The NATO leader will meet with Trump and other top officials in Washington this week.

“We’re sending weapons to NATO, and NATO is paying for those weapons, 100 percent,” Mr. Trump told NBC News on Thursday. “So what we’re doing is, the weapons that are going out are going to NATO, and then NATO is going to be giving those weapons” to Ukraine, he said.

The plan was developed after Mr. Trump won the presidential election in November to help ensure that Ukraine could continue to fight Russian bombardment even if Mr. Trump were to pull U.S. support, according to a European defense official familiar with the discussions.

The details of the agreement were still being worked out, defense officials in Europe and Washington said last week.

“Earlier today I urged leaders to go further so Ukraine has more ammunition & air defences,” Mr. Rutte said on social media on Thursday. “I’ve just spoken with President Trump & am now working closely with Allies to get Ukraine the help they need.”

Senators Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, and Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, are among the senators who will have dinner with Mr. Rutte in Washington on Monday, Mr. Graham told “Face the Nation” on Sunday. He and Mr. Blumenthal are the cosponsors of a bill, which Mr. Trump has said he was “very strongly” considering supporting, that would impose severe sanctions on countries that purchase Russian oil as Russia’s bombardment of Ukraine continues to escalate.

Lara Jakes, Andrew E. Kramer and Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.

“Dr. Moore gave his patients a choice when the federal government refused to do so,” she wrote on Saturday night. “He did not deserve the years in prison he was facing. It ends today.”

In the motion to dismiss the case on Saturday, Felice John Viti, the acting U.S. attorney in Utah, wrote that dropping the case was “in the interests of justice.”

Lawyers for Dr. Moore said in a statement that it was “the right decision and the just one.” Trial proceedings had begun this month in Salt Lake City. Charges against Kris Anderson and the Plastic Surgery Institute of Utah were also dropped, the lawyers said.

Opposition to the case had attracted considerable interest among conservatives, many of whom viewed it as an example of what they said was former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s use of the judiciary to target figures on the right.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, said in April on social media that Dr. Moore deserved a “medal for his courage.” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, said last week that she was asking the Justice Department to drop the charges against Dr. Moore, calling him “a hero, not a criminal.”

Ms. Bondi’s decision was consistent with measures taken by the administration to shake up the Covid vaccine system, often in the face of opposition from medical experts.

In May, Mr. Kennedy announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would no longer recommend the Covid vaccines for healthy children or pregnant women. The C.D.C. later changed its recommendation for healthy children, requiring consultations with providers, but dropped it for pregnant women.

Documents released in recent weeks showed that the Food and Drug Administration’s top vaccine official had rejected broad uses of two Covid vaccines, citing unknown risks or injuries despite assurances of safety from dozens of staff experts.

And Mr. Trump in January ordered the reinstatement of many service members who had been dismissed for refusing the Covid vaccine.

When it filed the charges in 2023, the U.S. attorney’s office in Utah said that Dr. Moore, a board-certified surgeon in the Salt Lake City area, had sold hundreds of cards falsely claiming to be proof of vaccination in exchange for cash payments or donations to an unspecified charity. He was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States and two other charges.

Prosecutors said that under the scheme, Dr. Moore and others then destroyed the government-issued vaccines, noting that many child patients were given saline shots instead of vaccine doses at their parents’ request.

Dr. Moore and others sold enough of the falsified vaccine cards to equal 1,937 doses of the vaccine, according to charging documents, which say that the scheme lasted from May 2021 to September 2022, it said.

But that was not the entire strategy. Europe, like many of the United States’ trading partners, is also looking for more reliable friends.

“We’re living in turbulent times, and when economic uncertainty meets geopolitical volatility, partners like us must come closer together,” Ms. von der Leyen said on Sunday in Brussels at a news conference alongside the Indonesian president, Prabowo Subianto.

Just as President Trump threatens to put hefty tariffs on many countries, including Indonesia, the European Union is working to relax trade barriers and deepen economic relations.

