Trump’s tariffs cause fall in Irish goods exports

6 days ago Share Save John Campbell BBC News NI economics & business editor Share Save

Getty Images In April, Trump imposed a minimum tariff of 10% on almost all countries

Irish goods exports declined sharply in April as President Trump’s tariffs continued to have a significant impact on Ireland’s trade. Businesses had rushed to sell goods to the US in the first three months of the year to avoid the impact of the tariffs which started to take effect in April. As a result, exports sales were £37bn (£31.5bn) in March, which was a record month, and then in April they declined to £22bn (£19bn). Exports to the US declined by 62% compared to March, down from almost €26bn (£22bn) to just under €10bn (£8.5bn).

However, overall exports and exports to the US were still higher in April compared to the same month last year. Tariffs are effectively a tax on imports and are a key of Trump’s America First economic policy. In April, Trump imposed a minimum tariff of 10% on almost all countries, while proposing extra “reciprocal” duties for some trading partners, including 20% on the EU. He later suspended the reciprocal measures, giving partners 90 days to negotiate. The US is Ireland’s biggest export market and pharmaceuticals are the most important sector.

Getty Images The dramatic swings in exports are having an impact on Ireland’s overall economic data

Russia may attack Nato in next four years, German defence chief warns

Russia posing ”very serious threat” to West, says German defence chief

Gen Breuer was speaking on the sidelines of the Shangri-la Dialogue, a defence summit in Singapore organised by the think tank the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

He also insisted Nato, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, remains unified over the war in Ukraine, despite differences of opinion expressed recently by both Hungary and Slovakia.

General Carsten Breuer told the BBC that Russia was producing hundreds of tanks a year, many of which could be used for an attack on Nato Baltic state members by 2029 or even earlier.

Members of the Western alliance Nato need to prepare for a possible attack from Russia within the next four years, according to Germany’s chief of defence.

His comments come weeks ahead of a summit of Nato nations at The Hague where they are expected to discuss defence budgets, among other topics.

Gen Breuer said that Nato was facing “a very serious threat” from Russia, one that he has never seen before in his 40 years in service.

At the moment, he said, Russia was building up its forces to an “enormous extent”, producing approximately 1,500 main battle tanks every year.

“Not every single tank is going to [the war in] Ukraine, but it’s also going in stocks and into new military structures always facing the West,” he said.

Russia also produced four million rounds of 152mm artillery munition in 2024, and not all of it was going to Ukraine either, added Gen Breuer.

The figures come from German and allied nations’ analysts.

“There’s an intent and there’s a build up of the stocks” for a possible future attack on Nato’s Baltic state members, he said.

“This is what the analysts are assessing – in 2029. So we have to be ready by 2029… If you ask me now, is this a guarantee that’s not earlier than 2029? I would say no, it’s not. So we must be able to fight tonight,” he said.

Many have long feared an attack on a Nato state as it could trigger a larger war between Russia and the US, which is a key member of Nato. Under Article 5 of the Nato agreement, any attack on a member state would mean other members must come to its defence.

Gen Breuer singled out the so-called Suwalki Gap, an area that borders Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Belarus, as one of the most vulnerable.

“The Baltic States are really exposed to the Russians, right? And once you are there, you really feel this… in the talks we are having over there,” he said.

The Estonians, he said, had given the analogy of being close to a wildfire where they “feel the heat, see the flames and smell the smoke”, while in Germany “you probably see a little bit of smoke over the horizon and not more”.

Gen Breuer said this showed the differing perspectives among European states of the threat of a possible Russian attack.

Russia’s view of the Ukraine war was different from the West’s, he said, where Moscow sees the war as more of a “continuum” in a larger conflict with Nato and is therefore “trying to find ways into our defence lines and it’s testing it”.

He cited recent attacks on undersea cables in the Baltic Sea, cyber attacks on European public transport, and unidentified drones spotted over German power stations and other infrastructure.

Nato members should therefore build up their militaries again, Gen Breuer argued. “What we have to do now is really to lean in and to tell everybody, hey, ramp up… get more into it because we need it. We need it to be able to defend ourselves and therefore also to build up deterrence.”

Asked by the BBC about Nato cohesion, given Hungary and Slovakia’s closer relations with Moscow, Gen Breuer insisted the alliance was still healthy.

He pointed to Finland and Sweden’s decisions to join Nato shortly after the Ukraine war began. “I’ve never seen such a unity like it is now” among nations and military leaders, he said.

“All of them understand the threat that is at the moment approaching Nato, all understand that we have to develop a direction of deterrence, into the direction of collective defence. This is clear to everyone. The urgency is seen.”

Gen Breuer’s remarks are yet another sign of a significant change in attitudes in Germany towards defence and Russia.

Like many Western nations, including the UK, it has scaled down its investments in its military over many years.

