President Donald Trump speaks during a press conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, February 20, 2026. (Aaron Schwartz/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — A 10% global tariff took effect on Tuesday, marking the first duty enacted by President Donald Trump after a recent Supreme Court decision invalidated most of his levies.
Within hours of the high court’s ruling on Friday, Trump signed an executive order imposing a 10% tariff on nearly all imports for up to 150 days. The directive called for enforcement of the duty to begin at 12:01 a.m. ET on Tuesday, Feb. 24.
Soon after signing the order, Trump vowed to hike the global tariff to 15%. As of Tuesday, however, the president had not issued an executive order formalizing that increase.
Stocks ticked higher Tuesday morning, recovering some of the losses suffered a day earlier in the first trading session since Trump announced the tariff increase.
Trump enacted the 10% tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the White House to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits, or disparities between a country’s total payments in transactions with other nations and its total earnings.
Under the measure, the president can also impose levies to “prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar.”
The Section 122 tariffs will result in price increases amounting to $800 in additional costs for an average U.S. household over the next 150 days, the Yale Budget Lab projected. In order to extend the across-the-board 15% tariff beyond that time window, Trump would need to secure Congressional approval.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Monday that Democrats would oppose an extension of Section 122 tariffs, which could deny Trump the 60 votes necessary to overcome a potential Senate filibuster.
In a social media post on Monday, Trump affirmed what he said was his authority to issue tariffs, saying he does not need to consult Congress before erecting new trade levies.
Trump also reiterated his commitment to his policy approach, warning other countries that they may face a “much higher Tariff, and worse.”
The high court ruled in their February 20 decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA) does not authorize Trump to impose levies, nullifying a major swathe of tariffs issued by the president on April 2 of last year, which he dubbed “Liberation Day,” and a host of other measures.
If the Supreme Court had opted to uphold tariffs issued under IEPPA, the nation’s effective tariff rate would have remained at 16%, the Yale Budget Lab said. Taking into account the Section 122 tariffs, the effective tariff rate now stands at 13.7%, the group said.
(NEW YORK) — The stock market surged to record highs in 2025, hurtling past tariffs, a government shutdown and fears of a bubble in artificial intelligence.
The S&P 500 — the index that most people’s 401(k)s track — climbed about 17% this year, as of Dec. 23. That performance marks a slight slowdown from two consecutive years of more than 20% growth, but the latest uptick extends a run of gangbusters returns.
The yearslong bull market presents a stark choice for investors as the calendar turns to 2026: Flee from ever-higher stock prices or trust that the good times will continue to roll.
Earlier this month, investment bank Morgan Stanley summed up its market forecast with a single question: “Can the bull market endure?”
Analysts attributed the rise of share prices this year to overlapping trends: Resilient corporate earnings, a series of interest-rate cuts meant to boost hiring and near-inexhaustible enthusiasm for artificial intelligence.
Tariffs, which threatened to derail markets in the spring, eased into an afterthought over the latter half of the year.
A day after tariffs were announced on April 2, major stock indexes shed about $3.1 trillion in value. The selloff amounted to the biggest one-day decline in markets since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Days later, a major swathe of the tariffs were suspended, sending the market to one of its largest ever single-day increases.
“While tariffs remain a source of uncertainty, markets are pricing in limited disruption,” JPMorgan Wealth Management said in an investor note last month.
Even as markets proved resilient, the gains this year remained concentrated in a handful of tech giants, known as the magnificent seven: Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Tesla and Nvidia. In September, worries over AI threw cold water on those stocks, causing their prices to waver.
In November, blockbuster earnings from chip giant Nvidia helped rebuke AI fears and shake markets out of the doldrums. Nvidia recorded $57 billion in sales over a three-month span, the company said, setting a quarterly sales record and demonstrating near-bottomless demand for the semiconductors at the heart of AI.
Nvidia, the world’s largest company by market capitalization, soared 40% this year, as of Dec. 23.
Still, some analysts have continued to voice concern about the market’s dependence on AI, as tech firms face increased pressure to turn massive capital investment into profits.
“Equity markets may remain exuberant but face rising risks,” investment giant Vanguard said in December, citing AI as a threat to growth.
Other risks abound, some analysts said. Key measures of the U.S. economy have shown mixed results, making the path forward uncertain. Hiring slowed sharply this year, while inflation remained about a percentage point higher than the Fed’s 2% goal. Economic growth withstood headwinds from tariffs and elevated interest rates, but consumer sentiment sputtered.
Ultimately, Vanguard said its baseline expectation remains optimistic, forecasting overall stock returns next year as high as 8%.
