• President Donald Trump hinted at a potential trade deal with China amid ongoing tariff tensions.
• The trade war has escalated tariffs on China up to 245%, affecting US-China economic relations.
• China and the US are seeking new global trade partners to strengthen their positions.

President Donald Trump said Thursday that he expects an agreement "over the next three to four weeks" that would end the escalating trade war with China.

"I believe we're going to have a deal with China," said Trump during an executive order signing session in the Oval Office alongside Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. "I think we have plenty of time."

There was no immediate confirmation from Beijing on whether a deal is likely to happen. And Trump dodged questions on whether China's leader, Xi Jinping, made the overture to end the tariffs battle.

This is the first time since Trump increased tariffs on China — up to 245% — that the possibility of a deal has appeared on the horizon.

"It's a game between China and the US in terms of who's going to blink first," Nick Vyas, the founding director of USC Marshall's Randall R. Kendrick Global Supply Chain Institute, told Business Insider before Trump's Thursday remarks. "China feels that they have all the cards to continue to hold out, and President Trump feels that he has power, because we consume more from China than China consumes from us."

"Both of these cases are true, and one has to just wait and watch and see which reality will end up shaping up in the end," he added.

China's upper hand? Its system of government

Supply chain and geopolitics experts have told Business Insider that Xi may have more time and leverage than Trump.

"Xi can make life difficult for some American tech companies and for farmers in the Midwest, but the damage to China by the US could be much worse," said Andrew Collier, a senior fellow at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at the Harvard Kennedy School. "On the flipside, the political pressure on Trump in a democracy is likely to be much higher once people realize how bad the economy and markets are."

"China's authoritarian system is an advantage here," he added.

Vyas said that while Trump's term ends within four years, Xi is the lifetime president of China with a "long horizon."

Xi doesn't have to worry about elections or consumer sentiment, which could make this a "long, drawn-out battle," Vyas added.

Vyas also noted that China has dominance in the EV market and controls 85% of the capacity to process rare earth minerals, which would impact the US's defense capacities and AI ambitions if China completely cuts off that supply.

A history of trade conflict

Trump has a history of raising tariffs on China in attempts to reduce the US trade deficit and bring back manufacturing jobs.

In 2017, his administration began investigating China's trade practices and, in 2018, imposed a 25% tariff on certain Chinese exports, such as electronics and auto parts.

In February this year, Trump targeted China with tariffs twice, resulting in 20% in duties on China by the end of the month. On April 2, Trump again hit China with 34% tariffs. After China responded with tariffs on US exports, he then hiked this figure to 125%, then 145%, and now up to 245% according to a White House document.

China has announced a 125% counter-tariff on US goods by April 11 and halted exports of rare earth elements critical to US defense industries.

Previous efforts to reduce trade deficits with China have yielded limited results. In 2024, the trade deficit was about $295 billion, lower than $375 billion in 2017 but still more than double the total amount of US exports to China in a year.

Both the US and China are courting other countries

With the US taking a harder stance on global trade, Ilaria Mazzocco, senior fellow in Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told BI that China is seeing "a diplomatic opportunity" to launch "a charm offensive."

"Conversations between the EU and China seem to have taken a softer tone," said Mazzocco. "There's hope on Beijing's side that by showing they are a more status quo, stable, reliable trading and global partner, countries are going to feel reassured, and it's going to improve its foreign relations, like with the EU, where there's been a lot of tension."

After meeting with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez in Beijing last week, Xi embarked on a tour across Southeast Asia to sign deals on infrastructure and trade. Xi's stop in Malaysia led to deals on AI, rail connectivity, and the export of coconuts.

EU leaders are also planning to travel to Beijing for a late July summit with Xi, which Mazzocco says could be a chance for China to acknowledge it has a structural issue of overproduction and make commitments to address it.

However, Mazzocco added, it is unlikely Southeast Asian countries will replace the US with China as a trading partner, because China doesn't have a strong enough internal demand from consumers to absorb imports from overseas.

The US is also in talks with leaders of the EU. At the White House on Thursday, Trump told Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni that a deal between the EU and US would "100%" be reached "at a certain point."

Mazzocco points out that unpredictability of Trump's policies may be harmful for striking a deal, and runs the risk of having US allies quietly pull back the alliance in the long run.

"We seem to understand that part of the goal is to extract concessions from trading partners, and those concessions may be economic or defense related, but the unpredictability is unhelpful." said Mazzocco. "This is really dangerous because it could really undermine business sentiment globally, and could also in the long term incentivize US trading partners to be a little less reliant on the US, diplomatically and on trade."

• The US said Friday many tech categories would be exempt from recently announced tariffs.
• Then, on Sunday, Trump said tech products would be subject to separate tariffs in the future.
• Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said those new tariffs could come in a month or two.

It appears the US tech industry might not be free from additional tariffs after all.

President Donald Trump said Sunday in a Truth Social post that tech-related tariffs are still on the table, two days after the US announced that many tech products would be exempt from the recently announced tariffs against China.

"There was no Tariff 'exception' announced on Friday," Trump wrote. "These products are subject to the existing 20% Fentanyl Tariffs, and they are just moving to a different Tariff 'bucket.'"

Last week, US Customs and Border Protection published a list of tech categories exempt from the huge tariffs levied against China, including smartphones, computers, and chip-making equipment. The news was well-received by the tech industry, which hoped to recover some of its losses when markets reopen on Monday.

But any investor excitement will likely be tempered by Trump's Sunday comments. Trump said that "nobody is getting off the hook" amid the ongoing trade war between the United States and China.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick echoed Trump's comments during an interview with ABC News on Sunday, saying that tech products would be subject to tariffs after an investigation into the effect importing vital tech components has on national security.

He said that while tech products are "exempt from the reciprocal tariffs," they will be included in what he called "semiconductor tariffs," which he said could come in the next month or two.

"All those products are going to come under semiconductors, and they're going to have a special focus type of tariff to make sure that those products get re-shored," Lutnick said. "We need to have semiconductors, we need to have chips, and we need to have flat panels — we need to have these things made in America. We can't be reliant on Southeast Asia for all of the things that operate for us."

The White House confirmed to BI in an email on Saturday that Trump intended to issue new tariffs on certain tech products in the future.

"President Trump has made it clear America cannot rely on China to manufacture critical technologies such as semiconductors, chips, smartphones, and laptops," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told BI by email. "That's why the President has secured trillions of dollars in US investments from the largest tech companies in the world, including Apple, TSMC, and Nvidia. At the direction of the President, these companies are hustling to onshore their manufacturing in the United States as soon as possible."

The Friday exemptions are still welcome news for the tech industry, coming after a wild week in global financial markets. The intensifying trade war between the United States and China caused chaos in both the stock and bond markets.

While many tech giants have deep ties to China, Apple, in particular, is fully enmeshed in the country, where it has spent years building up the supply chain for its iPhones.

In a post on X, Wall Street analyst Dan Ives on Saturday called the exemptions "dream news" for the sector. After the comments from Lutnick and Trump on Sunday, Ives tempered his enthusiasm but said the "worst case scenario" — 145% tariffs — was at least taken off the table.

"As chaotic/confusing as this last 48 hours is with tariffs…semis/tech getting put in the 20% tariff bucket and not exposed to the 145% reciprocal is good step..that will be the focus of tech investors," he said on X.

Tech investor Matt Turck, a partner at the venture capital firm FirstMark Capital, told Business Insider that the exemption from the steepest tariffs was "a major relief to the tech and AI industry."

He added that "they're the sensical thing to do in an otherwise completely nonsensical series of decisions."

Responding to the US's move on Sunday, a spokesperson for China's Ministry of Commerce said it was a "small step" toward rectifying what it sees as a misguided policy, according to Chinese state news. The Commerce Ministry also reportedly called for the United States to "completely cancel" its remaining "reciprocal" tariffs.

• President Donald Trump on Friday teased that his baseline 10% tariff rate could have "exceptions."
• The exemptions would apply "for obvious reasons," Trump said, without elaborating.
• The Treasury secretary said this week that around 70 countries were looking to negotiate tariffs.

President Donald Trump on Friday teased that his sweeping baseline 10% tariff on most trading partners could have "a couple of exceptions."

Speaking to reporters on board Air Force One as he made his way to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Trump said 10% was "pretty close" to a floor for those looking to make a deal.

"There could be a couple of exceptions for, you know, obvious reasons, but I would say 10% is a floor," he told reporters, without elaborating.

The 10% baseline rate, announced as part of the president's "Liberation Day" tariffs, came into effect on April 5. Higher duties on certain countries also began on April 9 before Trump called for a 90-day pause.

The policy changes have fueled wild volatility in both stock and bond markets this week and drawn concern from economists and some notable names on Wall Street.

Pressed on what he thought about the market reaction, Trump told reporters Friday: "I think people are seeing we're in great shape. We're making a lot of money as a country now."

"I think the bond market's going good. It had a little moment but I solved that problem very quickly. I'm very good at that stuff you know," he added.

Earlier this week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the US had about "70 negotiations lined up" with foreign governments to discuss trade deals.

While Trump agreed to pause the implementation of his tariffs for many countries while negotiations take place, the burgeoning trade war between the United States and China has continued to escalate.

China on Friday raised its total retaliatory levies on US imports to 125% following the Trump administration's Thursday statement that US duties on Beijing had increased to 145%.

Speaking on Air Force One, Trump nevertheless appeared hopeful a deal could be reached and touted his "very good" relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Elsewhere in the interview, the president was also keen to share loose details of his annual physical, the results of which he said would likely be released Sunday.

"Overall, I felt I was in very good shape. Good heart. A good soul. Very good soul," he said, before taking the opportunity to rib former President Joe Biden.

"I wanted to be a little different than Biden. I took a cognitive test and I don't know what to tell you other than I got every answer right," Trump added.

Representatives for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

• Donald Trump quietly opened a pizza parlor at Trump Tower in New York City.
• The food has been a focal point of his career and political campaigns.
• The parlor's opening makes Trump the first known president to own a pizza joint while in office.

Donald Trump's love story with pizza entered its latest chapter as the president quietly opened a pizza parlor at Trump Tower in New York City.

Trump Pizza is "where New York tradition meets Italian craftsmanship," according to a Tuesday post on the Trump Tower Instagram page. It also makes Trump the first known president to own a pizza parlor while in office.

The new pizza parlor, first pointed out by Emily Sundberg in her "Feed Me" Substack, appears to be part of a recently completed renovation of Trump Cafe, one of the restaurants located within Trump Tower. The oven in the Instagram photo showcases the signature white marble and gold aesthetic that Trump has become known for over the years, as well as several of the restaurant's offerings: pepperoni, a sausage and pepper combination pie, and what appears to be a classic Margherita with tomato, mozzarella, and basil.

