SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
trade war
Plurality of Canadians See US as 'Enemy' Thanks Almost Entirely to Trump: Poll
Canadians' disdain toward the US is driven almost completely by Trump, with 64% saying their opinions of the country would likely change if he were no longer president.
Sep 05, 2026
A survey released Saturday by polling firm Leger finds that a plurality of Canadians now view the US as an "enemy" nation thanks to President Donald Trump's repeated attacks on their economy and national sovereignty.
In all, the poll finds that 41% of Canadians now consider the US enemy, compared with 22% who say the US is an ally, and 22% who say the US is a neutral country.
In a similar poll conducted in June 2025, Leger noted, only 26% of Canadians said the US was an enemy.
Trump's trade war is a major driver of negative opinion among Canadians, as 63% of those surveyed say they expect the president's tariffs to have either a moderate or major impact on their personal financial situations.
Additionally, 74% of Canadians say they agree with their government's decision to retaliate against Trump's tariffs, even while acknowledging such retaliation will hurt the economy.
Canadians are also resentful of Trump's demands that Canada become the 51st US state, with 85% saying they do not want to become part of America.
The disdain toward the US is driven almost entirely by Trump, the survey finds, with 64% of Canadians saying their opinions of the country would likely change if he were no longer president.
In an interview with The National Post, Leger vice president Andrew Enns emphasized the centrality of Trump in Canadians' deteriorating views of their neighbor to the south, arguing that the US president "can move public opinion like nobody’s business."
Brian Rathbun, professor of international relations and political science at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, told The National Post that while Canadians aren't letting their dislike of Trump tarnish their opinions of Americans as a whole, that could change in the coming years.
"At some point, I think Canadians will start to get frustrated if this persists, even if it’s not what the American public wants," said Rathbun. "They can say, ‘Why is it that no one’s standing up to this particular bully?’ Then I think that you could get into something like a deeper problem that couldn’t be fixed by kicking this guy out."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Embarrassing': Google Maps Renames 'Lake Ontario' as 'Lake America' in US
The name change followed President Donald Trump's executive order and "served as a reminder that billionaires will always side with authoritarians, because authoritarians will always protect billionaires at the expense of democracy and the working class."
Aug 30, 2026
Tech giant Google faced widespread criticism over the weekend for becoming the first major online map provider to change the name of "Lake Ontario" to "Lake America" for its US users, after President Donald Trump ordered the name change in an executive order on Thursday.
Google presented the decision as a procedural one in its statement on Saturday:
The US Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) has formally changed the name for "Lake Ontario" to "Lake America" in the United States. Since we update Google Maps to reflect name changes in official government sources, which is GNIS for the US, people using Maps in the US will see "Lake America," those in Canada will continue to see "Lake Ontario," and those outside of the US and Canada will see both names. These updates follow our long-standing policy for bodies of water with names that vary from country to country, and are starting to roll out now.
However, advocates, lawmakers, and commenters saw the shift as another example of Big Tech in general, and Google in particular, caving to Trump's whims. Notably, the CEO of Google's parent company Alphabet, Sundar Pichai, attended Trump's inauguration with a host of other Silicon Valley moguls.
"This is so embarrassing for @Google and served as a reminder that billionaires will always side with authoritarians, because authoritarians will always protect billionaires at the expense of democracy and the working class," Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, wrote on social media.
Zero integrity over at @Google.
Resign, @sundarpichai.
Fuck you, @googlemaps. pic.twitter.com/ERxPc5sZ88
— Killed by Google (@killedbygoogle) August 30, 2026
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) threatened the company with congressional questioning for its capitulation, writing on social media: "Hey @Google, how about an option for thinking people vs. cultish sheep? I don’t wanna have to see your brown lips from Trump. How about calling it what it is? Don’t forget, when the Majority changes in the House and Senate, you might have some answering to do. Correction. WILL."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), in response to another social media post about the change, wrote sarcastically, "That's definitely going to make food more affordable."