But there has been a growing recognition of the need to reverse this, with even the Green Party coming onboard a recent vote to lift restrictions on Germany’s defence spending.

But as Western military and political leaders say they are ready for the fight, questions remain on whether this is a case of ambition outpacing reality.

It will take years for Europe’s military industrial base to crank up to speed to match anywhere near the scale of weaponry that Russia is churning out.

The US has also been drawing down, not building up, its defence commitments to Europe to focus on the Indo-Pacific.

Could this be the most significant Nato summit since the Cold War?

6 hours ago Share Save Katya Adler Europe Editor Share Save

BBC

As the world holds its breath to see what happens next after the US launched direct attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites, US President Donald Trump is expected in the Netherlands on Tuesday for a Nato summit. This will be Trump’s first Nato meeting since being re-elected. In the past, he’s made angry comments about alliance members freeloading off US security guarantees. European allies are desperate to prove him wrong. They hope to persuade him not to pull troops or US capabilities out of the continent. “Relations with Europe have been so strained since Trump returned to the White House – over trade tariffs and more – that a few weeks ago, we weren’t even sure he’d turn up to this summit,” one high level diplomat – who spoke on condition of anonymity – told me. “With Russia and China watching for western weakness, that would have been a disaster.” But Moscow and Beijing may yet be able to bring out the popcorn.

Getty Images Nato’s secretary general Mark Rutte (pictured left) is said to have designed this summit around Trump

Nato’s secretary general Mark Rutte designed this summit around Trump. He aimed to flatter him by agreeing massive hikes in defence spending, to show that Europeans would now take more responsibility for their own security. Rutte also hoped that by keeping the meeting narrowly focused on money, he’d avoid any potential clashes or outbursts between Trump and his allies. That carefully-laid plan could be crumbling. Now that Iran has launched missiles at US airbases in Qatar and Iraq in response to Saturday’s strikes on its nuclear sites, the US commander-in-chief may decide to remain in the Situation Room in Washington. If he does come to Europe, as expected, how will it be possible not to talk about the Middle East considering what’s at stake? That would introduce the risk of a fallout between the US President and European allies, who advocated diplomacy over bombing when it came to Iran.

Rutte: No opt-outs for 5% GDP commitment

Trump loves a win and he’s very thin-skinned. He won’t want to feel any disapproval at the Nato meeting. Separately, he’d been assured of a headline-grabbing victory at the summit, with European countries committing to spending a whopping 5% of GDP on defence – exactly as he demanded in his first weeks back in the White House. “This summit is about credibility,” is how the US ambassador to Nato, Matthew Whitaker, puts it. But Spain claimed on Sunday that it had secured an opt-out from the new spending plan – something Rutte later denied. Other allies in Europe that are struggling to find the extra cash are bristling too. The bottom line is: Europe needs to keep big military and nuclear power US onside. That’s how Rutte managed to corral reluctant leaders – bar Spain – into signing up to the new big spending push. It’s a massive commitment. But as the former US ambassador to Nato, Julianne Smith, told me – even then, there are absolutely no guarantees with Trump.

AFP via Getty Images “A watershed moment” is how one high-level diplomat described this week’s Nato summit. (Trump pictured in 2019)

It’s unclear if the US would sign up to an end-of-summit declaration this week identifying Russia as the main threat to the Nato alliance. Europe’s trust in the US as its ultimate protector has been shaken by Trump’s seemingly softly-softly approach with Moscow, and by his heavy-handed pressure on Kyiv, as he’s tried to end the war in Ukraine. Additionally, on Friday night, you could almost hear European diplomats grinding their teeth, after Trump blithely justified the enormous 5% defence spending target he’s demanded of allies, while exempting himself and the US from the commitment. “I don’t think we should, but I think they should,” he said. “We’ve been supporting Nato so long… So I don’t think we should, but I think that the Nato countries should, absolutely.” Then again, Europe’s leaders arguably should have been better prepared by now in terms of self-defence. He may be the bluntest and most unpredictable, but Trump is by no means the first US president to want to move military attention and investment from Europe to other priority areas, particularly the Indo-Pacific. President Obama was very clear about that back in 2011.

Getty Images “We’ve been supporting Nato so long,” Trump has said. (Pictured here at the opening ceremony of the 2018 summit)

The US has nuclear weapons stored in Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. It has 100,000 battle-ready troops stationed across Europe, 20,000 of them in Eastern European Nato countries, sent there by President Biden after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The continent could make up a shortfall in troop numbers, especially with Germany and Poland planning to significantly build up their ground forces over the next few years. But Europe’s dependency on the US goes deeper, says Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director-general of the Royal United Services Institute. It has relied on Washington for intelligence gathering, surveillance, air force capabilities and command and control. The US has performed a pivotal leadership role in Nato, bringing its members and forces together. These are exactly the capabilities that are scarce and needed by the US military in Asia, says Mr Chalmers. If removed from Europe, they’d take a very long time to replicate. Not long ago, many Nato countries in Europe avoided building up continental capabilities, such as extending France’s nuclear umbrella to other allies, for fear the US might say: “Oh well, you no longer need us. We’re off!” But now, Europe is being forced to shoulder more security responsibility, not only to try to persuade Washington to stay – but also in case the US president decides to withdraw from Europe to a greater or lesser extent.