While a full menu following the upgrades is not yet available online, Business Insider has previously reported dining options at Trump Tower are pricey — and a little lackluster.

The Cafe was closed at the time of publication. A receptionist at Trump's 45 Wine and Whiskey Bar told Business Insider that they did not know the cost of a slice at the Cafe.

Representatives for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

For decades, pizza has been a focal point of Trump's career and political campaigns; indeed, pizza and politics have long gone slice-in-hand.

Many politicians, Trump included, have made campaign stops at local pizza parlors in an effort to sway blue-collar voters. They have regularly made headlines when being caught eating a slice with a knife and fork or being seen delivering pies to hardworking civil servants.

On several occasions dating back nearly 30 years, Trump has publicly declared his love for the tasty Italian offering, including in a 1995 Pizza Hut commercial in which Trump and his then-wife, Ivana, negotiated a deal to eat their pizza the "wrong way" (crust first) to promote new stuffed crust options at the franchise.

However, his preferred method for enjoying a cheesy slice remains unclear. After being lambasted on The Daily Show for stacking several slices on top of each other and cutting individual bites away with a fork, the food journalism outlet Serious Eats reported that Trump said he preferred no crust at all.

"This way you can take the top of the pizza off, you're not just eating the crust," Serious Eats reported he said. "I like not to eat the crust so that we keep the weight down at least as good as possible."

But, no matter how you slice it, it was just a matter of time before Trump had a pizza stone to call his own.

• A tourism helicopter crashed in the Hudson River on Thursday, killing three adults and three children.
• A Siemens executive, his wife, and their three children were among the dead, a company spokesperson said.
• The NTSB said the aircraft was not equipped with any flight recorders and was on its eighth flight of the day.

The National Transportation Safety Board said on Saturday that the helicopter involved in a crash that killed six people in New York earlier this week was not equipped with any flight recorders and that the accident occurred during the aircraft's eighth flight of the day.

"No onboard video recorders or camera recorders have been recovered and none of the helicopter avionics onboard recorded information that could be used for the investigation," the NTSB said in an update.

It added that the helicopter had completed seven tour flights on the day of the crash and that its last "major" inspection took place on March 1.

A Siemens executive, his wife, their three children, and a pilot were killed when a tourism helicopter plummeted into the Hudson River near Manhattan on Thursday.

Agustín Escobar, 49, had been the global CEO of the rail unit for Siemens Mobility. His wife, Mercè Camprubí Montal, also worked for the company as the global commercialization manager for its energy division.

"We are deeply saddened by the tragic helicopter crash in which Agustin Escobar and his family lost their lives. Our heartfelt condolences go out to all their loved ones," a Siemens spokesperson said on Friday.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams told a press conference on Thursday night that four people were pronounced dead at the scene, and two were taken to the hospital where they later died.

The pilot, who has been identified as US Navy veteran Sean Johnson, was the other victim.

The Federal Aviation Administration said the helicopter involved was a Bell 206, and that the NTSB would lead the investigation.

The NTSB said on X that it was "launching a go-team" to investigate the crash.

Videos posted on social media appeared to show the helicopter's rotor disconnected from the rest of the aircraft, spinning mid-air as the cabin plunged into the water.

Officials said that it appeared the helicopter, which was operated by New York Helicopters Tour Company, had lost control.

In a statement Friday, New York Helicopter Tours said it was "profoundly saddened by the tragic accident and loss of life that occurred on April 10, 2025, involving one of our helicopters in the Hudson River."

"The safety and well-being of our passengers and crew has always been the cornerstone of our operations. Our immediate focus is supporting the families and their loved ones affected by this tragedy, as well as fully cooperating with the FAA and NTSB investigations," it continued.

The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Calls to the helicopter's registered owner, a Louisiana firm, were unanswered.

The NTSB said Saturday that the helicopter's main fuselage, the forward portion of the tail boom, the horizontal stabilizer finlets, and the vertical fin had been recovered, but that divers were continuing to search for the main rotor, main gear box, tail rotor, and a large section of the tail boom.

A recent spate of plane crashes has raised awareness of aviation safety.

The Hudson River sees heavy helicopter traffic between airports and tourist flights over landmarks such as the Statue of Liberty. Pilots are required to use specific corridors.

In 2018, five people died after a helicopter made an emergency landing in the East River and flipped upside down, trapping the passengers inside.

The following year a helicopter crash-landed on the roof of a skyscraper, killing the pilot.

• In a Wednesday court filing, Sam Altman's lawyers didn't pull their punches against Elon Musk.
• The filing may be the most detailed account by Altman's side of the breakup between the tech titans.
• Musk "has tried every tool available to harm OpenAI" in his personal vendetta against the company, it reads.

If you let Sam Altman's lawyers tell it, Elon Musk's ongoing battle against OpenAI stems from his personal vendetta against Altman and OpenAI — a company that has seen its business boom since it refused to cede control to Musk in 2018.

In a Wednesday filing related to Musk's August 2024 lawsuit against OpenAI, lawyers for Altman and the company laid out Altman's version of events that led to the breakup between the two tech titans. It has been the most detailed account thus far of Altman's side of what went down in his fight with Musk.

"Musk could not tolerate seeing such success for an enterprise he had abandoned and declared doomed," the filing read. "He made it his project to take down OpenAI, and to build a direct competitor that would seize the technological lead—not for humanity but for Elon Musk."

The filing continued: "The ensuing campaign has been relentless. Through press attacks, malicious campaigns broadcast to Musk's more than 200 million followers on the social media platform he controls, a pretextual demand for corporate records, harassing legal claims, and a sham bid for OpenAI's assets, Musk has tried every tool available to harm OpenAI."

OpenAI's filing on Wednesday came the same day the judge in the case set a March 2026 trial date in this clash of titans lawsuit. The company's lawyers did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

OpenAI said it was counter-suing Musk in a scathing series of X posts published on Wednesday. The ChatGPT maker also pointed to older blog posts it had published on their pivot from a nonprofit approach as well as their email exchanges with Musk.

"Elon's nonstop actions against us are just bad-faith tactics to slow down OpenAI and seize control of the leading AI innovations for his personal benefit," OpenAI wrote on X on Wednesday.

"Elon's never been about the mission. He's always had his own agenda. He tried to seize control of OpenAI and merge it with Tesla as a for-profit — his own emails prove it. When he didn't get his way, he stormed off," the company added.

Representatives for OpenAI referred BI to its recent X posts and the Wednesday filing when contacted for comment.

Musk cofounded OpenAI with Altman in 2015 but left the company's board in 2018. Musk said in 2019 that he left because Tesla was competing for the same talent as OpenAI. Musk said he also "didn't agree with some of what the OpenAI team wanted to do. Musk did not specify what those differences were.

Since then, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO has been a vocal critic of Altman's leadership of OpenAI. Musk had initially filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in February 2024 but withdrew it in June. He later refiled the lawsuit in August.

In his lawsuit, Musk accused OpenAI of violating its nonprofit mission by partnering with Microsoft. Musk's lawyers argued that OpenAI's executives "deceived" him into cofounding the company by playing on his fears about AI's existential risks.

In February, an Elon-Musk-led investor group made a $97.4 billion bid for OpenAI. Altman dismissed Musk's unsolicited takeover bid.

"The company is not for sale, neither is the mission," Altman said of Musk's bid in an interview with Sky News in February.

Musk did not respond to a request for comment from BI.

• The world's 10 richest people had a combined $135.33 billion rally in the stock market on Wednesday.
• Stocks surged after Trump said he'd rolled back tariff plans that had caused the market to plunge.
• Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg gained $80 billion alone — but they're still down over the past year.

The world's richest people saw their net worth once again skyrocket as the stock market surged on Wednesday following the news that President Donald Trump had rolled back his aggressive tariff plan that had, in recent weeks, sent the market into a tailspin.

Together, the top 10 wealthiest people saw a combined $135.33 billion rally in their personal fortunes on Wednesday, according to Bloomberg's Billionaire index.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk saw the largest single-day gains, raking in $35.9 billion alone, and French billionaire Bernard Arnault was the only one of the top 10 to keep registering losses, slipping down the Bloomberg Billionaire's Index list with a $5.7 billion loss. He's also the only non-American on the list.

Still, while Wednesday's market rally reshuffled the rankings, the world's wealthiest people have lost a combined $244.36 billion so far this year.

Here's where their fortunes stood after Wednesday's market close, according to the index.

1. Elon Musk

Net worth: $326 billion

1-day change: up $35.9 billion

Year-to-date change: down $107 billion

Of the top 10 list's names, Elon Musk gained the most on Wednesday, seeing personal gains of $35.9 billion during the market rally. Year to date, he's still registering $107 billion in losses.

While his net worth has fluctuated wildly in recent months, Musk has maintained his status as the world's richest person despite facing increasing anger for his proximity to the White House's DOGE agency, which has spearheaded cost-cutting across the federal government, and public backlash against Tesla. The backlash coincided with a downturn in the electric vehicle company's stock.

Musk's wealth stems primarily from his stakes in Tesla and SpaceX. His other businesses include Neuralink, X, The Boring Company, and xAI.

2. Jeff Bezos

Net worth: $210 billion

1-day change: up $18.5 billion

Year-to-date change: down $28.7 billion

Jeff Bezos, the founder and executive chairman of Amazon, who stepped down as CEO in 2021, saw his personal wealth increase by $18.5 billion on Wednesday — though he's still down to $28.7 billion this year.

In addition to his role at Amazon, Bezos also owns The Washington Post, which he purchased in 2013. The news outlet has seen an exodus of subscribers in recent months as Bezos has ordered the paper's editors not to make a presidential endorsement, and announced that the paper's op-ed pages would only publish viewpoints that support "personal liberties and free markets."

3. Mark Zuckerberg

Net worth: $207 billion

1-day change: up $25.8 billion

Year-to-date change: down $723 million

Mark Zuckerberg, whose net worth jumped $25.8 billion on Wednesday, has registered the least amount of losses so far of any billionaire on the top 10 list — only having lost $723 million.

Zuckerberg is the cofounder and CEO of Meta Platforms, the social media giant that owns Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Threads.

4. Warren Buffett

Net worth: $162 billion

1-day change: up $8.12 billion

Year-to-date change: up $20 billion

Warren Buffett, 94, is the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, and the only member of the top 10 list to have consistently made gains this year. He's up $8.12 billion as of Wednesday, and $20 billion so far in 2025.

