The European Union is working on a proposal to introduce restrictions on some exports to the US as a possible retaliatory tactic in the expansive trade war President Donald Trump initiated last month. The restrictions are said to be a potential deterrent to be used only if negotiations with the US fail to produce a satisfactory outcome. Trump has put new tariffs on around €380 billion ($432 billion) of EU goods. Progress in talks have yielded little forward motion, or even clarity on what the US administration wants in its trade war, according to EU officials. Such retaliation by the bloc would mark an escalation in a trade fight in which the 78-year-old Trump has appeared frustrated by the reluctance of Europe, China and others to immediately back down. —David E. Rovella

What You Need to Know Today

The US tariff war has triggered an all-out plunge in returns across investment strategies riding everything from US stocks big and small to cryptocurrencies and corporate debt. In the grip of the tariff fallout, 90 of the top 100 best-performing exchange-traded funds of last year are down in 2025, with an average loss of 13%, according to Bloomberg Intelligence. It’s the latest sign of the pain hitting investment managers as the most disruptive economic program in decades threatens to upend the American consumer and business world. As Corporate America sounds the alarm on profits and animal spirits retreat with dealmaking on the wane, traders are plowing into havens such as cash and gold, with proxies for both getting windfall inflows.

Google illegally monopolized some online advertising technology markets, according to a federal judge whose ruling marked the latest antitrust setback for the company and a challenge to its main source of revenue. US District Judge Leonie Brinkema found on Thursday that the company violated antitrust law in the markets for advertising exchanges and tools used by websites to sell ad space, known as ad servers. But she said the company didn’t meet the definition of a monopoly for a third market of tools used by advertisers to buy display ads. Her decision marked the second time in a year that Google was found by a court to be an illegal monopolist. On Monday, a trial begins in Washington on remedies after the company was found to monopolize the online search market. The Trump Justice Department is seeking to force Google-parent Alphabet to sell off its Chrome browser.

A US appeals court denied an emergency motion by the Trump administration to halt a federal judge’s effort to facilitate—on orders from the US Supreme Court—the return of a Maryland father wrongly deported to a prison in his native El Salvador. Trump has until now largely disregarded judicial orders in the case.

The appellate court held that the Trump Justice Department’s conduct was shocking to Americans’ “sense of liberty.” In a blistering opinion, the three-judge panel said the Trump Justice Department must abide by US District Judge Paula Xinis’s order that it provide wide-ranging evidence about why it hasn’t sought the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Married to a US citizen, he was deported March 15 despite a 2019 court order saying he couldn’t be sent to his native country for fear of persecution.

“The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order,” US Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson of the US Court of Appeals wrote Thursday. “It claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

The US Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case in which Trump is inviting it to discard the historical interpretation of the Constitution’s grant of citizenship to native-born Americans. The Republican-appointee controlled court has previously thrown out decades of precedent in favor of GOP positions on affirmative action, gun regulation and most famously abortion. Now it will consider Trump’s position that the 14th Amendment allows him to ban birthright citizenship, contradicting a plain reading of the amendment and more than a century of precedent.

For now, the court will consider whether to limit lower court stays on Trump’s effort to the particular people involved in the cases, or to the states and other jurisdictions that sued to stop him. The case will test so-called universal injunctions that can broadly thwart White House policies via a single lawsuit. Trump’s Justice Department told the high court that those types of orders “have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” though they were widely used by GOP-appointed judges in lawsuits brought by Republican state officials to stymie the Biden administration.

What You’ll Need to Know Tomorrow