Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 6.67.1.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

J.G.G., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No: 1:25-cv-00766-JEB

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 1:25-cv-00766-JEB Document 67-1 Filed 03/28/25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .... 1

LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND .. 1

LEGAL STANDARD ............ 8

ARGUMENT ........... 8

I. Defendants’ Action is Subject to Judicial Review Under the APA and in Equity, and Need Not Be Brought in Habeas. .... 9

II. The Court Can Reach the Merits of Plaintiffs’ Claims. 14

A. The AEA Cases Confirm the Justiciability of Plaintiffs’ Claims. ...... 15

III. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits. ........ 21

A. The Proclamation Does Not Satisfy the AEA ........... 21

B. The Proclamation Violates the Specific Protections that Congress Established for Noncitizens Seeking Humanitarian Protection. ... 34

C. The Proclamation Violates the Procedural Requirements of the INA. ............ 36

IV. The Administration’s Abuse of the Alien Enemies Act Has Caused and Will Continue to Cause Plaintiffs Irreparable Harm. ......... 38

V. The Balance of Equities and Public Interest Weigh Decidedly in Favor of a Preliminary Injunction Order. . 40

VI. The Court Should Not Require Plaintiffs to Provide Security Prior to the Preliminary Injunction Order. . 41

CONCLUSION ....... 41

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......... 43

[/b]TABLE OF AUTHORITIES[/b]

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner,
387 U.S. 136 (1967) ......... 11

Abourezk v. Reagan,
785 F.2d 1043, 1061 (D.C. Cir. 1986), aff’d, 484 U.S. 1 (1987) ....... 16

Al Warafi v Obama,
No. CV 09-2368 (RCL), 2015 WL 4600420 (D.D.C. July 30, 2015), order vacated as moot (Mar. 4, 2016) ..... 17

Al-Alwi v. Trump,
901 F.3d 294 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ...... 17

Al-Joudi v. Bush,
406 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2005) 33

Alpine Secs. Corp. v. Fin. Indus. Regul. Auth.,
121 F.4th 1314 (D.C. Cir. 2024) ..... 7

Al-Tamimi v. Adelson,
916 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019) .......... 15

Aracely, R. v. Nielsen,
319 F. Supp. 3d 110 (D.D.C. 2018) ....... 8, 11

Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc.,
575 U.S. 320 (2015) ......... 11

Baker v. Carr,
369 U.S. 186, 210 (1962) . 15

Bauer v. Watkins,
171 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1948) .... 13, 27

Bennett v. Spear,
520 U.S. 154 (1997) ......... 11

Boumediene v. Bush,
553 U.S. 723 (2008) ......... 26

Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of Kentucky,
410 U.S. 484 (1973) ........... 9

Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh,
864 F.2d 804 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ........ 9

Citizens Protective League v. Byrnes,
64 F. Supp. 233 (D.D.C. 1946) ....... 8

Citizens Protective League v. Clark,
155 F.2d 290 (D.C. Cir. 1946) ......... 8, 13, 14

County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation,
470 U.S. 226 (1985) ......... 16

Dames & Moore v. Regan,
453 U.S. 654 (1981) ......... 11

Damus v. Nielsen,
313 F. Supp. 3d 317 (D.D.C. 2018) 8

Davis v. U.S. Sent’g Comm’n,
716 F.3d 660 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ........ 9

Demjanjuk v. Holder,
563 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2009) ......... 33

Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California,
140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020) .... 11

El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States,
607 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2010) 15, 16

Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis,
584 U.S. 497 (2018) ......... 29

Ex parte Bollman,
8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 (1807) .......... 20

Ex parte Gilroy,
257 F. 110 (S.D.N.Y. 1919) .......... 27

Ex Parte Milligan,
71 U.S. 2 (1866) .. 27

Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr,
589 U.S. 221 (2020) ......... 16

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,
548 U.S. 557 (2006) ... 18, 26

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,
542 U.S. 507 (2004) ... 17, 27

Holmes v. Jennison,
39 U.S. 540 (1840) ........... 23

Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas,
27 F.4th 718 (D.C. Cir. 2022) .... 8, 11, 29, 33

Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas,
560 F. Supp. 3d 146 (D.D.C. 2021) ........... 33

INS v. Chadha,
462 U.S. 919 (1983) ... 16, 26

J.D. v. Azar,
925 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ...... 8

J.G.G. v. Trump,
No. 25-5067, 2025 WL 914682 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 26, 2025) ........ passim

Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society,
478 U.S. 221 (1986) ......... 15

Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co.,
367 U.S. 303 (1961) ......... 21

Johnson v. Eisentrager,
339 U.S. 763 (1950) ......... 21

Jones v. Hendrix,
599 U.S. 465 (2023) ......... 30

Kaplan v. Cent. Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
896 F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ...... 17

League of Women Voters v. Newby,
838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) .......... 34

Leiva-Perez v. Holder,
640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2011) ......... 33

LoBue v. Christopher
82 F.3d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ........ 9

Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo,
603 U.S. 369 (2024) ......... 15

Ludecke v. Watkins,
335 U.S. 160 (1948) .......... 12, 21, 27

Luokung Tech. Corp. v. Dep’t of Def.,
538 F. Supp. 3d 174, 195 (D.D.C. 2021) ... 34

Mathis v. U.S. Parole Commission,
749 F.Supp.3d 8 (D.D.C. 2024) .... 11

McQuiggin v. Perkins,
569 U.S. 383 (2013) ......... 12

Medellin v. Texas,
552 U.S. 491 (2008) ......... 23

Miles v. Apex Marine Corp.,
498 U.S. 19 (1990) ........... 31

Munaf v. Geren,
553 U.S. 674 (2008) ........... 9

Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. Nixon,
492 F.2d 587 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ...... 12

New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345 (1921) ......... 30

Nken v. Holder,

556 U.S. 418 (2009) ... 32, 34

NLRB v. SW Gen., Inc.,
580 U.S. 288 (2017) ......... 31

P.J.E.S. ex rel. Escobar Francisco v. Wolf,
502 F. Supp. 3d 492 (D.D.C. 2020) ..... 33, 35

Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan,
293 U.S. 388 (1935) ......... 11

Porter v. Warner Holding Co.,
328 U.S. 395 (1946) ......... 12

Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475 (1973) ....... 8, 9

Pursuing Am.’s Greatness v. FEC,
831 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ...... 34

R.I.L.-R v. Johnson,
80 F. Supp. 3d 164 (D.C.C. 2015) 11

Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in U.S.,
758 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ...... 28

Robbins v. Reagan,
780 F.2d 37 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ........ 10

Sessions v. Dimaya,
584 U.S. 148 (2018) ......... 22

Simms v. District of Columbia,
872 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D.D.C. 2012) 34

Skinner v. Switzer,
562 U.S. 521 (2011) ........... 8

Trump v. Hawaii,
585 U.S. 667 (2018) ......... 11

U.S. Dep’t of Com. v. Montana,
503 U.S. 442 (1992) ......... 15

U.S. ex rel. D’Esquiva v. Uhl,
137 F.2d 903 (2d Cir. 1943) .... 13, 17

U.S. ex rel. Gregoire v. Watkins,
164 F.2d 137 (2d Cir. 1947) .......... 13
U.S. ex rel. Hoehn v. Shaughnessy,

175 F.2d 116 (2d Cir. 1949) .......... 14

U.S. ex rel. Jaegeler v. Carusi,
342 U.S. 347 (1952) ......... 13

U.S. ex rel. Kessler v. Watkins,
163 F.2d 140 (2d Cir. 1947) .... 13, 17

U.S. ex rel. Ludwig v. Watkins,
164 F.2d 456 (2d Cir. 1947) .... 14, 28

U.S. ex rel. Schwarzkopf v. Uhl,
137 F.2d 898 (2d Cir. 1943) .......... 13

U.S. ex rel. Von Heymann v. Watkins,
159 F.2d 650 (2d Cir. 1947) .... 14, 28

U.S. ex rel. Zdunic v. Uhl,
137 F.2d 858 (2d Cir. 1943) .... 13, 17

United States ex rel. Dorfler v. Watkins,
171 F.2d 431 (2d Cir. 1948) .......... 28

United States ex rel. Zdunic v. Uhl,
137 F.2d 858 (2d Cir. 1943) .......... 27

United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co.,
434 U.S. 159 (1977) ......... 11

United States v. Tinoso,
327 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2003) ......... 31

Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA,
573 U.S. 302 (2014) ......... 18

Wiborg v. United States,
163 U.S. 632 (1896) ......... 21

Wilkinson v. Dotson,
544 U.S. 74 (2005) 9

Wilkinson v. Garland,
601 U.S. 209 (2024) ......... 16

Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539 (1974) ........... 9

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
343 U.S. 579 (1952) .. passim

Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton,
566 U.S. 189 (2012) .......... 15, 16, 18

Statutes

18 U.S.C. § 2339A .. 25

22 U.S.C. § 6442a ... 25

42 U.S.C. § 265 ....... 29

5 U.S.C. § 704 ......... 10

50 U.S.C. § 21 .. passim

50 U.S.C. § 22 ... 23, 28

8 U.S.C. § 1158 ....... 30

8 U.S.C. § 1229a ............ 31, 32

8 U.S.C. § 1531 . 31, 32

8 U.S.C. § 1532 ....... 31

8 U.S.C. § 1533 ....... 31

8 U.S.C. § 1534 ....... 31

8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 ..... 30

8 U.S.C. §1231 .. 29, 30

8 U.S.C.A. § 1252 ..... 8

Act of July 7, 1798, ch. 67, 1 Stat. 578 .......... 20

Act of July 9, 1798, ch. 68, 1 Stat. 578 .......... 20

Act of May 28, 1798, ch. 48, 1 Stat. 561 ....... 20

C.F.R. §§ 208.16 to 208.18 .. 29

Other Authorities

5 Annals of Cong. 1453 (Apr. 1798) 25

7 Annals of Cong. 58 (May 1797) .... 20

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78 .. 15

Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, Congressional Authorization and the War on Terrorism, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 2047, 2066 (2005) ........ 25

Jennifer K. Elsea & Matthew C. Weed, Cong. Rsch. Serv., RL3113, Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force 1 (2014) ......... 26

John Jay, Con’t Cong., Draft of an Address of the Convention of the Representatives of the State of New York to Their Constituents (Dec. 23, 1776) 19

John Lord O’Brian, Special Ass’t to the Att’y Gen. for War Work, N.Y. State Bar Ass’n Annual Meeting: Civil Liberty in War Time, at 8 (Jan. 17, 1919) .... 25

Johnson’s Dictionary (1773) 19

Letter from George Washington to Nathanael Greene (Jan. 29, 1783) . 19

Letter from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 6, 1781) ... 19

Letter from Timothy Pickering, Sec’y of State, to Alexander Hamilton (June 9, 1798) . 19

S. Rep. No. 82-1137 (Jan. 29, 1952) . 31

U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 3, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988) ........... 29

Webster’s Dictionary (1828) ....... 18, 19

INTRODUCTION

The unprecedented Proclamation at the heart of this case is unlawful because the Alien Enemies Act is a wartime measure that cannot be used where, as here, there is neither an “invasion or predatory incursion” nor such an act perpetrated by a “foreign nation or government.” And even if it could be used against a non-military criminal “gang” during peacetime, targeted individuals must be provided with a meaningful chance to contest that they fall within the Proclamation’s scope. That is particularly so given the increasing number of class members who dispute the government’s allegations of gang affiliation. For these and other reasons, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits. The remaining factors also decidedly tip in Plaintiffs’ favor. In the absence of an injunction, the government will be free to send hundreds more individuals, without notice, to the notorious Salvadoran prison where they may be held incommunicado for the rest of their lives. The government will suffer no comparable harm given that this Court has not prohibited it from prosecuting anyone who commits a criminal offense, detaining anyone under the Act or other authority, or removing anyone under the immigration laws, and the government has already conceded that some form of judicial review is appropriate. A preliminary injunction is warranted to preserve the status quo.

LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

As described in more detail in Plaintiffs’ prior filings, on March 14, the President signed a Proclamation announcing that Tren de Aragua (“TdA”), a Venezuelan gang, is “perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion” against the United States. See Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua (Mar. 15, 2025)1 (“Proclamation”); see also Mot. for TRO at 4-5, ECF No. 3-2.2 Prior to the Proclamation, ICE had moved Venezuelan detainees into position such that, when it was made public, the detainees had already being transported to the airport and were being loaded onto planes. See Mot. for TRO at 5. Those flights took off quickly and, despite this Court’s order to return individuals on the flights who were being removed pursuant to the AEA, the planes continued to El Salvador and the individuals were handed over to El Salvador. Pls.’ Response to Defs.’ Notice, ECF No. 21. Class members were promptly detained in that country’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). Opp. to Mot. to Vacate at 10, ECF No. 44. As detailed previously, the conditions in El Salvador’s prisons are horrific. See generally Goebertus Decl., ECF No. 44- 3; Bishop Decl. ECF No. 44-4; Opp. to Mot. to Vacate at 9-10.

The government also sent eight Venezuelan women to CECOT, presumably pursuant to the Proclamation. Exh. I, Beckman Decl. ¶¶ 8-10; see also S.Z.F.R. Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 55-1; E.E.P.B. Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 55-2. However, upon landing, Salvadoran officials informed U.S. officials that CECOT does not imprison women. S.Z.F.R. Decl. ¶ 20, ECF No. 55-1; E.E.P.B. Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 55-2. The government returned the eight Venezuelan women to the United States, along with a Nicaraguan man whom they also attempted to send to CECOT. S.Z.F.R. Decl. ¶ 21, ECF No. 55-1; E.E.P.B. Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 55-2; Beckman Decl. ¶ 11.

In the past two weeks, more details have begun to emerge. Named Plaintiffs received no advance notice of the basis for their removal. Exh. C, J.G.G. Second Supp. Decl. ¶ 4; Exh. E, Shealy Second Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Exh. D, Carney Decl. Second Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5; Exh. F, Lauterback Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 4-5; Exh. G, Smyth Second Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. They were never given any paperwork. Indeed, no government officers bothered to inform them that the plane they were boarding was headed to El Salvador. Id.; see also J.G.G. Suppl. Decl. ¶ 4; Exh. L, Thierry Decl. ¶ 10; Smyth Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. The government suggests they provided individuals with a notice form that asserts the men are alien enemies and pointedly states that they are “not entitled to a hearing, appeal, or judicial review of this notice and warrant of apprehension and removal.” Exh. S, Sarabia Roman Decl., Exh. 1 (AEA Validation Guide and Notice). But Plaintiffs and other class members received no such notice. Their immigration attorneys were never informed or notified of their impending deportation or the basis for the removal. Shealy Decl. ¶ 6; Thierry Decl. ¶ 9; Exh. M, Caro-Cruz Decl. ¶ 14; Exh. N, Kim Decl. ¶¶ 10-14; Smyth Supp. Decl. ¶ 6.

Whether most (or perhaps all) of the class members lack ties to TdA remains to be seen, because the government secretly rushed the men out of the country and has provided Plaintiffs with no information about the class. But evidence since the flights on March 15 increasingly shows that many class members removed to El Salvador are not “members” of TdA as is required to fall within the Proclamation; many have no ties to TdA at all.

For instance, one of the deported class members, Andry Jose Hernandez Romero, is a professional makeup artist who identifies as gay and never had an opportunity to contest the government’s TdA allegations. Exh. H, Reyes Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, 25. While in detention he was tagged as a TdA associate based solely on his tattoos. Id. ¶¶ 4-7. Specifically, the government has apparently relied solely on two crown tattoos for a connection to TdA, having found no contact with gang members, no supporting evidence from intelligence agencies, or any other of its own indicators. Id. ¶¶ 22-24. Mr. Hernandez Romero has consistently denied affiliation with TdA, as the government’s own records show, id. (Exhibit A); his crown tattoos, which accompany the words “Mom” and “Dad,” have nothing to do with the TdA and reflect his work as a makeup artist for beauty pageants and his hometown’s association with the “Three Kings” festival, id. ¶¶ 21-23; see also id. (Exhibit B). Yet, he was subject to the Proclamation and deported without any notice to him or his attorney. Two days later, at his court hearing, his attorney learned for the first time of his removal. Id. ¶¶ 14-17. Even then the government’s attorney did not know the basis for removal.

Another deported class member, Jerce Reyes Barrios, was accused of being in TdA based on a tattoo of a soccer ball with a crown. Exh. K, Tobin Decl. ¶ 7. But Mr. Reyes Barrios is a professional soccer player, and the tattoo is similar to the logo for his favorite soccer team, Real Madrid. Id. Moreover, the government pointed to a social media post where Mr. Reyes Barrios made a common hand gesture that means “I love you” in sign language. Id. ¶ 8. But Mr. Reyes Barrios was never given the opportunity to explain this because he was removed prior to his immigration hearing, which was set for just over a month after the government deported him. Id. ¶ 4.

Yet another deported class member, Neri Alvarado Borges, was told by ICE officers that they picked him up because of his tattoos—one of which was an autism awareness ribbon with the name of his brother, who is autistic, on it. Sarabia Roman Decl., Exh. 17 (photo of tattoo). While the ICE agent who inspected his tattoos and his phone said he had nothing to do with Tren de Aragua, the Dallas ICE Field Office decided to keep Mr. Alvarado Borges in detention. Id. Mr. Alvarado Borges’s U.S.-citizen boss was stunned to hear that his employee—someone who he described as a “stand-up guy” and one of his few close friends—had been detained and ultimately deported. Id.

While these errors would be troublesome in any case, they are particularly devastating here, where Plaintiffs have strong claims for relief under our immigration laws and have ended up in one of the worst prisons in the world. For example, Mr. Silva experienced threats of death and physical violence by political opponents in Venezuela because of his parents’ political activities. Exh. O, A.V.S.O. Decl. ¶ 4. Mr. Hernandez Romero passed his asylum credible fear interview after suffering persecution on account of his sexual orientation and political opinion at the Venezuelan government sponsored news channel where he worked. Reyes Decl. ¶¶ 4-7. Mr. Reyes Barrios was tortured in Venezuela using electric shocks and suffocation after protesting Maduro’s authoritarian regime. Tobin Decl. ¶ 2. And E.V. already had refugee status, after undergoing 17 months of background checks by the United Nations, the International Organization for Migration, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and demonstrating the persecution he had faced at the hands of Venezuelan paramilitary groups, colectivos, for exposing government shortcomings. Sarabia Roman Decl., Exh. 11.

The government’s errors are unsurprising, given the methods it is employing to identify members of TdA. The “Alien Enemy Validation Guide” that, upon information and belief, the government is using to ascertain alien enemy status, requires ICE officers to tally points for different categories of alleged TdA membership characteristics. Sarabia Roman Decl., Exh. 1. If an individual is given a score of 8 points, he is automatically deemed an “alien enemy;” six or seven points requires supervisor approval to label the individual a TdA member. Id. But experts have cast serious doubt on the checklist’s methodology. For example, the checklist gives four points for “tattoos denoting membership/loyalty to TDA,” but experts who study TdA explain that the gang “has never had . . . identity marks such as tattoos that identify its members.” Exh. B, Antillano Decl. ¶ 14; Exh. A, Hanson Decl. ¶¶ 22, 24 (“Tattoos are not a reliable way to identify members of the group.”); Exh. J, Dudley Decl. ¶ 25 (tattoos are not a “reliable means” of identifying TdA); see also Sarabia Roman Decl., Exh. 20 (“Venezuelan gangs are not identified by tattoos.”). Instead, tattoos are a common part of Venezuelan culture and many young people, whether in a gang or not, have them.3 Hanson Decl. ¶¶ 22, 24; Antillano Decl.¶ 14; see also Sarabia Roman Decl., Exh. 20 (“gang members also sport tattoos considered culturally popular at the moment and popular among the general public”).4 The scoring system also gives between two to four points for the use of hand gestures, symbols, logos, graffiti, or manner of dress but experts say these are also unreliable ways to identify TdA members. Hanson Decl. ¶¶ 23-24 (TdA does not have “iconography or unifying cultural motifs, such as symbols, insignias, logos, notations, graffiti tags, music, or drawings” nor “a typical manner of dress . . .” “associated with them”); Antillano Decl. ¶ 14 (no “symbol” or “identity mark” to identify TdA members). And there is no evidence that TdA has a constitution or membership certificate—which is worth six points on the checklist. Antillano Decl. ¶ 14.

The arbitrariness of Defendants’ process, particularly their reliance on tattoos as supposed evidence of TdA affiliation, is underscored by Plaintiffs’ experience. Indeed, four of the five named Plaintiffs possesses tattoos entirely unrelated to TdA—the fifth has no tattoos at all. See ECF No. 3-3 J.G.G. Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 3-3; Carney Second Supp. Decl. ¶ 6; Smyth Second Supp. Decl. ¶ 7; Lauterback Supp. Decl. ¶ 4 ; Shealy Second Supp. Decl. for J.G.O. ¶ 6 (no tattoos). All five vehemently deny membership in TdA, yet none was afforded an opportunity to contest this baseless designation. See ECF No. 3-3 (J.G.G. Decl.) ¶ 3, ECF No. 3-3; Carney Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 44-11; Smyth Decl. ¶¶ 9, 11, ECF No. 44-12; W.G.H. Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 3-6; Shealy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 44-9; see also Exh. P, M.Y.O.R. ¶¶ 6-7. Likewise, numerous credible reports document additional noncitizens summarily removed under the Proclamation who had tattoos wholly unrelated to TdA—or no tattoos at all—and were similarly denied any chance to dispute their erroneous designations. See Sarabia Roman Decl., Exhs. 4-20; see also A.V.S.O. Decl. ¶ 9; Exh. Q, M.A.A. Decl. ¶¶ 8-9; M.Y.O.R. Decl. ¶ 6; Exh. R, Y.R.R. Decl. ¶ 10; Beckman Decl. ¶ 3.

Experts who have spent over a decade studying policing, violence, migration, prisons, and organized crime in Venezuela—and TdA in particular—submit declarations with this motion that provide a more accurate, comprehensive picture of TdA and its activities. TdA is a loose, decentralized group without a clear hierarchy or membership. Hanson Decl. ¶¶ 1, 27; Antillano Decl. ¶ 10. Following the Venezuelan government’s raid on the gang’s prison headquarters in 2023, the group has become even more diffuse and uncoordinated. Hanson Decl. ¶¶ 16, 27; Antillano Decl. ¶ 11; Dudley Decl. ¶ 22. TdA does not act as the de facto government in any region of Venezuela. Hanson Decl. ¶¶ 13-16. Experts further explain that there is no evidence of direct and stable links between the Maduro regime and TdA, nor evidence that the gang is intertwined with the Maduro regime or an arm of the Venezuelan state. Hanson Decl. ¶¶ 1, 14, 17; Antillano Decl. ¶ 13; Dudley Decl. ¶¶ 2, 21, 23.

Experts have also explained that TdA does not have a significant presence in the United States and that its activities here are not widespread or coordinated. Hanson Decl. ¶¶ 19, 27; Antillano Decl. ¶ 12; Dudley Decl. ¶¶ 2, 24. They have likewise stated that there is no evidence to indicate that the Venezuelan government has directed TdA to enter the United States or that it controls TdA’s activities within the United States. Hanson Decl. ¶¶ 17, 20; Antillano Decl. ¶13; Dudley Decl. ¶¶ 2, 23-24. In fact, the government’s own intelligence agencies circulated findings in February 2025 that contradict the assertions in the Proclamation. Sarabia Roman Decl. Exh. 19 (intelligence community assessment concluded that TdA “was not directed by Venezuela’s government or committing crimes in the United States on its orders”).

LEGAL STANDARD

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the party must show that (1) it is “likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) it is “likely to suffer harm in the absence of preliminary relief”; (3) “the balance of equities tips in its favor”; and (4) the issuance of a preliminary injunction is “in the public interest.” Alpine Secs. Corp. v. Fin. Indus. Regul. Auth., 121 F.4th 1314, 1324 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (citation omitted).

ARGUMENT

Since the Court granted the TRO, the justification for preliminary relief has only grown as evidence of Plaintiffs’ irreparable harm grows and sheds doubt on the government’s asserted justifications for summary removals. For the same reasons that the Court correctly granted a TRO, Plaintiffs easily satisfy the factors for a preliminary injunction. Defendants’ actions violate the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and due process. Plaintiffs have already suffered and will continue to suffer immense and irreparable harm without the Court’s intervention, and the balance of the equities and public interest fall decisively in Plaintiffs’ favor.

