After two weeks of escalating threats toward Europe, President Donald Trump blinked on Wednesday, backing away from the unthinkable brink of a potential war against a NATO ally during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Trump’s vow not to use military force to seize Greenland from Denmark eased European fears about a worst-case scenario and prompted a rebound on Wall Street. And his declaration hours later after meeting with NATO’s leader that he may back off of his tariff threat having secured the “framework” of an agreement over Greenland continued a day of backpedaling on one of the most daring gambits of his presidency to date. But his continued heckling of allies as “ungrateful” for not simply giving the U.S. “ownership and title” of what he said was just “a piece of ice” did little to reverse a deepening sentiment among NATO leaders and other longtime allies that they can no longer consider the United States — for 80 years the linchpin of the transatlantic alliance — a reliable ally. “The takeaway for Europe is that standing up to him can work. There is relief, of course, that he’s taking military force off the table, but there is also an awareness that he could reverse himself,” said a European official who attended Trump’s speech and, like others interviewed for this report, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Trump’s promises and statements are unreliable but his scorn for Europe is consistent. We will have to continue to show resolve and more independence because we can no longer cling to this illusion that America is still what we thought it was.” Trump’s abrupt about-face after weeks of refusing to take military intervention off the table comes a day after Greenland shock waves sent global markets plunging, wiping out over $1.2 trillion in value on the S&P 500 alone. The president’s policy shift mirrored a similar moment in April, when he quickly reversed sweeping tariffs after a market downfall tied to his policies. If Trump’s refusal to use the military to threaten Greenland and the U.S.’s NATO allies holds, it would represent a win for administration officials such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who on Tuesday counseled the Davos set not to overreact or escalate the fight with Trump, assuring concerned Europeans that things would work out soon. The threat of force appeared to have the strong backing of deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who offered the most forceful articulation of those desires in an interview this month where he claimed that America was the rightful owner of Greenland and insisted the “real world” was one “that is governed by force, that is governed by power.” But Miller aside, most saw the threat of force as an attempt to create leverage for an eventual negotiation. If Trump were to have pursued using military force, there could have been pushback from his closest allies like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, said a person close to the administration and granted anonymity to describe the private dynamics. “Do some senior administration people talk to their best friends in conservative world and media and basically say, ‘Yeah, I don’t know why we’re doing this?’ Sure, but I think those are all in confidence,” the person said. Increasingly, Europeans have been voicing their growing fears aloud. When Trump arrived in the snowy Swiss Alps Wednesday afternoon for this annual confab of business and political titans, the West remained on edge after the president announced last weekend that he intended to increase tariffs on several European countries that had sent troops to Greenland for military exercises. As they contemplated the fact that an American president was threatening the territorial sovereignty of one ally and turning to economic coercion tactics against others, European leaders strategized openly about retaliating in kind. That posture marked a major shift from Trump’s first year back in office, when European leaders put up a fight but ultimately and largely accepted his terms — NATO begrudgingly agreeing to spend more on defense, taking on all of the financial burden for Ukraine aid and the European Union accepting a 15 percent tariff on all exports to the U.S. — in order to keep the president from breaking with the alliance and abandoning Ukraine. But the president’s brazen challenge to Denmark over Greenland and shocking disregard for Europe’s territorial sovereignty amounted to a disruption that is orders of magnitude more concerning. Demanding that Denmark, a steadfast NATO ally, allow him to purchase Greenland — and, until Wednesday, holding out the prospect of using military force to seize it — threatened to cross a red line for Europe and effectively shatter 80 years of cooperation, upending an alliance structure that America largely built to avoid the very kind of imperialistic conquest Trump suddenly seems fixated on pursuing. “We’ve gone from uncharted territory to outer space,” said Charles Kupchan, the director of European studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former adviser to President Barack Obama. “This is not just strange and hard to understand. It borders on the unthinkable, and that’s why you’re seeing a different response from Europe than before Greenland was center stage.” Trump’s social media posts last weekend announcing that he intended to increase tariffs on the European countries that had sent troops to Greenland for training exercises drew harsh public responses from heads of state across Europe and prompted a flurry of private