The trade-war era

Recently: What can democracies do about autocratic interference? Josh Rudolph on the challenges of resistance and resiliency.

Today: What do the new U.S. tariffs mean for global trade? Martin Wolf on the rapid onset of radical uncertainty. + Why were American corporate leaders so quick to embrace “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives—and then scrap them?

And frst: Developments we’re tracking for this week’s despatch …

The trade-war era, cont.

Stock prices around the world fell sharply again on Wednesday, after Nvidia, the world’s leading semiconductor-chip maker, said it expected to lose US$5.5 billion due to the White House having banned certain chip exports to China. Tech stocks also dropped in Asia and Europe. Where’s this going?

• U.S. President Donald Trump meanwhile announced that he’d join his cabinet secretaries in trade talks with Japan on Wednesday—the first U.S. negotiations with a major trading partner since the Trump administration declared massive new tariffs on April 2.
• The talks raise the question of whether all along, the tariffs have mostly been a coercive tool for bringing trading partners to the table to get better terms for the U.S.
• Applying to chip-makers worldwide, the chip restrictions raise questions about the future of AI. After the Chinese firm DeepSeek unveiled a surprisingly advanced AI model earlier this year, it looks like the U.S. administration is committed to slowing Beijing’s progress with the technology.

The White House has been giving signs that it’s finished with imposing tough trade measures for now. But China could still escalate. Late last week, for instance, Beijing banned the exports of some minerals essential for making high-tech products, including defense technologies. Trump says he wants to make a deal with Beijing, but the new U.S. ban on AI chips might make it harder for the two sides to agree on doing business again.

See Martin Wolf on what the new U.S. tariffs mean for global trade, below …

Judges clashing with White House over immigration

A U.S. federal judge ruled on Wednesday that there was probable cause to find that administration officials were in contempt of court for failing to adhere to his ruling. A second federal judge scolded administration officials in court on Tuesday, requiring them to provide depositions under oath about whether they had attempted to uphold her verdict in a separate case.

What’s at stake here?

• The first judge had ruled that the administration couldn’t deport immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law pertaining to wartime conditions, and must give the immigrants the chance to challenge their deportation in court. But the executive branch deported them anyway. If the White House does not now follow this order for due process, the judge wrote, he will begin contempt proceedings that could result in criminal charges for the officials responsible for ignoring his order. The White House said it would appeal the ruling.
• The other case involves the White House deportation of an El Salvadoran man, Kilmar Ábrego García, though the administration now admits that he was deported by mistake. The judge ordered the government to return Ábrego García to the U.S., but it seems the administration hasn’t made any efforts to do so. As a result, the judge required depositions within two weeks on how the administration is trying to comply with her ruling.

These clashes raise questions about whether the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump will obey court orders it doesn’t like—and more broadly about the administration’s commitment to democracy and the rule of law. They also have major political stakes: Many Democrats have made these deportation cases a central focus in their public criticisms of Trump, while the White House is trying to maintain public focus on the issue of illegal immigration.

Civil war worsens in Sudan

On Wednesday, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group representing one side in Sudan’s civil war, declared its own government. The military of the country’s internationally recognized government has been fighting the RSF for two years. What now?

• Last weekend, the RSF launched an attack in Darfur on the city of El Fasher and the Zamzam refugee camp—raising the question of what happens to these refugees: The El Fasher region was the last one in Darfur not under RSF control, so where do the camp’s hundreds of thousands of people go now?
• The war has killed more than 150,000 people and forced more than 4 million people to flee their homes—the largest displacement of human beings in the world today.
• UN officials call the conflict the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. There are reports that families are eating grass to survive famine.

On Tuesday, the foreign ministers of some 20 countries met in London to discuss how to end the conflict, but the meeting ended without any progress. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates reportedly spent most of the day arguing. They couldn’t agree on a communique about the war or their efforts for peace. The U.A.E. backs the RSF, while Egypt and Saudi Arabia support the military—and without any evident desire to cooperate on a settlement, it’s unclear how this war might ever end.

‘An unplannable environment’

What do the new U.S. tariffs mean for global trade? Martin Wolf on a new world of radical uncertainty.

Meanwhile

• Archaeologists have discovered a Roman-era mass grave in Vienna containing as many as 150 warriors who died in a first-century battle between Romans and Germanic tribes. Researchers have confirmed that one of the bodies is of a Roman soldier and expect DNA and strontium-isotope analysis to help identify the others: “The most likely theory at the moment is that this is connected to the Danube campaigns of Emperor Domitian—that’s 86 to 96 A.D.”

Elsewhere

• Positive Donut is a community of hopeful people dedicated to seeing the good all around us. Their weekly newsletter features news from around the world, along with everyday mindfulness and wellness tips, that will help you feel gratitude, even for the littlest things. Sign up here.

+ Books

• ‘A new dawn.’ Why were American corporate leaders so quick to embrace “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives—and then scrap them? A look at Walter Benn Michaels’s and Adolph Reed Jr.’s No Politics but Class Politics.

Coming soon: new member’s despatch Saturday morning …