I. Defendants’ Action is Subject to Judicial Review Under the APA and in Equity, and Need Not Be Brought in Habeas.

The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims because they need not be brought in habeas in the district of confinement, and Defendants’ conduct is plainly reviewable under the APA and in equity. Because Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive, declaratory, and other relief that does not require release, this case need not be brought in habeas. Plaintiffs therefore can pursue their claims outside of habeas, just as courts in this District have allowed detained noncitizens to do in multiple cases over the years. See, e.g., Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, 27 F.4th 718 (D.C. Cir. 2022); J.D. v. Azar, 925 F.3d 1291, 1300 (D.C. Cir. 2019); Damus v. Nielsen, 313 F. Supp. 3d 317, 323 (D.D.C. 2018); Aracely, R. v. Nielsen, 319 F. Supp. 3d 110, 126-27 (D.D.C. 2018). And this Court has already properly rejected the government’s contention that because Plaintiffs could bring their claims in habeas, they therefore must do so and cannot bring their claims under the APA or equity. Op. 13.5

First, a habeas action is not required. Although most past AEA cases were brought in habeas, “that fact is largely a relic of historical happenstance.” Op. 13. No court has held that AEA challenges must be brought in habeas. Indeed, in World War II cases, the D.C. Circuit considered non-habeas civil actions seeking “injunction, mandatory injunction and ancillary relief” against the application of the AEA. See Citizens Protective League v. Clark, 155 F.2d 290, 291-92 (D.C. Cir. 1946) (addressing three consolidated actions on behalf of a nonprofit and 159 German nationals); see also Citizens Protective League v. Byrnes, 64 F. Supp. 233, 233 (D.D.C. 1946). And in Clark, although the government argued that one of the consolidated cases had to be brought in habeas, the district court “dismissed the complaints on the merits,” 155 F.2d at 292, and the court of appeals affirmed, id. at 293. And when Congress wants to specifically require that certain immigration claims are brought only in a habeas petition, it knows how to do so. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(e)(2) (providing for limited review of expedited removal orders “in habeas corpus proceedings”); id. § 1252(a)(2)(A) (stripping review “except as provided in subsection (e)”). Nothing in the AEA or elsewhere remotely requires Plaintiffs’ claims to be brought in habeas.

More generally, as this Court thoroughly explained, only “core” claims—those seeking release—must be brought in habeas; here, Plaintiffs are not seeking release. See Op. 16-18; see also, e.g., Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973); Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 534 (2011) (Court has never “recognized habeas as the sole remedy, or even an available one, where the relief sought would ‘neither terminat[e] custody, accelerat[e] the future date of release from custody, nor reduc[e] the level of custody’”) (citation omitted). Thus, Plaintiffs can bring “noncore” habeas claims that do not seek release through other types of actions, see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554 (1974); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81 (2005), and the immediate custodian rule does not apply, see Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973). See also Davis v. U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, 716 F.3d 660, 664 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (considering action by individual incarcerated outside of the District because “victory would not secure his immediate release or even a reduction in his time served”).

Defendants ignore the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit’s long line of cases differentiating between “core” and “non-core” habeas claims and instead rely primarily on two cases to assert that venue must lie in the district of confinement. In LoBue v. Christopher, the D.C. Circuit held that plaintiffs challenging their extradition to Canada could not seek a declaratory judgment in this District but rather must pursue their challenge through their already-existing petition for habeas corpus. 82 F.3d 1081, 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1996). But extradition has its own specialized body of law. The LoBue plaintiffs had to seek habeas because there was no APA review available to them. Id. at 1083 (“extension of the APA to extradition orders is impossible” as the judges involved do not constitute an agency). The D.C. Circuit itself acknowledged that immigration cases were different from extradition cases since the Supreme Court’s decision in Pedreiro extended APA review over deportation orders. Id.; see also Op. 18. Additionally, LoBue rested on the unique circumstances in which the plaintiffs had a pending habeas petition in their district of confinement seeking release. The Court thus noted that because success in plaintiffs’ declaratory suit would have “preclusive effect” on their pending habeas petition, it would secure release from confinement, thereby precluding the availability of other remedies. 82 F.3d at 1083-844 (citing Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804 (D.C. Cir. 1988), and Preiser, 411 U.S. at 489-90).

Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008), also does not help Defendants. There, the Supreme Court held only that U.S. citizens who had voluntarily traveled to Iraq could bring a habeas challenge seeking to prevent their transfer from the custody of an overseas task force to that of Iraqi authorities for prosecution. 553 U.S. at 680. But the Court never suggested that petitioners were limited to habeas, much less sought to disturb the longstanding general distinction between core and non-core habeas actions. The issue was instead whether the overseas petitioners were in U.S. custody for purposes of habeas jurisdiction. Id. at 689.

Finally, and in any event, the government’s suggestion that every individual, even those who are unrepresented (the overwhelming majority), could file an individual habeas is, at best, illusory. As demonstrated above, the government is not providing any advance notice of an individual’s designation as an alien enemy, let alone providing time to file a habeas action and obtain a stay of removal. The notice form that it may be using—which no Plaintiff has reported receiving—says there is no form of review available. Moreover, the government has complete control over where it detains and transfers people, and transfers of class members have occurred swiftly (and without notice to counsel in the few cases where there is counsel). The reality is that, if forced to pursue their claims in habeas, Plaintiffs will face insurmountable hurdles to obtaining judicial review over the lawfulness of Defendants’ actions. The government has already admitted as much. See J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 25-5067, 2025 WL 914682, at *30 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 26, 2025) (Millett, J., concurring) (“The government’s position at oral argument was that, the moment the district court TROs are lifted, it can immediately resume removal flights without affording Plaintiffs notice of the grounds for their removal or any opportunity to call a lawyer, let alone to file a writ of habeas corpus or obtain any review of their legal challenges to removal.”) See id. at 29 (Millett, J., concurring) (“Only a swift class action could preserve the Plaintiffs’ legal rights before the rushed removals mooted their cases and thrust them into a Salvadorean prison.”); 5 U.S.C. § 704.6

Second, there is no question the Court can review and enjoin the agency actions implementing the Proclamation. APA review is generally available to plaintiffs absent specific preclusion by Congress. See Robbins v. Reagan, 780 F.2d 37, 42 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1905 (2020) (“The APA establishes a ‘basic presumption of judicial review [for] one suffering legal wrong because of agency action.’”) (quoting Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140 (1967)). Indeed, even as to detention claims, Congress “has never manifested an intent to require those challenging an unlawful, nationwide detention policy to seek relief through habeas rather than the APA.” Op. 15 (quoting R.I.L.-R v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 186 (D.C.C. 2015) (citation omitted)); see also Huisha-Huisha, 27 F.4th at 726 (APA challenge to use of public health law to expel noncitizens from the United States); Aracely, 319 F. Supp. 3d at 126 (“courts in this jurisdiction facing challenges to similar nation-wide immigration policies have rejected the notion that detainees must proceed through a habeas petition”). Plaintiffs can therefore seek review over Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamation as it qualifies as final agency actions consummating the agency’s decisionmaking process in a manner from which legal consequences flow. Op. 15 (citing Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 178 (1997)).

Lastly, there is similarly no question that this Court can review the lawfulness of presidential actions like the Proclamation and its implementation. See, e.g., Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 675–76 (2018) (reviewing President’s authority under the INA to issue proclamation); Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981) (reviewing President Carter’s executive order ending the Iranian hostage crisis); Youngstown, 343 U.S. 579 Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (reviewing constitutionality of President Truman’s executive orders); Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935) (reviewing validity of an executive order issued by President Franklin Roosevelt under the National Industrial Recovery Act in action against officials of the Department of the Interior); see also Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 575 U.S. 320, 327 (2015) (“The ability to sue to enjoin unconstitutional actions by state and federal officers is the creation of courts of equity, and reflects a long history of judicial review of illegal executive action, tracing back to England.”); United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 173 (1977) (court can avail itself of auxiliary writs “when the use of such historic aids is calculated in its sound judgment to achieve the ends of justice entrusted to it”). As noted in Mathis v. U.S. Parole Commission, “by default, federal courts have ‘jurisdiction in equity.’” 749 F.Supp.3d 8, 23 (D.D.C. 2024) (quoting Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 398 (1946)). “[T]he ‘full scope of [this] jurisdiction is to be recognized and applied,’” id. (alteration in original) (quoting Porter, 328 U.S. at 398), “absent only ‘the clearest command’ otherwise in a statute,” id. (quoting McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 397 (2013)). There is not the remotest suggestion in the AEA that equitable power is precluded.

Thus, the Court can review Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA and in equity.7

II. The Court Can Reach the Merits of Plaintiffs’ Claims.

Plaintiffs raise three statutory arguments: (1) the AEA’s use of “invasion” and “predatory incursion” refer only to military action in the context of an actual or imminent war; (2) a criminal gang is not a “foreign nation or government” within the AEA; and, (3) even if the AEA applies, it requires (a) an opportunity to contest whether an individual falls within the Proclamation, (b) compliance with the INA and other later-enacted, more specific statutory protections for noncitizens, and (c) an opportunity to voluntarily depart the United States prior to any removal.

In prior filings, the government has not directly disputed that Plaintiffs’ third set of statutory claims is justiciable and has instead limited its arguments to Plaintiffs’ first two statutory claims. The government’s justiciability arguments are wrong. The AEA cases confirm that this Court can reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. More generally, the political question doctrine poses no bar to judicial review of the proper interpretation of statutes that constrain the executive branch.

A. The AEA Cases Confirm the Justiciability of Plaintiffs’ Claims.

As this Court has already correctly held, it can “construe the terms ‘nation,’ ‘government,’ ‘invasion,’ and ‘predatory incursion.’” Op. 22. In Ludecke v. Watkins, the Supreme Court emphasized that “resort to the courts” was available “to challenge the construction and validity of the statute,” explicitly noting that the AEA does not preclude judicial review of “questions of interpretation and constitutionality.” 335 U.S. 160, 163, 171 (1948). Those questions—the “construction” and “interpretation” of the AEA—are precisely what are at issue here. And not only did the Ludecke Court make that point twice, but Ludecke itself reached the merits of the statutory question presented there: whether a “declared war” no longer existed within the meaning of the Act when “actual hostilities” had ceased (the “shooting war” had ended). Id. at 166-70. Only after concluding, on the merits, that the statutory term “declared war” did not mean “actual hostilities,” but instead referred to the point at which the President and Congress “declared” the war over, did the Court state that its review had come to an end. Id. at 170 & n.15. In short, the “political judgment[]” that Ludecke declined to revisit, see id. at 170, was simply the decision of Congress and the President not to choose to formally declare the war over, see id. at 169, and not a question of statutory interpretation. Indeed, four years later, the Court reversed a government World War II removal decision because “[t]he statutory power of the Attorney General to remove petitioner as an enemy alien ended when Congress terminated the war.” U.S. ex rel. Jaegeler v. Carusi, 342 U.S. 347, 348 (1952).

Consistent with Ludecke’s recognition that questions about the “construction and validity” of the AEA are justiciable, 335 U.S. at 171, courts have reviewed a range of issues concerning the AEA’s statutory prerequisites. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Kessler v. Watkins, 163 F.2d 140, 143 (2d Cir. 1947) (interpreting the meaning of “foreign nation or government”); U.S. ex rel. Zdunic v. Uhl, 137 F.2d 858, 860–61 (2d Cir. 1943) (“[t]he meaning of [native, citizen, denizen, or subject] as used in the statute . . . presents a question of law”; interpreting meaning of “denizen” and remanding for hearing on disputed facts); U.S. ex rel. Gregoire v. Watkins, 164 F.2d 137, 138 (2d Cir. 1947) (interpreting the meaning of “native”; discussing alternatives to attain a “logically consistent construction of the statute”); U.S. ex rel. D’Esquiva v. Uhl, 137 F.2d 903, 905–07 (2d Cir. 1943) (interpreting the meaning of “native” and reviewing executive branch’s position on legal status of Austria); U.S. ex rel. Schwarzkopf v. Uhl, 137 F.2d 898, 903 (2d Cir. 1943) (interpreting the meaning of “citizen” and legal effects of Germany’s annexation of Austria); Bauer v. Watkins, 171 F.2d 492, 493 (2d Cir. 1948) (holding that the government bears the burden of proof of establishing the citizenship of “alien enemy”); Citizens Protective League v. Clark, 155 F.2d 290, 292, 295 (D.C. Cir. 1946) (reviewing whether Proclamation was within “the precise terms” of the AEA, and whether AEA was impliedly repealed); U.S. ex rel. Von Heymann v. Watkins, 159 F.2d 650, 653 (2d Cir. 1947) (interpreting “within the United States”; requiring executive branch to show that the petitioner “refuse[d] or neglect[ed] to depart” under Section 21); U.S. ex rel. Ludwig v. Watkins, 164 F.2d 456, 457 (2d Cir. 1947) (interpreting “refuse or neglect to depart” in Section 21 as creating a “right of voluntary departure” that functions as a “statutory condition precedent” to the government’s right to deport enemy aliens); U.S. ex rel. Hoehn v. Shaughnessy, 175 F.2d 116, 117–18 (2d Cir. 1949) (interpreting “reasonable time” to depart under Section 22).

The government has leaned heavily on Ludecke’s recognition that the AEA vests the President with broad authority to take extraordinary measures. But that is precisely why the statutory perquisites have always been, and must be, interpreted by the courts. Otherwise, the President can employ this authority without regard to the careful limits Congress expressly established in the statute. Notably, Congress did not write that this extraordinary power can be used when the President unilaterally deems there to be an invasion or incursion by a foreign government or nation, but rather, when there “is” such an event. 50 U.S.C. § 21.

The government points to language in the D.C. Circuit’s (pre-Ludecke decision) Citizens Protective League, 155 F.2d at 294, stating that the Act vests “[u]nreviewable power in the President to restrain, and to provide for the removal of, alien enemies in time of war.” Mot. to Vacate 3, 7–8, ECF No. 26 (emphasis added). But, if anything, that statement only underscores that the AEA’s activation is limited to times of actual war and does not remotely suggest that courts may not review whether the statutory predicates have been satisfied. Indeed, the court stated that it could review whether the Presidential Proclamation and Attorney General’s regulations came “within the precise terms” of the AEA. And the court held, on the merits, that “[t]he constitutional question raised by appellants was not substantial.” 155 F.2d at 294–95.

B. The Political Question Doctrine Does Not Apply.

General political question doctrine and caselaw likewise supports this Court’s ability to interpret the meaning of the statutory terms in the AEA. Particularly in recent decisions, the Supreme Court has emphasized that courts may review—and are duty-bound to interpret— statutory terms, even where they touch on national security and foreign affairs. Indeed, Plaintiffs are not aware of any Supreme Court decision that has found a statutory claim non-justiciable. See El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 607 F.3d 836, 855 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (“[t]he Supreme Court has never applied the political question doctrine in cases involving statutory claims” that “the Executive Branch violated congressionally enacted statutes that purportedly constrain the Executive.”).

Rather, the political question doctrine is a “narrow exception” to courts’ presumptive exercise of jurisdiction. Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 195 (2012). The doctrine “is primarily a function of the separation of powers,” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210 (1962), and so the judiciary must act when the questions at issue fall within its own competence, see, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Com. v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442, 458 (1992) (“As our previous rejection of the political question doctrine in this context should make clear, the interpretation of the apportionment provisions of the Constitution is well within the competence of the Judiciary.”); Al- Tamimi v. Adelson, 916 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“Policy choices are to be made by the political branches and purely legal issues are to be decided by the courts.”); Baker, 369 U.S. at 216 (courts “will not stand impotent before an obvious instance of a manifestly unauthorized exercise of power”); see generally Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 385 (2024) (emphasizing that “the final ‘interpretation of the laws’ [is] ‘the proper and peculiar province of the courts’”) (quoting The Federalist No. 78 at 525 (A. Hamilton)).

As this Court explained in its TRO decision, the fact that a legal claim implicates (or arguably implicates) foreign affairs or national security does not make it a non-justiciable political question. See Op. 20; cf. J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *12-16 (Henderson, J., concurring); id. at *25-32 (Millet, J., concurring). In Zivotofsky, for instance, the Court held that statutory right to passport designation did not raise a political question, even though it implicated the diplomatic status of Jerusalem. 566 U.S. at 196-201. Likewise, in Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that a “purely legal question of statutory interpretation” should be held nonjusticiable merely because it “involve[d] foreign relations,” explaining that “interpreting congressional legislation is a recurring and accepted task for the federal courts” and the case “call[ed] for applying no more than the traditional rules of statutory construction, and then applying this analysis to the particular set of facts presented below.” 478 U.S. 221, 229-30 (1986); see also INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 940–41 (1983) (rejecting argument that Congress’s plenary power over immigration renders all immigration-related arguments political questions); County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226, 249 (1985) (similar for Congress’s power over Indian affairs). Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1061 (D.C. Cir. 1986), aff’d, 484 U.S. 1 (1987) (noting that although “[t]he Executive has broad discretion over the admission and exclusion of aliens, . . . [i]t extends only as far as the statutory authority conferred by Congress, and stressing it is “the duty of the courts, in cases properly before them, to say where those statutory and constitutional boundaries lie”).

In short, the political question doctrine serves to reinforce the separation of powers. And it is especially critical for the judiciary to enforce the separation of powers when inter-branch disputes arise, such as where the executive violates or exceeds its authority under a statute. See El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co., 607 F.3d at 855 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). Here, judicial review of Plaintiffs’ challenge preserves the separation of powers by ensuring that the President does not exceed the specific authority Congress delegated in the AEA. See Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 637– 38 (Jackson, J., concurring). This Court thus rightly acknowledged that it can construe the terms “nation,” “government,” “invasion,” and “predatory incursion.” Op. 22.

This Court also noted that whether courts are empowered to decide if TdA’s characteristics or conduct satisfy the statutory terms presents a “harder” issue. Id. As shown below, however, the Proclamation, on its face, does not satisfy the AEA’s statutory predicates as properly understood. See infra (discussing merits). Consequently, even if this Court were to accept the Proclamation’s conclusory, vague findings, it could still hold that the Proclamation fails to satisfy the AEA. That would merely involve a straightforward application of law to accepted facts and would thus be a “familiar judicial exercise.” Zivotofsky, 566 U.S. at 196; see also Guerrero- Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U.S. 221 (2020); Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 217 (2024) (“In Guerrero-Lasprilla, this Court held that the statutory phrase ‘questions of law’ includes the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts, also referred to as mixed questions of law and fact.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Moreover, even if the Court concluded that the Proclamation’s findings, on their face, did establish that TdA is a “foreign government or nation” and that TdA was engaged in an “invasion or predatory incursion,” it would still have an independent obligation to examine the factual record on whether those terms were satisfied. See Op. 21 (explaining that the Ludecke Court “interpreted ‘declared war,’ defined its termination based on that construction, and decided as a factual matter whether such termination had occurred”). If courts were to simply accept any presidential findings, no matter how conclusory or unfounded, judicial review would be rendered an empty exercise, undermining Congress’s decision to place express limits on the executive branch. Thus, even during World War II, the courts examined the facts to ensure that the AEA’s statutory limits on presidential power were observed. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Kessler, 163 F.2d at 143 (reviewing petitioner’s factual contention that the German government had ceased to exist after it surrendered and thus was no longer a “foreign nation or government” under the AEA); U.S. ex rel. Zdunic, 137 F.2d at 860–61 (interpreting meaning of “denizen” under the AEA and remanding for hearing on disputed facts); United States ex rel. D’Esquiva, 137 F.3d at 905–07 (interpreting meaning of “native” under the AEA and reviewing the U.S. government’s full course of conduct to ascertain whether and when it had officially recognized Austria’s annexation by Germany; remanding for additional factfinding on this question); see also Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 521 (2004) (plurality op.) (detention of Taliban combatants authorized by the AUMF only “[i]f the record establishes that United States troops are still involved in active combat in Afghanistan”) (plurality opinion) (emphasis added)); Al-Alwi v. Trump, 901 F.3d 294, 298–300 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (Henderson, J.) (evaluating whether “active hostilities” continued under the AUMF; concluding that “[t]he record so manifests here”); Al Warafi v Obama, No. CV 09-2368 (RCL), 2015 WL 4600420 (D.D.C. July 30, 2015), order vacated as moot (Mar. 4, 2016); Kaplan v. Cent. Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 896 F.3d 501, 514 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (“[A] court must determine whether the circumstances involve an act of war within the meaning of the statutory exception. That interpretive exercise, unlike with a non-justiciable political question, is what courts do.’”).

Even if this Court grants some deference to the executive branch’s determinations, that deference does not require the Court to rubber-stamp unsupported, vague, and conclusory allegations in the face of contrary evidence, such as the facts provided by Plaintiffs’ experts on TdA. “The Judicial Branch appropriately exercises” review “where the question is whether Congress or the Executive is ‘aggrandizing its power at the expense of another branch.’” Zivotofsky, 566 U.S. at 197; cf. Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 637 (Jackson, J., concurring). That is precisely what this case is about. And where the executive branch exceeds those boundaries, its conduct must be subject to judicial review. See, e.g., Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 591, 635 (2006) (interpreting statutes limiting executive’s authority to convene military commissions; “in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction”).

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

III. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits.

A. The Proclamation Does Not Satisfy the AEA.

The Proclamation is unprecedented, exceeding the President’s statutory authority in three critical respects: there is no invasion or predatory incursion; no foreign government or nation; and no process to contest whether an individual falls within the Proclamation. When the government asserts “an unheralded power” in a “long-extant statute,” courts “greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism.” Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014). That skepticism is well warranted here.

1. There Is No “Invasion” or “Predatory Incursion” upon the United States.

The Proclamation fails on an essential statutory requirement: that there be an “invasion or predatory incursion” directed “against the territory of the United States.” The text and history of the Alien Enemies Act make clear that it uses these terms to refer to military actions that are indicative of an actual or impending war. At the time of enactment, an “invasion” was a largescale military action by an army intent on territorial conquest. See Webster’s Dictionary, Invasion (1828) (“invasion” is a “hostile entrance into the possession of another; particularly, the entrance of a hostile army into a country for purpose of conquest or plunder, or the attack of a military force”); Johnson’s Dictionary, Invasion (1773) (“invasion” is a “[h]ostile entrance upon the right or possession of another; hostile encroachment” such as when “William the Conqueror invaded England”); John Jay, Con’t Cong., Draft of an Address of the Convention of the Representatives of the State of New York to Their Constituents (Dec. 23, 1776) (describing the goal of British invasion as “the conquest of America”)8; see also J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *20 (Henderson, J., concurring) (in the Constitution, “invasion” “is used in a military sense” “in every instance”).

And “predatory incursion” referred to smaller-scale military raids aimed to destroy military structures or supplies, or to otherwise sabotage the enemy, often as a precursor to invasion and war. See Webster’s Dictionary, Predatory (1828) (“predatory” underscores that the purpose of a military party’s “incursion” was “plundering” or “pillaging”); id., Incursion (1828) (“incursion . . . applies to the expeditions of small parties or detachments of an enemy’s army, entering a territory for attack, plunder, or destruction of a post or magazine”); Johnson’s Dictionary, Incursion (1773) (“[a]ttack” or “[i]nvasion without conquest”); see also Letter from Timothy Pickering, Sec’y of State, to Alexander Hamilton (June 9, 1798) (reporting that “predatory incursions of the French” might result in “great destruction of property” but that militia could repel them);9 Letter from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 6, 1781) (describing a British raid that destroyed military supplies and infrastructure in Richmond as a “predatory incursion”);10 Letter from George Washington to Nathanael Greene (Jan. 29, 1783) (“predatory incursions” by the British could be managed with limited cavalry troops);11 J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *10 (Henderson, J., concurring) (early American caselaw indicates that “predatory incursion” is “a form of hostilities against the United States by another nation-state, a form of attack short of war”).

The historical context in which the AEA was passed reinforces what Congress meant by “predatory incursion” and “invasion.” At the time of passage, French ships were already attacking U.S. merchant ships in U.S. See, e.g., 7 Annals of Cong. 58 (May 1797) (promoting creation of a Navy to “diminish the probability of . . . predatory incursions” by French ships while recognizing that distance from Europe lessened the chance of “invasion”); Act of May 28, 1798, ch. 48, 1 Stat. 561, 561 (permitting U.S. armed vessels to seize French armed vessels that had attacked U.S. vessels or that were “hovering on the coasts of the United States” to do so); Act of July 9, 1798, ch. 68, 1 Stat. 578, 578 (authorizing US ships to seize “any armed French vessel” “found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States”). Congress worried that these attacks against the territory of the United States were the precursor to all-out war with France. J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *1 (Henderson, J., concurring) (“In 1798, our fledgling Republic was consumed with fear . . . of external war with France.”). This “predatory violence” by a sovereign nation led, in part, to the AEA. See Act of July 7, 1798, ch. 67, 1 Stat. 578, 578 (“[W]hereas, under authority of the French government, there is yet pursued against the United States, a system of predatory violence”).