phone calls and even text messages — some of which the president shared on social media — urging him to work with them more constructively to address security in the Arctic. That didn’t stop Trump on Wednesday from continuing to assert an intention to acquire Greenland through negotiations, despite an overwhelming majority of Greenlanders being opposed to living under U.S. control. “Let’s not be too cheerful on him excluding violence, as that was outrageous in the first place,” said a second European official in Davos. “And his narrative on Greenland is BS. It should be called out.” Trump, who met with European leaders to discuss Greenland on Wednesday afternoon, suggested in his remarks that the U.S. acquiring the massive island between the Arctic and North Atlantic was in the best interests of Europe as well as America’s. “It’s the United States alone that can protect this giant, massive land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and make it so that it’s good for Europe and safe for Europe,” he said. “You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no and we will remember,” Trump continued. Those words did not appear to fully allay the growing anxieties of democratic leaders that the world is spinning in a new and frightening direction, away from decades of relative peace and stability and back to a prewar era of global conquest. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, addressing Davos on Tuesday ahead of Trump’s arrival, was emphatic in declaring that there is no going back. “Every day we are reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry,” Carney said. “That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” Calling for democratic nations to take steps to lessen their reliance on the U.S. and their vulnerability to pressure from this White House, Carney urged other leaders to accept a new reality that, in his view, the longstanding postwar order was already gone. “Let me be direct: We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.” Trump made it clear on Wednesday that he saw Carney’s remarks, alluding to Canada’s reliance on the U.S. and going as far to suggest that its safety continues to depend on American defense technology. “They should be grateful to us,” he said. “Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, next time you make your statement.” The implied threat, in a way, may have underscored the Canadian leader’s point. With persistent threats of higher tariffs from the White House even after Trump backed off his saber rattling over annexing the country, Canada has looked to rebalance its trade relationships with other countries, including China, to reduce its economic dependence on the U.S. In Europe, leaders may be following suit. Just last week, Brussels approved a landmark free trade agreement with the Mercosur bloc of South American countries, a long-sought deal that took on greater urgency in recent months to provide Europe with a bulwark against Trump’s protectionism and coercive economic measures. There is still hope in Europe that Trump will eventually accept something less than U.S. ownership of Greenland, especially after his apparent walkbacks Wednesday on the threats of tariffs and military force. That could include accepting a standing offer from Denmark to boost America’s military presence on the island, not to mention economic cooperation agreements to develop natural resources there as climate change makes mineral deposits more accessible. But European leaders increasingly seem to accept that there are limits to their ability to control Trump — and are looking to hedge their reliance on the U.S. as urgently as possible. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Danish prime minister and secretary general of NATO, wrote this week that it’s time for Europe to shift its posture toward the U.S. from one of close allies to a more self-protective stance defined by a stronger military and reciprocal tariffs. “Mr. Trump, like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, believes in power and power only,” he wrote, likening the U.S. president to the leaders of Russia and China. “Europe must be prepared to play by those same rules.” Trump’s threats against Denmark have obliterated the long-held view about the U.S., that after 80 years of standing up to imperialist conquerors from Adolf Hitler’s Germany to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Washington would always be the tip of the spear when it came to enforcing a world order founded on shared democratic ideals. Suddenly, that spear is being turned against its longtime allies. “The jewel in the crown of our power and of our role in the world has always been our alliance system,” said Jeremy Shapiro, a veteran of the State Department under the President Barack Obama administration who is now a fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Shapiro noted that the U.S. has at times still employed hard power since the end of World War II, especially in its own hemisphere. But overall, American foreign policy has largely been defined by its reliance on soft power, which he said “ is much less expensive, it is much less coercive, it is much more moral and ethical, and it’s more durable.” Returning to the law of the jungle and a world where larger powers gobble up smaller ones, Shapiro continued, will make the U.S. more like Russia and China — the two countries he claims threaten U.S. interests in Greenland — and weaker over the long term. “Moving from our trusted methods to Putin’s methods is worse than a crime,” he said. “It’s an idiocy.”

