Trump’s Trade War Gets Dramatically Worse as China Hits Back

China has fired back at Donald Trump’s tariff hike with one of its own.

The country raised tariff rates against the U.S. from 85 percent to 125 percent Friday morning, following Thursday’s confirmation from the Trump administration that it was placing tariffs of 145 percent on China—125 percent as a reciprocal measure, plus an additional 20 percent because Trump thinks Beijing isn’t doing anything about fentanyl.

“Even if the U.S. continues to impose higher tariffs, it will no longer make economic sense and will become a joke in the history of world economy,” the Chinese Finance Ministry said in a statement, which CNBC translated.

“With tariff rates at the current level, there is no longer a market for U.S. goods imported into China,” the statement added, saying that “if the U.S. government continues to increase tariffs on China, Beijing will ignore.”

Despite its tough talk, China’s Foreign Ministry said that it was open to negotiate with the U.S. on an equal footing in a separate statement, refuting Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s comments on Wednesday that “it’s unfortunate that the Chinese actually don’t want to come and negotiate, because they are the worst offenders in the international trading system.”

The move is a further escalation of the trade war between the two countries instigated by Trump, which doesn’t help either economy. Countless corporations in the U.S. depend on China, and 10 million to 20 million Chinese workers are involved with U.S. exports. Trump’s tariff moves have been so erratic that hedge fund managers are wondering if he is insane. Nobody knows how this is going to end, but it seems likely that a recession is looming.

Donald Trump definitely isn’t spending government funds to throw himself a birthday parade, according to the White House.

The administration denied Thursday that Trump was organizing a military procession to celebrate his 79th birthday in June. That is, despite the fact that several local leaders—including Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser and Arlington County Board Chair Takis Karantonis—confirmed to Politico that they had been in conversation with Trump officials to arrange the summertime military procession.

Trump’s birthday on June 14 coincidentally (or perhaps conveniently) falls on the same date as the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army.

“As we enter 2025, the Army’s 250th birthday will be celebrated with a series of commemorations, including leadership engagements, community outreach events and other events showcasing Army units, history, lineage and esprit de corps,” read a February press release by the U.S. Army. It did not make mention of a parade.

Trump wanted a parade in 2018, but the idea was quickly shot down by local and military officials who cited enormous estimated damages to Pennsylvania Avenue and torched the hefty price tag involved in dragging heavy equipment through the U.S. capital. The president reportedly was inspired after watching a Bastille Day celebration in Paris in 2017.

“It was one of the greatest parades I’ve ever seen.… We’re gonna have to try and top it,” Trump said at the time, “but we had a lot of planes going over and a lot of military might, and it was really a beautiful thing to see.”

But Washington was unconvinced.

“The military leaders said it would cost too much, nearly $90 million; Mayor Bowser ridiculed the idea on the Twitter system and said it would cost us $20 million just for public safety,” Washington City Paper’s Tom Sherwood told NBC News 4 earlier this week. “So he canceled it—angrily canceled it. But this time around, it doesn’t sound like he is gonna cancel.”

Bowser said that the administration’s current plans would have the military march from the Pentagon to the White House, and underscored that the economic concerns over holding such a parade had not changed, noting that driving military vehicles and equipment through Washington’s streets would likely cost millions in damage.

The White House is now asking people in power to forget the evidence of their eyes and ears.

Two planes bumped wings while taxiing on the runway at Reagan National Airport Thursday, marking yet another critical safety failure at one of the nation’s major airports. One of the planes carried several U.S. lawmakers, including Representative Josh Gottheimer, who blamed the incident on the Trump administration’s recent cuts to the Federal Aviation Administration, claiming that slashes to the agency “weaken our skies and public safety.”

But the White House outright rejected Gottheimer’s explanation, insisting without evidence that the New Jersey representative was “wrong.”

“There have been no cuts to air traffic controllers, safety personnel, or safety-critical positions at the FAA,” the White House official X account posted.

That is, however, not exactly honest—even according to Trump’s own officials. In February, the administration erased 400 FAA roles, including positions that supported air safety. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy confirmed the cuts that time, though he attempted to minimize them by highlighting the overall staffing of the agency, which Duffy claimed employs some 45,000 workers.

Other representatives aboard the plane shared their experiences, similarly arguing that the White House was distorting the safety of America’s air travel.

“You felt it, and you saw the wing actually flapping up and down, so you knew there was a strong contact there,” Representative Adriano Espaillat told CNN. “They told us that they were going to take us back to the gate. We waited a little bit, we saw some emergency vehicles near us, and then they took us back to the gate.”

