Transcript of What will the fallout be from President Trump’s new steel and aluminium tariffs? | BBC Newscast

Any steel coming into the United States is going to have a 25 % tariff.

What about aluminum, sir?

Aluminum, too. 10 %? No, 25 %. 25 for both.

25 for both. That was Donald Trump on Air Force One, announcing a new set of import taxes, this time on steel and aluminum going into the United States from abroad. This is different from the tariffs he's announced before because previously he was targeting individual countries, Canada, Mexico, China. Now, by targeting individual materials, he's broadening his trade war to include lots of other countries that export them. We'll discuss the implications on this episode of Newscast, the BBC's Daily News Podcast. Hello, it's Adam in the Newscast Studio, and I'm going to be joined by two colleagues who can look at global events from both sides of the Atlantic. First of all, let's catch up with the BBC's chief news anchor in Washington, DC, Sumi Sumaskanda. Hello, Sumi.

Hi, Adam. Great to be back with you.

Also, I Chris Mason has appeared in the studio in Westminster. Hello, Chris. Hello. Right. There's a bit of crossover between London and Washington today because Donald Trump has announced some new tariffs, some new import taxes on stuff coming into the US, and it could affect the UK because the UK previously not been singled out as a country for individual treatment by Donald Trump. So you just explain to us what we think Donald Trump wants to do with this latest round of tariffs.

Right. So he telegraphed this on Sunday. He was speaking on Air Force One, and he said he wants to slap tariffs on steel and aluminum. I know aluminum for our UK listeners. And that would be 25% on those imports coming into the US regardless of the country. That is, of course, very significant because the US gets a majority of its steel and aluminum imports from allies, so from Mexico, from Canada, but also allies in the US, and in Asia and also in Europe. Sothat has allies like the UK, but also the European Union, looking closely at what exactly Donald Trump is announcing. We saw Germany, for example, saying the European Union is going to be ready and will be united and resolute. And we're seeing similar responses from other allies. But steel, aluminum, really critical backbone of industry for building cars and ships and roads and bridges. Donald Trump says he wants to boost domestic manufacturing.

We think the tactic here is old-fashioned protectionism, boosting and protecting your domestic industries from cheaper imports from abroad, rather than as a tool in a diplomatic negotiation, like with Canada, Mexico, a few weeks ago where he wanted them to take action on border-related issues. We think this is actually a trade tool.

It could, of course, be a negotiating tactic. There is always the possibility that that is the case. Indeed, as you mentioned with Canada and Mexico, that appears to have been one of the motives in the threat that you levy towards those two countries. But remember that Donald Trump has complained about steel and aluminum tariffs or the lack of tariffs on those products coming in from other countries for some time. In his first term, we actually saw him levy 25 % tariffs on steel and 10 % on the aluminum. It is important to say that he did allow a lot of carveouts. We had industry leaders coming to the Trump administration in his first term saying, we are producing, for example, a type of steel that's not being produced in the US, so we should not be slapped with these tariffs. Whether there's going to be the ability to do that this time around, that remains to be seen. We have to see what the detail is to what Trump is proposing.

It ended up being a tariff wall with lots of holes in it that people could creep through. Exactly. Let's just actually hear how Donald Trump phrased all of this when he was speaking to reporters on Air Force One as he was flying across the Gulf of Mexico, which he's renamed the Gulf of America, to go and watch the Super Bowl on Sunday.

Any steel coming into the United States is going to have a 25% tariff. What about aluminum, sir? Aluminum, too. 10%?

No, 25%.

25% for both.

25, for both. That's how Trump does business these days, just chatting to reporters on Air Force One, saying globally significant trade announcements. Chris, what do you think about my theory, though, that this is actually the UK potentially being drawn into this trade war stuff with Trump, whereas previously the UK has not been targeted?