“In hard times, some turn inward, toward isolation and fragmentation,” Ms. von der Leyen said. Then, in a message implicitly extended to world leaders who have been jolted by Mr. Trump’s tariffs, she added, “You are always welcome here, and you can count on Europe.”

It is a split screen that is becoming typical. On one side, the United States sows uncertainty as it blows up weeks of painstaking negotiations and escalates tariff threats. On the other, the 27-nation European Union and other American trading partners are forging closer ties, laying the groundwork for a global trading system that revolves less and less around an increasingly fickle United States.

“We in Southeast Asia, especially Indonesia, we really consider Europe to be very, very important in providing global stability,” Mr. Prabowo said on Sunday.

It will be hard to move away from the United States, and Mr. Prabowo predicted that America would always be a world leader. It is home to the world’s largest economy, a bustling consumer market and cutting-edge technologies and services.

But many American trading partners feel that they are left with little choice but to diversify. And while trade relationships are difficult to alter, they are also difficult to change back once they have been totally reorganized.

That is what is happening right now.

E.U. negotiators had engaged in months of back-and-forth with their U.S. counterparts before Mr. Trump’s announcement. And until the middle of the week, Brussels hoped that it was closing in on at least the framework for a deal: The European Union would accept a base tariff of 10 percent, but it would also push for carve-outs for key sectors.

Instead, Mr. Trump began hinting on Thursday that the bloc — one of America’s most important trading partners — would receive a letter setting out a sweeping, across-the-board tariff rate.

The White House officially notified E.U. officials on Friday that their carefully drawn plans had blown up. And on Saturday, the public learned from Mr. Trump’s social media account that the bloc would be subject to a 30 percent rate.

Mr. Trump simultaneously announced that he would place a similar tariff on goods from Mexico. Canada’s rate is slightly higher, at 35 percent. The likes of Thailand (35 percent), Bangladesh (35 percent) and Brazil (50 percent), along with dozens of other U.S. trading partners, appear to be headed for a similar fate.

Mr. Trump has backed down from threatened tariffs before, and he has indicated a willingness to negotiate these tariffs down before their Aug. 1 effective date — and the European Union and other economies are poised to continue with negotiations.

But the atmosphere is increasingly hostile.

Mr. Trump is “instrumentalizing uncertainty” to try to force trading partners to make concessions, said Mujtaba Rahman, managing director for Europe at the Eurasia group, calling the latest announcements a “complete move of the goal posts.”

Mr. Trump’s announcement on Saturday sharply intensified calls in Europe for forceful retaliation.

“Trump is trying to divide and scare Europe,” said Brando Benifei, who heads the delegation for relations with the United States at the European Parliament.

But Ms. von der Leyen announced on Sunday that the bloc would wait until early August to allow ready-made retaliatory tariffs to kick in. Those tariffs cover nearly $25 billion of goods. They had already been suspended once and had been poised to take effect early on Tuesday morning.

“At the same time, we will continue to prepare further countermeasures,” Ms. von der Leyen said.

Hitting back would be just a first step; drawing closer to outside allies may prove even more meaningful in the long run.

Since Mr. Trump’s push to reorder the trading system kicked off in February, the European Union has been hustling to strike new trade agreements and deepen existing ones.

Canada and the European Union have pulled together. Britain and the European Union have had a rapprochement, five years after Britain officially exited the union. The bloc is working toward closer trading relationships with India and South Africa, and with countries across South America and Asia.

Nor is the European Union the only global power adopting such a strategy. Canada is also drawing closer to Southeast Asia, while Brazil and Mexico are working to deepen their ties.

Officials have even floated the idea of building trading structures that exclude the United States and China, which is widely blamed for supporting its factories to the point that they overproduce and flood global markets with cheap goods.

Ms. von der Leyen recently suggested that Europe could pursue a new collaboration between the bloc and a trading group of 11 countries that includes Japan, Vietnam and Australia, but that notably did not include the United States or China.