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.

Meta named former Trump adviser Dina Powell McCormick to serve as president and vice chair Monday, further cementing the company’s growing ties to Republicans and President Donald Trump’s White House. In addition to a long career on Wall Street, Powell McCormick served as Trump’s deputy national security adviser during his first term. She was also a member of the George W. Bush administration. She first joined Meta’s board last April, part of a broader play by the social media and artificial intelligence giant to hire Republicans following Trump’s election. In a statement, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg praised Powell McCormick’s “experience at the highest levels of global finance, combined with her deep relationships around the world, [which] makes her uniquely suited to help Meta manage this next phase of growth.” Rightward trend: Powell McCormick’s time in global finance — she spent 16 years as a partner at Goldman Sachs and was most recently a top executive at banking company BDT & MSD Partners — could be a major asset to Meta as it raises hundreds of billions of dollars to build out data centers and other AI-related infrastructure. But her GOP pedigree and proximity to Trump likely played a significant role in her hiring as well. Since Trump’s election, Meta has worked to curry favor with Republicans in the White House and on Capitol Hill. The company elevated former GOP official Joel Kaplan to serve as global affairs lead last January, simultaneously tapping Kevin Martin, a former Republican chair of the Federal Communications Commission, as his No. 2. Under pressure from Republicans, last year Meta also rolled back many of its former rules related to content moderation. In 2024, the company apologized to congressional Republicans — specifically Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of the House Judiciary Committee — for removing content that contained disinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic. A Meta spokesperson declined to comment when asked whether Powell McCormick’s ties to Trump and Republicans played a role in her hiring. Trump thumbs up: In a Truth Social post Monday, Trump congratulated Powell McCormick and said Zuckerberg made a “great choice.” The president called her “a fantastic, and very talented, person, who served the Trump Administration with strength and distinction!”

The Trump administration has transformed the release of the Epstein files into the 2025 version of WikiLeaks: a slow-drip document dump that could threaten a long list of Washington power players. And with each newly published tranche, a frenzied press corps will pore over every word for clues about the world leaders, corporate executives and Wall Street titans who helped late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein grow and maintain his influence. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed Friday that the documents would be released on a rolling basis through the holidays — and possibly beyond. And, in court papers filed shortly after Friday’s partial release, the Justice Department emphasized that more files are still undergoing a review and redaction process to protect victims and new Trump-ordered investigations before they can be released. The daily drip is a remarkable result for President Donald Trump, who has urged his allies to move past the Epstein files — prompting jeers from Democrats who say he’s trying to conceal details about his own longtime relationship with Epstein. Trump has maintained for years that he and Epstein had a falling out years ago, and no evidence has suggested that Trump took part in Epstein’s trafficking operation. Trump advocated for the release of the files only after Republicans in Congress rebuffed his initial pleas to keep them concealed. A law passed by Congress in November required the release of the files by Dec. 19, but DOJ’s review process ensures that the deadline is only the beginning. Spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump is no stranger to the political power of intermittent disclosures of derogatory information. In 2016, Trump led the charge to capitalize on the hack-and-leak operation that led to daily publications of the campaign emails of Hillary Clinton and her top allies. The steady drumbeat of embarrassing releases — amplified by Trump and a ravenous press corps — helped sink Clinton’s campaign in its final weeks. The Justice Department says its sporadic release schedule for the Epstein files is borne of necessity: a laborious, multistep review process to protect the private information and photos of Epstein’s victims. Blanche told Congress in a Friday letter that 200 Justice Department lawyers — including 187 from the National Security Division — reviewed materials to determine whether they should be disclosed. A second team of 25 privacy and civil liberties attorneys implemented redactions, he said. Then, the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York acted as a backstop, conducting a final sweep for any redactions to protect victims. Additional documents, he said, were withheld to protect the Justice Department’s privileged information. “The volume of materials to be reviewed … means that the Department must publicly produce responsive documents on a rolling basis,” Blanche wrote. “The Department’s need to perform rolling productions is consistent with well-settled case law that statutes should be interpreted to not require the impossible.” Blanche also said in TV interviews that while “hundreds of thousands” of documents would be released in the initial round, hundreds of thousands more would be processed over the next few weeks. That timeline has already opened attack lines for Democrats and Trump critics, who said it was a flagrant violation of the law signed in November by Trump that required the release of the full set of Epstein files by Dec. 19, and in a searchable format. The law also required redactions to protect victims. “My goodness, what is in the Epstein files?” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said on X. “Release all the files. It’s literally the law.”

