U.S. sanctions on some Iranian oil will be temporarily lifted to allow the sale of shipments already in transit, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced Friday. The partial pause on sanctions is intended to help ease what the Trump administration sees as a short-term shock to the global market as a result of the attack on Iran launched by the U.S. and Israel three weeks ago. Bessent said in a social media post that the U.S. is granting a short-term authorization to allow the sale of about 140 million barrels of Iranian oil in transit. “In essence, we will be using the Iranian barrels against Tehran to keep the price down as we continue Operation Epic Fury,” he said. Oil prices have spiked to more than $100 per barrel since the U.S. launched airstrikes on Iran last month, triggering a rise in gas prices. Israeli strikes on Iran’s vast offshore gas field and Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical trade passage that facilitates a significant share of the world’s oil and natural gas trade, have helped drive the increases. The sales have been authorized for 30 days, according to a copy of the general license issued by the Treasury Department on Friday. The announcement marks a partial reversal of the longstanding aggressive economic pressure campaign by the U.S. intended to weaken Iran’s economy, though Bessent said the country would have “difficulty accessing any revenue generated” from the sales. “The United States will continue to maintain maximum pressure on Iran and its ability to access the international financial system,” he added. Trump appeared to acknowledge he was aware that entering a war with Iran could cause oil prices to spike, even as he touted the success of the U.S. military operation and the strength of the economy. “I expected it worse actually,” he told reporters at the White House on Friday. “I thought that oil prices would go much higher.” Bessent said he’s confident the suspension of sanctions on Iran will benefit the U.S. economy in the long run. “Any short-term disruption now will ultimately translate into longer-term economic gains for Americans — because there is no prosperity without security,” he said. Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in response that the easing of sanctions gives the Iranian government “a financial lifeline” as Americans “continue to feel the impact” of the war. “To say the president has no plan is an understatement,” Shaheen said.

U.S. President Donald Trump did not commit to a definitive timeline for the war in Iran, saying in a Friday interview that the fighting would end when he feels it “in my bones.” Trump told Fox News Radio that he didn’t think the war “would be long.” But he suggested that only he will know when it will be over, saying the conflict will end “when I feel it, feel it in my bones.” The Trump administration has sent mixed signals on the length of the war, with senior administration officials suggesting at times that the war could last anywhere from days to months. Trump on Friday said he expected the conflict to end soon but added that it could also continue indefinitely if necessary. The president dismissed reports that the U.S. was facing a munitions shortage. “Nobody has the technology or the weapons that we have,” Trump told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade. “We’re way ahead of schedule. Way ahead.” He later said the U.S. had “virtually unlimited ammunition. We’re using it, we’re using it. We can go forever.” While the president suggested the decision to end the war will ultimately be based on his personal judgment, he said he was consulting with senior advisers, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. “Operation Epic Fury will continue until President Trump, as Commander-in-Chief, determines that the goals of Operation Epic Fury, including for Iran to no longer pose a military threat, have been fully realized,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement when asked for comment. Earlier on Friday, Hegseth suggested victory was a certainty and attacked the press for what he viewed as unfriendly media coverage about the war. Trump also sought to downplay any economic ramifications of the conflict, saying the U.S. economy was the greatest in the world and would “bounce right back, so fast.” The Trump administration has sought to quell concerns over rising oil and gas prices after U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran began in February. The war triggered the largest oil supply disruption in history and cost $11 billion in its first week, according to the Pentagon. The president’s messaging around the run-up in crude prices has caused a potential public relations nightmare for the oil industry. “The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,” Trump wrote Wednesday on Truth Social.

The U.S.-Israeli war with Iran has triggered the largest supply disruption in global oil market history, according to a Thursday report from the International Energy Agency, as tensions escalate along a critical waterway for international trade. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway responsible for carrying roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, has seen oil and product flows plunge from around 20 million barrels a day to “a trickle,” the agency wrote. The price of oil has also “gyrated wildly” since the start of the war, the report read. Rising energy costs have been a central focus of the Trump administration since the beginning of the U.S.-Israeli operation in February. The White House has said it could offer naval escorts and political risk insurance for tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The president has also loosened sanctions on India’s acquisition of Russian oil. Still, global oil supply will likely drop by 8 million barrels per day in March, according to the IEA, with “direct damage to energy infrastructure” also contributing to supply shocks. “With nearly 20 [million barrels per day] of crude and product exports currently disrupted and limited alternative options to bypass the world’s most critical oil transit chokepoint, producers and consumers globally are feeling the strain,” the agency wrote in its report. IEA member countries on Wednesday committed to releasing 400 million barrels of oil in an effort to stabilize supply and bring down energy prices. And U.S. Central Command is now striking Iranian vessels believed to be placing naval mines throughout the Strait of Hormuz. But President Donald Trump on Thursday seemingly dismissed the market disruptions as having a dramatic impact on the U.S. economy. “The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,” he wrote on Truth Social Thursday morning. “BUT, of far greater interest and importance to me, as President, is stopping an evil Empire, Iran, from having Nuclear Weapons, and destroying the Middle East and, indeed, the World. I won’t ever let that happen!”

