Politics
A look at Trump’s trade deals so far as tariff deadline days away – National TenX News
The clock is ticking closer to U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest tariff deadline of Aug 1. And while several more deals — or at least frameworks for deals — have been reached since his last tariff deadline of July 9 came and went, trade talks with many countries are still in flux.
Trump unveiled sweeping import taxes on goods coming into the U.S. from nearly every country back in April. That included heightened so-called reciprocal rates for certain countries, the bulk of which have since been postponed twice.
The first 90-day pause arrived in an apparent effort to quell global market panic and facilitate country-by-country negotiations, with the Trump administration at one point setting a lofty goal of reaching 90 trade deals in 90 days.
But three months later, only two deals emerged: with the U.K. and Vietnam. A separate “framework” for a deal was hashed out with China. And by early July, Trump began sending warning letters that higher tariffs would be imposed against dozens of countries on Aug. 1.
Since then, the U.S. has announced trade frameworks with the European Union, Japan, the Philippines and Indonesia. But, key details remain sparse — or not immediately captured in writing.
Here’s what we know about the agreements so far, in the order of those most recently announced.
The U.S. and the EU announced a trade framework that imposes 15 per cent tariffs on most European goods — warding off Trump’s most recent threat of 30 per cent if no deal had been reached by Aug. 1.
But some key details require more work. The headline of the agreement, unveiled July 27, is that the 15 per cent tariff rate will apply to 70 per cent of European goods brought into the U.S. — with the EU later confirming that that rate applies to pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and car and car parts. But the remaining 30 per cent of those imports is still open for negotiations.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that both sides had agreed to zero tariffs for a range of “strategic” goods. Meanwhile, Trump pointed to heightened investments from European companies in the U.S. — including what Trump said was US$750 billion (638 billion euros) worth of natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel over three years, as well as an additional US$600 billion (511 billion euros) under a political commitment that isn’t legally binding, officials said.
On July 22, Trump announced a trade framework to impose 15 per cent tariffs on Japan — down from his previously-threatened rate of 25 per cent. The U.S. president also said Japan would invest US$550 billion into the U.S. and would “open” its economy to American autos and rice.
The newly-agreed on 15 per cent tariff rate also applies to Japanese cars — marking a welcome relief for automakers like Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda — which, like other automakers, have faced a 25 per cent levy on key parts and finished vehicles going into the U.S. since earlier this year. But car companies in other countries, including U.S. competitors, worry that this could put them at a disadvantage.
Shortly after a July 22 meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., Trump announced that he would lower his upcoming tariffs on imports from the country to 19 per cent — down just one per cent from his previous threat of 20 per cent.
Get daily National news
Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.
In return, Trump said on Truth Social, the U.S. would not pay tariffs on American goods it shipped to the Philippines. But additional details remained unclear. Marcos said his country was considering options such as having an open market without tariffs for U.S. automobiles, but emphasized details were still left to be worked out.
On July 15, Trump again took to social media to announce that he’s agreed to lower his planned tariffs on Indonesian goods to 19 per cent — down from a previously-threatened levy of 32 per cent — while American goods sent to the southeast Asian country will face no tariffs. A fact sheet from the White House later confirmed that “over 99 per cent of U.S. products” exported to Indonesia would be sent duty-free.
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto said he will continue to negotiate with Trump, in hopes of further lowering the coming U.S. tariffs.
On July 2, Trump announced a trade deal with Vietnam that he said would allow U.S. goods to enter the country duty-free. Vietnamese exports to the U.S., by contrast, would face a 20 per cent levy.
That’s less than half the 46 per cent “reciprocal” rate Trump proposed for Vietnamese goods back in April. But in addition to the new 20 per cent tariff rate, Trump said the U.S. would impose a 40 per cent tax on “transshipping’’ — targeting goods from another country that stop in Vietnam on their way to the United States. Washington complains that Chinese goods have been dodging higher U.S. tariffs by transiting through Vietnam.
