Flying into or out of Newark Liberty International Airport has brought plenty of misery in the last week, with cancellations, delays stretching well past five hours and flight diversions that have stranded travelers far from their destinations.

Passengers are reporting on social media that they have missed flights and spent hours stuck on the tarmac aboard planes. Some are still struggling to make new travel arrangements.

The disruptions, which stretched into Friday with delays averaging over two hours, have highlighted ongoing air traffic control staffing issues. The troubles prompted United Airlines, Newark’s largest carrier, to cut nearly three dozen round-trip flights per day at the hub beginning this weekend, the carrier’s chief executive, Scott Kirby, announced on Friday.

Here’s what anyone heading to Newark Airport needs to know.

Air traffic control staffing is limiting capacity

Last summer, management of the airspace surrounding Newark shifted from New York to Philadelphia. This move, which involved relocating at least a dozen air traffic controllers, was meant to ease air traffic delays.

The Federal Aviation Administration has attributed this week’s flight disruptions at Newark to equipment failures and unspecified staffing issues at the Philadelphia air traffic control center as well as to construction on one of Newark’s runways.

These ongoing staffing issues are “effectively limiting the capacity of Newark Airport,” said Aidan O’Donnell, the general manager of New Jersey airports at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

The other major New York City airports, Kennedy and LaGuardia, are managed by the New York control center.

One of Newark’s runways is closed

One of the airport’s three runways was shut down on April 15 for rehabilitation and repaving, with plans to reopen in mid-June.

This is a “very routine construction project,” said Mr. O’Donnell, and the airport had prepared for it extensively by taking steps such as scheduling fewer flights during this period.

Though the airport has two remaining open runways, the F.A.A. has underutilized one of them during the closure, Mr. O’Donnell said. “When we only have one runway that’s available, we are simultaneously landing and departing on the same runway, which is the least efficient way that traffic can be managed into and out of Newark,” he added.

The airport has more than 1,000 scheduled arrivals and departures each day, the majority of which are operated by United.

The wave of disruptions that started on Monday has only intensified

The Philadelphia control center experienced telecommunications and equipment issues on Monday, an F.A.A. spokesperson said. That led to hundreds of delays and cancellations and three dozen flight diversions that day, Mr. O’Donnell said. He added that for two hours on Monday afternoon, no flights departed from or landed at Newark.

The disruptions continued through the week as air traffic controller shortages worsened in Philadelphia. Scott Kirby, the chief executive of United Airlines, said in a letter to customers that more than 20 percent of the air traffic controllers responsible for Newark “walked off the job” this week.

Mr. Kirby added that staffing shortages at the Philadelphia control center have been a problem for years.

A spokesman for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association declined to comment.

The problems may persist for weeks or months

The next few weeks could be challenging, Mr. O’Donnell warned.

Mass flight delays and cancellations can take days to resolve, as airlines navigate getting passengers, crew and aircraft back on track. Both United and JetBlue Airways have issued flight waivers allowing travelers to rebook without incurring extra fees.

United will cut 35 out of an average of 328 round-trip flights per day from its Newark schedule starting this weekend. The airport, one of the airline’s seven hubs, is a key gateway for flying to Europe, India and the Middle East.

Without enough controllers, “Newark airport cannot handle the number of planes that are scheduled to operate there in the weeks and months ahead,” Mr. Kirby said, adding that the flight reduction was a stopgap measure “since there is no way to resolve the near-term structural F.A.A. staffing issues.”

Follow New York Times Travel on Instagram and sign up for our Travel Dispatch newsletter to get expert tips on traveling smarter and inspiration for your next vacation. Dreaming up a future getaway or just armchair traveling? Check out our 52 Places to Go in 2025.

Harvard University signaled Friday that it would resist President Trump’s renewed threat to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status, a move for which it said there was “no legal basis” as the president escalated his bitter dispute with the nation’s oldest university.

Harvard stopped short of explicitly pledging a legal challenge to a revocation of its tax status, a change that would upend the university’s finances. But a spokesperson for the university said in a statement that there was “no legal basis to rescind Harvard’s tax-exempt status.”

“Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission,” the statement said. “It would result in diminished financial aid for students, abandonment of critical medical research programs and lost opportunities for innovation. The unlawful use of this instrument more broadly would have grave consequences for the future of higher education in America.”

