau’s cabinet and Thomas D. Homan, Mr. Trump’s designated border czar.Mélanie Joly, Canada’s foreign minister, and Dominic LeBlanc, its finance minister, arrived in Florida on Thursday evening for the session with Howard Lutnick, Mr. Trump’s choice for commerce secretary, and former Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota, the president-elect’s pick to run the Interior Department who would also coordinate energy policy.Mr. Trump has said he will impose 25 percent tariffs on imports from Canada when he takes office in January if the country does not reduce the flow of migrants and fentanyl into the United States. Such a move could be devastating for Canada, whose economy depends heavily on exports to the United States. But on at least one occasion, Mr. Trump has suggested that his tariff plan may have less to do with border security than with his desire to eliminate the $50 billion trade deficit with Canada. Oil and gas exports from Canada account for most of that trade imbalance. Without them, the U.S. generally has a trade surplus with Canada.Jean-Sébastien Comeau, a spokesman for Mr. LeBlanc, described the Mar-a-Lago session as a “positive, productive meeting” and said that the two nominees “agreed to relay information to President Trump.”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

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Why Mergers of Carmakers Like Honda and Nissan Often Falter

    by

    The Japanese companies are considering joining forces to survive in a rapidly changing auto industry, but auto history is filled with troubled and failed marriages.The Japanese automakers Honda and Nissan are discussing a possible merger, in a bid to share costs and help themselves compete in a fast-changing and increasingly competitive industry.But a merger, even of two companies from the same country, is no guarantee of success, and the history of automotive deals is littered with failures and disappointments.Combining two large, global manufacturing operations is an incredibly difficult feat that involves reconciling different technologies, models and approaches to doing business. A merger’s success rests on getting ambitious managers and engineers who have spent decades competing with one another to cooperate. Teams and projects have to be scrapped or changed, and executives must cede power to others. In some cases, the merging companies are hamstrung by elected leaders who force them to keep operating money-losing factories.Thomas Stallkamp, an automotive consultant based in Michigan, was involved in the struggles of one of the biggest auto mergers, the 1998 merger of Chrysler and the German company Daimler. Mr. Stallkamp spent years in senior roles at Chrysler and DaimlerChrysler.“Car companies are big, complicated organizations, with large engineering staffs, manufacturing plants all over the world, hundreds of thousands of employees, in a capital-intensive business,” Mr. Stallkamp said. “You try to put two of them together and you run into a lot of egos and infighting, so it’s very, very difficult to make it work.”Honda and Nissan announced plans this year to work together on electric vehicles, and on Monday they formally began talks about extending that cooperation to a merger that could also include Mitsubishi Motors, a smaller manufacturer that works closely with Nissan. A pairing would unite Japan’s second- and third-biggest automakers, after Toyota, and create a company that would be the third largest in the world by number of cars produced, after Toyota and Volkswagen.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

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Takes Aim at China’s Production of Essential Chips

    by

    The older-style chips are crucial for a wide array of appliances and other machinery, including weaponry.The Biden administration on Monday initiated a trade investigation into China’s production of older types of computer chips that are integral for cars, dishwashers, telecom networks and military weaponry.The probe could ultimately result in tariffs or other measures to block Chinese chips from entering U.S. markets, though the decision of which, if any approach to take would fall to the incoming Trump administration.In industry after industry — from steel and ships to solar panels and electric vehicles — China has pumped money into building world-class manufacturing facilities, creating a surge of low-cost products that ultimately flood global markets. American companies, along with firms in many other countries, finding themselves unable to compete, have shut down, leaving Chinese firms largely in control of the global market.United States officials have been worrying that the semiconductor industry could be next. Chinese companies have been massively ramping up their production of chips, particularly the older types of semiconductors that continue to power a wide array of machinery and appliances. China is building more new semiconductor factories than any other country, a development that American officials argue threatens the viability of chip plants in Europe and the United States.Katherine Tai, the United States Trade Representative, said in a call on Sunday that China’s policies were enabling its companies to rapidly expand and to “offer artificially lower-priced chips that threaten to significantly harm, and potentially eliminate, their market-oriented competition.”That resulted in supply chains that “are more vulnerable and subject to supply chain choke points that can be used to economically coerce other countries,” she 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

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Prepares to Target Chinese Legacy Chips With Trade Investigation

    by

    The investigation could result in tariffs on older types of chips from China, though the decision would ultimately fall to Trump.The Biden administration is preparing a trade investigation into China’s production of older-model semiconductors, in response to fears that the United States’ growing dependence on these products could pose a national security threat, according to people familiar with the matter and government and industry documents reviewed by The New York Times.The investigation could ultimately result in tariffs, import bans or other actions on certain Chinese chips and the products that contain them. But the decision about what course to take would fall to the incoming Trump administration. The Biden administration may initiate its investigation in the coming weeks, but it would most likely take at least six months to conclude.The U.S. government has already tried to clamp down on China’s access to the most advanced types of semiconductors due to national security concerns. But it has largely left untouched China’s production of older types of chips, which are still vital for powering a huge swath of products including smartphones, cars, dishwashers, refrigerators and weaponry, along with American telecommunications networks.But with Chinese companies and the government now investing heavily in new factories, or fabs, to make those “legacy” or “foundational” chips, U.S. officials are concerned that Chinese production could put chip factories in the United States or allied countries out of business. That could increase U.S. supply chain dependence on China and potentially pose cybersecurity threats as those chips are integrated into American infrastructure or weaponry.“China is subsidizing those chips in these new fabs, dumping them into the global market and tanking the price,” Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary, said at the Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, Calif., on Dec. 7. “That isn’t fair. And there may be a case for tariffs on that.”The Biden administration has been weighing whether to proceed with a trade investigation under two different laws. One is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which focuses on threats to national security and falls to the Commerce Department. The other option is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which applies to acts that are “unjustifiable” or “unreasonable” and burden U.S. commerce, and is carried out by the Office of the United States Trade Representative.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

