Your questions on tariffs, annexation and immigration after Trump's first 100 days

BBC's North America team asked for your questions to mark US President Donald Trump's first 100 days in office.

Here is a selection of those answered by our staff writers and correspondents.

They have aimed to explain the context and facts behind several of the biggest topics in the Trump administration, including the economy and how Trump would handle a war.

A UK-based reader asks how the UK economy might be impacted by tariffs.

The decisions made thousands of miles away will affect the UK economy. Most directly affected are those exporters selling into America, contending with that 10% extra charge (or even more in some cases) being applied to their goods: Do they try to compensate for that by cutting costs elsewhere – or risk a blow to sales?

And complex supply chains mean that disruption to other economies could be felt here. Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey last week referred to a "growth shock" – many economists have cut their forecasts. No one yet is clear on how this trade war will play out, the uncertainty itself is damaging.

But the impact on inflation could work the other way. Countries such as China may be tempted to divert goods here instead, given the barriers they face in America. And the drop in oil and other commodity prices, amid market turmoil, could also bode well for keeping bills down.

So many economists reckon that with a weaker growth and inflation outlook, interest rates could fall faster than previously thought. A cut of 0.25 percentage points is widely expected next week, another could follow in June.

Another reader asks how Trump's immigration policy is likely to affect Canadian-American relations, especially for dual citizens or people with mixed-status families.

If the first 100 days are anything to go by, relations between Canada and the US are almost certainly going to continue to be tense - both as a result of tariffs and Trump's repeated, and near constant calls for Canada to become part of the US.

We had a taste of that just this week, when - as Canadians headed to the polls in their general election - Trump took to Truth Social to call on Canadians to elect him, seemingly referring to himself as a candidate, to reap the benefits of being the "cherished" 51st state.

"America can no longer subsidise Canada with the hundreds of billions a year that we have been spending in the past," he said. "It makes no sense unless Canada is a state".

How that impacts dual citizens or mixed-status families is a bit harder to answer.

But we're seen a newfound sense of nationalism among many Canadians in response to Trump's rhetoric and policies, and some Americans in Canada have even reportedly given up their citizenship.

While cross-border ties are very unlikely to ground to a standstill, many Canadian citizens - even those with US families - are likely to be more cautious when crossing the border, particularly after high-profile cases of Canadians being detained at the border.

In one case, an actress named Jasmine Moody was detained by ICE for about two weeks, later writing about her experience in a viral article in the Guardian.

A reader asks what Trump's first 100 days tell us about how he'd handle a major international crisis, like another pandemic or a war.

It's hard to say how exactly Trump would handle a major international crisis, but we have had glimpses that may provide a few clues.

Trump's first crisis came just over a week into his administration on 29 January, when a US Army helicopter collided with a passenger aircraft over the Potomac river in Washington DC, killing 67 people.

Later that morning, I sat in the White House briefing room as Trump - with no evidence - alleged that the diversity, equity and inclusion policies at the Federal Aviation Administration may have led to the crash.

This suggests that in the event of a crisis, Trump is later to "fire from the hip", sometimes speaking before all the facts are established. Many will remember Trump's initial dismissal of the Covid-19 pandemic in his first administration, sometimes downplaying it as something that would soon "disappear".

More so than other presidents, Trump also leans heavily on the power of the executive branch, making decisions from the Oval Office that have real-world implications, sometimes bypassing any discussion on Capitol Hill.

Those close to Trump are quick to say that he listens intently to his advisors, often letting discussions play out amongst them before his eyes. This is, for example, largely what happened with the tariffs issue.

Ultimately, however, he is the one who decides the government's course of action, even if he lets his inner circle - which is perhaps more loyal and disciplined than in the last administration - carry out the details.

Arafin in Bangladesh wants to know how developing countries can navigate this evolving trade landscape and mitigate the risks.

There is just no way poorer countries could ever eliminate their trade surplus with the United States.

The world envisioned by Donald Trump - where citizens of developing countries buy as many American products as are sold the other way - is simply not possible.

The average Bangladeshi citizen, for example, is 32 times poorer than the average American.

