U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration and European Union officials on Thursday released a bare-bones account of their trade deal that imposes a stiff 15% import tax on 70% of European goods exported to the U.S., but they left blank key areas including wine and spirits and steel and indicated that talks would continue on those and a slew of other important goods.

The two sides said that the document made public Thursday was only “a first step in a process that can be further expanded to cover additional areas.” They are dealing with the vast range of goods traded between the two economies in what is the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world, involving $2 trillion in annual transatlantic business.

The 3 1/2-page text, which represents a political commitment and isn’t legally binding, contrasts with the typical format for trade agreements, which can be hundreds of pages long and carry legal force.

The key provisions are the 15% tariff on most EU goods, a zero rate on U.S. cars and other industrial goods exported to the EU, and a range of exceptions to the 15% rate for aircraft and aircraft parts, generic pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients, with other sectors to be added for goods crucial to each other’s economies. Those goods would face lower tariffs from before Trump’s tariff onslaught.

One goods category that wasn’t excluded from the higher tariff was wine and spirits, which had enjoyed zero tariffs on both ends since 1997. The EU’s chief trade negotiator, Maros Sefcovic, said that EU officials had not won an exemption “yet” but hoped to in future talks and that “doors are not closed forever” on that issue.

Proposals to exempt a certain amount of EU steel imports, known as a tariff rate quota, have been left unresolved pending more talks.

The 15% tariff is much higher than tariff levels on both sides from before Trump launched his wave of tariffs, when they averaged in the low single digits. The tariffs are paid on the U.S. end — either absorbed by U.S. businesses importing the goods, lowering their profits, or passed on to American consumers in the form of higher prices at the cash register.

European officials have had to defend the deal against dismay from businesses and member governments at the higher tariff and criticism that the EU gave away too much. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sold the deal as granting quick relief from the even higher U.S. tariff on EU cars of 27.5% and as opening the way for further negotiations that could exclude more goods from the 15% tariffs. The deal provides that the lower tariff on cars would apply retroactively from Aug. 1 if the EU can introduce legislation to implement its part of the deal by then, which EU officials say they will do.

“Faced with a challenging situation, we have delivered for our member states and industry and restored clarity and coherence to transatlantic trade,” von der Leyen said. “This is not the end of the process.”

Sefcovic, who echoed those sentiments, said, “The alternative was a trade war with sky high tariffs … it builds confidence. It brings stability.”

The deal also includes nonbinding EU commitments to purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy and for EU companies to invest $600 billion in the U.S. In both cases, the money would come from private companies and is based on assessment by the European Commission on what companies were planning to spend.

___

McHugh contributed from Frankfurt, Germany, and Hussein from Washington.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Klaus Vedfelt via Getty Images

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in Washington, D.C., was the highest in the nation for the third straight month, according to new data released Tuesday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

D.C.’s jobless rate reached 6% in July, a reflection of the mass layoffs of federal workers, ushered in by President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, earlier this year. An overall decline in international tourism — which is a main driver of D.C.’s income — is also expected to have an impact on the climbing unemployment rate in the District.

Neighboring states also saw an uptick in unemployment rates in July — with Maryland at 3.4% (up from 3.3%) and Virginia at 3.6% (up from 3.5%), according to the state-by-state jobless figures.

Since the beginning of Trump’s second term, federal workers across government agencies have been either laid off or asked to voluntarily resign from their positions. Those actions have drawn litigation across the federal government by labor unions and advocacy groups.

In July, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Trump administration plans to downsize the federal workforce further, despite warnings that critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be out of their jobs.

The latest D.C. Office of Revenue Analysis figures show that payments made to unemployed federal workers have been climbing month-over-month. In April, unemployed workers received $2.01 million in unemployment payments. By June, that figure reached $2.57 million.

The DC Fiscal Policy Institute argues that the federal worker layoffs will exacerbate D.C.’s Black-white unemployment ratio. The latest nationwide unemployment rate according to the BLS is 4.2% — South Dakota had the lowest jobless rate in July at 1.9%.