At the same time, the 1798 Congress was considering whether to authorize the President to raise troops to respond to impending conflict with France. It ultimately did so, authorizing him to raise troops “in the event of a declaration of war against the United States, or of an actual invasion of their territory, by a foreign power, or of imminent danger of such invasion.” Act of May 28, 1798, ch. 47, 1 Stat. 558. As Judge Henderson noted, “[t]his language bears more than a passing resemblance to the language of the AEA, which the Congress enacted a mere thirty-nine days later. J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *9. As such, the historical context makes plain that Congress was concerned about military incursions by the armed forces of a foreign nation.

Tellingly, the AEA requires that the predicate invasion or predatory incursion be “against the territory of the United States.” 50 U.S.C. § 21. And at the time of founding, actions “against the territory of the United States” were expressly military in nature. See Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 131 (1807) (describing levying war against the United States as “a military enterprize . . . against any of the territories of the United States”); Wiborg v. United States, 163 U.S. 632, 633 (1896) (explaining that a group of seamen were charged with preparing for a “military expedition . . . against the territory and dominions of a foreign prince”).

Finally, text and history make clear that the AEA’s powers extended beyond an existing war only when war was imminent. Ludecke, 335 U.S. at 169 n.13 (explaining that “the life of [the AEA] is defined by the existence of a war”). The interpretive canon of noscitur a sociis confirms this. The three terms “declared war,” “invasion,” and “predatory incursion” appear alongside each other in a related list. Reading the latter two in light of the company they keep highlights the express military nature of their usage here. See Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co., 367 U.S. 303, 307 (1961).

Unsurprisingly, then, the Department of Justice has explicitly stated to Congress that the AEA contemplates use by the President only “in situations where war is imminent.” See, e.g., Office of Legislative Affairs, Proposed Amendment to AEA, at 2 n.1 (Aug. 27, 1980)). This also comports with the common law understanding of the term “alien enemy” as subject of a foreign state at war with the United States. See Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 769 n.2 (1950) (collecting cases).

An “invasion” or “predatory incursion” are thus military actions by foreign governments that constitute or imminently precede acts of war. “Mass illegal migration” or criminal activities, as described in the Proclamation, plainly do not fall within the statutory boundaries. On its face, the Proclamation makes no findings that TdA is acting as an army or military force. Nor does the Proclamation assert that TdA is acting with an intent to gain a territorial foothold in the United States for military purposes. And the Proclamation makes no suggestion that the United States will imminently be at war with Venezuela. The oblique references to the TdA’s ongoing “irregular warfare” within the United States does not suffice because the Proclamation makes clear that it refers to “mass illegal migration” and “crimes”—neither of which constitute war within the Founding Era understanding. It asserts that TdA “commits brutal crimes” with the goal of “harming United States citizens, undermining public safety, and . . . destabilizing democratic nations.” But these actions are simply not “against the territory” of the United States. Indeed, if mass migration or criminal activities by some members of a particular nationality could qualify as an “invasion,” then virtually any group, hailing from virtually any country, could be deemed enemy aliens.

The courts’ role in enforcing the bounds of congressional statutory predicates, like “predatory invasion” and “incursion” is critical. Congress passed the AEA within weeks of the Alien Friends Act (“AFA”). That second law gave the President broader discretion to deport any noncitizen who he considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States,” regardless of whether an invasion or war had occurred. An Act Concerning Aliens § 1, 1 Stat. 571. As such, the 1798 Congress clearly meant to grant the President two distinct powers—the power to remove the national of foreign enemy sovereign countries in times of a war or imminent war, and the power to remove particular dangerous noncitizens in times of war or peace. The government’s preferred interpretation of the AEA—where the President can remove allegedly dangerous people by deciding that virtually anything qualifies as a predatory incursion or invasion, and no court can review that determination—reads the AEA’s power to encompass the authorities granted by both the AEA and the AFA. But it would have made little sense for Congress to pass two laws within weeks of each other, unless those laws were meaningfully different. And the critical difference is, of course, the statutory limitations on when the President can use the AEA—it is a particular tool for a particular situation, namely the presence of nationals of a belligerent country during wartime, which simply does not apply to present circumstances. Moreover, treating the AEA like the AFA is especially untenable given that the AFA was “widely condemned as unconstitutional by Madison and many others” and quickly allowed to lapse. Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148, 185 (2018) (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (the AFA “is one of the most notorious laws in our country’s history”); see also J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *1 (Henderson, J., concurring) (AFA was “widely derided as unconstitutional”).

2. The Purported Invasion Is Not by a “Foreign Nation or Government.”

The Proclamation fails to assert that any “foreign nation or government” within the meaning of the Act is invading the United States. Put simply, the Proclamation never finds that TdA is a foreign “nation” or “government.” Nor could it. At the time of enactment, the terms “nation” and “government” were defined by their possession of territory and legal authority. See Johnson’s Dictionary, Nation (1773) (“A people distinguished from another people; generally by their language, original, or government.”); Johnson’s Dictionary, Government (1773) (“An established state of legal authority.”). As a criminal gang, TdA possesses neither a defined territory nor any legal authority. Hanson Decl. ¶¶ 13, 16; Antillano Decl. ¶¶ 11, 13; Dudley Decl. ¶ 22.

The Proclamation asserts that “[o]ver the years,” the Venezuelan government has “ceded ever-greater control over their territories to transnational criminal organizations.” But the Proclamation notably does not say that TdA operates as a government in those regions12 In fact, the Proclamation does not even specify that TdA currently controls any territory in Venezuela.

The AEA presumes that a designated nation possesses treaty-making powers. See 50 U.S.C. § 22 (“stipulated by any treaty . . . between the United States and the hostile nation or government”). Nations—not criminal organizations—are the entities that enter into treaties. See, e.g., Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 505, 508 (2008) (treaty is “a compact between independent nations” and “agreement among sovereign powers”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 540, 570-72 (1840) (similar). It should go without saying that TdA possesses no such power.

Moreover, when a “nation or government” is designated under the AEA, the statute unlocks power over that nation or government’s “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects.” 50 U.S.C. § 21. Countries have “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects.” By contrast, criminal organizations, in the government’s own view, have “members.” Proclamation § 1 (“members of TdA”). And it designates TdA “members” as subject to AEA enforcement—but “members” are not “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects.” That glaring mismatch underscores that Defendants are attempting not only to use the AEA in an unprecedented way, but in a way that Congress never permitted— as a mechanism to address, in the government’s own words, a non-state actor. Venezuela has natives, citizens, and subjects, but TdA (not Venezuela) is designated under the proclamation. No amount of wordplay can avoid the obvious fact that Venezuela is the relevant country for statutory purposes here—and TdA is a non-state criminal organization.

Even as the Proclamation singles out certain Venezuelan nationals, it does not claim that Venezuela is invading the United States. And, as the President’s own CIA Director recently testified, the intelligence community has no assessment that says the US is at war with or being invaded by Venezuela. Ryan Goodman, Bluesky (Mar. 26, 2025).13 The AEA requires the President to identify a “foreign nation or government” that is invading or engaging in an invasion or incursion. Because it does not, the Proclamation fails on its face.

Instead, the Proclamation makes a half-hearted attempt to link TdA to Venezuela by suggesting that TdA is “supporting,” “closely aligned with,” or “has infiltrated” the Maduro regime. See Proclamation. To make that link, the Proclamation points to the gang’s growth under Tareck El Aissami. See id. But the Proclamation fails to mention that El Aissami has been arrested by the Maduro government in a corruption probe, which wholly undermines the Proclamation’s theory. Hanson Decl. ¶ 18; Dudley Decl. ¶ 22. And, more fundamentally, experts are in accord that it is “absolutely implausible that the Maduro regime controls TdA or that the Maduro government and TdA are intertwined.” id. ¶ 17; Antillano Decl. ¶ 13; Dudley ¶¶ 2, 21. “There is no credible evidence that the Maduro regime has directed TdA to enter the United States or directed any TdA activities within the country.” Hanson Decl. ¶ 20; Antillano Decl. ¶ 13; Dudley Decl. ¶ 2. As one expert who has done numerous projects for the U.S. government, including on the topic of TdA, explained, the Proclamation’s characterization of the relationship between the Venezuelan state and TdA with respect to TdA’s activities in the United States is “simply incorrect.” Dudley Decl. ¶¶ 5, 17-18. The President’s own intelligence agencies reached that same conclusion prior to his invocation of the AEA. See Sarabia Roman Decl., Exh. 19 (“shared judgment of the nation’s spy agencies” is “that [TdA] was not controlled by the Venezuelan government”).

The government has pressed this Court to read the nation/government requirement out of the statute entirely, and to accept that the AEA reaches the fullest extent of the political branches’ “war powers.” ECF No. 26 at 12-13; Mar. 21 Hearing Tr. at 19. But the Act does not encompass the full scope of the political branches’ “war powers.” It operates as a specific delegation of authority from Congress to the President, a delegation Congress specifically limited to instances where action is taken by “foreign nation[s]” or “governments.” Cf. Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 635– 38 (Jackson, J., concurring).

If Congress had intended to vest the President with broader authority, it could have said so. After all—as explained in a source that the government has itself cited—Congress has long been aware of the distinction between executive branch authority to use “military force against nontraditional actors” and “more traditional conflicts” waged against formally-recognized states. Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, Congressional Authorization and the War on Terrorism, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 2047, 2066 (2005); see also Mot. To Vacate at 16, ECF No. 26 (citing article). Congress knows how to delegate authority against such actors to the Executive Branch when it wants to. See 22 U.S.C. § 6442a (“review and identify any non-state actors operating in any such reviewed country”); 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (criminalizing providing material support to non-state actors). And here, Congress intentionally limited the AEA’s scope to actions taken by “foreign nation[s]” and “government[s].” 50 U.S.C. § 21. It has never amended the statute to broaden that scope.

While the United States has, at times, asserted war-based authority to use force against non-state actors, see Mot. to Vacate 16, these actions were justified under separate legal frameworks, not under the AEA. And the AEA’s historical record confirms that it was intended to address conflicts with foreign sovereigns, not a criminal gang like TdA. See 5 Annals of Cong. 1453 (Apr. 1798) (“[W]e may very shortly be involved in war . . .”); John Lord O’Brian, Special Ass’t to the Att’y Gen. for War Work, N.Y. State Bar Ass’n Annual Meeting: Civil Liberty in War Time, at 8 (Jan. 17, 1919) (“The [AEA] was passed by Congress . . . at a time when it was supposed that war with France was imminent.”); Jennifer K. Elsea & Matthew C. Weed, Cong. Rsch. Serv., RL3113, Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force 1 (2014) (Congress has never issued a declaration of war against a nonstate actor). If Defendants were allowed to designate any group with ties to officials as a foreign government, and courts were powerless to review that designation, any group could be deemed a government, leading to an untenable and overbroad application of the AEA.

Finally, Defendants’ far-reaching argument that the Proclamation is supported by the President’s Article II authority, and that his power is at its “maximum” under Youngstown, Mot. to Vacate 17, is plainly wrong. As an initial matter, the President has no authority under Article II to unilaterally remove people from the United States. Thus, the sole question here is whether the executive branch’s conduct conflicts with the AEA. But even assuming Justice Jackson’s Youngstown framework applies, the President’s power would be at its “lowest ebb,” because the President is taking measures incompatible with the expressed will of Congress: “Courts can sustain exclusive Presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject.” 343 U.S. at 637–38. There is no basis for doing so here. Under Article I, Congress holds plenary power over immigration, Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940 , and has a broad, distinct set of war powers, Hamdan, 548 U.S. at 591 . Through the INA and a variety of statutory safeguards, Congress comprehensively regulated the removal of immigrants. See infra. And through the AEA, Congress granted a specific set of war powers to the President; he is not at liberty to exceed those statutory powers or to exercise them outside of the context of war or imminent war. There is simply no ground for ignoring the constraints that Congress has established through the AEA (and the INA, see infra), nor for “disabling” Congress’s constitutional authority to legislate with respect to its own war powers and to immigration.

Moreover, even when the executive asserts war powers, the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to grant the President a blank check as Commander-in-Chief. See, e.g., Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 732 (2008) (rejecting executive’s argument that noncitizens designated as “enemy combatants” outside the United States have no habeas privilege); Hamdan, 548 U.S. at 593, 635 (rejecting executive’s convening of military commission as unlawful because it failed to satisfy statute’s requirements); Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 530, 535–36 (rejecting executive’s arguments about the process due to alleged enemy combatants); Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 125 (1866) (“[The Founders] knew—the history of the world told them—the nation they were founding, be its existence short or long, would be involved in war . . . and that unlimited power, wherever lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen.”).14

3. Summary Removals Without Notice and a Meaningful Opportunity to Challenge “Alien Enemy” Designations Violate the AEA, Due Process, and the APA.

As this Court has already held, Defendants must provide Plaintiffs with a meaningful opportunity to challenge their designation as alien enemies before removal is permissible under the Proclamation. Op. 23-24, 30; see also J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *21 (Millett, J., concurring) (“the government agrees that individuals are entitled to challenge in court whether they fall within the terms of the AEA or are otherwise not lawfully removable under it.”). The government’s concession that there must be an opportunity to contest one’s designation as an enemy alien is well taken given that Ludecke expressly recognized as much. 335 U.S. at 171 n.17; see also, e.g., Ex parte Gilroy, 257 F. 110, 114-24 (S.D.N.Y. 1919); United States ex rel. Zdunic v. Uhl, 137 F.2d 858, 860 (2d Cir. 1943); Bauer, 171 F.2d at 493-94.

Because the government is currently providing no process or opportunity to contest a designation, the precise contours of such review need not be determined here. At this stage, even assuming the Court finds that the AEA can be used at all against a “gang” during peacetime, the Court need only hold that the current Proclamation is unlawful in failing to provide any process, even sufficient notice and opportunity to file the individual habeas petitions held out by the government. At minimum, though, there must be a hearing at which evidence could be introduced and testimony heard, and judicial review. The AEA, per Ludecke, as well due process and the APA, require that noncitizens alleged to be alien enemies receive notice of the factual basis for removal and a meaningful opportunity to rebut it. See, e.g., Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in U.S., 758 F.3d 296, 318 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“Both the Supreme Court and this Court have recognized that the right to know the factual basis for [government] action and the opportunity to rebut the evidence supporting that action are essential components of due process.”).15

Finally, even if Plaintiffs were properly designated alien enemies (which they were not), this Court has previously held that the President may lawfully remove noncitizens under the AEA only when those designated noncitizens “refuse or neglect to depart” from the United States voluntarily. Op. 30 (citing 50 U.S.C. § 21). Indeed, even during World War II, courts interpreting the AEA consistently recognized that “alien enemies” retained the right to voluntary departure. See U.S. ex rel. Ludwig, 164 F.2d at 457 (Section 21 establishes a “right of voluntary departure” that functions as a “statutory condition precedent” to the government’s right to deport enemy aliens); U.S. ex rel. Von Heymann v. Watkins, 159 F.2d 650, 653 (2d Cir. 1947) (“His present restraint by the respondent is unlawful in so far as it interferes with his voluntary departure, since the enforced removal, of which his present restraint is a concomitant, is unlawful before he does ‘Refuse or neglect’ to depart” under Section 21); United States ex rel. Dorfler v. Watkins, 171 F.2d 431, 432 (2d Cir. 1948) (“An alien must be afforded the privilege of voluntary departure before the Attorney General can lawfully remove him against his will.”).

Under Section 21, there is no exception to the general right of voluntary departure; it is a “statutory condition precedent” to removal. U.S. ex rel. Ludwig, 164 F.2d at 457. Section 22 establishes separate rights concerning the particular conditions for departure, with an exception for those “chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against public safety.” 50 U.S.C. § 22. However, that exception cannot be invoked categorically. It instead requires individualized assessments—each noncitizen must specifically be “chargeable” with actual hostility or a crime against public safety to lose eligibility for the rights described in Section 22. Defendants have made no such individualized assessments here—much less provided any opportunity to contest such findings.

B. The Proclamation Violates the Specific Protections that Congress Established for Noncitizens Seeking Humanitarian Protection.

The Proclamation is unlawful for an additional, independent reason: it overrides statutory protections for noncitizens seeking relief from torture by subjecting them to removal without meaningful consideration of their claims. As this Court has previously recognized, Plaintiffs were not only barred from raising a torture claim but also were effectively precluded from doing so because Defendants never informed them of the country to which they would be removed— directly contravening protections enacted by Congress. See Op. 33.

-- The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib, edited by Karen J. Greenberg and Joshua L. Dratel

Congress enacted the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (“FARRA”) to codify the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) and to ensure that noncitizens have meaningful opportunities to seek protection from torture. See U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 3, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, at 20 (1988); Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 § 2242(a), Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. G. Title XXI, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231 notes) (implementing CAT); C.F.R. §§ 208.16 to 208.18 (FARRA procedure). CAT categorically prohibits returning a noncitizen to any country where they would more likely than not face torture. See 8 U.S.C. §1231 note. These protections apply regardless of the mechanism for removal.

The D.C. Circuit recently addressed a similar issue in Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, reconciling the Executive’s authority under a public-health statute, 42 U.S.C. § 265, with CAT’s anti-torture protections. 27 F.4th 718. The Court held that because § 265 was silent about where noncitizens could be expelled, and CAT explicitly addressed that question, no conflict existed. Both statutes could—and therefore must—be given effect. Id. at 721, 731-32 (citing Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497, 510 (2018) (“When . . . confronted with two Acts of Congress allegedly touching on the same topic,” a court “must strive to give effect to both.”) (cleaned up)). As this Court has already held, “[t]his case in on all fours” with Huisha-Huisha. Op. 32-33. Because no genuine conflict exists between the AEA and FARRA, this Court correctly harmonized these statutes by concluding that FARRA’s protections apply to removals under the AEA. See Op. 32-33.

Despite this clear statutory framework, Defendants prevented several class members— many of whom have strong claims—from asserting their rights under CAT (and undoubtedly have done the same to other members of the class). See ECF No. 3-3 (J.G.G. Decl.) ¶ 2, ECF No. 3-3 (seeking asylum, withholding and CAT after experiencing arbitrary imprisonment, physical abuse and torture); Carney Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 44-11 (describing threats on account of sexual orientation); Smyth Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 44-12 (describing physical violence and harassment on account of sexual orientation); W.G.H. Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 3-6 (fear of mistreatment and harm); Shealy Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 3-5; see also A.V.S.O. Decl. ¶¶ 3-4; M.A.A. Decl. ¶¶ 4-5; Y.R.R. Decl. ¶ 3. Moreover, even if Plaintiffs had been permitted to apply, their opportunity would have been meaningless because Defendants deliberately withheld information about the country to which they were being removed. See Op. 33; see supra.

The AEA can similarly be harmonized with other subsequently enacted statutes specifically designed to protect noncitizens seeking asylum and withholding. See Refugee Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 (1980) (asylum and withholding); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 (asylum), 1231(b)(3) (withholding of removal). Congress has unequivocally declared that “[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States . . . irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). Similarly, the withholding of removal explicitly bars returning a noncitizen to a country where their “life or freedom” would be threatened based on a protected ground. Id. § 1231(b)(3)(A).

“In understanding this statutory text, ‘a page of history is worth a volume of logic.’” Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 472 (2023) (quoting New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921)). These humanitarian protections were enacted in the aftermath of World War II, when the United States joined other countries in committing to never again turn our backs on people fleeing persecution and torture. Sadako Ogata, U.N. High Comm’r for Refugees, Address at the Holocaust Memorial Museum (Apr. 30, 1997).16 A President invoking the AEA cannot simply sweep away these protections.

The AEA’s general removal authority must yield to the explicit humanitarian protections established by Congress in subsequent, more targeted enactments. See NLRB v. SW Gen., Inc., 580 U.S. 288, 305 (2017) (“[I]t is a commonplace of statutory construction that the specific governs the general.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendants, however, denied Plaintiffs the opportunity to assert claims for asylum or withholding of removal. See (J.G.G. Decl.) ¶ 2, ECF No. 3-3; Carney Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 44-11; Smyth Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 44-12; W.G.H. Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 3-6; Shealy Decl. ¶ 3 ECF No. 44-9. Summary removals to the horrific conditions in Salvadoran prisons are precisely what Congress enacted protections to prevent.

C. The Proclamation Violates the Procedural Requirements of the INA.

Since the last invocation of the AEA more than eighty years ago, Congress has carefully specified the procedures by which noncitizens may be removed from the United States. And the INA leaves little doubt that its procedures must apply to every removal, unless otherwise specified by that statute. It directs: “Unless otherwise specified in this chapter,” the INA’s comprehensive scheme provides “the sole and exclusive procedure for determining whether an alien may be admitted to the United States, or if the alien has been so admitted, removed from the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(3); see also United States v. Tinoso, 327 F.3d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Deportation and removal must be achieved through the procedures provided in the INA.”). This language makes clear that Congress intended for the INA to “supersede all previous laws with regard to deportability.” S. Rep. No. 82-1137, at 30 (Jan. 29, 1952).17

Congress was aware that alien enemies were subject to removal in times of war or invasion when it enacted the INA. See Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 32 (1990) (courts presume Congress drafts statutes with full knowledge of existing law). Indeed, the AEA had been invoked just a few years before passage of the 1952 INA. With this awareness, Congress provided that the INA contains the “sole and exclusive” procedures for deportation or removal and declined to carve out AEA removals as an exception from standard immigration procedures, even as it expressly provided exceptions for other groups of noncitizens, including noncitizens who pose security risks. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(3) (excepting noncitizens in expedited removal proceedings from the INA’s “sole and exclusive” provision); 8 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (establishing fast-track proceedings for noncitizens posing national security risks).

Ignoring the INA’s role as the “sole and exclusive” procedure for determining whether a noncitizen may be removed, Defendants purport to bypass the mandated congressional scheme in order to formulate an entirely separate procedure for removal and usurp Congress’s Article I power in the process. Accordingly, the Proclamation violates the INA by denying Plaintiffs the process due under that law.

IV. The Administration’s Abuse of the Alien Enemies Act Has Caused and Will Continue to Cause Plaintiffs Irreparable Harm.

In the absence of preliminary relief, Plaintiffs can be summarily removed to places, such as El Salvador, where they face life-threatening conditions, persecution and torture. See Op. 33- 35 (“Needless to say, the risk of torture, beatings, and even death clearly and unequivocally supports a finding of irreparable harm.”). And while removal does not by itself ordinarily constitute irreparable harm, Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009), these are hardly run-of-the-mill removals. Plaintiffs’ removals constitute grave and immediate irreparable harm because of what awaits them in a Salvadoran prison. See generally Bishop Decl.; Goebertus Decl. Prison conditions in El Salvador are “harsh and life threatening.” Bishop Decl. ¶ 21; see also Goebertus Decl. ¶ 4. Prison officials there engage in widespread physical abuse, including waterboarding, electric shocks, using implements of torture on detainees’ fingers, forcing detainees into ice water for hours, and hitting or kicking detainees so severely that it causes broken bones or ruptured organs. Bishop Decl. ¶¶ 21, 33, 37, 39, 41; Goebertus Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10, 17. People in detention in El Salvador also face psychological harm, including solitary confinement in pitch dark cells or being forced to stay in a cell with the body of a fellow prisoner who was recently beaten to death. Goebertus Decl. ¶ 3; Bishop Decl. ¶ 39. In fact, El Salvador creates these horrific conditions intentionally to terrify people. Bishop Decl. ¶ 22; Huisha-Huisha, 27 F.4th at 733 (irreparable harm exists where petitioners “expelled to places where they will be persecuted or tortured”); Al- Joudi v. Bush, 406 F. Supp. 2d 13, 20 (D.D.C. 2005) (harsh conditions at Guantanamo that forced detainees to go on hunger strikes amounted to irreparable harm); Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that removal to a country where one faces harm constitutes irreparable injury); Demjanjuk v. Holder, 563 F.3d 565, 565 (6th Cir. 2009) (granting stay for noncitizen who asserted removal would violate CAT). And Plaintiffs may never get out of these prisons. See Nayib Bukele, X.com, (Mar. 16, 2025, 5:13AM ET);18 see also Goebertus Decl. ¶ 3 (quoting the Salvadorean government that people held in CECOT “will never leave”); id. (“Human Rights Watch is not aware of any detainees who have been released from that prison.”).

And even if the government instead removes Plaintiffs to Venezuela, they face serious harm there, too. In fact, many plaintiffs fled Venezuela for the very purpose of escaping the persecution they faced in Venezuela and have pending asylum cases on that basis. For example, J.G.G. has already suffered arbitrary detention, torture and abuse by the Venezuelan police for his political views and fears being killed if returned. J.G.G. Decl. ¶ 2. And returning to Venezuela labeled as a gang member by the United States government only increases the danger, as they will face heightened scrutiny from Venezuela’s security agency, and possibly even violence from rivals of TdA. Hanson Decl. ¶ 28.