On May 8, Trump agreed to cut tariffs on British autos, steel and aluminum, among other trade pledges — while the U.K. promised to reduce levies on U.S. products like olive oil, wine and sports equipment. The deal was announced in grandiose terms by both countries, but some key details remained unknown for weeks.
When the deal was announced, for example, the British government notably said that the U.S. agreed to exempt the U.K. from its then-universal 25 per cent duties on foreign steel and aluminum — which would have effectively allowed both metals from the country to come into the U.S. duty-free.
But the timing for when those cuts would actually take effect stayed up in the air for almost a month. It wasn’t until early June, when Trump hiked his steel and aluminum tariffs to a punishing 50 per cent worldwide, that the U.S. acknowledged it was time to implement the agreement. And even then, U.S. tariffs on British steel and aluminum did not go to zero. The U.K. was the only country spared from Trump’s new 50 per cent levies, but still faces 25 per cent import taxes on the metals.
At its peak, Trump’s new tariffs on Chinese goods totaled 145 per cent — and China’s countertariffs on American products reached 125 per cent. But on May 12, the countries agreed to their own 90-day truce to roll back those levies to 30 per cent and 10 per cent, respectively. And in June, details began trickling in about a tentative trade agreement.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that China had agreed to make it easier for American firms to acquire Chinese magnets and rare earth minerals critical for manufacturing and microchip production. Meanwhile, the Chinese Commerce Ministry said that the U.S. would “lift a series of restrictive measures it had imposed on China.”
Other key details of the deal remain murky — including the timing of implementation for these terms. On July 29, China’s top trade official said the two sides had agreed to work on extending an Aug. 12 deadline for new tariffs on each other, following a two-day trade meeting in Stockholm. The U.S. side said extension plans were discussed, but not decided.
—Associated Press reporters from all over the world contributed to this report.
Prime Minister Mark Carney arrived in Doha on Saturday as part of a push to attract foreign investment and deepen Canada’s economic partnerships beyond its traditional allies.
Carney’s visit comes on the heels of his visit to China and follows the recent presentation of a new federal investment budget aimed at positioning Canada as a stable, attractive destination for global capital.
In a news conference on Saturday, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said Canada is working to broaden its economic relationships as global trade patterns shift.
Qatar is viewed by Ottawa as a strategic partner, with officials pointing to the country’s significant investment capacity and growing influence on the global stage.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.
“We need to reduce our dependence and increase our self-reliance to find a strategic path forward,” Champagne said.
“Engaging with the Middle East and China is necessary for Canada, just like our European partners have done,” Champagne added. “We buy more from the U.S.A. than anywhere else, but the trading climate right now is different.”
The conference highlighted Canada’s industrial capacity and trade advantages as key selling points for potential investors.
Champagne also said international engagement is critical as Canada works to raise its profile among global investors.
“We are one of the G7s with very big industries. We build cars, planes, ships, we have an abundance of energy, and we are the only one with free trade with all G7,” Champagne said. “With the way the world is changing, you better diversify, supply chain is changing and we need to adapt.”
Prime Minister Carney is expected to meet with senior Qatari officials, including Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, as well as representatives of the Qatar Investment Authority.
His office says the talks will focus on expanding trade access and forging partnerships in artificial intelligence, infrastructure, energy and defence.
The visit comes amid heightened geopolitical tensions in the region, though officials say the schedule remains unchanged.
© 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
The possibility of a forceful U.S. takeover of Greenland is raising many unprecedented questions — including how Canada, the European Union and NATO could respond or even retaliate against an ostensible ally.
A high-level meeting between Greenlandic, Danish and U.S. officials this week did not resolve the “fundamental disagreement” over the territory’s sovereignty but did set the stage for more talks. The White House made clear Thursday that U.S. President Donald Trump’s desire to control Greenland has not changed after the meeting.
“He wants the United States to acquire Greenland. He thinks it’s in our best national security to do that,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
Denmark and European allies are sending more troops to the territory in a show of force and to display a commitment to Arctic security.
