Trump says he’ll slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico on Day 1
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump is making good on his tariff promises, saying Monday he plans to impose them on Mexico, Canada and China in an effort to stop the flow of drugs entering the country and illegal border crossings.
Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that one of the first executive orders he will sign when he takes office on Jan. 20, 2025, will be to charge Mexico and Canada with a 25% tariff on all products coming into the United States.
“This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country! Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long simmering problem. We hereby demand that they use this power, and until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price.” Trump posted.
Canada’s deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland, and public safety minister, Dominic LeBlanc, released a joint statement on the proposed tariffs Monday, saying, “Canada and the United States have one of the strongest and closest relationships – particularly when it comes to trade and border security. Canada places the highest priority on border security and the integrity of our shared border.”
The officials noted that Canada buys more from the U.S than China, Japan, France and the U.K. combined.
“Canada is essential to US domestic energy supply, and last year 60 percent of US crude oil imports originated in Canada,” Freeland and LeBlanc said in the statement on X.
In another post, Trump said that he will be charging China with an additional 10% tariff on top of any additional tariffs on products coming into the U.S., arguing the country wasn’t doing enough to stop the flow of illicit drugs.
“Representatives of China told me that they would institute their maximum penalty, that of death, for any drug dealers caught doing this but, unfortunately, they never followed through, and drugs are pouring into our Country, mostly through Mexico, at levels never seen before,” Trump claimed.
During the presidential campaign, Trump proposed tariffs of between 60% and 100% on Chinese goods, and a tax of between 10% and 20% on every product imported from all U.S. trading partners.
The day before the election, Trump told a rally in Pittsburgh, “I’m putting tariffs on Mexico. Every damn thing that they sell into the United States has got to have like a 25% tariff until they stop drugs from coming in.”
Economists widely forecast that tariffs of this magnitude would increase prices paid by U.S. shoppers, since importers typically pass along a share of the cost of those higher taxes to consumers.
Trump’s tariffs would cost the average U.S. household about $2,600 per year, according to an estimate from the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Raymond Robertson, professor for trade, economics and public policy at Texas A&M University, told ABC News Trump’s plan will not be as effective because countries know what’s coming.
“This is more likely a play designed to put pressure on our closest trading partners,” Robertson said. “But this is the same playbook done the second time around. If you’re on the football field and you call the same play twice, it’s not going to be as effective the second time.”
Robertson added that countries know this would be “disruptive” and a “disaster,” but they’ve “seen how this game works.” Robertson says our trading partners could seek closer ties to Europe and other countries and rely less on the U.S., “which means higher prices for us.”
-ABC News’ Max Zahn and Selina Wang contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden announced Tuesday that Israel and Lebanon have agreed to a deal brokered by the U.S. “to end the devastating conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.”
“This has been the deadliest conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in decades,” Biden said in remarks from the Rose Garden.
Biden said the agreement reached will go into effect early Wednesday.
“At 4 a.m. tomorrow local time, the fighting across the Lebanese-Israeli border will end. Will end,” Biden said. “This is designed to be a permanent cessation of hostilities.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday thanked supporters during a virtual call and vowed that the “fight’s not over” in her first remarks since conceding defeat to President-elect Donald Trump three weeks ago.
“The fight that fueled our campaign, a fight for freedom and opportunity, that did not end on Nov. 5. A fight for the dignity of all people? That did not end on Nov. 5,” Harris said. “A fight for the future, a future in which all people receive the promise of America No. A fight that is about a fight for the ideals of our nation, the ideals that reflect the promise of America That fight’s not over.”
“That fight’s still in us, and it burns strong,” Harris later added. “And I know this is an uncertain time. I’m clear-eyed about that. I know you’re clear-eyed about it, and it feels heavy. And I just have to remind you: Don’t you ever let anybody take your power from you. You have the same power that you did before Nov. 5 and you have the same purpose that you did and you have the same ability to engage and inspire. So don’t ever let anybody or any circumstance take your power from you.”
The grassroots call came immediately after Harris held a call with her campaign’s finance committee. The finance call was attended by more than 400 donors, according to a source familiar.
On the grassroots call, Harris also briefly discussed the historic sum of money that ran her campaign, though she did not address what went wrong as she and her campaign face intense scrutiny over how they could raise that money and lose to Trump so resolutely.
”The outcome of this election, obviously, is not what we wanted. It is not what we work so hard for,” Harris said. “But I am proud of the race we ran. And your role in this was critical. What we did in 107 days was unprecedented.”
Harris said that over the course of those 100-plus days, her campaign raised $1.4 billion, much of which was from grassroot donors: “Nearly 8 million donors contributed an average donation of about $56.”
“You gave all that you could to support our campaign. Because of your efforts — get this — we raised an historic $1.4 billion, almost $1.5 billion from grassroots supporters alone, the most in presidential campaign history,” she said.
“Being involved can make a difference, and that remains true. And that’s one of the pieces that I just want us to please take away — that our fight for freedom and for opportunity and for the promise of America, it included, for example, nearly almost 4 million first-time contributors to our campaign because of the work you did, of helping people know that they can be engaged and that they’re not outside, that they’re inside, that we’re all in this together,” she added.
Harris was joined by her former running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, on both calls — a rare appearance from the two, though Harris joined the call from San Francisco and Walz from Minnesota.
Walz on the grassroot donor call also spoke to supporters’ feeling of loss following the election and repeated Harris’ claims that she is not finished with fighting.
