China’s Foreign Ministry and the Chinese embassy have both said they are ‘ready to fight till the end’ after Donald Trump doubled the tariff on all Chinese imports from 10 percent to 20 percent.

After initially implementing the 10 percent tariff against China in early February, Trump increased the tariffs on March 4, on the same day he brought in 25 percent tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada.

The POTUS has said his tariffs are intended to ‘combat the extraordinary threat to U.S. national security, including our public health posed by unchecked drug trafficking’, but China quickly hit back this week by adding 10-15 percent tariffs on certain agriculture imports from the US.

Trump’s tariffs impact China, Mexico, and Canada (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The 15 percent tariffs impact popular products such as chicken, wheat, corn, and cotton imports from the US, while the 10 percent tariffs impact the likes of pork, beef, aquatic products, fruits, vegetables, and dairy products.

Other moves targeting the US include stopping lumber imports and suspending US permits to export soybeans to the country.

Alfredo Montufar-Helu, head of the China Center for the Conference Board, said the tariffs it had imposed off the back of Trump’s action were a ‘restrained, targeted approach aimed at causing pain to those industries that matter the most to the supporters of the Trump administration’.

Now, the Chinese embassy has doubled down as it shared a statement on Twitter suggesting it was ready for ‘war’.

The post read: “If war is what the U.S. wants, be it a tariff war, a trade war or any other type of war, we’re ready to fight till the end.”

The Chinese embassy shared comments saying it was ‘ready to fight’ (X/@ChineseEmbinUS)

The tweet echoes comments made by Lin Jian, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, on March 4, when he said China would ‘fight till the end’ if the US insisted on ‘waging a tariff war, trade war or any other kind of war’.

Jian continued: “I want to reiterate that the Chinese people have never feared evil or ghosts, nor have we ever bowed to hegemony or bullying. Pressure, coercion and threats are not the right ways to engage with China. Trying to exert maximum pressure on China is a miscalculation and a mistake.”

China has now set itself an economic growth target of ‘around five percent’ for this year, which it hopes to meet by making domestic demand the ‘main engine and anchor’ of its growth.

Democratic lawmakers have spoken out about what they were trying to ‘signal’ by attending Donald Trump’s first joint session of Congress dressed in pink

On Wednesdays we wear… Oh wait.

Well, at Donald Trump’s first joint session of Congress yesterday (Tuesday, March 4), dozens of Democrats turned up for the 47th President of the United States‘ speech wearing pink. And no, it wasn’t because they’re trying to rewrite Regina George’s rules, but protest multiple of Trump’s instead.

Fashion has long been a form of protest and the Democratic Women’s Caucus – composed of all the Democratic women in the House of Representatives – continued its championing of women’s rights by donning pink for Trump’s speech to Congress.

Of the 96 members of the caucus, dozens were present in the US Capitol’s chamber wearing items of pink clothing.

Representative Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM) – who serves New Mexico’s 3rd Congressional District and is the Chair of the Caucus – told TIME members of the group wore pink to ‘signal [their] protest of Trump’s policies which are negatively impacting women and families’.

But why pink?

Dozens of Democratic lawmakers wore pink to President Trump’s first joint session of Congress (JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)

Well, Fernández explained pink is ‘a color of power and protest’ and the group wanted to ‘rev up the opposition and come at Trump loud and clear’, explaining: “Women have worn pink in opposition to Trump before, and we will do it again.”

The Democratic Women’s Caucus later released a ‘rebuttal’ to Trump’s joint address, explaining what the group is protesting in further detail.

Shared to YouTube, the video sees Fernández slamming ‘nightmare’ Trump’s ‘lies’.

She says: “We heard President Trump lie about what his policies mean to our country. The reality? Trump is a nightmare. He is a nightmare for America’s women. And we won’t rest until we defeat the policies.

“Compare his words with the rising prices people are paying at the grocery store, in the gas station. Compare his words with your own life experience and worries.”

She resolved: “We’re protesting Trump’s policies which are devastating to women. We can’t afford groceries, he’s stealing our health care and he’s threatening our safety and security.”

Indeed, Fernández isn’t the only to protest against Trump’s stance on America’s healthcare system with lawmaker and Democrat Al Green ending up escorted out of the chamber during Trump’s address to Congress after standing up and interrupting the president in protest of his controversial cuts to Medicaid.

US President Donald Trump was spotted with a bruise on his hand, leaving people concerned, and while the White House has addressed the worry, a doctor has weighed in with their own theory too.

