Category: Full Text Articles – Audio Posts

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — A letter U.S. President Donald Trump wrote to Iran’s supreme leader in an attempt to jump-start talks over Tehran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program has arrived in the Iranian capital.

While the text of the letter hasn’t been published, its arrival comes as Trump has levied new sanctions on Iran as part of his “maximum pressure” campaign targeting the country. He also suggested military action against Iran remained a possibility, while emphasizing he still believed a new deal could be reached.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Iran’s 85-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has mocked Trump, but officials in his country also have offered conflicting signals over whether negotiations could take place.

Here’s what to know about the letter, Iran’s nuclear program and the overall tensions that have stalked relations between Tehran and Washington since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Why did Trump write the letter?

Trump dispatched the letter to Khamenei on March 5, then gave a television interview the next day in which he acknowledged sending it. He said: “I’ve written them a letter saying, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing.’” Since returning to the White House, the president has been pushing for talks while simultaneously ratcheting up sanctions and suggesting a military strike by Israel or the U.S. could target Iranian nuclear sites.

A previous letter Trump the late Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe dispatched during his first term drew an angry retort from the supreme leader.

But Trump’s letters to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in his first term led to face-to-face meetings, though no deals to limit Pyongyang’s atomic bombs and a missile program capable of reaching the continental U.S.

How has Iran reacted?

Iran has offered a series of seemingly contradictory responses. Khamenei himself said he wasn’t interested in talks with a “bullying government.”

But Iranian diplomats including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi earlier suggested that talks over guarantees that Tehran wouldn’t seek a nuclear weapon could be possible. Araghchi, who took part in negotiations for Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal, later toughened his tone and said talks couldn’t happen under U.S. pressure, following Khamenei’s lead.

However, Araghchi still met with the Emirati diplomat carrying Trump’s letter.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Foreign Ministry on Thursday summoned ambassadors from France and Germany, as well as the British chargé d’affaires, to complain about them backing a closed-door Security Council meeting Wednesday at the United Nations.

Why does Iran’s nuclear program worry the West?

Iran has insisted for decades that its nuclear program is peaceful. However, its officials increasingly threaten to pursue a nuclear weapon. Iran now enriches uranium to near weapons-grade levels of 60%, the only country in the world without a nuclear weapons program to do so.

Under the original 2015 nuclear deal, Iran was allowed to enrich uranium only up to 3.67% purity and to maintain a uranium stockpile of 300 kilograms (661 pounds). The last report by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s program put its stockpile at 8,294.4 kilograms (18,286 pounds) as it enriches a fraction of it to 60% purity.

U.S. intelligence agencies assess that Iran has yet to begin a weapons program, but has “undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so.”

Why are relations so bad between Iran and the U.S.?

Iran was once one of the U.S.’s top allies in the Mideast under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who purchased American military weapons and allowed CIA technicians to run secret listening posts monitoring the neighboring Soviet Union. The CIA had fomented a 1953 coup that cemented the shah’s rule.

But in January 1979, the shah, fatally ill with cancer, fled Iran as mass demonstrations swelled against his rule. The Islamic Revolution followed, led by Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and created Iran’s theocratic government.

Later that year, university students overran the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, seeking the shah’s return and sparking the 444-day hostage crisis that saw diplomatic relations between Iran and the U.S. severed. The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s saw the U.S. back Saddam Hussein. The “Tanker War” during that conflict saw the U.S. launch a one-day assault that crippled Iran at sea, while the U.S. later shot down an Iranian commercial airliner.

Iran and the U.S. have see-sawed between enmity and grudging diplomacy in the years since, with relations peaking when Tehran made a 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. But Trump unilaterally withdrew America from the accord, sparking years of tensions in the Mideast that persist today.

—Associated Press writer Amir Vahdat in Tehran, Iran, contributed.

Meta warned that a vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2025-27363, impacting the FreeType library may have been exploited in the wild.

Meta warned that an out-of-bounds write flaw, tracked as CVE-2025-27363 (CVSS score of 8.1), in the FreeType library may have been actively exploited in attacks.

“An out of bounds write exists in FreeType versions 2.13.0 and below when attempting to parse font subglyph structures related to TrueType GX and variable font files.” reads the advisory published by Meta. “The vulnerable code assigns a signed short value to an unsigned long and then adds a static value causing it to wrap around and allocate too small of a heap buffer. The code then writes up to 6 signed long integers out of bounds relative to this buffer. This may result in arbitrary code execution.”