One key question, analysts said, is whether America’s allies will go a step further. Instead of simply collaborating more with one another and leaving the United States out, could they actually gang up to counter the United States?

Large economies could consider coordinating their retaliation to Mr. Trump’s latest round of tariffs, said Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at Bruegel, an economic policy research organization in Brussels. Banding together could give them more leverage.

“I would start to look for coordination,” he said. “That’s the rational thing.”

Ana Swanson contributed reporting from Washington.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the South Sudan deportations pass legal muster, immigration experts say it is likely that the Trump administration will expand the use of so-called “third-country” deportations, an aggressive tactic in which migrants are sent to countries other than their home nations.

Citing the ruling, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday issued new internal guidance that could help accelerate third-country deportations. According to the guidance, when a country has provided “credible diplomatic assurances” that deportees will not be subjected to torture or persecution, deportations can proceed without delay.

When the United States has not received those guarantees, the guidance calls for ICE to inform migrants that they are being sent to a specific country. But it does not require the agency to ask if the migrant fears deportation to that country. The new agency rules appear to allow deportations in as few as six hours, provided the migrant does not raise objections beforehand.

“Because the Supreme Court let them do this, I think they’re now feeling emboldened to do it on a more widespread scale,” said Trina Realmuto, a lawyer representing the migrants sent to South Sudan. The lack of information about the eight men, she added, “creates fear” and puts their family members “in an untenable position.”

Ms. Realmuto called the new guidance “unlawful,” noting that her team had already pushed back against an earlier version in court.

The men sent to South Sudan hailed from six countries; only one came from South Sudan. A New York Times investigation found that administration officials have approached more than 50 countries about accepting deportees from the United States.

As President Trump builds the infrastructure to carry out mass deportations, with domestic military deployments and $165 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, third-country agreements could offer a path to swiftly move large numbers of detainees out of U.S. custody with little due process.

ICE has long reported difficulty in getting countries to accept their own nationals, because of a lack of diplomatic relations, an inability to get travel documents quickly enough, or, in some cases, because the migrants had been convicted of crimes. Migrants from these countries have been detained for long periods of time or released into the United States.

But the approach still faces some obstacles. Federal judges continue to grapple with the question of whether the agreements with third countries mean the United States still has “constructive custody” of migrants deported under those deals, and some ongoing legal responsibility for their treatment.

And the lack of information about detainees sent to South Sudan and El Salvador has drawn charges from a group of independent experts appointed by the United Nations that the United States may be engaging in “enforced disappearance,” state-sponsored abductions that are banned under international law.

In April, the U.N. experts issued a statement that U.S. deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador “appeared to involve enforced disappearances.” Last Tuesday, days after the Supreme Court ruled that the flight to South Sudan could move forward, the experts broadened their concerns to include the Trump administration’s deportation policies more generally.

Gabriella Citroni, an international law expert who chairs the U.N. group, said U.S. officials had “not been cooperative” in response to their questions, adding that as recently as a year ago, the United States was “very responsive.”

A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman declined to comment.

The United States is not a party to the treaty that makes enforced disappearances a crime, and in some cases a crime against humanity, under international law. The term is often associated with Latin American military dictatorships from the Cold War era that abducted their own citizens. The Biden administration called them “an egregious human rights violation” and criticized authoritarian adversaries like Russia and China for inflicting them on dissidents and ethnic minorities.

In September, the U.N. experts will deliver a formal update on their consideration of the deportations as part of their annual report to the U.N. Human Rights Council, which the Trump administration withdrew from in February. They will present again at the New York meeting of the U.N. General Assembly later in the fall.

The investigation is already having direct consequences in U.S. courts. A report from Ms. Citroni’s group was filed as evidence by lawyers representing a group of Venezuelan men in federal court last week. It appeared to show contradictions in how the United States and El Salvador had described the legal status of migrants who were deported to El Salvador and detained in a high-security prison.