Buffet's conglomerate holds multibillion-dollar stakes in public companies such as Apple and American Express. His ability to withstand market crashes has earned him a reputation as a legendary investor.

5. Larry Ellison

Net worth: $159 billion

1-day change: up $15.5 billion

Year-to-date change: down $32.7 billion

Larry Ellison, a major investor in Tesla, is also the cofounder and chief technology officer of Oracle, among the world's biggest software and cloud computing companies. His year-to-date losses of $32.7 billion were buoyed by his $15.5 billion gains on Wednesday.

Business Insider previously reported that Ellison, along with OpenAI's Sam Altman and SoftBank's Masayoshi Son, is spearheading Project Stargate, a $500 billion AI infrastructure initiative supported by Trump.

6. Bill Gates

Net worth: $152 billion

1-day change: up $4.81 billion

Year-to-date change: down $6.64 billion

Bill Gates, the cofounder of Microsoft, stepped down from the tech company's board in 2020 and now owns only a small percentage of its shares.

He saw relatively modest gains compared to others on the top 10 list with a $4.81 billion net worth increase on Wednesday, bringing his year-to-date losses to $6.64 billion.

Gates now spends the majority of his public life promoting the Gates Foundation, a philanthropic endeavor supporting global health, education, and climate initiatives.

7. Bernard Arnault

Net worth: $148 billion

1-day change: down $5.7 billion

Year-to-date change: down $28.4 billion

Bernard Arnault is the chairman and CEO of LVMH, the world's largest luxury goods conglomerate that owns more than 75 brands including Louis Vuitton, Dior, and Moët & Chandon.

Arnault was the only one of the world's richest people to register further losses after Trump rolled back his tariff plan, losing $5.7 billion on Wednesday, and bringing his total year-to-date losses to $28.4 billion.

8. Larry Page

Net worth: $142 billion

1-day change: up $11 billion

Year-to-date change: down $25.8 billion

Google cofounder Larry Page remains a board member and major shareholder of its parent company, Alphabet, after stepping down as Alphabet's CEO in 2019.

Page's life and finances have been overseen by wealth manager Wayne Osborne since 2012. Though he's registered $25.8 billion in losses so far this year, Wednesday's rally saw Page's net worth increase by $11 billion.

9. Steve Ballmer

Net worth: $136 billion

1-day change: up $11.2 billion

Year-to-date change: down $10.1 billion

Microsoft's former CEO, Steve Ballmer, remains one of the company's largest individual shareholders with an estimated 4% stake in the tech giant. His net worth on Wednesday increased by $11.2 billion, offsetting the $10.1 billion in losses he has seen so far this year.

Ballmer also owns the Los Angeles Clippers, an NBA team Forbes values at $5.5 billion, which he purchased in 2014 for $2 billion.

10. Sergey Brin

Net worth: $134 billion

1-day change: up $10.2 billion

Year-to-date change: down $24.3 billion

Like Page, most of Sergey Brin's net worth is tied to Alphabet stock. The Google cofounder played a key role in developing its early search algorithms, and, though he stepped down as the company's president in 2019, he retains a significant amount of Class B shares.

The billionaire, whose net worth jumped by $10.2 billion on Wednesday alone, recently made headlines suggesting current Google employees work 60 hours a week to boost production.

• President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced a 90-day pause on his tariff plan for most countries.
• Stock markets surged in response after several days of significant declines.
• Business leaders across the spectrum, from Bill Ackman to Mark Cuban, reacted disparately.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced a 90-day pause on his aggressive tariff plan against most countries, sending ripples through the business community.

The market, which had plummeted following news of the president's trade strategy, surged in response. Industry leaders from across the political spectrum gave their initial reactions:

Bill Ackman

The billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman wrote in a post on X: "This was brilliantly executed by @realDonaldTrump. Textbook, Art of the Deal."

Ackman had previously advocated for a pause in the tariffs' implementation, saying it would "enable negotiations to be completed without a major global economic disruption that will harm the most vulnerable companies and citizens of our country."

He called China a "bad actor." He wrote: "Advice for China: Pick up the phone and call the President. He is a tough but fair negotiator. The longer China holds out and retaliates, the worse the outcome for China."

David Sacks

The former PayPal executive David Sacks posted on X to declare Trump's reversal on tariffs a massive victory for the president.

"They did everything they could to create a panic," Sacks wrote. "They predicted a Black Monday that never came. They became jubilant over an intraday correction on Tuesday. They were rooting for Trump to fail even if it meant the market and economy crashed."

Now a White House advisor, Sacks added: "Fortunately their hopes have been dashed. Trump has been vindicated. China is isolated, and the rest of the world is lining up to negotiate new trade deals. Do you think this would have happened if Trump had asked nicely? Maybe if he had said pretty please? Never. This was the only way to rewrite the rules of global trade. Once again, Trump was right about everything!"

Diane Swonk

Diane Swonk, the chief economist of the professional services firm KPMG, wrote in a series of posts on X that despite the news of the implementation pause, the country had "not escaped the tariff problems."

"The effective tariff rate is actually HIGHER with the pause than it was as announced on April 2, due to the tariffs on China," Swonk wrote. "There will be some diversion through connector countries. However, the effective tariff rate now peaks at 30.5% during the pause. That is worse than our worst case scenarios."

She added: "The tariff pause is a moving target and it given the high level of tariffs on China and 10% across the board plus potentially more in the pipeline, takes the effective tariff rate to a RECORD. The market must be hoping told all goes away."

Spencer Hakimian

The founder of the hedge fund Tolou Capital Management was not too pleased with the recent back-and-forth over Trump's tariffs, writing in a series of posts on X that we're now "back to square one" after Trump's latest reversal.

"Nothing accomplished. Nothing changed. But somehow we won. Nice," Hakimian wrote.

In a separate post, Hakimian lamented the lack of clarity in Trump's tariff strategy, regardless of the economic outcome.

"Even if you support all of the past week," he said. "From the escalation to the walk back, although that's inherently contradictory to support both. Everyone admits that the rollout & rollback of all of this has been needlessly sloppy and unclear, correct? Or is that also some voodoo 8D chess strategy too?"

Chris Fralic

Chris Fralic, a partner at the venture capital firm First Round Capital, posted on X a screenshot of the tickers of several surging stocks, writing it's "Good to be liberated from Liberation Day."

"If your portfolio drops by X% and then rises by X%, you'll still be below your starting point," Fralic wrote in a separate post. "The bigger the drop, the more pronounced this effect becomes. A 20% drop followed by a 20% rise leaves you at 96% of your original value."

Mark Cuban

Over on Bluesky, the "Shark Tank" star Mark Cuban reposted a statement from the economist Paulo dos Santos, which described Trump's tariffs as "the Ivermectin of economic strategy," referencing the antiparasitic drug used by some to treat COVID-19 infections, despite reservations from the medical community.

In a separate post made just before Trump announced the tariff pause, Cuban wrote: "What some people aren't factoring into their analysis is the reality that companies were buying tons of inventory to beat the tariffs. That's cash taken from being able to invest or hire. In fact the probably cut costs and jobs as a result."

Ray Dalio

Ray Dalio wrote on X that he hoped all parties would "reconsider their approaches."

"There are better and worse ways of handling our problems with unsustainable debt and imbalances, and President Trump's decision to step back from a worse way and negotiate how to deal with these imbalances is a much better way," he wrote.

The founder of Bridgewater Associates said he hoped Trump would do the same with China — which is excluded from the 90-day reprieve.

Dalio said a deal with China should include a way to strengthen the renminbi against the dollar while easing China's fiscal and monetary policies to stimulate Chinese demand: "This would be a win-win."

Richard Branson

"As I wrote earlier this week, this was a moment for the US administration to accept their mistake and change course," Richard Branson wrote in a post on X. "This reversal is a huge relief for the whole world."

Earlier this week, the Virgin Group founder called on the US government to "own up to a colossal mistake."

Kevin O'Leary

In a Truth Social post on Wednesday, Trump wrote that he'd raised his tariffs on China to 125% "based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World's Markets."

But the "Shark Tank" star Kevin O'Leary said Trump should have pressed China harder by raising the tariffs to 400%.

"China doesn't play fair, and it's time we stop letting them get away with it," O'Leary wrote on X hours after Trump's announcement.

Bill Gross

Bill Gross said investors should seriously think about whether to own a stock whose value relies on the whims of Trump.

"My portfolio of defensive stocks is green so I don't begrudge today's market," Gross, a cofounder of the global fixed-income investment company PIMCO, wrote Wednesday night on X.

He added: "But I ask you, would you want to own highly volatile US stocks whose price depends on whether POTUS had a good night's sleep and woke up the next morning to reverse yesterday's policies?"

Correction: April 10, 2025 — An earlier version of this story misstated David Sacks' role at PayPal. He's the company's former chief operating officer and product head, not its cofounder.

• Donald Trump's aggressive tariff strategy has caused the market and consumers to recoil in shock.
• While the market contracts, one niche segment may have a narrow opening: regional winemakers.
• Some producers may see a renaissance as consumers look for alternatives to their imported favorites.

Alcohol consumption is down across the board, and President Donald Trump's aggressive tariff strategy has struck a hard blow to the US economy, causing the market and consumers to recoil in shock. However, 2025 may not be a total loss for one niche segment in the booze industry.

Small California winemakers are waiting with bated breath to see if they could be one of the few lucky winners of Trump's unconventional trade policy.

"There's a potential upside for us here," Nicholas Miller, the vice president of sales and marketing for Miller Family Wine Company, told Business Insider. "The US wine industry has been in a cycle of being severely oversupplied for the last couple of years — but that's also been when there's a big global market coming in."

As the largest global consumer market for wine, the US is among the most desirable locations for any producer looking to sell their goods, Miller said. Hence, the market has, in recent years, been oversaturated by imported wines. But Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs slapped blanket 10% fees on any goods imported into the country — 20% from major wine importers like Italy and France — and Miller said that could "level the playing field" for domestic vintners.

"If tariffs do indeed slow down imports and make them less competitive, I can see that there would be an upside for domestic wines in that case," Miller said.

Industry insiders told Business Insider that ultra-premium wine producers likely won't see the same potential benefits from Trump's tariff plan that lower-tier producers might because too much of their business lies in exports, which have been disrupted. The wealthiest buyers also likely won't be significantly deterred by price hikes on their favorite French and Italian imports or will drink from their private reserves while waiting for the trade madness to subside.

"For the high-end collector, the wine connoisseur, someone with a high wine IQ, for them, those flavors are not fungible," Miller said. "Their favorite is not replaced by a domestic wine just because it's the same price point."