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Is Trump More Flexible on China Than His Hawkish Cabinet Picks Suggest?

    by

    President-elect Donald J. Trump is assembling a team of aides bent on confrontation with China. But he also has advisers who do business there, including Elon Musk.They are the new class of cold warriors, guns pointed at China.President-elect Donald J. Trump has chosen cabinet secretaries and a national security adviser who stress the need to confront China across the entire security and economic spectrum: military posture, trade, technology, espionage, human rights and Taiwan.Those choices could open a new era of conflict with a nuclear-armed nation that has the world’s largest standing army and second-largest economy, and where many top officials see the United States as a superpower in decline.Mr. Trump’s hawkish advisers so far include Marco Rubio, a Florida senator named as secretary of state; Michael Waltz, a Florida congressman tapped for national security adviser; and Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News television personality designated to be defense secretary. Cabinet secretaries must be confirmed by the Senate, although Mr. Trump has floated the idea of getting around that by using recess appointments.Those men are more explicitly hostile to China than their counterparts in the Biden administration, though President Biden has taken an aggressive tack with China and continued some of the policies from Mr. Trump’s first term. A consensus has solidified among Democrats and Republicans in Washington that China must be constrained because it is the nation most capable of upending American global dominance.Yet there are signs that Mr. Trump might consider a more moderate approach on trade, perhaps to avoid upsetting a roaring stock market nurtured by Mr. Biden.Mr. Trump with President Xi Jinping of China in Beijing in November 2017. Mr. Trump hosted Mr. Xi at Mar-a-Lago earlier that year, but their budding relationship eventually fell apart over a trade war that Mr. Trump started.Doug Mills/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

  • 88 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Tax Proposals Face a Fiscal Reckoning

    by

    No tax on tips? Lower corporate taxes? No tax on Social Security benefits?The slew of tax cuts President-elect Donald J. Trump proposed in loosely defined slogans over the course of his victorious campaign will now face a fiscal reckoning in Washington. While Republicans are poised to control both chambers of Congress, opening a path for Mr. Trump’s plans, the party is now grappling with how far they can take another round of tax cuts.Mr. Trump’s ambitions for a second term will ultimately have to compete with the signature accomplishment from his first: the giant tax package that Republicans passed and Mr. Trump signed into law in 2017. Large swaths of that tax cut expire at the end of next year, setting up an expensive debate that could overshadow Mr. Trump’s other goals.“Nobody wants to acknowledge at all the sheer enormity of the challenge,” said Liam Donovan, a Republican strategist. “There’s a reckoning coming.”Unlike in 2016, when Mr. Trump’s victory surprised many in Washington, Republicans have spent months preparing for their return to power. They have been discussing using a fast-track budget process that skirts the supermajority requirement for legislation in the Senate, a tactic that would allow for a party-line passage of more tax cuts if Republicans ultimately keep control of the House.But lawmakers and advisers to Mr. Trump are undecided about how much money they can commit to lowering the nation’s taxes again. The cost of just preserving the status quo is steep. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that continuing all of the expiring provisions would cost roughly $4 trillion over a decade, and Mr. Trump’s campaign proposals could add trillions more to the debt.In interviews before the election, some Republicans said the party would have to show some fiscal discipline.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

  • 100 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Economic Plans Could Worsen Inflation, Economists Say

    by

    Many Americans fretted about inflation as they headed out to vote. But Donald J. Trump’s approach comes with risks of a renewed boost.Americans have been chafing against higher prices for years now, propelling unhappy voters to the polls and helping to deliver the White House to the Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump.But how Mr. Trump’s policies would help on costs is unclear. And in fact, many economists have warned that his proposals could instead make inflation worse.Inflation measures how much prices are rising over a given period, usually a year. It picked up sharply starting in 2022 and remained rapid in 2023. While prices are no longer climbing as quickly, those two years of rapid increase have left costs for many common purchases — from eggs to apartments and restaurant meals — notably more expensive than consumers remember them being as recently as 2019 or 2020.For months, that has weighed on consumer confidence and caused many voters to give the nation’s economic performance poor marks, even though the unemployment rate is very low and companies have been hiring.Voters regularly cited the economy as a top concern in polls headed into the election, and they often suggested that they thought Mr. Trump would do a better job in managing it. While the economic perception gap between Mr. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the democratic candidate, closed somewhat over time, it never fully faded.While rapid inflation had been a global trend, Mr. Trump regularly pinned the blame for it on the Biden administration. And exit polls suggested that voters were indeed worried about the economy as they headed out to vote. Roughly three in four voters said that inflation had caused their families hardship over the past year.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