A person sits in front of the Lindt Chocolates store on April 11, 2025 in Basel, Switzerland.
Sedat Suna | Getty Images News | Getty Images
Switzerland is officially on holiday Friday for the country’s national day. But many market watchershave been hauled back to their desks by news overnight that they have been hit with a 39% tariff rate by the White House.
That came as a shock to the Alpine nation. Indications in the Swiss press had been that the country was close to negotiating an outline deal similar to those struck by the European Union, the U.K. and Japan, which set baseline tariffs between 10% and 15%. Instead, it has received one of the highest rates of any country.
That is hugely significant, with the U.S. accounting for around a sixth of Switzerland’s total exports. Businesses breathed a sign of relief in April when the country swerved initial plans for a 31% tariff, being handed an interim 10% duty along with most of the world.
As of late Thursday, new tariff rates on a dozens of countries that have not yet agreed a framework trade arrangement with the U.S. are set to come into force from Aug. 7. Given the precedent set by U.S. President Donald Trump for last-minute deadline changes and down-to-the-wire deals, that does leave room for the situation to change.
Another potential reprieve came as the Swiss Federal Department of Economic Affairs told Reuters on Friday it understands the 39% tariff will not include the pharmaceutical sector, which is separately facing volatility from Trump’s latest comments on drug pricing. CNBC has contacted the White House for comment.
‘Stunned’
Amid the uncertainty, reactions were overwhelmingly negative on Friday.
Switzerland’s federal council said it had “great regret that, despite the progress made in bilateral talks and Switzerland’s very constructive stance from the outset, the US intends to impose unilateral additional tariffs on imports from Switzerland.” It added that it continued to seek a “negotiated solution” and was in contact with U.S. authorities.
Manufacturing association Swissmem said a 39% tariff would hit the tech industry, exports and therefore the whole country “extremely hard,” noting that every second franc brought into the economy was made from foreign trade.
“I am stunned. These tariffs are based on no rational basis and are arbitrary. This decision puts tens of thousands of jobs in the industry at risk,” the group’s director Stefan Brupbacher said.
Beat Wittmann, chairman and partner at Porta Advisors, said the news delivered a “devastating” blow to the Swiss economy and businesses.
“The U.S. leads a zigzagging unilateral war on tariffs and this unpredictability imposes a rising risk premium on financial assets,” he said in emailed comments. “This will lead to a weakening of the Swiss economy, the Swiss Franc and the Swiss equity market, particularly the all-important export sector.”
The Swiss government needs to recognize that the time for “cherry picking, carve outs and special deals” is over, particularly for small, highly-exposed states, Wittmann added.
Key Swiss exports include chemical and pharmaceutical products, watches and jewelry, chocolate, gemstones and electronics.
Adrian Prettejohn, Europe economist at Capital Economics, said in a note that a 39% tariff rate would knock around 0.6% off Switzerland’s GDP, or more with the inclusion of pharmaceuticals — but that he expected it to be negotiated down.
With the Swiss stock market closed for national day, indicators are instead feeding through other avenues such as the performance of London-listed Watches of Switzerland, which fell nearly 9% in morning deals.
In a Friday note to clients, analysts at investment bank Jefferies cited the company, along with Richemont and Swatch Group, as among those that would take the biggest hits from the news, particularly relative to previous expectations. But they added that the Aug. 7 start date allowed for “plenty of last minute tweaks and changes to be agreed.”
U.S. dollar vs Swiss franc.
The Swiss franc meanwhile slid around 0.4% against the U.S. dollar on Friday.
That comes after a huge appreciation in the franc against the greenback this year, with gains of around 11% as investors hunted for safe-haven assets. The rally has delivered challenges to the economy, which in May marked a return to deflation for the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic — spurring the Swiss National Bank to cut interest rates to zero in June.
‘I do not think it is the end’
Rahul Sahgal, CEO of the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” the tariff news was “very disappointing” after many rounds of negotiations with the U.S. Treasury Department.
“I have to say, however, that I hope and I do not think that it is the end,” he said.
“We have still, firstly, those days till the 7th of August, and also, if you read the executive order, it does leave a certain window open, let’s put it that way, saying that if you are in negotiations with the U.S. these additional tariffs may not apply.”
One element of previously-struck deals is a commitment to increase investment in the U.S., which in the case of the EU is set to total $600 billion along with hundreds of billions in additional energy purchases. On this, Sahgal said Switzerland was looking in the range of a $150 billion investment pledge, which was one of the biggest relative to the size of its economy. The country is already the sixth largest overall investor in the U.S., he added.
Sahgal continued that it was hard to say what the sticking point in negotiations had been or how the 39% rate had been calculated, noting that across both goods and services the trade relationship between Switzerland and the U.S. was balanced — but that Trump was only focused on the former.
“Switzerland is a country… of 9 million people, and the U.S. has something like 30 million people. So even if… every Swiss was to drink a bottle of bourbon and eat a steak every single day and buy a Harley Davidson, we would not be able to balance the trade in goods,” he said.
— CNBC’s Carolin Roth, Sophie Kiderlin and Ganesh Rao contributed to this story.
On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.
How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister
Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.
If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.
Why No Election Was Required
A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.
This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.
The King’s Constitutional Role
After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.
Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.
Could an Election Still Happen?
Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.
In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.
What This Means for the UK
The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.
Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.
On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.
According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.
The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.
For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.
The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.
The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.
Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.
For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.