Similarly, bottom-tier suppliers may lose some business because the lowest-income households could simply stop buying any wine, as it's a luxury they don't need amid the economic turmoil. Still, mid-range varietals, like those abundant in California, have a narrow opportunity to gain ground, both in direct sales and tourism to the region.

"I feel like if people are pulling their purse strings because of their worries about the economy, then they would typically — and we saw this certainly during COVID but for other different reasons — choose to come to Santa Barbara County versus taking European vacations," Scott Bull, owner of Sustainable Wine Tours in Santa Barbara, California, told BI. "If we're talking about wine enthusiasts in general, we've seen they will turn to the California market to visit their local backyard rather than taking these extravagant trips."

A boon for mid-market producers

California produces an average of 81% of total US wine, employs 1.1 million Americans, and generates $170.5 billion in annual economic activity across the country, according to data from the Wine Institute. The famous Napa Valley, located northeast of San Francisco, is a major tourism draw, as is Santa Barbara County on the Central Coast and the Southern California wine region of the Temecula Valley.

"For us, certainly during COVID, and we're hoping maybe again now, is that we got the Los Angeles market and all these other people who typically would go overseas to look for those fine wines, instead coming into our backyard," Bull said. "And they realize that we have some extraordinary wines here that really offer the same type of quality or even higher quality, and that really offer everything they're looking for, from Burgundy to Bordeaux varietals. And so I think this could be that new introduction point."

Of course, Trump's tariffs do not mean it's all smooth sailing for mid-range producers. They still have to contend with the rising costs of imported goods they rely on for production — barrels, corks, and glass for their wine bottles are all seeing significant price jumps — and their export businesses are on the rocks.

"The tariffs have also killed any chance of exporting for domestic wine producers," Mike Officer, cofounder of Carlisle Winery, an ultra-premium Sonoma County zinfandel producer, told Business Insider. "After California, Canada and Denmark were our largest distribution channels. Those markets no longer exist for us."

Still, Trump's tariffs still represent a window of opportunity for some regional winemakers.

"I do think, potentially, the sweet spot is for that mid-market producer," Miller said. "For the largest players in central California, there also could be an opportunity open up the market where previously they were getting undercut."

The opportunity may not be limited to California winemakers. Other regional consumer goods, often regarded as modest luxuries compared to mass-produced big-brand products or fancy artisan imports — like Hawaiian coffee — could also see an increase in consumer interest amid Trump's burgeoning trade war.

Alexandre Bossard, the general manager of Kauai Coffee, told BI the current global trade dynamics represent "both challenges and opportunities" that Hawaiian coffee growers are monitoring closely.

And while it's too soon to know exactly how it will all shake out, California's regional winemakers are cautiously optimistic that they can avoid the worst impacts of Trump's trade war.

"It actually levels the playing field in a way that I think could be great for us," Bull said.

• Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban critiqued President Donald Trump's trade plan on Bluesky.
• Cuban said Trump's aggressive tariffs, combined with DOGE cuts, could cause long-term economic harm.
• The combination of policies may lead the country to "a far worse situation than 2008," Cuban warned.

While President Donald Trump has acknowledged his aggressive tariff plan may result in "little pain" in the short term, some business figures, like billionaire "Shark Tank" star Mark Cuban, see a greater risk of long-term economic harm.

In a series of Bluesky posts Saturday, Cuban expanded on his previous critiques of Trump's trade policies. The Cost Plus Drugs cofounder suggested the extensive tariffs announced by the Trump administration on Wednesday, combined with cuts to the federal workforce spearheaded by the White House DOGE office, could result in a worse financial crisis than the Great Recession of 2008.

"If the new tariffs stay in place for multiple years, and are enforced and inflationary, and DOGE continues to cut and fire, we will be in a far worse situation than 2008," Cuban wrote in response to another user's question about the economic impacts of Trump's tariff plan.

The minority owner of the Dallas Mavericks did not expand upon why he sees the sweeping cuts to the federal workforce led by the DOGE office as related to the nation's economic health. However, the reductions have targeted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the tax evasion enforcement wing of the Internal Revenue Service, among other agencies.

Cuban and representatives for the Trump administration did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

During the 2008 financial crisis and its immediate aftermath, the country's GDP declined by more than 4%, the unemployment rate reached 10%, and the housing market crashed in what economists have recognized as the deepest recession since World War II.

The president, in comments to the press about his trade policy, has acknowledged, "We may have, short-term, some little pain, and people understand that," but in a Saturday post on Truth Social said, "ONLY THE WEAK WILL FAIL!"

The economic uncertainty stemming from Trump's tariff plan has sent the stock market spiraling downward and prompted consumers to stockpile essentials while cutting back on luxury goods. Economists and supply chain experts previously told Business Insider that increased import costs caused by the tariffs are expected to result in higher prices for everything from pantry staples like coffee and sugar to apparel and larger purchases like cars and appliances.

Cuban isn't alone in worrying about the lasting economic impacts of the president's policies. Many commentators in the financial field have questioned the tariffs and highlighted their potential consequences.

JPMorgan's chief global economist, in a research note to clients published on Thursday titled "There Will Be Blood," warned that the risk of the global economy falling into a recession increased from 40% to 60% in response to Wednesday's tariff announcement.

• President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff plan tests the limits of executive power.
• Some GOP lawmakers have publicly split from Trump, proposing bills to rein him in on trade issues.
• Four political scientists told BI the bills are symbolic objections and are all but guaranteed not to pass.

Even though new bills are being proposed to rein him in, don't hold your breath waiting for Congress to stop President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff plan.

Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington on Thursday introduced a Senate bill to limit a president's power to impose tariffs. The bill would allow Congress to vote to end any tariff at any time, require the president to provide Congress with 48 hours' notice before imposing any new duties, and require Congress to explicitly approve any new tariffs within 60 days.

Four additional Republicans — Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and Jerry Moran of Kansas — have signed on as co-sponsors to the bill. Republican Rep. Don Bacon has also said he'll introduce a companion House bill with similar provisions.

Business Insider spoke to four political scientists who each said that, while the bills proposed by the Republican lawmakers represent the first time some members of the president's party have split with him publicly since the election, the proposals are largely symbolic objections and are all but guaranteed not to pass because, even with the support of Democratic lawmakers, the bills simply won't have enough votes.

"Congress has the ability, but Congress, as it's currently constituted, does not have the will," Justin Crowe, a professor of political science at Williams College, told BI. "There's virtually no chance, at least in the near term. Were we to be in a fuller-blown trade war and we had some kind of economic downturn of a serious magnitude over the next number of months, potentially, you could see Congress trying to step in. But in the near term, that seems remarkably, vanishingly unlikely."

Justin Buchler, an associate professor of political science at Case Western Reserve University, told BI that, technically, the proposed bills shouldn't even be necessary since the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to levy tariffs and duties. However, in recent years, lawmakers have taken a less active role in doing so, instead allowing the executive branch to execute tariff policies within the guidelines defined by Congress.

Congress won't claw back its trade power

Six different statutes exist to control how the president can use tariffs. Only three carve-outs exist to allow the president to impose tariffs without a congressional investigation. Still, only one has ever been used: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which allows the president to declare an emergency under the National Emergency Act to regulate or prohibit imports.

Trump cited that power on Wednesday when he announced sweeping 10% tariffs on goods imported from almost every country into the United States and even higher tariffs for 60 trading partners with a persistent trade deficit with the US.

According to the National Constitution Center, the other two presidential tariff carve-outs, which have never been used, stem from the Trade Act of 1974 and the Tariff Act of 1930. Portions of these laws allow the president to enact temporary tariffs to address balance-of-payments deficits and tariffs on goods from foreign countries that discriminate against US commerce in certain ways.

But the political scientists told Business Insider not to expect Congress to try to claw back its trade power in any real way.

"We're in this weird position where, constitutionally, no legislation should be necessary because what Donald Trump is doing is so far beyond the bounds of what the Constitution permits that nothing should be happening at all," Buchler said. "But the courts aren't going to stop him, and given that there's no way that Congress is going to reach a veto override point — and probably can't even get anything through the House, given that Mike Johnson is not likely to let anything come up for a vote — it's probably a moot point."

Supply chain experts and economists previously told Business Insider that Trump's wide-reaching "Liberation Day" tariffs are expected to result in higher prices for everything from pantry staples like coffee and sugar to apparel and larger purchases like cars and appliances. The market has tanked in response to global trade uncertainty, with stocks suffering their worst single-day loss in five years on Thursday.

And while members of Congress are no doubt aware of the economic turmoil stemming from Trump's aggressive trade strategy, there's little incentive to risk using up their political cache on a losing battle — at least for now.

"I think they're going to wait to see whether their constituents complain," Susan McWilliams Barndt, a professor of politics at Pomona College, told BI. "I think they're really going to wait to see if their constituents tie their complaints to the tariffs, and then I think it's going to be a couple of weeks before we really see any real response from Congress."

Patricia Crouse, a professor of political science at the University of New Haven, agreed, telling BI she expects "The only real pushback may come if it costs Republicans seats in the 2026 election."

• JPMorgan analysts told clients that Trump's tariff plan will have drastic economic effects.
• The risk of the global economy falling into a recession has increased from 40% to 60%, they warned.
• The restrictive trade policy also risks supply-side damage that'll lower US growth in the long run.

JPMorgan's chief global economist has a bleak outlook on President Donald Trump's aggressive tariff policy: "There will be blood."

In a research note to clients published on Thursday, JPMorgan's Bruce Kasman, along with several other company economists, warned that the risk of the global economy falling into a recession has increased from 40% to 60% in response to Wednesday's "Liberation Day" tariff announcement.

Trump on Wednesday announced sweeping 10% tariffs on goods from any country imported into the United States, and even higher tariffs for 60 trading partners with a persistent trade deficit with the US.

The wide-reaching "Liberation Day" tariffs impact countries including China and Japan, as well as the European Union, and territories near Antarctica inhabited only by penguins. They are in addition to existing tariffs against the United States' top trade partners, Canada and Mexico.

"Disruptive US policies has been recognized as the biggest risk to the global outlook all year," JPMorgan's research note reads. "The latest news reinforces our fears as US trade policy has turned decisively less business-friendly than we had anticipated."

The banking giant's economists describe tariffs "at a basic level" as a functional tax increase on US household and business purchases of imported goods. Economists and supply chain experts previously told Business Insider the increased import costs caused by Trump's tariff plan are expected to result in higher prices for everything from pantry staples like coffee and sugar to apparel and larger purchases like cars and appliances.