BRUSSELS — After close to a decade of talks, the European Union is closing in on signing a trade deal with Mexico. U.S. President Donald Trump could yet sink it.  The deal updates a previous free trade agreement from 2000, and was concluded in January 2025. Trade specialists on both sides have since been casting it in bullet-proof legal language and translating it into all of the EU’s 24 official languages. That would pave the way for a signing ceremony: a plum photo op for Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Council President António Costa and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum.   The EU-Mexico Modernized Global Agreement, as it is called, should be an easy win for both sides. It largely excludes the thorny issue of agriculture, and cements an alliance between wealthy European economies and a populous Latin American democracy with an enviable geography, straddling both the Atlantic and Pacific, and sitting just south of the U.S. border.  But the U.S. president remains a wild card. Mexico is the U.S.’s number one trade partner. Annual trade in goods between the two countries amounts to $840 billion, 10 times Mexico’s trade with the EU. And while Trump has turned his wrath of late on northern neighbor Canada, he first rode to power on a promise to build a wall on the Mexican border. He has, since returning to the White House, imposed extra tariffs and even threatened military strikes against Mexican drug cartels. The timing of the revision of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) — the successor of NAFTA — adds another wrinkle. The free-trade deal between the three North American countries, is up for a review at the start of July. The Trump administration has made noises that it wants major revisions — or even to sink it altogether. Signing a deal with the EU, with all the pomp and fanfare that entails, risks antagonizing a White House that has made dominating the Western hemisphere under the “Donroe Doctrine” a strategic priority. One EU diplomat who asked to remain anonymous said that the Mexican side was slow-walking negotiations precisely for fear of U.S. retaliation. More broadly, Trump’s trade agenda is in disarray after the U.S. Supreme Court last week struck down the sweeping tariffs he imposed last year. Trump has announced a new, temporary global tariff of 15 percent, under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. For Mexico, the effective rate would be lower, at 5.2 percent, thanks in large part to the USMCA. BAD TIMING  The updated EU-Mexico agreement has had a difficult birth. The two sides first announced that they had reached an agreement in 2018. But the change of the government in Mexico with the election of the left-nationalist Morena party, led by Andrés Manuel López Obrador, reset talks. Obrador had made state control of energy utilities a key plank of his program, requiring a new round of negotiations. But in January last year, the EU announced once again that the two sides had reached a deal. The revised agreement clears the way for more integration of Mexico’s manufacturing-heavy economy with European industry, particularly in the automotive sector. It also paves the way for more European investment in Mexico.  For Mexico, it would be one way to lessen its overwhelming dependency on the U.S. economy. But it’s that same dependency makes the revised deal delicate. “The U.S. is an important variable for trade for every country, but for Mexico it’s a crucial partner,” said Renata Zilli, a researcher at think tank  European Centre for International Political Economy who is based in Mexico City. Zilli explained that, over the past three decades, Mexico had deepened its integration in the U.S. supply chain. American businesses had taken advantage of lower salaries to open up factories south of the border which then shipped everything from car and airplane parts, to toasters and refrigerators, back to the U.S. The end result had been respectable growth and a more industrialized economy compared with commodity-heavy South American economies. But it’s also left Mexico increasingly dependent on the U.S. Trump has in his second term, meanwhile, amped up the hostile rhetoric, with threats of military action against drug cartels south of the border, something that would precipitate a political crisis. The capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro by U.S. special forces has further escalated tension in the region.       “There’s a mixed agenda on security issues, on fentanyl. This complicates a lot the trade agenda,” said Zilli. “Our priority is trying to manage the relationship with the U.S.”  The exact timing of a signature remains unclear. One person familiar with the negotiations, and who asked to remain anonymous, says that the two sides are aiming to get a deal done by the end of June. Meanwhile, the USMCA agreement is up for revision in July.    Juan Carlos Baker, former Mexican vice minister of trade who is now an academic specializing in international trade at the Panamerican University, said signing the modernized agreement sooner rather than later could benefit Mexico, precisely by showing the Trump administration that the country has other friends.  “What we need to do is expand our options,” said Baker, who helped negotiate the agreement before the election of Morena. He said that he believed that there in the end, the U.S. would ratify an updated USMCA.  “It’s just posturing,” added Baker. “We buy the most and sell them the most. If you take Mexico out of the supply chain, you take the wheel off the car.”