BRUSSELS — The U.S. must preserve and grow the dominance of its financial sector worldwide, President Donald Trump argues in his new National Security Strategy. The 33-page document is a rare formal explanation of Trump’s foreign policy worldview by his administration, and can shape U.S. policy priorities. “The United States boasts the world’s leading financial and capital markets, which are pillars of American influence that afford policymakers significant leverage and tools to advance America’s national security priorities,” the document states. “But our leadership position cannot be taken for granted,” it continues, calling on America to leverage “our dynamic free market system and our leadership in digital finance and innovation to ensure that our markets continue to be the most dynamic, liquid, and secure and remain the envy of the world.” The strategy lists the “world’s leading financial system and capital markets, including the dollar’s global reserve currency status” as one of the U.S. key levers of power. Trump’s comments come as Europe looks to grow its own finance system to reduce the continent’s dependence on Wall Street. The EU has put forward a broad plan to boost its own finance industry by strengthening its single market for investment, and it will draft policy plans in the coming months aiming to boost its banks’ ability to compete globally. It is also creating a digital version of the euro currency, which would reduce its reliance on the dollar and on U.S. payment giants.

LONDON — Britain’s shortest-serving Prime Minister Liz Truss is launching her own YouTube show. She wants it to be the home of a “counter-revolution.” “The Liz Truss Show,” which launches Friday, will be a “bold new program in a media landscape dominated by groupthink and timid consensus,” a press statement announcing the show declared. She will be “taking the gloves off,” it added. Truss, who spent just 49 days in office before being ousted by her own party, has been active on the lucrative U.S. speech circuit since leaving office in 2022. She has repeatedly insisted the market crisis which triggered her downfall was not her fault. “The Deep State tried to destroy me but now I’m back and excited to launch this show,” she said. Truss is making the show with American journalist John Solomon’s Just the News network. Episodes will be released each week on both video and audio platforms including YouTube, Rumble and Spotify. The ex-PM said:  “People in Britain, America, and across the free world are tired of being talked down to. They’re tired of experts who get everything wrong, elites who refuse to listen, and weak leaders who won’t stand up for Western values.” After losing office, Truss wrote her memoir, which blamed the Bank of England, Treasury and Office for Budget Responsibility watchdog for her economic woes.