Experts say there are other, non-military measures available in the event of a U.S. annexation or invasion of Greenland, or which could at least be threatened to try and get Trump to back down.
Whether those economic measures are actually used is another matter, those experts say.
“I think it remains highly unlikely that we’ll get to that point where we have to seriously discuss consequences for a U.S. move on Greenland,” said Otto Svendsen, an associate fellow with the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“So it remains contingency planning for a highly unlikely event. That being said … Denmark would certainly do everything in its power to rally a very robust European response.”
Here’s what that could entail.
EU trade, tech disruptions?
Experts agree the biggest pressure points that can be used in the U.S. surround trade and technology.
The European Parliament’s trade committee is currently debating whether to postpone implementing the trade deal signed between Trump and the EU last summer to protest the threats against Greenland, Reuters reported Wednesday.
Many lawmakers have complained that the deal is lopsided, with the EU required to cut most import duties while the U.S. sticks to a broad 15 per cent tariff for European goods.
Get daily National news
Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.
An even bolder move would be triggering the EU’s anti-coercion instrument — known as the “trade bazooka” — that would allow the bloc to hit non-member nations with tariffs, trade restrictions, foreign investment bans, and other penalties if that country is found to be using coercive economic measures.
Although the regulation defines coercion as “measures affecting trade and investment,” Svendsen said it could feasibly be used in a diplomatic or territorial dispute as well.
“EU lawyers have proven themselves to be very creative in recent years,” he said.
However, David Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said in an email that economic measures against the U.S. are unlikely “given the massive asymmetry in the defence and economic relationship between the U.S.” and other western nations.
“Any kind of sanction against the U.S. doesn’t make sense for the same reason they can impose tariffs on others: they have the power,” Perry added.
Target U.S. tech companies?
The likeliest — and potentially least harmful — scenario for retaliation in the event of an attack on Greenland, Svendsen said, would be fines or bans against U.S. tech companies like Google, Meta and X operating in Europe.
That’s because the Trump administration has taken particular focus on preventing what they call “attacks” on American companies by foreign governments seeking to regulate their online content or tax their revenues, which has led to calls on Canada, Britain and the EU to repeal laws like digital services taxes.
“I think that would be a really smart and targeted way to get to economic interests very close to the president, while minimizing the direct impact on the on the European economy,” Svendsen said, calling such a move “low-hanging fruit.”
He also compared a future U.S. tech platform ban to how Europe moved to wean itself off Russian gas after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
“If you told anyone back then that Europe would basically rid itself of its dependence on Russian gas basically within a two-year period … that would have been considered completely impossible,” he said.
“Weaning the European economy off of U.S. tech would certainly be painful in the short term, but they’ve proven that they can get off those dependencies quickly if there is political will behind it in the past.”
A U.S. hostile takeover of Greenland would mean the “end” of the NATO alliance, experts and European leaders have said.
Trump himself has acknowledged it could be a “choice” between preserving the alliance or acquiring Greenland.
There is no provision within the NATO founding treaty that addresses the possibility of a NATO member taking territory from another, and how the alliance should respond to such an act.
A NATO spokesperson told Global News it wouldn’t “speculate on hypothetical scenarios” when asked how it could potentially act.
“None of this would be actionable in a NATO sense,” Perry said. “It’s an alliance that’s organized to bind the U.S. to European security, and revolves around the U.S. So there’s no scenario of NATO doing that to the U.S.”
Denmark and other European nations could move to reduce or close U.S. military bases in their countries as a possible response, experts say.
Balkan Devlen, a a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and director of its Transatlantic Program, said in an interview that a U.S. annexation of Greenland would force Canada to focus entirely on boosting its defences in the Arctic.
That may include trying to decouple from NORAD, the joint northern defence network with the U.S., in favour of a purely domestic Arctic command, he said — although that process would take years and require Canada to increase defence spending even further.