Not only do Plaintiffs face grave harm, they do so without having received any due process. See Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, 560 F. Supp. 3d 146, 172 (D.D.C. 2021) (finding irreparable harm where plaintiffs “face the threat of removal prior to receiving any of the protections the immigration laws provide”); P.J.E.S. ex rel. Escobar Francisco v. Wolf, 502 F. Supp. 3d 492, 517 (D.D.C. 2020) (irreparable injury exists where class members were “threatened with deportation prior to receiving any of the protections the immigration laws provide”); see also supra (discussing the lack of notice and meaningful process). In fact, at the D.C. Circuit, Defendants left no doubt that they intend to begin immediately deporting class members without notice as soon as a court permits. Oral Arg. 1:44:39-1:46-23, J.G.G. v. Trump, 25-5067 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (“We take the position that the AEA does not require notice . . . [and] the government believes there would not be a limitation [on removal]” absent an injunction). Critically, moreover, without meaningful process, there is an unacceptably high risk that the government will deport class members who are not in fact members of TdA.

V. The Balance of Equities and Public Interest Weigh Decidedly in Favor of a Preliminary Injunction Order.

The balance of equities and the public interest factors merge in cases against the government. See Pursuing Am.’s Greatness v. FEC, 831 F.3d 500, 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Here, the balance of hardships overwhelmingly favors Plaintiffs. The public has a critical interest in preventing wrongful removals to places where individuals will face persecution and torture. Conversely, the government can make no comparable claim to harm from an injunction. Op. 36-37; Luokung Tech. Corp. v. Dep’t of Def., 538 F. Supp. 3d 174, 195 (D.D.C. 2021); see also Nken, 556 U.S. at 436 (describing the “public interest in preventing aliens from being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm”); League of Women Voters v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (describing the “substantial public interest in having governmental agencies abide by the federal laws that govern their existence and operations” (citation omitted). Defendantsm moreover, will retain the ability to prosecute criminal offenses, detain noncitizens under any authority, and remove noncitizens under existing statutory guidelines.

VI. The Court Should Not Require Plaintiffs to Provide Security Prior to the Preliminary Injunction Order.

The court should not require a bond under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. The “courts in this Circuit have found the Rule ‘vests broad discretion in the district court to determine the appropriate amount of an injunction bond,’ including the discretion to require no bond at all.” Simms v. District of Columbia, 872 F. Supp. 2d 90, 107 (D.D.C. 2012) (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted). District courts routinely exercise this discretion to require no security in cases brought by indigent and/or incarcerated people, and in the vindication of immigrants’ rights. See, e.g., P.J.E.S. v. Wolf, 502 F. Supp. 3d 492,at 520 (D.D.C. 2020).

CONCLUSION

The motion for a preliminary injunction should be granted.

Noelle Smith
Oscar Sarabia Roman
My Khanh Ngo
Cody Wofsy
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
425 California Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 343-0770
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar No. 235960)
Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar No. 1006945)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
529 14th Street, NW, Suite 722
Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 457-0800
[email protected]
[email protected]

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lee Gelernt
Lee Gelernt (D.D.C. Bar No. NY0408)
Daniel Galindo (D.D.C. Bar No. NY035)
Ashley Gorski
Patrick Toomey
Sidra Mahfooz
Omar Jadwat
Hina Shamsi (D.D.C. Bar No. MI0071)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION,
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
(212) 549-2660
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Somil B. Trivedi (D.C. Bar No. 1617967)
Bradley Girard (D.C. Bar No. 1033743)
Michael Waldman (D.C. Bar No. 414646)
Sarah Rich
Skye Perryman (D.C. Bar No. 984573)
Audrey Wiggins (DC Bar No. 482877)
Christine L. Coogle (DC Bar No. 1738913)
Pooja A. Boisture
DEMOCRACY FORWARD
FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 34553
Washington, DC 20043
Phone: (202) 448-9090
Fax: (202) 796-4426
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 28, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by using the CM/ECF system. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.

Dated: March 28, 2025

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Lee Gelernt
Lee Gelernt (D.D.C. Bar No. NY0408)
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
(212) 549-2660
[email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiffs–Petitioners

_______________

Notes:

1 Available at https://perma.cc/ZS8M-ZQHJ.

2 Plaintiffs incorporate the facts and procedural history from prior filings, see Pls.’ Mot. for a TRO, ECF No. 3-2 (“TRO Mot.”); Pls.’ Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. To Vacate TRO, ECF No. 44 (“Opp. to Mot. to Vacate”), focusing here on further facts that have come to light and that show that a Preliminary Injunction is warranted.

3 Documents from the government demonstrate the patent absurdity of using tattoos and dress as an identifier for TdA. For example, the Chicago Homeland Security Investigations office identified wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey, especially a Michael Jordan jersey, as a TdA marker— never mind that the Bulls are the home team and Michael Jordan was one of Chicago’s biggest stars. Sarabia Roman Decl., Exh. 2; see also id., Exh. 20 (“The idea that a Jordan tatoo or jersey would be used to link someone with Tren de Aragua is close to laughable.”); Hanson Decl. ¶ 24 (same). In fact, the government’s own intelligence is internally contradictory. See, e.g., Sarabia Roman Decl. ¶ 3 (“EPT-HUMINT-Gang Unit collections determined that the Chicago Bulls attire, clocks, and rose tattoos are typically related to the Venezuelan culture and not a definite indicator of being a member or associate of the TDA.”).

4 Documents from the government demonstrate the patent absurdity of using tattoos and dress as an identifier for TdA. For example, the Chicago Homeland Security Investigations office identified wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey, especially a Michael Jordan jersey, as a TdA marker— never mind that the Bulls are the home team and Michael Jordan was one of Chicago’s biggest stars. Sarabia Roman Decl., Exh. 2; see also id., Exh. 20 (“The idea that a Jordan tatoo or jersey would be used to link someone with Tren de Aragua is close to laughable.”); Hanson Decl. ¶ 24 (same). In fact, the government’s own intelligence is internally contradictory. See, e.g., Sarabia Roman Decl. ¶ 3 (“EPT-HUMINT-Gang Unit collections determined that the Chicago Bulls attire, clocks, and rose tattoos are typically related to the Venezuelan culture and not a definite indicator of being a member or associate of the TDA.”).

5 Op. refers to this Court’s opinion denying Defendants’ motion to vacate the TRO. See ECF No. 53.

6 Even if Plaintiffs’ challenges to the use of the AEA were required to be brought in habeas, at a minimum, Plaintiffs’ claims that they should be provided notice and an opportunity to contest the government’s allegations do not sound in habeas insofar as they are preconditions to any meaningful exercise of habeas. Thus, there is no “other adequate remedy in a court” for Plaintiffs.

7 Plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the President but he remains a proper defendant because, at a minimum, Plaintiffs may obtain declaratory relief against him. See, e.g., Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587, 616 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (concluding that court had jurisdiction to issue writ of mandamus against the President but “opt[ing] instead” to issue declaration).

8 Available at https://founders.archives.gov/?q=invasi ... =&r=17&sr=.

9 Available at https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 21-02-0282.

10 Available at https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 04-02-0673.

11 Available at https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 1-02-10525.

12 Guantanamo Bay provides an analogy. There, the United States controls the naval base on the island. But the United States’ control of a piece of land does not somehow render it the “government” of Cuba.

13 Available at https://bsky.app/profile/rgoodlaw.bsky. ... c4wzbkr22k (Q: “Does the intelligence community assess that we are currently at war or being invaded by the nation of Venezuela?” A: “We have no assessment that says that.”); also available at https://www.cspan. org/program/house-committee/national-security-and-intelligence-officials-testify-on-globalthreats/ 657380.

14 See also Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 530 (“[A]s critical as the Government’s interest may be in detaining those who actually pose an immediate threat to the national security of the United States during ongoing international conflict, history and common sense teach us that an unchecked system of detention carries the potential to become a means for oppression and abuse of others who do not present that sort of threat.”).

15 This Court has also recognized that, even if Defendants were to implement a meaningful adjudication process, questions would remain regarding the standard of review and the level of deference a reviewing court should afford to agency determinations. Op. 28-29. But the Court need not resolve those questions at this juncture.

16 https://perma.cc/X5YF-K6EU.

17 One of the processes otherwise specified in the INA is the Alien Terrorist Removal Procedure at 8 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. The Attorney General may opt to use these proceedings when he or she has classified information that a noncitizen is an “alien terrorist.” Id. § 1533(a)(1). But even that process requires notice, a public hearing, provision of counsel for indigents, the opportunity to present evidence, and individualized review by an Article III judge. Id. § 1532(a), 1534(a)(2), (b), (c)(1)-(2). And the government bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the noncitizen is subject to removal as an “alien terrorist.” Id. § 1534(g).

18 Available at: https://perma.cc/52PT-DWMR.

[admin]

Tesla Board Asks Elon Musk to Step Down*
by Zachary Shahan
cleantechnica.com
4/1/25
https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/01/te ... step-down/
Last Updated on: 2nd April 2025, 11:46 am
Update: It’s April 2 now, see footnote.

It is widely repeated that Winston Churchill once said, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else.” Although it’s not clear if Churchill ever did actually say that, it has become a popular quote and has provided countless laughs. But it’s not only Americans who struggle to do the right thing the first time, and it’s basically part of human nature that it can take us a long time to accept hard truths and deal with problems and challenges realistically — even more so when something significant has actually changed and gone from helpful to harmful.

It’s no secret that Tesla sales have been half a world off of where they were supposed to be. A few years ago, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that Tesla sales would grow at about 50% a year through the 2020s — not necessarily every year, but on average. That was happening for a bit, but things have not exactly been going according to plan for more than a year now. Far from seeing 50% sales growth in 2024, Tesla sales actually declined last year. This is in the context of the broader EV market growing. Growth was perhaps not as high as many expected, but EV sales were growing — just not Tesla’s.

In the past year, Musk has gone from fairly politically neutral and detached to extremely politically involved — and often to a shocking degree. His extremist tendencies have dramatically upset millions of people in the US, the UK, Germany, France, and many, many other places. This has all led to significant sales hits, as well as protests at Tesla stores, Tesla owners putting bumper stickers on their cars to disassociate themselves from Elon Musk, and even illegal vandalism and violence that most of us would never support or condone. When you’re getting to the point of protests and bumper stickers, you know that there’s also got to be some degree of market response. In fact, Tesla sales are down much more in 2025 than they even were in 2024.

Of course, the refreshed Tesla Model Y shook things up a bit — production lines had to be shut down and reworked, some buyers have been waiting on the new Model Y, etc., etc. But it seems highly unlikely that has caused as much of a dip in sales as we’ve seen, especially given all kinds of other evidence that Musk’s life at the White House, in DOGE offices, and often right beside or behind Donald Trump is hurting Tesla sales.

Then there’s the almost constant tweeting (showing clear signs of sleep deprivation), preoccupation with other companies (Elon Musk’s X merging with Elon Musk’s xAI … SpaceX rockets exploding while others bring astronauts home), drama with the mama of his 11th (or 12th?) baby, numerous lawsuits, and the distracts just go on and on and on. Any reasonable and independent board of directors of a Fortune 500 company would have pulled the CEO into the board room a long time ago and said, “hey, you need to get focused on our company and improving these numbers or you’ve got to go.” (By the way, we just skipped past almost a decade of missed self-driving targets.)

Well, the Tesla board of directors isn’t exactly reasonable and independent. Musk has been allowed to tarnish the Tesla brand (that he once was critical in building up) and drive sales down, down, down as the board has remained silent and seemingly useless. Until today….

News has broken that the Tesla board of directors has asked Elon Musk to step down from his role as CEO. (And just after he lost a Wisconsin Supreme Court battle he was for some reason sticking his nose and millions of dollars into.) Musk would still have a role in the company, but not running it and not being the main face of the company. It’s not clear yet who will step in as the new CEO, though. Stay tuned — we should have more info soon. That said, when the clock strikes midnight, the fairytale could be over, and we could be back where we started — exhausting all other options before going with the obvious one.

*It’s now April 2, so for extra clarity (in case it wasn’t clear enough), note that the beautiful carriage turned back into a pumpkin at midnight. Though, somehow (which has never been clear to me), a glass slipper remains — so maybe the headline will be usable in the future after all. But not today.

[admin]

[admin]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nz-insurer

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

Trump tariffs live: Wall Street stocks on course for worst week since 2020 Covid crisis: Fed chief Jay Powell warns that Trump’s levies will slow US growth and increase inflation
Edited by William Sandlund, Jonathan Wheatley, Maxine Kelly, Zehra Munir, Alexandra White, Peter Wells
Financial Times
4/4/25, 2:00 p.m.
https://www.ft.com/content/0147b09b-e31 ... fcce510a18

Editor's pick An hour ago: Wall Street stocks on course for worst week since 2020 Covid crisis
by Peter Wells in New York

US stocks were headed for their biggest weekly drop in five years, as China’s move to introduce retaliatory tariffs against the US kicked off a global trade war and spurred another steep sell-off in global equities markets.

The S&P 500 was down 5.4 per cent in afternoon trading on Friday, failing to recover from a 4.8 per cent drop on Thursday in the wake of Donald Trump’s ‘liberation day’ tariff announcement. The back-to-back drops are set to wipe about $5tn in market capitalisation from the benchmark index.

Investors received few concrete signs of imminent support from the Federal Reserve, as chair Jay Powell on Friday warned the tariff increases “will be significantly larger than expected” and would stoke “higher inflation and slower growth”.

The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite was down 5.5 per cent in afternoon trading. That followed a 6 per cent drop on Thursday, setting the stage for back-to-back declines of greater than 5 per cent for only the fourth time on record.

Over the past five sessions, the S&P 500 has declined 8.9 per cent and the Nasdaq has dropped 9.8 per cent. Those are on course to be the indices’ biggest weekly drops since March 2020.

The Nasdaq on Friday entered so-called bear market territory, meaning the index has fallen at least 20 per cent from a recent high. The Russell 2000 index, which tracks small-cap stocks that are more exposed to domestic growth, entered bear market territory on Thursday as investors fretted about the outlook for the US economy.

2 hours ago: Italy’s Meloni warns ‘panic and alarmism’ will exacerbate Trump tariff damage
by Amy Kazmin in Rome

Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has warned “panic and alarmism” could exacerbate the economic damage from Trump’s tariffs.

The Bank of Italy on Friday cut the country’s 2025 GDP growth forecast by 0.2 percentage points, to 0.5 per cent, as US tariffs weigh on Italian exports over the next year.

But in a cabinet meeting, Meloni warned the effect could be amplified “if panic and negative expectations were to break out among consumers, thus leading to a contraction on consumption and business investments”.

She urged government institutions to “bring the discussion back to the real size of the problem”.

2 hours ago: Trump extends deadline for TikTok deal
Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that extends the deadline for ByteDance, the Chinese owner of TikTok, to divest the hugely popular video-sharing app and avoid a nationwide ban in the US.

Trump said on his Truth Social platform that he was extending the deadline, which had been Saturday, by 75 days. He said the extension was designed to allow US companies trying to acquire TikTok more time to finalise a deal.

“The Deal requires more work to ensure all necessary approvals are signed, which is why I am signing an Executive Order to keep TikTok up and running for an additional 75 days,” Trump wrote.

He said his administration hoped to “continue working in Good Faith with China” which he said were unhappy with the tariffs he imposed on imports from the country.

Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington and Hannah Murphy in San Francisco

2 HOURS AGO. Updated 13:34: Donald Trump said he would sign an executive order extending the deadline for ByteDance, the Chinese owner of TikTok, to divest the popular video-sharing app’s US business and avoid a nationwide ban in America.

The US president said on his Truth Social platform on Friday he would push back the deadline, which had been Saturday, by 75 days, adding the extension was designed to allow American companies trying to acquire TikTok more time to finalise a deal.

“The Deal requires more work to ensure all necessary approvals are signed, which is why I am signing an Executive Order to keep TikTok up and running for an additional 75 days,” Trump wrote.

Under a law passed by Congress last year, ByteDance had until January 19 to divest TikTok to non-Chinese entities, but that month Trump issued an order extending the deadline by 90 days. His latest order extends the deadline by another 75 days.

Trump said he hoped to “continue working in Good Faith with China”, which he added was unhappy with duties he imposed on imports of Chinese goods on Wednesday as part of his “reciprocal tariffs”. China on Friday retaliated with a 34 per cent tariff on imports from the US.

China needs to approve any divestment of TikTok. It is unclear if Beijing will allow a divestment or let a US group secure control of the app’s algorithm.

“We do not want TikTok to ‘go dark’,” Trump added. “We look forward to working with TikTok and China to close the Deal.”

Trump suggested earlier this week he could reduce tariffs on Chinese goods in exchange for Beijing allowing ByteDance to divest TikTok.

He also said his team was “very close” to reaching a deal with multiple US investors that would enable TikTok to continue to operate in the US.

Trump has been forced to balance the security concerns that are core to the US TikTok legislation — which have long been raised by China hawks in Congress — and the huge support for the video-sharing app among younger users and his own success on the platform.

TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Alison Szalwinski, vice-president at The Asia Group, a consultancy, said any extension to the deadline would likely concern companies that offer cloud and app store services to TikTok, such as Apple, Google and Oracle for legal reasons.

Without a sale of TikTok, companies that distribute or host the app risk a fine of $5,000 per user, according to the legislation. “Companies are going to continue to be quite anxious,” Szalwinski said.

The White House has been weighing a proposal to spin off TikTok from ByteDance that would create a new US company that would receive fresh American investment to dilute the ownership stakes of Chinese investors, people familiar with the matter told the Financial Times earlier this week.

Under the terms of the proposal, a group of new investors including Andreessen Horowitz, Blackstone, Silver Lake and other big private capital groups would own about half of TikTok’s US business, the people said.

These people added large existing investors in TikTok — including General Atlantic, Susquehanna, KKR and Coatue — would hold 30 per cent of the new US business.

ByteDance would retain a stake at just below 20 per cent, which would satisfy a requirement in the TikTok legislation that no more than a fifth of the company be controlled by a “foreign adversary”.

One key issue is who would control TikTok’s sought-after algorithm. One option under discussion involves ByteDance continuing to develop and operate the algorithm, which has been a central demand of China’s government, while the new US group could access it through a licensing agreement.

But that could spark concern on Capitol Hill where many lawmakers insist China does not have control over the algorithm.

2 hours ago: Nike and Lululemon shares rise after Trump’s comments on Vietnam tariffs
Zehra Munir in New York

Several North American retailers with a significant manufacturing presence in Vietnam have enjoyed a share price recovery, after Donald Trump posted positively about a conversation on tariffs he had with the southeast Asian nation’s leader.

Shares of Nike, which has more than 100 supplier-factories in Vietnam, was up 3.8 per cent at lunchtime on Friday afternoon. Those of Lululemon, whose products are manufactured mostly in Vietnam, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Bangladesh, rose 1 per cent.

Shares of Ralph Lauren, Versace owner Capri Holdings and luxury furniture maker RH were still down on Friday, but had trimmed their declines from earlier in the day.

They were among stocks that tumbled during the market rout of the past two days.

2 hours ago: Absence of rebound after S&P 500’s tumble raises concern about sell-off
Peter Wells in New York

US stocks are struggling to bounce back from Thursday’s hefty 4.8 per cent drop, representing something of a contrast to recent history and potentially suggesting investor concerns about how entrenched the recent market turmoil could become.

Thursday marked the 13th time in the past 10 years that the S&P 500 dropped at least 4 per cent. In the 12 previous sessions, Wall Street’s benchmark index had closed higher the following day, according to Financial Times calculations.

On Friday, the S&P 500 was down 5.2 per cent during lunchtime trading.

Bar chart of Daily drops of 4% for the S&P 500 over the past decade and index performance, %, the following session showing Big Wall Street drops have often been followed by a recovery
Analysing the S&P 500’s almost 24,500 trading sessions starting in 1928 leading up to Thursday’s drop, there have been 155 trading days when the index has dropped at least 4 per cent. In 16 of those instances the index has followed up with another 4-plus per cent drop.

3 hours ago: French business chief warns tariffs could threaten ‘hundreds of thousands’ of jobs
Adrienne Klasa in Paris

The president of French business association Medef has said US President Donald Trump’s tariffs could threaten “hundreds of thousands” of jobs in the country.

Patrick Martin on Friday said industries from aerospace to agribusiness could be hit if the US persists with its trade policies. “It could be very painful,” he told BFMTV on Friday.

However, he said that while business leaders in the US were “keeping their heads down” for now, the American people may act as a break on the administration.

“Ultimately, it’s America’s citizens who will be our best allies . . . they have lost billions and billions of dollars in recent days from their retirement savings,” he said. “Donald Trump’s popularity curve deteriorates in parallel with the stock market.”

3 hours ago: Amazon on track for biggest weekly loss in more than 2 years
Rafe Uddin in San Francisco

Amazon has been one of the hardest hit technology companies during this week’s market sell-off, as investors grapple with its dependency on China to stock warehouses and fulfil orders through its “Haul” app.

The Seattle-based conglomerate’s shares sold off 9 per cent on Thursday and it has since slid further in midday trading in New York, putting it on track for its biggest weekly loss since November 2022.

Amazon sources roughly a quarter of the products it sells from China, according to Morgan Stanley estimates.

The ecommerce giant’s “Haul” brand — which ships goods directly from warehouses in China — will be hit by tariffs and the removal of de minimis exemptions on imports from the country, also announced by Trump on Wednesday. The so-called de minimis rules exempt shipments under $800 from duties.

4 hours ago: Federal Reserve’s Powell warns levies will boost inflation and slow growth
James Politi in Washington

Federal Reserve chair Jay Powell has warned that Donald Trump’s tariffs will stoke “higher inflation and slower growth” as the president’s plans for steep levies on the US’s trading partners shake global financial markets.

“It is now becoming clear that the tariff increases will be significantly larger than expected,” Powell said in prepared remarks to a conference in Virginia on Friday. “The same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth.”

He also highlighted that risks to unemployment, which has remained subdued in recent months, were rising.

Powell’s remarks come after Trump’s announcement on Wednesday of a universal 10 per cent tariff and much bigger duties on many key trading partners has sent markets reeling. Wall Street’s S&P 500 has sustained two days of heavy selling, leaving the blue-chip index on track for its worst week since the pandemic shut large swaths of the economy in 2020.

Trump, prior to Powell’s remarks, said on his Truth Social platform: “This would be a PERFECT time for Fed Chairman Jerome Powell to cut Interest Rates.”

Powell stressed that “uncertainty” was high in terms of “what will be tariffed, at what level and for what duration, and the extent of retaliation from our trading partners”.

He said in a later press conference: “It feels like we don’t need to be in a hurry. It feels like we have time,” signalling that the central bank is minded to keep its main interest rate at its current range between 4.25 per cent and 4.5 per cent until there is more clarity about the fallout.

Powell added: “Inflation is going to be moving up and growth is going to be slowing but to me it is not clear at this time what the appropriate path for monetary policy will be.”

He also noted that “while tariffs are highly likely to generate at least a temporary rise in inflation, it is also possible that the effects could be more persistent”.

4 hours ago: UK and European stocks notch biggest daily drop since 2020
Ian Smith in London

European stocks chalked up their biggest daily drop since the Covid-19 pandemic shut down the global economy.

The Stoxx Europe 600 closed 5.1 per cent lower as China’s announcement it will retaliate against US tariffs signalled the start of an unpredictable and economically damaging trade war.

The UK’s FTSE 100 dropped 5 per cent, also its worst day since 2020, while the pound was 1.4 per cent weaker against the dollar.

“I think we have crossed a bridge and this is increasingly looking like a full-blown trade war,” said Guy Miller, chief market strategist at insurer Zurich.

“This approach by the [US] administration, built on misguided economic policy, is disturbing and I don’t think priced by investors.”

4 hours ago: Nasdaq enters bear market as tariff concerns mount
George Steer in New York

The Nasdaq Composite entered so-called bear market territory, leaving it down more than a fifth since a high in mid-February, as tech stocks led a tariff-induced Wall Street sell-off.

The index was 4.6 per cent lower around lunchtime in New York, taking its decline from a recent high in mid-December to more than 21 per cent.

[x]
Line chart of Nasdaq Composite index showing US tech stocks enter bear market on tariff concerns. Nasdaq Composite Index

A bear market is typically defined as a drop of 20 per cent or more from a high.

Nvidia, Apple and Broadcom tumbled 6.9 per cent, 4.2 per cent and 6.5 per cent, respectively. Netflix shed 5 per cent, while Palantir dropped more than 9 per cent. Arm Holdings fell 7.7 per cent.

4 hours ago: Klarna pauses plans for $15bn New York IPO in wake of tariffs
Akila Quinio in London

Klarna has paused plans to launch a long-awaited $15bn New York IPO because of market turbulence in the US in the wake of President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging tariffs announcements.