In addition, international tourism, a major source of D.C., to the U.S. is declining. Angered by Trump’s tariffs and rhetoric, and alarmed by reports of tourists being arrested at the border, some citizens of other countries are staying away from the U.S. and choosing to travel elsewhere — notably British, German and South American tourists, according to the World Travel & Tourism Council.

A May report from the organization states that international visitor spending to the U.S. is projected to fall to just under $169 billion this year, down from $181 billion in 2024 — which is a 22.5% decline compared to the previous peak.

The latest jobs numbers come after the Republican president and a group of GOP governors have deployed National Guard troops to D.C. in the hopes of reducing crime and boosting immigration enforcement.

City officials say crime is already falling in the nation’s capital.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law 90 years ago this week, he said it would provide economic stability to older people while giving the U.S. “an economic structure of vastly greater soundness.”

Today, the program provides benefits to almost 69 million Americans each month. It’s a major source of income for people older than 65 and is popular across the country and political lines.

It also looks more threatened than ever.

Just as it has for decades, Social Security faces a looming shortfall in money to pay full benefits. Since President Donald Trump took office in January, the program has faced more tumult. Agency staffing has been slashed. Unions and advocacy groups concerned about sharing sensitive information have sued. Administration officials, including the president, have falsely claimed that millions of dead people were receiving Social Security benefits. Former top adviser Elon Musk said the program was a potential “Ponzi scheme.”

At an Oval Office event Thursday commemorating the program’s anniversary, Trump said that under his watch “we’re strengthening it.” But the president and Republicans who control Congress have not proposed a long-term solution to shore up the program.

Social Security remains far from the sound economic system that Roosevelt envisioned, due to changes made — and not made — under both Democratic and Republican presidents.

Here’s a look at past and current challenges to Social Security, the proposed solutions and what it could take to shore up the program.

The go-broke date has been moved up

The so-called go-broke date — or the date at which Social Security will no longer have enough funds to pay full benefits — has been moved up to 2034, instead of last year’s estimate of 2035. After that point, Social Security would only be able to pay 81% of benefits, according to an annual report released in June. The earlier date came as new legislation affecting Social Security benefits have contributed to earlier projected depletion dates, the report concluded.

The Social Security Fairness Act, signed into law by Democratic President Joe Biden and enacted in January, had an impact. It repealed the Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions, increasing Social Security benefit levels for former public workers.

The new tax law signed by Trump in July will accelerate the insolvency of Social Security, said Brendan Duke at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“They haven’t laid out an idea to fix it yet,” he said. Trump on Thursday repeated the claim that his new tax and spending law will eliminate taxes on federal Social Security benefits.

That law has a temporary tax deduction for people 65 and over that applies to all income, not just Social Security. But not all Social Security beneficiaries can claim it; among those who cannot are low-income older adults who do not pay taxes on Social Security.

AARP CEO Myechia Minter-Jordan said the number of beneficiaries is set to increase to 82 million people by the time Social Security turns 100.

“As we look ahead to the next 90 years of Social Security, it’s critical that it remains strong for generations to come,” she said in a statement.

The privatization conversation has been revived

The notion of privatizing Social Security surfaced most recently when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this month said new tax-deferred investment accounts dubbed “ Trump accounts ” may serve as a “ backdoor to privatization,” though Treasury has walked back those comments.

The public has been widely against the idea of privatizing Social Security since Republican President George W. Bush embarked on a campaign to pitch privatization of the program in 2005, through voluntary personal retirement accounts. The plan was not well-received by the public.

Glenn Hubbard, a Columbia University professor and top economist in Bush’s White House, told The Associated Press that Social Security needs to be reduced in size in order to maintain benefits for generations to come. He supports limiting benefits for wealthy retirees.

