Business

Democrats Warn New Trump Tariffs Could Raise Costs for US Households

Published

2 months ago

March 13, 2026

Congressional Democrats are warning that a new round of tariffs introduced by US President Donald Trump could significantly increase costs for American households, as the administration seeks to replace federal revenue lost after a recent court ruling against earlier trade measures.

A study released Friday by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee estimates that import taxes imposed by the administration could cost US households an average of $2,512 in 2026. That figure represents a 44 per cent increase compared with last year’s estimated burden of $1,745 per household.

The report comes as many American consumers are already dealing with higher living expenses and rising fuel costs linked to tensions in the Middle East, particularly the ongoing conflict involving Iran.

Maggie Hassan, a Democratic senator from New Hampshire and the top Democrat on the committee, criticised the administration’s trade strategy. She said the government has continued introducing tariffs even after a legal setback earlier this year.

“Despite a Supreme Court ruling that much of the tariff agenda is illegal, the administration refuses to provide relief for families,” Hassan said. She added that additional tariffs could drive prices even higher for households already struggling with increased costs.

The White House dismissed the report. Spokesman Kush Desai described the analysis as inaccurate and defended the president’s trade policy, saying tariffs remain a key tool for renegotiating trade agreements, lowering certain costs and encouraging investment in the United States.

The debate follows a major decision by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 20. The court ruled that the administration did not have the authority to impose wide-ranging tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which had been used to justify tariffs on imports from nearly every country.

As a result of the ruling, the government is expected to refund importers who paid the tariffs. The total amount of refunds could reach about $175 billion.

In response, the administration has begun introducing new trade measures using other legal authorities. Officials have already implemented a 10 per cent tariff under the Trade Act of 1974 through Section 122, with the possibility of raising it to 15 per cent. However, tariffs under that provision can only remain in place for 150 days unless Congress approves an extension.

The administration is also turning to Section 301 of the same law, which allows tariffs on countries accused of unfair or discriminatory trade practices.

Earlier this week, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer launched an investigation into whether 16 trading partners, including China and the European Union, are producing excess goods that harm American industries.

Democrats argue that tariffs ultimately fall on consumers. They point to analysis from the Congressional Budget Office indicating that importers often pass tariff costs on to buyers, while domestic producers may also raise prices because of reduced foreign competition.

The renewed push for tariffs comes ahead of November’s midterm elections, as economic concerns remain a central issue for voters facing higher living costs and volatile energy prices.

Business

Federal Reserve Holds Rates Steady as Middle East Conflict Clouds Economic Outlook

Published

17 hours ago

April 30, 2026

Web Reporter

The Federal Reserve kept its benchmark interest rate unchanged on Wednesday, marking the third consecutive meeting without a move as policymakers weigh rising inflation and growing uncertainty linked to the conflict in the Middle East.

The decision leaves the federal funds rate in a target range of 3.50% to 3.75%. While widely expected, the outcome revealed significant divisions within the central bank’s policy-setting committee, underscoring the difficult balancing act facing officials.

In its post-meeting statement, the Fed said recent developments in the Middle East had added to uncertainty surrounding the US economic outlook. It noted that inflation remains above target, partly due to higher global energy prices following renewed tensions in the region.

Despite holding rates steady, the central bank signalled that cuts remain possible later this year if inflation eases and economic conditions weaken. Still, the decision was far from unanimous. Three policymakers opposed language suggesting future rate cuts, while one official, Stephen Miran, argued for an immediate reduction.

The dissent marked the highest level of disagreement within the Federal Open Market Committee since 1992, highlighting a widening debate over how best to respond to slowing growth and persistent price pressures.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who is expected to step down as chair in May, said the central bank must remain cautious as it navigates a complex economic environment. Inflation has risen to 3.3%, well above the Fed’s 2% target, while recent data show the labour market is losing momentum.

Although unemployment remains relatively low at 4.3%, hiring has slowed considerably in recent months. Policymakers are trying to prevent inflation from becoming entrenched while avoiding unnecessary damage to economic growth.

Powell also indicated that he intends to remain on the Fed’s Board of Governors after his term as chair ends, potentially until early 2028. He cited concerns about maintaining institutional stability amid what he described as mounting political pressure on the central bank.

His decision would temporarily prevent President Donald Trump from appointing another governor immediately, even as Trump’s nominee to succeed Powell as chair, Kevin Warsh, moves closer to confirmation.

Warsh has advocated broad changes to the Fed’s policymaking framework and has expressed support for lower interest rates. However, with inflation still elevated, analysts say any shift toward easier monetary policy may be gradual.

The Fed’s next moves will likely depend on how inflation, employment and energy markets evolve in the coming months. For now, policymakers appear determined to proceed carefully as geopolitical risks and domestic economic challenges continue to shape the outlook.

