President Donald Trump on Sunday predicted Cuba’s government could soon collapse and threatened Colombia’s president, a stark warning that underscored his administration’s increasingly aggressive posture toward leftist governments across Latin America. For good measure, he reiterated his desire to annex Greenland, as well. The comments made aboard Air Force One as the president returned to Washington came less than 48 hours after the American military conducted a brazen raid inside Caracas to arrest and detain Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife. “Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall,” Trump said. I don’t know if they’re going to hold out.” The president waved off the possibility that the administration might use American forces to hasten the Cuban government’s demise, explaining that Venezuela was Cuba’s primary economic backer. “Cuba only survives because of Venezuela,” Trump said. Many presidents have predicted the communist government’s fall and Havana survived the collapse of the USSR. And yet Trump’s remarks highlighted the extent to which his administration is not only expecting regime change in multiple countries but openly hoping for it, even amid uncertainty about the future of Venezuela. “Don’t ask me about who’s in charge [of Venezuela] because it will be controversial,” Trump said. “We’re in charge.” Trump said he wants to rebuild the country — particularly its oil infrastructure — before having an election so the people can elect their own leader. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick implied that steel and aluminum industries could be revived for U.S. benefit as well. For now, he said, he is willing to work with Delcy Rodriguez, the acting president and Maduro’s vice president. Trump said he expects Rodriguez and the new Venezuelan government will allow the U.S. unfettered access to their country so that American forces can help rebuild. But, he added, “if they don’t behave, we will do a second strike.” The administration maintains that targeting Maduro was, in large part, an effort to stop the drug trade. Trump also threatened Colombia President Gustavo Petro, a vocal critic of the U.S. operation in Venezuela. “Colombia is very sick too — run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and sending it to the United States, and he’s not going to be doing it very long,” Trump said. And just hours after the Danish Prime Minister blasted Trump for threatening to annex Greenland, the president said the United States “needs” the autonomous Danish territory. “We need Greenland from a national security situation,” Trump said. “The EU needs us to have Greenland.”

Donald Trump started his second term by calling the European Union an “atrocity” on trade. He said it was created to “screw” Americans. As he imposed the highest tariffs in a century, he derided Europe as “pathetic.” And to round off the year, he slammed the continent as “weak” and “decaying.” In the midst of all this, Ursula von der Leyen, the EU’s top official, somehow summoned the composure to fly to Trump’s Scottish golf resort to smile and shake hands on a one-sided trade deal that will inflict untold pain on European exporters. She even managed a thumbs up in the family photo with Trump afterwards. Yes, it’s been one hell of a year for the world’s biggest trading relationship. The economic consequences will take years to materialize — but the short-term impact is manifest: in forcing Europe to face up to its overreliance on the U.S. security umbrella and find new friends to trade with. With a warning that the following might trigger flashbacks, we take you through POLITICO’s coverage of Europe’s traumatic trade year at the hands of Trump: JANUARY As Trump returns to the White House, we explore how America’s trading partners are wargaming his trade threats. The big idea? Escalate to de-escalate. It’s a playbook we later saw unfold in Trump’s clashes with China and Canada. But, in the event, the EU never dares to escalate. Trump’s return does galvanize the EU into advancing trade deals with other partners — like Mexico or Latin America’s Mercosur bloc. “Europe will keep seeking cooperation — not only with our long-time like-minded friends, but with any country we share interests with,” von der Leyen tells the World Economic Forum the day after Trump is sworn in. FEBRUARY As Trump announces that he will reimpose steel and aluminum tariffs, von der Leyen vows a “firm and proportionate response.” The bloc has strengthened its trade defenses since his first term, and needs to be ready to activate them, advises former top Commission trade official Jean-Luc Demarty: “Especially with a personality like Trump, if we don’t react, he’ll trample us.” That begs the question as to whether trade wars are as easy to win, as Trump likes to say. The short answer is, of course, “no.” Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, meanwhile, packs a suitcase full of concessions on his first mission to Washington. At the end of the month, Brussels threatens to use its trade “bazooka” — a trade-defense weapon called the Anti-Coercion Instrument — after Trump says the European Union was created to “screw” America. MARCH We called it early with this cover story by Nicholas Vinocur and Camille Gijs: Trump wants to destroy the EU — and rebuild it in his image. As Trump’s steel tariffs enter force, Brussels announces retaliatory measures that far exceed those it imposed in his first term. And, as he builds up to his “Liberation Day” tariff announcement, the EU signals retaliation extending beyond goods to services such as tech and banking. (None of these are implemented.) APRIL “They rip us off. It’s so sad to see. It’s so pathetic,” Trump taunts the EU as he throws it into the sin bin along with China, Japan, Taiwan and Korea. In his Liberation Day announcement in the White House Rose Garden, Trump whacks the EU with a 20 percent “reciprocal” tariff. Von der Leyen’s response the next morning is weak: She says only that the EU is “prepared to respond.” That’s because, even though the EU has strengthened its trade armory, its 27 member countries can’t agree to deploy it. The bloc nonetheless busies itself with drawing up a retaliation list of goods made in states run by Trump’s Republican allies — including trucks, cigarettes and ice cream. MAY The EU’s hit list gets longer in response to Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs — with planes and automobiles targeted in a €100 billion counterstrike that looks scary on paper but is never acted on.  We report exclusively that Brussels is ramping up contacts with a Pacific trade group called the CPTPP. And we assess the chances of Trump pressuring the EU into a big, beautiful trade deal by threatening to raise duties on European exports to 50 percent. The verdict? Dream on!  