Kenneth Roth, the former head of Human Rights Watch, asked, "Is Google really so terrified of Trump that it has to play along with his childishness?"
Is Google really so terrified of Trump that it has to play along with his childishness? pic.twitter.com/tHOrwJoiCy
— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) August 30, 2026
Trump biographer Seth Abramson chastised the company, writing, "Thing #1 that you *do not do* for a psychopath: appease them."
While Google was the first digital map provider to make the change, it will not be the last, according to Wired, which reported that Apple and Bing are expected to follow suit. All three companies changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America following Trump's redesignation at the start of his second term.
Trump did receive pushback from other quarters at the time, with The Associated Press losing access to presidential events because it refused to change its style guide to prefer "Gulf of America."
This new name change, which Trump issued as part of an ongoing trade war with Canada, has also met with resistance both within and beyond the US.
On the day of Trump's order, MapQuest announced simply, "We're not changing it."
We’re not changing it. pic.twitter.com/NdeE9v2BNO
— MapQuest (@MapQuest) August 27, 2026
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney rejected the name change in a social media post on Thursday, pointing to the Indigenous origins of the name Ontario.
"The name Lake Ontario comes from the Wendat word Ontari’io, which, appropriately, means 'the lake is beautiful, the lake is big.' The name is more than 400 years old, predating both the Confederation of Canada and the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America," he wrote. "We know that America is changing. Their trading relationships, their foreign policies, their national monuments, their hydronyms. Canadians also know that naming reality means calling it Lake Ontario—then, now, and always."
The upstate New York-based Seneca Nation on Friday asked Trump to rescind the order, saying it violated an over 225-year-old treaty signed by President George Washington and the Haudenosaunee confederacy, of which the Seneca are a member.
Seneca Nation President J. Conrad Seneca said the name change showed "blatant disrespect" to Indigenous groups, adding, "The President cannot assert ownership over our culture or erase it through irresponsible political action."
On Saturday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford unveiled a billboard on the lake's edge that reads, "Lake Ontario, now and always" in English and French.
It’s Lake Ontario, now and always. pic.twitter.com/KNahtPAMeJ
— Doug Ford (@fordnation) August 29, 2026
"President Trump can call it whatever he wants, but I can tell you the rest of the world will always call it Lake Ontario," Ford said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We'd Really Prefer Affordable Healthcare': Trump 'Lake America' Order Ridiculed as Inane Distraction
"The American people don’t want to rename Lake Ontario Lake America," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "They want affordable healthcare, childcare, housing, education, nutrition assistance—all of which you have massively cut."
Aug 27, 2026
The United States is locked in another Middle East quagmire, the American economy is shedding jobs, wage growth is decelerating, and the costs of essentials are rising, but President Donald Trump on Thursday took time to hold an Oval Office event for the signing of an executive order renaming Lake Ontario to "Lake America," as his damaging trade war with Canada intensifies.
"We'd really prefer affordable healthcare," the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen wrote in response to the president's order, which was widely derided as idiotic and pointless, particularly amid skyrocketing health insurance premiums, large-scale loss of food aid, and other crises sparked by Trump and his Republican allies in Congress.
"No, President Trump," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote following the White House event. "The American people don’t want to rename Lake Ontario Lake America. They want affordable healthcare, childcare, housing, education, nutrition assistance—all of which you have massively cut in order to pay for your $1 trillion tax break to the top 1%."
Trump—who recently admitted that he doesn't "think about Americans’ financial situation" when considering the impacts of waging war on Iran—said Thursday that the "Lake America" name change was something he had been "thinking about for a long time, actually."
Trump: We have a gulf, a lake.. now all we need is an ocean. Maybe we’ll have to change the name of the Atlantic and the Pacific. pic.twitter.com/DadFb9xIv9
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 27, 2026
Trump's order instructs the US interior secretary to, within 30 days, "take all appropriate actions to rename as 'Lake America' the body of water currently named as Lake Ontario."
"We’re on it, Mr. President!" Interior Secretary Doug Burgum wrote on social media in response to Trump's directive.