Yeah, I think that's possible. It's interesting seeing what Downing Street has had to say about it today, which is to basically say not a lot and to say, well, let's see, and we continue a conversation, etc. So, yeah, absolutely. At some point, the net could reach the UK. As we've said on newscast in the last couple of weeks, it's been striking how frequently, the frequency with which President Trump has been positive, both about the UK in general and the Prime Minister in particular, given how far apart politically they are and what different characters they are. But yeah, there is a real awareness here that at some point then this could get a bit stickier with economic consequences, yes, but then with political consequences as the UK works out how it publicly responds all ahead of this trip that we expect the Prime Minister to make to Washington in the next handful of weeks.

The European Commission that were playing it quite safe as well today. They were saying that they haven't actually seen a detailed formal proposal, so therefore they don't have to respond to it. So they're keeping the space open or certainly not retaliating rhetorically at this stage. Sumi, the other big thing that seems to be going on over the last 24 hours is that Donald Trump's given an interview to Fox News, so his favorite news channel. They teased some of it before the Super Bowl on Sunday. There's going to be more of it coming out on Monday night. It seems like the main line is another in Trump's Gaza proposal to redevelop Gaza Strip as a Trump style, casino filled Riviera Paradise.

Yeah, that's right. This is an interview he did with Fox News host, Brett Bayer. He's talked a few times since he originally introduced or unveiled his idea for Gaza about the US playing a central role in rebuilding it. He's been pressed a few times on this question, and he was by Fox News as well. And he talked about it a again saying this was an opportunity for a real estate interest, basically, to be built there in the Gaza Strip. So doubling down, again, Adam, on the messaging that we've heard from him in the last week or so on Gaza. It's really interesting because he was asked specifically about whether Gazans, Palestinians, or in Gaza would be able to return. And he essentially said no, that they would be much happier with the type of housing that the US would be building for them. Of course, the reactions we've seen internationally to this perspective that Donald Trump has shared, his plan, is one of condemnation. We saw it from Germany as well as the leader there, the Chancellor there, and his opponent who he's running against in the election saying, look, this is essentially scandalous to put forth a proposal that would involve moving people from their home, a forced resettlement, if you will.

But what we hear from Donald Trump is he believes that this is the best way forward because, as he has said, Gaza is uninhabitable, and he thinks that the US can provide a much better solution for Palestinians. That, of course, without taking into account what the Palestinians themselves have said, which is that they don't want to be resettled.

And also we just keeps repeating that word own, ownership. The US will own Gaza. It's not just the US will funnel loads of money in for reconstruction or lead the reconstruction effort or be the head of a coalition of countries that help reconstruct the place is actually ownership.

Exactly. That has been a key part of it. When asked about the legal aspect of this, how exactly the US would own Gaza, he has not exactly asked how the US would go about doing so. He did indicate in that interview with Fox, he said the US would, quote, buy Gaza, but it's not really clear what he means by that, because who would the US be buying Gaza from? He suggested, as I said, that the Palestinians then would not be given a choice. That is the key here because this is something that is internationally getting pushback on. It's going to be interesting to hear how the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio and others who have downplayed some of those comments from Donald Trump saying he's talking about removing Hamas, how they will parse some of these comments we continue to hear from him on, as you said, Adam, ownership and resettlement.

While we're talking about that subject, on Monday afternoon, Hamas said it would was the release of Israeli hostages held in Gaza because they claim Israel has breached the terms of the ceasefire deal. In turn, Israel has said that that's a complete violation of the ceasefire deal by Hamas. As many people said when that deal was agreed a few weeks ago, it's not a particularly stable arrangement with either side able to point the finger at the other side for not sticking to the terms. And that seems to be what's happening on Monday afternoon, and we will keep an eye on that in the next few days because, of course, that ceasefire deal is entering its second phase now, which everyone said would be much harder than the first one. Now, Sumi, I know you got to go and actually report on stories like that for other BBC outlets. But before you do, have you got your phone or your laptop there? Can you go on and tell me what Google Maps calls the Gulf of Mexico for American users? Because I've got my laptop here in the UK, and as a British user of Google Maps, the Gulf of Mexico is still It's called the Gulf of Mexico.