The Swedish “buy now, pay later” fintech was set to launch its so-called IPO “roadshow” to investors next week, but the sell-off in US stocks has put the plans on ice, said a person familiar with the plans.

Klarna filed for an IPO in the US this year.

A person familiar with Klarna’s strategy said the company was under no regulatory obligation to float within a specific timeframe and that the listing could happen in several weeks’ time.

4 hours ago: Investors pull back on rate cut expectations after Powell tariff comments
Kate Duguid in New York

Investors pulled back on rate cut expectations this year after Federal Reserve chair Jay Powell said that Donald Trump’s tariffs would spur “higher inflation and slower growth”.

Traders in the futures market were pricing in roughly four quarter-point interest rate cuts this year just before midday in New York, compared to the nearly five they expected this morning before Powell’s speech and the release of strong US jobs data.

The two-year Treasury yield, which moves with interest rate expectations, rose modestly, though remained lower on the day.

4 hours ago: Hedge fund equity sales on Thursday in line with 2020 pandemic sell-off — Morgan Stanley
Harriet Agnew in London

Hedge funds sold equity positions on Thursday at a level in line with the US regional bank unwind in 2023 and the Covid-19 sell-off in 2020, according to a new weekly report by Morgan Stanley’s prime brokerage divisions.

The bank said that the selling “amounted to the fifth largest day of active net reductions since 2010” and that the magnitude of selling across equities on Thursday was in line with the largest seen on record.

The sectors that experienced the most selling were megacap technology, names exposed to AI across software and semiconductors, high-end consumer, and investment banks. This drove US long/short equity fund net leverage down to an 18-month low of around 42 per cent.

Thursday was the worst day for US-based long/short equity funds since it began tracking the data in 2016, with the average fund down 2.6 per cent, Morgan Stanley said.

4 hours ago: Nintendo halts US orders of new Switch 2 console to assess tariff impact
Tim Bradshaw in London

Nintendo has halted US orders of its new Switch 2 console, just two days after it was unveiled, in the wake of the Trump administration’s tariff blitz.

The Japanese video games group “will not start” accepting advance orders for Switch 2 on April 9 as originally scheduled, “in order to assess the potential impact of tariffs and evolving market conditions”, the company said on Friday.

Nintendo said its scheduled launch date of June 5 was “unchanged”.

During Wednesday’s launch, the Mario and Zelda creator said that its hotly anticipated new console would go on sale for $450 in the US. “Nintendo will update [pre-order] timing at a later date,” the company said.

4 hours ago: Vietnam wants to cut its ‘tariffs down to zero’, Trump says
Zehra Munir in London

Donald Trump said that Vietnam’s leader told him the country “wants to cut their tariffs down to ZERO” if they are able to reach an agreement with the US, two days after the American president unveiled a 46 per cent levy on imports from the south-east Asian nation.

The US president said he had a “very productive call” with To Lam, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, and the two would be meeting “in the near future”.

[x]
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump 15m
Just had a very productive call with To Lam, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, who told me that Vietnam wants to cut their Tariffs down to ZERO if they are able to make an agreement with the U.S. I thanked him on behalf of our Country, and said I look forward to a meeting in the near future.

Vietnam was hit by one of the highest tariff rates when Trump unveiled his sweeping trade policy changes at the White House on Wednesday.

4 hours ago: Trump calls on Fed to cut rates and accuses Powell of ‘playing politics’
Steff Chávez in Washington

Donald Trump renewed his calls on the US Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, accusing chair Jay Powell of “playing politics” with monetary policy, as the president’s sweeping tariffs continue to rattle global markets.

“This would be a PERFECT time for Fed Chairman Jerome Powell to cut Interest Rates”, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Friday.

Powell is due to speak at 11.25am Eastern time in what will be his first public comments since Trump’s “liberation day” tariff announcement on Wednesday.

“He is always ‘late,’ but he could now change his image, and quickly”, Trump said of Powell. “Energy prices are down, Interest Rates are down, Inflation is down, even Eggs are down 69%, and Jobs are UP, all within two months — A BIG WIN for America.”

5 hours ago: Wall Street volatility index surges to highest level in seven months
George Steer in New York

Wall Street’s so-called fear gauge on Friday surged to its highest level in seven months as US stocks continued to slide on fears over Donald Trump’s tariffs.

[x]
Line chart of Cboe 'Vix' volatility index showing Wall Street ‘fear gauge’ leaps to seven-month high. Cboe 'Vix' volatility index

The Vix index, which tracks the expected turbulence of the blue-chip S&P 500, stood at 44.2 by mid-morning in New York, the highest intraday level since a bout of volatility hit markets last August and far above its long-running average of 20.

5 hours ago: US stocks on course for biggest weekly drop in 5 years
Peter Wells in New York

Further declines for US stocks in the wake of the Trump administration’s tariff announcements are lining up Wall Street’s main equities indices for their biggest weekly drops in more than five years.

The S&P 500 was down 4.1 per cent during morning trading on Friday, taking the benchmark index’s decline this week to 7.2 per cent. If that is maintained at the closing bell, it would rank as the biggest weekly drop since March 2020.

The Nasdaq Composite is on course for an 8.9 per cent drop this week, which would also rank as its biggest since March 2020 and its third biggest of the past decade.

[x]
Bar chart of Biggest weekly drops for S&P 500, %, past 10 years showing Tariff turmoil has set up US stocks for a big weekly drop. Biggest weekly drops for S&P 500, %, past 10 years

5 hours ago: US stocks resume fall as investors lose confidence on global growth
George Steer

Global stocks extended their losses on Friday after China retaliated against Donald Trump’s tariff blitz, as investors took fright at the prospect of a full-blown global trade war.

The S&P 500 fell 4 per cent and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite lost 4.5 per cent in morning trading on Friday, a day after the steepest decline for Wall Street stocks since the coronavirus crisis in 2020.

Europe’s Stoxx 600 index was down 5 per cent, with losses accelerating after Beijing’s announcement, pulling the Europe-wide benchmark into correction territory. Germany’s Dax tumbled 4.7 per cent. The FTSE 100 slumped 4.8 per cent.

Oil prices continued to fall, with Brent crude down 7.5 per cent at $64.88 a barrel.

“The market is doing one thing: pricing in a global recession,” said Deutsche Bank analyst George Saravelos.

Government bond yields tumbled as investors sought haven assets, with the 10-year US Treasury falling 0.13 percentage points to 3.92 per cent.

Federal Reserve chair Jay Powell will deliver a speech in the US morning. Futures markets are pricing in four quarter-point interest rate cuts from the Fed by the end of this year, up from the three that were expected before Wednesday’s tariffs announcement.

5 hours ago: Bank and energy companies among hardest hit stocks
George Steer in New York

Banks and energy companies were among those hardest hit on Friday as Wall Street stocks continued to slide on tariff concerns and fears of slower global economic growth.

The KBW Bank index, one of the most widely tracked measures of the performance of the US banking sector, lost 7.1 per cent, with Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley all down more than 6 per cent.

Energy companies GE Vernova, Constellation Energy and Vistra all dropped more than 11 per cent as oil prices plunged. By mid-morning in New York, 469 of the S&P 500’s constituent stocks were in negative territory.

6 hours ago: Oil prices extend losses, with US oil falling faster than global benchmark
Kate Duguid in New York

Oil prices slid on Friday as markets deteriorated in the wake of China’s announcement of retaliatory tariffs against the US.

Brent crude, the international oil benchmark, was down 7.3 per cent in mid-morning trade in New York, at $65 a barrel. WTI, the US oil benchmark, was down more, 8.1 per cent lower on Friday morning at $61.65 a barrel. The difference between the two was widening, with US oil falling faster than oil prices in the rest of the world.

6 hours ago: Irish workers face imminent cut in job hours, business group chief says
Jude Webber in Dublin

Some Irish companies might put workers on reduced hours within days, the head of the country’s biggest employer confederation said, as businesses adjust to US tariffs.

Ibec chief executive Danny McCoy said he had stressed the need for temporary government support for affected workers, during a meeting of business and government leaders on Friday.

“There is immediacy for firms this weekend to know that their demand is likely to drop quite substantially and their workers will need to go on short-time working,” McCoy told reporters, explaining his call for “time-bound” government help. He said fast-moving consumer product industries such as drinks could be affected.

6 hours ago: Global stock rout intensifies after China retaliates
Ian Smith in London and Arjun Neil Alim in Hong Kong

Global stocks extended their losses on Friday after China retaliated against Donald Trump’s tariff blitz, as investors took fright at the prospect of a full-blown global trade war.

The S&P 500 index fell 3 per cent in early trading in New York, a day after suffering its biggest one-day drop since 2020. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite fell 3.3 per cent.

The Stoxx Europe 600 index was down 4.3 per cent, with losses accelerating after Beijing’s announcement, pulling the Europe-wide benchmark into correction territory. Germany’s Dax was down 4.1 per cent. The FTSE 100 was down 3.9 per cent.

Oil prices continued to fall, with Brent crude down 7.5 per cent at $64.88 a barrel.

“The market is doing one thing: pricing in a global recession,” said Deutsche Bank analyst George Saravelos.

Government bond yields tumbled as investors sought haven assets, with the 10-year US Treasury falling 0.13 percentage points to 3.92 per cent.

Federal Reserve chair Jay Powell will deliver a speech in the US morning. Futures markets are pricing in four quarter-point interest rate cuts from the Fed by the end of this year, up from the three that were expected before Wednesday’s tariffs announcement.

The dollar was down 0.3 per cent against a basket of peers.

6 hours ago: Traders raise bets on rate cuts
Ian Smith

Traders have moved in the past couple of days to price in extra interest rate cuts by major central banks, including the Federal Reserve.

According to levels implied by swaps markets, traders are now pricing in three quarter-point cuts by the end of this year from the Bank of England, from its current rate of 4.5 per cent. They expected two cuts before Trump’s tariffs action.

And for the European Central Bank, traders are now expecting three or four quarter-point cuts from the current 2.5 per cent. Earlier in the week that was two or three cuts.

This has fuelled a rally in UK and Eurozone government bonds, taking the 10-year gilt yield below 4.5 per cent.

7 hours ago: Trump vows that his policies will ‘never change’
Jonathan Wheatley in London

Donald Trump has vowed that his policies will never change, two days after announcing sweeping tariffs on trading partners and hours after China retaliated by putting 34 per cent tariffs on imports from the US.

The US president made the promise in an all-caps post on his Truth Social platform on Friday morning.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
TO THE MANY INVESTORS COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES AND INVESTING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY, MY POLICIES WILL NEVER CHANGE. THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO GET RICH, RICHER THAN EVER BEFORE!!!
Apr 04, 2025, 1:44 PM

7 hours ago: China launches antitrust probe into US chemicals giant DuPont
Edward White in Shanghai

China has launched an antitrust probe into US chemicals giant DuPont, part of a barrage of retaliatory measures against duties unveiled by President Donald Trump this week.

China’s top market regulator, the State Administration for Market Regulation, announced on Friday night that DuPont China Group, a subsidiary of the US company DuPont, was under investigation for suspected monopolistic practices in violation of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law.

The antitrust probe came as China has announced additional tariffs of 34 per cent on all US imports, tightened export controls on rare earth elements to the US and added a group of American technology companies to its “unreliable entity” list, which bans Chinese suppliers from selling components to them.

7 hours ago: US economy surpasses expectations to add 228,000 jobs in March
James Politi in Washington

The US economy added 228,000 jobs in March, surpassing expectations, in a sign of resilience despite the Trump administration’s sweeping cuts to the federal workforce.

Friday’s figure from the Bureau of Labor Statistics exceeded both February’s increase of 151,000 posts and the 135,000 forecast by economists polled by Reuters.

The so-called Department of Government Efficiency has led President Donald Trump’s charge to axe tens of thousands of positions in an aggressive effort to slim down the federal bureaucracy.

The jobs figure comes as the Federal Reserve considers how to respond to the twin threats of lacklustre growth and persistent inflation, both of which economists say could be exacerbated by the global tariffs unveiled by Trump this week.

8 hours ago: Dollar turns negative as investors anticipate more Fed cuts
Ian Smith in London

The US dollar has given up the gains it made earlier on Friday, as traders intensify their bets on faster US interest rate cuts to support the world’s biggest economy through the deepening global trade conflict.

Traders are betting that five quarter-point cuts by the Federal Reserve are likely by the end of this year, compared with the three that were expected before Trump’s tariffs move.

This has helped to drag the dollar down against its peers, putting it fractionally lower on the day after Thursday’s 1.7 per cent decline.

8 hours ago: Nato’s Rutte says Trump tariffs do not breach alliance rules
Henry Foy in Brussels

Trump’s tariffs on European allies and Canada do not violate Nato’s internal rules on economic relations within the military alliance, its head said on Friday.

Mark Rutte, Nato’s secretary-general, told reporters that he believed the tariffs did not breach the alliance’s Article 2, which states that members “will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them”.

9 hours ago: Bank stocks among biggest fallers for European equities
Ian Smith in London

Shares in European banks are sliding as investors rush to price in a burgeoning trade war and a hit to the global economy.

Banco de Sabadell fell 12 per cent by lunchtime, while Société Générale was down 11 per cent, and Santander slid 10 per cent.

Reinsurance group Scor also fell 12 per cent, and forklift truckmaker Kion Group was down 13 per cent as exporters struggled.

[x]
Line chart of Share price and index rebased in € terms showing European banks take a hit as investors reposition. Share price and index based in [UKpound] terms

9 hours ago: Oil prices slide as China retaliation ramps up trade war fears
Philip Stafford in London

Oil prices dropped sharply on Friday after China announced retaliatory tariffs on the US, fanning fears of a trade war that would curb global economic growth.

Brent crude, the international benchmark, lost 6.1 per cent to $65.85 a barrel while WTI, its US counterpart, shed 6.6 per cent to $62.53.

The benchmarks have dropped more than 13 per cent since the US announced sweeping tariffs on Wednesday.

Goldman Sachs on Friday cut its price target for the year for Brent by $5 to $62 a barrel and warned that “price volatility is likely to stay elevated on higher recession risk”.

9 hours ago: Which US goods will be hit by Chinese tariffs?
Jonathan Vincent

9 hours ago: European equities enter correction territory as China hits back against tariffs
Ian Smith in London

European stocks are now in correction territory, having dropped more than 10 per cent since their high last month, as China’s retaliation on Friday pushes the world towards a full-blown trade war.

[x]
European stocks enter correction territory.

The Stoxx 600 is down 11 per cent from its March high, while Germany’s stock market has fallen 12 per cent since its peak a couple of weeks ago.

China has announced that it will impose additional tariffs of 34 per cent on imports from the US from April 10.

9 hours ago: Global markets fall further as China retaliates
Ian Smith in London

Global stock markets extended their losses on Friday after China said it would impose retaliatory tariffs on the US.

Futures tracking the S&P 500 fell 2 per cent. The Stoxx Europe 600 was down 4.4 per cent in late-morning trading in London, while the FTSE 100 fell 2.6 per cent. Germany’s Dax dropped 4.8 per cent.

Investors continued to sweep into US Treasuries, pushing the yield down 0.15 percentage points on the day to just below 3.9 per cent, the lowest since early October.

9 hours ago: China announces 34% retaliatory tariffs on US
Eleanor Olcott in Beijing

China has announced that it will impose additional tariffs of 34 per cent on imports from the US in retaliation for duties of the same amount unveiled by President Donald Trump this week as part of his aggressive trade agenda.

The Ministry of Commerce said on Friday that the tariff would be imposed on all imported goods originating from the US from April 10.

Levies on Chinese exports are set to rise to more than 60 per cent after the US president announced “reciprocal” tariffs of 34 per cent that come on top of existing tariffs.

Beijing denounced the new US duties as “a typical unilateral bullying move”.

10 hours ago: Free trade has kept west ‘secure’, Belgian PM tells US state secretary
Henry Foy in Brussels

Belgium’s prime minister used a meeting with US secretary of state Marco Rubio to remind him that free trade has “kept the western world secure”.

Bart De Wever said in a statement after meeting Rubio in Brussels that he “expressed our country’s hope that the unfortunate trade dispute between the US and Europe may soon end”.

“Let us maintain and strengthen the Transatlantic partnership and free trade relations which have kept the western world secure and prosperous throughout recent history,” De Wever added.

10 hours ago: JCB to double size of US factory as company ‘galvanised’ by Trump
Maxine Kelly in London

UK tractor and machinery maker JCB has said it will double the size of a new factory in Texas as it seeks to mitigate the effects of Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The company said on Friday that it would double the size of a planned plant in San Antonio, Texas, to 1mn sq ft after Trump imposed a 10 per cent tariff on imports from the UK.

Lord Anthony Bamford, JCB’s chair, said: “President Trump has galvanised us into evaluating how we can make even more products in the USA.”

Graeme Macdonald, the group’s chief executive, warned the tariffs would have “a significant impact” on its business in the short term, which the factory expansion would help to mitigate.

11 hours ago: Sterling drops as risk asset sell-off bites
Ian Smith in London

The pound fell 0.9 per cent on Friday to $1.297, as the global currency market recoils after Thursday’s dramatic sell-off in the dollar.

Currencies that often do worse in times of falling stocks and commodity prices, including the pound and the Australian dollar, have weakened, while the US dollar has stabilised.

The pound is “getting hit by the intensifying sell-off in risk assets”, said Lee Hardman, senior currency analyst at MUFG. “Of the major currencies, it is more sensitive to periods of risk aversion.”

The euro, considered less sensitive to equity falls, is down 0.6 per cent after yesterday’s dizzying rally.

The Australian dollar is down 2 per cent today, its worst fall in two years, to $0.62.

[x]
Line chart of $ per £ showing Pound gives up Thursday's gains

11 hours ago: Oil price dips as investors grapple with tariffs and concerns of oversupply
Alan Livsey in London

Brent crude fell 3.7 per cent to $67.54 per barrel on Friday morning, its lowest price since August 2021, as traders fret over a slowdown in world economic growth following this week’s US trade tariff announcements.

[x]
Line chart of Brent crude, $ per barrel showing Oil hits four-and-a-half-year low

An unexpected decision by the Opec+ cartel to increase crude output on Thursday has added to concerns that world oil markets will be oversupplied this year.

Brent has now fallen about 10 per cent since Monday. The price remains far below the $90 per barrel fiscal break-even needed by leading Opec+ producer Saudi Arabia to cover its heavy investment needs, according to data from the US Federal Reserve.

12 hours ago: L&G warns US recession now more likely in next 12 months
Emma Dunkley in London

Legal & General has warned of an “increased probability” of a US recession over the next 12 months in the wake of Donald Trump’s sweeping new tariffs on imports.

Sonja Laud, chief investment officer of asset management at L&G, told the Financial Times that “the headwinds to growth from trade disruption, uncertainty and reduced confidence” could “have a much larger impact than suggested by estimates based on the direct cost of tariffs alone”.

Laud also warned that the “blanket approach” to tariffs made it more likely that costs would be passed on to consumers rather than absorbed by exporters, boosting inflation.

12 hours ago: Irish premier warns pharma tariffs would slow investment ‘very significantly’
Jude Webber in Dublin

Ireland’s premier acknowledged that likely US tariffs on the pharmaceutical sector would hit the country’s key industry and slow investment.

Pharmaceutical exports make up 61 per cent of Ireland’s €73bn exports to the US but the sector avoided tariffs in the US president’s initial announcement this week. Levies on the sector are anticipated at a later date.

“New investments are going to slow very significantly,” Taoiseach Micheál Martin told RTÉ radio ahead of a day of meetings between government and labour and business leaders.

But he said reshoring either the pharma, tech or semiconductors industries to the US would be problematic for America, which had a “huge shortage” of human capital. “Reshoring pharma is not something practical or reasonable, and similarly semiconductors.”

12 hours ago: Treasury minister rebuts Trump claim that Starmer ‘very happy’ with UK tariff
George Parker in London

A British Treasury minister has denied claims by Donald Trump that UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer was “very happy” to see a 10 per cent tariff slapped on his country’s exports to America.

James Murray said: “We are disappointed that global tariffs have been introduced. We know that they will have an impact on Britain and around the world.”

Trump told reporters on Air Force One that he thought Starmer was “very happy about how we treated them with tariffs”. The UK was hit with the lowest baseline tariff, along with many other countries, and half the 20 per cent rate applied to the EU.

Murray said Britain’s priority now was to negotiate a trade deal with Trump “at pace”. He told the BBC: “We want to see the additional tariffs removed.”

12 hours ago: Switzerland’s president vows to act ‘quickly’ in response to tariffs
Mercedes Ruehl in Zurich

Switzerland’s President Karin Keller-Sutter said the country was considering its next steps and would act “quickly” after the small Alpine country was hit with a 32 per cent tariff on Swiss exports to the US.

Keller-Sutter said in a post on X late on Thursday night that “adherence to international law and free trade remained core values”.

The tariffs for Switzerland are far higher than the 20 per cent faced by the EU and many other countries.

[x]
White House announces new tariffs covering more than 150 countries and territories. Announced April 2 tariff rate, by country

13 hours ago: US-Canada relationship will ‘never be the same again’, Canadian minister says
Henry Foy in Brussels

The US-Canada relationship will “never be the same again” after Donald Trump’s trade tariffs, Canada’s foreign minister Mélanie Joly said on Friday.

“And this is my message to Europeans: the relationship will never be the same. [The US] wants to do things differently,” Joly told reporters as she arrived at a meeting of Nato foreign affairs ministers in Brussels.

President Trump “respects strength”, Joly said, referring to Canadian counter-tariffs imposed as a way to reach a deal. “We are putting maximum pressure on the Trump administration, and at the same time we are finding off-ramps.”

She added Canada and Europe needed to send a message to “the American people” to convince Trump to change track.

13 hours ago: Japan’s prime minister calls tariffs a ‘national crisis’
Leo Lewis in Tokyo

Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba described the imposition of across-the-board US tariffs as a “national crisis” as bond yields logged one of their biggest weekly drops in three decades and Tokyo stocks endured their worst five-day run since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Ishiba told parliament on Friday that the government was discussing countermeasures against the 24 per cent levy that Donald Trump’s administration has calculated for Japan — moves, he said, that could include retaliatory tariffs or mounting an action via the World Trade Organization.

In a rare meeting of a type generally reserved for natural disasters and other significant crises, Ishiba is due to meet leaders of the main opposition parties later on Friday for joint talks on how Japan will address the tariffs.

13 hours ago: French finance minister says Europe targeting ‘proportionate’ tariff response
Ian Johnston in Paris

French finance minister Éric Lombard said that Europe would enact a “proportionate response” to Donald Trump’s tariffs aimed at bringing the US to the “negotiating table”.

Lombard told French broadcaster BFMTV that the EU should not “reply with the same weapons” as the US, as reciprocal tariffs on US imports to Europe could hit European consumers.

Instead, Lombard said Europe was working on a package of response measures that could go “beyond tariffs”, including taxes or regulations to target “some businesses” but not “entire sectors”.

13 hours ago: European stocks’ decline resumes
Ian Smith in London

European stock markets opened lower on Friday after a brutal sell-off in the previous session.

The region-wide Stoxx 600 fell 1 per cent in early trading down, after Thursday’s 2.6 per cent fall.

Trevor Greetham, head of multi-asset at Royal London Asset Management, said investors had been unnerved by the tariffs assault, creating a “loss of confidence” in US policymaking. “If they are willing to set tariffs on what seems a really arbitrary and spurious calculation basis, what else are they willing to do?”

Futures markets are pointing to fresh drops on Wall Street today, but smaller declines compared with the previous session when US equities suffered their worst drop since 2020.

The blue-chip S&P 500 index is set to open 0.4 per cent lower, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 index 0.3 per cent down, according to current levels.

13 hours ago: Australia and New Zealand risk further exposure through China
William Sandlund in Hong Kong

Australia and New Zealand’s exposure to China’s economy, which is facing huge new tariffs, is causing concern among investors, said Tony Sycamore, a strategist at IG Australia.

The tariffs were a “huge burden for the Chinese economy”, Sycamore said. “If they devalue their currency that will flow through to the Aussie dollar.”

The two countries’ stock markets and currencies sold off on Friday.

13 hours ago: Australian and New Zealand dollars plunge amid trade slowdown fears
William Sandlund in Hong Kong

The currencies of Australia and New Zealand plunged on Friday as Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs raised alarm over a global slowdown in trade and economic growth.

The Australian dollar, among the world’s most traded currencies, weakened 1.4 per cent to A$0.624 per US dollar, while the New Zealand dollar fell 1.2 per cent to NZ$0.572.

The two economies are highly exposed to global demand, with Australia a key supplier of commodities to China and other emerging markets.