After Trump floated the name change earlier this week, Canadian Industry Minister Mélanie Joly responded that "we'll always call it Lake Ontario."
"We're proud of the Great Lakes... and we'll stand up for what we have," said Joly. "I really think that, with all these shenanigans happening, we'll just be smart and we'll be strategic, and we'll fight back."
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who leads the only US state that touches Lake Ontario, said Wednesday that the Trump administration "should be focusing on ways to mend relationships with Canada so our farmers and our consumers and our families do not continue suffering from this inane war over tariffs."
"The fact that [the name change] is even part of the conversation shows how absurd the Trump administration is," said Hochul.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Unveils Sweeping New Tariffs Expected to Cost Americans $100 Billion a Year
"These new tariffs are more of the same: a nationwide sales tax that will make life even harder for families already struggling under the costs of Trump’s reckless war in Iran."
Jul 24, 2026
President Donald Trump on Thursday unveiled a new package of tariffs targeting 60 countries that account for over 99% of US imports, a move that—if upheld in court—would cost Americans an estimated $100 billion per year in the form of higher costs.
The duties, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, were announced as part of the president's effort to maneuver around repeated court rulings against his sweeping tariffs, including by the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court. Jamieson Greer, the Trump administration's top trade official, pointed to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to justify the new tariffs, introduced with the purported goal of penalizing countries "for their failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor."
Observers questioned the administration's pretext. "Magically, the US tariff probe on forced labor practices is done perfectly in time to replace the generalized but expiring Section 122 tariffs," noted Bloomberg's Josh Wingrove, referring to the legal authority Trump cited for earlier tariffs.
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) acknowledged that "Section 301 is a law Congress passed," but added, "What was passed in 1974 was authority to respond to specific unfair trade practices after investigation."
"What is being done with it now is a tariff on 99% of American trade, set by Trump, with no expiration, no vote, and no ceiling," said Levin. "If a delegation that broad is lawful, then the tariff power in Article I means very little. The Supreme Court struck down the last version of this policy in February. The response was to avoid Congress and find a different statute and rebuild substantially the same tariffs, effective the same minute the old ones lapsed."
The list of countries targeted by the Section 301 tariffs includes Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Mexico, Russia, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam.
Between the start of his second administration and January 2026, Trump's tariffs cost American families $1,700 each on average as importers passed burdens onto consumers in the form of higher prices. The tariffs have also hammered small businesses, increased hardship for farmers, and failed to arrest the decline of American manufacturing jobs.
The Progressive Policy Institute said Thursday that the new tariffs would "likely cost Americans $100 billion a year" collectively—though the group's trade director, Ed Gresser, said the administration's order "looks vulnerable to challenge, and courts would have good reason to strike it down."
"Its vague claims about forced labor abroad do not hold up," said Gresser. "Constitutionally, it is likely impermissible as an attempt to use a law designed for problem-solving abroad to impose a general tariff increase. And legally, Section 301 requires administrations to demonstrate ‘unreasonable acts, policies, or practices’ which impose a burden on US commerce, which this executive order fails to do. While making emotive claims about forced labor, it neither presents evidence that the listed countries are buying goods made with the use of forced labor, nor demonstrates that if they were, this would impose the statutorily required ‘burden on US commerce.’"
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement that "these new tariffs are more of the same: a nationwide sales tax that will make life even harder for families already struggling under the costs of Trump’s reckless war in Iran."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Tariffs Ruled Illegal—Again—as Data Shows Promised Manufacturing Boom Is Nonexistent
"The average household has already had nearly $2,000 stolen from them by this administration, and they should not have to pay a penny more," said one House Democrat.
May 08, 2026
A panel of federal judges ruled Thursday that US President Donald Trump's sweeping 10% tariffs on most imports are unlawful, another major legal blow to the centerpiece of the Republican president's economic agenda—which has failed to produce the manufacturing boom he repeatedly promised on the campaign trail.