I'll tell you, I'm looking right now and it still says Gulf of Mexico on my Google Maps.

Interesting because I'd heard. So he did another executive order, didn't he? Saying to all US federal agencies and the secretary for the interior, you're going to have to call It's called the Gulf of America for government purposes now. And I understood Google was going to do maybe Gulf of America for US users and Gulf of Mexico/ America for the rest of us, but it seems like that's not taken effect yet.

Yeah, it looks like that hasn't actually trickled down to Google yet. Obviously, very different than enforcing that among federal agencies rather than with Google, a big private company.

Also, I should say for impartiality, I think there is maps on Bing, but I don't use that as often. Anyway, Sumi, thank you very much. See you soon.

All right. Great to talk to you.

You too. Chris, just before we talk about all matters domestic, it does look like Peter Manderson, Lord Manderson, is about to officially become the ambassador in Washington, doesn't it?

Yeah, and it still doesn't say God's Own County when I look at Yorkshire, is it?

Despite all your efforts over your broadcasting career.

I'm on my Google Maps, so there's all sorts of things going on here. Sorry, what were we talking about? Peter Manderson. Yeah, he is about to... Because currently, we don't actually formally have an ambassador because the previous ambassador, Karen pierce, left and the new one, Peter Maddison has been going over and unpacking his suitcase, all that stuff. Technically, he's still ambassador designate, but soon will be, well, you lose the designate bit and then he'll be up and running.

Then he will officially be His Excellency. Right, let's catch up on the latest on the WhatsApp story that Laura, Paddy, and Henry were talking about on Sunday's newscast. That was Andrew Gwyn, the Labor MP, losing his ministerial role because of some comments he'd made in a WhatsApp group made up of local activists that the Labor Party decided meant he could not be a minister anymore, and he had the whip removed. There was speculation all throughout Sunday. There was another member of that WhatsApp group who had been recently elected as a Labor MP. Then this person was identified and actions being taken against him, too.

Yeah. In the classic rollout, as journalists sometimes call it, of stories like this, it was always likely that there would be a second story that followed the first story. So Sunday's story, Saturday into Sunday's story, was all about Andrew Gwyn, the now former Health Minister. The story now is about this guy, Oliver Ryan, who used to work for Andrew Gwyn, then became the Labor MP for Burnley in Lancashire, was also in this group and ended up being summoned to see the Chief Whip, the guy in charge of party discipline, Sir Alan Campbell, and now also finds himself administratively suspended from the Labor Party, losing the whip, to use the Westminster vernacular. He was in this group for ages and ages, so there's a whole question about whether or not you should be calling out stuff when people say stuff that others might find It's beyond the pale. There was also remarks he'd made himself, mocking a Labor MP for his sexuality, denigrating a local vice chair of the Labor Party. I should say in the context of that remark about sexuality, that Mr. Ryan himself is gay. He has said that he regrets it and that he didn't see every message, but he should have been more proactive in challenging what was said, and that he also made remarks that he now deeply regrets.

The interesting thing, Adam, is what else might drip out of all of this in terms of who else was in the group. Then I've just also picked up on the circuit of whispers that is Westminster, that there are some Conservatives who are nervous about a separate WhatsApp group relating to conservative MPs in the last Parliament, so between 2019 and 2024, and a suggestion that access to that group might be in the possession of some journalists as well. It's that classic thing of where This is not to seek to justify anything, but to try and understand how these things might happen, where so often in these WhatsApp groups, it becomes effectively quasi throwaway conversation. But obviously, particularly if deleting messages, et cetera, are not turned on, it becomes a permanent record that is available sometimes to hundreds of people, others, dozens of people. Certainly in politics, I have no idea how these particular WhatsApp groups have seen the light of day, but certainly politics, things can then be stored up and shared at a later date.