When asked if he believed that the White House was attempting to deceive the public about the health of America’s airports, Espaillat said, “They’re downsizing, they want to misguide us about that, but this is an agency that in particular, this airport, has seen already tragic incidents where many people died.” Espaillat said, “They should be beefed up to a level where everyone feels secure.”

“I thought about going Amtrak,” he added, calling the episode “dangerous.”

It’s just the most recent of critical errors occurring at Reagan National Airport. Last week, a physical fight broke out in the air traffic control tower at the politico-favorite airport, resulting in one supervisor being arrested and charged with assault and battery, as well as a managerial shakeup that saw three air traffic control managers being forced out of their roles.

In January, a midair crash between an American Airlines passenger plane and a U.S. military Black Hawk helicopter over the airport killed 67 people—the first major deadly crash involving a U.S. airliner since 2009.

The Trump administration’s basis for seeking to strip pro-Palestine activist Mahmoud Khalil of his green card amounts to this: He didn’t do anything illegal, but he holds beliefs that go against “core American interests.” 

In a two-page memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio obtained by the Associated Press, the government alleged that keeping Khalil in the country would undermine “U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States.”

Otherwise, the memo states, Khalil’s actions were “lawful.” 

“Condoning anti-Semitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States would severely undermine that significant foreign policy objective,” Rubio wrote.

A federal judge, Jamee Comans, had ordered the government to provide evidence by 5 p.m. Wednesday for its justification to deport Khalil, an Algerian citizen of Palestinian descent and Columbia University graduate who was a spokesperson for student activists at the university during protests last year against Israel’s brutal war on Gaza. A hearing is scheduled Friday on whether his detention can continue.

Khalil’s attorneys, Marc Van Der Hout and Johnny Sinodis, said in a joint statement that  “immigration authorities have finally admitted that they have no case whatsoever against him.”

“There is not a single shred of proof that Mahmoud’s presence in America poses any threat,” the statement reads.

When asked if the government had any additional evidence against Khalil, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin, provided an emailed statement to the AP stating that “DHS did file evidence, but immigration court dockets are not available to the public.”

Khalil, who is married to a U.S. citizen due to give birth this month, has been held in a detention center in Louisiana after being arrested and detained by immigration agents last month at his university-owned residence. Khalil wrote in a letter last month from Louisiana that his detention was a “direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.”​​ 

Administration officials have alleged that Khalil’s actions support Hamas but failed to provide any evidence in any court filings. That may very well help Khalil, as Comens said Tuesday that if the government’s evidence doesn’t support his deportation, “then I am going to terminate the case on Friday.”

President Donald Trump falsely suggested Thursday that autism may be caused by a “shot,” parroting his anti-vax health secretary. 

During a Cabinet meeting, the president discussed an increase in the rate of autism diagnoses, but seemed to invent some statistics to do it. 

“It was one in 10,000 children had autism, and now it’s one in 31. Not 31,000, 31,” Trump said. 

In reality, about one in 36 children aged 8 years old have been identified with autism spectrum disorder, according to the CDC. That’s an increase from 2000, when only one in 150 children born in 1992 were diagnosed with autism.

Sitting only a few seats away from the president was Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent figure in the anti-vaccine movement, who used the one-in-10,000 statistic during his Senate confirmation hearings. It’s entirely unclear where he got this number, but Trump has since repeated it multiple times. 

“That is horrible—that’s a horrible statistic, isn’t it? And there’s gotta be something artificial out there that’s doing it,” Trump continued, turning to Kennedy. 

“So you think you’re gonna have a pretty good idea, huh?” Trump asked. 

“We will know by September,” Kennedy replied. 

“There will be no bigger news conference than that, so that’s it. If you can come up with that answer: where you stop taking something, you stop eating something, or maybe it’s a shot. But something’s causing it,” Trump said. 

Kennedy has previously claimed that autism comes from vaccines, and it seems that the president has officially bought in—or is at least open to the possibility. Trump’s newest comment comes months after a leaked phone call with Kennedy in July, where the president could be heard tying vaccines to autism. 

Meanwhile, experts have attributed some of the rise in autism diagnoses to a widening definition of autism spectrum disorder, which encapsulates a broader range of symptoms, as well as people being more aware of and willing to get diagnostic testing, according to ABC News.  