Republican tariff skeptics on Capitol Hill celebrated Friday after the Supreme Court struck down the core authority behind President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs — dealing a blow to a major plank of the president’s agenda but offering a welcome off-ramp to GOP lawmakers who viewed the levies as a political loser. Retiring Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) broke with Trump and GOP leaders a week ago to help overturn Trump’s Canada tariffs. On Friday, he hailed the “common sense ruling” by the high court that essentially invalidates those and many other tariffs. “The checks and balances our Constitution puts in place works,” Bacon said in an interview Friday morning shortly after the decision, adding, “I feel vindicated.” Another Republican who backed the effort to overturn the Canada tariffs, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, also praised the ruling. “On its face, this case was obvious, because the Constitution vests the power to tax with the legislative branch, not the Executive branch,” Massie said in a text message. “No contrived emergency can undo that.” Speaker Mike Johnson sidestepped any praise or criticism of the ruling, saying that Trump’s tariffs had “brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy.” “Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks,” he said in a statement. Johnson later Friday postponed a trade briefing for a group of House Republicans, including tariff skeptics, that he had scheduled for Monday evening, according to three people granted anonymity to describe the private plans. The lawmakers were set to meet in the speaker’s office with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, who has played a lead role in assuaging wary Republicans about Trump’s sweeping tariff regime as Democrats push to bring the matter to the House floor. A staffer in the speaker’s office said a new date and time for the discussion would be set “soon.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) in a statement said his members would “continue working with the administration and our colleagues in the House to advance our shared goal to strengthen rural America, including South Dakota’s farm and ranch communities, and the broader U.S. economy.” But Trump, during a news conference Friday afternoon, made clear he had no interest in engaging Congress further on the matter. In announcing his plans to slap a new “10% global tariff” on goods coming into the U.S., Trump said he would not ask lawmakers to take additional action: “I don’t need to. It’s already been approved. I mean — I would ask Congress and probably get it.” He added, “I have the right to do tariffs. And I’ve always had the right to do tariffs.” In the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump appeared visibly upset at the decision, according to two people in the room granted anonymity to describe the private event, cutting short remarks he was delivering to governors upon hearing the news at a White House breakfast Friday morning. “He was not happy. He got the info in real time,” one of the people said. The ruling comes just four days before Trump is set to deliver his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress and an audience that will include the Supreme Court justices who rebuffed the cornerstone of his economic and foreign policy agendas. Trump said during his Friday news conference that the six justices who ruled against his tariffs were “barely” invited to the address and “I couldn’t care less if they come.” A few GOP backers of the tariffs quickly spoke out, with Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio decrying the ruling as “outrageous” and saying it “handcuffs our fight against unfair trade that has devastated American workers for decades.” “These tariffs protected jobs, revived manufacturing, and forced cheaters like China to pay up. Now globalists win,” Moreno added in a social media post Friday. The ruling also prompted tough questions for both parties about what comes next. Bacon indicated the decision could put an end to a flood of additional tariff disapproval votes headed to the House floor in the coming weeks. “We’ll see if it’s necessary,” he said. But House Democrats could keep hammering Republicans on the topic in the weeks ahead. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Foreign Affairs Committee Democrat who has orchestrated the tariff disapproval votes, said he would “continue to review the SCOTUS ruling to assess future legislative steps,” though there are no plans at the moment to force additional disapproval votes next week, according to two people granted anonymity to discuss internal strategy. Senate Democrats, according to a person granted anonymity to discuss private strategy, are waiting to see how Trump responds to the decision before determining whether to force more votes disapproving of individual emergency declarations. Democrats in the Senate had hoped to put up the House-passed Canada resolution for a vote in the coming weeks, but there are ongoing internal conversations over whether it qualifies for special fast-track procedures allowing for a quick simple-majority vote, according to a second person granted anonymity to describe the matter. Other Democrats said further action was needed to forestall the Trump administration from sidestepping the ruling, possibly by invoking separate national security powers. Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington, who chairs the House Democratic campaign arm and sits on the chamber’s main trade panel, noted that the White House “has promised to use other avenues to maintain these illegal tariffs.” “Congress must step up to put an end to this chaos and protect our economy,” she added. Asked about the prospect of Trump trying to implement his tariffs through other avenues, Bacon said, “I think they’ll try, but it would not be advisable.” Friday’s ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts broadly defended Congress’ sole power under the Constitution to levy taxes. Congress might also end up having to wrangle with the question of whether refunds are due to businesses or consumers who paid levies now found to be illegal. “The Court has struck down these destructive tariffs, but there is no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) noted in a statement. “Instead, giant corporations with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists can sue for tariff refunds, then just pocket the money for themselves.” Some Republicans are also urging congressional action in response to the ruling, with Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan, who chairs the Select Committee on China, pressing for a revocation of Beijing’s permanent normal trade relations status. But to the handful of GOP lawmakers who stuck to their free-trade guns as Trump unleashed his global tariff campaign, the overwhelming sentiment has been relief and praise for the high court. Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.), who joined Bacon and Massie in opposing the Canada tariffs last week, said in an interview that the ruling was “an example of our institution working” and called on Congress to set trade policy in concert with Trump. “We need to make sure that when it comes to trade policy that we have stability and predictability,” he said. “And the way that we get that predictability and stability is through congressional action.” Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, who orchestrated the confirmations of several justices who participated in the ruling in his former role as Republican leader, said the justices “reaffirmed authority that has rested with Congress for centuries.” “If the executive would like to enact trade policies that impact American producers and consumers, its path forward is crystal clear,” he said in a statement. “Convince their representatives under Article 1” of the Constitution. Jordain Carney, Daniel Desrochers and Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.

French President Emmanuel Macron warned Saturday against celebrating too quickly after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, noting that Washington has already moved to impose new duties. “We shouldn’t go too fast,” Macron said at the opening of the Paris International Agricultural show, hours after Trump signed an executive order introducing a “temporary” 10 percent global tariff following the high court’s ruling. “We will look precisely at the consequences, at what can be done, and we will adapt,” Macron said. The Supreme Court on Friday invalidated tariffs imposed under the U.S. International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Within hours, however, Trump signed an executive order introducing a 10 percent global tariff under a different legal authority, while keeping existing sector-specific duties in place. Across Europe, leaders reacted with cautious relief to the court ruling, while warning that trade uncertainty is likely to persist. The European Commission called for stability in the transatlantic trade relationship. Macron struck a measured tone, praising the role of institutional checks and balances while avoiding direct criticism of Trump. “It’s not a bad thing to have supreme courts and therefore the rule of law,” he said. “It’s good to have powers and counter-powers in democracies.” At the same time, he stressed the need for “the fairest possible rules” in international trade, based on reciprocity rather than unilateral decisions. France wants to continue exporting “our agricultural products, our food industry goods, our luxury, our aeronautics,” he said.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Rixa Fürsen und Gordon Repinski analysieren und bilanzieren den Samstag auf der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz. Die Ansprache des US-Außenministers Marco Rubio war versöhnlicher als viele erwartet hatten. Wie schon bei JD Vance vor einem Jahr ging es um Sicherheit und Migration, zugleich betonte Rubio das gemeinsame Wertefundament zwischen Europa und den USA. Gordon und Rixa ordnen ein, was diese Rede für das transatlantische Verhältnis bedeutet, wie sie aufgenommen wurde und sie sprechen darüber, wie die Ukraine in Rubios Rede keine Rolle spielte. Parallel bestimmte eine weitere Nachricht den Konferenztag. Neue Untersuchungsergebnisse legen nahe, dass Alexei Nawalny eindeutig vergiftet wurde. Gordon hat im POLITICO Pub mit seiner Witwe Julia die Erkenntnisse gesprochen, über politische Verantwortung und über die Frage, ob es eine Opposition in Russland geben kann. Auch Wolodymyr Selenskyj äußert sich auf der Pressekonferenz zur Debatte um Nawalny und setzte dabei klare Prioritäten. Im Pub trafen US-Senatoren, NATO-Vertreter und europäische Spitzenpolitiker aufeinander. Die Diskussionen drehten sich um Verteidigungsfähigkeit, strategische Fehlannahmen in der Kriegsprognose und die Rolle Europas in einer sich verändernden Sicherheitsordnung. Und: Ein Blick hinter die Kulissen der Konferenz, von Begegnungen mit internationalen Spitzenpolitikern bis zum traditionellen Kickerturnier der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. ⁠Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.⁠ Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: ⁠@gordon.repinski⁠ | X: ⁠@GordonRepinski⁠. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