Obviously, the news here is what's happened to these now suspended Labor MPs. But I think the longer term thing for me is, Kier Starmer and the people who have made these decisions alongside him have set quite a, well, I was going to say high bar, it's actually a low bar for quite serious disciplinary action. Yes. Because anyone else, as you were suggesting, who has engaged in any messaging in any way like this now has to have the book thrown at them in the same way if it emerges.

That's exactly right. Whilst there'll be many newscasters, no doubt, listening or watching and thinking, Yeah, too right. If you say this stuff, there should be professional consequences. There will be, I suspect, other Labor MPs, and perhaps others more broadly who might entertain the thought, would I quite fancy that WhatsApp group or the other WhatsApp group that I'm a member of, seeing the full light of day many years later, arguably out of context, without a sense of tone of voice, etc. Again, I'm not seeking to either condemn or condone what was said by either of these two guys, but journalistically, we try to understand it, don't we? As well as, as you say, setting in that crucial context of precedent when pretty much every MP, I would have thought, will be on innumerable WhatsApp groups, etc. Always, I guess, potentially fearful that This happens to them.

Right. On to more official government business, certainly what they plan for it to be. I notice you've been talking a lot about the Home Office today, and there's a few reasons for that. The Borders Bill is having its so-called Second reading in Parliament, so that's giving law enforcement more powers to tackle people smuggling, which is designed to have an effect on the small boats in the English channel. But also the Home Office going on a big publicity drive about just what they're doing when it comes to enforcing the existing laws on migration.

Yeah, and that's the thing that stands out for me with this. As you say, second reading, so the first debate in the House of Commons on the bill. But what we've seen in the last couple of weeks, and we'll see more of, is the government trying to show as well as tell. So about 10 days ago, I was invited to a command center for the small boat command, the operations room where we were shown round, and then I interviewed the Home Secretary. Then today, they've put out all of this video and stills of dawn raids, people being arrested, people being thrown out the country, basically shown onto a plane and then flown out of the UK. They think they've got a story they can tell. They know that there is a view that illegal immigration is out of control. Actually, it's more than a view that is very widely shared by a lot of people. The evidence suggests it. It is true that the government is not in control of illegal immigration at the moment, those arriving on small boats, nor indeed dealing with people who are here who shouldn't be and the whole process of their deportation.

What they're trying to show is that they are working hard at it. They've put out some figures about the number of rates at employers and arrests in January and comparing that with a year ago and saying that it's high and it's the highest figure for around about five years. Then, as I say, this video and these images on the basis that that can look more vivid, if you like, than an MP trotting out statistics. I think we'll see more of it. At least part of this, Adam, is folk in government looking across the water at the Donald Trump dial of politics, which is to be quite show, not tell, and theatrical, if you like, and grabbing attention in that way and thinking, you know what? Maybe there is stuff we can learn about that. Now, my understanding is the whole process of these videos coming out has been much longer in the planning than the last couple of weeks. But nonetheless, there's definitely an element of that, not least when we see the growth of reform in the opinion polls. We talked, didn't we, about that opinion poll last week where they'd overtaken Labor as well as the Conservatives, albeit only by the margin of error and all the rest of it.

But the trend of opinion polls, which is the thing we should be interested in rather than the individual one, does show reform rising and doing so resiliently. The big two parties at Westminster are responding to that, and this is part of that, as was that interview that I had with Cammi Bader, not the conservative leader, last week with their suggestion for making it harder to get to the point where you can apply for indefinite leave to remain or British citizenship. There's a awareness now across the piece of those three parties. You'll hear other views from the Lib Dems and the Scottish National Party and the Greens and others, but around walking towards evidence that suggests a lot of people think on both forms of migration, illegal and legal immigration, that the government's not being robust enough.

I'm thinking three things from what you've just said there. Three. Hopefully, I can remember all three now. This is always a bit dangerous.

I'll just get my pen and write these down.