On Monday (February 24), 47th President of the United States Donald Trump met with French President Emmanuel Macron. The pair went on to have an awkward exchange and hand shake.

During the meeting, eagle-eyed viewers were quick to spot a bruise on Trump’s hand, taking to social media to question what it could mean.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later offered up an explanation as people began to speculate what could’ve caused the bruising, and whether Trump has a health issue.

She said: “President Trump is a man of the people and he meets more Americans and shakes their hands on a daily basis than any other president in history.

“His commitment is unwavering and he proves that every single day.”

In a follow-up statement, she reiterated her point, stating: “President Trump has bruises on his hand because he’s constantly working and shaking hands all day every day.”

Many social media users remained dubious of the explanation, however, rather than something being wrong with Trump’s health, some suggested the bruise may simply be a sign of Trump’s age.

And a doctor has since offered a similar theory too, highlighting to the DailyMail.com Trump is the second-oldest president in US history at the age of 78.

Donald Trump’s bruise (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Internal medicine physician in New York, Dr Stuart Fischer, reflected how as you grow older, your blood vessels weaken, and so an ‘aggressive’ handshake could result in a bruise forming more easily ‘on any part of the body’.

The doctor also theorized how someone of Trump’s age is more likely to develop osteoarthritis.

Healthline explains: “Osteoarthritis is a degenerative joint condition that causes inflammation, stiffness, and pain in the joints.

“It’s the most common type of arthritis, affecting nearly 32.5 million people in the United States.”

Dr Fischer states the effect osteoarthritis has on the joints could also lead to easier bruising or discoloration.

And in Trump’s case? He resolved: “I think it’s probably all of those things together.”

UNILAD has contacted the White House for comment.

Even if ageing is simply the reason for Trump’s bruise, it’s still not eased some Americans’ concerns – many concerned with Biden’s age when he was president and worrying about how it may impact his ability to lead the country.

The White House said the bruise is a result of ‘handshakes’ (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Biden was 78 years old when he took office, and subsequently the oldest president ever at inauguration.

His age and whether it was impacting whether he was mentally fit enough to be in office was called into question on multiple occasions, such as when Biden ended a speech by saying, ‘God Save the Queen’.

In December 2024, Trump said he’d release his full medical report, however, this speculation around his well-being has sparked more people calling for its immediate release.

A federal judge has blocked efforts to move transgender women in prisons to male-only facilities after Donald Trump signed his executive order stating the US would only recognize two sexes; male and female.

Trump signed the order on his first day back in the White House on January 20, claiming in the document that it was intended to ‘defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male’.

The order, which claimed it would ‘defend women from gender ideology extremism’, has resulted in a number of lawsuits from transgender people claiming their rights are being impacted, including a suit from 12 transgender women housed at Bureau of Prisons facilities.

Donald Trump’s order would see transgender women moved to male facilities (Sara D. Davis/Getty Images)

The inmates filed a joint lawsuit on January 30 amid concerns they would lose access to medical treatments for gender dysphoria and potentially face serious harm if they were forced to be placed in prisons that didn’t recognize their gender identities as a result of the executive order.

Some of the concerns stem from one point made in Trump’s order which states that the Bureau of Prisons should revise its policies on medical care so no federal money is spent ‘for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex’.

In the filing, the inmates claimed they were likely to be at ‘extremely high risk of harassment, abuse, violence and sexual assault’ if put into male facilities, noting also that they would be subject to strip searches by male correctional officers.

After considering the case, US District Judge Royce Lamberth issued a temporary order on February 18 to prevent the inmates from being transferred. On Monday (February 24), he extended the order with a preliminary injunction, ruling the inmates were likely to win their case on constitutional grounds.

The judge’s ruling has hindered Trump’s ruling (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Explaining his decision, Lamberth cited ‘numerous government reports and regulations recognizing that transgender persons are at a significantly elevated risk of physical and sexual violence relative to other inmates when housed in a facility corresponding to their biological sex’.

Even if inmates weren’t subject to physical or sexual violence, Lamberth ruled that housing the transgender women in male prisons would contribute to their gender dysphoria because ‘the mere homogeneous presence of men will cause uncomfortable dissonance’.

Hitting back, government lawyers argued that the judge had nothing to rule on because prisons haven’t adopted a new policy yet for transgender inmates.

According to USA Today, Rick Stover, senior deputy assistant director of the bureau’s designation and sentence computation center, reported that as of February 20 the Bureau of Prisons had 2,198 transgender inmates in prisons and halfway houses, including 1,488 people assigned as male at birth who now identify as female, and 710 people assigned as female at birth who now identify as male.