JPMorgan's analysts found that this week's announcement, on the heels of earlier tariff increases, raises the US average tax rate "by roughly 22%-pts to an estimated 24%," equivalent to roughly 2.4% of the total value of all goods and services produced within the country, or GDP.

"A hike of this size would be on par with the largest tax hike since WWII," the JPMorgan research note reads. Its effects could be magnified "through retaliation, a slide in US business sentiment, and supply chain disruptions."

"We thus emphasize that these policies, if sustained, would likely push the US and possibly global economy into recession this year. An update of our probability scenario tree makes this point, raising the risk of a recession this year to 60%," the note continues.

But a nationwide or global recession "is not a foregone conclusion," JPMorgan's economists offered as a potential silver lining.

"Beyond the obvious point that policy actions may be changed in the coming weeks, we continue to emphasize that the US and global expansions stand on solid ground and should be able to withstand a modest-sized shock."

For now, though, the note indicates JPMorgan's economists "view the full implementation of announced policies as a substantial macroeconomic shock" — one not easily recovered from, should Trump's policies persist.

• Donald Trump has enacted sweeping tariffs on items imported from the country's global trade partners.
• The tariffs will cause price increases on goods from pantry staples to apparel, experts told BI.
• On average, consumers should expect to pay about $3,800 more this year, a Yale economist said.

If you thought the cost of groceries was high before, economists and supply chain experts have some bad news.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced sweeping 10% tariffs on goods from any country imported into the United States, and even higher tariffs for 60 trading partners with a persistent trade deficit with the US.

The wide-reaching "Liberation Day" tariffs impact countries including China and Japan, as well as the European Union, and territories near Antarctica inhabited only by penguins. They come in addition to existing tariffs against the United States' top trade partners, Canada and Mexico.

For consumers, the increased import costs caused by Trump's aggressive tariff plan are expected to result in higher prices for everything from pantry staples like coffee and sugar to apparel and larger purchases like cars and appliances.

Ernie Tedeschi, the director of economics at the Budget Lab at Yale, said the price hikes are expected to increase the overall price level of goods in the United States by 2.3%, costing the average consumer household about $3,800 this year.

Tedeschi told Business Insider that the existing tariffs against Mexico and Canada alone account for an expected 1% price increase of about $1,700 per household. The "Liberation Day" tariffs announced Wednesday are expected to result in a further 1.3% hike, or $2,100 per household.

"So 1.3% may not sound like a lot to the normal person, but $2,100 is a meaningful amount," Tedeschi said. "Now, of course, that's an average, so if you open up the hood to that number, there's a distribution beneath that number."

Price hikes on pantry staples and produce

The exact intention behind Trump's tariff plan remains unclear — the president says his main goal is to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States, but some analysts suspect he may be trying to trigger a recession to reduce interest rates purposely — and the stock market has tanked in response to the uncertainty.

Imports from some countries will be hit with higher tariffs than others, driving uneven price hikes across industries. For example, China — which largely imports machinery and appliances, furniture, toys, and electronics to the US — will be subject to a 54% tariff when combining the new tariffs (34%) with ones that have been previously announced. Goods from the European Union, which primarily imports medical and pharmaceutical products and motor vehicles, will be subject to a new 20% tariff.

Tedeschi said the cost of clothing items is expected to increase by about 8%. He added that pantry staples like sugar and coffee are expected to increase in price by about 1.3%, while fresh produce is likely to increase by about 2.2%.

"The luxury of eating our favorite fruits and vegetables regardless of the season is based on global imports with much coming from Central and South America," Margaret Kidd, an instructional associate professor of supply chain and logistics technology at the University of Houston, told BI. "Tariffs will make many of these staples unaffordable."

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2020, maintains NAFTA's zero-tariff treatment for most agricultural products, textiles, apparel, and other goods that meet the trade agreement's rules of origin. But while the United States gets much of its produce from neighboring Mexico tariff-free, including tomatoes, avocados, and strawberries, other imports will face new price hikes — like grapes from Peru or bananas and mangoes from the Philippines.

"The USMCA is still in effect, so there are fruits and vegetables still covered under the deal and are tariff-free, but then some of them, they are not covered," Chris Tang, a UCLA professor who's an expert in global supply chain management and the impact of regulatory policies, told Business Insider.

Stockpiling and substitutions

Of course, consumers and businesses alike will try to find substitutions. Still, Tedeschi said it takes time to carve out new supply chain routes, for stores to expand their offerings, and for customers to find suitable alternatives to their typical favorites.

"So you may, literally and figuratively, eat the price increase in the short run, as you're figuring out what a proper substitute is, but there are areas where there will be substitutions available," Tedeschi said. "Let's say coffee, for example, imported from Colombia. If Starbucks has a supply chain agreement with Colombia, over time, they'll be able to shift that to another country or another supplier to mitigate the cost of the tariff, perhaps. Whereas, in the short run, like, in a month, Starbucks is not going to be able to do that, so if you want your latte, you're going to have to pay extra."

Some, like "Shark Tank" star Mark Cuban, have suggested Americans start stockpiling goods now to avoid price hikes. They say retailers may raise prices and "blame it on tariffs," even if their goods are US-made. While the experts who spoke to Business Insider say that may be true, panic buying might further hurt supply chains and cause prices to go up, too.

"This kind of shift in demand would actually exacerbate this price increase," Tang said. "If the demand is more stable, then the price is more stable. If everyone starts stocking up on toothpaste and toilet paper, the prices go higher."

Low-income households will bear the brunt

And that's just the immediate impact on everyday consumable items.

The Consumer Technology Association estimated in a January report that Trump's tariffs could increase the price of laptops and tablets by 46-68%, video game consoles by 40-58%, and smartphones by 26-37%.

Car imports will see tariffs of upward of 25%, which could translate to $12,000 or more based on an average car price of $48,000. Some automakers have responded to the tariffs by offering employee pricing deals, while others paused work at their factories and started cutting staff, Business Insider previously reported.

Not every household will be affected by the tariffs similarly, either. In response to Trump's trade plan, Tedeschi said, lower-income households will spend about two and a half times more of their share of income than the highest-earning households will.

Kidd said pharmaceuticals, which represent $251 billion of imports, will face tariffs from 20% to more than 50%, which will disproportionately burden Americans without insurance and may set the path toward an increased deductible for those covered under an employer health plan.

"Lower income households are more likely to purchase imports. They spend a larger share of their income than higher income households do, and so they are more vulnerable to tariffs than higher income households are," Tedeschi said. "And obviously people care about food for food's sake, but that also has distributional implications as well. The more the price of food goes up, the more that disproportionately affects lower-income families as well."

• President Donald Trump announced reciprocal tariffs on over 180 countries.
• "Shark Tank" star Mark Cuban said people should "buy lots of consumables" now before prices go up.
• Cuban said retailers will raise prices and "blame it on tariffs" even if their goods are US made.

Mark Cuban has a suggestion for Americans: "Buy lots of consumables now."

Cuban made a post on Bluesky on Wednesday shortly after President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs that would hit more than 180 countries:

"It's not a bad idea to go to the local Walmart or big box retailer and buy lots of consumables now. From toothpaste to soap, anything you can find storage space for, buy before they have to replenish inventory," Cuban wrote.

"Even if it's made in the USA, they will jack up the price and blame it on tariffs," Cuban added.

Cuban declined to comment further when approached by Business Insider.

On Wednesday, Trump announced reciprocal tariffs on all countries that have imposed tariffs on US goods. The tariffs, which Trump said will start at a baseline rate of 10%, will affect 185 countries.

"April 2, 2025, will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America's destiny was reclaimed, and the day that we began to make America wealthy again," Trump said.

While companies might absorb some of the cost increases from tariffs, American consumers are likely to see higher prices on items like cars and groceries.

Last month, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell told reporters that "a good part" of the Fed's rising inflation forecast stems from Trump's tariff plans.

Experts BI spoke to, however, said Cuban's concerns that tariffs would raise prices are valid — but panic buying may hurt supply chains and cause prices to go up, too.

"Just as I said during COVID, no one should be panic-buying toilet paper and Clorox, and no one should be doing that now," Margaret Kidd, an associate professor of supply chain and logistics technology at the University of Houston, told BI.

Kidd said consumers need to be "conservative with our resources" since price increases are "happening across the board."

"We don't know how this is going to play out," Kidd said.

Chris Tang, a UCLA professor and expert in global supply chain management, told BI that Cuban's suggestion could result in "bigger problems."

"This kind of shift in demand would actually exacerbate this price increase. If the demand is more stable, then the price is more stable. If everyone starts stocking up toothpaste and toilet paper, the prices go higher," Tang said.

To be sure, this isn't the first time Cuban has been critical of Trump's tariff policies. The "Shark Tank" star endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris during her presidential campaign last year, calling her a "pro-business" candidate.

In September, Trump said he would impose a 200% tariff on John Deere if the agriculture equipment company moved its manufacturing to Mexico.

"This Lack of Understanding of Business is insane," Cuban wrote in an X post then.

Imposing higher tariffs on American companies than their Chinese counterparts meant that "Chinese products will be cheaper to sell in the US than the American company," Cuban added.

"Good way to destroy a legendary American company and increase costs to American buyers," Cuban wrote.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment from BI.

• President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced sweeping tariffs on imports of goods from around the globe.
• Two countries, Canada and Mexico, were notably spared from the latest round of tariffs.
• However, the two neighboring nations are still subject to pre-existing 25% tariffs.

President Donald Trump's latest round of tariffs had two surprising omissions: Mexico and Canada.

Many countries, including China, were slapped with large reciprocal tariffs on Wednesday. After Trump's announcement, CNBC reported that Chinese goods could receive a 54% tariff when combining the new tariffs (34%) with ones that have been previously announced. European Union goods will be subject to a new 20% tariff.

According to the White House, this doesn't mean the US's neighbors are off scot-free. Pre-existing 25% tariffs on most Mexican and Canadian goods will remain.

USMCA and Trump's previous tariffs

Under Trump's previous order, a 25% tariff was applied to all Mexican and Canadian goods that are not compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

The White House has said the tariffs are necessary because the two countries are not doing enough to stop illegal immigration and the smuggling of fentanyl into the United States from the northern and southern borders. Leaders of both countries have disputed this claim.

The USMCA trade deal, which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2020, maintains NAFTA's zero-tariff treatment for most agricultural products, textiles, apparel, and other goods that meet the trade agreement's rules of origin.

Non-compliant energy and potash from the bordering nations remain subject to a 10% tariff; the latter was viewed as the White House bowing to pressure from the farm industry worried about a key ingredient in fertilizers.