Some analysts predicted even better performance in 2026. JPMorgan Wealth Management predicted stock gains next year between 13% and 15%. BNY Wealth estimated the S&P 500 would end 2026 as high as $7,600, which would amount to about a 10% jump from where the index stood on Dec. 23. Morgan Stanley also forecasted an increase in 2026 of 10%.
In response to its own question about whether the bull market could endure, Morgan Stanley answered with little doubt, saying the odds of a recession next year are “extraordinarily low” and the upswing in stocks “still has room to run.”
David Ellison, chairman and chief executive officer of Paramount Skydance Corp., center, outside the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York, US, on Monday, Dec. 8, 2025. (Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Paramount launched a hostile bid for Warner Bros. Discovery this week, just days after Netflix struck a deal to acquire the legacy media company.
The rival multi-billion dollar efforts to purchase streaming platform HBO Max and movie studio Warner Bros., among other assets, could upend the media industry and shape content viewed by hundreds of millions of people.
For now, the outcome remains highly uncertain. Any acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery would likely be reviewed by the Trump administration, which could move to block a proposed merger over anti-monopoly concerns, according to antitrust experts from Vanderbilt University, the University of Tennessee and the Cardozo Law School.
The government approval process could take anywhere from several months to more than a year, the experts said.
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
Here’s what to know about the government hurdles faced by a potential blockbuster deal to acquire Warner Bros:
What government hurdles await a bid from Netflix or Paramount?
Streaming giant Netflix appeared to win the bidding war for Warner Bros. Discovery last week, when the two firms announced a merger. Within days, however, Paramount launched a hostile bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, meaning Paramount plans to appeal to shareholders in an effort to overcome the wishes of management.
The $108 billion bid from Paramount encompasses the HBO Max streaming service, the Warner Bros. film production company and cable channels such as CNN. Netflix established its agreement with Warner Bros. Discovery at a lower price of $83 billion, though the Netflix offer excluded the cable channels.
Ultimately, the prevailing bid for Warner Bros. Discovery — whether from Paramount or Netflix — will likely face scrutiny from the Trump administration that could doom the proposal if agency officials consider the newly created company in violation of anti-monopoly law, experts said.
An antitrust review of the merger would draw on a standard established in the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, some experts said. The law prohibits mergers in which “the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.”
As part of its assessment, Trump officials would examine the market share of the newly created company, especially with regard to whether it could result in higher prices for consumers or reduced fees for creators selling content to media companies, Maurice Stucke, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, told ABC News.
An antitrust review could also focus on the potential impact on content distributors, such as movie theaters, Stucke noted.
“It’s not just a question of higher prices,” Stucke said. “It could be less content, less choice, less innovation and a decrease in quality — all of those could be a concern.”
If the Trump administration considers a potential merger illegal, a federal agency could seek a settlement under terms that would assuage government concerns.
Typically, the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Justice (DOJ) are tasked with settlement negotiations or legal action tied to antitrust concerns.
In June, for instance, the DOJ announced a settlement agreement that permitted Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s (HPE) $14 billion purchase of Juniper Networks, a digital infrastructure firm. The settlement requires HPE to divest a part of its business and license Juniper Network’s critical software to competitors, the DOJ said.
If a settlement between the government and the firm cannot be reached, the Trump administration may move to sue the company in an effort to block the merger. A lawsuit would present a task for the Trump administration, Stucke said: “How do you prove this in court?”
The potential merger could also receive scrutiny from state-level regulators or the European Union.
How may regulators weigh a bid from Netflix or Paramount?
Proposals from Netflix or Paramount could each raise antitrust concerns, but for slightly different reasons, some experts said.
Netflix is the most popular streaming service, boasting 300 million subscribers worldwide as of late 2024, the most recent time for which data is available. The company accounts for 46% of mobile app monthly active users in global streaming, according to a CNBC analysis of data from intelligence firm Sensor Tower. After acquiring HBO Max, that share of app users would rise to 60%, CNBC said.
“Netflix has studios and a big chunk of streaming,” Sam Weinstein, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law who focuses on antitrust, told ABC News. “If you think that’s a market, they might have a big enough chunk that they can raise prices to impact streamers.”
“On the other hand, they’re a big buyer of projects. Creators might think, ‘Well now there’s one less studio to bid on my work,” he added.
Netflix may seek a broad definition of the market that includes consumers of online video, such as YouTube and short-form social media content, rather than merely traditional streaming, according to Weinstein.
“In that larger market, Netflix has a much smaller share,” Weinstein said.
Speaking to reporters on an earrings call on Friday, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos voiced confidence about government approval of the merger.
“This deal is pro-consumer, pro-innovation, pro-worker, it’s pro-creator, it’s pro-growth,” Sarandos said, adding that the firm would “work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators.”