The EU will on Thursday unveil plans to supercharge its finance industry, tearing up swathes of rules in a bid to take on Wall Street. The package, which is massive in scope and ambition, would amend at least 10 financial laws to crack down on protectionism and unclog the EU’s financial plumbing. But Brussels’ ambitions to create a U.S.-style financial market will reopen political wounds, especially its plan to create a powerful EU watchdog for financial markets. Despite the bloc’s urgent need for private investment, progress could be bogged down by political divisions over the strategy. “If we’re stuck in a never-ending discussion about how to organize supervision … that will not take us closer to our objective,” Swedish Minister for Financial Markets Niklas Wykman said. The Commission’s overarching goal is to remove barriers to investment in the bloc, allowing more money to flow to struggling businesses so the EU can better keep up with economic powerhouses like the U.S. and China. With national budgets under strain from a bruising pandemic and years of inflation, Brussels is hoping to unlock €11 trillion in cash savings held by EU citizens in their bank accounts to breathe life into the economy. It plans to do that by breaking down technical barriers and busting protectionism between the EU’s 27 national money markets, as well as by changing rules that create national barriers to finance flows and by creating a powerful EU watchdog for financial markets. The EU’s finance chief, Maria Luís Albuquerque, who has led work on the revamp, told POLITICO in an interview: “It’s going to be a difficult discussion, of course, but these are the ones worth having, right?” | Dursun Aydemir/Anadolu via Getty Images Some capitals, though, view the proposal as a power grab and are determined to keep oversight of financial markets at the national level. And there are other tweaks in the package that will dredge up painful recent debates over issues like crypto rules or trading data. Countries are already warning that the Commission should keep its nose out of their business. Sweden, the EU’s best-in-class country for financial markets, has warned the EU executive not to interfere with any rules but instead to focus on boosting the appetite of EU citizens to invest in products like stocks and bonds, rather than parking their cash in savings accounts. Supervision is “not the problem and it’s not the solution to the problem,” Wykman told POLITICO. Among other ideas the Commission was mulling ahead of the official publication — according to documents seen by POLITICO — are a stronger EU-wide public ‘ticker tape’ of trading data, an expanded pilot program for decentralized finance to include all products and crypto firms, and a reduction in paperwork to make it easier to sell investment funds across the EU. The plans are sure to please some industry players, like stock exchanges or central securities-depositary groups that operate in multiple EU countries. But they will also inevitably be opposed by others, such as asset managers who are reluctant to be subject to increased EU oversight, or stock exchanges that don’t want to see their pricey trading data services undercut by a stronger public EU ticker tape. The technical shifts, plus the idea of an EU-wide watchdog, are ambitious but are also reminders of how limited the Commission’s powers are compared those deployed by EU countries at the national level. The Commission can’t make game-changing reforms in areas like national pensions, taxation or insolvency law for businesses, all of which are major obstacles to a single money market. Nor will many national governments spend the political capital needed to make domestic reforms for the sake of the EU economy. Nonetheless, the Commission is sticking to its guns. The EU’s finance chief, Maria Luís Albuquerque, who has led work on the revamp, told POLITICO in an interview: “It’s going to be a difficult discussion, of course, but these are the ones worth having, right?”

Businesses from Wall Street to main street are struggling to comply with President Donald Trump’s byzantine tariff regime, driving up costs and counteracting, for some, the benefits of the corporate tax cuts Republicans passed earlier this year. Trump has ripped up the U.S. tariff code over the past year, replacing a decades-old system that imposed the same tariffs on imports from all but a few countries with a vastly more complicated system of many different tariff rates depending on the origin of imported goods. To give an example, an industrial product that faced a mostly uniform 5 percent tariff rate in the past could now be taxed at 15 percent if it comes from the EU or Japan, 20 percent from Norway and many African countries, 24 to 25 percent from countries in Southeast Asia and upwards of 50 percent from India, Brazil or China. “This has been an exhausting year, I’d say, for most CEOs in the country,” said Gary Shapiro, CEO and vice chair of the Consumer Technology Association, an industry group whose 1,300 member companies include major brands like Amazon, Walmart and AMD, as well as many small businesses and startups. “The level of executive time that’s been put in this has been enormous. So instead of focusing on innovation, they’re focusing on how they deal with the tariffs.” Upping the pressure, the Justice Department has announced that it intends to make the prosecution of customs fraud one of its top priorities. The proliferation of trade regulations and threat of intensified enforcement has driven many companies to beef up their staff and spend what could add up to tens of millions of dollars to ensure they are not running afoul of Trump’s requirements. The time and expense involved, combined with the tens of billions of dollars in higher tariffs that