Mr. Trump declared Friday morning on social media that the government would be “taking away Harvard’s Tax Exempt Status.” Mr. Trump added, “It’s what they deserve.”

Despite Mr. Trump’s assertion online and Harvard’s sharp response, it was not immediately clear Friday whether the I.R.S. was in fact moving forward with revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status, a change that could typically occur only after a lengthy process. Federal law prohibits the president from directing the I.R.S. to conduct tax investigations, and I.R.S. employees who receive such a command are required to report it to an internal government watchdog.

After Mr. Trump first publicly called for Harvard to lose its tax exemption last month, White House officials said that the I.R.S. would make its own conclusion about whether to do so.

Representatives for the I.R.S. and Treasury Department, which oversees the tax collector, did not respond to a request for comment.

With its tax-exempt status, Harvard not only does not have to pay most taxes, but donors can write off gifts to the school on their own tax returns. Losing the status would not only force Harvard to start paying tax to the federal government on its income but could cause donations to dry up. Philanthropy accounts for about 45 percent of Harvard’s annual operating revenues; most of that sum comes from a payout from the university’s $53 billion endowment.

The intensifying standoff between the Trump administration and Harvard is part of a broad pressure campaign against some of the nation’s most elite universities, which the administration has painted as hotbeds of antisemitism and discrimination that require federal intervention.

In recent weeks, Harvard has taken a decidedly confrontational posture toward the Trump administration. The university rejected a roster of demands from the government, including that it submit reports to Washington, alter its admissions and hiring policies and bring in an outsider to examine “those programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.”

The university sued after the administration froze more than $2 billion in federal funds in retaliation for Harvard’s defiance.

Even before Mr. Trump first called for Harvard to lose its tax exemption, the Trump administration has sought to transform the typically technocratic I.R.S. into a political tool.

Trump officials pressured the I.R.S. to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement find people it is seeking to deport, a decision that agency officials warned undermined legal protections for taxpayer information. (I.R.S. officials can face prison time if they improperly share taxpayer information, including details about whether an individual or entity is facing an audit.)

The agency has had five different leaders so far this year, with the current acting commissioner, Michael Faulkender, taking over after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent complained to Mr. Trump that Elon Musk had installed the previous acting leader behind his back. Mr. Faulkender is also the deputy Treasury secretary.

Republicans have long accused the I.R.S. of improperly scrutinizing conservatives, leading a series of investigations under the Obama administration into the agency’s treatment of Tea Party groups. An inspector general later concluded that the agency had improperly targeted both conservative and liberal organizations.

“I think Republicans should be quite cautious about using the I.R.S. against any particular sector or narrow group of organizations,” said Scott Hodge, the former president of the Tax Foundation, a think tank that favors lower taxes. “Weaponizing the I.R.S. in any form is wrong. Policies should always be uniform and neutral and based on tax principles.”

A group of Democratic senators — led by Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader — wrote to the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, the I.R.S. watchdog, to request that it investigate Mr. Trump’s targeting of Harvard. They wrote that “it is both illegal and unconstitutional for the I.R.S. to take direction from the president” on assessing tax-exempt groups.

Typically, the I.R.S. will challenge a group’s tax-exempt status after conducting a lengthy audit to determine whether, for example, the entity is engaging in too much political or commercial activity. If the I.R.S. decides to revoke a tax exemption, the group can appeal the decision in court. Given Harvard’s vast research and educational operations, tax experts expect a court would ultimately side with the school.

“Been there, done that,” said Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education and an under secretary of education during the Obama administration. “The president has been saying this for weeks. Nothing has changed to make it possible for him to take unilateral action on an institution’s nonprofit status.”

Even if the I.R.S. does not ultimately change Harvard’s tax status, Republicans are preparing to substantially increase a tax on university endowments that the party created in 2017.

President Trump on Friday proposed slashing $163 billion in federal spending next fiscal year, a drastic retrenchment in the role and reach of government that, if enacted, would eliminate a vast set of climate, education, health and housing programs, including some that benefit the poor.

Issuing his first budget proposal since returning to office, Mr. Trump sketched out a dim view of Washington. His blueprint depicted many core government functions as woke, weaponized, wasteful or radical, as the president looked to justify his request that Congress chop domestic spending to its lowest level in the modern era.