JUNE The setting shifts to the Canadian Rockies — where a G7 summit takes on a G6 vs. Trump dynamic as other leaders seek ways to cooperate with him on Russia and China even as he pummels them with tariffs. Von der Leyen tries her best, turning hawkish on China in a bid to find common ground. Back in Brussels, at a European leaders’ summit, von der Leyen announces her pivot to Asia — floating the idea of a world trade club without the U.S. JULY As the clock counts down to Trump’s July 9 deal deadline, the lack of unity among the EU’s 27 member countries undermines its credibility as a negotiating partner to be reckoned with. There’s still hope that the EU can lock in a 10 percent tariff, but should it take the deal or leave it? The deadline slips and, as talks drag on, it looks more likely that the EU will end up with a 15 percent baseline tariff — far higher than Europe had feared at the start of Trump’s term. Brussels is still talking about retaliation but … yeah … you already know that won’t happen. With Trump in Scotland for a golfing weekend, von der Leyen jets in to shake hands on a historic, but one-sided trade deal at his Turnberry resort. Koen Verhelst also flies in to get the big story. “It was heavy lifting we had to do,” von der Leyen said, stressing that the 15 percent tariff would be a ceiling. AUGUST Despite the thumbs-up in Turnberry, recriminations soon fly that the EU has accepted a bad deal. EU leaders defend it as the best they could get, given Europe’s reliance on the U.S. to guarantee its security. The two sides come out with a joint statement spelling out the terms — POLITICO breaks it down. Not only does the EU come off worse in the Turnberry deal, but it also sacrifices its long-term commitment to rules-based trade in return for Trump’s uncertain support for Ukraine. The realization slowly dawns that Europe’s humiliation could be profound and long-lasting. With the ink barely dry on the accord, Trump takes aim at digital taxes and regulation that he views as discriminatory. It’s a blast that is clearly aimed at Brussels. SEPTEMBER The torrent of trade news slows — allowing Antonia Zimmermann to travel to Ireland’s “Viagra Village” to report how Trump’s drive to reshore drug production threatens Europe’s top pharmaceuticals exporter. OCTOBER EU leaders resist Trump’s pressure to tear up the bloc’s business rules, instead trying to present a red tape-cutting drive pushed by von der Leyen as a self-generated reform that has the fringe benefit of addressing U.S. concerns.    NOVEMBER Attention shifts to Washington as the U.S. Supreme Court hears challenges to Trump’s sweeping tariffs. The justices are skeptical of his invocation of emergency powers to justify them. Even Trump appointees on the bench subject his lawyer to tough questioning.  A row flares on the first visit to Brussels by U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Lutnick presses for concessions on EU digital regulation in exchange for possible tariff relief on steel. “Blackmail,” is the counterblast from Teresa Ribera, the EU’s top competition regulator. DECEMBER The year ends as it started, with another Trump broadside against Europe and its leaders. “I think they’re weak,” he tells POLITICO. “They don’t know what to do on trade, either.”

President Donald Trump promised that a wave of emergency tariffs on nearly every nation would restore “fair” trade and jump-start the economy. Eight months later, half of U.S. imports are avoiding those tariffs. “To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors, and everyone else who will soon be calling to ask for exemptions from these tariffs,” Trump said in April when he rolled out global tariffs based on the United States’ trade deficits with other countries, “I say, terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers, don’t manipulate your currencies.” But in the time since the president gave that Rose Garden speech announcing the highest tariffs in a century, enormous holes have appeared. Carveouts for specific products, trade deals with major allies and conflicting import duties have let more than half of all imports escape his sweeping emergency tariffs. Some $1.6 trillion in annual imports are subject to the tariffs, while at least $1.7 trillion are excluded, either because they are duty-free or subject to another tariff, according to a POLITICO analysis based on last year’s import data. The exemptions on thousands of goods could undercut Trump’s effort to protect American manufacturing, shrink the trade deficit and raise new revenue to fund his domestic agenda. In September, the White House exempted hundreds of goods, including critical minerals and industrial materials, totaling nearly $280 billion worth of annual imports. Then in November, the administration exempted $252 billion worth of mostly agricultural imports like beef, coffee and bananas, some of which are not widely produced in the U.S. — just after cost-of-living issues became a major talking point out of Democratic electoral victories — on top of the hundreds of other carveouts. “The administration, for most of this year, spent a lot of time saying tariffs are a way to offload taxes onto foreigners,” said Ed Gresser, a former assistant U.S. trade representative under Democratic and Republican administrations, including Trump’s first term, who now works at the Progressive Policy Institute, a D.C.-based think tank. “I think that becomes very hard to continue arguing when you then say, ‘But we are going to get rid of tariffs on coffee and beef, and that will bring prices down.’ … It’s a big retreat in principle.” The Trump administration has argued that higher tariffs would rebalance the United States’ trade deficits with many of its major trading partners, which Trump blames for the “hollowing out” of U.S. manufacturing in what he evoked as a “national emergency.” Before the Supreme Court, the administration is defending the president’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact the tariffs, and Trump has said that a potential court-ordered end to the emergency tariffs would be “country-threatening.” In an interview with POLITICO on Monday, Trump said he was open to adding even more exemptions to tariffs. He downplayed the existing carveouts as “very small” and “not a big deal,” and said he plans to pair them with tariff increases elsewhere. Responding to POLITICO’s analysis, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, “The Trump administration is implementing a nuanced and nimble tariff agenda to address our historic trade deficit and safeguard our national security. This agenda has already resulted in trillions in investments to make and hire in America along with over a dozen trade deals with some of America’s most important trade partners.” To date, the majority of exemptions to the “reciprocal” tariffs — the minimum 10 percent levies on most countries — have been for reasons other than new trade deals, according to POLITICO’s analysis. The White House also pushed back against the notion that November’s cuts were made in an effort to reduce food prices, saying that the exemptions were first outlined in the September order. The U.S. granted subsequent blanket exemptions, regardless of the status of countries’ trade negotiations with the Trump administration, after announcing several trade deals. Following the exemptions on agricultural tariffs, Trump announced on Monday a $12 billion relief aid package for farmers hurt by tariffs and rising production costs. The money will come from an Agriculture Department fund, though the president said it was paid for by revenue from tariffs (by law, Congress would need to approve spending the money that tariffs bring in). In addition to the exemptions from Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, more than $300 billion of imports are also exempted as part of trade deals the administration has negotiated in recent months, including with the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan and more recently, Malaysia, Cambodia and Brazil. The deal with Brazil removed a range of products from a cumulative tariff of 50 percent, making two-thirds of imports from the country free from emergency tariffs. For Canadian and Mexican goods, Trump imposed tariffs under a separate emergency justification over fentanyl trafficking and undocumented migrants. But about half of imports from Mexico and nearly 40 percent of those from Canada will not face tariffs because of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement that Trump negotiated in his first term. Last year, importers claimed USMCA exemptions on $405 billion in goods; that value is expected to increase, given that the two countries are facing high tariffs for the first time in several years. The Trump administration has also exempted several products — including autos, steel and aluminum — from the emergency reciprocal tariffs because they already face duties under Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The imports covered by those tariffs could total up to $900 billion annually, some of which may also be exempt under USMCA. The White House is considering using the law to justify further tariffs on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and several other industries. For now, the emergency tariffs remain in place as the Supreme Court weighs whether Trump exceeded his authority in imposing them. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump’s use of emergency authority was unlawful — a decision the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld in August. During oral arguments on Nov. 5, several Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism that the emergency statute authorizes a president to levy tariffs, a power constitutionally assigned to Congress. As the rates of tariffs and their subsequent exemptions are quickly added and amended, businesses are struggling to keep pace, said Sabine Altendorf, an economist with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “When there’s uncertainty and rapid changes, it makes operations very difficult,” Altendorf said. “Especially for agricultural products where growing times and planting times are involved, it’s very important for market actors to be able to plan ahead.” ABOUT THE DATA Trump’s trade policy is not a straightforward, one-size-fits-all approach, despite the blanket tariffs on most countries of the world. POLITICO used 2024 import data to estimate the value of goods subject to each tariff, accounting for the stacking rules outlined below. Under Trump’s current system, some tariffs can “stack” — meaning a product can face more than one tariff if multiple trade actions apply to it. Section 232 tariffs cover automobiles, automobile parts, products made of steel and aluminum, copper and lumber — and are applied in that order of priority. Section 232 tariffs as a whole then take priority over other emergency tariffs. We applied this stacking priority order to all imports to ensure no double-counting. To calculate the total exclusions, we did not count the value of products containing steel, aluminum and copper, since the tariff would apply only to the known portion of the import’s metal contentand not the total import value of all products containing them. This makes the $1.7 trillion in exclusions a minimum estimate. Goods from Canada and Mexico imported under USMCA face no tariffs. Some of these products fall under a Section 232 category and may be charged applicable tariffs for the non-USMCA portion of the import. To claim exemptions under USMCA, importers must indicate the percentage of the product made or assembled in Canada or Mexico. Because detailed commodity-level data on which imports qualify for USMCA is not available, POLITICO’s analysis estimated the amount that would be excluded from tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports by applying each country’s USMCA-exempt share to its non-Section 232 import value. For instance, 38 percent of Canada’s total imports qualified for USMCA. The non-Section 232 imports from Canada totaled around $320 billion, so we used only $121 billion towards our calculation of total goods excluded from Trump’s emergency tariffs. Exemptions from trade deals included those with the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, Brazil, Cambodia and Malaysia. They do not include “frameworks” for agreements announced by the administration. Exemptions were calculated in chronological order of when the deals were announced. Imports already exempted in previous orders were not counted again, even if they appeared on subsequent exemption lists.

LONDON — The British government is working to give its trade chief new powers to move faster in imposing higher tariffs on imports, as it faces pressure from Brussels and Washington to combat Chinese industrial overcapacity. Under new rules drawn up by British officials, Trade Secretary Peter Kyle will have the power to direct the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) to launch investigations and give ministers options to set higher duty levels to protect domestic businesses. The trade watchdog will be required to set out the results of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations within a year, better monitor trade distortions and streamline processes for businesses to prompt trade probes. The U.K. is in negotiations with the U.S. and the EU to forge a steel alliance to counter Chinese overcapacity as the bloc works to introduce its own updated safeguards regime. The EU is the U.K.’s largest market and Brussels is creating a new steel protection regime that is set to slash Britain’s tariff-free export quotas and place 50 percent duties on any in excess. The government said its directive to the TRA will align the U.K. with similar powers in the EU and Australia, and follow World Trade Organization rules. It is set out in a Strategic Steer to the watchdog and will be introduced as part of the finance bill due to be wrapped up in the spring. “We are strengthening the U.K.’s system for tackling unfair trade to give our producers and manufacturers — especially SMEs who have less capacity and capability — the backing they need to grow and compete,” Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle said in a statement. “By streamlining processes and aligning our framework with international peers, we are ensuring U.K. industry has the tools to protect jobs, attract investment and thrive in a changing global economy,” Kyle added. These moves come after the government said on Wednesday that its Steel Strategy, which plots the future of the industry in Britain and new trade protections for the sector, will be delayed until next year. The Trump administration has been concerned about the U.K.’s steps to counter China’s steel overcapacity and refused to lower further a 25 percent tariff carve-out for Britain’s steel and aluminum exports from the White House’s 50 percent global duties on the metals. Trade Secretary Kyle discussed lowering the Trump administration’s tariffs on U.K. steel with senior U.S. Cabinet members in Washington on Wednesday.  “We are very much on the case of trying to sort out precisely where we land with the EU safeguard,” Trade Minister Chris Bryant told parliament Thursday, after meeting with EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič on Wednesday for negotiations. “We will do everything we can to make sure that we have a strong and prosperous steel sector across the whole of the U.K.,” Bryant said. The TRA has also launched a new public-facing Import Trends Monitor tool to help firms detect surges in imports that could harm their business and provide evidence that could prompt an investigation by the watchdog. “We welcome the government’s strategic steer, which marks a significant milestone in our shared goal to make the U.K.’s trade remedies regime more agile, accessible and assertive, as well as providing greater accountability,” said the TRA’s Co-Chief Executives Jessica Blakely and Carmen Suarez. Sophie Inge and Jon Stone contributed reporting.