companies are paying each month to import goods, amount to a massive burden that is weighing down industries traditionally reliant on imported products. And it’s denting, for some, the impact of the hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts that companies will receive over the next decade via the One Big Beautiful Bill Act championed by the White House. “Every CEO survey says this is their biggest issue,” said Shapiro. A recent survey by KPMG, a professional services firm, found 89 percent of CEOs said they expect tariffs to significantly impact their business’ performance and operations over the next three years, with 86 percent saying they expect to respond by increasing prices for their goods and services as needed. Maytee Pereira, managing director for customs and international trade at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, another professional services firm, has seen a similar trend. “Many of our clients have been spending easily 30 to 60 percent of their time having tariff conversations across the organization,” Pereira said. That’s forced CEOs to get involved in import-sourcing decisions to an unprecedented degree and intensified competition for personnel trained in customs matters. “There’s a real dearth of trade professionals,” Pereira said. “There isn’t a day that I don’t speak to a client who has lost people from their trade teams, because there is this renewed need for individuals with those resources, with those skill sets.” But the impact goes far beyond a strain on personnel into reducing the amount of money that companies are willing to spend on purchasing new capital equipment or making other investments to boost their long-term growth. “People are saying they can’t put money into R&D,” said one industry official, who was granted anonymity because of the risk of antagonizing the Trump administration. “They can’t put money into siting new factories in the United States. They don’t have the certainty they need to make decisions.” A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. However, the administration has previously defended tariffs as key to boosting domestic manufacturing, along with their overall economic agenda of tax cuts and reduced regulation. They’ve also touted commitments from companies and other countries for massive new investments in the U.S. in order to avoid tariffs, although they’ve acknowledged it will take time for the benefits to reach workers and consumers. “Look, I would have loved to be able to snap my fingers, have these facilities going. It takes time,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview this week on Fox News. “I think 2026 is going to be a blockbuster year.” For some companies, however, any benefit they’ve received from Trump’s push to lower taxes and reduce regulations has been substantially eroded by the new burden of complying with his complicated tariff system, said a second industry official, who was also granted anonymity for the same reason. “It is incredibly complex,” that second industry official said. “And it keeps changing, too.” Matthew Aleshire, director of the Milken Institute’s Geo-Economics Initiative, said he did not know of any studies yet that estimate the overall cost, both in time and money, for American businesses to comply with Trump’s new trade regulations. But it appears substantial. “I think for some firms and investors, it may be on par with the challenges experienced in the early days of Covid. For others, maybe a little less so. And for others, it may be even more complex. But it’s absolutely eating up or taking a lot of time and bandwidth,” Aleshire said. The nonpartisan think tank’s new report, “Unintended Consequences: Trade and Supply Chain Leaders Respond to Recent Turmoil,” is the first in a new series exploring how companies are navigating the evolving trade landscape, he said. One of the main findings is that it has become very difficult for companies to make decisions, “given the high degree of uncertainty” around tariff policy, Aleshire said. Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs — imposed on most countries under a 1977 emergency powers act that is now being challenged in court — start at a baseline level of 10 percent that applies to roughly 100 trading partners. He’s set higher rates, ranging from 15 to 41 percent, on nearly 100 others, including the 27-member European Union. Those duties stack on top of the longstanding U.S. “most-favored nation” tariffs. Two notable exceptions are the EU and Japan, which received special treatment in their deals with Trump. Companies also could get hit with a 40 percent penalty tariff if the Trump administration determines an item from a high-tariffed country has been illegally shipped through a third country — or assembled there — to obtain a lower tariff rate. However, businesses are still waiting for more details on how that so-called transshipment provision, which the Trump administration outlined in a summer executive order, will work. The president also has hit China, Canada and Mexico with a separate set of tariffs under the 1977 emergency law to pressure those countries to do more to stop shipments of fentanyl and precursor chemicals from entering the United States. Imports from Canada and Mexico are exempt from the fentanyl duties, however, if they comply with the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, a trade pact Trump brokered in his first term. That has spared most goods the U.S. imports from its North American neighbors, but also has forced many more companies to spend time filling out paperwork to document their compliance. Trump’s increasingly baroque tariff regime also includes the “national security” duties he has imposed on steel, aluminum, autos, auto parts, copper, lumber, furniture