In those documents, the government of El Salvador told the U.N. group that detaining deportees from the United States was “within the scope of the justice system and law enforcement” of “that other state,” referring to the United States. That contradicted statements made in court by U.S. officials that the United States did not have “constructive custody” of Venezuelans held in El Salvador, and that they were now beyond U.S. control.

The Trump administration has responded to criticism by U.N. officials in other contexts with indifference and occasional hostility. But if the charges of enforced disappearance gather momentum, that could mean further withering of the postwar image of the United States as a champion of freedom and democracy.

“This is really detrimental to U.S. standing in the international community,” said Natalie Cadwalader-Schultheis, an immigration attorney who alerted U.S. border practices to the U.N. “There will be consequences with other countries who are alarmed over this erosion of human rights.”

Legal experts also fear the Trump administration could seek to expand aggressive deportation measures even more, perhaps to U.S. citizens, as Mr. Trump has suggested.

“Homegrowns are next,” he said after an April White House meeting with Nayib Bukele, El Salvador’s president. “You got to build about five more places.”

That scenario isn’t as far-fetched as it might sound, according to a former official who served in the Biden administration. “If we’re grabbing people off the street — which we are — what makes us have any confidence that arbitrary detentions won’t extend further?” asked Ambassador Michèle Taylor, who represented the United States at the U.N. Human Rights Council until earlier this year, and who supported Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s 2020 presidential campaign. “Especially from an administration that has indicated they will go after their political enemies. Where does it end?”

The willingness of the Trump administration to send migrants to countries like Libya and South Sudan, critics have noted, represents a reversal of a longstanding U.S. policy against sending migrants to places where they might be at risk of torture or persecution. Known as “non-refoulement,” that principle is woven through U.S. immigration laws governing asylum, as well as the Convention Against Torture, another international treaty, provisions of which the United States ratified in 1994.

The lack of information about the South Sudan deportees is troubling, said John R. Bolton, who served as Mr. Trump’s national security adviser during his first term.

A longtime critic of the U.N., Mr. Bolton said domestic politics, not international law, was the right forum to debate the deportations. But, he added: “The purpose of deportations is to remove illegal aliens, particularly aliens who have committed crimes in the U.S. Why harm that effort by making moves that could hurt us politically or legally elsewhere? It’s a self-inflicted wound.”

The administration has emphasized that all the men sent to South Sudan had been convicted of violent crimes, though many had either completed or were nearing the end of their sentences. The men were held in shackles for weeks inside an air-conditioned shipping container at Camp Lemonnier, a U.S. military base in Djibouti. A federal judge in Boston had paused their deportations on due-process grounds, ruling that they could not be sent to South Sudan without first having the opportunity to voice a reasonable fear of torture. The government appealed the judge’s order to the Supreme Court and won.

The administration has told the court that South Sudan has given it diplomatic assurances the men will not face torture. In its statement last week, South Sudan’s government said it would “adhere to the rule of law, international obligations and norms.”

For now, the location of the men is unknown. In an interview with Politico published on Friday, Tom Homan, Mr. Trump’s border czar, said he did not know if the eight men were still being detained in South Sudan, or where they would ultimately wind up.

“There’s like a hundred different endings to this,” he said. “I do not know.”

Hamed Aleaziz and Maura Ajak contributed reporting.

“LET PAM BONDI DO HER JOB — SHE’S GREAT!” he added.

Mr. Trump, appearing concerned about the fallout from his administration’s decision to close the Epstein investigation, went on to plead with his followers to “not waste Time and Energy” on the disgraced financier and registered sex offender he once socialized with. He described Mr. Epstein in the post as “a guy who never dies.”

The post — which Ms. Bondi welcomed, according to officials — came a day after a bruising battle between her and Mr. Bongino burst into public view. Mr. Bongino has not shown up for work since Ms. Bondi accused him of planting negative news stories about her during a testy face-to-face encounter in the West Wing office of Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff and an ally of Ms. Bondi’s.

Mr. Bongino, who has groused about his workload and spoken wistfully of his lucrative old gig as a podcaster, where he promoted conspiracy theories, has told friends he might ditch his job.