President Donald Trump is betting that larger tax refunds this spring will help sate Americans’ cravings for economic relief and boost GOP fortunes in November. The political payoff may be fleeting. The White House believes the average refund could increase by $1,000 thanks to tax cuts in the GOP’s signature legislation, passed last summer. But as tax season kicks off, economists and Republican strategists — and even some of the president’s own allies — warn that the boost American households receive from the refunds may wear off by November. While Trump and his top advisers have been banking on the refunds as a pocketbook proof point — a moment when voters would finally feel the economy turning in their favor — those skeptics caution that the money could be quickly swallowed up by stubbornly high prices elsewhere. “The sugar high will be short-lived if [the refunds], in fact, go toward paying and supporting prices of things like additional health care costs, additional insurance costs, additional electricity costs, additional heating costs,” said Diane Swonk, chief economist at the accounting firm KPMG U.S. “The real issue is we’ve gotten prices way out of line, and it takes a very long time to catch up.” Even allies warn that in a rapid-fire news cycle, the refunds may be long forgotten by the time voters show up to the polls. So far this year, Trump has struggled to keep the spotlight on affordability, with his high-profile speeches quickly overshadowed by everything from a possible invasion of Greenland to ongoing immigration clashes in Minnesota. “Any employer will tell you that when they give their employees a bonus, they get goodwill for a little bit, but six months later, the employees have forgotten about their bonus,” said Alex Conant, a GOP strategist. “[Voters] won’t remember it unless the president and candidates remind them.” That concern highlights the gamble the White House is taking on affordability as it seeks to connect the dots for voters between positive economic metrics — like strong economic growth and stock market highs — and their day-to-day realities. And it helps explain why Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other top Republicans bring it up so often. “Prosperity means more money in people’s pockets, and they notice that every time they go to fill up with gas, and they’re going to know it when they get their tax returns that, this year, are going to be at least a thousand dollars, if not more, greater than it’s been in the past,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said in an Oval Office appearance with the president this week. “And that’s a result of the work that you’ve done with this whole group.” White House aides argue that the refund checks are just one piece of a broader economic strategy that also includes $1,000 “Trump Accounts” for newborns, no taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security. That’s on top of supply-side policies like allowing businesses to expense the full cost of equipment and machinery the year they are put into service and a broad-based deregulation push, they say. “The effects of President Trump’s historic tax cuts for American families go beyond a one-time tax refund check,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement. “With more money in families’ pockets driving consumption and full equipment expensing driving investment, every American is going to feel accelerating job, wage, and economic growth.” The megalaw was designed to deliver its most tangible benefits ahead of the midterms, reflecting lessons the White House learned from Trump’s 2017 tax cuts. Back then, the IRS immediately adjusted withholding tables, meaning Americans saw a small amount of extra money in every paycheck. The idea was to give people more spending money before the midterms. But officials say those cuts took effect too late for many voters to fully register the benefits before the election. This time, they made the tax cuts retroactive to the start of 2015, and the IRS did not immediately adjust withholdings last year to reflect the new law, meaning millions of Americans should expect what amounts to a lump sum payment this year, in addition to increased paychecks. The 2017 tax cut became so unpopular that Republicans were forced to pivot to other issues like immigration and health care; ultimately, the GOP lost 41 seats in the 2018 elections. As early as last spring, Bessent was warning about the political consequences that could arise if Republicans failed to move quickly on Trump’s tax agenda. But the Trump administration this year has an issue it did not have to contend with during its first term: a persistent cost-of-living problem that is coloring voter perceptions over the state of the economy. And while economists note that Trump did not create the problem, he hasn’t solved it either, which means the additional refund could be eaten up by higher prices for everything from housing to food. Tax cuts and larger tax refunds can also lead to higher spending, which is expected to slow the process of bringing down inflation that’s been toxic to Trump’s approval ratings. And pocketbook pressures are compounded by an unusually cold winter, driving up electricity and other heating bills, as well as rising