In this case, the best Bangladeshi officials could do is promise Washington they will reduce some non-tariff barriers that are in place that make it hard for American companies to do business there.

For example, they could scrap quotas on imports, cut red tape or tackle corruption more effectively.

These small concessions - along with the assumption that American consumers won't put up with rocketing prices - may lead to a softening or removal of Trump's tariffs.

After all, if countries with large and cheap workforces can't sell Americans affordable goods, then who will?

One other thing that developing countries will want to consider closely is the role of China in all of this.

If you're a worker in a clothing factory in Bangladesh, a 37% US tax might seem a crippling blow to your livelihood - but it's still better than the 125% tariff that Chinese manufacturers are facing.

As a Malaysian rubber glove manufacturer told me recently: "We're not exactly jumping with joy, but this may well benefit us".

Limiting dealings with China has been suggested as a way for developing countries to get a better trade deal with the White House. But that isn't very realistic.

Beijing is by far and away the number one investor in the developing world. If you live in Africa, Asia or South America - it's probably China building your railways, factories and power plants, not the United States.

The American consumer market is still the richest in the world and developing countries will want to fight tooth and nail to maintain access to it - but equally there is no way they can side with the US over China.

Chris in County Durham, UK, asks if Donald Trump is making millions of dollars on the US stock market by initiating a slump in share values, buying heavy, then reversing his policies to watch his share prices rocket up.

Critics are accusing President Trump of manipulating the stock market. White House officials have denied the allegations, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt calling it part of Trump's "art of the deal".

Here's what we know so far:

On 9 April, Trump posted on Truth Social, in all caps: "THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY! DJT." Shortly after, he announced he was pausing the toughest tariffs for 90 days. In between, options traders placed big bets on a market rebound, which ended up being spot on.

This led to accusations of market manipulation and insider trading, with Democrats like Senator Adam Schiff calling for an investigation.

However, these cases are hard to prove – and even harder when you're talking about the president. Legal experts say it would be a "high" bar to prove Trump did something illegal in this case. Plus he posted the information publicly.

Claims of insider trading might have some merit under the STOCK Act, which restricts public officials from profiting off non-public information. Although the White House could argue that the President can't "gain" information about policy changes if he "created" them.

So, it's still up in the air – but probably not something he needs to lose sleep over.

Jean-Claude asks if there any way within the US Constitution by which Congress could stop Trump's tariffs and take away his freedom to issue Executive Orders at will.

Donald Trump has been pushing the boundaries of presidential authority with both his tariff declarations and more than 130 executive orders.

To do so, he has been asserting that Congress has given him the power to take these actions. To answer your question simply, then - any power that Congress gives, Congress can take back.

Traditionally, executive orders are a presidential interpretation of how laws should be implemented. Congress could step in and tell the White House that those interpretations are wrong.

Trump has been citing a 1977 law that grants him power to enact tariffs in cases of national emergency. Congress could amend that law or pass legislation that says no such emergency exists. There has already been a bipartisan proposal in the Senate to do exactly that.

The challenge for Trump's opponents is finding a majority in the two chambers of Congress, both narrowly controlled by Republicans, to do so. The House of Representatives, in particular, is full of Republicans who are marching in lockstep with the president. The House recently adopted a provision that would make it much harder to rescind Trump's proposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico, for instance.

Even if Congress was able to reach agreement on curtailing presidential power, Trump could decide to exercise his veto to block it from becoming law – something he's already threated to do with the Senate tariff bill. And if he did that, it would take two-thirds of both chambers to override the president.

So Congress does have the ability to stop Trump, but perhaps not the interest or will to do so – at least not unless and until next year's midterm elections shift the balance of power in the legislature toward the Democrats.

Rachel in Canada wonders if we can comment on what the real threat of annexation is for Canada with Trump in office. Should we be worried?

A lot depends on what the US president means when he talks about making Canada the 51st state.

It's unlikely that both the US and Canada would agree to it through formal means - the bar is high.

It would need to be approved by both chambers in the US Congress, including at least 60 votes in support in the Senate, which has 100 seats.

It would also likely require amending the Canadian constitution, which would likely require unanimous provincial consent - no easy task - as well as Parliament's approval.

