Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world

Donald Trump struggled to crush a late rebellion in the House of Representatives from Republican critics of his flagship tax and spending bill, as the US president made a final push to get it passed by July 4.

On Thursday, the president lashed out on Truth Social at the Republican holdouts, as a procedural vote to advance the bill to a final vote in the lower chamber of Congress was on track to fail.

“Largest Tax Cuts in History and a Booming Economy vs. Biggest Tax Increase in History, and a Failed Economy. What are the Republicans waiting for??? What are you trying to prove??? MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT’S COSTING YOU VOTES!!!,” Trump said.

With a narrow majority in the House, Republicans can only afford to lose three votes on the bill.

On Wednesday, Trump met privately at the White House with Republican dissidents to prevent them from torpedoing his “big beautiful bill”.

Since then five Republicans opposed advancing the bill, enough to stop it from moving forward, in a key procedural vote. The final tally has been kept open as Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson and other party leaders hope to flip the votes from those Republicans.

Several conservative and centrist Republican lawmakers have raised concerns about the legislation that was approved by the Senate this week.

Some are unhappy that the bill — which implements a big chunk of Trump’s domestic agenda — does not go far enough to rein in the US debt, or roll back clean energy subsidies. Others are worried about cuts to healthcare programmes.

Still, it is unclear how long the rebellion will last, since many conservative hardliners have a history of buckling to the will of the White House and congressional leaders.

One group of conservatives including Tennessee’s Tim Burchett emerged from the White House upbeat following a “very productive” two-hour meeting with Trump and his vice-president JD Vance on Wednesday.

“The president was wonderful, as always,” Burchett said in a video posted to his social media accounts. “We will hopefully get this worked out and do some great things for this country.”

The “big, beautiful bill” extends vast tax cuts from Trump’s first administration, paid for in part by steep cuts to Medicaid, the public health insurance scheme for low-income and disabled Americans, and other social welfare programmes.

The bill would also roll back Joe Biden-era tax credits for clean energy, while scaling up investment in the military and border protection.

A version of the sweeping legislation was narrowly passed in the Senate after three Republicans sided with Democrats against the bill, forcing Vance to cast a tiebreaking vote.

That sent the legislation back to the House, which must approve the bill before Trump signs it into law. An earlier version of the legislation passed the House by a single vote in May.

“The Senate bill moved way far away from the House bill,” Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican who chairs the influential House Freedom Caucus, told CNBC. “We should take the time to get this right.”

Fiscally conservative lawmakers, including many Freedom Caucus members, object to the cost of the legislation, which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says will add $3.4tn to the deficit over the next decade. The group has circulated a three-page memo detailing what it described as “failures” of the Senate bill.

More moderate members have argued that the cuts to Medicaid, which would strip an estimated 12mn people of their health insurance, are too steep.

The White House has dismissed the CBO’s projections and argued that the bill would more than pay for itself in the long term by generating stronger economic growth.

The Magic V5’s thinness is made possible by innovations in its silicon-carbon battery, which stacks cells just 0.2 millimeters thick to create a battery that’s as thin as a bank card. The new phone is also light: At just 217 grams, the Magic V5 weighs less than the iPhone 16 Pro Max.

Behind these innovations is a “massive” amount of research and development, Hope Cao, Honor’s product expert on foldables, told Fortune ahead of the Magic V5 launch.

Honor invested 1 billion Chinese yuan ($139 million) towards researching its silicon-carbon battery technology. The company invests over 10% of its total revenue towards R&D each year.

“In terms of materials, structure, craftsmanship…everything is extremely costly from an R&D perspective,” Cao said. 

Foldables represent a small but rapidly expanding segment of the Chinese smartphone market. Sales in this category grew by 27% last year, according to Counterpoint Research. Book-type foldables, which open along the longer edge to create a larger screen, are particularly popular.

Cao suggests this aligns with Chinese consumer preference for versatile devices for both work and entertainment. A larger screen means more space for productivity apps, meaning users can do their work on a foldable smartphone rather than a laptop. The rise of “short dramas”—soap operas designed to be watched on a phone and easily shared on social media—are also pushing shoppers to invest in larger displays.

Honor was once Huawei’s budget smartphone division. U.S. sanctions forced the Chinese tech giant to offload the company in late 2020. The company had a 13% share of China’s smartphone market in the first quarter of 2025, according to Counterpoint, close behind Vivo, Oppo and Apple. 

China’s budget brands are now venturing into the premium market, seeking growth from selling higher-value phones, rather than a larger volume of cheaper models.

Still, the return of Huawei to the smartphone market in 2023 is weighing on Honor’s business. Counterpoint Research puts Huawei in first place in China’s smartphone market, alongside Xiaomi. 

Huawei’s success is also weighing on Apple, whose iPhone once dominated the Chinese market. Local smartphones now offer designs and features that Apple’s tried-and-true iPhone is struggling to match. Apple plans to release a book-style foldable phone in 2026, The Information reported last year. 

