Category: News

US President Donald Trump is poised to unveil sweeping new “Liberation Day” tariffs on Wednesday, but kept the world guessing until the last minute about the scope of an onslaught that could spark a global trade war.

Trump will roll out the measures flanked by cabinet members in the Rose Garden of the White House at 4:00 pm (2000 GMT) — after Wall Street markets close — promising that they will stop America being “ripped off” and will deliver a new “golden age” of US industry.

But while Trump insisted he had decided on the reciprocal tariffs hitting countries that have targeted the United States, the White House admitted he was still ironing out the details with less than 24 hours to go late Tuesday.

The Republican billionaire has had a long love affair with tariffs, insisting in the face of economic experts that they are a cure-all that will tackle America’s trade imbalances with friends and foes alike.

Critics say that not only will US consumers bear the brunt as importers pass on the cost, but that they could increase the risk of a damaging recession at home and abroad.

Global markets have been jittery for days ahead of Trump’s announcement, while the countries most likely in the crosshairs have called for talks — even as they ready retaliatory measures.

– ‘Very kind’ –

The move also underscores the growing and profound gulf between Trump’s America and many of its closest allies, not only on trade but on security, defense and almost everything else.

But in typically unpredictable fashion, the 78-year-old US president is keeping the details close to his chest.

Trump has trailed the measures for weeks, initially suggesting that the tariffs would simply match whatever levies other countries impose.

On Monday, he merely said that he would be “very kind” — but gave little away.

As the deadline drew near US media said he had also been considering blanket 20 percent tariffs — and then that he was looking at a third option where some countries would get preferential treatment.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump was meeting his top advisors on the eve of the announcement, “perfecting it to make sure this is a perfect deal.”

The tariffs would come into effect “immediately” after Wednesday’s roll-out, she added — effectively ruling out any delays for negotiations with other countries.

Trump has wobbled on several other tariff announcements since returning to office in January, blinking at the last minute with allies such as Canada and Mexico.

His plans have however sparked growing fears of a damaging trade war around the world that could drive up prices and cause widespread disruption.

– ‘Couldn’t care less’ –

Major economies including the European Union and Canada have vowed retaliation.

“We are going to be very deliberate in terms of the measures we take, to fight for Canada,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Tuesday.

The European Union, which Trump has accused of trying to “screw” the United States, said Tuesday it still hoped to negotiate a solution — but that “all instruments are on the table” to retaliate if necessary.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer spoke with Trump on “productive negotiations” towards a UK-US trade deal. Vietnam said on Tuesday it would slash duties on a range of goods to appease Trump.

The former property tycoon has used tariffs as a foreign policy weapon ever since his chaotic first term from 2017-2021.

Trump insists they will bring a “rebirth” of America’s hollowed-out manufacturing capacity, and says companies can avoid tariffs by moving to the United States.

Sweeping auto tariffs of 25 percent that Trump announced last week — saying he “couldn’t care less” if prices of foreign cars went up — are due to come into effect on April 3.

A 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum from around the world came into effect in mid-March.

China was hit in March by additional 20 percent tariffs on all goods, triggering retaliatory duties from Beijing. The EU has unveiled its own measures to start mid-April.

The Democratic Party has sued the Trump administration over an attempt to impose sweeping changes on the election systems, including requiring citizenship proof to register to vote and limiting mail-in ballot counting.

In a lawsuit filed Monday, the Democratic Party asked a federal court to block the executive order, which prevents states from counting mail-in ballots that arrive after election day. The president’s directive also requires proof of citizenship to be presented — through documents such as a passport — when registering to vote.

“The President does not get to dictate the rules of our elections,” said the lawsuit filed in Washington by the Democratic National Committee, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and others.

“The Executive Order seeks to impose radical changes on how Americans register to vote, cast a ballot, and participate in our democracy—all of which threaten to disenfranchise lawful voters and none of which is legal,” it added.

After signing the March 25 order, called “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”, US President Donald Trump described it as “the farthest-reaching executive action taken” to secure US elections.

Trump, who does not acknowledge his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, has long questioned the integrity of the US electoral system. He has repeatedly and baselessly amplified conspiracy theories about massive election fraud in the United States, particularly involving absentee voting.

Legal scholars swiftly denounced Trump’s election order as an abuse of presidential power that could prevent millions of eligible voters from casting ballots.

Advocacy groups led by the Campaign Legal Center and State Democracy Defenders Fund filed a separate lawsuit on Monday against the same executive order.

“The president’s executive order is an unlawful action that threatens to uproot our tried-and-tested election systems and silence potentially millions of Americans,” Danielle Lang of the Campaign Legal Center said in a statement.

“It is simply not within the president’s authority to set election rules by executive decree, especially when they would restrict access to voting in this way.”