Mr. Trump proposed cutting funding for some federal law enforcement, including the F.B.I. He called on lawmakers to slash money meant to police tax evasion at the Internal Revenue Service. He recommended striking billions in funds that help finance clean water projects. And the president reserved some of his deepest cuts for education, health and science, including the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which would see their budgets cut by around half.

Democrats immediately rebuked Mr. Trump for his proposal. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate minority leader, called it “heartless” and an “all-out assault on hardworking Americans.” Even some Republicans took issue with Mr. Trump’s budget, although others, like Speaker Mike Johnson, endorsed the blueprint.

Mr. Trump also asked Congress to reduce, if not eliminate, billions of dollars in federal aid to help the poorest Americans. For one, the White House called for reconfiguring federal programs that provide rental assistance to low-income families, cutting aid by more than $26 billion next fiscal year. And the administration proposed the termination of a federal initiative, backed by some Republicans, that aids needy families in paying their monthly heating bills.

In one of the few spending increases included in the budget, Mr. Trump asked lawmakers to bolster spending at the Department of Homeland Security by more than $43 billion, furthering his work to crack down on immigration, conduct deportations and build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. The president also requested more than $1 trillion for the military next fiscal year.

But he asked lawmakers to approve that increase essentially on a one-time basis, as part of a broader legislative package — due later this year — meant to advance the president’s tax agenda. The approach angered some Republicans, who signaled they would pursue a larger increase to military spending as part of the yearly process to fund government agencies and programs.

“It is peculiar how much time the president’s advisers spend talking about restoring peace through strength, given how apparently unwilling they’ve been to invest accordingly in the national defense or in other critical instruments of national power,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republicans’ former Senate leader, in a statement that denounced the administration’s “accounting gimmicks.”

For Mr. Trump, the budget served to formalize his conservative vision and his disruptive reorganization of the government, a campaign that has already shuttered entire agencies and dismissed thousands of federal workers without the explicit approval of Congress.

Some of Mr. Trump’s proposed military increases could benefit Elon Musk, the tech billionaire who has advised Mr. Trump on cost-cutting as part of the Department of Government Efficiency

Mr. Trump’s budget supported the creation of a new missile defense shield and a renewed campaign for “U.S. space dominance.” Both are areas in which Mr. Musk and his rocket company, SpaceX, could stand to win major contracts funded by any increase in spending.

In a letter Friday accompanying the spending blueprint, Russell T. Vought, the leader of the White House budget office, said the administration had produced its submission after a “rigorous, line-by-line review of spending.”

Mr. Vought added that the president sought to root out money “contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans and tilted toward funding niche, nongovernmental organizations and institutions of higher education committed to radical gender and climate ideologies antithetical to the American way of life.”

Sharon Parrott, the president of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said many of the budget changes contemplated by Mr. Trump still seemed most likely to fall hardest on low-income Americans, particularly those who rely on government services.

“This is the latest repudiation of some of what he promised on the campaign trail, in terms of being a president who was going to seek to serve people struggling at the margins of the economy,” she said.

Mr. Trump’s proposal is not law. Totaling about $1.7 trillion, after accounting for the full set of spending changes the president seeks, the budget serves only as a formal guide to Congress, where it immediately generated opposition.

“President Trump has made his priorities clear as day: He wants to outright defund programs that help working Americans while he shovels massive tax breaks at billionaires like himself and raises taxes on middle-class Americans with his reckless tariffs,” Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the leading Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said in a statement.

The criticism was not limited to Democrats, as Republicans also raised alarm about cuts to some programs that serve the neediest Americans. Outlining her “serious objections,” Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who leads the Appropriations Committee, added in a statement: “Ultimately, it is Congress that holds the power of the purse.”

By releasing the budget, Mr. Trump set the stage for what is bound to be a complicated, monthslong process to fund the government and avert a shutdown before an existing spending deal expires on Sept. 30. Entering that fight, many Republicans have echoed Mr. Trump’s desire to slash federal spending, though warring G.O.P. factions have disagreed at times over the exact scope.

Party lawmakers have also raced to identify potentially trillions of dollars in cuts that they can include to finance a related package that would expand a set of expiring tax cuts for families and businesses, one of the president’s signature — and costliest — economic policy priorities.