The iPhone maker is also struggling to launch its AI services in China. Earlier this year, Alibaba announced that it was going to be Apple’s local partner to offer Apple Intelligence to users. Yet the deal has reportedly drawn scrutiny in both Washington and Beijing. 

AI is quickly becoming a key differentiator for Chinese smartphones, including those designed by Honor. The Chinese company is experimenting with on-device AI, or services that run on the phone as opposed to the cloud. Honor plans to invest $10 billion over the next five years to develop AI for its product lineup, which it hopes to expand to include PCs, tablets and wearables. 

MBW Views is a series of op/eds from eminent music industry people… with something to say. 

The following commentary comes from Kenny Gates, the CEO and co-founder of [PIAS], a powerhouse of independent music that was established 43 years ago. [PIAS] was fully acquired by Universal Music Group last year.

IMPALA represents the interests of a group of independent music companies in Europe. It is currently lobbying against Universal Music Group’s proposed acquisition of Downtown Music Holdings in the EU.

Gates and his fellow [PIAS] co-founder, Michel Lambot, were two of the original founders of IMPALA 25 years ago.

I recently read an opinion piece penned by Helen Smith, the Executive Chair of IMPALA, regarding the proposed sale of Downtown to UMG.

I was astounded by the misleading propaganda within Helen’s comments, and felt compelled to respond.

So, I spoke to my wife, and she advised: “Do nothing.” Then I spoke to my new colleagues at UMG, and they said: “We’re not getting involved in that.”

Then I spoke to my PR guru and he said, “Frankly mate, this is not your battle to fight.”

After that, I called my long-time business partner, and one of my oldest friends, Michel Lambot, who, like me, was a co-founder of IMPALA.

Michel said, wisely: “It’s all going to blow back on you Kenny. You know that, right? They are going to question your integrity and say you’re a Universal stooge. Why bother?”

But I have always spoken my mind, and the whole ethos of [PIAS] has always been to stand up for what we believe in.

I truly appreciate the advice my friends and family have offered me. But I’ve decided to address some of Helen’s claims, because I feel I must.

Also, as I’ve said before… fuck the haters.

I’ll start with something that, as a long-standing advocate for the independent music community, particularly infuriates me.

Helen points to UMG’s bust-up with TikTok last year to support her claims of Universal’s supposed market control.

On this, let me be very clear: at least UMG had the guts to confront TikTok and try to resolve that issue. Because – surprise, surprise – IMPALA did next to nothing.

So many independent companies and organisations publicly applauded UMG’s stance vs. TikTok. Including, to name a few: A2IM, NMPA, Artist Rights Alliance, Hipgnosis, Primary Wave, The Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP), and others.

But IMPALA? Crickets.

“On UMG vs. TikTok? IMPALA simply sat on the sidelines.”

UMG had everything to lose taking on one of the world’s biggest and most powerful entertainment tech companies. They faced immense pressure from artists and their representatives during those negotiations, but decided it was worth it in the name of copyright’s value.

I remember a time when IMPALA led the charge on issues like this – as they did during the YouTube ‘value gap’ negotiations a decade ago.

But on UMG vs. TikTok? IMPALA simply sat on the sidelines.

Worse: Instead of joining forces with other companies/organisations within music to help avert a crisis – that of music rightsholders being underpaid and exploited by ‘Big Tech’ – IMPALA now decides to criticize a company that actually stood up for music.

The recorded music industry’s entire annual turnover is equivalent to just one week’s turnover for GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple).

With that in mind, refresh my memory: who are the real ‘big dogs’ of the music world again?

Where is the real case for ‘market dominance’?

It saddens me: IMPALA was once a proudly pro-independent body. Today, it sounds more like an anti-major clique.

IMPALA wishes to appear virtuous while painting the majors as ‘bad actors’. This falsehood recalls the absurdity of Boris Johnson’s pro-Brexit London bus.

A huge global community of successful independents – including IMPALA members – are already using the distribution services of major music companies and affiliates such as ADA, The Orchard, AWAL, and Virgin Music Group.

Helen’s points about the majors’ distribution “control” being “bad for artists” must bewilder all those independent acts (and labels) that are settled, successful, and happy in these business relationships. Not to mention FREE TO LEAVE these business relationships!

“This must bewilder all those independent acts (and labels) that are settled, successful, and happy in business relationships with major-owned distributors.”

It’s naïve to pretend that the major music corporations haven’t been in the business of independent distribution for over a decade now. It’s disingenuous to suggest that there are longstanding and ongoing problems within this market.

If supposed market abuses in independent distribution exist, I’ve genuinely never seen them – or heard about them from anyone in music’s independent community.

(Remember: Universal Music Group is a publicly listed company. Any suggestion that it would contemplate bending fiduciary/market laws for its own gain is ludicrous.)

Another claim from IMPALA: there is a lack of “independent options” in distribution for artists and labels today.

This too is a falsehood. Respected independent music industry body Merlin is happy to recommend 19 independent distributors to its members.

Nineteen! Nananana nineteen (with apologies to Paul Hardcastle)!

