3 times Trump's tariffs worked
President Donald Trump's tariffs are designed to boost US manufacturing, restore the balance of trade and fill America's coffers with tax dollars. The White House's record on those three goals has been a decidedly mixed bag.
But Trump has a fourth way that he likes to use tariffs. Trump has repeatedly threatened tariffs as a kind of anvil dangling over the heads of countries, companies or industries.
The subjects of Trump's tariff threats have, at times, immediately come to the negotiating table. Sometimes, threats just work.
The most recent example was over the weekend, when Canada backed off its digital services tax that was set to go into effect Monday. Trump had railed against the tax on online companies, including US corporations that do business in Canada. On Friday, he threatened to end trade talks with America's northern neighbor. Trump also said he would set a new tariff for Canada by the end of this week.
On Sunday, Canada backed down, saying it would drop the tax to help bring the countries back to the table.
'To support those negotiations, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, announced today that Canada would rescind the Digital Services Tax (DST) in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States,' the Canadian government said in a statement.
On Monday, United States and Canada restarted trade discussions.
'It's part of a bigger negotiation,' said Prime Minister Mark Carney in a press conference Monday. 'It's something that we expected, in the broader sense, that would be part of a final deal. We're making progress toward a final deal.'
Trump's first tariff action of his second term came against Colombia after President Gustavo Petro in late January blocked US military flights carrying undocumented migrants from landing as part of Trump's mass deportation effort.
In turn, Trump threatened 25% tariffs on Colombian exports that would grow to 50% if the country didn't accept deportees from the United States.
Colombia quickly walked back its refusal and reached an agreement to accept deported migrants.
'You can't go out there and publicly defy us in that way,' a Trump administration official told CNN in January. 'We're going to make sure the world knows they can't get away with being nonserious and deceptive.'
Trump ultimately dropped the tariff threat.
Citing a lack of progress in trade negotiations, Trump in late May said he was calling off talks with the European Union and would instead just impose a 50% tariff on all goods from there.
'Our discussions with them are going nowhere!' Trump wrote on Truth Social on May 23. Later that day in the Oval Office, Trump said he was no longer looking for a deal with the EU.
But three days later, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen spoke with Trump and said the EU would fast-track a deal with the United States. Trump then delayed the 50% tariff deadline until July 9.
Although a deal hasn't yet come through, Trump's threat got Europe to get serious, in the White House's view, on trade, when it had been slow-walking negotiations, trying to get a consensus from its dozens of members.
The Trump administration attributes a large number of corporate investments in the United State to its tariffs and tariff threats, although it's often hard to draw a clear line from Trump's trade policy to a particular company announcing it will build an American factory. Those decisions often take years of planning and are costly processes.
For example, shortly after Trump doubled down on steel and aluminum tariffs and included finished products like dishwashers and washing machines in the 50% tariff, GE Appliances said it would move production from China to Kentucky. The company said it had planned the move before Trump announced the derivative product tariffs – but Trump's trade war accelerated its plans.
In some other cases, Trump's threats have largely gone nowhere.
Furious with Apple CEO Tim Cook for announcing the company would export iPhones to the United States from India – rather than building an iPhone factory in the United States – Trump announced a 25% tariff on all Apple products imported to the United States. He threatened the same against Samsung.
But Trump never followed through with his threat, and Apple and Samsung haven't budged on their insistence that complex smartphone manufacturing just isn't practical or possible in the United States. Skilled manufacturing labor for that kind of complex work isn't readily available in the United States – and those who do have those capabilities charge much more to work here than their peers charge in other countries. Complying with Trump's demands could add thousands of dollars to the cost of a single smartphone – more than Trump's threatened tariff.
Trump similarly threatened Hollywood in May with a 100% tariff on movies made outside the United States. That left many media executives scratching their heads, trying to figure out what the threat entailed – a threat that ultimately never materialized. The administration later acknowledged Trump's statement about the tariff was merely a proposal, and it was eager to hear from the industry about how to bring lost production back to Hollywood.
Nevertheless, Trump's threats against the movie industry raised awareness about the bipartisan issue, and California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom subsequently posted support for a partnership with the Trump administration to incentivize movie and television makers to film in the state again.
Trump's threats don't always work, and sometimes his tariffs have kicked off a trade war, raising prices in a tit-for-tat tariff escalation. But a handful of times, including this weekend, his tariff threats have gotten America's trading partners to agree to major concessions.
CNN's Luciana Lopez and Michael Rios contributed to this report.