Fears of a slowdown in global trade have raised bets that the two countries’ central banks will cut rates sooner than expected.

Futures markets are pricing in a 25 basis point cut by the Reserve Bank of Australia at its next meeting in May despite a dovish hold this week.

Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 stock index dropped 2.4 per cent on Friday.

14 hours ago: Vietnam asks US to postpone 46% tariff
A. Anantha Lakshmi in Jakarta

Vietnam has asked the US to postpone the 46 per cent tariff imposed on the south-east Asian country by the Trump administration and engage in negotiations.

The manufacturing powerhouse, which has been slapped with one of the highest tariff rates, believes that “there is still room for discussion and negotiation” between the two sides, according to a government statement on Friday.

The tariffs would have a “negative impact” on Vietnam’s exports, the government said, adding that the ministry of industry and trade had sent a diplomatic note to the US asking for the postponement.

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

ft.com: Trump tariffs live:
Updated 6 minutes ago: 2:02 p.m.
S&P 500 closes 6% lower as global trade war rattles markets: Fed chief Jay Powell warns that Trump’s levies will slow US growth and increase inflations
Edited by William Sandlund, Jonathan Wheatley, Maxine Kelly, Zehra Munir, Alexandra White, Peter Wells
ft.com
https://www.ft.com/content/0147b09b-e31 ... fc2b7c0631

Editor's pick 6 minutes ago
S&P 500 closes 6% lower as Trump’s tariff announcement rattles markets
by George Steer in New York
4/4/25
https://www.ft.com/content/0147b09b-e31 ... fc2b7c0631

Wall Street stocks closed sharply lower as Donald Trump’s so-called liberation day tariffs continued to reverberate through financial markets and fan concerns about a global economic recession.

The S&P 500 ended Friday’s session down 6 per cent, with all 11 sectors in negative territory, after tumbling 4.8 per cent on Thursday. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite lost 5.8 per cent.

For the week, the S&P 500 dropped 9.1 per cent, and the Nasdaq dropped 10 per cent, their biggest weekly drops since March 2020.

[x]
Line chart of S&P 500 showing Tariff concerns drag Wall Street stocks to level hit last May

An hour ago: Wall Street stocks on course for worst week since 2020 Covid crisis
by Peter Wells in New York

US stocks were headed for their biggest weekly drop in five years, as China’s move to introduce retaliatory tariffs against the US kicked off a global trade war and spurred another steep sell-off in global equities markets.

The S&P 500 was down 5.4 per cent in afternoon trading on Friday, failing to recover from a 4.8 per cent drop on Thursday in the wake of Donald Trump’s ‘liberation day’ tariff announcement. The back-to-back drops are set to wipe about $5tn in market capitalisation from the benchmark index.

Investors received few concrete signs of imminent support from the Federal Reserve, as chair Jay Powell on Friday warned the tariff increases “will be significantly larger than expected” and would stoke “higher inflation and slower growth”.

The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite was down 5.5 per cent in afternoon trading. That followed a 6 per cent drop on Thursday, setting the stage for back-to-back declines of greater than 5 per cent for only the fourth time on record.

Over the past five sessions, the S&P 500 has declined 8.9 per cent and the Nasdaq has dropped 9.8 per cent. Those are on course to be the indices’ biggest weekly drops since March 2020.

The Nasdaq on Friday entered so-called bear market territory, meaning the index has fallen at least 20 per cent from a recent high. The Russell 2000 index, which tracks small-cap stocks that are more exposed to domestic growth, entered bear market territory on Thursday as investors fretted about the outlook for the US economy.

2 hours ago: Italy’s Meloni warns ‘panic and alarmism’ will exacerbate Trump tariff damage
Amy Kazmin in Rome

Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has warned “panic and alarmism” could exacerbate the economic damage from Trump’s tariffs.

The Bank of Italy on Friday cut the country’s 2025 GDP growth forecast by 0.2 percentage points, to 0.5 per cent, as US tariffs weigh on Italian exports over the next year.

But in a cabinet meeting, Meloni warned the effect could be amplified “if panic and negative expectations were to break out among consumers, thus leading to a contraction on consumption and business investments”.

She urged government institutions to “bring the discussion back to the real size of the problem”.

2 hours ago: Trump extends deadline for TikTok deal
Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that extends the deadline for ByteDance, the Chinese owner of TikTok, to divest the hugely popular video-sharing app and avoid a nationwide ban in the US.

Trump said on his Truth Social platform that he was extending the deadline, which had been Saturday, by 75 days. He said the extension was designed to allow US companies trying to acquire TikTok more time to finalise a deal.

“The Deal requires more work to ensure all necessary approvals are signed, which is why I am signing an Executive Order to keep TikTok up and running for an additional 75 days,” Trump wrote.

He said his administration hoped to “continue working in Good Faith with China” which he said were unhappy with the tariffs he imposed on imports from the country.

Donald Trump to extend deadline for TikTok deal in the US: Executive order would give video app’s Chinese owner another 75 days to find buyer before American ban takes effect

3 HOURS AGO: Updated 13:34. The president says the extension is designed to allow US companies trying to acquire TikTok more time to finalise a deal
Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington and Hannah Murphy in San Francisco

Donald Trump said he would sign an executive order extending the deadline for ByteDance, the Chinese owner of TikTok, to divest the popular video-sharing app’s US business and avoid a nationwide ban in America.

The US president said on his Truth Social platform on Friday he would push back the deadline, which had been Saturday, by 75 days, adding the extension was designed to allow American companies trying to acquire TikTok more time to finalise a deal.

“The Deal requires more work to ensure all necessary approvals are signed, which is why I am signing an Executive Order to keep TikTok up and running for an additional 75 days,” Trump wrote.

Under a law passed by Congress last year, ByteDance had until January 19 to divest TikTok to non-Chinese entities, but that month Trump issued an order extending the deadline by 90 days. His latest order extends the deadline by another 75 days.

Trump said he hoped to “continue working in Good Faith with China”, which he added was unhappy with duties he imposed on imports of Chinese goods on Wednesday as part of his “reciprocal tariffs”. China on Friday retaliated with a 34 per cent tariff on imports from the US.

China needs to approve any divestment of TikTok. It is unclear if Beijing will allow a divestment or let a US group secure control of the app’s algorithm.

“We do not want TikTok to ‘go dark’,” Trump added. “We look forward to working with TikTok and China to close the Deal.”

Trump suggested earlier this week he could reduce tariffs on Chinese goods in exchange for Beijing allowing ByteDance to divest TikTok.

He also said his team was “very close” to reaching a deal with multiple US investors that would enable TikTok to continue to operate in the US.

Trump has been forced to balance the security concerns that are core to the US TikTok legislation — which have long been raised by China hawks in Congress — and the huge support for the video-sharing app among younger users and his own success on the platform.

TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Alison Szalwinski, vice-president at The Asia Group, a consultancy, said any extension to the deadline would likely concern companies that offer cloud and app store services to TikTok, such as Apple, Google and Oracle for legal reasons.

Without a sale of TikTok, companies that distribute or host the app risk a fine of $5,000 per user, according to the legislation. “Companies are going to continue to be quite anxious,” Szalwinski said.

The White House has been weighing a proposal to spin off TikTok from ByteDance that would create a new US company that would receive fresh American investment to dilute the ownership stakes of Chinese investors, people familiar with the matter told the Financial Times earlier this week.

Under the terms of the proposal, a group of new investors including Andreessen Horowitz, Blackstone, Silver Lake and other big private capital groups would own about half of TikTok’s US business, the people said.

These people added large existing investors in TikTok — including General Atlantic, Susquehanna, KKR and Coatue — would hold 30 per cent of the new US business.

ByteDance would retain a stake at just below 20 per cent, which would satisfy a requirement in the TikTok legislation that no more than a fifth of the company be controlled by a “foreign adversary”.

One crucial issue is who would control TikTok’s sought-after algorithm. One option under discussion involves ByteDance continuing to develop and operate the algorithm, which has been a central demand of China’s government, while the new US group could access it through a licensing agreement.

But that could spark concern on Capitol Hill where many lawmakers insist China does not have control over the algorithm.

The Republican lawmakers on the House China committee, which was instrumental in passing the TikTok legislation, on Friday said any deal “must ensure that US law is followed, and that the Chinese Communist party does not have access to American user data or the ability to manipulate the content consumer by Americans”.

“We stand firm in our position and look forward to more details from the administration to ensure that any deal aligns with national security and US law,” the Republican members said in their statement.

3 hours ago: Nike and Lululemon shares rise after Trump’s comments on Vietnam tariffs
Zehra Munir in New York

Several North American retailers with a significant manufacturing presence in Vietnam have enjoyed a share price recovery, after Donald Trump posted positively about a conversation on tariffs he had with the southeast Asian nation’s leader.

Shares of Nike, which has more than 100 supplier-factories in Vietnam, was up 3.8 per cent at lunchtime on Friday afternoon. Those of Lululemon, whose products are manufactured mostly in Vietnam, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Bangladesh, rose 1 per cent.

Shares of Ralph Lauren, Versace owner Capri Holdings and luxury furniture maker RH were still down on Friday, but had trimmed their declines from earlier in the day.

They were among stocks that tumbled during the market rout of the past two days.

3 hours ago: Absence of rebound after S&P 500’s tumble raises concern about sell-off
Peter Wells in New York

US stocks are struggling to bounce back from Thursday’s hefty 4.8 per cent drop, representing something of a contrast to recent history and potentially suggesting investor concerns about how entrenched the recent market turmoil could become.

Thursday marked the 13th time in the past 10 years that the S&P 500 dropped at least 4 per cent. In the 12 previous sessions, Wall Street’s benchmark index had closed higher the following day, according to Financial Times calculations.

On Friday, the S&P 500 was down 5.2 per cent during lunchtime trading.

[x]
Bar chart of Daily drops of 4% for the S&P 500 over the past decade and index performance, %, the following session showing Big Wall Street drops have often been followed by a recovery

Analysing the S&P 500’s almost 24,500 trading sessions starting in 1928 leading up to Thursday’s drop, there have been 155 trading days when the index has dropped at least 4 per cent. In 16 of those instances the index has followed up with another 4-plus per cent drop.

4 hours ago: French business chief warns tariffs could threaten ‘hundreds of thousands’ of jobs
Adrienne Klasa in Paris

The president of French business association Medef has said US President Donald Trump’s tariffs could threaten “hundreds of thousands” of jobs in the country.

Patrick Martin on Friday said industries from aerospace to agribusiness could be hit if the US persists with its trade policies. “It could be very painful,” he told BFMTV on Friday.

However, he said that while business leaders in the US were “keeping their heads down” for now, the American people may act as a break on the administration.

“Ultimately, it’s America’s citizens who will be our best allies . . . they have lost billions and billions of dollars in recent days from their retirement savings,” he said. “Donald Trump’s popularity curve deteriorates in parallel with the stock market.”

4 hours ago: Amazon on track for biggest weekly loss in more than 2 years
Rafe Uddin in San Francisco

Amazon has been one of the hardest hit technology companies during this week’s market sell-off, as investors grapple with its dependency on China to stock warehouses and fulfil orders through its “Haul” app.

The Seattle-based conglomerate’s shares sold off 9 per cent on Thursday and it has since slid further in midday trading in New York, putting it on track for its biggest weekly loss since November 2022.

Amazon sources roughly a quarter of the products it sells from China, according to Morgan Stanley estimates.

The ecommerce giant’s “Haul” brand — which ships goods directly from warehouses in China — will be hit by tariffs and the removal of de minimis exemptions on imports from the country, also announced by Trump on Wednesday. The so-called de minimis rules exempt shipments under $800 from duties.

4 hours ago: Federal Reserve’s Powell warns levies will boost inflation and slow growth
James Politi in Washington

Federal Reserve chair Jay Powell has warned that Donald Trump’s tariffs will stoke “higher inflation and slower growth” as the president’s plans for steep levies on the US’s trading partners shake global financial markets.

“It is now becoming clear that the tariff increases will be significantly larger than expected,” Powell said in prepared remarks to a conference in Virginia on Friday. “The same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth.”

He also highlighted that risks to unemployment, which has remained subdued in recent months, were rising.

Powell’s remarks come after Trump’s announcement on Wednesday of a universal 10 per cent tariff and much bigger duties on many key trading partners has sent markets reeling. Wall Street’s S&P 500 has sustained two days of heavy selling, leaving the blue-chip index on track for its worst week since the pandemic shut large swaths of the economy in 2020.

Trump, prior to Powell’s remarks, said on his Truth Social platform: “This would be a PERFECT time for Fed Chairman Jerome Powell to cut Interest Rates.”

Powell stressed that “uncertainty” was high in terms of “what will be tariffed, at what level and for what duration, and the extent of retaliation from our trading partners”.

He said in a later press conference: “It feels like we don’t need to be in a hurry. It feels like we have time,” signalling that the central bank is minded to keep its main interest rate at its current range between 4.25 per cent and 4.5 per cent until there is more clarity about the fallout.

Powell added: “Inflation is going to be moving up and growth is going to be slowing but to me it is not clear at this time what the appropriate path for monetary policy will be.”

He also noted that “while tariffs are highly likely to generate at least a temporary rise in inflation, it is also possible that the effects could be more persistent”.

4 hours ago: UK and European stocks notch biggest daily drop since 2020
Ian Smith in London

European stocks chalked up their biggest daily drop since the Covid-19 pandemic shut down the global economy.

The Stoxx Europe 600 closed 5.1 per cent lower as China’s announcement it will retaliate against US tariffs signalled the start of an unpredictable and economically damaging trade war.

The UK’s FTSE 100 dropped 5 per cent, also its worst day since 2020, while the pound was 1.4 per cent weaker against the dollar.

“I think we have crossed a bridge and this is increasingly looking like a full-blown trade war,” said Guy Miller, chief market strategist at insurer Zurich.

“This approach by the [US] administration, built on misguided economic policy, is disturbing and I don’t think priced by investors.”

4 hours ago: Nasdaq enters bear market as tariff concerns mount
George Steer in New York

The Nasdaq Composite entered so-called bear market territory, leaving it down more than a fifth since a high in mid-February, as tech stocks led a tariff-induced Wall Street sell-off.

The index was 4.6 per cent lower around lunchtime in New York, taking its decline from a recent high in mid-December to more than 21 per cent.

Line chart of Nasdaq Composite index showing US tech stocks enter bear market on tariff concerns
A bear market is typically defined as a drop of 20 per cent or more from a high.

Nvidia, Apple and Broadcom tumbled 6.9 per cent, 4.2 per cent and 6.5 per cent, respectively. Netflix shed 5 per cent, while Palantir dropped more than 9 per cent. Arm Holdings fell 7.7 per cent.

4 hours ago: Klarna pauses plans for $15bn New York IPO in wake of tariffs
Akila Quinio in London

Klarna has paused plans to launch a long-awaited $15bn New York IPO because of market turbulence in the US in the wake of President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging tariffs announcements.

The Swedish “buy now, pay later” fintech was set to launch its so-called IPO “roadshow” to investors next week, but the sell-off in US stocks has put the plans on ice, said a person familiar with the plans.

Klarna filed for an IPO in the US this year.

A person familiar with Klarna’s strategy said the company was under no regulatory obligation to float within a specific timeframe and that the listing could happen in several weeks’ time.

5 HOURS AGO; Updated 10:16. Companies pause US offering plans as Trump tariffs tank markets: IPO market had begun to show some signs of life but levies forced groups hoping to go public to hold off
Akila Quinio and Arash Massoudi in London and Oliver Barnes and George Steer in New York

A number of upcoming US initial public offerings, including $15bn fintech Klarna and $50bn medtech company Medline, have been postponed as Donald Trump’s aggressive tariffs roil global financial markets, according to people familiar with the matter.

“Buy now, pay later” company Klarna, private equity-backed surgical products company Medline and ticket company StubHub intended to go public but those plans have now been put on hold due to market turbulence, according to people familiar with the matter. All the companies had confidentially filed plans to list shares in recent months.

Once a company publicly files their IPO paperwork with the Securities and Exchange Commission, they put themselves on a footing to launch an investor roadshow after 15 days. Klarna was planning to publicly launch its $15bn listing next week, while Medline, which is backed by Blackstone and Carlyle, planned to file publicly earlier this week, aiming at a valuation of approaching $50bn, but both listings have now been delayed indefinitely.

Ticketing company StubHub and virtual physical therapy company Hinge Health publicly filed their paperwork last month and were planning to start their investor roadshows early in April, but were now holding off before starting talks with potential investors, sources said. The companies were under no obligation to float within a specific timeframe and the listing could still happen in the weeks ahead, the people added.

The US IPO market had begun to show some signs of life in recent weeks following a three-year dry spell induced by higher interest rates, with data centre operator CoreWeave earlier this month tabling the biggest tech offering since Arm Holdings in 2023.

But market volatility unleashed by Trump’s tariffs announcement has knocked equity markets and forced many companies that were hoping to go public to hold off. That marks a stark turnaround from the start of the year, when many bankers had said they expected the IPO market to boom under an ostensibly pro-business Republican administration.

Global markets have plunged since Trump announced sweeping tariffs on US trade partners this week. The losses were extended on Friday as China announced retaliatory measures and investors took fright at the prospect of a full-blown global trade war.

5 HOURS AGO. Updated 10:16: After Beijing’s announcement, the S&P 500 was down 4.2 per cent and the Europe-wide Stoxx 600 fell 5.1 per cent.
Akila Quinio and Arash Massoudi in London and Oliver Barnes and George Steer in New York

A number of upcoming US initial public offerings, including $15bn fintech Klarna and $50bn medtech company Medline, have been postponed as Donald Trump’s aggressive tariffs roil global financial markets, according to people familiar with the matter.

“Buy now, pay later” company Klarna, private equity-backed surgical products company Medline and ticket company StubHub intended to go public but those plans have now been put on hold due to market turbulence, according to people familiar with the matter. All the companies had confidentially filed plans to list shares in recent months.

Once a company publicly files their IPO paperwork with the Securities and Exchange Commission, they put themselves on a footing to launch an investor roadshow after 15 days. Klarna was planning to publicly launch its $15bn listing next week, while Medline, which is backed by Blackstone and Carlyle, planned to file publicly earlier this week, aiming at a valuation of approaching $50bn, but both listings have now been delayed indefinitely.

Ticketing company StubHub and virtual physical therapy company Hinge Health publicly filed their paperwork last month and were planning to start their investor roadshows early in April, but were now holding off before starting talks with potential investors, sources said. The companies were under no obligation to float within a specific timeframe and the listing could still happen in the weeks ahead, the people added.

The US IPO market had begun to show some signs of life in recent weeks following a three-year dry spell induced by higher interest rates, with data centre operator CoreWeave earlier this month tabling the biggest tech offering since Arm Holdings in 2023.

2 HOURS AGO: Trump’s aggressive push to roll back globalisation

But market volatility unleashed by Trump’s tariffs announcement has knocked equity markets and forced many companies that were hoping to go public to hold off. That marks a stark turnaround from the start of the year, when many bankers had said they expected the IPO market to boom under an ostensibly pro-business Republican administration.

Global markets have plunged since Trump announced sweeping tariffs on US trade partners this week. The losses were extended on Friday as China announced retaliatory measures and investors took fright at the prospect of a full-blown global trade war.

After Beijing’s announcement, the S&P 500 was down 4.2 per cent and the Europe-wide Stoxx 600 fell 5.1 per cent.

4 hours ago: Investors pull back on rate cut expectations after Powell tariff comments
Kate Duguid in New York

Investors pulled back on rate cut expectations this year after Federal Reserve chair Jay Powell said that Donald Trump’s tariffs would spur “higher inflation and slower growth”.

Traders in the futures market were pricing in roughly four quarter-point interest rate cuts this year just before midday in New York, compared to the nearly five they expected this morning before Powell’s speech and the release of strong US jobs data.

The two-year Treasury yield, which moves with interest rate expectations, rose modestly, though remained lower on the day.

5 hours ago: Hedge fund equity sales on Thursday in line with 2020 pandemic sell-off — Morgan Stanley
Harriet Agnew in London

Hedge funds sold equity positions on Thursday at a level in line with the US regional bank unwind in 2023 and the Covid-19 sell-off in 2020, according to a new weekly report by Morgan Stanley’s prime brokerage divisions.

The bank said that the selling “amounted to the fifth largest day of active net reductions since 2010” and that the magnitude of selling across equities on Thursday was in line with the largest seen on record.

The sectors that experienced the most selling were megacap technology, names exposed to AI across software and semiconductors, high-end consumer, and investment banks. This drove US long/short equity fund net leverage down to an 18-month low of around 42 per cent.

Thursday was the worst day for US-based long/short equity funds since it began tracking the data in 2016, with the average fund down 2.6 per cent, Morgan Stanley said.

5 hours ago: Nintendo halts US orders of new Switch 2 console to assess tariff impact
Tim Bradshaw in London

Nintendo has halted US orders of its new Switch 2 console, just two days after it was unveiled, in the wake of the Trump administration’s tariff blitz.

The Japanese video games group “will not start” accepting advance orders for Switch 2 on April 9 as originally scheduled, “in order to assess the potential impact of tariffs and evolving market conditions”, the company said on Friday.

Nintendo said its scheduled launch date of June 5 was “unchanged”.

During Wednesday’s launch, the Mario and Zelda creator said that its hotly anticipated new console would go on sale for $450 in the US. “Nintendo will update [pre-order] timing at a later date,” the company said.

5 hours ago: Vietnam wants to cut its ‘tariffs down to zero’, Trump says
Zehra Munir in London

Donald Trump said that Vietnam’s leader told him the country “wants to cut their tariffs down to ZERO” if they are able to reach an agreement with the US, two days after the American president unveiled a 46 per cent levy on imports from the south-east Asian nation.

The US president said he had a “very productive call” with To Lam, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, and the two would be meeting “in the near future”.

[x]
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump 15m
Just had a very productive call with To Lam, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, who told me that Vietnam wants to cut their Tariffs down to ZERO if they are able to make an agreement with the U.S. I thanked him on behalf of our Country, and said I look forward to a meeting in the near future.

Vietnam was hit by one of the highest tariff rates when Trump unveiled his sweeping trade policy changes at the White House on Wednesday.

5 hours ago: Trump calls on Fed to cut rates and accuses Powell of ‘playing politics’
Steff Chávez in Washington

Donald Trump renewed his calls on the US Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, accusing chair Jay Powell of “playing politics” with monetary policy, as the president’s sweeping tariffs continue to rattle global markets.

“This would be a PERFECT time for Fed Chairman Jerome Powell to cut Interest Rates”, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Friday.

Powell is due to speak at 11.25am Eastern time in what will be his first public comments since Trump’s “liberation day” tariff announcement on Wednesday.

“He is always ‘late,’ but he could now change his image, and quickly”, Trump said of Powell. “Energy prices are down, Interest Rates are down, Inflation is down, even Eggs are down 69%, and Jobs are UP, all within two months — A BIG WIN for America.”

5 hours ago: Wall Street volatility index surges to highest level in seven months
George Steer in New York

Wall Street’s so-called fear gauge on Friday surged to its highest level in seven months as US stocks continued to slide on fears over Donald Trump’s tariffs.

[x]
Line chart of Cboe 'Vix' volatility index showing Wall Street ‘fear gauge’ leaps to seven-month high

The Vix index, which tracks the expected turbulence of the blue-chip S&P 500, stood at 44.2 by mid-morning in New York, the highest intraday level since a bout of volatility hit markets last August and far above its long-running average of 20.

5 hours ago: US stocks on course for biggest weekly drop in 5 years
Peter Wells in New York

Further declines for US stocks in the wake of the Trump administration’s tariff announcements are lining up Wall Street’s main equities indices for their biggest weekly drops in more than five years.

The S&P 500 was down 4.1 per cent during morning trading on Friday, taking the benchmark index’s decline this week to 7.2 per cent. If that is maintained at the closing bell, it would rank as the biggest weekly drop since March 2020.

The Nasdaq Composite is on course for an 8.9 per cent drop this week, which would also rank as its biggest since March 2020 and its third biggest of the past decade.

[x]
Bar chart of Biggest weekly drops for S&P 500, %, past 10 years showing Tariff turmoil has set up US stocks for a big weekly drop

5 hours ago: US stocks resume fall as investors lose confidence on global growth
George Steer

Global stocks extended their losses on Friday after China retaliated against Donald Trump’s tariff blitz, as investors took fright at the prospect of a full-blown global trade war.

The S&P 500 fell 4 per cent and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite lost 4.5 per cent in morning trading on Friday, a day after the steepest decline for Wall Street stocks since the coronavirus crisis in 2020.

Europe’s Stoxx 600 index was down 5 per cent, with losses accelerating after Beijing’s announcement, pulling the Europe-wide benchmark into correction territory. Germany’s Dax tumbled 4.7 per cent. The FTSE 100 slumped 4.8 per cent.