The European Commission has lost access to its control panel for buying and tracking ads on Elon Musk’s X — after fining the social media platform €120 million for violating EU transparency rules. “Your ad account has been terminated,” X’s head of product, Nikita Bier, wrote on the platform early Sunday. Bier accused the EU executive of trying to amplify its own social media post about the fine on X by trying “to take advantage of an exploit in our Ad Composer — to post a link that deceives users into thinking it’s a video and to artificially increase its reach.” The Commission fined X on Thursday for breaching the EU’s rules under the Digital Services Act (DSA), which aims to limit the spread of illegal content. The breaches included a lack of transparency around X’s advertising library and the company’s decision to change its trademark blue checkmark from a means of verification to a “deceptive” paid feature. “The irony of your announcement,” Bier said. “X believes everyone should have an equal voice on our platform. However, it seems you believe that the rules should not apply to your account.” Trump administration has criticized the DSA and the Digital Markets Act, which prevent large online platforms, such as Google, Amazon and Meta, from overextending their online empires. The White House has accused the rules of discriminating against U.S. companies, and the fine will likely amplify transatlantic trade tensions. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick has already threatened to keep 50 percent tariffs on European exports of steel and aluminum unless the EU loosens its digital rules. U.S. Vice President JD Vance blasted Brussels’ action, describing the fine as a response for “not engaging in censorship” — a notion the Commission has dismissed. “The DSA is having not to do with censorship,” said the EU’s tech czar, Henna Virkkunen, told reporters on Thursday. “This decision is about the transparency of X.”

BRUSSELS — U. S. Vice President JD Vance has hit out at the EU’s digital rules enforcement, saying the EU should not be “attacking American companies over garbage.” “Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship. The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage,” Vance wrote on X overnight. X owner Elon Musk immediately thanked the U.S. official, commenting, “Much appreciated.”  The European Commission opened formal proceedings against X under its Digital Services Act in December 2023, roughly a year after Musk bought Twitter and rebranded it as X. But the EU has yet to finalize its probe, after accusing X of breaching its obligations around transparency and blue checkmarks in preliminary findings in July 2024. A decision could come as early as Friday, according to media reports Thursday. Under the EU rules, companies can be fined up to 6 percent of their annual global turnover. French President Emmanuel Macron last week voiced concerns about the slow pace of Brussels’ probes into American tech giants, adding to a growing chorus of criticism that the bloc has been too slow to enforce its flagship Digital Services Act amid U.S. pressure. Washington has repeatedly asked the EU to roll back its digital rule book as part of trade negotiations, and last week U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick put this on the table again as an explicit exchange for scrapping tariffs on steel and aluminum in ongoing talks. Asked earlier Thursday how she feels about a looming diplomatic showdown if she slaps a fine on a U.S. tech giant, Commission digital chief Henna Virkkunen told POLITICO: “I’m quite calm in different situations. I’m not surprised about anything. I’m protecting our laws. But at the same time we are going to make Europe faster and simpler and easier for businesses.” Asked if she’s afraid of the U.S.’s reaction to a fine under the DSA, Virkkunen responded with a single word: “No.”

BRUSSELS — Europe’s most energy-intensive industries are worried the European Union’s carbon border tax will go too soft on heavily polluting goods imported from China, Brazil and the United States — undermining the whole purpose of the measure. From the start of next year, Brussels will charge a fee on goods like cement, iron, steel, aluminum and fertilizer imported from countries with weaker emissions standards than the EU’s. The point of the law, known as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, is to make sure dirtier imports don’t have an unfair advantage over EU-made products, which are charged around €80 for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit. One of the main conundrums for the EU is how to calculate the carbon footprint of imports when the producers don’t give precise emissions data. According to draft EU laws obtained by POLITICO, the European Commission is considering using default formulas that EU companies say are far too generous. Two documents in particular have raised eyebrows. One contains draft benchmarks to assess the carbon footprint of imported CBAM goods, while the second — an Excel sheet seen by POLITICO — shows default CO2 emissions values for the production of these products in foreign countries. These documents are still subject to change. National experts from EU countries discussed the controversial texts last Wednesday during a closed-door meeting, and asked the Commission to rework them before they can be adopted. That’s expected to happen over the next few weeks, according to two people with knowledge of the talks. Multiple industry representatives told POLITICO that the proposed estimated carbon footprint values are too low for a number of countries, which risks undermining the efficiency of the CBAM. For example, some steel products from China, Brazil and the United States have much lower assumed emissions than equivalent products made in the EU, according to the tables. Ola Hansén, public affairs director of the green steel manufacturer Stegra, said he had been “surprised” by the draft default values that have been circulating, because they suggest that CO2 emissions for some steel production routes in the EU were higher than in China, which seemed “odd.” “Our recommendation would be [to] adjust the values, but go ahead with the [CBAM] framework and then improve it over time,” he said. Antoine Hoxha, director general of industry association Fertilizers Europe, also said he found the proposed default values “quite low” for certain elements, like urea, used to manufacture fertilizers. “The result is not exactly what we would have thought,” he said, adding there is “room for improvement.” But he also noted that the Commission is trying “to do a good job but they are extremely overwhelmed … It’s a lot of work in a very short period of time.” Multiple industry representatives told POLITICO that the proposed estimated carbon footprint values are too low for a number of countries, which risks undermining the efficiency of the CBAM. | Photo by VCG via Getty Images While a weak CBAM would be bad for many emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries in the EU, it’s likely to please sectors relying on cheap imports of CBAM goods — such as European farmers that import fertilizer — as well as EU trade partners that have complained the measure is a barrier to global free trade. The European Commission declined to comment. DEFAULT VERSUS REAL EMISSIONS Getting this data right is crucial to ensure the mechanism works and encourages companies to lower their emissions to pay a lower CBAM fee. “Inconsistencies in the figures of default values and benchmarks would dilute the incentive for cleaner production processes and allow high-emission imports to enter the EU market with insufficient carbon costs,” said one CBAM industry representative, granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive talks. “This could result in a CBAM that is not only significantly less effective but most likely counterproductive.” The default values for CO2 emissions are like a stick. When the legislation was designed, they were expected to be set quite high to “punish importers that are not providing real emission data,” and encourage companies to report their actual emissions to pay a lower CBAM fee, said Leon de Graaf, acting president of the Business for CBAM Coalition. But if these default values are too low then importers no longer have any incentive to provide their real emissions data. They risk making the CBAM less effective because it allows imported goods to appear cleaner than they really are, he said. The Commission is under pressure to adopt these EU acts quickly as they’re needed to set the last technical details for the implementation of the CBAM, which applies from Jan. 1. However, de Graaf warned against rushing that process. On the one hand, importers “needed clarity yesterday” because they are currently agreeing import deals for next year and at the moment “cannot calculate what their CBAM cost will be,” he said. But European importers are worried too, because once adopted the default emission values will apply for the next two years, the draft documents suggest. The CBAM regulation states that the default values “shall be revised periodically.” “It means that if they are wrong now … they will hurt certain EU producers for at least two years,” de Graaf said.

The White House is exuding confidence heading into Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing that the justices will uphold President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff powers. But just in case, aides have a plan B. Aides have spent weeks strategizing how to reconstitute the president’s global tariff regime if the court rules that he exceeded his authority. They’re ready to fall back on a patchwork of other trade statutes to keep pressure on U.S. trading partners and preserve billions in tariff revenue, according to six current and former White House officials and others familiar with the administration’s thinking, some of whom were granted anonymity to share details of private conversations. “They’re aware there are a number of different statutes they can use to recoup the tariff authority,” said Everett Eissenstat, former deputy director of the White House’s National Economic Council during Trump’s first term. “There’s a lot of tools there that they could go to to make up that tariff revenue.” The contingency planning underscores how much is at stake for Trump, who has used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law designed for national emergencies, to impose tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner — the foundation of his second-term economic agenda. The justices will weigh whether the law gives the president broad power to impose economic restrictions — or whether Trump has stretched it beyond what Congress intended. If the court curtails that power, it could upend not only the White House’s “America First” trade strategy but also the global negotiations Trump has leveraged it to shape. “This is all about foreign policy. This isn’t 1789 where you can clearly delineate between trade policy, economic policy, national security policy and defense policy. These things are all completely interconnected,” said Alex Gray, who served as National Security Council chief of staff and deputy assistant to the president during the first Trump administration. “To diminish the tools he has to do that is really dangerous.” Behind the scenes, trade and legal advisers have modeled what a partial loss might look like — where the court upholds the use of the 1977 law in some circumstances but not others — and what other legal means might be available to achieve similar ends. However, those alternatives are slower, narrower and, in some cases, similarly vulnerable to legal challenge, leaving even White House allies to acknowledge the administration’s tariff strategy is on shakier ground than it is willing to publicly concede. Even a partial loss at the Supreme Court would make it much harder for the president to use tariffs as an all-purpose tool for extracting concessions on a number of issues, from muscling foreign companies to make investments in the U.S. to pressuring countries into reaching peace agreements. “There’s no other legal authority that will work as quickly or give the president the flexibility he wanted,” said one supporter of Trump’s tariff policies, who was part of a group that filed an amicus brief in support of his tariffs. “They seem very confident that they’re going to win. I don’t see why they’re confident at all. Two different courts that have ruled extremely harshly on this.” Still, White House aides are telegraphing confidence, convinced the justices won’t strip Trump of his favorite negotiating tool, and certain that even if they do, he has plenty of backup plans. “Frankly, there’s a little bit of bravado, like, they’re not going to knock these down,” one person close to the White House said. A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the administration sees it as “a pretty clear case.” “We’re using a law that Congress passed, in which they gave the executive branch the authority to use tariffs to address national emergencies,” the official said. Aides concede that other tariff authorities are not a “one-for-one replacement” for the emergency law, though they confirmed they are pursuing them. In fact, the White House has already laid some of the policy groundwork under those authorities, such as the 1970s-vintage Section 301, which the U.S. used against China in Trump’s first term, or the Cold War-era Section 232, which allows tariffs on national-security grounds. The administration has launched more than a dozen 232 investigations into whether the import of goods like lumber, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and critical minerals from other countries impairs national security. Since January, Trump has used that authority to impose new tariffs on copper, aluminum, steel and autos. It has also opened a 301 investigation into Brazil’s trade practices, including digital services, ethanol tariffs and intellectual property protection. It’s a model officials say could be replicated against other countries if the court curtails IEEPA — and could be used to pressure countries into reaffirming the trade deals that they’ve already negotiated with the United States, or to accept the rates that Trump has unilaterally assigned them. But those tools come with challenges: Section 301 investigations can take months to complete, slowing Trump’s ability to impose tariffs unilaterally or tie them to unrelated goals like ending the war between Russia and Ukraine or stem the flow of fentanyl across the U.S. border. Section 232 offers broad discretion to impose tariffs on national-security grounds, but because the levies are sector-based, they are typically applied across a product category, limiting Trump’s ability to pressure individual countries. And imposing new duties on global industries like semiconductors or pharmaceuticals, as Trump has threatened, could upend recent agreements the administration has reached with trading partners, especially China, which negotiated a trade truce last week. “This detente may have weakened the president’s resolve to go forward with the 232s. We’re worse off than we were,” a second person close to the administration said. The U.S. has already promised to delay fees on Chinese vessels arriving at U.S. ports following the conclusion of a Section 301 investigation on China’s shipbuilding practices as a result of the Thursday meeting between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. The U.S. also agreed to delay an investigation into China’s adherence to its trade deal from Trump’s first term. Section 122, meanwhile, allows only short-term tariffs of up to 15 percent and for no more than 150 days unless Congress acts to extend them — a narrow clause meant to address trade deficit emergencies. The authority could potentially serve as a bridge between an adverse court ruling and new duties Trump wants to put in place using other authorities. Then there’s Section 338 — a rarely used provision that’s been on the books for nearly a century. In theory, it could let Trump swiftly impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on any country, if he can explain how they are engaging in “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” actions that hurt U.S. commerce. Section 338 does not require a formal investigation before a president can impose tariffs, but would likely face similar legal challenges. Major trading partners are betting that Trump will find a way to reimpose tariffs, somehow. Two European diplomats, granted anonymity to discuss trade strategy, said the countries believe that the Supreme Court won’t strike down the global tariffs and, if it does, it won’t do much to shift the dynamic. “Our working assumption is that the court rulings won’t change anything,” a European official said, adding that they are still hoping the law is overturned. Some are convinced the only way to address the tariffs permanently is for the president to appeal to Congress, arguing that only lawmakers can decide how much unilateral power any White House should permanently wield over global commerce. That would be an uphill battle. At least four Republicans are openly opposed to the global tariffs — bucking Trump in a series of symbolic votes last week. And it’s unclear whether there’s appetite for a vote on Trump’s tariffs in the House, which has been shielded from weighing in on the tariffs until the end of January, after Republican leadership blocked votes on Trump’s national emergencies. “At the end of the day, all this comes back to Congress,” Eissenstat said. “Maybe Congress will step up its role post hearing, post ruling. We’ll see.”

Opponents of President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs are finally getting their day in the U.S. Supreme Court. And while the justices may not rule for some time, their lines of questioning could offer hints about which way they are leaning in the blockbuster case. On Wednesday, the high court will hear from the plaintiffs — a dozen Democratic-run states and two sets of private companies — and the Trump administration. Each side will have 40 minutes to make their arguments and then get peppered with questions from the nine justices. The court then has until the end of its term next July to issue a ruling, although some of the lawyers who brought the initial cases hope it will move faster given the real-world impact the decision will have. “It’s very reasonable to expect that this will be decided before the end of the year, if not much, much more before that,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a constitutional rights law firm representing companies in the case.  Advertisement Three federal courts have ruled against Trump’s use of a 50-year-old emergency law to impose broad “reciprocal” duties that he then deployed to strike trade deals with the EU, Japan and other partners. The case does not address sectoral tariffs on products like steel, aluminum or autos, which have also been part of negotiations, but were imposed under a different legal authority that is not in dispute. If the Supreme Court rules that the tariffs Trump announced in April are illegal, will those deals fall apart? We analyze the risks: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- United States European Union United Kingdom China Canada Mexico -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES Risk assessment: Many legal experts think there is a strong chance the Supreme Court will strike down the duties that Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 sanctions law that empowers Trump to “regulate” imports but does not specifically authorize tariffs. Not all agree, arguing the conservative-led court is likely to back the Trump administration’s view that the president has broad authority to conduct foreign affairs and that imperative  outweighs any concerns about executive branch overreach that the court has expressed in previous cases. Coping strategy: In the worst-case scenario for the administration, the Supreme Court would strike down all the duties and order it to repay hundreds of billions of dollars in duties paid by companies and individuals.  But even in that scenario, Trump may be able to use other authorities to recreate the tariffs, including Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. That provision could allow the president to impose a 15 percent global import “surcharge” for up to 150 days, according to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. Trump would have to get congressional approval to keep any Section 122 tariffs in place for longer — a tall order even in a Republican-led Congress. However, he might be able to use the provision as a stopgap measure while he explores other options.  Those include Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which he used in his first term to impose extensive tariffs on Chinese goods and recently deployed against Brazil. Unlike IEEPA, which Trump believes merely allows him to declare an international emergency to impose tariffs, Section 301 requires a formal investigation into whether the United States has been harmed by an unfair foreign trade practice.  However, Trump could also just use those investigations — and the implied threat of tariffs — to pressure trading partners like the EU into reaffirming the trade deals they have already struck with him.  Trump could also launch additional sectoral investigations under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, a provision that allows the president to restrict imports determined to pose a threat to national security. He has employed that measure in his first and second term to impose duties on steel, aluminum, autos, auto parts, copper, lumber, furniture and heavy trucks. In one variation, he’s used an ongoing investigation into pharmaceutical imports to pressure companies to invest more in the United States and to slash drug prices. He has also used the threat of semiconductor tariffs to prod countries and companies into concessions, without yet imposing any duties. The Commerce Department has other ongoing Section 232 investigations into processed critical minerals, aircraft and jet engines, polysilicon, unmanned aircraft systems, wind turbines, robotics and industrial machinery, and medical supplies. And, as Trump’s lumber and furniture duties demonstrate, the administration’s expansive definition of national security provides it with broad leeway to open new investigations into a variety of sectors. By Doug Palmer Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EUROPEAN UNION Risk assessment: The European Union isn’t counting on the Supreme Court to save it from Trump’s 15 percent baseline tariff — knowing full well that if U.S. tariffs don’t come through the front door, they’ll come through the window. “Even a condemnation or a ruling by the Supreme Court that these reciprocal tariffs are illegal does not automatically mean that they fall,” the EU’s top trade official, Sabine Weyand, told European lawmakers recently. “There are other legal bases available.” Trump invoked IEEPA to impose the baseline tariff on the 27-nation European bloc. But Brussels is more worried about sectoral tariffs that Trump has imposed on pharmaceuticals, cars and steel using other legal avenues — chiefly Section 232 investigations — that aren’t the subject of the case before the Supreme Court. Advertisement Coping strategy: Brussels is in full damage-control mode, trying not to stir the pot too much with Washington and focusing on implementing the deal struck by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland in July — and baked into a bare-bones joint statement the following month.  Crucially, the EU asserts that it has locked in an “all-inclusive” tariff of 15 percent on most exports — so even if the Supreme Court throws out Trump’s universal tariffs it would argue that the cap should still apply. “Even if all IEEPA tariffs are eliminated, the EU would have an interest in keeping the deal,” Ignacio García Bercero, who used to be the Commission’s point person for its trade talks with the U.S., told POLITICO. The Commission is also still in negotiations with the Trump administration to secure further tariff exemptions for sensitive sectors such as wines and spirits.  The European Parliament, which will need to approve the Turnberry accord, is taking a more hawkish line over what many lawmakers have criticized as the one-sided trade deal with the U.S.: It wants to add a “sunset” clause that would effectively limit the EU’s trade concessions to Trump’s term in office. EU countries have given that idea the thumbs down, however, saying deals that have been agreed must be respected. The EU has invited Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to a meeting of its trade ministers in Brussels on Nov. 24. The focus there will be on reassuring him that the legislation to implement the trade deal will pass, and on fending off U.S. charges that EU business regulation is discriminatory. By Camille Gijs Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED KINGDOM Risk assessment: Should the Supreme Court strike down Donald Trump’s universal tariffs, Britain won’t be off the hook. London may have secured a favorable, 10 percent baseline rate with Washington back in May — but that only goes so far.   That protection does not extend to Trump’s Section 232 steel and auto levies, which remain in place. Under the current deal, Britain gets preferential tariffs on its car exports, as well as a 50 percent reduction to the global steel tariff rate.  If Britain tried to renegotiate its baseline tariffs, the U.S. could quickly retaliate by withdrawing those preferential deals, and take a harder line in ongoing negotiations covering pharma and whisky tariffs. Coping strategy: The U.K. is pressing ahead with its negotiations with the Trump administration on other parts of the deal — despite the ongoing court case. British officials fly out to D.C. in mid-November to push forward talks, shortly before Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is due in London on Nov. 24. “I don’t think the U.K. or others would attempt to renegotiate in the first instance — we might even see some public statements saying we plan to honour the deal,” said Sam Lowe, British trade expert and partner at consultancy firm Flint Global. “There’s too much risk in trying to reopen it in the first instance, given it could antagonise Trump.” Meanwhile the U.K. is seeking to strengthen its trade ties with other nations. It struck a free trade agreement with India over summer, is renegotiating aspects of its trading relationship with the European Union and hopes to close a trade deal with a six-nation Gulf economic bloc including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the coming weeks. The U.K. is expected to maintain its current deal with the U.S., even if legal challenges were to weaken Trump’s wider tariff regime. By Caroline Hug Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHINA Risk assessment: Chinese leader Xi Jinping exited his meeting with Trump in South Korea last week with a U.S. commitment to cut in half the 20 percent “emergency” tariff imposed in March to punish Beijing for its role in the U.S. opioid epidemic. A possible ruling by the Supreme Court that overturns the residual “emergency” tariffs on Chinese imports — the remainder of the fentanyl tariff and the 10 percent “baseline” levy added in April — would leave Beijing with an average 25 percent tariff rate. The judges will test the administration’s position that its IEEPA tariffs are legally sound because they constitute a justified regulation of imports. But a blanket ruling on the levies on Chinese imports isn’t guaranteed. “The Supreme Court is likely to make a binary ruling — the court might decide the trade deficit tariffs are illegal, but the fentanyl tariffs are lawful,” said Peter Harrell, former senior director for international economics in the Joe Biden administration. The Chinese embassy declined to comment on how Beijing might respond to a SCOTUS ruling in China’s favor. But it would mark a symbolic victory for the Chinese government whose Foreign Minister Wang Yi has described them as an expression of “extreme egoism.”    Coping strategy: Celebration in Beijing about a possible revocation of any of these tariffs may be short-lived. That’s because Trump can wield multiple other trade weapons even if the Supreme Court deems the tariffs unlawful. His administration signaled that it’s priming potential replacements for the IEEPA tariffs with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s announcement last week of Section 301 probes of Beijing’s adherence to the U.S.-China Phase One trade deal in Trump’s first term. It is also undertaking Section 232 probes — geared to determine national security threats — of Chinese-dominated imports including pharmaceuticals, critical minerals and wind turbines. “There’s ample opportunity for the Trump administration to use other legal instruments in the event that the IEEPA tariffs get struck down,” said Emily Kilcrease, a former deputy assistant U.S. trade representative during Trump’s first term and under Biden. The 301 investigation into the Phase One deal is already active, and “will allow them to be fairly quick in responding in the event that the Supreme Court rules against the administration,” Kilcrease said at a Center for a New American Security briefing. By Phelim Kine Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CANADA Risk assessment: It’s a bit of a lose-lose situation for Canada.  Trump pre-emptively blamed a Canadian provincial government for weaponizing Ronald Reagan in an ad to influence the SCOTUS ruling. The 60-second spot launched on U.S. networks on Oct. 16 to bring an anti-trade war message to Republican districts rather than to nine Supreme Court justices. It riled Trump enough that he ended trade talks eight days later. Then he vowed to increase tariff levels by 10 percent in retribution. If the court sides with Trump, it will justify an impulse to use IEEPA to raise rates higher without a need for findings or an investigation. And if the court rules against the president — Ottawa will have to prepare for more of Trump’s fury over the ad. The U.S. increased the IEEPA tariff rate on Canada to 35 percent from 25 percent in July, citing a failure to crack down on fentanyl trafficking across the northern border. This 35-percent rate excludes the promised 10-percent retributive increase — an executive order hasn’t been released. It’s unclear which legal authority Trump will use if his stated reasoning is to punish Canada over an ad about Reagan’s warning about protectionism.  Advertisement Prime Minister Mark Carney has called the IEEPA tariffs “unlawful and unjustified.” And he’s been able to play down the threat, for now, by reminding Canadians that these “fentanyl tariffs” have a carve-out for goods covered under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Carney regularly says 85 percent of Canadian exports enter the U.S. tariff free. Section 232 tariffs on industry have hit the economy harder than the IEEPA tariffs. Coping strategy: Canada is frantically pursuing trade diversification coupled with a high-level charm offensive while its trade negotiators try to limit the scope of the upcoming review of the USMCA to minimize U.S. tariff exposure. “Our priorities are to keep the review as targeted as possible, to seek a prompt renewal of the agreement, while securing preferential market access and a stable and predictable trading environment for Canadian businesses and investors,” Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman recently told a parliamentary committee. Carney has, meanwhile, apologized to Trump for the Reagan ad. By Zi-Ann Lum Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEXICO Risk assessment: Trump has hit Mexico, the largest U.S. trading partner, with multiple tariffs since taking office. Those include a 25 percent duty imposed under IEEPA to pressure the country to do more to stop fentanyl and precursor chemicals — as well as illegal immigrants — from entering the United States.  Trump softened the blow by excluding goods that comply with terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement from the new IEEPA duties. That has encouraged more and more companies to fill out paperwork to claim the exemption.  About 90 percent of Mexican goods entering the U.S. now have the necessary USMCA documentation, compared to around 60 percent last year, said Diego Marroquín, a fellow in the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Still, U.S. customs officials report collecting $5.7 billion in IEEPA duties on Mexican goods between Mar. 4 and Sep. 23, according to the most recent data available. Trump also has threatened to raise the IEEPA tariff on Mexico to 30 percent, but reportedly recently agreed to delay that move for several more weeks to allow time for talks. Coping strategy: President Claudia Sheinbaum has stayed on Trump’s good side by declining to retaliate and working with the U.S. on fentanyl and illegal immigration concerns. She has kept that forbearance while Trump has piled new tariffs on Mexico’s exports of autos, auto parts and certain other products using Section 232. Mexico’s ultimate goal is to maintain the preferential access it enjoys to the U.S. market under the USMCA, which is up for review next year, when countries have to say if they want to continue the pact past July 1, 2036, its current expiration date.  Sheinbaum told reporters on Oct. 27 that she hopes to resolve U.S. concerns over 54 Mexican non-tariff trade barriers in coming weeks. While a return to tariff-free trade with the U.S. seems unlikely while Trump is in office, Mexico hopes to be treated better than most other trading partners, or at least no worse. That drama will play out in the first half of 2026. By Doug Palmer Back to top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doug Palmer and Phelim Kine reported from Washington, Camille Gijs from Brussels, Caroline Hug from London and Zi-Ann Lum from Ottawa. Advertisement

OTTAWA — President Donald Trump abruptly halted “all trade negotiations” with Canada late Thursday night over an ad that enlisted the voice of Ronald Reagan to oppose U.S. tariffs. Ontario Premier Doug Ford predicted earlier this week that the president would not be “too happy” with the 60-second spot his province produced to warn Americans that Trump’s tariffs could ultimately kill their jobs. “The Ronald Reagan Foundation has just announced that Canada has fraudulently used an advertisement, which is FAKE, featuring Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about Tariffs,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “They only did this to interfere with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts. TARIFFS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ECONOMY, OF THE U.S.A. Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED.” Earlier in the evening, The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation hit back at the ad, saying it “misrepresents” Reagan’s presidential radio address on April 25, 1987, which was focused on free and fair trade. The foundation said the Government of Ontario “did not seek nor receive permission to use and edit the remarks” and that it is reviewing its legal options. “We encourage you to watch President Reagan’s unedited video on our YouTube channel.” The offices of Prime Minister Mark Carney and Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc said they would not be commenting on Thursday, but they would likely have more to say on Friday. “The commercial uses an unedited excerpt from one of President Reagan’s public addresses, which is available through public domain,” a spokesperson for Ford said in an email to CBC News. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. “The quote of former President Ronald Reagan was recognizing that ultimately somebody pays the tariff — and it’s the consumer,” Carney said when asked about it during an interview last week with Toronto’s RED-FM. “The company passes it on, the price goes up eventually, and you pay the cost of the tariff.” Trump has imposed double-digit tariffs on Canada’s steel, aluminum, auto, lumber and copper sectors. The president has said he is open to renegotiating the United States–Mexico–Canada Free Trade Agreement, but has also left open the possibility of abandoning the framework altogether. Carney, a former central bank governor in Canada and Britain, continued: “As an economist, I say that if somebody is trading fairly, it’s better not to have tariffs between those countries.” The prime minister noted that Trump’s White House is committed to tariffs. “I don’t agree with their policy, but I recognize that is their policy, and I don’t expect it to change.”LeBlanc and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had a meeting scheduled for this week, an official familiar with the trade negotiations told POLITICO. They were granted anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the matter. It’s unclear if the two had met, or if the Liberal government received a heads-up. Carney was previously blindsided by the president in June when Trump halted trade negotiations over Canada’s then-Digital Services Tax. Negotiations resumed days later when Carney’s government agreed to rescind the tax, which would have cost U.S. tech companies like Amazon and Google billions of dollars. Carney said earlier in the day Thursday that he speaks “frequently” with Trump, but couldn’t reach him to bet on the World Series, which kicks off Friday with the Toronto Blue Jays up against the Los Angeles Dodgers. “I think he’s afraid to make a bet,” Carney said, smiling while attending a Jays practice in Toronto. “He hasn’t returned my call yet on the bet. I’m ready. We’re ready to make a bet with the U.S.”White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday that Trump isn’t a big gambler. The Ontario ad has aired in major markets, including D.C., and during the Toronto Blue Jays’ games. “We’re going to repeat that message to every Republican district there is right across the entire country,” Ford said last week before the ad launched. Reagan’s address warned of the long-term economic perils of tariffs on foreign imports sold to Americans as a protectionist policy and explained they were imposed to sort a particular problem — not to begin a trade war. “But over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American, worker and consumer,” Reagan narrates in the ad. “High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. Then the worst happens. Markets shrink and collapse, businesses and industries shut down and millions of people lose their jobs.” China’s embassy in Washington notably used the same Reagan clip to troll Trump’s global tariffs when the China-U.S. trade war heated up in the spring. “I do believe that everybody’s too smart for that,” Trump said Tuesday after catching the anti-tariffs spot. Carney and Trump will both be in Malaysia and South Korea to attend ASEAN and APEC, with Carney scheduled to leave for Asia Friday morning.