Even with the president’s support, Ms. Bondi remains the target of withering criticism from the hard-right wing of Mr. Trump’s coalition, which blames her for overhyping a modest tranche of new Epstein files as a bombshell revelation soon after she took office in February. Laura Loomer, the flame-throwing activist who wields significant influence with the president, has joined a growing chorus calling for Ms. Bondi’s resignation.

The blowback over the Epstein case had raged unabated for nearly a week, since the Justice Department and F.B.I. released a memo closing the probe and affirming previous findings that Mr. Epstein’s death had been a suicide.

It has defied the patterns of previous Trump controversies, provoking criticism from activists on the right increasingly willing to cast doubt on Mr. Trump’s actions and motives — and not just place blame on his surrogates and subordinates.

Saturday’s post, which included unfounded accusations against Democrats, did not appear to achieve its intended result of diverting attention and quelling doubts about the case, based on the negative response of even Mr. Trump’s supporters.

Mr. Bongino’s boosters had hoped that Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, who has privately criticized Ms. Bondi’s Epstein stunt, would also consider quitting in protest. It has not happened.

A few hours before Mr. Trump posted his support for Ms. Bondi, Mr. Patel offered up his own statement on social media, calling it “an honor to serve the President of the United States.”

“I’ll continue to do so for as long as he calls on me,” Mr. Patel wrote.

Mr. Trump, in his post, directed Mr. Patel to move on from the Epstein inquiry, and instead focus on investigating Democratic fund-raising groups and his debunked claims that he won the 2020 election.

He did not mention Mr. Bongino once in the 398-word post.

That would appear to leave Mr. Bongino in the lurch. Ms. Bondi’s allies in the administration believe he has burned his bridges and needs to leave, according to two people familiar with her thinking.

Justice Department and F.B.I. spokesmen declined to comment.

But the letters to Mexico, America’s largest source of imports, and the European Union, a trading bloc of 27 nations that collectively make up the world’s third-largest economy, are notable. They marked a significant escalation aimed squarely at two of America’s closest and most pivotal trading partners.

Both economies do a huge amount of trade in goods and services with the United States. And both governments have been in intense negotiations with the United States, right up until Mr. Trump’s letters were sent.

Maros Sefcovic, the European Union’s trade commissioner, was in regular contact with the U.S. commerce secretary and trade representative. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, spoke to Mr. Trump. And until very recently, officials had hoped they were on the cusp of a deal.

E.U. policymakers had gradually come around to the possibility that the bloc could face 10 percent across-the-board tariffs on all goods sent to the United States, and were hoping to negotiate exceptions for important products. Many of the policymakers were eager to end the economic uncertainty that Mr. Trump’s trade announcements had unleashed on German carmakers, Italian wine exporters and Irish pharmaceutical companies alike.

But things changed with Mr. Trump’s announcement on Saturday of a flat 30 percent tariff, and his threat to make that rate even higher should the bloc retaliate.

“If for any reason you decide to raise your tariffs and retaliate, then, whatever the number you choose to raise them by, will be added onto the 30 percent that we charge,” Mr. Trump wrote in the letter, which echoed a form letter he has been sending out to many American trading partners announcing their tariff rate.

Mexican officials had also been in active negotiations. A delegation led by economy minister Marcelo Ebrard arrived in Washington on Friday to discuss an “integral agreement” with U.S. officials covering border security, migration, trade and water management.

After an intense volley of tariffs from the United States earlier this year related to Washington’s desire to curb the flow of fentanyl across the border, Mexican officials felt they had cultivated a more productive relationship with U.S. officials.

Mr. Trump placed a 25 percent tariff on all Mexican imports earlier this year, sparking an intense dispute. But the administration ultimately lifted most of those tariffs by exempting goods that trade under the United States Mexico Canada Agreement, the North American trade pact, which includes agriculture and other products. According to data from Mexican officials, about 87 percent of exports from Mexico to the United States are not currently subject to tariffs.