Paramount+ counts a smaller streaming audience than Netflix, recording about 79.1 million subscribers in September 2025, or less than a third of the audience of Netflix. The comparatively small market share for streaming could lessen concern among regulators about the potential to push up prices for consumers, some experts said.
Still, Paramount boasts a movie studio of its own, Paramount Pictures, presenting a risk of decreased competition for content production in the event of a potential merger, Rebecca Allensworth, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, told ABC News. In turn, TV shows or movies could command lower prices for creators, while actors or other workers could lose out on pay, she noted.
“At this moment, you can approach either Warner or Paramount as competitive studios,” Allensworth said. “This will take away one of those options.”
Speaking to CNBC on Monday, Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison addressed antitrust concerns, saying the offer from Paramount compares favorably to the one from Netflix when considered through the lens of preserving a competitive industry.
“What we’re creating by putting these two companies together is a real competitor to Netflix, a real competitor to Amazon, a real competitor to Disney — not something that is so anti-competitive,” Ellison said.
Could the Trump administration take into account issues unrelated to competition?
The Trump administration may retain leeway to consider issues unrelated to competition, including potential agreements surrounding coverage at new outlets such as Warner Bros. Discovery-owned CNN, some experts said, noting the murky nature of antitrust law.
“A speeding violation or murder is fairly clear cut,” Stucke said. “With bringing an antitrust claim, there’s a lot of discretion.”
Trump, a frequent critic of major news outlets including CNN, told reporters on Sunday that he would “be involved” in the decision on a potential Warner Bros. Discovery merger. Trump’s willingness to take a direct role in deal evaluation departs from standard practice in which the president has sought to distance himself from antitrust reviews, Weinstein noted.
“The norm is that the White House wouldn’t get involved — that definitely isn’t happening here,” he said.
Speaking on the red carpet at the Kennedy Center honors on Sunday, Trump raised antitrust concerns about a potential Netflix acquisition, saying the deal “could be a problem” due to the market share of the new firm.
The circumstances afford the Trump administration leverage to extract potential concessions from a buyer like Netflix or Paramount, since in each case the purchase presents legitimate antitrust issues, granting Trump an opportunity to exercise robust oversight of the merger while seeking a favorable settlement, Allensworth said.
“Because antitrust law would likely find at least serious problems with the merger, Trump can make that all go away on terms that he agrees to,” Allensworth added.
Weinstein agreed, suggesting that their may be a court-enforceable agreement.
“It’s entirely possible you might have a consent decree with conditions that are non-competitive,” Weinstein said.
As part of a process seeking Federal Communications Commission approval for its $8 billion acquisition of Paramount earlier this year, Skydance agreed to a series of concessions that appeared to align with the views of the Trump administration, including agreements to forego implementation of diversity, equity or inclusion programs and appoint an ombudsman.
In a statement when the acquisition was approved in July, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said the changes aimed to improve public trust in mainstream news outlets like CBS.
“Americans no longer trust the legacy national news media to report fully, accurately, and fairly. It is time for a change,” Carr said. “That is why I welcome Skydance’s commitment to make significant changes at the once storied CBS broadcast network.”
Experts underscored the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of a potential review of the Warner Bros. Discovery merger.
“If it’s a straight-up merger under antitrust guidelines, that’s one thing,” Weinstein said. “If you can win favor of the administration by making promises, that makes the deal unpredictable.”
Money Cash Stocks Decline ( Anton Petrus/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Stocks slid in early trading on Monday hours after reports that the Department of Justice had opened a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell centered on the central bank leader’s remarks to Congress about an office renovation project.
Powell, who was appointed by Trump in 2017, issued a rare video message rebuking the investigation as a politically motivated effort to influence the Fed’s interest rate policy.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 290 points, or 0.6%, while the S&P 500 fell 0.4%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq declined 0.3%.
The selloff on Monday also appeared to include reaction to a social media post from President Donald Trump advocating for a 10% cap on credit card interest rates for one year. Shares of several major banks fell in early trading.
The DOJ’s criminal probe follows a a monthslong influence campaign undertaken by Trump as he has frequently slammed the Fed for what he considers a reluctance to significantly reduce interest rates.
The criminal probe appears to center on allegations of false remarks made by Powell about a renovation of the Fed’s headquarters during a congressional hearing in June.
Trump has repeatedly denounced Powell for alleged overspending tied to the central bank’s $2.5 billion renovation project. The Fed attributes spending overruns to unforeseen cost increases, saying that its building renovation will ultimately “reduce costs over time by allowing the Board to consolidate most of its operations,” according to the central bank’s website.
Federal law allows the president to remove the Fed chair for “cause” — though no president has ever done so. Powell’s term as chair is set to expire in May, but he can remain on the Fed’s policymaking board until 2028. Powell has not indicated whether he intends to remain on the board.