Doesn’t nineteen distribution options for modern independents – and these are just the ones endorsed by Merlin – demonstrate a fair amount of market choice?!

Perhaps my biggest issue here? IMPALA’s claim to represent the independent music community.

There are literally thousands of self-releasing artists, independent labels, and entrepreneurs who are not members of IMPALA.

In reality, IMPALA’s mandate to operate on behalf of ‘independents’ actually comes from only a tiny fraction of the sector.

I have always been a proud co-founder of IMPALA (there’s a reason it’s headquartered in Brussels). Yet it’s a great shame that it’s become a small-minded, inward-looking organization, more concerned with focusing on imaginary problems than contributing solutions that actually help the music industry.

The times, they are a-changing… and make no mistake: the times have changed.

Independent music rightsholders – whether artists or labels – are thriving in a new ecosystem. The whole binary ‘indies vs. majors’ narrative is passé.

It’s time to move on from this tired old story and address the real issues, such as: the ‘value gap’ in short-form video; the growing influence of venture capital and private equity in music rights ownership and music distribution; the ever-present threats to copyright; and, of course, the elephant in the room: A.I.

The independents’ real enemy lies outside the major music companies.

Open your eyes.

Let’s all focus together on the real issues – rather than a pointless combat d’arriere garde (i.e. rearguard action) that solves nothing.Music Business Worldwide

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world

Donald Trump said the US had struck a trade agreement with Vietnam in a deal that would lower Washington’s “reciprocal tariff” on exports from the Asian country to 20 per cent.

The new tariff level represents a more than halving of the 46 per cent levy Trump initially imposed on Vietnam during his “liberation day” tariff blitz on April 2, but is higher than the 10 per cent rate it was lowered to for 90 days as trade talks took place.

The deal makes Hanoi one of the few capitals to reach a trade agreement with Washington in the past three months. But the steepness of the tariffs remaining in place could unnerve countries still hoping to secure significant relief from the levies announced in April, which triggered a financial market sell-off at the time and upended global trade.

Describing the deal as “something that they have never done”, Trump said in a Truth Social post on Wednesday detailing the agreement that Vietnam would give the US “TOTAL ACCESS” to their market and that “we will be able to sell our product into Vietnam at ZERO Tariff.”

The US will also charge Vietnam a 40 per cent tariff on “trans-shipping” as Washington seeks to crack down on businesses sending products made in China through other countries to avoid high levies on Chinese goods.

Vietnam’s official state media reported that Vietnam’s Communist party chief To Lam held a phone call with Trump on Tuesday and the two sides reached a consensus on a “fair and balanced reciprocal trade agreement framework”.

During the call, Trump “affirmed that the US will significantly reduce reciprocal tariffs on many Vietnamese exports”, state media reported, without referring to any specific tariff rates.

“The 20 per cent baseline tariff for Vietnamese imports is higher than expected, undoubtedly causing angst among other trading partners trying to finalise deals,” said Wendy Cutler, a former US trade official who now serves as vice-president at the Asia Society Policy Institute.

Hanoi, though, had a “strong interest” in reaching a deal with Washington given almost 30 per cent of Vietnam’s exports are destined for the US, Cutler said.

The south-east Asian country’s exports to the US have risen in recent years as manufacturers have moved production out of China to avoid US tariffs, with Vietnam hosting the likes of Apple, Samsung and Nike. In 2024, the US exported $13.1bn in goods to Vietnam, according to US government figures, but imported $136.6bn over the same period.

The Trump administration has accused Vietnam of being a conduit for Chinese exporters trying to avoid punitively high US tariffs on Beijing. The practice, known as trans-shipment, had become a critical issue in Hanoi’s negotiations with Washington.

Many companies assemble components manufactured in China in other countries including Vietnam and its south-east Asian peers, or add enough value to the products to legally change their place of origin. However, some merely relabel their products without any added value, a practice that is illegal but difficult to trace.

Markets broadly took the announcement in their stride. The dollar was down less than 0.1 per cent, extending a recent slide, while the S&P 500 climbed steadily through the day to finish at a record high.

Shares of several companies with significant manufacturing operations in Vietnam rose. On Wall Street, Nike climbed 4.1 per cent and toymakers Mattel and Hasbro each gained 1.6 per cent, while Adidas rose 1 per cent in Frankfurt.

The lower levies may offer some relief for Vietnam, but it is unclear how the two-tier tariff system announced by Trump would work. It is also unclear how Hanoi can trace trans-shipment and what percentage of its exports would be hit with the higher 40 per cent rate.

Alicia García-Herrero, chief Asia-Pacific economist at French investment bank Natixis, said the 20 per cent flat tariff was “not too bad” for Vietnam so long as US tariffs on China remained relatively higher.

“The question is whether there is any fine print — for example, Vietnam imposing tariffs on products and inputs imported from China which are vital to its manufacturing economy,” she said.

The deal with Vietnam comes a day after Trump threatened to increase levies on Japan, casting doubt that Washington would reach a deal with Tokyo. 

Additional reporting by Peter Foster in London