Getty Images The US has 100,000 battle-ready troops stationed across Europe

No one knows what Trump’s intentions are. Europe’s Nato leaders were hugely relieved recently, when his administration announced that US Air Force Lieutenant General Alexus Grynkewich would assume the traditionally US-occupied Nato position of Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. That implied commitment to the defence alliance. But Washington is carrying out its own military spending and defence review. Announcements are expected in autumn. It’s thought unlikely there’ll be any new US funding for Ukraine. And very likely that the 20,000 extra troops in eastern Europe will be the first US forces to be pulled out of the continent. Despite this, Poland says it will attend this week’s Nato summit in a confident mood. In stark contrast to Spain, Warsaw believes it’s leading by example – spending more of its national income on defence (currently 4.7% of GDP) than any other Nato member, including the US. It aims, it says, to build the most powerful land army in Europe. During the Cold War, Poland lived under the shadow of the Soviet Union. The country neighbours Ukraine. It’s not hard to persuade Poles that defence is a top priority. For politicians in countries further away from Russia, the argument is more challenging. Spanish media has been full of speculation that disagreements over defence spending could topple the country’s precarious coalition government.

Getty Images Nato’s Secretary General says that Russia could be able to attack a Nato country within five years

Trying to both placate Trump by agreeing to his defence spending demands, while also sweetening the pill for more cash-strapped European leaders, Nato is proposing to split the 5% target into two parts: 3.5% of annual national income on defence, with a further 1.5% of GDP to be spent on “defence-related” issues, like expanding cargo sea ports in the Netherlands, for example, or France investing in cyber security. This has the added bonus of bringing Europe into line with US military spending of 3.4% of GDP – a huge psychological landmark, says Camille Grand, former Assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment at Nato and now defence expert at the European Council of Foreign Relations. But however you play with the figures, we’re talking about governments having to spend billions more on defence. The money has to come from somewhere. Either new taxes – a method Estonia has been trying out – or more borrowing, which will be hugely expensive for countries like Italy that already have large amounts of government debt. Another option is a reduction in welfare spending – known as “guns or butter,” or “tanks or pensions” economics. With its Strategic Defence Review, the UK recently stressed to the public the need for more military spending, but Mr Chalmers says neither Downing Street nor most other European governments have fully prepared their electorates for the trade-offs that huge new defence investments will require. The timetable for reaching the 5% target is key. Nato allies have called for a 7-10 year window. Nato’s Secretary General has suggested that could be too late. With Moscow’s economy very much on a war footing, Russia will be able to attack a Nato country within five years, he says.

Defending Europe isn’t just about how much governments spend. As important is what they spend their money on. A big European weakness is that there are lots of duplicate and incompatible capabilities across the continent: reportedly 178 different types of weapon systems and 17 different makes of tanks in the EU alone, for example. Putting aside national defence contracts and pride, and pooling European resources in the name of efficiency, is yet another thorny debate that will likely be sidelined at this week’s summit. So what definite outcomes can we expect? That very much depends on the man arriving in the Netherlands on Airforce One. Trump’s ambassador to Nato says the meeting could be historic. “A watershed moment” is how another high-level diplomat put it to me – and possibly “the most significant Nato summit since the Cold War”: the moment Europe began to spend as much as the US on defence and to truly assume responsibility for its own security.

Martina Navratilova: ‘I wouldn’t have left home for Trump’s America’

6 days ago Share Save Ashitha Nagesh • @ashnagesh BBC News Share Save

BBC Navratilova defected from communist Czechoslovakia 50 years ago because she had ambitions of becoming world number one

Fifty years ago, Martina Navratilova left everything she knew in communist Czechoslovakia to start a new life in the US. Then an 18-year-old high school pupil, she was one of the Cold War’s most high-profile defectors – and she would go on to become one of tennis’s most iconic players. But speaking to the BBC’s Amol Rajan, she says that she fears the US now “wouldn’t let me in”. “I’m not loyal to [US President] Donald Trump,” she says, adding that she worries the US has become a “totalitarian” state.

