WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Friday said it would impose new tariffs on $1.3 billion worth of French goods, including cosmetics, soap and handbags, in retaliation for a French tax that largely hits American technology companies, escalating a trade dispute that threatens to further damage the global economy.

Notably absent from the tariff list, published by the United States Trade Representative, are French cheese, sparkling wine and cookware, which the administration had threatened to tax in December. Wine retailers and other U.S. importers of French goods had voiced opposition to those potential tariffs, saying they would hurt American companies and their workers.

The 25 percent tariffs will be delayed 180 days and take effect in January 2021, a hiatus meant to give both countries time to resolve their differences over a digital tax that will hit American tech companies.

France has adopted a 3 percent tax on the revenues some companies earn from providing goods and services to French users over the internet, even if they do not have large physical presences in France, a measure that will target Facebook, Google, Amazon and others whose businesses focus on digital advertising and e-commerce.

The Trump administration launched a trade investigation into the tax a year ago. The report found in December that the French tax “discriminates against U.S. companies, is inconsistent with prevailing principles of international tax policy and is unusually burdensome for affected U.S. companies.” The report recommended tariffs as high as 100 percent on certain French imports valued at $2.4 billion, including cheese, wine and handbags. The final recommendation was significantly less punitive, with tariffs at 25 percent, and wine and cheese were dropped from the list entirely.

American and French officials called a temporary truce on the issue in January, with the French pledging to suspend collection of the tax and Americans pledging to hold off on tariffs, while international negotiators sought a multilateral agreement on where and how to tax internet commerce that crosses borders.

But that détente has collapsed in recent months, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin suspending international tax negotiations and warning of retaliation against any country that imposes new taxes on American technology companies like Amazon, Facebook and Google.

While the United States initially agreed to work with global counterparts to come up with a unified tax system, other countries have balked at the Trump administration’s push for a provision that would effectively allow some American companies to choose whether to be governed by any new system created by a global agreement.

And a growing list of governments have looked to digital taxes of their own as tax revenues plunge during the pandemic recession. Several European countries, led by France, have been rolling out digital services taxes, which would fall heavily on American internet companies. Italy, Spain, Austria and Britain have all announced plans to levy digital services taxes, which impose duties on the online activity that takes place in those countries, regardless of whether the company has a physical presence.

In June, the administration launched trade investigations, similar to the one against France’s tax, against tax proposals in nine countries and the European Union.

The decision to go ahead with the tariffs on France could revive a trade war between the United States and Europe. President Trump has already imposed tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, prompting the European Union to retaliate with its own taxes on American goods. The two governments are also at odds over domestic aircraft subsidies, with the Trump administration taxing as much as $7.5 billion of European exports annually as punishment for unfair subsidies given to Airbus.

LONDON — As Britain says goodbye to the European Union, the government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson is making a sudden swerve into space. On Friday, a federal bankruptcy judge in New York approved an arrangement under which Britain will become an owner of a company that wants to use satellites to connect customers in remote parts of the world to the internet.

Britain has agreed to pay $500 million for a 45 percent stake in OneWeb, a London company that has launched dozens of satellites orbiting Earth but filed for bankruptcy this year. Bharti Airtel, a telecom company based in India with more than 400 million subscribers, is also taking a 45 percent stake, and other investors may be brought in.

Britain wants to get into a new satellite network because its decision to leave the European Union meant it severed its connection to the European navigation satellite system, called Galileo. Britain, which had invested 1.4 billion pounds in Galileo, is unlikely to be able to use those satellites for strategic purposes, from guiding missiles to steering warships at sea.

With OneWeb, Britain could eventually have access to satellites for military purposes but also take advantage of the company’s technology to beam high-speed internet service to remote parts of the country. Being part-owner of a satellite company would also give Britain a larger piece of the space business, which the government says is growing 60 percent a year and supports £300 billion in economic activity in Britain.

Last week, when Britain’s bid for the company was initially accepted, the government hailed the possibilities of having its own “sovereign global satellite system.”

“The move signals the government’s ambition for the U.K. to be a pioneer in the research, development, manufacturing and exploitation of novel satellite technologies,” the government’s statement said.

The government pointed to “strategic opportunities” with international allies, without providing specifics. It also underscored the economic stimulus that would allow the country to “further develop its advanced manufacturing base, making the most of its highly skilled work force.”

Britain’s business community desperately needs such opportunities. Not only is the country’s economy being hit hard by the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, but companies are threatened with increased tariffs and other obstacles in future business with European partners like France and Germany.

As Britain continues to negotiate its departure from the European Union, the OneWeb deal provides the country leverage in talks on security matters, said Franck Thomas, an adviser on telecommunications and space at Global Counsel, a consulting firm.

Beyond the initial investments, fully developing OneWeb is expected to require at least $1 billion more, possibly from new investors. Britain, though, according to a government release, will have “a final say” over any future sale of the company and over access to OneWeb’s technology.

Founded in 2012 by Greg Wyler, an American entrepreneur, OneWeb aims to use a vast network of satellites (called a constellation) to provide “high-speed services capable of connecting everywhere, to everyone,” its website says. This goal would be accomplished by blanketing lower orbital paths about 750 miles above the Earth with satellites. In May, OneWeb asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to launch as many as 48,000 satellites.

OneWeb is one of the companies offering smaller, refrigerator-size alternatives to huge communications satellites that can require more than a year to make and cost more than $100 million. Instead, OneWeb says it can churn out two satellites a day at a cost of around $1 million at a factory it operates in Florida in a joint venture with Airbus, the European aerospace giant.