health insurance costs. The White House, meanwhile, has been selling this spring as “the largest tax refund season in U.S. history,” with Bessent estimating that between $100 billion and $150 billion will be returned to households. A recent analysis from BofA Global Research estimates that refunds in 2026 could be $65 billion higher than in 2025 — when Americans received $93.5 billion back from the government — with most of those payments made between February and April. But very few low-income filers are expected to receive a refund, according to a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. While some may see other benefits – including from the elimination of taxes on tipped income, or the larger child tax credit — the workers feeling the biggest pinch from the affordability crisis are least likely to get a check thanks to Trump’s tax bill. What’s more, many of the tax cuts that were included in the legislation are narrowly targeted toward specific populations. If you are not a worker who earns tips or overtime — and you’re not a senior — most of the tax benefits come from a larger standard deduction. For many, the cuts will be much smaller than the headlines they may have seen, said Erica York, the Tax Foundation’s vice president of federal tax policy. “People could be surprised in a bad way if they think: ‘Oh, my tax refund is going to be $1,000 larger,’ and then it’s not,” York said. Despite the administration’s efforts to course correct this time around, strategists argue that one-time payments have rarely reshaped voters’ views of the economy on their own. Even the much larger stimulus checks sent out during the Covid-19 pandemic delivered only temporary boosts to consumer sentiment. GOP strategist Doug Heye, who saw similar strategies play out while serving in the George W. Bush White House, said the administration may be overestimating how much a refund can change voters’ views of the economy. “It speaks to the concern that voters have,” Heye said, “but only really speaks to the symptom and not the problem.”

The Trump administration wants to work with traditional allies to secure new supplies of critical minerals. But months of aggression toward allies, culminating with since-aborted threats to seize Greenland, have left many cool to the overtures. While the State Department has drawn a lengthy list of participating countries for its first Critical Minerals Ministerial scheduled for Wednesday, a number of those attending are hesitant to commit to partnering with the U.S. in creating a supply chain that bypasses China’s current chokehold on those materials, according to five Washington-based diplomats of countries invited to or attending the event. State Department cables obtained by POLITICO also show wariness among some countries about signing onto a framework agreement pledging joint cooperation in sourcing and processing critical minerals. Representatives from more than 50 countries are expected to attend the meeting, according to the State Department — all gathered to discuss the creation of tech supply chains that can rival Beijing’s. But the meeting comes just two weeks since President Donald Trump took to the stage at Davos to call on fellow NATO member Denmark to allow a U.S. takeover of Greenland, and that isn’t sitting well. “We all need access to critical minerals, but the furor over Greenland is going to be the elephant in the room,” said a European diplomat. In the immediate run-up to the event there’s “not a great deal of interest from the European side,” the person added. The individual and others were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic relationships. Their concerns underscore how international dismay at the Trump administration’s foreign policy and trade actions may kneecap its other global priorities. The Trump administration had had some success over the past two months rallying countries to support U.S. efforts to create secure supply chains for critical minerals, including a major multilateral agreement called the Pax Silica Declaration. Now those gains could be at risk. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wants foreign countries to partner with the U.S. in creating a supply chain for the 60 minerals (including rare earths) that the U.S. Geological Survey deems “vital to the U.S. economy and national security that face potential risks from disrupted supply chains.” They include antimony, used to produce munitions; samarium, which goes into aircraft engines; and germanium, which is essential to fiber-optics. The administration also launched a $12 billion joint public-private sector “strategic critical minerals stockpile” for U.S. manufacturers, a White House official said Monday. Trump has backed away from his threats of possibly deploying the U.S. military to seize Greenland from Denmark. But at Davos he demanded “immediate negotiations” with Copenhagen to transfer Greenland’s sovereignty to the U.S. That makes some EU officials leery of administration initiatives that require cooperation and trust. “We are all very wary,” said a second European diplomat. Rubio’s critical minerals framework “will not be an easy sell until there is final clarity on Greenland.” Trump compounded the damage to relations with NATO countries on Jan. 22 when he accused member country troops that deployed to support U.S. forces in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021 of having shirked combat duty. “The White House really messed up with Greenland and Davos,” a third European diplomat said. “They may have