“We will have to make a choice,” Hubbard said. “If you want Social Security benefits to look like they are today, we’re going to have to raise everyone’s taxes a lot. And if that’s what people want, that’s a menu, and you pay the high price and you move on.”

Another option would be to increase minimum benefits and slow down benefit growth for everyone else, which Hubbard said would right the ship without requiring big tax increases, if it’s done over time.

“It’s really a political choice,” he said, adding “Neither one of those is pain free.”

Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, an advocacy group for the preservation of Social Security benefits, is more worried that the administration of benefits could be privatized under Trump, rather than a move toward privatized accounts. The agency cut more than 7,000 from its workforce this year as part of the Department of Government Efficiency’s effort to reduce the size of the government.

A Social Security Administration representative didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Concerns persist

An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in April found that an increasing share of older Americans — particularly Democrats — support the program but aren’t confident the benefit will be available to them when they retire.

“So much of what we hear is that its running out of money,” said Becky Boober, 70, from Rockport, Maine, who recently retired after decades in public service. She relies on Social Security to keep her finances afloat, is grateful for the program and thinks it should be expanded.

“In my mind there are several easy fixes that are not a political stretch,” she said. They include raising the income tax cap on high-income earners and possibly raising the retirement age, which is currently 67 for people born after 1960, though she is less inclined to support that change.

Some call for shrinking the program

Rachel Greszler is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the group behind the Project 2025 blueprint for Trump’s second term. It called for an increase in the retirement age.

Greszler says Social Security no longer serves its intended purpose of being a social safety net for low-income older adults and is far too large. She supports pursuing privatization, which includes allowing retirees to put their Social Security taxes into a personal investment account.

She also argues for shrinking the program to a point where every retiree would receive the same Social Security benefit so long as they worked the same number of years, which she argues would increase benefits for the bottom one-third of earners. How this would impact middle-class earners is unclear.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Alex Brandon

The U.S. government’s gross national debt has surpassed $37 trillion, a record number that highlights the accelerating debt on America’s balance sheet and increased cost pressures on taxpayers.

The $37 trillion update is found in the latest Treasury Department report issued Tuesday which logs the nation’s daily finances.

The national debt eclipsed $37 trillion years sooner than pre-pandemic projections. The Congressional Budget Office’s January 2020 projections had gross federal debt eclipsing $37 trillion after fiscal year 2030. But the debt grew faster than expected because of a multi-year COVID-19 pandemic starting in 2020 that shut down much of the U.S. economy, where the federal government borrowed heavily under then-President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden to stabilize the national economy and support a recovery.

And now, more government spending has been approved after Trump signed into law Republicans’ tax cut and spending legislation earlier this year. The law set to add $4.1 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Chair and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, Michael Peterson said in a statement that government borrowing puts upward pressure on interest rates, “adding costs for everyone and reducing private sector investment. Within the federal budget, the debt crowds out important priorities and creates a damaging cycle of more borrowing, more interest costs, and even more borrowing.”

Wendy Edelberg, a senior fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution said Congress has a major role in setting in motion spending and revenue policy and the result of the Republicans’ tax law “means that we’re going to borrow a lot over the course of 2026, we’re going to borrow a lot over the course of 2027, and it’s just going to keep going.”

The Government Accountability Office outlines some of the impacts of rising government debt on Americans — including higher borrowing costs for things like mortgages and cars, lower wages from businesses having less money available to invest, and more expensive goods and services.

Peterson points out how the trillion-dollar milestones are “piling up at a rapid rate.”

The U.S. hit $34 trillion in debt in January 2024, $35 trillion in July 2024 and $36 trillion in November 2024. “We are now adding a trillion more to the national debt every 5 months,” Peterson said. “That’s more than twice as fast as the average rate over the last 25 years.”

The Joint Economic Committee estimates at the current average daily rate of growth an increase of another trillion dollars to the debt would be reached in approximately 173 days.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in a statement that “hopefully this milestone is enough to wake up policymakers to the reality that we need to do something, and we need to do it quickly.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Alex Brandon,File