It's also highly unlikely that the US would invade Canada militarily.

Trump has spoken about forcing the issue through economic pressure - with Canada sending roughly 75% of its good south of the border, he does have some leverage.

Canada has already been hit with tariffs from the US, including the blanket tariffs on goods, though there is currently an exception for products covered by the USMCA trade deal. Those US tariffs are already being felt in some sectors.

However, Trump also appears willing to come to the negotiating table. He has said he is ready to start talks with Canada's prime minister after the federal election.

Kevin in Stockport has two questions for James Lansdale, BBC News diplomatic correspondent: Not long ago President Trump said that if Russia didn't agree to take serious steps towards ending the war he would apply massive sanctions. Russia has shown no desire to reach a peace settlement. So why is Trump not going to apply these threatened sanctions before considering ending the peace initiative?

Donald Trump is becoming increasingly frustrated at the refusal of Vladimir Putin to agree an immediate unconditional ceasefire. Recently, after his talks with President Zelensky at the Vatican, Mr Trump questioned whether Mr Putin really wanted peace and wondered if the Russian leader was leading him on. He also once again threatened "banking" or "secondary" sanctions.

The latter refers to sanctions on countries that are still trading with Moscow, especially those countries – like China and India – that are fuelling the Russian war machine by buying cheap Russian energy. But imposing those sanctions would be a big step with serious economic and geostrategic consequences. So for now, Mr Trump appears to want to threaten these sanctions rather than impose them.

What is the hold that Putin has over Trump?

Analysts say that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin developed a genuinely warm personal relationship during his first term in the White House. They say Mr Trump sees in Mr Putin an equal on the world stage whom he respects.

The US president also made clear he wants a rapprochement between the US and Russia, one that will reset the relationship and boost trade. Strategists say the White House is also currying favour with the Kremlin because it wants to divide Moscow from Beijing, with many US policymakers seeing China as the greater threat. As to whether Mr Putin has some kind of "hold" over Mr Trump, there have been many allegations about the close business links the President had over the years with Russian figures who helped his investments.

There were also many claims of secret Kompromat about the President held in Kremlin archives. The FBI investigated. But there was always more speculation than hard fact. So Mr Trump's relationship with Mr Putin remains something of a mystery.

Ray in the UK asks: As a convicted felon, Donald Trump isn't allowed in the UK, so how can he address Parliament?

It is a bit more complicated than that.

Government guidance – which you can read here , external– spells out where it is mandatory that someone is refused entry and where it is discretionary.

In reality, the elected leader of an ally, in particular an ally as important as the United States, is always likely to be invited, because a government is likely to conclude that this is in the UK's national interest.

That is the conclusion of Sir Keir Starmer – and hence the state visit being offered to President Trump.

The opportunity, or not, to address Parliament is a separate question and something some are arguing should be blocked.

One reader, Ray, asks our BBC Security correspondent Frank Gardner: Is Trump going to give Europe the time to step in, if he decides to ditch Ukraine?

The transatlantic alliance - the strategic partnership between Europe and North America based on shared values - is now under more strain than at any time since the Suez Crisis of 1956.

Within his first 100 days President Trump has completely upended the policy of the previous US administrations. For most of the time since taking office, he has appeared to favour relations with Moscow over those with Kyiv. He has also gone against the wishes of most of Europe by vowing to end Russia's isolation and talked of lifting sanctions.

Whereas the prevailing attitude in Europe towards Ukraine is to keep supporting its war effort 'for as long as it takes', Trump has been in a hurry to end the war and normalise relations with President Putin.

Trump's oft-repeated intent to 'get' Greenland and make it a part of the US has appalled Denmark, of which it is a self-governing part and it has rattled Scandinavian governments. Denmark lost 257 soldiers killed and wounded in the US-led campaign in Afghanistan. It had the highest per capita death toll of all America's allies in that war.

Trump has, however, galvanised Europe into finally doing more for its own defence.

After the US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told NATO in February that Europe should no longer take US strategic protection for granted, budgets are being revised and Germany has now lifted its longstanding restrictions on defence spending.