The hope is that some of the satellite building and launching might be transferred to Britain, which already has satellite design and manufacturing facilities belonging to Airbus and other companies.

“If the government is clever about this, it could bring some of that to the U.K.,” said Will Whitehorn, president of UKspace, an industry group, and a former president of Virgin Galactic, Richard Branson’s space tourism company.

Several spaceports are at various stages of development in Britain, including one at Sutherland in northern Scotland and another in Cornwall in southwest England, where Virgin Orbit, another Branson company, may eventually launch small satellites from a converted jumbo jet.

Still, Britain is definitely taking a gamble. Space has proved an enormously costly and risky area to do business. When it filed for bankruptcy in March, OneWeb had already burned through $3.4 billion from a group of investors including Airbus, SoftBank Group and the government of Rwanda. Only 74 of a planned 650 satellites in an initial phase have been launched, and it is still not clear that the company has found a viable way to earn a profit.

OneWeb also has competition. Elon Musk’s SpaceX is orbiting satellites with a similar worldwide internet concept, and other large tech companies like Amazon are eyeing space, creating concerns that a blizzard of orbiting vehicles may make both visual and radio astronomy more difficult.

The legal battle over the true ownership of an exquisite pink diamond valued at $40 million is headed to trial after an appellate court in New York delivered a ruling in favor of the descendants of an Italian politician who are trying to prove that the stone is rightfully theirs.

The diamond, named the Princie, is 34.65 carats — about the size of a Cerignola olive. It was sold to a member of the Qatari royal family in 2013 at a jewelry auction at Christie’s, the auction house. A lawsuit filed by an Italian family claims that Christie’s sold the diamond despite accusations that it had been stolen.

At issue is whether the widow of the Italian politician had a legitimate claim of ownership over the diamond and that her son then had the right to sell it.

The trial over the Princie was supposed to begin last fall — but the New York State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division agreed to put the case on hold while it heard an appeal filed by the defendants, which include Christie’s.

Part of the appeal asked the court to reverse a lower court’s finding that the diamond was purchased by Senator Renato Angiolillo, a once-powerful politician in Rome whose son and grandchildren are the plaintiffs in the case. In a ruling on Thursday, the appeals court refused to do so, rejecting the defendants’ argument that there was lack of proof of Mr. Angiolillo’s purchase.

Scott Balber, a lawyer representing the Angiolillos, said that they look forward to proceeding with the trial in the New York State Supreme Court “as soon as practicable.” The coronavirus pandemic has been a significant roadblock for jury trials over the past few months.

Mr. Angiolillo’s descendants said that he bought the Princie at Van Cleef & Arpels in 1960, the same year that he married his second wife, Maria Girani Angiolillo. Mr. Angiolillo, a wealthy man who owned one of Italy’s largest newspapers, Il Tempo, died in 1973; the plaintiffs assert that under Italian law at the time, all of his possessions should have gone to his children, not his spouse, unless they were explicitly left to her. (Mr. Angiolillo’s will gave his wife their home in Rome, as well as its lavish furnishings, but it did not mention anything else.)

But the auction house and its co-defendants counter that the diamond, set in a ring, was a gift to Ms. Angiolillo and was owned by her, not her husband, when he died.

Mr. Angiolillo’s descendants say that their stepbrother absconded with the diamond after his mother died in 2009, but the stepbrother, Marco Milella, has insisted that he inherited the stone from his mother and that it was his to sell, according to court records.

Mr. Milella sold the diamond for nearly $20 million to a gems dealer in Switzerland named David Gol, who is a defendant in the case. Mr. Gol has said that he believes Mr. Milella had a clear title to the Princie and worked to sell it as part of the 2013 auction.

In establishing the deceased Italian senator’s purchase of the diamond, the appeals court relies on documents associated with Christie’s own investigation into the provenance of the diamond. The court’s order said that documents generated in the course of the investigation include “unequivocal statements by Christie’s outside counsel” that the senator had indeed purchased the diamond.

In allowing the case to continue, the appeals court also resolved another legal dispute over which law should be applied: New York’s or Switzerland’s. The auction house has argued that its client purchased the gem in Switzerland, where property can be acquired legally, despite accusations of theft, if a good faith purchaser pays the full value of the item. The plaintiffs countered that the sale had been administered in New York by a New York auction house, and so Christie’s could not pick and choose which law to apply.

In another victory for the plaintiffs, the appeals court sided with the lower court in ruling that New York law should be applied. In its decision, the court cited the “strong New York contacts” in the case and the state’s “overwhelming interest in protecting the integrity of its market.”

A spokeswoman for the auction house said, “While Christie’s is disappointed by the appellate court’s decision, we continue to believe that the evidence at trial will demonstrate that Christie’s consignor had the right to sells the diamond at issue” — Mr. Gol was the consignor — “and that Christie’s acted in complete good faith in doing so in April 2013.”

The spokeswoman said that key pieces of evidence at trial will include the “actions of the Senator’s widow in asserting her own ownership of the diamond and plaintiffs’ repeated denial to Italian tax authorities that they inherited the diamond.” (A judge in the trial court pointed out that no evidence has been presented to show that Ms. Angiolillo, the wife, or Mr. Milella, her son, paid taxes on it, either.)

A lawyer for Mr. Gol, Emily Reisbaum, said in a statement that there is “no dispute” that Mr. Gol’s company bought the diamond ring in “good faith and for full value” and that they look forward to winning at trial.

Mr. Balber, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, said that he saw the appeals court’s decision as a recognition that “it is not permissible for someone to purchase stolen goods in a regime where it’s permitted and then to try to take advantage of the New York markets by selling it here.”