and heavy trucks under a separate trade law. But the administration has provided a partial exemption for the 25 percent tariffs he has imposed on autos and auto parts, and has struck deals with the EU, Japan and South Korea reducing the tariff on their autos to 15 percent. In contrast, Trump has taken a hard line against exemptions from his 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum, and recently expanded the duties to cover more than 400 “derivative” products, such as chemicals, plastics and furniture, that contain some amount of steel and aluminum or are shipped in steel and aluminum containers. And the administration is not stopping there, putting out a request in September for further items it can add to the steel and aluminum tariffs. “This is requiring companies that do not even produce steel and aluminum products to keep track of and report what might be in the products that they’re importing, and it’s just gotten incredibly complicated,” one of the industry officials granted anonymity said. That’s because companies need to precisely document the amount of steel or aluminum used in a product to qualify for a tariff rate below 50 percent. “Any wrong step, like any incorrect information, or even delay in providing the information, risks the 50 percent tariff value on the entire product, not just on the metal. So the consequence is really high if you don’t get it right,” the industry official said. The administration has also signaled plans to similarly expand tariffs for other products, such as copper. And the still unknown outcomes of ongoing trade investigations that could lead to additional tariffs on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals, commercial aircraft, polysilicon, unmanned aircraft systems, wind turbines, medical products and robotics and industrial machinery continue to make it difficult for many companies to plan for the future. Small business owners say they feel particularly overwhelmed trying to keep up with all the various tariff rules and rates. “We are no longer investing into product innovation, we’re not investing into new hires, we’re not investing into growth. We’re just spending our money trying to stay afloat through this,” said Cassie Abel, founder and CEO of Wild Rye, an Idaho company which sells outdoor clothing for women, during a virtual press conference with a coalition of other small business owners critical of the tariffs. Company employees have also “spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours counter-sourcing product, pausing production, restarting production, rushing production, running price analysis, cost analysis, shipping analysis,” Abel said. “I spent zero minutes on tariffs before this administration.” In one sign of the duress small businesses are facing, they have led the charge in the Supreme Court case challenging Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose both the reciprocal and the fentanyl-related tariffs. Crutchfield Corp., a family-owned electronics retailer based in Charlottesville, Virginia, filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the litigants in the case, in which the owners detailed its difficulties in coping with Trump’s erratic tariff actions. “If tariffs can be imposed, increased, decreased, suspended or altered … through the changing whim of a single person, then Crutchfield cannot plan for the short term, let alone the long run,” the company wrote in its brief, asking “the Court to quell the chaos.”

President Donald Trump on Friday directed Attorney General Pam Bondi and the FBI to investigate links between Jeffrey Epstein and notable Democrats, the president’s latest attempt to deflect scrutiny over his connections to the late disgraced financier by focusing on his political opponents. In a social media post, Trump pushed Bondi to target former President Bill Clinton, Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman and former Harvard President Larry Summers, who served in senior positions in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, along with the bank JPMorgan Chase. “This is another Russia, Russia, Russia Scam, with all arrows pointing to the Democrats. Records show that these men, and many others, spent large portions of their life with Epstein, and on his ‘Island,’” he wrote. “Stay tuned!!!” None of the Democrats named by Trump have been accused by prosecutors of wrongdoing. Bondi quickly assigned Manhattan U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton, who heads the office that prosecuted Epstein and won the conviction of his co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, to run point on the probe. “Thank you, Mr. President,” Bondi wrote. “SDNY U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton is one of the most capable and trusted prosecutors in the country, and I’ve asked him to take the lead. As with all matters, the Department will pursue this with urgency and integrity to deliver answers to the American people.” Clayton, however, may be hamstrung in his efforts to further investigate Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. In July, the Trump administration fired one of the last remaining prosecutors in the Manhattan office who worked on the Epstein and Maxwell cases: Maurene Comey. Comey, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, wasn’t provided an explanation for her firing, and she is suing the Trump administration over her termination. The White House has spent much of the week struggling to contain the fallout after Democrats on the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday released emails in which Epstein said Trump “knew about the girls” without providing further evidence. Trump and his allies have denied that he knew about Epstein’s crimes, and no evidence has