“Never mind five per cent (of GDP) — we will probably need to go like seven, eight, nine per cent on defence spending to be able to do anything of that sort,” he said. “It’s not even clear that we’ll be able to have enough people to do that.”
Devlen added that any retaliatory action, whether military or financial, needs to be targeted and proportionate to what the U.S. does.
“The problem with nuclear options is that once you use it, it’s gone,” he said. “And if it doesn’t do the damage or make the change of behaviour on the other party, you’ve basically lost a lot of leverage and you might actually sustain a lot more loss yourself.”
A trip to the world’s most-visited museum is about to cost Canadians significantly more.
France has hiked ticket prices at the Louvre by 45 per cent for visitors from outside the European Union, a move that is fuelling debate over so-called dual pricing and the growing backlash against overtourism.
Starting this week, adult visitors from non-EU countries, including Canada, must pay €32 to enter the Paris landmark, up from €22. That’s an increase from about $35 to $52 Canadian.
Visitors from EU countries, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, will continue to pay the lower rate.
The price hike comes as the Louvre grapples with repeated labour strikes, a high-profile daylight jewel heist last October that prompted a costly security overhaul, and years of chronic overcrowding. The museum attracts roughly nine million visitors annually.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.
Some Canadian tourists told Global News they feel unfairly targeted.
“We didn’t cause the robberies or some of the other issues that happened and we are paying the consequences,” said Allison Moore, visiting Paris from Newfoundland with her daughter. “[In] Canada we don’t discriminate over pricing like that.”
Others argue tourists already shoulder higher costs simply by travelling long distances.
“In general for tourists, I think things should be a little cheaper than for local people, because we have to travel to come all the way here,” said Darla Daniela Quiroz, another Canadian visitor. “It should be equal pricing, or a little bit cheaper.”
Even some Europeans question the two-tiered system. A French tourist interviewed outside the museum said there was “no reason” to charge non-Europeans more and that the fee should be the same for everyone.
Tourism experts say the Louvre’s financial pressures help explain the decision.
“The Louvre is really cash-strapped right now and needs to do something,” said Marion Joppe, a professor at the University of Guelph. “It can’t really look to the government, which is already struggling with its own budget.”
The move also reflects a broader global pushback against mass tourism. Anti-tourism protests have spread across parts of Spain, New Zealand has increased its entry tax, and the United States recently raised national park fees for foreign visitors.
“You take Paris — it gets about 50 million tourists a year,” said Julian Karaguesian, an economist at McGill University. “That’s roughly a million a week. The city simply wasn’t built for those kinds of numbers.”
Despite the higher price, many visitors say they will still line up to see the Mona Lisa and other of the museum’s famous artworks.
“It’s one of the main attractions. It’s on everybody’s list,” Moore said. “We’re still going to go, and hopefully it will be worth it in the end.”
© 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
Canada talks trade with Qatar as Carney touches down in Doha – National TenX News
How could Canada, EU, NATO respond to a U.S. takeover of Greenland? – National TenX News
Louvre raises ticket prices for non-Europeans, hitting Canadian visitors TenX News
-
Fashion10 months agoThese ’90s fashion trends are making a comeback in 2017
-
Entertainment10 months agoThe final 6 ‘Game of Thrones’ episodes might feel like a full season
-
TenX Exclusive10 months agoअमर योद्धा: राइफलमैन जसवंत सिंह रावत की वीरगाथा
-
Politics8 months agoBefore being named Pope Leo XIV, he was Cardinal Robert Prevost. Who is he? – National TenX News
-
Politics9 months agoPuerto Rico faces island-wide blackout, sparking anger from officials – National TenX News
-
Fashion10 months agoAccording to Dior Couture, this taboo fashion accessory is back
-
Tech10 months agoIndian-AI-software-which-caught-30-thousand-criminals-and-busted-18-terrorist-modules-its-demand-is-increasing-in-foreign-countries-also – News18 हिंदी
-
Politics9 months agoScientists detect possible signs of life on another planet — but it’s not aliens – National TenX News