Chris Tang, a UCLA professor and expert in global supply chain management and the impact of regulatory policies, told Business Insider the Trump administration's choice to leave Canada and Mexico off the tariffs list on Wednesday may be a symbol that the president recognizes the neighboring nations' significance to the US economy — but it's also likely a negotiation tactic.

"So, for example, right now, the products that comply with the USMCA are still tariff-free," Tang said. "But that's temporary. Trump has said, 'Well, that may adjust.' And that gives him still some wiggle room to negotiate."

If Trump's prior order were terminated, a spokesperson for the White House told Business Insider all non-USMCA compliant goods would be reduced to a 12% tariff.

Margaret Kidd, an instructional associate professor of supply chain and logistics technology at the University of Houston, told Business Insider, "It's not in our best interest for the United States to alienate our two closest trading partners."

She added that there was about $945 billion in trade between Mexico and the US in 2024, with most of the products exchanged flowing through Texas. The tariffs on the southern country, she said, have an outsized effect on the border states, which rely on the local economy built around international trade.

"It's all intermingled," Kidd said.

Tang said he's hopeful that the omission of Canada and Mexico from Wednesday's tariffs could act as a sort of olive branch with the nation's allies to soothe the trade tensions that have increased since Trump took office.

"Really, our economies are interlinked," Tang said. "So, hopefully, they can really sit down and work it out because these are our allies, our neighbors — this is very important. So I hope there is a possibility that these three countries can work together."

• Brenna Frey resigned from Skadden after the firm inked a deal with the Trump administration.
• It marks another public resignation from the firm. Rachel Cohen did the same.
• The firm said it would provide $100M in pro bono work to causes supported by the administration.

After President Donald Trump announced a deal with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom on Friday, Brenna Frey decided she had had enough.

Frey, an associate at the firm's Washington, DC office who said she has worked in Big Law for over a decade, told Business Insider on Sunday it was a "dealbreaker" for her that Skadden chose to preemptively reach an agreement with the administration to avoid punitive executive actions similar to those taken against other law firms like Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and WilmerHale, among others.

In recent weeks, Trump has targeted several Big Law firms with executive actions that strip their lawyers of security clearances and order reviews of their government contracts. Some firms, like Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, have fought the orders in court, while others, like Paul Weiss and Skadden, have chosen to sign agreements to avoid the legal headache.

"The deal was announced, and that was it for me," Frey said, noting that she was "absolutely not considering leaving" prior to Skadden's decision to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services to causes that Trump supports. The firm also promised it would not "engage in illegal DEI discrimination," according to a copy of the agreement that Trump posted on Truth Social.

In her resignation announcement posted on LinkedIn, Frey called Skadden's deal with Trump "a craven attempt to sacrifice the rule of law for self-preservation."

She told BI she wanted to make her resignation public to signal solidarity with those disappointed or angered by the agreement.

"I know there are people still at the firm who can't leave for whatever reason, financial reasons, needing to pay back law school loans, the breadwinner for their family," she said. "I knew that those people can't speak out, so because I was able to, I felt it was important to make that public."

In her LinkedIn post, Frey quoted Rachel Cohen, another former Skadden associate who resigned earlier this month in a firm-wide email. Frey said she also tried to send her resignation to all of Skadden's US firms but found the distribution lists disabled.

Two other Skadden associates told BI that they, too, had tried to send firm-wide emails seeking more information about the deal but found that access to the internal distribution lists had been blocked after Cohen's resignation.

In her March 20 resignation email to Skadden that she posted on LinkedIn, Cohen said the current situation was not normal. She also circulated an open letter among hundreds of associates at Big Law firms calling on their employers to take a stronger stand against Trump's executive orders.

Cohen, who worked at the firm's Chicago office, wrote a response to Frey's LinkedIn post on Friday, complimenting her decision to "stand for the rule of law."

"Brenna—you and many others are the reason that I will never be ashamed to say I worked at Skadden Arps, despite leadership's determination to try to ruin the firm's name," Cohen wrote.

Frey said she's gotten support from some associates within Skadden, as well as from people outside the firm.

"With respect to Big Law more generally, I'm grateful that the world is watching, that clients are watching," she said. "There are examples of firms out there who have successfully fought back."

While firms like Skadden and Paul Weiss have inked deals with the president, drawing ire from many within the industry, other firms have chosen to sue in response to Trump's executive orders.

Jenner & Block and WilmerHale are two of those firms. In both cases, judges approved temporary restraining orders to halt Trump's executive actions. The judges in both cases expressed concern that the targeted actions threatened the rule of law.

"I hope that they look to the firms who have fought back about against this infringement on the rule of law, rather than the firms who have chosen to acquiesce to the Trump administration's demands," Frey said.

• Flávia Fayet-Moore is a nutrition scientist studying how oyster mushrooms grow in space.
• She partnered with NASA and SpaceX to send the first fungi into orbit on a 3-day flight.
• Fayet-Moore says fungi, due to their nutritional benefits and fast growth cycle, may help us get to Mars.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Flávia Fayet-Moore, a nutrition scientist and the founder and CEO of FOODiQ Global, a nutrition research company. On a March 31 SpaceX flight departing out of Florida, the company plans to send their mushroom experiment to space as part of a partnership with NASA and SpaceX. This essay has been edited for length and clarity.

About two years ago, I started thinking that we should try growing mushrooms in space.

I've been researching the nutritional, culinary, and health benefits of fungi for the past seven years.

There are a lot of cool things about mushrooms that make them well-suited to the task.

First, mushrooms grow really rapidly. I explain to everyone and it blows their mind to learn that sweet brown mushrooms — those little cap mushrooms you see at the store — and portobellos are the same mushrooms. They're the same fungi, but portobellos are harvested just two days later than the little ones. They grow that fast.

The end-to-end crop cycle for mushrooms is about 45 days. That's not very long, so we're not waiting 190 days to harvest something like other plants. They also require minimal resources, like water. They don't need sunlight to synthesize because they're not plants, and they can thrive in really small spaces. Not to mention, they're very resilient, and they're really good at surviving different changes in their environment.

And they're entirely edible. You can consume the whole mushroom so there's no waste. So let's say you grow tomatoes, you don't eat the whole plant so there's plant waste, and you've got to figure out what to do with that. The beauty of mushrooms is that when they decompose, you can reuse the inevitable plant waste as part of the substrate needed for them to grow, so they help close that loop in agriculture. If you've ever gone to a nursery and got mushroom compost that's treated with mushroom substrate, you know it is really nutrient-rich, and it's great for growing more plants.

But most importantly, NASA prioritizes whole foods over supplements, because there's a benefit to eating whole foods. In nutrition science, you know that when you start supplementing, it's not the same effect in the body as nature intended with the combination of nutrients. So fungi are a whole food source of very high nutrition; they've got nutrients found across our food groups, from grains to vegetables to nuts and seeds to fish and meat.

Astronauts are given 1000 IUs of vitamin D daily to maintain bone health, and mushrooms can naturally produce vitamin D when they're exposed to UV light, just like humans can. So basically, we can get 100% of our vitamin D requirements with just 100 grams of mushrooms.

There's also research showing that when you add mushrooms to a meal, you can add less salt, which is really important because, in space, having too much sodium exacerbates the amount of calcium that's leached from the bone. So it's a counter-measure to have a lower-sodium diet.

And if all that weren't enough, what's really cool about mushrooms is that they're very rich in umami. That's the fifth basic taste, like sour, sweet, salty, or bitter — and, unlike the other flavors, umami seems to be well retained in a space environment.

It's just like an airplane. Have you ever ordered a wine on a flight and then tried the same one after landing? It tastes different. Everything is dampened. It's the lower humidity and higher cabin pressures that change the palatability. Not with mushrooms, you still get that umami flavor.

That's where it gets particularly interesting for long-haul space flights, like the kind we'll need to take to get to Mars. Can you imagine eating thermostabilized, dehydrated food for five years? I can't.

The most important thing about food is nutrition, sure, but food is so much more than that. It's a fundamental part of our culture and survival and mental health. At the International Space Station, the astronauts love coming together at the dinner meal and eating and exchanging food. It's nostalgic, but it's also a comfort. They're isolated, they're far away from home. So food becomes a way to connect with each other, but also to connect with their culture, their family, and the things they love.

So, that's why we are looking at space crops.

This month, my company is partnering with NASA and SpaceX to complete the first study to grow mushrooms in space. If it all goes according to plan, I think we may have just unlocked a key element of long-haul space travel, the kind of thing that will help us reach Mars.

On March 31, on a SpaceX Fram2 flight departing out of Florida, we're sending our mushroom experiment to space to see how they grow. The flight is three and a half days, and since they basically double in size every day, we're hopeful we'll see something promising. Since we're not sending them up to the ISS and waiting months to get them back, we'll actually get results relatively quickly, and we hope to publish our results this fall.

My daughter will be with me on launch day. When I started talking about sending mushrooms to space a couple of years ago, I would have never imagined I'd get here. I'm just so proud to show her that when you've got a dream, you just have to keep going and you can use your passion to help us get to a new frontier.

• President Donald Trump has issued a wave of executive orders targeting high-profile law firms.
• Trump has restricted clearances — ultimately limiting the way they do business — for firms that have clashed with his administration.
• While some firms have agreed to Trump's demands, others have sued the administration.

As Donald Trump has taken aim at Big Law in recent weeks, some law firms have made deals with the president, while others are refusing to throw in the towel.

The president's wide-reaching orders have prompted reviews of each firm's government contracts, canceling security clearances for some employees and, in certain cases, blocking them from entering federal buildings — including courthouses.

Trump has accused the Big Law firms — including Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and Covington & Burling, among others — of weaponizing the judicial system. His orders have, in turn, made it harder for the firms to continue conducting business as usual. Several firms have alleged in lawsuits that the executive orders intended to chill free speech and deter clients from doing business with them. Others have agreed to work with the administration to avoid punitive executive actions against them.

The president has singled out a string of law firms that he says have wronged him in some capacity, have worked with his political opponents, or have had diversity initiatives that are counter to his anti-DEI efforts.

What's more, Trump instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to identify firms with "frivolous" cases against the administration so that they could be targeted for further executive action.

Whether they're on the ropes or down for the count, here are the firms Trump is taking on, how they've responded, and where the legal process stands for those who have challenged him in court.

Paul Weiss

On March 14, Trump issued an executive order directed at the prominent New York City-based law firm Paul Weiss, where he railed against the attorney Mark Pomerantz and decried what he said was "unlawful discrimination" from diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at the firm.

Pomerantz previously left Paul Weiss to aid the Manhattan District Attorney's office as it probed Trump's finances. When Pomerantz resigned as special district attorney in February 2022, he wrote in a departing letter that he believed Trump was "guilty of numerous felony violations."