underestimated how much that would have an impact.” The Trump administration needs the critical minerals deals to go through. The U.S. has been scrambling to find alternative supply lines for a group of minerals called rare earths since Beijing temporarily cut the U.S. off from its supply last year. China — which has a near-monopoly on rare earths — relented in the trade truce that Trump brokered with China’s leader Xi Jinping in South Korea in October. The administration is betting that foreign government officials that attend Wednesday’s event also want alternative sources to those materials. “The United States and the countries attending recognize that reliable supply chains are indispensable to our mutual economic and national security and that we must work together to address these issues in this vital sector,” the State Department statement said in a statement. The administration has been expressing confidence that it will secure critical minerals partnerships with the countries attending the ministerial, despite their concerns over Trump’s bellicose policy. “There is a commonality here around countering China,” Ruth Perry, the State Department’s acting principal deputy assistant secretary for ocean, fisheries and polar affairs, said at an industry event on offshore critical minerals in Washington last week. “Many of these countries understand the urgency.” Speaking at a White House event Monday, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum indicated that 11 nations would sign on to a critical minerals framework with the United States this week and another 20 are considering doing so. Greenland has rich deposits of rare earths and other minerals. But Denmark isn’t sending any representatives to the ministerial, according to the person familiar with the event’s planning. Trump said last month that a framework agreement he struck with NATO over Greenland’s future included U.S. access to the island’s minerals. Greenland’s harsh climate and lack of infrastructure in its interior makes the extraction of those materials highly challenging. Concern about the longer term economic and geostrategic risks of turning away from Washington in favor of closer ties with Beijing — despite the Trump administration’s unpredictability — may work in Rubio’s favor on Wednesday. “We still want to work on issues where our viewpoints align,” an Asian diplomat said. “Critical minerals, energy and defense are some areas where there is hope for positive movement.” State Department cables obtained by POLITICO show the administration is leaning on ministerial participants to sign on to a nonbinding framework agreement to ensure U.S. access to critical minerals. The framework establishes standards for government and private investment in areas including mining, processing and recycling, along with price guarantees to protect producers from competitors’ unfair trade policies. The basic template of the agreement being shared with other countries mirrors language in frameworks sealed with Australia and Japan and memorandums of understanding inked with Thailand and Malaysia last year. Enthusiasm for the framework varies. The Philippine and Polish governments have both agreed to the framework text, according to cables from Manila on Jan. 22 and Warsaw on Jan. 26. Romania is interested but “proposed edits to the draft MOU framework,” a cable dated Jan. 16 said. As of Jan. 22 India was noncommittal, telling U.S. diplomats that New Delhi “could be interested in exploring a memorandum of understanding in the future.” European Union members Finland and Germany both expressed reluctance to sign on without clarity on how the framework aligns with wider EU trade policies. A cable dated Jan. 15 said Finland “prefers to observe progress in the EU-U.S. discussions before engaging in substantive bilateral critical mineral framework negotiations.” Berlin also has concerns that the initiative may reap “potential retaliation from China,” according to a cable dated Jan. 16. Trump’s threats over the past two weeks to impose 100 percent tariffs on Canada for cutting a trade deal with China and 25 percent tariffs on South Korea for allegedly slow-walking legislative approval of its U.S. trade agreement are also denting enthusiasm for the U.S. critical minerals initiative. Those levies “have introduced some uncertainty, which naturally leads countries to proceed pragmatically and keep their options open,” a second Asian diplomat said. There are also doubts whether Trump will give the initiative the long-term backing it will require for success. “There’s a sense that this could end up being a TACO too,” a Latin American diplomat said, using shorthand for Trump’s tendency to make big threats or announcements that ultimately fizzle. Analysts, too, argue it’s unlikely the administration will be able to secure any deals amid the fallout from Davos and Trump’s tariff barrages. “We’re very skeptical on the interest and aptitude and trust in trade counterparties right now,” said John Miller, an energy analyst at TD Cowen who tracks critical minerals. “A lot of trading partners are very much in a wait-and-see perspective at this point saying, ‘Where’s Trump really going to go with this?’” And more unpredictability or hostility by the Trump administration toward longtime allies could push them to pursue critical mineral sourcing arrangements that exclude Washington. “The alternative is that these other countries will go the Mark Carney route of the middle powers, cooperating among themselves quietly, not necessarily going out there