Mr. Ebrard said in a statement posted on social media Saturday that U.S. officials had told their Mexican counterparts that “as part of the profound change in the United States’ trade policy,” the Trump administration was going to send letters to all world leaders announcing new tariffs.

“We mentioned at the negotiating table that it was an unjust move and that we did not agree with it,” Mr. Ebrard. He said that Mexican officials would work to ensure that they had an alternative proposal that protects jobs and businesses on both sides of the border before the tariffs take effect Aug. 1.

Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, said at an event on Saturday that she believed her administration would be able to reach a deal. “We know very clearly what we can work out with the government of the United States and what we can’t,” she said.

In a letter addressed to Mexico’s leader and posted to his social media platform, Truth Social, on Saturday, Mr. Trump said, “Mexico has been helping me secure the border, BUT, what Mexico has done, is not enough.” He blamed Mexico for the American fentanyl crisis, saying cartels had flooded his country with fentanyl and that “Mexico still has not stopped the Cartels who are trying to turn all of North America into a Narco-Trafficking Playground.”

In recent months, the Trump administration has taken aim at Mexican cartels and those it says work with the groups.

To avoid an earlier threat of tariffs this spring, Ms. Sheinbaum deployed 10,000 troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, building on recent efforts to curb migration by intercepting migrant caravans and busing migrants to places far from the border. Crossings have plummeted to their lowest level in decades.

She also announced a crackdown that has led to record fentanyl seizures, and agreed to extradite dozens of cartel operatives to the United States, breaking with Mexico’s previous stance on extraditing the leaders. And Mexico’s leaders imposed tariffs and restrictions on many Chinese imports.

Ms. Sheinbaum was broadly praised for her coolheaded approach to Mr. Trump, who called her a “marvelous woman” after the two spoke about tariffs in February and he offered Mexico an additional month to make gains.

Mr. Trump earlier this week announced that he would aim 35 percent tariffs at Canada — another key trading partner, and another nation that had hoped it might be closing in on a negotiated deal with the United States. And he has threatened to slap tariffs ranging from 20 to 50 percent on other nations, including Brazil, Japan and South Korea.

The latest round of levies underscores that Mr. Trump is willing to upend long-held relationships in his quest to rewrite the rules of global commerce. But for major trading partners, the question now is whether they will hit back.

Mexico has never retaliated against the United States, but officials have repeatedly said that they reserve the right to, and have analyzed which U.S. exports they could apply tariffs to.

Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the E.U. executive, said in a statement that Mr. Trump’s latest tariffs “would disrupt essential trans-Atlantic supply chains, to the detriment of businesses, consumers and patients on both sides of the Atlantic.”

She also threatened to hit back, though she did not make a retaliation sound like a foregone conclusion at this point, talking about the “proportionate countermeasures if required.”

The bloc had already prepared a retaliatory package in response to earlier tariffs, but had paused them to create leeway for negotiation. That retaliation would apply to some 21 billion euros (nearly $25 billion) worth of imports from the United States. The tariffs are scheduled to kick in at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday unless E.U. officials choose to suspend them.

“Of course, there are possibilities to react, but we don’t want to,” Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s top diplomat, said in an interview on Friday in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. “We don’t want to retaliate. We don’t want this trade war.”

In the run-up to Mr. Trump’s announcement, officials from the European Union had reiterated that their goal was to reach an agreement in principle, a sort of rough-draft trade plan that could serve as a basis for more detailed negotiations.

If the newly announced tariffs rates remain, however, “that means trade war,” said Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the economic think tank Bruegel in Brussels.

He did not think that Mr. Trump’s warning against retaliation would have much effect on the E.U.’s appetite to hit back. He said the best Europe can hope for is a situation in which many of America’s global trading partners retaliate, perhaps in a coordinated way, and Mr. Trump is pressured to strike a less extreme stance.

“They have consistently said they would defend themselves under the right circumstances,” he said. “Now those circumstances are here.”

Zunaira Saieed, Emiliano Rodríguez Mega and Annie Correal contributed reporting.