“I think all of us saw the possibility, and I know there’s a bit of a feeling of loss because we saw what a real leader looks like,” Walz said.
“She did deliver the best of our better angels,” he added. “She delivered a vision where all of us mattered. She did it with grace and dignity and continues to do that every single day. She is still in this fight. She is doing it every single day. She is not done with her current job. She’s not done being part of it with all of you.”
Harris’ and Walz’s remarks follow some postelection analysis from Harris campaign senior officials during an episode of “Pod Save America” that aired on Tuesday, including some reaction to finances.
Harris campaign Chairwoman Jennifer O’Malley Dillon said that during the cycle, the bulk of the campaign’s spending was used to reach out to “very-hard-to-find voters,” including low-propensity and young voters, while investing across all swing states because polling reflected that each was in play.
“We were trying to, yes, spend more resources on digital … because we’re trying to find young people, we’re trying to find these lower-propensity voters that were tuned out to politics,” O’Malley Dillon said.
“We had some unique things that we had to do in this race that I think were really critical to do early and spent a lot of resources at an earlier stage than we would have to,” she added, noting those resources were spent on both advertising and field programming. “We saw, up until the very end, that … every single state was in such a margin of error. There was nothing that told us we couldn’t play in one of these states.”
During the podcast, O’Malley Dillon and senior campaign adviser David Plouffe accused the Trump campaign of coordinating with its super PACs, a practice that is not legal, but noted the Democrats need to take note and do the same.
“We have to stop playing a different game as it relates to super PACs and the Republicans. Love our Democratic lawyers. I’m tired of it, OK? They coordinate more than we do. I think amongst themselves, I think with the presidential campaign, like I’m just sick and tired, OK? So, we cannot be at a disadvantage,” Plouffe said.
“I think our side was completely mismatched when it came to the ecosystem of Trump and his super PACs and ours,” O’Malley Dillon said.
“We had a super PAC that was helpful, very important and necessary for the work that they did because they were the kind of central recipients of a lot of the funding on our side and they staked a strategy and a plan, and we clearly could see it, and we knew what it was [going] to spend, but we did not have the ability to have people come in with us early. And so every ounce of advertising, every ounce of carrying these strategic imperatives, of defining the vice president and trying to bring down Trump’s numbers, all sat with us as a campaign,” O’Malley Dillon added.
Harris has rarely been seen since she delivered her concession speech at Howard University the day after the election. She attended the Veterans Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery a week later and was seen making her first return to the White House a day after that. The vice president also spent the last week on vacation in Hawaii.
Walz, in the month since the election, has remained almost entirely out of the national spotlight, resuming his duties as the governor of Minnesota.
He delivered his final speech of the 2024 campaign cycle on Nov. 8 from suburban Minneapolis, joining a chorus of fellow Democratic governors who said they would protect their states from threats to reproductive freedoms, citizenship and other things under the Trump administration. The former vice presidential nominee also said he’d work to find common ground with swaths of people who voted “for the other side” on Nov. 5.
Harris and Walz remained mostly separate on the campaign trail in the roughly 15 weeks she had him as her running mate. The governor was present at Harris’ concession speech at Howard University the night after the election but did not speak or publicly interact with her. Before that, the two held a joint rally on Oct. 28 in Ann Arbor, Michigan, their first event together since late August, when they were seen together in Savannah, Georgia, on a bus tour.
Prior to that, their last time at a rally together was in Milwaukee for programming linked to the Democratic National Convention in August.
(NEW YORK) — In a final lame-duck push, the Senate will attempt to pass legislation aimed at providing full Social Security benefits to millions of Americans this week.
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in floor remarks Monday he’d push for a vote on the Social Security Fairness Act before the week is out.
“We will vote and every Senator will choose. Where are you? Do you stand on the side of public retirees who deserve their benefits, or bungle this golden opportunity by blocking this bill?” Schumer said in a floor speech.
The closely-watched legislation repeals provisions that limit the ability of some retirees who also collect pensions from claiming social security benefits. Among those impacted are retirees who at one time worked as firefighters, teachers, postal worker, a police officer, or in other public sector jobs. A provision that limits the benefits allotted to those workers’ surviving spouses would also be eliminated.
The legislation already passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support in November, but Congress would need to act this week to avoid having to restart the process of passing the legislation in the new year.
The bipartisan bill has 62 Senate cosponsors, all but ensuring that it would have the necessary 60 votes it needs to overcome the Senate filibuster and pass.
It has strong advocates on both sides of the aisle.
“It is unfair to penalize Americans who have taught our children, protected our streets, and ran into burning buildings,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, the top Republican on the Senate’s Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, said in a post on X earlier this month.
But there is some concern among Republicans about the cost of the bill and the increased strain it could put on the already underfunded Social Security trust fund.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has estimated that the bill would increase the deficit by $196 billion and increase the rate at which the Social Security trust fund becomes insolvent.
As a result, there could be challenges on the floor that limit the ability to expedite passage of this bill. And there’s certainly a time crunch to consider.
The Senate isn’t short on things to accomplish during this last week of the lame-duck session. It is currently working to process the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act. Senators must also approve a government funding bill before the end of the week if they wish to avert a shutdown.
If the Social Security Fairness Act is challenged in a way that slows the process of its passage, the Senate may run short on time to get this done.
It is not yet known when the Senate will vote on this legislation.