But Mr. Trump’s proposal carries additional significance. He and his top budget adviser, Mr. Vought, subscribe to the idea that the commander in chief wields expansive authority to halt or cancel spending, even if Congress instructs otherwise. Their view has paved the way for the administration to slow, freeze or cancel billions of dollars in funds, sparking a vast array of lawsuits and prompting more than three dozen ongoing federal investigations into their activities.

On Friday, Mr. Trump’s proposal left unanswered some of the most important questions facing Washington and its finances. It was silent on the nation’s fiscal trajectory, even as the president seeks to cut taxes in a sprawling and costly legislative package that carries substantial implications for the nation’s $36 trillion debt.

“It remains to be seen what the rest of the president’s proposals will hold, and there is still the multitrillion-dollar question of whether the reconciliation bill will blow up the debt,” said Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group that advocates deficit reduction.

Nor did the president’s new budget address the future of the federal benefit programs, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, that comprise the largest share of federal spending annually. Some Republicans are particularly interested in rethinking Medicaid, which provides health insurance to poor families, as a source of savings to pay for their tax cuts.

The administration is expected to send those details in a fuller budget to Congress as soon as this month.

Reporting was contributed by Alan Rappeport, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Catie Edmondson, Eric Lipton, Devlin Barrett, Lisa Friedman, Brad Plumer, Madeleine Ngo and Alicia Parlapiano.

Michael S. Jeffries, the former chief executive of Abercrombie and Fitch who was charged with running an international sex-trafficking ring, on Friday was found unfit to stand trial because of an Alzheimer’s diagnosis.

In a three-page order, Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury of the Eastern District of New York, wrote that Mr. Jeffries was “suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent.” Judge Choudhury also ordered that Mr. Jeffries be hospitalized for four months to observe whether his condition improves.

The ruling followed a letter filed last month by Mr. Jeffries’s lawyers, Brian H. Bieber and Alek Ubieta. They wrote that, based on the independent evaluation of three doctors, Mr. Jeffries, 80, had severe dementia and Alzheimer’s, which “ensures continued decline over time.” The condition meant Mr. Jeffries could not understand the charges he was facing, his lawyers wrote.

Mr. Jeffries was indicted last October on charges that, from 2008 to 2015, he coerced dozens of men into sex with him, using his position as the clothing retailer’s chief executive to sexually exploit models who were motivated to advance their careers. He had pleaded not guilty.

Working with his romantic partner, Matthew Smith, and a third person, James Jacobson, Mr. Jeffries lured the men to secret sex parties with the possibility that they’d receive modeling jobs, federal prosecutors said. Mr. Smith and Mr. Jacobson have also been charged with sex trafficking, and, like Mr. Jeffries, have pleaded not guilty.

According to prosecutors, the men that Mr. Jeffries and his co-defendants coerced were not allowed to leave the sex parties. Along with being forced into sex, they were made to consume alcohol, drugs and Viagra. The charges echoed claims made in a class-action lawsuit brought against Abercrombie in 2023 and reported on in a BBC investigation.

The defendants “used their money and influence to prey on vulnerable men for their own sexual gratification,” Breon Peace, the former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District, said in a statement last October.

Though Mr. Jeffries was credited with saving Abercrombie from bankruptcy in the early 1990s, the company faced a variety of crises under his stewardship, well before last year’s criminal indictment.

When Mr. Jeffries left the company in 2014, the company was facing backlash over what many customers saw as its hypersexualized imagery of young models, and it had been enduring sliding sales.

In 2004, Abercrombie agreed to pay $40 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the company of favoring white employees over Black, Hispanic and Asian workers. In 2012, it faced an age-discrimination lawsuit that claimed that employees on Abercrombie’s Gulfstream jet were required to respond to any of Mr. Jeffries’s requests with “no problem.”

More companies are starting to warn that they will have to pass on higher costs to American consumers, raising prices for products like strollers, mattresses, power tools and cast-iron cookware as President Trump’s tariffs take hold.

Some company officials said they had been left with no choice but to raise prices as they pay more to import goods and materials into the United States. Other firms have said they will soon run out of inventory for certain products because they have paused orders from China.