Oil prices continued to fall, with Brent crude down 7.5 per cent at $64.88 a barrel.

“The market is doing one thing: pricing in a global recession,” said Deutsche Bank analyst George Saravelos.

Government bond yields tumbled as investors sought haven assets, with the 10-year US Treasury falling 0.13 percentage points to 3.92 per cent.

Federal Reserve chair Jay Powell will deliver a speech in the US morning. Futures markets are pricing in four quarter-point interest rate cuts from the Fed by the end of this year, up from the three that were expected before Wednesday’s tariffs announcement.

6 hours ago: Bank and energy companies among hardest hit stocks
George Steer in New York

Banks and energy companies were among those hardest hit on Friday as Wall Street stocks continued to slide on tariff concerns and fears of slower global economic growth.

The KBW Bank index, one of the most widely tracked measures of the performance of the US banking sector, lost 7.1 per cent, with Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley all down more than 6 per cent.

Energy companies GE Vernova, Constellation Energy and Vistra all dropped more than 11 per cent as oil prices plunged. By mid-morning in New York, 469 of the S&P 500’s constituent stocks were in negative territory.

6 hours ago: Oil prices extend losses, with US oil falling faster than global benchmark
Kate Duguid in New York

Oil prices slid on Friday as markets deteriorated in the wake of China’s announcement of retaliatory tariffs against the US.

Brent crude, the international oil benchmark, was down 7.3 per cent in mid-morning trade in New York, at $65 a barrel. WTI, the US oil benchmark, was down more, 8.1 per cent lower on Friday morning at $61.65 a barrel. The difference between the two was widening, with US oil falling faster than oil prices in the rest of the world.

6 hours ago: Irish workers face imminent cut in job hours, business group chief says
Jude Webber in Dublin

Some Irish companies might put workers on reduced hours within days, the head of the country’s biggest employer confederation said, as businesses adjust to US tariffs.

Ibec chief executive Danny McCoy said he had stressed the need for temporary government support for affected workers, during a meeting of business and government leaders on Friday.

“There is immediacy for firms this weekend to know that their demand is likely to drop quite substantially and their workers will need to go on short-time working,” McCoy told reporters, explaining his call for “time-bound” government help. He said fast-moving consumer product industries such as drinks could be affected.

7 hours ago: Global stock rout intensifies after China retaliates
Ian Smith in London and Arjun Neil Alim in Hong Kong

Global stocks extended their losses on Friday after China retaliated against Donald Trump’s tariff blitz, as investors took fright at the prospect of a full-blown global trade war.

The S&P 500 index fell 3 per cent in early trading in New York, a day after suffering its biggest one-day drop since 2020. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite fell 3.3 per cent.

The Stoxx Europe 600 index was down 4.3 per cent, with losses accelerating after Beijing’s announcement, pulling the Europe-wide benchmark into correction territory. Germany’s Dax was down 4.1 per cent. The FTSE 100 was down 3.9 per cent.

Oil prices continued to fall, with Brent crude down 7.5 per cent at $64.88 a barrel.

“The market is doing one thing: pricing in a global recession,” said Deutsche Bank analyst George Saravelos.

Government bond yields tumbled as investors sought haven assets, with the 10-year US Treasury falling 0.13 percentage points to 3.92 per cent.

Federal Reserve chair Jay Powell will deliver a speech in the US morning. Futures markets are pricing in four quarter-point interest rate cuts from the Fed by the end of this year, up from the three that were expected before Wednesday’s tariffs announcement.

The dollar was down 0.3 per cent against a basket of peers.

7 hours ago: Traders raise bets on rate cuts
Ian Smith

Traders have moved in the past couple of days to price in extra interest rate cuts by major central banks, including the Federal Reserve.

According to levels implied by swaps markets, traders are now pricing in three quarter-point cuts by the end of this year from the Bank of England, from its current rate of 4.5 per cent. They expected two cuts before Trump’s tariffs action.

And for the European Central Bank, traders are now expecting three or four quarter-point cuts from the current 2.5 per cent. Earlier in the week that was two or three cuts.

This has fuelled a rally in UK and Eurozone government bonds, taking the 10-year gilt yield below 4.5 per cent.

7 hours ago: Trump vows that his policies will ‘never change’
Jonathan Wheatley in London

Donald Trump has vowed that his policies will never change, two days after announcing sweeping tariffs on trading partners and hours after China retaliated by putting 34 per cent tariffs on imports from the US.

The US president made the promise in an all-caps post on his Truth Social platform on Friday morning.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
TO THE MANY INVESTORS COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES AND INVESTING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY, MY POLICIES WILL NEVER CHANGE. THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO GET RICH, RICHER THAN EVER BEFORE!!!
Apr 04, 2025, 1:44 PM

7 hours ago: China launches antitrust probe into US chemicals giant DuPont
Edward White in Shanghai

China has launched an antitrust probe into US chemicals giant DuPont, part of a barrage of retaliatory measures against duties unveiled by President Donald Trump this week.

China’s top market regulator, the State Administration for Market Regulation, announced on Friday night that DuPont China Group, a subsidiary of the US company DuPont, was under investigation for suspected monopolistic practices in violation of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law.

The antitrust probe came as China has announced additional tariffs of 34 per cent on all US imports, tightened export controls on rare earth elements to the US and added a group of American technology companies to its “unreliable entity” list, which bans Chinese suppliers from selling components to them.

8 hours ago: US economy surpasses expectations to add 228,000 jobs in March
James Politi in Washington

The US economy added 228,000 jobs in March, surpassing expectations, in a sign of resilience despite the Trump administration’s sweeping cuts to the federal workforce.

Friday’s figure from the Bureau of Labor Statistics exceeded both February’s increase of 151,000 posts and the 135,000 forecast by economists polled by Reuters.

The so-called Department of Government Efficiency has led President Donald Trump’s charge to axe tens of thousands of positions in an aggressive effort to slim down the federal bureaucracy.

The jobs figure comes as the Federal Reserve considers how to respond to the twin threats of lacklustre growth and persistent inflation, both of which economists say could be exacerbated by the global tariffs unveiled by Trump this week.

8 hours ago: Dollar turns negative as investors anticipate more Fed cuts
Ian Smith in London

The US dollar has given up the gains it made earlier on Friday, as traders intensify their bets on faster US interest rate cuts to support the world’s biggest economy through the deepening global trade conflict.

Traders are betting that five quarter-point cuts by the Federal Reserve are likely by the end of this year, compared with the three that were expected before Trump’s tariffs move.

This has helped to drag the dollar down against its peers, putting it fractionally lower on the day after Thursday’s 1.7 per cent decline.

8 hours ago: Nato’s Rutte says Trump tariffs do not breach alliance rules
Henry Foy in Brussels

Trump’s tariffs on European allies and Canada do not violate Nato’s internal rules on economic relations within the military alliance, its head said on Friday.

Mark Rutte, Nato’s secretary-general, told reporters that he believed the tariffs did not breach the alliance’s Article 2, which states that members “will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them”.

9 hours ago: Bank stocks among biggest fallers for European equities
Ian Smith in London

Shares in European banks are sliding as investors rush to price in a burgeoning trade war and a hit to the global economy.

Banco de Sabadell fell 12 per cent by lunchtime, while Société Générale was down 11 per cent, and Santander slid 10 per cent.

Reinsurance group Scor also fell 12 per cent, and forklift truckmaker Kion Group was down 13 per cent as exporters struggled.

[x]
Line chart of Share price and index rebased in € terms showing European banks take a hit as investors reposition

9 hours ago: Oil prices slide as China retaliation ramps up trade war fears
Philip Stafford in London

Oil prices dropped sharply on Friday after China announced retaliatory tariffs on the US, fanning fears of a trade war that would curb global economic growth.

Brent crude, the international benchmark, lost 6.1 per cent to $65.85 a barrel while WTI, its US counterpart, shed 6.6 per cent to $62.53.

The benchmarks have dropped more than 13 per cent since the US announced sweeping tariffs on Wednesday.

Goldman Sachs on Friday cut its price target for the year for Brent by $5 to $62 a barrel and warned that “price volatility is likely to stay elevated on higher recession risk”.

9 hours ago: Which US goods will be hit by Chinese tariffs?
Jonathan Vincent

[x]

9 hours ago: European equities enter correction territory as China hits back against tariffs
Ian Smith in London

European stocks are now in correction territory, having dropped more than 10 per cent since their high last month, as China’s retaliation on Friday pushes the world towards a full-blown trade war.

[x]
European stocks enter correction territory

The Stoxx 600 is down 11 per cent from its March high, while Germany’s stock market has fallen 12 per cent since its peak a couple of weeks ago.

China has announced that it will impose additional tariffs of 34 per cent on imports from the US from April 10.

10 hours ago: Global markets fall further as China retaliates
Ian Smith in London

Global stock markets extended their losses on Friday after China said it would impose retaliatory tariffs on the US.

Futures tracking the S&P 500 fell 2 per cent. The Stoxx Europe 600 was down 4.4 per cent in late-morning trading in London, while the FTSE 100 fell 2.6 per cent. Germany’s Dax dropped 4.8 per cent.

Investors continued to sweep into US Treasuries, pushing the yield down 0.15 percentage points on the day to just below 3.9 per cent, the lowest since early October.

10 hours ago: China announces 34% retaliatory tariffs on US
Eleanor Olcott in Beijing

China has announced that it will impose additional tariffs of 34 per cent on imports from the US in retaliation for duties of the same amount unveiled by President Donald Trump this week as part of his aggressive trade agenda.

The Ministry of Commerce said on Friday that the tariff would be imposed on all imported goods originating from the US from April 10.

Levies on Chinese exports are set to rise to more than 60 per cent after the US president announced “reciprocal” tariffs of 34 per cent that come on top of existing tariffs.

Beijing denounced the new US duties as “a typical unilateral bullying move”.

10 hours ago: Free trade has kept west ‘secure’, Belgian PM tells US state secretary
Henry Foy in Brussels

Belgium’s prime minister used a meeting with US secretary of state Marco Rubio to remind him that free trade has “kept the western world secure”.

Bart De Wever said in a statement after meeting Rubio in Brussels that he “expressed our country’s hope that the unfortunate trade dispute between the US and Europe may soon end”.

“Let us maintain and strengthen the Transatlantic partnership and free trade relations which have kept the western world secure and prosperous throughout recent history,” De Wever added.

11 hours ago: JCB to double size of US factory as company ‘galvanised’ by Trump
Maxine Kelly in London

UK tractor and machinery maker JCB has said it will double the size of a new factory in Texas as it seeks to mitigate the effects of Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The company said on Friday that it would double the size of a planned plant in San Antonio, Texas, to 1mn sq ft after Trump imposed a 10 per cent tariff on imports from the UK.

Lord Anthony Bamford, JCB’s chair, said: “President Trump has galvanised us into evaluating how we can make even more products in the USA.”

Graeme Macdonald, the group’s chief executive, warned the tariffs would have “a significant impact” on its business in the short term, which the factory expansion would help to mitigate.

11 hours ago: Sterling drops as risk asset sell-off bites
Ian Smith in London

The pound fell 0.9 per cent on Friday to $1.297, as the global currency market recoils after Thursday’s dramatic sell-off in the dollar.

Currencies that often do worse in times of falling stocks and commodity prices, including the pound and the Australian dollar, have weakened, while the US dollar has stabilised.

The pound is “getting hit by the intensifying sell-off in risk assets”, said Lee Hardman, senior currency analyst at MUFG. “Of the major currencies, it is more sensitive to periods of risk aversion.”

The euro, considered less sensitive to equity falls, is down 0.6 per cent after yesterday’s dizzying rally.

The Australian dollar is down 2 per cent today, its worst fall in two years, to $0.62.

[x]
Line chart of $ per £ showing Pound gives up Thursday's gains

11 hours ago: Oil price dips as investors grapple with tariffs and concerns of oversupply
Alan Livsey in London

Brent crude fell 3.7 per cent to $67.54 per barrel on Friday morning, its lowest price since August 2021, as traders fret over a slowdown in world economic growth following this week’s US trade tariff announcements.

[x]
Line chart of Brent crude, $ per barrel showing Oil hits four-and-a-half-year low. Brent crude, $ per barrel

An unexpected decision by the Opec+ cartel to increase crude output on Thursday has added to concerns that world oil markets will be oversupplied this year.

Brent has now fallen about 10 per cent since Monday. The price remains far below the $90 per barrel fiscal break-even needed by leading Opec+ producer Saudi Arabia to cover its heavy investment needs, according to data from the US Federal Reserve.

12 hours ago: L&G warns US recession now more likely in next 12 months
Emma Dunkley in London

Legal & General has warned of an “increased probability” of a US recession over the next 12 months in the wake of Donald Trump’s sweeping new tariffs on imports.

Sonja Laud, chief investment officer of asset management at L&G, told the Financial Times that “the headwinds to growth from trade disruption, uncertainty and reduced confidence” could “have a much larger impact than suggested by estimates based on the direct cost of tariffs alone”.

Laud also warned that the “blanket approach” to tariffs made it more likely that costs would be passed on to consumers rather than absorbed by exporters, boosting inflation.

12 hours ago: Irish premier warns pharma tariffs would slow investment ‘very significantly’
Jude Webber in Dublin

Ireland’s premier acknowledged that likely US tariffs on the pharmaceutical sector would hit the country’s key industry and slow investment.

Pharmaceutical exports make up 61 per cent of Ireland’s €73bn exports to the US but the sector avoided tariffs in the US president’s initial announcement this week. Levies on the sector are anticipated at a later date.

“New investments are going to slow very significantly,” Taoiseach Micheál Martin told RTÉ radio ahead of a day of meetings between government and labour and business leaders.

But he said reshoring either the pharma, tech or semiconductors industries to the US would be problematic for America, which had a “huge shortage” of human capital. “Reshoring pharma is not something practical or reasonable, and similarly semiconductors.”

13 hours ago: Treasury minister rebuts Trump claim that Starmer ‘very happy’ with UK tariff
George Parker in London

A British Treasury minister has denied claims by Donald Trump that UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer was “very happy” to see a 10 per cent tariff slapped on his country’s exports to America.

James Murray said: “We are disappointed that global tariffs have been introduced. We know that they will have an impact on Britain and around the world.”

Trump told reporters on Air Force One that he thought Starmer was “very happy about how we treated them with tariffs”. The UK was hit with the lowest baseline tariff, along with many other countries, and half the 20 per cent rate applied to the EU.

Murray said Britain’s priority now was to negotiate a trade deal with Trump “at pace”. He told the BBC: “We want to see the additional tariffs removed.”

13 hours ago: Switzerland’s president vows to act ‘quickly’ in response to tariffs
Mercedes Ruehl in Zurich

Switzerland’s President Karin Keller-Sutter said the country was considering its next steps and would act “quickly” after the small Alpine country was hit with a 32 per cent tariff on Swiss exports to the US.

Keller-Sutter said in a post on X late on Thursday night that “adherence to international law and free trade remained core values”.

The tariffs for Switzerland are far higher than the 20 per cent faced by the EU and many other countries.

[x]
White House announced new tariffs covering more than 150 countries and territories. Announced April 2 tariff rate, by country

13 hours ago: US-Canada relationship will ‘never be the same again’, Canadian minister says
Henry Foy in Brussels

The US-Canada relationship will “never be the same again” after Donald Trump’s trade tariffs, Canada’s foreign minister Mélanie Joly said on Friday.

“And this is my message to Europeans: the relationship will never be the same. [The US] wants to do things differently,” Joly told reporters as she arrived at a meeting of Nato foreign affairs ministers in Brussels.

President Trump “respects strength”, Joly said, referring to Canadian counter-tariffs imposed as a way to reach a deal. “We are putting maximum pressure on the Trump administration, and at the same time we are finding off-ramps.”

She added Canada and Europe needed to send a message to “the American people” to convince Trump to change track.

13 hours ago: Japan’s prime minister calls tariffs a ‘national crisis’
Leo Lewis in Tokyo

Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba described the imposition of across-the-board US tariffs as a “national crisis” as bond yields logged one of their biggest weekly drops in three decades and Tokyo stocks endured their worst five-day run since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Ishiba told parliament on Friday that the government was discussing countermeasures against the 24 per cent levy that Donald Trump’s administration has calculated for Japan — moves, he said, that could include retaliatory tariffs or mounting an action via the World Trade Organization.

In a rare meeting of a type generally reserved for natural disasters and other significant crises, Ishiba is due to meet leaders of the main opposition parties later on Friday for joint talks on how Japan will address the tariffs.

13 hours ago: French finance minister says Europe targeting ‘proportionate’ tariff response
Ian Johnston in Paris

French finance minister Éric Lombard said that Europe would enact a “proportionate response” to Donald Trump’s tariffs aimed at bringing the US to the “negotiating table”.

Lombard told French broadcaster BFMTV that the EU should not “reply with the same weapons” as the US, as reciprocal tariffs on US imports to Europe could hit European consumers.

Instead, Lombard said Europe was working on a package of response measures that could go “beyond tariffs”, including taxes or regulations to target “some businesses” but not “entire sectors”.

13 hours ago: European stocks’ decline resumes
Ian Smith in London

European stock markets opened lower on Friday after a brutal sell-off in the previous session.

The region-wide Stoxx 600 fell 1 per cent in early trading down, after Thursday’s 2.6 per cent fall.

Trevor Greetham, head of multi-asset at Royal London Asset Management, said investors had been unnerved by the tariffs assault, creating a “loss of confidence” in US policymaking. “If they are willing to set tariffs on what seems a really arbitrary and spurious calculation basis, what else are they willing to do?”

Futures markets are pointing to fresh drops on Wall Street today, but smaller declines compared with the previous session when US equities suffered their worst drop since 2020.

The blue-chip S&P 500 index is set to open 0.4 per cent lower, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 index 0.3 per cent down, according to current levels.

14 hours ago: Australia and New Zealand risk further exposure through China
William Sandlund in Hong Kong

Australia and New Zealand’s exposure to China’s economy, which is facing huge new tariffs, is causing concern among investors, said Tony Sycamore, a strategist at IG Australia.

The tariffs were a “huge burden for the Chinese economy”, Sycamore said. “If they devalue their currency that will flow through to the Aussie dollar.”

The two countries’ stock markets and currencies sold off on Friday.

14 hours ago: Australian and New Zealand dollars plunge amid trade slowdown fears
William Sandlund in Hong Kong

The currencies of Australia and New Zealand plunged on Friday as Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs raised alarm over a global slowdown in trade and economic growth.

The Australian dollar, among the world’s most traded currencies, weakened 1.4 per cent to A$0.624 per US dollar, while the New Zealand dollar fell 1.2 per cent to NZ$0.572.

The two economies are highly exposed to global demand, with Australia a key supplier of commodities to China and other emerging markets.

Fears of a slowdown in global trade have raised bets that the two countries’ central banks will cut rates sooner than expected.

Futures markets are pricing in a 25 basis point cut by the Reserve Bank of Australia at its next meeting in May despite a dovish hold this week.

Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 stock index dropped 2.4 per cent on Friday.

14 hours ago: Vietnam asks US to postpone 46% tariff
A. Anantha Lakshmi in Jakarta

Vietnam has asked the US to postpone the 46 per cent tariff imposed on the south-east Asian country by the Trump administration and engage in negotiations.

The manufacturing powerhouse, which has been slapped with one of the highest tariff rates, believes that “there is still room for discussion and negotiation” between the two sides, according to a government statement on Friday.

The tariffs would have a “negative impact” on Vietnam’s exports, the government said, adding that the ministry of industry and trade had sent a diplomatic note to the US asking for the postponement.

14 hours ago: Florida business files lawsuit over tariffs
Stefania Palma and Aime Williams in Washington

A small business in Florida has sued the US government to block tariffs on China, the first legal challenge against the flurry of duties rolled out by Donald Trump.

Simplified, which sells planners and relies on Chinese suppliers, on Thursday filed a complaint accusing the Trump administration of illegally using emergency powers to impose tariffs on all imports from China.

In February and March, Trump levied a total of 20 per cent additional tariffs on China, arguing that threats stemming from immigration and illicit fentanyl constituted a “national emergency” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

The statute “does not authorise the President to impose tariffs”, said the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is representing Simplified.

The lawsuit did not capture Trump’s “reciprocal” duties announced on Wednesday.

14 hours ago: Japanese stocks plunge
Leo Lewis in Tokyo

Japanese equities continued Thursday’s global sell-off by opening sharply lower on Friday morning, with the Topix falling 3.2 per cent in early trading to hit the index’s lowest level since August.

The drop was led by huge falls for Japan’s major banking groups. Shares in MUFG, Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group and Mizuho tumbled 10.5 per cent, 9.7 per cent and 11.6 per cent respectively.

Intensifying fears of a global recession, precipitated by the severity of Donald Trump’s tariffs, continued to hammer Japanese exporters.

Yields on the 10-year benchmark Japanese government bond dipped to 1.3 per cent, echoing the global investment shift into havens. The yen edged up against the dollar to ¥145.9, its strongest level since October.

14 hours ago: Nissan halts new US orders of Mexico-built Infiniti
Harry Dempsey in Tokyo

Nissan has stopped taking further orders of Mexican-built Infiniti SUVs destined for the US market, in the second major sign of disruption to the auto industry off the back of Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The Japanese automaker said on Friday that additional US orders of its Infiniti QX50 and QX55 produced at its Compas plant in Mexico would be put on hold. The 25 per cent auto tariffs that took effect on Thursday mean the model is no longer profitable.

The move follows Jeep and Chrysler maker Stellantis on Thursday furloughing 900 US workers at five plants in the US and temporarily shutting down production in Canada and Mexico.

14 hours ago: IMF says Trump tariffs pose a ‘significant risk’ to global economic outlook
Peter Wells in New York

The Trump administration’s new trade restrictions represent a “significant risk” to the global economic outlook “at a time of sluggish growth”, the head of the IMF has warned.

Managing director Kristalina Georgieva said the Washington-headquartered agency was still assessing the macroeconomic implications of the tariff plans Donald Trump announced this week, but that “it is important to avoid steps that could further harm the world economy”.

“We appeal to the United States and its trading partners to work constructively to resolve trade tensions and reduce uncertainty,” she said in a statement on Thursday afternoon.

***

[admin]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/ ... -security/

The WHITE HOUSE
FACT SHEETS

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase our Competitive Edge, Protect our Sovereignty, and Strengthen our National and Economic Security
The White House
April 2, 2025

PURSUING RECIPROCITY TO REBUILD THE ECONOMY AND RESTORE NATIONAL AND ECONOMIC SECURITY: Today, President Donald J. Trump declared that foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency, and his order imposes responsive tariffs to strengthen the international economic position of the United States and protect American workers.

• Large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits have led to the hollowing out of our manufacturing base; resulted in a lack of incentive to increase advanced domestic manufacturing capacity; undermined critical supply chains; and rendered our defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries.
• President Trump is invoking his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to address the national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships and other harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes (VAT) perpetuated by other countries.
• Using his IEEPA authority, President Trump will impose a 10% tariff on all countries.
o This will take effect April 5, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. EDT.
• President Trump will impose an individualized reciprocal higher tariff on the countries with which the United States has the largest trade deficits. All other countries will continue to be subject to the original 10% tariff baseline.
o This will take effect April 9, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. EDT.
• These tariffs will remain in effect until such a time as President Trump determines that the threat posed by the trade deficit and underlying nonreciprocal treatment is satisfied, resolved, or mitigated.
• Today’s IEEPA Order also contains modification authority, allowing President Trump to increase the tariff if trading partners retaliate or decrease the tariffs if trading partners take significant steps to remedy non-reciprocal trade arrangements and align with the United States on economic and national security matters.
• Some goods will not be subject to the Reciprocal Tariff. These include: (1) articles subject to 50 USC 1702(b); (2) steel/aluminum articles and autos/auto parts already subject to Section 232 tariffs; (3) copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and lumber articles; (4) all articles that may become subject to future Section 232 tariffs; (5) bullion; and (6) energy and other certain minerals that are not available in the United States.
• For Canada and Mexico, the existing fentanyl/migration IEEPA orders remain in effect, and are unaffected by this order. This means USMCA compliant goods will continue to see a 0% tariff, non-USMCA compliant goods will see a 25% tariff, and non-USMCA compliant energy and potash will see a 10% tariff. In the event the existing fentanyl/migration IEEPA orders are terminated, USMCA compliant goods would continue to receive preferential treatment, while non-USMCA compliant goods would be subject to a 12% reciprocal tariff.