The Court of International Trade (CIT) found in a 2-to-1 ruling that Trump violated the law when he unilaterally enacted the 10% import taxes following a February decision by the US Supreme Court, which struck down tariffs the president imposed using emergency powers. But the CIT's ruling, which the Trump administration is expected to appeal, only barred collection of the tariffs from some of the plaintiffs in the case—including a pair of businesses and Washington state—limiting the ruling's immediate impact.
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), a member of the House Trade Subcommittee, applauded the new ruling in a statement, saying that "Trump must comply with the law by ending his illegal tax on the American people and getting families and small businesses the refunds they are owed."
"The Supreme Court already rebuked the president's costly tariffs, but Donald Trump sees our Constitution as a mere suggestion to follow, and not the law of the land,” said Larson. “As families are squeezed by sky-high grocery bills and gas prices, his latest round of tariffs is only pouring salt in the wound. The average household has already had nearly $2,000 stolen from them by this administration, and they should not have to pay a penny more."
The decision came as a new analysis of trade and manufacturing data from the first quarter of 2026 found that the president's "actions on trade have not delivered on his promises to quickly balance trade and revitalize US manufacturing." Since Trump's return to the White House last year, US manufacturing employment has declined by 82,000 jobs, according to the Rethink Trade program at the American Economic Liberties Project.
Additionally, the nation's trade deficit was higher during the first three months of this year compared to the same period in 2024, Rethink Trade found.
“The first-quarter 2026 data show President Trump’s promises to prioritize speedily cutting the trade deficit and create more American manufacturing jobs are getting undermined by his chaotic and often mistargeted use of tariffs and squandering of leverage to demand other countries gut their Big Tech anti-monopoly and other policies instead of mercantilist abuses fueling the trade deficit,” said Lori Wallach, Rethink Trade's director.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Relief From Trump Tariff Pain Coming for Corporations—But Not Consumers Harmed by High Prices
"Big businesses that get refunds need to get the money back to their customers; ‘everyday low prices’ is not the way to do it," said US Sen. Ed Markey.
Apr 20, 2026
The Trump administration on Monday launched a portal designed to facilitate refunds on around $166 billion taken in from tariffs that the US Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional earlier this year.
But only businesses that directly paid President Donald Trump's sweeping import taxes are eligible for relief—not the millions of Americans who paid higher prices as a result of the illegal tariffs. As The New York Times observed, "The extent to which consumers realize any gain hinges on whether businesses share the proceeds, something that few have publicly committed to do."
US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, said in a statement Monday that big corporations that passed tariff costs onto consumers are set to "benefit the most" from the Trump administration's refund system, given that they are better-equipped to deal with the complicated application process and potential issues with the newly created portal.
Markey faulted the administration for its "shortsighted decision to not issue automatic refunds," instead choosing a convoluted application system that's expected to face issues due to massive demand. The Associated Press noted that "companies must submit declarations listing the goods on which they collectively put billions of dollars toward the import taxes the court subsequently struck down."
"If [Customs and Border Protection] approves a claim, it will take 60 to 90 days for a refund to be issued," the outlet observed. "The government expects to process refunds in phases, however, focusing first on more recent tariff payments. Any number of technical factors and procedural issues could delay an importer’s application, so any reimbursements businesses plan to make to customers likely would trickle down slowly."
"Big businesses must help ease the ongoing affordability crisis by passing on any refund savings they receive to customers and small businesses."
Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC) estimated that, prior to the US Supreme Court's ruling in February, Trump's tariffs had cost US families over $1,700 each. Overall, American consumers paid more than $231 billion in tariff costs from February 2025 to January 2026, according to the JEC.
Markey said Monday that “American small businesses and families deserve to get their money back with interest."
"Big businesses that get refunds need to get the money back to their customers; ‘everyday low prices’ is not the way to do it," the senator said. "There must be no further delay or complicated hoops to jump through. CBP must ensure quick and easy refunds without further documentation. Big businesses must help ease the ongoing affordability crisis by passing on any refund savings they receive to customers and small businesses who paid them rather than waiting around for a rebate that may never come.”