Mr. Trump has upended the global trading system, hitting foreign countries with punishing levies in an attempt to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States and take aim at what he calls “unfair” trade practices. But economic studies have found that the burden of higher tariffs typically falls on domestic consumers and companies.

Although Mr. Trump has scaled back some tariffs and paused others as he pursues trade deals with foreign nations, the impacts of his policies are already starting to eat into household budgets and frustrate Americans who have noticed higher prices for their goods.

Some major companies have recently warned about impending price increases.

Stanley Black & Decker said on Wednesday that it raised prices on its tools and outdoor products last month and will raise them again later this year. The German sportswear company Adidas said this week that steeper tariffs would eventually lead to higher prices for U.S. customers.

Executives at Procter & Gamble, which makes products like Bounty paper towels and Tide detergent, said last week that the company would most likely increase prices for some products to mitigate the effects of higher tariffs. And officials at Hasbro recently said the toymaker would “have to raise prices,” although it would try to “minimize the burden” on customers.

Some of the most immediate price increases have come in response to the elimination of a loophole that allowed items worth $800 or less from China to enter the United States without import fees. Shein and Temu, popular Chinese e-commerce platforms, began adjusting prices for U.S. customers last week ahead of the end of the tariff exemption on Friday.

Michelle Hall, a 48-year-old secretary in Snohomish, Wash., said she started buying products from Temu late last year and has since spent about $2,300 on furniture, car mats, sweaters, Christmas gifts and other inexpensive goods from the platform. “It’s addicting and fun when you get your packages,” Ms. Hall said.

But over the weekend, she discovered extra “import charges” tacked onto her total. A cart of six items from Temu that would have usually cost her $83.80 would cost an extra $92.08 because of import fees, Ms. Hall said. On Wednesday, she noticed that the platform appeared to take down many products that would have incurred import fees, leaving only products that were shipped from local warehouses.

Ms. Hall said she planned to abandon Temu because she did not want to pay higher prices, and its offerings seemed more limited now.

She said she still hoped that Mr. Trump’s tariffs would have some long-term benefits. She voted for Mr. Trump in November, initially thinking his trade policies could help reduce the deficit, create manufacturing jobs and make the nation less dependent on foreign countries.

But Ms. Hall said she was not sure if those benefits would materialize. “In the meantime, I feel like citizens are suffering,” she said.

Ms. Hall said she never thought her own costs would increase, and she originally hoped that Mr. Trump would quickly bring prices down.

“I wanted to have faith,” she said. “I don’t have that faith anymore.”

Some companies have said they will begin raising prices in the coming weeks because of higher tariffs. Joanna Rosenberg, the chief sales and marketing officer at Zwilling J.A. Henckels, a German company that specializes in cutlery and other kitchen products, said the firm would have to raise prices for some products in early June. Premium knives from Zwilling and cast-iron cookware from Staub, one of the company’s brands known for its Dutch ovens made in France, will see “single-digit” price increases, Ms. Rosenberg said.

She said the company would have to raise prices more substantially for certain knives from its value brand, Henckels. Some of those knives are produced in China, which Mr. Trump has hit with a minimum 145 percent tariff. The president has signaled that the rate could drop, though the White House has insisted it will not do so unless China agrees to pare back its levies too.

“We don’t want to increase prices,” Ms. Rosenberg said. “There’s just no way that we can absorb some of these price increases.”

Some industries are being hit particularly hard because the bulk of their products are made in China. About 90 percent of durable baby and children’s products sold in the United States are manufactured overseas, with the vast majority produced in China, according to the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association.

Several companies that sell strollers and car seats said they would have to increase prices to offset higher costs from tariffs. UPPAbaby said last month that it would adjust prices across most products. Evenflo increased prices between 10 to 40 percent for most of its products on Thursday. Cybex also increased prices for some products on Thursday, which company officials said was “unavoidable.”

Steven Dunn, the chief executive of Munchkin, which sells products like high chairs, strollers and diaper pails, said the company will likely have to increase prices at a minimum of 20 percent for many products soon. And Mr. Dunn said the company might have to discontinue 30 to 40 percent of its products after its current inventory dwindles within an estimated 10 weeks.

“There are a lot of products that we just will not order anymore at the current rates,” Mr. Dunn said. “You can’t pass on a 145 percent tariff to the consumer and expect them to buy the same product.”