Business

Debate Grows in Germany Over Using Gold Reserves to Ease Economic Pressures

Published

3 days ago

April 28, 2026

Web Reporter

Germany’s vast gold reserves have become the focus of renewed political and economic debate, as calls grow for part of the stockpile to be used to support households, businesses and public investment.

The German Bundesbank holds 3,350 tonnes of gold, making it the world’s second-largest national reserve after the United States. With gold prices recently rising above $4,700 per troy ounce, the value of Germany’s holdings has climbed to nearly €440 billion.

Marcel Fratzscher, president of the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), has suggested that some of this reserve could be put to practical use. He described the gold stockpile as a valuable resource in times of economic strain and argued that selling a portion could help fund investments in infrastructure and education, while also easing financial pressure on consumers and businesses.

The proposal comes as Germany continues to grapple with rising living costs. Consumer prices remain elevated, with sectors such as transport seeing particularly sharp increases. Official figures show that the Motorists’ Index, which tracks driving-related expenses, was 6.7% higher in March than a year earlier.

Germany’s gold reserves are not all held domestically. About one-third, or 1,236 tonnes, is stored at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, while another 404 tonnes is held in London. The remainder is kept in Frankfurt. All reserves remain under the ownership and management of the Bundesbank.

The overseas storage arrangement dates back to the post-war Bretton Woods era, when Germany’s trade surpluses were converted into gold. Although the Bundesbank repatriated 374 tonnes from Paris in 2017, most of its foreign-held gold remains in New York.

That has prompted fresh political scrutiny. Some lawmakers and advocacy groups have questioned whether Germany should continue to keep such a large share of its reserves abroad, particularly in the United States.

The Alternative for Germany party has called for the full repatriation of the country’s gold, while also suggesting it could serve as backing for a future national currency. The proposal has been widely rejected by mainstream parties, which have defended both the security of the reserves and Germany’s commitment to the euro.

Others have focused less on location and more on whether some of the gold should be sold. Supporters of that view argue that the reserves could be used more actively during periods of economic difficulty.

The Bundesbank, however, has consistently opposed any sale. It regards gold as a cornerstone of financial stability and a long-term safeguard for confidence in Germany’s monetary system.

While no immediate policy change appears likely, the discussion reflects growing pressure on policymakers to consider every available option as Europe’s largest economy faces mounting economic challenges.

Business

European Fuel Prices Remain Elevated After Iran Conflict Despite Ceasefire

Published

5 days ago

April 26, 2026

Web Reporter

Fuel prices across Europe remain significantly higher than before the US and Israeli strikes on Iran, even after a ceasefire helped ease some of the market pressure.

Petrol and diesel costs surged in the weeks following the military action launched on 28 February, when the United States and Israel carried out strikes against Iranian targets. Iran responded with retaliatory attacks across the region, stoking fears of supply disruptions in global energy markets. Although Washington and Tehran agreed to a ceasefire on 8 April, fuel prices have yet to return to pre-crisis levels.

Data from the European Commission’s Weekly Oil Bulletin show that the average price of petrol across the European Union rose from €1.64 per litre on 23 February to €1.83 by 20 April, an increase of 12%.

Several countries recorded much steeper rises. Belgium, Czechia and Bulgaria each saw petrol prices jump by 22%. Among Europe’s largest economies, France posted the sharpest increase at 18%, followed by Germany at 15%. Italy experienced a 7% rise, while Spain saw a more modest 3% increase. Petrol prices in Malta remained unchanged.

Diesel prices climbed even faster. Across the EU, the average price of diesel rose from €1.59 to €2.01 per litre over the same period, marking a 26% increase. That is more than double the rise recorded for petrol.

Bulgaria experienced the largest diesel increase at 43%. France followed closely with a 36% rise, while Estonia and Belgium recorded increases of 35% and 33%, respectively. Spain’s diesel prices rose by 27%, exceeding the EU average, while Germany and Italy saw increases of 23% and 24%.

Despite the recent pullback, fuel prices remain high in many countries. The Netherlands currently has the highest petrol price in Europe at €2.28 per litre, followed by Denmark at €2.22. Germany, Greece and France all report petrol prices above €2 per litre.

For diesel, the Netherlands also tops the list at €2.30 per litre. Finland, France, Denmark and Belgium are close behind, all above €2.19.

At the other end of the scale, Malta has the lowest fuel prices in Europe. Petrol there costs €1.34 per litre, while diesel stands at just €1.21. Poland and Bulgaria also rank among the least expensive markets.

Fuel prices had already begun climbing before the strikes, but accelerated sharply in March and early April. Diesel briefly exceeded €2.10 per litre before retreating after the ceasefire announcement.

The latest price surge highlights Europe’s continued vulnerability to geopolitical shocks in energy-producing regions. With taxes accounting for a substantial share of pump prices and conventional vehicles still dominating European roads, households and businesses remain exposed to swings in global oil markets.