Unlikely to receive relief from the Trump administration, some consumers harmed by tariffs are taking legal action against corporations that jacked up prices.
The American Prospect reported Monday that "while companies are pursuing tariff refunds and the Trump administration is levying new global tariffs to replace what was struck down, some consumers are filing their own lawsuits seeking relief for higher prices paid because of tariffs."
"Lawsuits have been filed against at least five corporations that plaintiffs say raised prices to pay for tariffs—costs set to be refunded to companies," the Prospect noted. "The proposed class action suits target Costco, EssilorLuxottica (the maker of Ray-Ban sunglasses), activewear company Fabletics, UPS, and FedEx."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Decimated by Tariffs, US Farmers Warn Trump Bailout Not Nearly Enough to Erase Pain He Caused
"The average soybean acre in the United States this year is going to lose $109 an acre, and that's well over two dollars a bushel," said one farmer. "It's bloody."
Dec 22, 2025
President Donald Trump has announced a $12 billion relief package for US farmers hurt by his global trade war, but there are already signs that it will be woefully insufficient.
The Guardian reported on Monday that many US farmers are concerned that the bailout offered by the Trump administration won't come close to making up for the damage done by Trump's tariffs over the last nine months.
The report cited data from the American Farm Bureau showing that US crop farmers have collectively lost $34.6 billion this year, a total that is nearly three times the size of Trump's farm aid proposal.
Dan Wright, president of the Arkansas Farm Bureau, told the Guardian that Trump's plan is both too little to make up for lost sales and too late to prevent many farms from going under.
"A program that provides roughly $50 an acre will not save the thousands of family farms that will go bankrupt before the end of the year," Wright explained.
The Guardian noted that farms in Arkansas are expected to be hit particularly hard by bankruptcies this year, although farmers across the US report being under duress.
Ohio Capital Journal reported last week on new data from the Atlantic Council’s Tariff Tracker showing that Ohio farmers lost $76 million worth of exports to China this year after the Chinese government cut off all US soy purchases in retaliation for Trump restarting his trade war.
A Monday report from the Times-Picayune quoted Louisiana Commissioner of Agriculture and Foresty Mike Strain saying recently that roughly half of Louisiana farmers "are facing significant challenges" in which they're dealing not only with lost sales to foreign nations, but also increased costs for supplies and equipment thanks to Trump's tariffs.
"The cost has gone up, but the price the farmers receive went down," Strain explained.
Kentucky farmer Caleb Ragland, chairman of the American Soybean Association, told Spectrum News 1 on Monday that soy farmers were bracing for major losses from their crops as they get hit from both sides by depressed soy prices and increased input costs.
"The average soybean acre in the United States this year is going to lose $109 an acre, and that's well over two dollars a bushel," Ragland explained. "It's bloody."
While China recently pledged to start buying more soy from US farmers, the country has been gradually increasing its reliance on Brazil and other countries so that it no longer has to deal with unpredictable US trade policies.
Andrew Muhammad, a professor of agricultural policy at the University of Tennessee, said in an interview with local public radio station WPLN that China's shift toward Latin American markets means it is no longer held hostage to Trump's whims, and it can now ensure a steady supply of soy regardless of the US president's tariff policies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'An Abject Failure': Economists Trash Trump's Disastrous Job Creation Record in Year-End Reviews
"The jobs aren’t coming back, the wages aren’t rising," one economist said.
Dec 22, 2025
President Donald Trump has justified his historically high tariffs on foreign goods by promising that they would lead to a boom in domestic manufacturing jobs in the US.
However, in year-end reviews of the US job market, three economists make the case that Trump's record on creating manufacturing jobs has been a massive bust.
Mike Konczal, senior director of policy and research at the Economic Security Project and a former member of President Joe Biden’s National Economic Council, argued in his personal newsletter on Friday that the Trump administration's efforts to reorganize the US labor market away from service sector jobs have completely failed.