and saying, ‘Hey, we’re cutting out the U.S.,’ but that these things just start to crop up,” said Jonathan Czin, a former China analyst at the CIA now at the Brookings Institution. “Which will make it more challenging and allow Beijing to play divide and conquer over the long term.” Felicia Schwartz contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump backed down from the most extreme “Liberation Day” tariffs after bond traders revolted at the prospect of economic upheaval. Now, his push to coerce Denmark into ceding Greenland has threatened to trigger a similar market rout. Bond yields spiked and stocks sank on Tuesday as investors reckoned with how Trump’s threat to impose new tariffs on Europe could hammer alliances that are critical to the global economy. That reignited fears that the “Sell America” trade that dominated market narratives last spring could reemerge, undercutting Wall Street’s hopes for U.S. assets in 2026. As global leaders and top financial CEOs gathered in Davos for the World Economic Forum, where Trump is scheduled to speak on Wednesday, the blowback from bond traders threatened to undermine the president’s bullish case for both the U.S. economy and its market outlook. “The narrative just won’t go away,” said Paul Christopher, head of global investment strategy at the Wells Fargo Investment Institute. Foreign investors flooded back into U.S. assets as tensions eased during the latter half of 2025, but now “they’re hedging because they’re not sure what Trump is going to do with tariffs next.” Trump has historically been highly sensitive to how the bond market responds to his policies, and he regularly cites the stock market’s surge as evidence of how his agenda is working. The latest turmoil has echoes of the volatility that hit global bond markets shortly after he announced eye-popping tariffs last April on dozens of trading partners at a White House press conference. The president later announced a temporary pause on the new import duties after the bond market started “getting a little bit yippy,” in his words. His threat on Saturday to impose more tariffs on Europe sparked a similar response. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by more than 870 points on Tuesday. The Nasdaq and S&P 500 both closed down by more than 2 percent — erasing the gains notched through the first three weeks of the year. Yields on the 10-year and 30-year Treasury securities — which are benchmark rates for consumer and corporate lending products — jumped to their highest levels since last September, and the dollar sank. The president warned that he would impose additional 10 percent tariffs on eight European countries that have sought to block his ambitions to acquire Greenland, the sparsely populated Danish territory that’s been a fixation of the president since his first term. French President Emmanuel Macron has said he’s planning to activate the EU’s so-called trade bazooka — the Anti-Coercion Instrument — to respond to Trump’s saber rattling. That would allow the EU to impose restrictions on investment and access to public procurement schemes, as well as limits on intellectual property protection. The White House pushed back on the notion that the markets were rejecting Trump’s policies. “The S&P 500 is up over 10 percent and 10-year Treasury bond yields are down nearly 30 basis points over the past year because the markets have confidence in the Trump administration’s pro-growth, pro-business policies,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said. “Accelerating GDP growth, cooled inflation, and over a dozen historic trade deals all prove that this Administration continues to deliver for American workers and companies.” Banking leaders — including Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan, Citi’s Jane Fraser and State Street’s Ron O’Hanley — signaled optimism at the U.S.’s economic outlook in separate media appearances in Davos as they urged government leaders to find a resolution. “Let the people go to work,” Moynihan told CNBC. “They’re here in this beautiful place, and they’ve got a week to a few days to work on it. So, give them 48 hours and see if they can come up with solutions.” Throughout his first year back in the White House, Trump’s costly tariffs and insistence that Europe do more to finance its own defense have caused economic disruption and forced leaders across the continent to reckon with the possibility that the U.S. is no longer as strong a partner as it once was. And while markets have grown increasingly confident that the president’s frequent escalations result in policies that are far less severe than his initial threats, finding an off-ramp in the fight over Greenland’s future could prove challenging. “The market’s very complacent to the idea that this is just a negotiating tool,” said Brij Khurana, a fixed-income portfolio manager at Wellington Management. “I’m more nervous about it because I don’t, I don’t see what the middle ground is here.” In an appearance on Fox Business from Davos on Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it’s “very difficult to disaggregate” the market’s reaction to Trump’s Greenland push from a massive sell-off in Japanese bonds that was triggered by mounting concerns about the country’s fiscal trajectory. As European leaders consider taking steps to retaliate against Trump, Bessent urged caution. “Sit back, take a deep breath, do not retaliate,” he said. “The president will be here tomorrow, and he will get his message across.” Aiden Reiter contributed to this report.