Since President Trump took office in January, his administration has carried out sweeping immigration raids, sparking protests in parts of the country. He has also instituted a travel ban for citizens from 12 countries, and there have been reports of tourists being detained at the border. “If I were now still in that same position [as in 1975] and I had to go live somewhere, it would not be America, because it’s not a democracy at the moment,” she says. When she speaks about US politics, Navratilova’s frustration is palpable. She believes people haven’t noticed what she says is a situation that is gradually getting worse. The US, she adds, is “definitely turning against migrants”. “I mean, people are getting chucked out by Homeland Security, they’re getting chucked out because they’re not on board completely with Donald Trump’s agenda… because they’re not kissing the ring,” she says. That decision to defect to the US in 1975 wasn’t an easy one to make, she says. She describes having an “idyllic” childhood growing up in Revnice, in modern-day Czechia, with a loving family that she was leaving behind. “I never knew when I would see my parents again – or if I would see them.” But doing so changed the course of Navratilova’s life. She told a press conference at the time that she left Czechoslovakia because she wanted to become world number one in tennis – and that she “couldn’t do it under those circumstances at home”. She did indeed go on to become number one – both in women’s singles for 332 weeks, and women’s doubles for a record 237 weeks. She is now widely considered to be one of the world’s greatest tennis players.

Martina Navratilova, left, tells Amol Rajan, right, that she feels the US has become “totalitarian”

Navratilova is a dual US and Czech citizen, and still lives in the US with her wife, model Julia Lemigova. Does she worry that, in the current political climate, she could lose her own citizenship? “Everything is up in the air right now, and that’s the whole point. Everybody’s walking on eggshells, not knowing what’s going to happen.” There is, however, one extremely divisive subject on which she has previously said she agrees with President Trump – transgender women’s participation in sport. Navratilova is firm in her belief that the inclusion of trans women in women’s tennis is “wrong”.

She says she doesn’t agree with current World Tennis Association (WTA) rules, which state transgender women can participate in women’s games if they provide a written and signed declaration that they are female or non-binary, that their testosterone levels have been below a certain limit for two years, and that they sustain those levels of testosterone. She says she feels trans women have biological advantages in women’s sports – a belief that is hotly debated. “There should be no ostracism, there should be no bullying,” she says, “but male bodies need to play in male sports. They can still compete. There is no ban on transwomen in sports. They just need to compete in the proper category which is the male category. It’s that simple.” She adds: “By including male bodies in the women’s tournament, now somebody is not getting into the tournament – a woman is not getting into the tournament because now a male has taken her place.” In December last year, Britain’s Lawn Tennis Association changed its rules, meaning transgender women can no longer play in some female domestic tennis tournaments. And in April, the UK’s Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex. Asked if she felt tennis should follow the lead of the UK court, she says: “100%” Pushed on whether we should “spend a bit more time being sympathetic to” trans people, Navratilova replies: “Very sympathetic – but that still doesn’t give them a right to women’s sex-based spaces.”

‘Oh my God, I’m going to die’

Navratilova has been open about her battles with cancer over the last 15 years. She was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2010, at the age of 52. Then, 13 years later, it returned – along with a second, completely unrelated cancer in her throat. “The way I found out, I went like this”, Navratilova says, smacking her hands on the sides of her face as if shocked by something. “And I’m like, ‘oh, this lymph node is a little bit bigger’. And a couple of weeks later, it’s still bigger.” Following a scan, doctors also caught the second cancer in her breast. “We got the results, and it’s cancer,” she says. “And I’m like, ‘Oh my God, I’m going to die’.” Although she says the treatment was “hell”, she feels “all good” now. “Knock on wood, all clear, and no side effects at all – other than red wine still doesn’t taste good, so I’ve gone sideways towards tequila and vodka,” she laughs. “I’m lucky. The cure was hell, but the aftermath has been great.” Has having cancer changed Navratilova at all? “Cancer taught me to really appreciate every day, which I was doing pretty much anyway,” she says. “But most of all, to not sweat the small stuff. It’s fixable.”

Wide-ranging measures announced, but budget still in question

Tinshui Yeung

Live page editor

Image source, PA Media

The government’s message is clear: the world has changed, so the UK’s defence must change too.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, along with the US asking Nato countries to spend more on defence, is the backdrop to today’s strategic defence review.

The measures in the report are wide-ranging – from better housing for armed forces to building up to 12 attack submarines. All of this is backed by extra government funding, with a pledge to raise defence spending to 2.5% by 2027-28, aiming for 3% by the next parliament.

But is it enough? MPs in parliament have asked this question repeatedly after John Healey made his statement.

Our analysis shows that to meet all the goals of making the UK’s armed forces ready for war, more money will be needed.

John Healey says a defence investment plan, described as a new investment framework, will be published in the autumn.

While details of this investment plan are still unclear, one thing is certain: the review marks a dramatic change in how the armed forces will fight in the future, as our defence correspondent Jonathan Beale writes.

You can read his analysis, check out all the key points of the strategy defence review, or read our full news piece.

We’re ending our live coverage for today. Thanks for joining us.