The company did not disclose details on the attacks exploiting this vulnerability, attackers, or attack scale.

“This vulnerability may have been exploited in the wild.” continues the advisory.

The vulnerability doesn’t impact FreeType versions after 2.13.0.

The experts warn that multiple Linux distributions are using an outdated library version, making them vulnerable to attacks.

Some of the impacted Linux distros are:

• AlmaLinux
• Alpine Linux
• Amazon Linux 2
• Debian stable / Devuan
• RHEL / CentOS Stream / Alma Linux / etc. 8 and 9
• GNU Guix
• Mageia
• OpenMandriva
• openSUSE Leap
• Slackware, and
• Ubuntu 22.04

Due to active exploitation, users are recommended to update their installations to FreeType 2.13.3.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, Meta)

Domestic regime type affects both inter-state conflict and alliance formation. Democratic peace theory posits that democracies do not go to war with one another, while democratic alliance theory suggests that they rarely, if ever, join nondemocratic alliances (or alliances led by nondemocratic powers). Empirical evidence strongly supports both theories. The Atlantic Council’s Freedom and Prosperity Index further reinforces the hypothesis that economically prosperous democracies tend to align with one another, whereas authoritarian states gravitate toward similarly nondemocratic and less prosperous partners. 

If these theories hold, they carry significant implications for Western and especially US foreign policy. First, global democratization would reduce the number of potential conflicts, at least among an increasing number of democracies. Second, it would expand the pool of democratic alliance partners, while at the same limiting the alliance options available to nondemocratic powers. This strategic logic underscores the importance of upholding democratic norms abroad and promoting democratization in nondemocratic states. 

However, advocating for democratization of nondemocratic great powers will be perceived as both a geopolitical and domestic political challenge aimed at weakening their international position  and threatening their governments’ domestic grip on power. Efforts to democratize nondemocratic great-power like Russia and China therefore provoke intense countermeasures. If such a strategy is deemed to be too high risk or too difficult to pursue successfully, a less provocative, “peripheral” strategy may focus on fostering democracy and economic development in authoritarian regimes’ weaker, less prosperous partners, thereby depriving them of potential allies. 

About the author

Related content

Explore the program

The post Why democracies stick together: The theory and empirics behind alliance formation appeared first on Atlantic Council.

WASHINGTON — Kuwait has released a group of American prisoners, including veterans and military contractors jailed for years on drug-related charges, in a move seen as a gesture of goodwill between two allies, a representative for the detainees told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

The release follows a recent visit to the region by Adam Boehler, the Trump administration’s top hostage envoy, and comes amid a continued U.S. government push to bring home American citizens jailed in foreign countries.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Six of the newly freed prisoners were accompanied on a flight from Kuwait to New York by Jonathan Franks, a private consultant who works on cases involving American hostages and detainees and who had been in the country to help secure their release.

“My clients and their families are grateful to the Kuwaiti government for this kind humanitarian gesture,” Franks said in a statement.

He said that his clients maintain their innocence and that additional Americans he represents also are expected to be released by Kuwait later.

The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The names of the released prisoners were not immediately made public.

Kuwait did not acknowledge the release on its state-run KUNA news agency and did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The holy Muslim fasting month of Ramadan and its upcoming Eid al-Fitr holiday typically see prisoner releases across Muslim-majority nations.

Kuwait, a small, oil-rich nation that borders Iraq and Saudi Arabia and is near Iran, is considered a major non-NATO ally of the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio paid tribute to that relationship as recently as last month, when he said the U.S. “remains steadfast in its support for Kuwait’s sovereignty and the well-being of its people.”

The countries have had a close military partnership since America launched the 1991 Gulf War to expel Iraqi troops after Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded the country, with some 13,500 American troops stationed in Kuwait at Camp Arifjan and Ali al-Salem Air Base.

But Kuwait has also detained many American military contractors on drug charges, in some cases, for years. Their families have alleged that their loved ones faced abuse while imprisoned in a country that bans alcohol and has strict laws regarding drugs.

Others have criticized Kuwaiti police for bringing trumped-up charges and manufacturing evidence used against them — allegations never acknowledged by the autocratic nation ruled by a hereditary emir.

The State Department warns travelers that drug charges in Kuwait can carry long prison sentences and the death penalty. Defense cooperation agreements between the U.S. and Kuwait likely include provisions that ensure U.S. troops are subject only to American laws, though that likely doesn’t include contractors.

Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, his Republican administration has secured the release of American schoolteacher Marc Fogel in a prisoner swap with Russia and has announced the release by Belarus of an imprisoned U.S. citizen.

The Americans released Wednesday had not been designated by the U.S. government as wrongfully detained. The status is applied to a subsection of Americans jailed abroad and historically ensures the case is handled by the administration’s special presidential envoy for hostage affairs — the office that handles negotiations for a release.

But advocates of those held in foreign countries are hopeful the Trump administration takes a more flexible approach and secures the release of those not deemed wrongfully detained.

“The sad reality is that these Americans were left in prison for years due to a misguided policy that had, before President Trump took office, effectively abandoned Americans abroad who hadn’t been designated wrongfully detained,” Franks said in a statement.

“These releases,” he added, “demonstrate what is achievable when the U.S. government prioritizes bringing Americans home.”

—Gambrell reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

After the negotiations in Saudi Arabia on March 11, Moscow will deliberately stall the dialogue with the U.S. to buy time for regrouping and strengthening its military capabilities. We are certain that the Kremlin is not interested in either a ceasefire or a peaceful resolution of the war in Ukraine. Kremlin hawks, including Nikolai Patrushev, will sabotage the ceasefire by continuing drone strikes on civilian targets in Ukraine. In doing so, Moscow will attempt to demonstrate Washington’s inability to influence Russia and undermine the approval ratings of President Zelenskyy, who could boost his standing in society if an effective truce is achieved.

The reaction of the pro-Kremlin community demonstrates strong criticism of the regime in the event of an agreement on a ceasefire with Ukraine, especially from the so-called Z-groups, which hold the most radical positions in foreign policy and support Moscow’s military aggression.

Thus, Russia will use the negotiations as a tactical tool rather than a genuine mechanism for achieving peace.

A historical study, The Operational Code of the Politburo, which has remained relevant since 1951, shows that the Kremlin perceives agreements only as temporary concessions and its own losses, which can be violated at a convenient moment.

Russia has repeatedly demonstrated its unreliability in agreements, violating international treaties and commitments.

Deception is a key element of its foreign policy, as evidenced by its actions in Georgia, Crimea, Donbas, and other conflicts.

A ceasefire agreement in the Russia-Ukraine war faces significant obstacles and is unlikely to be fully implemented in the near future.because of:

1. Conflicting Objectives – Russia’s demands amount to Ukraine’s capitulation, while Ukraine insists on restoring its territorial integrity. These positions remain fundamentally irreconcilable.
2. Lack of Trust – Previous agreements (e.g., Minsk accords) were violated multiple times. Neither side trusts the other to uphold a deal.
3. Military Dynamics – Russia seeks a ceasefire to consolidate gains and rearm, while Ukraine continues to resist. If Ukraine perceives continued Western support, it has little incentive to agree.
4. Western Involvement – The U.S. and Europe see continued military aid as a way to weaken Russia strategically, making them reluctant to push Ukraine into premature negotiations.
5. Domestic Politics – Russian leadership portrays the war as existential, making concessions difficult. Ukraine, on the other hand, faces public opposition to territorial losses.
6. Geopolitical Pressures – China and other actors may push for a ceasefire, but their leverage is limited as long as both sides believe they can achieve more militarily.

Most Likely Scenario inShort-term: No full ceasefire; localized pauses in fighting may occur but will be unstable.

• Medium-term: A potential “frozen conflict” if military exhaustion sets in, similar to other post-Soviet conflicts.
• Long-term: A sustainable peace deal is unlikely without significant shifts in leadership or battlefield realities.

Russia’s likely Position on a Ceasefire Agreement

Russia’s approach to a ceasefire will likely be conditional, strategic, and aimed at consolidating its gains rather than ending the conflict on fair terms:

1. Russia Will Demand a Ceasefire on Its Terms

• Recognition of Occupied Territories: Russia will insist that Ukraine and the West recognize Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson as Russian territory.
• Demilitarization of Ukraine: Moscow may push for limits on Ukraine’s military capabilities, such as restrictions on Western weapons or troop movements.
• Non-NATO Status: Russia will continue demanding Ukraine’s permanent neutrality and a formal commitment to not join NATO.