In particular, he found that jobs in manufacturing, mining, and logging have all declined throughout the first year of Trump's second term, while jobs in construction have remained mostly flat after years of steady growth during former President Joe Biden's administration.
What's more, the administration's stated goal of opening up more jobs for native-born US workers by conducting mass deportations of immigrant workers has also flopped, as native-born unemployment has been higher in 2025 than in either of the last two years.
"The bleak irony is that even after sacrificing real prosperity to chase this 4chan-level political economy, they still won’t achieve their goal," Konczal concluded. "The jobs aren’t coming back, the wages aren’t rising, and family formation won’t be rescued by trying to rewind the labor market to a world that never existed in the first place."
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman concurred with Konczal's assessment of the US labor market in an analysis published Monday in which he described Trump's record on jobs as "an abject failure."
Krugman argued that Trump's war on clean energy projects is almost certainly making the situation even worse by killing blue-collar manufacturing and construction jobs in the wind and solar industries.
"Trump has scrapped Biden’s green energy policies in favor of tariffs and fossil fuels," Krugman noted. "But it isn’t working. Instead, employment in 'manly' sectors has fallen since Trump took office."
Additionally, said Krugman, Trump's plan to use tariffs to bring back manufacturing jobs to the US was always destined to fail given the realities of how modern economies work.
"In the modern world nations mostly don’t sell each other completed consumer goods," he explained. "Instead, the majority of trade involves sales of goods that are used to produce other goods... What this means in practice is that tariffs, which raise the prices of those capital goods and inputs, raise the production costs of US manufacturers, in many cases making them less competitive with foreign producers."
Ball State University economist Michael J. Hicks, in a column published Monday by the Indianapolis Star, also pointed the finger at Trump's tariffs when explaining his failure to revive US manufacturing.
Hicks argued that the damage the president's policies have done to manufacturing won't be undone any time soon.
"The US is in the early days of a manufacturing contraction that will run through most of 2026, even if the tariffs are lifted today," he warned. "We should call it the deindustrialization of America. All of this flies in the face of the nonsensical claims of a manufacturing renaissance or onshoring that would bring factory jobs back to the US."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Economists Pan 'Insane' New Trump Tariffs as US Consumers Struggle With Rising Prices
"Trump's definition of 'winning' is hitting the American people with ever-higher taxes," said economist Dean Baker.
Aug 01, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday used emergency authority to impose high tariff rates on imports from dozens of American trading partners, including Canada—a move that economists criticized as a senseless approach to global trade that will further increase costs for consumers who are already struggling to get by.
Trump outlined the new tariff rates in executive orders signed just ahead of his arbitrary August 1 deadline for U.S. trading partners to negotiate a deal with the White House, whose erratic, aggressive, and legally dubious approach has alarmed world leaders.
Under the president's new orders, Canadian goods that are not covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) will face 35% import duties, while steel and aluminum imports will face a 50% tariff rate.
Trump claimed Canada "has failed to cooperate in curbing the ongoing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs." But Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney hit back in a statement early Friday, noting that Canada "accounts for only 1% of U.S. fentanyl imports and has been working intensively to further reduce these volumes."
"While we will continue to negotiate with the United States on our trading relationship, the Canadian government is laser-focused on what we can control: building Canada strong," Carney added. "Canadians will be our own best customer, creating more well-paying careers at home, as we strengthen and diversify our trading partnerships throughout the world."
Economist Brad Setser said that while the impact of the higher tariff on Canadian imports could be muted because of the exemption of USMCA-covered products such as oil, the 35% rate is still "insane" and "dumb."
"Same with the high tariff on Switzerland. Crazy," Setser wrote, pointing to the 39% rate for Switzerland imports. "This isn't just protectionism, it is bad protectionism—and will have all sorts of unintended consequences."
The new tariff rates for Canadian goods will take effect Friday while the higher rates for other nations such as Brazil (50%), India (25%), and Vietnam (20%) won't kick in until next week "to give Customs and Border Protection officials time to prepare," The Washington Post reported. Customs and Border Protection collects tariffs, which are effectively taxes paid by importers—who often pass those costs onto consumers in the form of higher prices.