Mr. Dunn said that Munchkin paused its orders from China last month, and officials have tried to move as much manufacturing out of the country as possible. Although Mr. Trump has urged companies to make more products in the United States, producing more baby products domestically is complex. “The tooling, the skills and the automation just doesn’t exist here,” Mr. Dunn said.

Companies that make products in America are not immune to the impacts of higher import fees, either.

Vy Nguyen, the chief executive officer at Avocado Green Mattress, said all of its organic mattresses were made in the Los Angeles area. But many of the “core natural components” that are used to make its mattresses, such as wool and latex, are sourced from countries including India, Thailand and Guatemala. Those materials have risen in price because Mr. Trump has instituted a 10 percent blanket tariff on nearly all trading partners.

Avocado plans to increase mattress prices by about 6 percent and other products by an average of 7.5 percent starting on Tuesday, company officials said.

Some brands have been more vocal about price increases because they are worried about their ability to pass on cost increases to consumers, said Simeon Siegel, a retail analyst at BMO Capital Markets. The companies want to ensure that consumers “don’t feel like they’re having the rug pulled out from under them,” he said.

Réalisation Par, which sells an array of silk dresses, said in an email to customers last month that officials would have to raise prices for U.S. orders starting May 2 because its “silk pieces have always been crafted with care and expertise in the home of silk — China.” In the meantime, customers could take 20 percent off their order until late April, according to the email.

Fatima Ocampo, a 24-year-old data analyst in Sacramento, Calif., said she was already eyeing several dresses from Réalisation Par when she saw the email. Ms. Ocampo said she was planning to wait to make a purchase, closer to when she will leave for her honeymoon in the south of France this fall. But she wanted to take advantage of the lower prices while she could, so she bought three dresses from the brand for about $400 later that day.

“I feel like it’s a clear example of how these tariffs are going to be a burden put onto the consumer,” Ms. Ocampo said.

Stocks were on track on Friday to erase their losses from the days after President Trump’s chaotic rollout of tariffs in early April, bolstered in part by a healthy report on the labor market.

The S&P 500 rose 1.6 percent by Friday afternoon, climbing back above where it stood before chaos descended on financial markets after April 2 — Mr. Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day,” which featured his most sweeping tariffs to date.

Friday’s boost to stock prices followed a stronger-than-expected report on hiring in April. But the S&P 500 has been edging higher for days — Friday’s gain would be its ninth consecutive daily increase — as Mr. Trump and members of his administration raised hopes that trade tensions would ease, including by indicating they were willing to engage in talks with China.

Early Friday, China’s commerce ministry in a statement said it too was considering holding talks with the Trump administration, but only if Washington cancels its tariffs on Chinese goods first.

The two countries remain far from any deal that would resolve the trade war between them, but even the prospect of talks has been enough to ease the worst of the anxiety that gripped investors a month ago.

“If the labor market holds up and the Trump administration walks back the most egregious tariffs, the economy could skirt a deep recession,” said Jeffrey Roach, chief economist at LPL Financial.

Still, despite the recent optimism and recovery, the S&P 500 is more than 7 percent below its recent high in mid-February. It has fallen about 5 percent since Mr. Trump’s inauguration in January.

Questions remain about whether Mr. Trump’s tariffs might cause a sharp slowdown in economic growth, which could result if companies start pulling back on hiring, spending and investments amid the uncertainty.

Though Mr. Trump backed off the most extreme tariffs on dozens of countries, many imports into the United States now face new taxes of at least 10 percent, while products from China are being taxed a minimum of 145 percent. On Friday, a provision that had allowed for low-value shipments from China and Hong Kong to evade tariffs altogether closed. And on Saturday, new tariffs of 25 percent on imported auto parts are expected to take effect. That’s in addition to a tax of 25 percent on imported cars that already took effect in April.

Volatility in recent weeks has underscored the degree to which sentiment on Wall Street is still driven by concern about the economic fallout from the Trump administration’s policies. Mr. Trump’s 90-day pause of many of the tariffs that he announced on April 2 will end in July.

“The damage to economic momentum has already been done,” said Mike Sanders, head of fixed income at Madison Investments. “Deals may come, but the real question is how long the data will take to reflect the harm.”