2. A Ceasefire as a Tactical Pause

• Regrouping and Rebuilding: If Russia agrees to a ceasefire, it will likely use it to reinforce its military, train new troops, and stockpile weapons for future offensives.
• Avoiding a War of Attrition: If battlefield losses become unsustainable, a ceasefire could help Russia maintain its current territorial control without further depletion of forces.
• Economic & Political Stabilization: A ceasefire could ease some Western sanctions and help Putin maintain domestic stability ahead of future political events.

• If Ukraine Accepts Russian Demands A full Russian victory would mean a Ukraine under Russian influence, with significant territorial losses.
• If a Frozen Conflict Emerges: If Russia cannot force a total Ukrainian capitulation, it may seek a prolonged frozen conflict, similar to Transnistria or South Ossetia.
• If Ukraine & the West Reject a Ceasefire: Moscow will use this refusal to justify further military escalation and blame Ukraine for prolonging the war.

Russia will only agree to a ceasefire if it serves its strategic interests—not as a step toward real peace, but as a temporary measure to secure its current gains and prepare for future confrontations.

We are convinced that Washington lacks effective mechanisms to compel Russia to cease fire.

If Moscow agrees to freeze the conflict, escalation is likely to occur at the end of Donald Trump’s term, making it impossible to change the situation and having serious consequences for Europe.

If Western sanctions on Russia were lifted, it would take at least 5–10 years for Russia to rebuild its military capacityto the point where it could seriously consider an offensive against NATO. The exact timeframe would depend on several key factors:

1. Defense Industry Recovery (5+ Years Minimum)

• Rebuilding the Arms Industry: Russia’s defense sector is struggling due to sanctions on high-tech components, semiconductors, and machinery. Even if sanctions were lifted, it would take years to secure foreign tech supplies and modernize production lines for advanced weaponry.
• Replenishing Missile & Ammunition Stockpiles: Russia has been rapidly depleting its missile reserves in Ukraine. It would need at least 5 years to rebuild stockpiles for large-scale war.
• Modernizing Equipment: Many of Russia’s modern tanks, jets, and armored vehicles have been lost in Ukraine. Replacing them at pre-war production rates would take at least a decade.

2. Manpower & Training (7–10 Years for Full Readiness)

• Replacing Losses from Ukraine: Russia has lost tens of thousands of experienced troops, including elite airborne (VDV) and Spetsnaz forces. Rebuilding these units with trained personnel would take nearly a decade.
• Training & Doctrine Adjustments: Lessons from Ukraine show that Russia’s outdated Soviet-era tactics are ineffective against modern Western military strategies. Retraining an army to NATO-level combined-arms warfare takes years.
• Demographic Crisis: Russia is facing a shrinking pool of young men due to low birth rates and war casualties, further slowing manpower recovery.

3. Economic & Industrial Constraints (10+ Years for Full Readiness)

• Budget Strains: Even if sanctions were lifted, Russia would need trillions of rubles to rebuild its military, straining its economy.
• Technological Gaps: Russia lacks the domestic ability to produce advanced military technology (e.g., AI, precision-guided weapons, stealth aircraft), which puts it at a permanent disadvantage against NATO.
• Dependence on Foreign Suppliers: Even with no sanctions, Russia relies on countries like China, Iran, and North Korea for military imports. However, none can provide the high-tech weapons needed to challenge NATO.

Bottom Line: Russia Needs at Least a Decade to Seriously Threaten NATO

• 5 years to stabilize the defense industry and replenish missile stockpiles.
• 7–10 years to restore trained manpower and modernize its army.
• 10+ years for full readiness, assuming economic conditions allow sustained military buildup.

However, Russia may still engage in hybrid warfare, cyberattacks, and nuclear threats in the meantime to pressure NATO.

Although Russia is already conducting offensive operations in Ukraine, a full-scale strategic offensive aimed at conquering significant new territories (e.g., Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa) would require substantial rebuilding of its military capacity.Depending on the scope of the attack, Russia would need between 1 and 5 years to prepare.

Upon taking office during his first term, one of Donald Trump’s opening moves was a bigoted travel ban on people from Muslim-majority countries.

This time around, Trump is preparing another ban that could go into effect in days. Advocates warned Tuesday that it will sweep up not just Muslims living abroad, but also immigrants living in the U.S. that hold what Trump deems “hostile attitudes” toward the country.

The forthcoming travel ban would become the latest of Trump’s draconian anti-immigration policies, many of which rehash the same themes about national security and public safety.

“The travel ban that is going to be coming out is going to serve as another basis for the targeting of activists.”