"Trump's definition of 'winning' is hitting the American people with ever-higher taxes," Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote late Thursday.
Recent U.S. economic data indicates that Trump's tariffs are already putting upward pressure on prices—and companies are using the president's trade chaos as an excuse to drive up prices further and pad their bottom lines.
The Tax Foundation noted earlier this week that "a variety of food imports" will be impacted by Trump's tariffs, likely leading to "higher food prices for consumers." More than 80% of Americans are already concerned about the price of groceries and many are struggling to stay afloat, according to survey data released Thursday by The Century Foundation.
Baker warned Thursday that even nations that have agreed to trade frameworks with the U.S. are not out of the woods.
"Deals are meaningless to Trump. He'll break them in a second any time he feels like it," Baker wrote. "I trust everyone negotiating with Trump understands that fact."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Simply Empowers the Bully': EU Leader Faces Backlash Over Trump Trade Deal
"Von der Leyen has just handed Trump the biggest victory he could hope for," said one critic. "We will all pay the price because in the process, she has strengthened him and his fascist project. Deeply depressing."
Jul 28, 2025
The leadership of the European Union on Sunday struck a deal with U.S. President Donald Trump that will leave tariffs significantly higher for many of the bloc's exports—including cars, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors—and at 50% for steel and aluminum.
News of the deal was met with sharp criticism, including from some European officials. François Bayrou, France's prime minister, wrote on social media that "it is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, gathered to affirm their values and defend their interests, resolves to submission."
Nick Dearden, director of the United Kingdom-based advocacy group Global Justice Now, warned that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen "has just handed Trump the biggest victory he could hope for."
"We will all pay the price because in the process, she has strengthened him and his fascist project. Deeply depressing," Dearden wrote, arguing that the deal "simply empowers the bully" and likely won't last.
In her statement announcing the agreement with Trump, von der Leyen suggested the deal would avert further escalations from the U.S. president and bring "stability" to markets unsettled by his erratic threats.
"Today with this deal, we are creating more predictability for our businesses," she said. "In these turbulent times, this is necessary for our companies to be able to plan and invest."
The sweeping 15% tariff on E.U. products entering the U.S. is half the rate that the president threatened to impose earlier this month, but it is far higher than the estimated 1.5% rate prior to Trump's second White House term. The E.U. is the United States' largest trading partner.
Cailin Birch, global economist at the London-based Economist Intelligence Unit, told CNBC that while the deal represents "a climb down from a much worse place," the 15% tariff "is still a big escalation from where we were pre-Trump 2.0."
Wolfgang Niedermark, a board member of the Federation of German Industries, called the deal "an inadequate compromise" that "will have a huge negative impact on Germany's export-oriented industry."
Trump and his team wasted no time bragging in bombastic terms about the agreement. Trump called it "probably the biggest deal ever reached in any capacity, trade or beyond trade," while the president's deputy chief of staff gushed that it is "impossible to overstate what a staggering achievement President Trump delivered for America today."
" Stephen Miller is boasting about Trump hitting us with a HUGE tax increase," responded economist Dean Baker, alluding to the fact that tariffs are often passed to consumers in the form of higher prices.
As part of the agreement, the E.U. pledged to buy $750 billion worth of U.S. energy over three years—including LNG and oil.
Andreas Sieber, associate director of policy and campaigns at 350.org, said in a statement Monday that "it's deeply shortsighted to see the E.U. strike a so-called 'deal' with the U.S. that locks us into expensive, polluting gas."
"Fossil gas is not only worse for the climate than coal, it comes at a higher cost," said Sieber. "This risks locking Europe into decades of fossil fuel dependence, volatile energy bills, and accelerating the wildfires and flooding already wreaking havoc across the continent. While Trump celebrates this as a win, communities on both sides of the Atlantic are suffering with deadly climate impacts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy