America
US enacts new tariffs on 60 trading partners following legal setback
A new wave of US tariffs targeting 60 trading partners came into effect today (July 24).
The new tariffs replace a global duty introduced earlier this year by President Donald Trump, which was set to expire.
The tariffs range between 10% and 12.5%, impacting major economies such as China, India, and the European Union.
“The US has prohibited the importation of goods produced with forced labor for nearly a century and rigorously enforces that prohibition; it is long past time for our trading partners to do the same,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said.
Greer previously added that the targeted economies account for the majority of US trade.
Following a Supreme Court decision in February that struck down a series of tariffs imposed by the President—delivering a blow to the President’s ability to levy high tariffs at will—the Trump administration moved swiftly to rebuild the President’s “tariff wall.”
After that setback, Trump invoked different legal authorities to reimpose a 10% duty on imports. However, that measure lasted only 150 days and expired today.
The new series of tariffs, initially proposed in June, is now coming into force.
These measures were planned following months of investigation and are considered more resilient to legal challenges compared to previous actions.
According to Thursday’s announcement, a lower rate of 10% will apply to economies that prohibit or commit to prohibiting the import of goods produced using forced labor.
These include Canada, the EU, India, and the United Kingdom.
China, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of other nations have been subjected to a higher tariff rate of 12.5%.
However, the EU, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Switzerland will benefit from certain exemptions under trade agreements previously signed with the US.
The new tariffs were immediately condemned by target countries. Japan stated it found the duties “regrettable,” while the Australian trade minister described them as “unfair.”
Goods already subject to sector-specific tariffs, such as steel and aluminum, will not be affected.
A US official told reporters that specific energy products and fertilizers, as well as goods covered under the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement, will also be exempt.
Washington is separately investigating 16 economies over “excess industrial capacity,” inquiries that could lead to additional tariffs.
Experts warn that this could ultimately result in differing rates across countries.
Trade lawyer Greta Peisch told AFP that the Trump administration’s move to implement a baseline tariff while maintaining the threat of additional duties preserves its leverage over trading partners.
Peisch added that this also creates an incentive for countries to comply with previously signed trade agreements.
By taking time for investigations, officials want to ensure that the tariffs imposed are robust in the event of court challenges.
Peisch is a former general counsel at the Office of the US Trade Representative and currently serves as a partner at Wiley Rein.
Josh Lipsky of the Atlantic Council told AFP, “This makes it much more likely that tariffs will remain in place throughout Trump’s term,” pointing to a “much more protectionist global economy” ahead.
Lipsky added that the reimposition of tariffs also increases government revenues.
Former US trade official Ryan Majerus said the Trump administration is seeking options that will allow it to aggressively enforce tariffs.
Majerus noted that, in the long run, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which Greer invoked to apply the latest tariffs, offers “more flexibility than people realize.”
Majerus, now a partner at King & Spalding, added that once the tariffs are in place, officials can modify them based on new developments.
This latest move comes shortly after a 25% tariff on various Brazilian goods took effect after Washington accused the Latin American giant of unfair trade practices.
This week, Trump also ordered new 50% tariffs on many Canadian products, citing Ottawa’s “discriminatory treatment” of American alcoholic beverages, automobiles, and dairy products.
Lipsky noted that the Canadian tariffs, set to take effect in a month, are based on an untested legal provision, demonstrating that Trump possesses other tools he can rapidly deploy.
This situation indicates that US tariff agreements remain “fragile.”
Nevertheless, the EU, which has signed a trade deal, expects Washington to “abide by the commitments set out in the EU-US Joint Statement.”
America
Iran war costs US economy $265 billion as household burden mounts
The economic toll of the conflict on the US has reached $265 billion in the roughly eight months since the start of joint US and Israeli strikes against Iran.
According to calculations by Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi, this amount imposes an additional burden of approximately $2,000 on the budget of an average American family.
Sharing data on his X account on Tuesday, Zandi noted that the cost per household since the war began stands at about $2,000, with nationwide economic losses reaching $265 billion.
This estimate is seven times higher than the direct military spending figure reported to Congress by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, which covers the period between the start of the strikes on 28 February and the end of July.
While Hegseth’s official figures cover only direct military operations, the conflict’s impact on global markets and oil prices is driving up inflation and day-to-day living costs, deepening the real burden on household budgets.
Fuel and heating costs strain budgets
Energy items account for the largest share of the additional expenses facing American households. The surge in fuel, home heating, and transport costs has generated an extra bill of about $1,100 per family.
Zandi noted that the price of regular petrol, which hovered just below $3 per gallon before the war, has risen to $4.37, while diesel has exceeded $6 and jet fuel has nearly doubled.
Pointing out that a marked rise in residential heating fuel costs is driving up spending as winter approaches, Zandi said current price levels continue to add roughly $50 a week to family budgets.
Researchers at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs are also tracking the impact of rising fuel prices on consumers.
According to data from the institute, US consumers have paid an extra $133.3 billion for fuel products since 28 February.
During this period, petrol prices rose by more than 46% and diesel climbed by over 70%. Of this additional burden borne by consumers, $73.5 billion stemmed from petrol and $59.8 billion from diesel. This calculation translates into an extra cost of $1,017.76 per household nationwide.
Loan interest rates and operational outlays inflate the bill
Another decisive factor in the economic picture has been the rise in interest rates.
Zandi reported that climbing interest rates have created a cost of approximately $540 per household.
Fixed-rate home mortgage rates, which stood below 6% before the war, have climbed to roughly 7.5%, Zandi said, adding that long-term rates have also increased substantially.
Direct military operations, meanwhile, represent a cost of $360 per household based on Pentagon data.
However, experts point out that repair, maintenance, and equipment replenishment expenses are excluded from the published figures, meaning actual military spending on the ground could exceed Pentagon estimates.
Linda Bilmes, a war budget specialist who teaches public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, said she is certain the conflict’s bill will reach $1 trillion, adding, “Maybe we’re already there.”
Trump defends spending as public support drops
The mounting economic strain is fuelling backlash against the military campaign and US President Donald Trump’s handling of the process.
A Pew Research Centre survey conducted on 28 September-4 October among 5,062 adults revealed that 65% of Americans disapprove of the way Trump is handling the Iran strikes.
The proportion of those who consider the use of military force justified dropped four percentage points compared with March, falling to 34%.
Emphasizing that the total cost has wiped out roughly half of the average American household’s income gains over the past eight months, Zandi said it is natural for public support for the war to remain so low.
According to figures shared by pollster Nate Silver, Trump’s net approval rating has tumbled to an all-time low of minus 23.5 points.
Defending the military intervention against Iran, Trump described the costs as “a small price to pay to keep our country and the world safe.”
With the surging cost of living piling pressure on Republicans ahead of the November midterm elections, Trump announced last month that he would provide a $5,000 cash payment to every adult in the country if his party maintains its majorities in both chambers of Congress.
America
US fines Bank of America $1.21bn over money laundering and sanctions
The US Department of the Treasury has imposed a total of $1.21 billion in financial penalties on Bank of America, one of the country’s largest financial institutions, for violating anti-money laundering legislation and sanctions regimes.
According to a statement published by the department, the bank was accused of failing to report suspicious transactions in a timely manner, failing to monitor financial movements that posed national security risks, and providing services to clients on sanctions lists.
Decisions by units operating under the Treasury Department accounted for the largest components of the penalty package.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) penalised the bank for failing to report more than $5 billion in suspicious transactions in a timely manner.
More than $1 billion of that amount was noted to be directly linked to national security risks, including the operations of China-based money laundering networks.
Under the settlement reached with FinCEN, Bank of America admitted to willfully violating the Bank Secrecy Act. The bank was required to conduct an additional review covering suspicious transactions and to assess the effectiveness of its financial monitoring system.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) separately fined the bank $750 million over structural deficiencies in its financial monitoring system.
The OCC stated that the bank failed to maintain adequate oversight over trillions of dollars in fund transfers and did not remedy the violations despite a formal notice served in December 2024.
The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) also stepped in over millions of dollars in transactions carried out in breach of sanctions regulations. OFAC reached an $11.6 million settlement agreement with Bank of America concerning 475 distinct potential sanctions violations.
Assessing the matter, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, “The actions taken today send a clear message that even the largest financial institutions are not above the law.”
UK fines banks over breaches of Russia sanctions
Alongside the penalty decision in the US, similar sanctions scrutiny is being carried out across European financial centres.
In September, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), an agency of the UK Treasury, fined Citibank’s London branch (CBNA London) £4.7 million for violating sanctions targeting Russia.
According to findings by the British regulator, between February and November 2022 following the outbreak of armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the bank processed 970 payments worth a combined £19.7 million, circumventing asset freezes and other restrictions. The government stated that the majority of the violations were linked to corporate accounts owned or controlled by sanctioned individuals. Russia, meanwhile, describes sanctions imposed by Western nations as illegal.
During the spring, OFSI also fined the London branch of Germany’s Deutsche Bank £165,000 ($221,000) for transferring funds to the Russian online streaming platform Okko.
Over the same period, the watchdog imposed a £390,000 fine on Apple’s European entity, Apple Distribution International (ADI), for a similar violation.
America
Musk boosts Republican midterm funding despite pledge to curb spending
The world’s richest person, Elon Musk, has donated $276 million over the past three months to political action committees and conservative organizations supporting Republicans ahead of the upcoming US midterm elections.
The latest transfer brings the total midterm donations from Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX, to $366 million.
First reported by The New York Times, the figures were confirmed to The Hill by a spokesperson for America PAC, which Musk founded. These latest expenditures establish Musk as the largest known donor of the 2026 midterms.
The bulk of Musk’s financial backing between July and September was directed towards congressional races.
The US billionaire transferred $158 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC supporting Republican Senate candidates, and $20 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, which finances House Republicans.
Millions divided among various committees
Musk, who provided more than $76 million during the period to America PAC, an entity he founded during the 2024 election cycle, also funded state-level contests.
The businessman transferred $10 million to the Lone Star Liberty PAC, which supports Texas Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton, while donating $10 million to the Republican Governors Association and $2 million to the Republican Attorneys General Association.
In statements given to The New York Times and confirmed by The Hill, America PAC spokesperson Andrew Romeo argued that if Democrats take control in Washington and win critical state races, the country faces the risk of becoming one with indefensible borders.
Romeo said the investments enable the Republican apparatus to deliver its messages to voters.
Field spending continues despite talk of retreat
Musk, who kept his distance from politics for many years, entered the arena by spending hundreds of millions of dollars for Donald Trump during the 2024 election.
Accompanying Trump on campaign trails, Musk subsequently took charge of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which sparked controversy through federal employment and budget cuts.
Musk stepped down from his White House role in late May 2025 and remained politically quiet for months following a public rift with Trump.
After announcing last May that he would sharply scale back his political spending, Musk told The Economist in a July interview that he had become overly involved in politics and had gone too far.
Despite those remarks, Musk pressed ahead with political activity in July by authorizing America PAC to spend between $100 million and $120 million on a fresh field operation aimed at driving conservative voter turnout in the 2026 midterms.
Having repaired ties with Trump following their public spat, Musk joined the US president on an official visit to China in May and was also present during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington last month.
-
Europe2 weeks agoGerman interior ministers drop unanimity rule to counter AfD veto
-
Europe2 weeks agoKey European allies excluded from US-led NATO meeting in Poland
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoWhile the West breeds crises, Eurasia weaves peace and development, says Prof. Zhang Weiwei
-
Middle East2 weeks agoNetanyahu holds secret UAE talks with Saudi Arabia and Arab officials
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoThe European Union’s peace project has collapsed, MEP von der Schulenburg says
-
Opinion2 weeks agoA new world in the East, old dogmas in the West
-
America2 weeks agoMusk appointed co-director of Pentagon future warfare initiative
-
Asia2 weeks agoSouth Korea plans $120B spend on eight US nuclear power plants
