With a blast of early morning social media posts, Trump escalated the trade war that the White House had spent weeks reducing to a low boil.

Why it matters: It was a reminder that there will be no permanent trade peace in this administration, only trade war lulls of uncertain duration. That reality could keep financial markets on edge.

Driving the news: Trump threatened to impose a minimum 25% tariff on Apple if the tech giant does not shift manufacturing to the U.S.

• "I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhone's that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else," Trump posted on Truth Social.
• "If that is not the case, a Tariff of at least 25% must be paid by Apple to the U.S.," he added. It is legally dubious whether the White House could subject a single company to a specific tax.

Reality check: Many analysts say that "Made in the USA" iPhones are unrealistic and that if somehow it did happen, the product would be notably more expensive.

• Apple's Cook has announced billions in investments for U.S. manufacturing plants, though Trump said he is still unsatisfied.

About 30 minutes after that Truth Social post, Trump said he would recommend a 50% import duty on European goods starting June 1 — a far higher rate than the 20% "Liberation Day" rate that was later scaled back to 10%.

• "Our discussions with them are going nowhere!" Trump wrote.

The big picture: It is a sharp contrast to the administration's message in recent weeks, with top economic officials suggesting progress on a slew of trade deals ahead of the early July expiration of the 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs.

• Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Axios' Mike Allen this week that the administration would notch deals with "most" key trading partners by the summer.
• "I think most countries, we'll have an idea of what we want to do with them," Lutnick said.
• On Fox News this morning, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, "There are 18 important trading partners. With the exception of the EU, most are negotiating in very good faith." He said talks are "far along" with India.

Between the lines: Vice President JD Vance met with the European Union's top official on Sunday and signaled the meeting would help kick trade talks into high gear.

• Lutnick told Axios that "some countries are impossible" to negotiate with, including the EU.
• It is a body, after all, that consists of 27 democracies, each with its own internal politics.

The bottom line: Trade tensions appeared to be moving to the back burner. Trump reminded financial markets that he could dial up tensions any time he wants.

In a ruling late yesterday, the Supreme Court seemed prepared to turn its back on a 90-year-old precedent on the constitutionality of independently run federal agencies — but to carve out a special exception for the Federal Reserve.

Why it matters: It suggests that many federal agencies structured to have some measure of independence — the FTC, SEC, and FDIC among them — may come under tighter presidential control once a final decision is in.

• But even conservative justices seem not to want to mess with central bank independence.

What they're saying: "The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States," the majority wrote in an unsigned opinion, rejecting an argument that ruling against National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox would also undermine the central bank.

• In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that "today's order poses a puzzle. For the Federal Reserve's independence rests on the same constitutional and analytic foundations as that of the NLRB, MSPB, FTC, FCC, and so on" — namely, the 1935 Humprey's Executor case.

Of note: The majority's language about the Fed mirrors that in a footnote from a case last year that, as we wrote in February, suggested that conservative justices viewed the Fed as a special case in the U.S. constitutional order.

Yes, but: The decision late yesterday was not final — the court declined to issue a stay that would have kept Wilcox on the job pending more thorough consideration of the issues at play.

• It also does not resolve the legal question of whether a president can remove a Fed chair from that role while allowing them to serve out their term as one of seven Fed governors.

Go deeper