suggested that Trump took part in Epstein’s trafficking operation. Epstein killed himself in jail while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges in 2019. Administration officials have argued that Democrats dropped the emails to distract from Republicans’ success in ending a record-long government shutdown and that none of them incriminate the president. Also this week, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) succeeded in triggering a discharge petition to force a vote in the House on the release of all the Epstein files. Senior GOP officials believe that dozens of House Republicans could join Democrats in voting for the disclosure bill. Trump and Epstein were friends, but the president has maintained for years the two had a falling out decades ago and has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing associated with Epstein. “Some Weak Republicans have fallen into their clutches because they are soft and foolish,” Trump wrote in another Truth Social post Friday. “Epstein was a Democrat, and he is the Democrat’s problem, not the Republican’s problem!” Trish Wexler, head of policy and advocacy communications for JPMorgan Chase, said in an email Friday that “the government had damning information about [Epstein’s] crimes and failed to share it with us or other banks.” “We regret any association we had with the man, but did not help him commit his heinous acts,” she said. “We ended our relationship with him years before his arrest on sex trafficking charges.” The Department of Justice pointed to Bondi’s post on X when asked for more information about any steps it is taking to comply with Trump’s request. Representatives for Clinton and Summers did not immediately reply to requests for comment. Hoffman denied having a relationship with Epstein beyond solicitations for donations revealed in the emails released by Oversight Democrats, and called on Trump to release all files connected to the Epstein investigation. “I want this complete release because it will show that the calls for baseless investigations of me are nothing more than political persecution and slander,” Hoffman wrote on X. At least one House Republican was critical of Trump’s call for an investigation. Retiring Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) — who indicated earlier this week that he’d vote in favor of the House bill demanding the DOJ release the Epstein files — said he doesn’t think Trump’s ask is “appropriate,” saying the Justice Department shouldn’t act on cases because of pressure from the White House. “We should leave the DOJ and make them as independent as we can,” he told CNN on Friday. “When the president gives orders to Pam Bondi and our law enforcement arms of the federal government — what it does is it undercuts the credibility of our law enforcement.” JPMorgan Chase, the country’s largest bank, did business with Epstein for many years, including lending money to the financier and helping to move his assets overseas. The bank ended its association with Epstein in 2013 and in 2019, it filed a suspicious activity report regarding Epstein and his associates’ transactions. Senate Democrats recently opened a new line of inquiry into the bank regarding its association with Epstein. The bank has previously expressed regret for its involvement with Epstein, and has emphasized that it did not have knowledge of his illegal activities. JPMorgan Chase settled lawsuits in 2023 with the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein had a compound, and with some of Epstein’s victims. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon was among a coterie of Wall Street executives who met with the president for dinner earlier this week. He has previously said that he would comply with an Epstein subpoena. Aiden Reiter, Faith Wardwell and Aaron Pellish contributed to this report.

U.S. President Donald Trump said he plans to sue the BBC for up to $5 billion over a misleading edit of his speech, after the broadcaster apologised but declined to compensate him.  “We’ll sue them for anywhere between $1 billion and $5 billion, probably sometime next week,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One Friday evening. “We have to do it.”  The BBC conceded on Thursday that edited footage of Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, speech on its Panorama documentary program had unintentionally created “the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action,” and said the segment would not be aired again.  While Britain’s state broadcaster apologized to the president for the way it edited his speech, it said it would not offer financial compensation, as Trump has demanded. Two of the BBC’s top executives, Director General Tim Davie and its news chief, Deborah Turness, resigned over the incident and accusations of biased coverage. BBC chair Samir Shah sent a personal apology Thursday to the White House.  Trump has launched a flurry of lawsuits against publications and media companies he has accused of being unfriendly and defamatory, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, ABC and Paramount. In July, Paramount agreed to settle a $20 billion lawsuit filed by Trump over an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris on CBS news program “60 Minutes” that the president said was deceptively edited, paying him $16 million.  The crux of Trump’s BBC complaint is a segment in which footage in the Panorama show was selectively edited to suggest, incorrectly, that the U.S. president had told supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell.”   The words were in fact spliced from sections of the speech almost an hour apart, and omitted a section in which Trump had said he wanted supporters “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”