Trump issued a January 20 executive order that used the language about “hostile attitudes” to target immigrants for deportation. The phrase has been echoed in remarks from U.S. officials justifying the arrest over the weekend of the Palestinian student activist Mahmoud Khalil, said Yasmine Taeb, the legislative and political director for the Muslim advocacy group MPower Change.

“All of these policies are interconnected,” she said, “and the travel ban that is going to be coming out is going to serve as another basis for the targeting of activists advocating for Palestinian human rights.”

Targeting “Hostile” Residents

The White House has yet to formally release details of the latest travel ban, but Trump has repeatedly said he will reissue his eight-year-old policy, which was discarded by President Joe Biden when he came into office in 2021.

The new ban could add Afghanistan and Pakistan to the list of countries whose citizens were banned from entering the U.S. during Trump’s first term, which included Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, according to a report from Reuters. Trump expanded the list to include four additional African countries in 2020.

From the start, Trump’s first travel ban faced challenges in court. This time around, the Trump administration has been trying to preempt lawsuits. In his January 20 executive order, Trump directed the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies to prepare a report on countries with “deficient” vetting information, a move intended to help the new ban withstand legal scrutiny.

The executive order that would form the basis of a forthcoming travel ban doesn’t stop at targeting people who live abroad. It says that the U.S. must ensure foreign nationals living here “do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security.”

Trump followed up that first executive order with another one on January 30 that more narrowly focused on pro-Palestinian protesters.

“To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before,” Trump said in a statement announcing the order.

At a press conference Tuesday, civil liberties and immigration advocates said they worried the vague language about “hostile attitudes” will set up a dragnet for people living legally in the U.S. on visas or holding lawful permanent residence, also known as green card status.

Khalil, the Columbia graduate who as a student had been involved in protests, was a green card holder. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents reportedly said at the time of his arrest that his permanent residence was being revoked.

Advocates said the new Muslim ban could undermine the very values the Trump administration says it wants to reinforce with its immigration crackdown.

“This travel ban that the administration is planning to bring back will undermine our national security, undermine our economy, undermine fundamental values of our nation like free speech, and force American families and communities like ours to live in fear,” said Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council. “To live with an assumption that the government is always watching, and if we don’t stay within the very partisan lines defined by the current administration, we and our friends and our loved ones could be kicked out of this country.”

Barring Afghan Refugees

In addition to targeting free speech on Gaza, news reports suggest the newest travel ban could add Afghanistan and Pakistan to the list of countries whose nationals are barred from coming to America.

That would have devastating repercussions for the tens of thousands of Afghan refugees at risk if they are forced to return to their home country, in many cases because they aided the U.S. in its long war against the Taliban, advocates said Tuesday.

“This makes the Trump administration and the U.S. government a willing accomplice of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This decision will ensure that folks are killed, detained, surveilled and extrajudicially executed in all 34 provinces of Afghanistan,” said Arash Azizzada, the co-director of Afghans for a Better Tomorrow.

Over 200,000 Afghans are living in the U.S. as refugees and another 40,000 still hope to move to the country, NPR reported in January. The travel ban could bar the latter from entering the country and force the former to live in fear of violating the vague ban on “hostile attitudes,” Azizzada said.

The White House declined to comment on which countries will be included in the travel ban. An administration spokesperson said, “No decisions regarding possible travel bans have been made, and anyone claiming otherwise does not know what they are talking about.”

The post Trump’s New Muslim Ban Poised to Sweep Up Immigrants Already in the U.S. appeared first on The Intercept.

BRUSSELS — Major trade partners swiftly hit back at President Donald Trump’s increased tariffs on aluminum and steel imports, imposing stiff new taxes on U.S products from textiles and water heaters to beef and bourbon.

Canada, the largest supplier of steel and aluminum to the U.S., said Wednesday it will place 25% reciprocal tariffs on steel products and also raise taxes on a host of items: tools, computers and servers, display monitors, sports equipment, and cast-iron products.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Across the Atlantic, the European Union will raise tariffs on American beef, poultry, bourbon and motorcycles, bourbon, peanut butter and jeans.

Combined, the new tariffs will cost companies billions of dollars, and further escalate the uncertainty in two of the world’s major trade partnerships. Companies will either take the losses and earn fewer profits, or, more likely, pass costs along to consumers in the form of higher prices.