In the order, Trump sought to revoke security clearances and bar access to government buildings for attorneys of the firm. Such a sweeping directive could also include federal courthouses, a scenario that would be detrimental to the firm's work.

However, Trump just days later rescinded the executive order and announced an agreement with Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp. Trump said the firm would provide $40 million in pro bono work for causes that the administration supports and end its DEI policies.

Karp received a heap of criticism, with many questioning why Paul Weiss didn't challenge Trump's order. In an email to the firm's attorneys, he said there was a desire from the outset to challenge the directive. In the same email, though, Karp argued that even if Paul Weiss won in court, it would become "persona non grata" with the Trump White House, which could prompt a wave of clients to switch to other firms and subsequently threaten the viability of the firm.

"It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the administration," Karp wrote in the email.

Perkins Coie

On March 6, Trump targeted the law firm Perkins Coie, issuing an executive order to suspend the security clearances of the firm's attorneys and criticizing its diversity and inclusion policies.

In the order, Trump called out what he said was the firm's "dishonest and dangerous activity."

The president, in his order, highlighted the firm's representation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — his rival in the 2016 presidential election — during that year's tumultuous campaign.

However, Perkins Coie struck back, filing a lawsuit against the administration for actions that it said "violates core constitutional rights, including the rights to free speech and due process."

"At the heart of the order is an unlawful attack on the freedom of all Americans to select counsel of their choice without fear of retribution or punishment from the government," Perkins Coie managing director Bill Malley said in a statement in March. "We were compelled to take this action to protect our firm and our clients."

The day after Perkins Coie filed its suit, a federal judge agreed to temporarily block part of the president's executive order.

Perkins Coie, in a statement, said the ruling was "an important first step in ensuring this unconstitutional Executive Order is never enforced."

Covington & Burling LLP

Trump on February 25 signed a memorandum to evaluate federal contracts and direct the suspension of security clearances for some employees at Covington & Burling, a DC-based law firm known for its antitrust work.

The president in the memo said he was suspending the clearances of individuals who advised former special counsel Jack Smith.

Smith brought two federal cases against Trump — one for election interference in the 2020 presidential election and the other for retaining classified documents — but both were dropped after the president won reelection to a second term in November 2024.

In the memo, Trump went after individuals whom he said were "involved in the weaponization of government" and named Peter Koski, a lawyer at Covington representing Smith.

A Covington spokesperson in March said it was representing Smith in an "individual" capacity.

"We recently agreed to represent Jack Smith when it became apparent that he would become a subject of a government investigation," the spokesperson said in a statement. "We look forward to defending Mr. Smith's interests and appreciate the trust he has placed in us to do so."

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden made a deal with Trump, acting before it was singled out in any executive orders. The firm promised to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services "to causes that the President and Skadden both support," Trump announced on March 28.

Skadden also affirmed its commitment to merit-based hiring and employee retention, Trump said. The firm also agreed that it would refrain from engaging in "illegal DEI discrimination," according to a copy of the agreement that Trump shared on Truth Social.

In a statement, Jeremy London, Skadden's executive partner, said the firm "engaged proactively" with the administration to reach the agreement.

"We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our Firm," London said.

Speaking from the White House, Trump referred to the deal as "essentially a settlement."

Within the firm, some associates and employees expressed frustration about the deal, calling it the beginning of the end for Skadden.

In the weeks leading up to the agreement, Skadden associate Rachel Cohen publicly resigned and circulated an open letter among associates at top firms calling out their employers for what she has described as inaction in the face of the administration's attacks.

After the deal was announced, another employee, Brenna Frey, also resigned publicly in an announcement on LinkedIn.

Elias Law Group

The chair of Elias Law Group took a different approach after it was targeted by the administration.

Trump named the Elias Law Group in his "frivolous" lawsuits memo, formally titled "Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court."

It claimed that the law firm was "deeply involved in the creation of a false 'dossier' by a foreign national designed to provide a fraudulent basis for Federal law enforcement to investigate a Presidential candidate in order to alter the outcome of the Presidential election."

The memo went on to say that the firm "intentionally sought to conceal the role of his client — failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — in the dossier."

Marc Elias, the Democratic election lawyer who founded and chairs the group, released a statement swinging back at Trump, whose actions target "every attorney and law firm who dares to challenge his assault on the rule of law," he said.

"President Trump's goal is clear," Elias said in the statement. "He wants lawyers and law firms to capitulate and cower until there is no one left to oppose his Administration in court."

Adding that American democracy is in a state of "peril," Elias said his law firm would not cower.

"Elias Law Group will not be deterred from fighting for democracy in court," he said. "There will be no negotiation with this White House about the clients we represent or the lawsuits we bring on their behalf."

Jenner & Block

Trump signed an order naming Jenner & Block on March 25 that revoked security clearances from the firm's attorneys and ordered a review of the firm's contracts with the federal government.

Trump's order singled out Andrew Weissmann, a former Jenner attorney who Trump accused of building his career around "weaponized government and abuse of power." Weissmann was a lead prosecutor in Robert Mueller's Special Counsel's Office, which investigated Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and its ties to Russia.

Jenner issued a statement calling the order an "unconstitutional executive order that has already been declared unlawful by a federal court."

"We remain focused on serving and safeguarding our clients' interests with the dedication, integrity, and expertise that has defined our firm for more than one hundred years and will pursue all appropriate remedies," the statement from Jenner said.

Jenner also fought back with a lawsuit. The firm is represented by Cooley LLP, a liberal-leaning firm that has hired lawyers from Democratic administrations.

On March 28, Judge John D. Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order that keeps the Trump administration from taking action against Jenner. On April 1, Bates extended this order until a final judgement has been made. Both the Justice Department and Jenner consented to the extension.

Following the ruling, Jenner said in a statement that the order holds "no legal weight."

"We will continue to do what we have always done, our job as lawyers and fearless advocates for our clients," the firm said.

WilmerHale

The Trump administration has also targeted WilmerHale, which employed Mueller and other lawyers who worked with the Justice Department to investigate ties between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign.

On March 27, Trump signed an executive order that suspended security clearances for WilmerHale employees and limited their access to federal buildings. The order also revoked WilmerHale's government contracts for engaging in "partisan representations to achieve political ends" and "efforts to discriminate on the basis of race."

In contrast with other firms that have inked deals with the president, WilmerHale filed a lawsuit.

The firm hired Paul Clement, the conservative legal superstar of the firm Clement & Murphy, to fight back against the Trump administration.

"This lawsuit is absolutely critical to vindicating the First Amendment, our adversarial system of justice, and the rule of law," Clement told Business Insider in a statement.

On the afternoon of March 28, Judge Richard J. Leon of the US District Court for the District of Columbia approved a motion for a temporary restraining order to halt executive actions against WilmerHale.

"There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm," Leon wrote.

A spokesperson for WilmerHale called the executive order unconstitutional and praised the court's "swift action."

Milbank

On April 2, Trump announced on Truth Social that he had struck a preemptive deal with Milbank without targeting the firm for executive action.

The terms of the deal, according to the president's announcement, include the firm's agreement to end any DEI-based hiring practices, and to perform at least $100 million worth of pro bono legal work to advance causes supported by the Trump administration, such as "assisting veterans" and "combatting antisemitism."

In addition, Milbank's pro bono committee will ensure the firm takes on cases representing "the full political spectrum, including Conservative ideals," and commits that it "will not deny representation to clients" based on the personal political views of individual lawyers, per Trump's announcement.

"Milbank LLP approached President Donald J. Trump and his Administration, stating their resolve to help end the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession," reads a statement from the White House included in Trump's post. "The President continues to build an unrivaled network of Lawyers, who will put a stop to Partisan Lawfare in America, and restore Liberty and Justice FOR ALL."

Milbank's chairman, Scott Edelman, said in a statement posted by Trump that, after a "constructive dialogue," the firm was "pleased we were so quickly able to find common ground" with the administration.

When reached by Business Insider, a spokesperson for the firm provided a letter sent by Edelman to Milbank's staff in which he said the agreement "is very much in Milbank's interest."

"The Administration's expressed concerns about big law firms, and in some cases its entry of Executive Orders against particular firms, have created uncertainty for law firms like ours," Edelman's letter to staff reads. "With this agreement, we believe we have gone a long way to putting these issues behind us. But we have done so in a way that allows us to continue to focus on the Firm's values and missions, including with respect to pro bono and our hope to foster an inclusive, non-discriminatory community where all of our members have an equal opportunity to succeed."

Edelman added: "Having now reached an agreement with the Administration, we can continue to do what we do best — focus on providing the best possible advice, counseling and service to our clients."

Susman Godfrey

On April 9, Trump signed an executive memorandum targeting Susman Godfrey, a specialized litigation firm.

In a fact sheet, the White House accused Susman of spearheading "efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections."

Trump's order sought to immediately suspend any Susman security clearances held by the firm's employees, "pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest." The federal government said it would also terminate any contracts with the firm.

The firm's hiring practices will also be reviewed "to ensure compliance with civil rights laws against racial bias."

On April 11, Susman filed a complaint against the Trump administration, arguing that Trump's executive order was in violation of the Constitution.

"Unless the Judiciary acts with resolve—now—to repudiate this blatantly unconstitutional Executive Order and the others like it, a dangerous and perhaps irreversible precedent will be set," the complaint reads.

"If President Trump's Executive Orders are allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they seek to retaliate against a different set of perceived foes. What for two centuries has been beyond the pale will become the new normal," it adds.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Willkie Farr & Gallagher, which employs Doug Emhoff, husband of former Vice President Kamala Harris, struck a deal with the administration, pledging at least $100 million in pro bono legal work for conservative causes, Trump said in an April 1 social media post.

"Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP proactively reached out to President Trump and his Administration, offering their decisive commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession," the White House said, according to Trump's post on Truth Social.

The firm's ties to Trump go to the 1990s when it represented the then real estate developer in a bankruptcy case.

In 2023, Willkie brought Tim Heaphy as partner. Heaphy was the former chief investigative counsel for the congressional committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, attacks on the Capitol.

The firm also represents X, Elon Musk's social media platform.

Trump said that Willkie Farr & Gallagher also committed to "Merit-Based Hiring, Promotion, and Retention," which touches on the Trump's efforts to dismantle DEI initiatives.

A representative for Willkie Farr & Gallagher did not respond to a request for comment.

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft

Trump said in a Truth Social post April 11 that the administration had come to an agreement with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, saying the law firm agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services.

The services would go toward causes supported by Trump and the law firm, including assisting veterans and law enforcement, combatting antisemitism, and "ensuring fairness in our justice system."