Yeah, take this down, please, Mason. Number one, that point you were making about the number of arrests for these people who are being employed illegally because they don't have the right immigration status to work. You said it's basically back to the level where it was five years ago. Actually, it's not an unprecedented number. It's just back to where the system was before COVID.

Yes. From the conversations I've had, I'm not quite sure how comparable the numbers are before the five. If you go further back than five years. Certainly the data set we were shown went back that far. Obviously, you can cite and dice the numbers various ways. I mean, not least the Conservatives are saying that this so far in this calendar year, there have been more small boat arrivals than there were up to the point in 2024. Again, different participants in the debate will pick different data sets to make their argument, but the government is certainly seeking to, in its numbers as well as its pictures, point at stepping up the focus on those who are working illegally and trying to deport them.

Second point, I feel back in the old days when I was a political reporter, a baby political reporter in the 2010s. Oh, yeah. Quite often you'd get the home secretary, Theresa May, going out on a raid or a minister going out, and then they'd get in trouble for wearing a stab vest when actually they weren't really in any danger. Actually, so I feel like this is a genre of thing we've seen before.

It's not necessarily new. Absolutely. It is a genre we've seen before. You'll remember all of the rouse, and this came from, if you like, the other perspective than the one that the Conservatives and Reform are leaning into at the moment. But when Theresa May talked about a hostile environment for migrants and there was the vans that were branded Go Home and all of that. Participants in the debate now would point to differences between what's happening now and what's happened then and differences of tone and outlook, et cetera, et cetera, in all sorts of directions. But in broadly speaking terms, you're right. This debate and a desire from government to be demonstrative and say, Look, this is what we're doing and we want to show you what we're doing. We have definitely seen before. Why? Because it is a tactic to use when the evidence suggests a large chunk of the electorate, don't think you are.

Then my third point, you've already addressed it, was, is this the return of the hostile environment. The smart aleck thing I was going to say about that is that actually the hostile environment stuff, and I don't mean stuff to downplay it because I know people have strong views in either way about whether it should be the hostile environment or not, makes me then think, actually, the trend over the last 20 years or so has been to make the environment more hostile when it comes to migration, however you want to interpret that. Actually, the blip was the Boris Johnson years when total migration went up massively. Actually, that was the outlier because actually the trend in British politics over the last few decades has been the clamping down or the attempt to clap down.

Yeah, I think that's right. I think what's interesting around all of that is that is where you do get a fraying of the distinction between illegal and legal migration because, of course, you can arrive legally but then become an illegal immigrant because your rights to stay here, like a visa, for instance, expires. That's why there isn't, if you like, an overlap between those two things. But I think, yeah, the crucial distinction in that historical sweep is Boris Johnson and not only his liberal actions on migration as Prime Minister, but doing so, having been the face and voice or a very prominent face and voice of the Brexit campaign and then being a post Brexit Prime Minister. Now, of course, you can argue that those two things are not in contradiction because Brexit was about taking control rather than necessarily driving in the direction of a particular policy idea. But of course, for so many people, Brexit was about and was a statement about getting the migration numbers down. To see the exact opposite happen and all sorts of records be broken in the other direction is, I think, where you arrive at a debate now.

I was in Basildon in Essex today talking to folk about this. Why did we go there? We went there because at the election in the seat won by a whisker by Richard Holden, the former conservative Party chairman. In that seat, reform the Conservatives and Labor all basically finished with pretty much the same % of the vote. I mean, not quite, because Richard Holden won and Labor was second and reform were third, but they were all fairly close. You look at the national opinion polls now, and broadly speaking, those three parties are all fairly close to. That post-Brexit, big immigration, both legal and illegal, is the context we're in now, where loads of folk were saying to me today, whatever their view Their view did lean towards a lot more needs to be done, but not exclusively, was, Yeah, but can we actually believe that it's going to happen? Because they look skeptically towards the Conservatives and look skeptically increasingly towards labor as well on this.

Right, Chris, lovely to catch up. See you again soon. Ta-ra..