TAKING BACK OUR ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY: President Trump refuses to let the United States be taken advantage of and believes that tariffs are necessary to ensure fair trade, protect American workers, and reduce the trade deficit—this is an emergency.
• He is the first President in modern history to stand strong for hardworking Americans by asking other countries to follow the golden rule on trade: Treat us like we treat you.
• Pernicious economic policies and practices of our trading partners undermine our ability to produce essential goods for the public and the military, threatening national security.
• U.S. companies, according to internal estimates, pay over $200 billion per year in value-added taxes (VAT) to foreign governments—a “double-whammy” on U.S. companies who pay the tax at the European border, while European companies don’t pay tax to the United States on the income from their exports to the U.S.
• The annual cost to the U.S. economy of counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets is between $225 billion and $600 billion. Counterfeit products not only pose a significant risk to U.S. competitiveness, but also threaten the security, health, and safety of Americans, with the global trade in counterfeit pharmaceuticals estimated at $4.4 billion and linked to the distribution of deadly fentanyl-laced drugs.
o This imbalance has fueled a large and persistent trade deficit in both industrial and agricultural goods, led to offshoring of our manufacturing base, empowered non-market economies like China, and hurt America’s middle class and small towns.
o President Biden squandered the agricultural trade surplus inherited from President Trump’s first term, turning it into a projected all-time high deficit of $49 billion.
• The current global trading order allows those using unfair trade practices to get ahead, while those playing by the rules get left behind.
• In 2024, our trade deficit in goods exceeded $1.2 trillion—an unsustainable crisis ignored by prior leadership.
• “Made in America” is not just a tagline—it’s an economic and national security priority of this Administration. The President’s reciprocal trade agenda means better-paying American jobs making beautiful American-made cars, appliances, and other goods.
• These tariffs seek to address the injustices of global trade, re-shore manufacturing, and drive economic growth for the American people.
• Reciprocal trade is America First trade because it increases our competitive edge, protects our sovereignty, and strengthens our national and economic security.
• These tariffs adjust for the unfairness of ongoing international trade practices, balance our chronic goods trade deficit, provide an incentive for re-shoring production to the United States, and provide our foreign trading partners with an opportunity to rebalance their trade relationships with the United States.

REPRIORITIZING U.S. MANUFACTURING: President Trump recognizes that increasing domestic manufacturing is critical to U.S. national security.
• In 2023, U.S. manufacturing output as a share of global manufacturing output was 17.4%, down from 28.4% in 2001.
• The decline in manufacturing output has reduced U.S. manufacturing capacity.
o The need to maintain a resilient domestic manufacturing capacity is particularly acute in advanced sectors like autos, shipbuilding, pharmaceuticals, transport equipment, technology products, machine tools, and basic and fabricated metals, where loss of capacity could permanently weaken U.S. competitiveness.
• U.S. stockpiles of military goods are too low to be compatible with U.S. national defense interests.
o If the U.S. wishes to maintain an effective security umbrella to defend its citizens and homeland, as well as allies and partners, it needs to have a large upstream manufacturing and goods-producing ecosystem.
o This includes developing new manufacturing technologies in critical sectors like bio-manufacturing, batteries, and microelectronics to support defense needs.
• Increased reliance on foreign producers for goods has left the U.S. supply chain vulnerable to geopolitical disruption and supply shocks.
o This vulnerability was exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and later with Houthi attacks on Middle East shipping.
• From 1997 to 2024, the U.S. lost around 5 million manufacturing jobs and experienced one of the largest drops in manufacturing employment in history.

ADDRESSING TRADE IMBALANCES: President Trump is working to level the playing field for American businesses and workers by confronting the unfair tariff disparities and non-tariff barriers imposed by other countries.
• For generations, countries have taken advantage of the United States, tariffing us at higher rates. For example:
o The United States imposes a 2.5% tariff on passenger vehicle imports (with internal combustion engines), while the European Union (10%) and India (70%) impose much higher duties on the same product.
o For networking switches and routers, the United States imposes a 0% tariff, but India (10-20%) levies higher rates.
o Brazil (18%) and Indonesia (30%) impose a higher tariff on ethanol than does the United States (2.5%).
o For rice in the husk, the U.S. imposes a tariff of 2.7%, while India (80%), Malaysia (40%), and Turkey (31%) impose higher rates.
o Apples enter the United States duty-free, but not so in Turkey (60.3%) and India (50%).
• The United States has one of the lowest simple average most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff rates in the world at 3.3%, while many of our key trading partners like Brazil (11.2%), China (7.5%), the European Union (5%), India (17%), and Vietnam (9.4%) have simple average MFN tariff rates that are significantly higher.
• Similarly, non-tariff barriers—meant to limit the quantity of imports/exports and protect domestic industries—also deprive U.S. manufacturers of reciprocal access to markets around the world. For example:
o China’s non-market policies and practices have given China global dominance in key manufacturing industries, decimating U.S. industry. Between 2001 and 2018, these practices contributed to the loss of 3.7 million U.S. jobs due to the growth of the U.S.-China trade deficit, displacing workers and undermining American competitiveness while threatening U.S. economic and national security by increasing our reliance on foreign-controlled supply chains for critical industries as well as everyday goods.
o India imposes their own uniquely burdensome and/or duplicative testing and certification requirements in sectors such as chemicals, telecom products, and medical devices that make it difficult or costly for American companies to sell their products in India. If these barriers were removed, it is estimated that U.S. exports would increase by at least $5.3 billion annually.
o Countries including China, Germany, Japan, and South Korea have pursued policies that suppress the domestic consumption power of their own citizens to artificially boost the competitiveness of their export products. Such policies include regressive tax systems, low or unenforced penalties for environmental degradation, and policies intended to suppress worker wages relative to productivity.
o Certain countries, like Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, and Vietnam, restrict or prohibit the importation of remanufactured goods, restricting market access for U.S. exporters while also stifling efforts to promote sustainability by discouraging trade in like-new and resource-efficient products. If these barriers were removed, it is estimated that U.S. exports would increase by at least $18 billion annually.
o The UK maintains non-science-based standards that severely restrict U.S. exports of safe, high-quality beef and poultry products.
o Indonesia maintains local content requirements across a broad range of sectors, complex import licensing regimes, and, starting this year, will require natural resource firms to onshore all export revenue for transactions worth $250,000 or more.
o Argentina has banned imports of U.S. live cattle since 2002 due to unsubstantiated concerns regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The United States has a $223 million trade deficit with Argentina in beef and beef products.
o For decades, South Africa has imposed animal health restrictions that are not scientifically justified on U.S. pork products, permitting a very limited list of U.S. pork exports to enter South Africa. South Africa also heavily restricts U.S. poultry exports through high tariffs, anti-dumping duties, and unjustified animal health restrictions. These barriers have contributed to a 78% decline in U.S. poultry exports to South Africa, from $89 million in 2019 to $19 million 2024.
o U.S. automakers face a variety of non-tariff barriers that impede access to the Japanese and Korean automotive markets, including non-acceptance of certain U.S. standards, duplicative testing and certification requirements, and transparency issues. Due to these non-reciprocal practices, the U.S. automotive industry loses out on an additional $13.5 billion in annual exports to Japan and access to a larger import market share in Korea—all while the U.S. trade deficit with Korea more than tripled from 2019 to 2024.
• Monetary tariffs and non-monetary tariffs are two distinct types of trade barriers that governments use to regulate imports and exports. President Trump is countering both through reciprocal tariffs to protect American workers and industries from these unfair practices.

THE GOLDEN RULE FOR OUR GOLDEN AGE: Today’s action simply asks other countries to treat us like we treat them. It’s the Golden Rule for Our Golden Age.
• Access to the American market is a privilege, not a right.
• The United States will no longer put itself last on matters of international trade in exchange for empty promises.
• Reciprocal tariffs are a big part of why Americans voted for President Trump—it was a cornerstone of his campaign from the start.
o Everyone knew he’d push for them once he got back in office; it’s exactly what he promised, and it’s a key reason he won the election.
• These tariffs are central to President Trump’s plan to reverse the economic damage left by President Biden and put America on a path to a new golden age.
o This builds on his broader economic agenda of energy competitiveness, tax cuts, no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security benefits, and deregulation to boost American prosperity.

TARIFFS WORK: Studies have repeatedly shown that tariffs can be an effective tool for reducing or eliminating threats that impair U.S. national security and achieving economic and strategic objectives.
• A 2024 study on the effects of President Trump’s tariffs in his first term found that they “strengthened the U.S. economy” and “led to significant reshoring” in industries like manufacturing and steel production.
• A 2023 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission that analyzed the effects of Section 232 and 301 tariffs on more than $300 billion of U.S. imports found that the tariffs reduced imports from China and effectively stimulated more U.S. production of the tariffed goods, with very minor effects on prices.
• According to the Economic Policy Institute, the tariffs implemented by President Trump during his first term “clearly show[ed] no correlation with inflation” and only had a temporary effect on overall price levels.
• An analysis from the Atlantic Council found that “tariffs would create new incentives for US consumers to buy US-made products.”
• Former Biden Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen affirmed last year that tariffs do not raise prices: “I don’t believe that American consumers will see any meaningful increase in the prices that they face.”
• A 2024 economic analysis found that a global tariff of 10% would grow the economy by $728 billion, create 2.8 million jobs, and increase real household incomes by 5.7%.

********************

WEEK 11 WINS: President Trump Unleashes Economic Prosperity [!!!]
The White House
April 4, 2025

It was another highly successful week for the American people as President Donald J. Trump continues his relentless pursuit of strength, prosperity, and peace — and lays the foundation for America to be the global powerhouse for generations to come.
Here is a non-comprehensive list of wins in week 11:

• Illegal crossings hit a stunning new record low — down 95% over last year.
o The number of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children also reached a record low.
o Los Angeles Times: “California-Mexico border, once overwhelmed, now nearly empty”
o Bloomberg: “US-Bound Migration Plunges 99% Along Panama Jungle Route”
• President Trump continued to rid our communities of illegal immigrant criminals.
o The Trump Administration directed the successful arrests of three illegal immigrant MS-13 gang members in Florida, wanted on first-degree murder charges, and another high-ranking MS-13 member in New York, linked to 11 murders.
o The Trump Administration directed the transfer of 17 violent illegal immigrant terrorists from the U.S. to El Salvador.
o The Trump Administration, with state and local law enforcement, successfully arrested more than 40 individuals in a Texas operation targeting the brutal Tren de Aragua gang.
o The Trump Administration deported an illegal immigrant “influencer” who infamously encouraged fellow illegal immigrants to become squatters.
o Since taking office, the Trump Administration has arrested 113,000+ illegal immigrants, deported 100,000+ illegal immigrants, and released just nine illegal immigrants into the U.S. — a staggering 99.995% decrease over the same period last year under Biden.
• President Trump implemented his bold plan for reciprocal trade as he seeks to reverse the decades of globalization that has decimated our industrial base.
o Coalition for a Prosperous America: “A permanent, universal baseline tariff resets the global trade environment and finally addresses the destructive legacy of decades of misguided free-trade policies. President Trump’s decision to implement a baseline tariff is a game-changing shift that prioritizes American manufacturing, protects working-class jobs, and safeguards our economic security from adversaries like China. This is exactly the type of bold action America needs to restore its industrial leadership.”
o National Cattlemen’s Beef Association: “For too long, America’s family farmers and ranchers have been mistreated by certain trading partners around the world. President Trump is taking action to address numerous trade barriers that prevent consumers overseas from enjoying high-quality, wholesome American beef.”
• Americans saw early results of President Trump’s declaration that the days of economic surrender are over.
o Nissan abandoned plans to eliminate a shift at its Tennessee production facility.
o General Motors announced it will increase truck production at its Indiana assembly plant.
o Guardian Bikes announced it will expand its production capacity and grow its U.S.-based investment.
o Equipment giant JCB committed to doubling the size of its new U.S. manufacturing facility.
o Ford Motor Company and Stellantis both announced they will offer U.S. consumers employee pricing on their vehicles.
• President Trump continued to pursue peace through strength around the world.
o President Trump deployed additional military assets to the Middle East as a warning to the Iranian regime.
o The Trump Administration inked a $2 billion air defense deal with Poland.
o President Trump secured a pledge from Finland to raise its defense spending to 3% of its GDP.
o President Trump held a successful call with Egyptian President El-Sisi to discuss the immense progress the U.S. has made in eliminating Houthi terrorists.
o President Trump had a “productive call” with Vietnamese leader To Lam, who expressed willingness to cut the country’s tariffs on U.S. imports.
• President Trump’s economic agenda delivered more relief for Americans.
o The latest jobs report shattered expectations for the second straight month — highlighted by massive private sector job growth, a spike in full-time employment, wage growth, and an expanding labor market.
o CNBC: “Private companies added 155,000 jobs in March, more than expected”
o Wholesale egg prices continued to drop, falling to an average price of $3 per dozen — or nearly 60% since January amid the Trump Administration’s efforts to combat the avian bird flu and repopulate the chicken supply.
• President Trump secured the release of two U.S. citizens detained in Mexico.
• President Trump signed an executive order to crack down on price gouging and ticket scalping in the entertainment industry.
• President Trump established the United States Investment Accelerator to attract and facilitate billion-dollar investments in the U.S.
• The Department of Energy unveiled plans to use thousands of acres of its land — including national laboratory campuses, nuclear sites, and former enrichment plants — to quickly develop data centers that will power the artificial intelligence revolution.
• The Department of Energy removed additional regulatory barriers on liquefied natural gas exports.
• The Department of the Treasury launched a new public-private partnership to safeguard the financial system against illicit activities by the Iranian regime and announced additional sanctions against Iran as part of the Trump Administration’s maximum pressure strategy.
• The Department of the Treasury leveled new sanctions against financiers of the Sinaloa drug cartel, which has flooded our country with deadly fentanyl.
• The Department of the Treasury announced additional sanctions against a network of Houthi terrorist facilitators.
• The Department of the Treasury withdrew burdensome, duplicative climate-based financial risk guidelines from the banking industry.
• The Department of the Interior announced its next oil and gas lease sale in the Gulf of America, fulfilling President Trump’s pledge to unleash American energy.
• The Department of the Interior implemented President Trump’s executive order to enhance public safety, clean up lands, protect federal parks, and preserve historic monuments in the District of Columbia.
• The Department of Health and Human Services launched a department-wide restructuring to realign with its core mission and save taxpayers billions of dollars.
• The Department of Health and Human Services announced states can bar welfare recipients from using taxpayer dollars to purchase unhealthy soft drinks.
• The Department of Labor announced it will return $1.4 billion in unused COVID funds back to the U.S. Treasury.
• The Federal Bureau of Investigation announced a record number of new agent applications under its new leadership.
• The Department of Justice dismissed a Biden-era lawsuit against common-sense, effective Georgia election law reforms.
• The Department of Justice launched investigations into DEI initiatives at Stanford University, University of California, Berkeley, University of California, Los Angeles, and University of California, Irvine.
• The Department of Justice said it will pursue the death penalty for the accused cold-blooded killer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
• The Environmental Protection Agency continued cutting wasteful spending, shuttering a politicized museum erected by the Biden Administration, consolidating office space, and eliminating duplicative grants and contracts — saving taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
• The Department of Defense directed a review of the military’s physical fitness standards to ensure it remains the strongest, most lethal fighting force on the planet.
• The Department of Education and the Department of Justice launched a joint effort to ensure rapid investigations into violations of women’s civil rights.
• The Department of Education issued a final warning to Maine over its ongoing refusal to comply with Title IX by forcing women to compete against men in athletics.
• The Department of Education warned states with unlawful K-12 “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs that they are at risk of losing federal funding.
• The Department of Education encouraged state education officials to leverage federal funds to support school choice initiatives — a key part of President Trump’s education agenda.
• The Department of Agriculture paused federal funding to Maine over its unlawful policies forcing women to compete against men in athletics.
• The Department of Agriculture announced sweeping reforms to protect forests and boost domestic timber production.
• The Department of Transportation announced an updated Safe Streets and Roads for All grant program, eliminating DEI and environmental justice requirements that prevented money from getting where it is needed.
• The Department of Transportation continued making progress on the unprecedented backlog of unfulfilled grants left over by the Biden Administration.
• The Department of Housing and Urban Development launched a streamlined website that efficiently provides vital information to Americans and saves taxpayers in the long run.
• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services formally removed the option of a third gender on immigration paperwork, further restoring common sense to government.
• Dr. Mehmet Oz was confirmed as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and Matthew Whittaker was confirmed as the U.S. Ambassador to NATO — continuing the rapid pace at which President Trump’s nominees receive final approval.

**************************

[X]

Ron Filipkowski
@RonFilipkowski
The MAGA propagandists are circling the wagons. Who cares about money!

Benny Johnson
@bennyjohnson
Losing money means nothing. Digital ones and zeroes. In the end, you won't miss any of it.
Losing your country costs you everything. You will never get that back. Your kids will be slaves to foreign powers who hate us.
Without America First policies, we become slaves. Fight ...

[admin]

Billionaires Poised to Lose Near Half-Trillion Dollars in 2 Days
by Dylan Sloan
Bloomberg
Markets today
4/4/25
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... rthp-feeds

(Bloomberg) -- The world’s 500 richest people suffered the biggest two-day loss ever on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index as fallout from President Donald Trump’s tariff announcement decimated markets across the globe.

Billionaires on the wealth list lost a collective $536 billion from Thursday’s stock market open to Friday’s close as the S&P 500 Index dropped 10.5% over the two days and the Nasdaq Composite fell 11.4%.


Falling Fortunes | The biggest two-day drops in Bloomberg Billionaires Index history. © Bloomberg Billionaires Index

Friday’s $329 billion drop was the largest since the height of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, swamping Thursday’s $208 billion slide. Almost 90% of the billionaires tracked by the wealth index saw their fortunes fall Friday, with an average decline of 3.5%.

No one lost more over the two-day stretch than Tesla Inc. Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk. The carmaker’s stock plunged more than 10% Friday, dragging Musk’s net worth down $31 billion from Thursday’s open and bringing his yearly losses to $130 billion. Meta Platforms Inc. founder Mark Zuckerberg followed with a $27 billion loss as the social media company dropped almost 14% over the two-day stretch. Carvana Co. CEO Ernest Garcia III’s two-day loss of $2 billion was enough to push him off the list of the world’s 500 richest people. His used-car retailer’s stock lost 28% over the period.

Nike Inc. founder Phil Knight was one of few winners on Friday. The shoe company’s stock gained 2.8% after Trump said that he’d had a “very productive call” with Vietnamese leader To Lam over possibly eliminating a 46% tariff unveiled yesterday on the Southeast Asian country, where much of Nike’s manufacturing is done. The stock’s rise added $84 million to Knight’s net worth on the day, reversing Thursday’s $3 billion loss.

Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim fared opposite. The mogul behind mobile-phone operator America Movil SAB narrowly was in the black Thursday as Mexico’s exclusion from the White House’s list of tariff targets pushed the country’s main index up slightly. On Friday, though, Slim reversed those gains and then some, losing $5.5 billion as the Mexican Bolsa fell 4.9%.

--With assistance from Jack Witzig.

[admin]

Trump is a drunk driver taking the economy off the cliff into a needless recession—as we warned
by Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Steven Tian
Fortune
April 4, 2025 at 10:45 AM EDT
https://fortune.com/2025/04/04/trump-re ... s-economy/

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld is the Lester Crown Professor in Management Practice and president and founder of the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute. Steven Tian is the director of research at the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute.

I'm gonna get them doors open if it harelips everybody on Bear Creek!









-- Dr. Strangelove, directed by Stanley Kubrick, © Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

We presciently warned for a year and earlier this week in Fortune that Trump’s economic policies and this week’s “Liberation Day” tariffs announcement would prove to be a cataclysmic event. Like frat boys in denial that the driver of their car is dangerously drunk, Trump acolytes such as Peter Navarro, who ludicrously implored “trust in Trump,” and Howard Lutnick, who flippantly argued, “let Trump run the global economy,” are cheering as Trump, intoxicated with his power, is inches away from blindly driving the U.S. economy off the cliff with other silent enabling lieutenants paralyzed by fear.

Many economists have focused on the hyperinflationary nature of Trump’s tariffs, the tariff-driven 15% plunge in the stock market wiping out ~$5 trillion in wealth, the damage to consumer confidence, the laughably dubious way the ‘reciprocal’ tariffs formula was calculated, and the specter of retaliatory tariffs. That was enough to fully fund the Ukraine war for a century and fund the NIH for a century. But there is an even greater concern we’ve been hearing over and over from CEOs that is hugely underappreciated—which is that businesses are becoming entirely paralyzed from authorizing new investments.

That’s because Trump’s tariffs are being enacted in the most uncertainty-inducing way possible, with Trump already signaling his openness to deals to reduce country-specific tariffs—the ones he just enacted 48 hours ago. That fits Trump’s classic negotiating style, which is to punch ’em in the face so hard that they are all but begging for a deal, and to make it up as he goes along from there.

That might have worked for Trump when he was running the family business of the Trump Organization, but it is plainly catastrophic now. The global economy is not the Trump Organization.

A. Business investment paralyzed

CEOs from automakers to pharma chiefs and computer components tell us Trump’s whiplash-inducing pronouncements are counterproductive in the confusion he creates. Businesses need predictability and years of lead time in order to authorize new investments, because it generally takes upwards of five years from the moment an investment is authorized to the moment a factory is ready to go. No business can authorize investments that cost billions of dollars of shareholders’ money in plants, factories, or reshoring supply chains when there is such head-spinning policy turbulence; any CEOs that tried to do so would likely be fired by their board and investors on the spot.

With tariff policy shifting not day by day, but hour by hour, with over 100 such pivots (as we previously documented) and apparently many more on the way amidst what’ll be weeks of frenzied negotiations, business investment is entirely paralyzed—and will continue to be frozen for the foreseeable future. That is exactly the opposite of what Trump intended.

Though Trump likes to tout glitzy announcements of new investments from businesses into the U.S., the reality is that few of these investments truly pan out, calling to mind first-term misfires such as Foxconn’s planned $10 billion electronics factory in Wisconsin which turned into abandoned shadows and idled plants. Many CEOs have started merely repackaging existing planned capital expenditures into a gauzy headline-drawing big number to appease Trump superficially, tossing in everything from normal operating expenses to employee salaries to inflate their headline amounts, while actually suspending new investment plans in practice.

For Trump to cite long past business promises to invest in the U.S. as if they were new responses to the current, delusional economic pronouncements is ludicrous.

The paralysis of hundreds of billions in business investment is already trickling through to the broader economy: NFIB Small Business confidence has plunged 50%, the labor market is deteriorating as the number of new layoffs quadrupled over the last three months, capital spending and investments have come to a standstill, and GDP growth forecasts have come down by 1%—but the downward cycle is just getting started. The long-term economic consequences from the paralysis of business investment would be absolutely devastating. After all, U.S. businesses account for a whopping 88% of U.S. GDP growth every year and are responsible for 85% of U.S. workforce hiring, so what is at stake amounts to tens of trillions of lost investment, and millions of lost jobs.

Trump’s defenders point out that Trump could actually end up securing genuine concessions from some foreign countries in the days and weeks ahead, especially from our Asian trader partners—after all, even Trump realizes low value-add industries such as textiles, clothing, and shoes aren’t coming back to the U.S., and it’s reasonable to expect that the list of tariff “exemptions” will grow in exchange for new market opportunities, the removal of non-tariff trade barriers, and lower tariff rates from foreign countries.

B. Reciprocal tariffs and a trade war

But even if Trump scores some genuine wins, for U.S. businesses, the negatives still far outweigh the positives. It’s clear that tariff policy is being driven entirely by Trump’s idiosyncratic whims and flights of fancy with little checks and balances and few critical constituencies. Trump and Trump alone is calling the shots, relishing the game of pitting countries and companies against each other in a high-stakes competition for his favor.

The cascade of retaliatory strikes from trading partners has already begun, with China announcing 34% tariff hikes against the U.S. and a block against many agricultural imports from the U.S. Furthermore, with some of our oldest, strongest allies, such as the EU—which Trump has long loathed—already signaling they will be coming out with reciprocal tariffs in the days ahead, the global trade war will only continue to escalate even if one-off deals are struck along the way here and there.

All that means that no matter what “wins” Trump extracts, businesses will remain substantively paralyzed; and as long as Trump continues his idiosyncratic approach to tariffs with one-off negotiations, that will fail to provide the necessary clarity that businesses need to invest and move forward.

Trump’s carnival barking turns the White House into a circus, but no matter how loudly he shouts false economic facts, his growling does not make them so. Clearly, Trump’s tariffs will send the economy tumbling straight into a recession induced by Trump and Trump alone. What we wrote earlier this week is even more true now: The real “liberation day” that U.S. businesses and the U.S. economy need is liberation from Trump’s idiosyncratic tariff whims. Someone sober like Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent or National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett needs to take over the economic wheel—fast.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.