While Kennedy claimed he has “never been anti-vaxx,” he has spent his first two months in office pushing alternative, unproven medicines amid a deadly national measles outbreak. Last month, Kennedy suggested that contracting measles had more long-term health benefits than getting the measles vaccine, which he falsely claimed could cause all the same illnesses associated with measles. 

House Republicans approved a budget Thursday, pushing Donald Trump’s dream bill closer to reality.

With the budget framework in the rearview, conservatives in both chambers are now squaring away how they can slice trillions of dollars from the details of the federal budget in order to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts for corporations and billionaires, and make an estimated $6.8 trillion addition to the deficit more palatable to their base.

One much-discussed solution includes taking a metaphorical chain saw to indirectly strip $880 billion from Medicaid, but House Speaker Mike Johnson still wasn’t ready to admit the reality of that proposal Thursday—despite the fact that his colleagues have already publicly acknowledged the party’s intention to gut the low-income insurance program.

“No one has talked about cutting one benefit in Medicaid,” Johnson insisted, instead offering another solution to afford Trump’s tax cuts. “What we’ve talked about is returning work requirements, so for example you don’t have able-bodied young men on a program that’s designed for single mothers and the elderly and disabled.”

The eyebrow-raising pitch also came packaged with an insult for young American men, who Johnson argued were wasting their lives playing video games.

“They’re draining resources from people who actually do that,” the speaker continued. “So if you clean that up and shore it up you save a lot of money and you return the dignity of work to young men who need to be at work instead of playing video games all day.”

But Republican proposals to introduce a work requirement to Medicaid have thus far asked recipients to navigate work-reporting and verification systems on a monthly basis—a detail that would require significant federal funding. The plans would also negate coverage for individuals who find themselves temporarily unemployed, such as those who were recently fired or laid off.

A February report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that introducing work requirements to the insurance program could strip upward of 36 million Americans of their health coverage—half of Medicaid’s 72 million enrollees.

And, at the end of the day, if work requirements for Medicaid are actually intended to encourage employment—rather than punish the poor—then the whole effort is founded on a dud philosophy.

“Research shows that work requirements do not increase employment,” the think tank’s report said.

Republicans, and apparently some Democrats, are still obsessed with limiting noncitizen voting, which is already illegal and exceedingly rare.

The House on Wednesday passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, which would require people to present a passport, birth certificate, or other documentation proving citizenship in person in order to vote in elections. The legislation is so extreme that many have warned that it could even make it harder for married women to vote.

The SAVE Act passed 220–208, with Democrats Jared Golden, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Henry Cuellar, and Ed Case voting in support of a bill that could disenfranchise millions of voters.

This is the second time Republicans have tried to codify the bill, which passed in the House last year but failed in the Senate.

“I voted for the SAVE Act for the simple reason that American elections are for Americans. Requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote is common sense,” Golden wrote in a post on X in an attempt to defend himself from his party’s scrutiny. “Some claim that requiring proof of citizenship is too onerous a burden, or that it will ‘disenfranchise’ those whose names have changed for reasons like marriage. The truth is the SAVE Act ensures name changes will not prevent anyone from registering to vote.”

But the bill will no doubt make it more difficult for millions of people to vote, particularly some 69 million married women who have taken their spouse’s name and do not have a birth certificate matching their legal name.

The SAVE Act would also disenfranchise marginalized groups like naturalized citizens, Native American voters, and low-income voters who do not have documents that prove their citizenship readily available, and prevent people from registering to vote online or by mail. It’s yet another form of Republican-led voter suppression disguised as a way to protect the country from voter fraud.

“In order to preserve this republic, we must uphold what it means to be able to vote in a U.S. election,” Representative Chip Roy, who sponsored the bill, said in a statement. “I am grateful that my colleagues answered the call and passed the SAVE Act, as this serves as a critical first step to ensure that we maintain election integrity throughout our country.”

Though noncitizen voting is extremely rare, it’s long been an obsession of the GOP, which frames the practice as an existential threat to democracy. It was a top Republican issue throughout last year’s election, and lawmakers used it to push their fearmongering anti-immigration agenda. Last month, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that would similarly boost proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration.

The SAVE Act will now head to the Republican-led Senate, where it will require more betrayal from Democrats in order to pass.

At the White House Thursday, Secretary of State Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump admitted that U.S. troops have been deployed to the Panama Canal.