The statement said the firm also agreed to "not engage in illegal DEI discrimination and preferences" or to deny legal representation "because of the personal political views of individual lawyers."

"The substance of our agreement is consistent with the principles that have guided Cadwalader for over 230 years: We always put our client's interests first; We believe that Justice should be available to everyone; and We are committed to attracting, retaining and nurturing the very best talent from all backgrounds," Patrick Quinn, managing partner at Cadwalader, said in a statement shared by Trump.

Cadwalader did not respond to a request for comment.

Kirkland & Ellis

Trump also announced on April 11 the administration had come to an agreement with an additional four law firms, including Kirkland & Ellis. The president said in a Truth Social post the firms agreed to provide a total of $500 million in pro bono legal services to go toward the same types of causes, with each firm contributing $125 million.

The firms also agreed to engage outside counsel to oversee their hiring practices and ensure they comply with antidiscrimination laws.

Trump said as a result of the agreement, he would end an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigation into the law firms over their DEI practices, which was initially announced on March 17.

In a joint statement shared by Trump, the senior executives at the four law firms said: "We have resolved this matter while upholding long-held principles important to each of our Firms: Equal Employment Opportunity; providing pro bono assistance to a wide range of underserved populations, and ensuring fairness in the Justice System; and representing a broad spectrum of clients on various matters."

In a firm-wide internal memo obtained by BI, the Kirkland & Ellis executive committee said the agreement "resolves the EEOC's investigation, including its broad request for information about our people and our clients, which we no longer will be required to provide, and we will not be the target of an executive order."

"We made the decision to pursue this solution because at our very core our mission is to protect and support our people and our clients, and this agreement does both," the memo said.

A&O Shearman

A&O Shearman was among the law firms with which Trump said on April 11 that his administration had reached an agreement. The firm agreed to provide $125 million in pro bono legal services to causes supported by the administration. It also agreed to engage outside counsel to oversee its hiring practices, and the EEOC investigation into the firms has stopped.

A&O Shearman did not respond to a request for comment.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett also reached an agreement with the White House to provide $125 million in pro bono legal services to causes supported by the firm and Trump, as well as engage outside counsel to ensure its hiring practices comply with antidiscrimination laws.

As a result of the agreement, the EEOC investigation into the firm's hiring practices was stopped.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett did not respond to a request for comment.

Latham & Watkins

Latham & Watkins was also among the four firms that reached an agreement with Trump, according to the April 11 announcement. The firm agreed to provide $125 million in pro bono legal services as well as engage outside counsel to oversee its hiring. As a result, the Trump administration ended the EEOC investigation into the firm.

Latham & Watkins did not respond to a request for comment.

• Skadden is the latest Big Law firm to strike a deal with Trump to avoid punitive executive action.
• The firm said it would provide $100M in pro bono legal work to causes supported by the administration.
• One Skadden associate said they find the firm's dealings with Trump "unforgivable."

Another Big Law domino has fallen at President Donald Trump's feet.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services "to causes that the President and Skadden both support," Trump announced from the White House on Friday afternoon.

The firm also affirmed its commitment to merit-based hiring and employee retention, Trump said. In a copy of the agreement that Trump shared on Truth Social, Skadden agreed that it would not "engage in illegal DEI discrimination."

In recent weeks, the president has targeted major law firms that have worked for and with his political opponents by revoking their security clearances and calling for a review of their government contracts. He also authorized Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to sanction law firms that file lawsuits they deem "frivolous" to this administration. In response, some Big Law firms have chosen to fight back in court, while others — like Skadden — have chosen to make deals with the president to avoid punitive executive actions.

In a statement, Jeremy London, Skadden's executive partner, said the firm "engaged proactively" with the Trump administration to reach the agreement.

"The Firm looks forward to continuing our productive relationship with President Trump and his Admin," London said. "We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our Firm."

Trump described the deal with Skadden as "essentially a settlement."

"We appreciate Skadden coming to the table," Trump said.

One current Skadden employee told Business Insider that they felt the deal betrayed the firm's values and represented an "unforgivable affront" to the firm's culture. They spoke with BI anonymously to speak freely about the situation, as did another who echoed their concerns but did not wish to be quoted. BI has verified their identities.

"In addition to arguably being the best law firm in the country, many associates, including myself, joined the firm because its culture aligned with our values marginally more than other top law firms. That culture, and its emphasis on equity and inclusion, goes back to the firm's origins," the employee said, referencing the fact that founding partners' Jewish and Catholic backgrounds barred them from holding top-level positions in the legal industry in 1948 when the firm was formed.

The employee added: "There is a general consensus among associates who are politically engaged that a deal reached with the Trump administration will mark the beginning of the end for Skadden."

"Partners and associates are considering leaving, much of the firm is demoralized, and we will struggle to recruit the best talent for years to come," the Skadden employee said.

At least one attorney at the firm has resigned in response to Skadden's deal with Trump. Brenna Frey announced her decision to leave the firm on LinkedIn, writing that Skadden's agreement with Trump was "a craven attempt to sacrifice the rule of law for self-preservation."

"As one of my more eloquent former colleagues put it: 'Do not pretend that what is happening is normal or excusable. It isn't,'" Frey wrote. "There is only one acceptable response from attorneys to the Trump administration's demands: The rule of law matters."

She added: "As an attorney, if my employer cannot stand up for the rule of law, then I cannot ethically continue to work for them."

Rachel Cohen, a now-former firm employee, publicly resigned from Skadden last week after she said the firm had not responded properly to Trump's threats against other firms, including Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie. She circulated an open letter among associates at other top firms who called for their employers to take stronger action in response to the administration's orders targeting Big Law.

Skadden is the latest firm to reach an agreement with Trump amid his administration's challenges to the industry. Some lawyers and legal scholars previously told Business Insider that these targeted attacks on Big Law by the government are "unprecedented" and threaten not just the legal field but also the rule of law itself.

Paul Weiss, which was named as one of the firms Trump was eyeing for executive countermeasures, ultimately brokered a deal with the administration. Trump rescinded his order against the firm in exchange for Paul Weiss' agreement to eliminate DEI considerations from its hiring practices and the firm's pledge of $40 million in pro bono legal services to initiatives endorsed by the Trump administration.

Business Insider previously reported the language in Paul Weiss' copy of the agreement did not include references to DEI that were in Trump's announcement.

Other firms targeted by Trump, such as Perkins Coie, the Elias Law Group, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale have signaled that they will not back down and plan to fight executive orders in court. Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block have so far seen some success after the firm filed suit to challenge the order against it.

Jenner & Block was granted a temporary restraining order on Friday, blocking the Trump administration from punishing the firm. The New York Times reported that US District Judge John Bates, who is overseeing the case, described the order against the firm as "disturbing."

WilmerHale was also granted a temporary restraining order on Friday. The order, issued by US District Judge Richard Leon, blocks portions of Trump's executive order from taking effect. In his decision, Leon said there was "no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm."

US District Judge Beryl Howell on March 12 partially blocked Trump's order against Perkins Coie. Politico reported that during an emergency hearing, the judge said that the "retaliatory animus" of Trump's order against the firm was "clear on its face" and "runs head-on into the wall of First Amendment protections."

On March 21, the Justice Department filed a motion to disqualify Howell from overseeing the lawsuit, arguing the judge is "insufficiently impartial" to rule on the case.

• Elon Musk announced his artificial intelligence company, xAI, acquired his social media platform, X.
• The all-stock deal valued xAI at $80 billion and X at $33 billion — $45B less $12B debt, Musk said.
• "xAI and X's futures are intertwined," the Tesla CEO wrote in the Friday announcement posted on X.

Elon Musk on Friday announced in a post on X that his artificial intelligence company, xAI, had acquired his social media platform, X, in an all-stock deal.

"The combination values xAI at $80 billion and X at $33 billion ($45B less $12B debt)," Musk wrote.

Musk purchased X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, for $44 billion — despite the company's board initially being resistant to the Tesla CEO's proposition. Musk also attempted to back out of the purchase, though he faced a $1 billion termination fee if the deal fell through. The sale was ultimately completed in October 2022, and the once publicly traded social media company went private under Musk's ownership.

Since his acquisition of X, Musk has gutted the site's trust and safety team, users have reported spikes in antisemitic content and other hate speech on the platform, and X has been plagued by an exodus of advertisers. Business Insider's Peter Kafka earlier this month reported that the billionaire CEO has been so far unable to completely turn the social media site's trajectory around, but investors have remained interested in the platform — in part due to its financial ties to xAI.

Prior to the news of the acquisition, X held a $6 billion stake in Musk's artificial intelligence company, per Bloomberg.

Musk founded xAI in March 2023 with the goal of "building artificial intelligence to accelerate human scientific discovery." The company, a competitor to OpenAI, has since launched a large language model chatbot called Grok, which is integrated with X and relies, in part, on data generated on the site for training.

"xAI and X's futures are intertwined," Musk continued in his Friday announcement. "Today, we officially take the step to combine the data, models, compute, distribution and talent. This combination will unlock immense potential by blending xAI's advanced AI capability and expertise with X's massive reach."

He added: "I would like to recognize the hardcore dedication of everyone at xAI and X that has brought us to this point. This is just the beginning."

A spokesperson for X declined to comment on the deal when reached by Business Insider. Representatives for xAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment from BI.

In a post amplifying Musk's announcement, X CEO Linda Yaccarino wrote the future of the two companies "could not be brighter."

The deal between X and xAI isn't the first time Musk has made a similar move between his businesses. In 2016, Tesla acquired SolarCity — a solar panel company founded by Musk's cousins, Peter and Lyndon Rive — for $2.6 billion, taking on $3 billion of Solar City's debts in the process.

SolarCity was turned into Tesla Energy, which then had to contend with a lawsuit from angry shareholders who argued that the takeover amounted to a bailout of SolarCity. Musk ultimately won that lawsuit, avoiding roughly $2 billion in damages.

"I think this deal gets rid of a troublesome company — like SolarCity before, X now — and takes it out of the spotlight," Ann Lipton, a corporate law expert and law professor at Tulane University, told Business Insider. "But xAI is so opaque and so controlled by Musk, and its investors are so close to him, that it's hard to say what kind of downside they see."

Lipton, who has written about Musk's acquisition of Twitter, said Musk has functionally eliminated shareholders who might have otherwise questioned X's valuation and trajectory.

"Now we might ask whether xAI is worth the hype, but at least for now I suspect the X holders are happy with the swap," Lipton said. "Musk makes a troublesome holding less visible and if xAI is over-hyped, well, that's a reckoning that will come later."