Prices will go up, in Europe and the United States, and jobs are at stake, said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

“We deeply regret this measure. Tariffs are taxes. They are bad for business, and even worse for consumers,” von der Leyen said.

The E.U. duties aim for pressure points in the U.S. while minimizing additional damage to Europe. E.U. officials have made clear that the tariffs—taxes on imports—are aimed at products made in Republican-held states, such as beef and poultry from Kansas and Nebraska and wood products from Alabama and Georgia. The tariffs will also hit blue states such as Illinois, the No. 1 U.S. producer of soybeans, which are also on the list.

Spirits producers have become collateral damage in the dispute over steel and aluminum. The E.U. move “is deeply disappointing and will severely undercut the successful efforts to rebuild U.S. spirits exports in E.U. countries,” said Chris Swonger, head of the Distilled Spirits Council. The E.U. is a major destination for U.S. whiskey, with exports surging 60% in the past three years after an earlier set of tariffs was suspended.

Read More: What Are Tariffs and Why Is Trump In Favor of Them?

Could there be an agreement that takes increasing tariffs off the table?

Von der Leyen said in a statement that the E.U. “will always remain open to negotiation.”

Canada’s incoming Prime Minister Mark Carney said Wednesday he’s ready to meet with Trump if he shows “respect for Canadian sovereignty” and is willing to take “a common approach, a much more comprehensive approach for trade.”

Carney, who will be sworn in Friday, said workers in both countries will be better off when “the greatest economic and security partnership in the world is renewed, relaunched. That is possible.”

“We firmly believe that in a world fraught with geopolitical and economic uncertainties, it is not in our common interest to burden our economies with tariffs,” she said.

The American Chamber of Commerce to the E.U. said the U.S. tariffs and E.U. countermeasures “will only harm jobs, prosperity and security on both sides of the Atlantic.” “The two sides must de-escalate and find a negotiated outcome urgently,” the chamber said Wednesday.

What will actually happen?

Trump slapped similar tariffs on E.U. steel and aluminum during his first term in office, which enraged European and other allies. The E.U. also imposed countermeasures in retaliation at the time, raising tariffs on U.S.-made motorcycles, bourbon, peanut butter and jeans, among other items.

This time, the E.U. action will involve two steps. First on April 1, the commission will reimpose taxes that were in effect from 2018 and 2020, but which were suspended under the Biden administration. Then on April 13 come the additional duties targeting 18 billion euros ($19.6 billion) in U.S. exports to the bloc.

E.U. Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič traveled to Washington last month in an effort to head off the tariffs, meeting with U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and other top trade officials.

He said on Wednesday that it became clear during the trip “that the E.U. is not the problem.”

“I argued to avoid the unnecessary burden of measures and countermeasures, but you need a partner for that. You need both hands to clap,” Šefčovič told reporters at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France.

Canada is imposing, as of 12:01 a.m. Thursday 25% reciprocal tariffs on steel products worth $12.6 billion Canadian (US$8.7 billion) and aluminum products worth $3 billion Canadian (US$2 billion) as well as additional imported U.S. goods worth $14.2 billion Canadian ($9.9 billion) for a total of $29.8 billion (US$20.6 billion.)

The list of additional products affected by counter-tariffs includes tools, computers and servers, display monitors, water heaters, sport equipment, and cast-iron products.

These tariffs are in addition to Canada’s 25% counter tariffs on $30 billion Canadian (US$20.8 billion) of imports from the U.S. that were put in place on March 4 in response to other Trump tariffs that he’s delayed by a month.

European steel companies brace for losses

The EU could lose up to 3.7 million tons of steel exports, according to the European steel association Eurofer. The U.S. is the second-biggest export market for EU steel producers, representing 16% of the total EU steel exports.

The EU estimates that annual trade volume between both sides stands at about $1.5 trillion, representing around 30% of global trade. While the bloc has a substantial export surplus in goods, it says that is partly offset by the U.S. surplus in the trade of services.

—McHugh reported from Frankfurt and Gillies from Toronto. Jill Lawless contributed to this report from London.

Right after Ukraine agreed to a 30-day ceasefire in talks with the US, Moscow launched massive strikes, hitting Odesa’s port, Kryvyi Rih, and Dnipro.

The $488 million Spherex mission aims to explain how galaxies formed and evolved over billions of years, and how the universe expanded so fast in its first moments

The Jaffar Express, with roughly 450 people on board, was traveling north from Quetta, Balochistan, to Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, when it came under a bomb and gun attack Tuesday