“We’re taking back the canal. China’s had too much influence, Obama and others let them creep in. We along with Panama are pushing them out, Sir,” Hegseth said to Trump at a Cabinet meeting held in front of the press, adding that after his trip to the country earlier this week, President José Raúl Mulino spoke positively of partnering with U.S. troops to get “the Communist Chinese out.”

“We’ve moved a lot of troops to Panama, and, uh, filled up some areas that we used to have, we didn’t have any longer, but we have them now, and I think it’s in very good control, right?” Trump said, turning to Hegseth, who replied, “Yes, Sir.”

The exchange seems to indicate that Trump has moved to control the canal and is working with Panama’s president, despite Trump previously antagonizing the country by expressing the desire to retake it. Hegseth’s visit to Panama earlier this week seemed to calm down tensions between the two countries, with Hegseth acknowledging Panama’s sovereignty over the canal.

But Trump asked the military last month to draw up plans for retaking the canal, meaning that he prefers to have that option on the table. Panama has taken steps to try to appease Trump, making a deal to reimburse U.S. ships for any transit fees for going through the canal, signing a security cooperation agreement, and agreeing to allow U.S. troops to resume jungle warfare training.

Panama has also agreed to end an infrastructure agreement with China and conduct a financial audit of Hong Kong–based CK Hutchison Holdings, which controls ports on the canal’s opposite sides. Whether all of this will be enough to keep Trump happy and allow Panama not to worry about a full U.S. military takeover of the canal remains to be seen.

As Donald Trump enacts economic mayhem with his relentless tariff flip-flopping, eggs are still getting more expensive.

The average cost of a dozen large eggs jumped 6 percent in March, now costing about $6.23 per dozen, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than double what it was a year ago. That price is up from $5.90 in February and $4.95 in January, when bird flu spikes were cited as the main reason for rising costs. More than 30 million egg-laying chickens were killed to stop the disease from spreading.

In March, however, there were no bird flu outbreaks on chicken farms and the price of wholesale eggs dropped to $3 per dozen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported. “The supply situation at grocery outlets has greatly improved in recent weeks and consumers are once again seeing fully stocked shelves and enjoying a range of choices without purchase restrictions,” the USDA report reads.

Shortly before Trump announced his disastrous tariff scheme on “Liberation Day,” he told Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins she did a “fantastic job,” because the country has “lots of eggs” that are “much cheaper now” and will only continue to drop in price.

He was wrong, and corporate profits are soaring. A recent report from Food and Water Watch details how the nation’s top egg producer, Cal-Maine, used bird flu as a pretext to gauge prices, leading to record-high egg sales and soaring profits.

With Trump’s unpredictable flip-flopping on tariffs and trade, eggs could get even more expensive in the coming months—a grim reminder that consumers are ultimately at the mercy of the president’s volatile mood swings and reckless economic decisions.

A federal judge on Thursday denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss a new defamation lawsuit from the Central Park Five.

In a 20-page filing, Pennsylvania District Court Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled that Trump’s recent comments about the group of five Back and Hispanic men, who were wrongly convicted of assault and rape in 1989, could not be defended as “substantially true.”

The lawsuit was filed in October 2024 after a 2024 presidential debate, during which Kamala Harris reminded viewers that Trump was “the same individual who took out a full-page ad in The New York Times calling for the execution of five young Black and Latino boys who were innocent, the Central Park Five. Took out a full-page ad calling for their execution.”

Trump responded, claiming that “a lot of people, including Mayor Bloomberg, agreed with me on the Central Park Five.”

“They admitted—they said, they pled guilty. And I said, well, if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately. And if they pled guilty—then they pled we’re not guilty. But this is a person that has to stretch back years, 40, 50 years ago because there’s nothing now,” Trump said.

Beetlestone ruled that Trump’s statements could be “objectively determined” to be false, so his statement could be construed as fact, not opinion.

“Here, Plaintiffs were not just in the process of being exonerated, their name had been cleared for over twenty years, so Defendant cannot argue that stating that they pleaded guilty to crimes is substantially true, when the truth is that Plaintiffs are not guilty at all of those crimes,” she wrote.

She added that the plaintiffs had “plausibly alleged actual malice” by demonstrating that Trump was “closely familiar” with the Central Park Five’s not-guilty plea, conviction, and subsequent exoneration and therefore knew that they were not guilty and had not hurt or killed anyone at all.

Beetlestone ruled to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and a defamation-by-implication theory included in their original complaint. She wrote that they would be permitted to amend their complaint to omit those arguments.