See Full Web Article
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Motor Trend
20 minutes ago
- Motor Trend
How the One Big Beautiful Bill Will Affect Car Buying and Ownership
On July 4, President Trump signed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Act into law. The budget reconciliation bill made big changes to federal spending, taxes, and regulation, some of which will have big effects on car owners, enthusiasts, and the automotive industry. We've read through the 879-page bill and outlined the parts that'll affect your next car purchase, the price of gas, and your commute. The "One Big Beautiful Bill" affects car buying by altering tax deductions on auto loans, ending EV tax credits, reducing CAFE penalties to zero, and cutting grants for clean vehicles. It also impacts gas and power prices by changing drilling and energy policies. This summary was generated by AI using content from this MotorTrend article Read Next Because this is a reconciliation bill, which modifies existing budget legislation rather than starting from scratch, there are limits to what can be included in the legislation. Everything in the bill has to be directly related to government spending and taxation, so some of the changes are creatively written in order to make the cut. (As always, please consult your tax professional before making financial decisions. The below is provided for information purposes only and is not tax or financial advice.) 'No' Tax on Car Loan Interest This one is confusing, and 'no' is in quotation marks because it's misleading. Car buyers looking to finance their next purchase may be able to write off some—but not all—of the interest charged on the loan each calendar year on their taxes. That's not the same as abolishing or suspending the tax altogether, as the claim implies. There are also a number of rules for qualifying which will cut off a lot of buyers. First and foremost, the vehicle you're buying has to be assembled in the U.S. That will be confusing for some buyers, because some of the bestselling vehicles in the U.S, such as the Toyota RAV4 and Chevrolet Silverado, are built in multiple plants, not all of them in the U.S. The IRS will know where your vehicle is made because you have to supply the VIN when claiming the tax deduction, and that number includes a digit that represents the country of origin. The tax deduction doesn't apply to leases, either, only purchases. It appears to apply to both new and used vehicle purchases, as the legislation makes no distinction. Vehicles with salvage titles and parts cars don't count, either. Similarly, it doesn't apply to anything with a gross vehicle weight rating over 14,000 pounds (which is the rating of a Ford F-350, as an example). Commercial vehicles qualify but only if they're for personal use, not business use. Business fleet purchases don't qualify, so be careful if you're planning to register your vehicle to your small business in order to take advantage of other tax incentives. If your purchase qualifies, there are still more rules. The tax deduction is capped at $10,000 per calendar year, so if you pay more than that in interest, the balance will still be taxed. If you make more than $100,000 per year as an individual or $200,000 per year as a joint filer (married or similar), the amount of interest you're able to deduct goes down by $200 for every $1,000 of income you earn over $100,000 (individual, or $200,000 combined). Do the math and it means no tax credit for anyone making over $150,000 individually or $250,000 combined. Finally, the tax credit is only available for a limited time. You can't start counting interest payments towards a deduction until January 1, 2026, so the rest of this year doesn't count. The tax credit will expire on December 31, 2029 unless Congress extends it. EV Tax Credits End September 30 The (up to) $7,500 federal tax credit for new and used EVs now expires on September 30 of this year. Previously, both tax credits were scheduled to expire on December 31, 2032. Likewise, the tax credit for commercial EVs expires the same day. State tax credits are not affected. On a related note, the federal tax credit for installing an EV charger or renewable fuel dispenser at your home or business will expire even sooner, on July 30 of this year. Tax credits have been a huge driver of EV sales to date, so the end of them could cause final vehicle sale prices to rise and sales to plummet. A large drop in sales could lead automakers to discontinue some or all of their EVs, reducing choice in the market. Lower cost EVs with smaller profit margins would be vulnerable, which could lead to only more expensive EVs on the market. Less Help With Bad Auto Loans Stopping predatory auto loans had been a major focus for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during the Biden administration, but enforcement is likely to drop off substantially after the passage of this bill. Funding for the bureau is cut by 54 percent, which will drastically reduce the number of investigations and actions it's able to execute. No Penalties for CAFE Violations Because this is a reconciliation bill, Congress could not make changes to vehicle emissions and fuel economy laws. Rather than replace or abolish the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program (CAFE), this bill keeps all the existing rules in place but reduces the penalties for breaking them to $0.00. This means automakers are free to ignore federal fuel economy regulations as the EPA cannot meaningfully enforce them. This could potentially affect consumers in multiple ways. If automakers stop following CAFE rules, fuel economy could go down and emissions could go up. Any savings on R&D could then be passed on to the consumer. This is unlikely, however. Automakers plan as much as a decade in advance, so vehicles for sale today were engineered years ago and the money already spent. Future iterations of Congress and future presidents could also reinstate the penalties in a few years, which would wipe out any savings and put automakers behind on R&D. Fuel economy regulations elsewhere in the world aren't changing, so there's little incentive for automakers to cut R&D spending regardless, meaning no reduction in pricing is likely. No More Money for Clean Commercial Vehicles Businesses and local governments around the country have taken advantage of federal grants to help offset the cost of replacing older heavy duty commercial vehicles with EVs. These grants were commonly used to replace old, diesel school busses with new, electric versions and also covered installation of chargers and training employees to work on those vehicles and chargers. Any grant money not already spent has been taken away. Similarly, grants for reducing diesel exhaust emissions in low income and disadvantaged areas have been cut, with all unspent money withdrawn. Funding has also been cut for an EPA program which studies the health and environmental effects of fuel additives. Reduction in Tax Credits for Commuters If your employer provides a transit passes, vanpool reimbursement, parking passes, or a bicycle commuting reimbursement, the amount you're able to deduct on your taxes is going down. Previously, you could deduct up to $175 per month each for your vanpool, transit pass, or parking pass. Now, you can only deduct up to $175 total per month for any combination of those services. The deduction for bicycle commuting has been eliminated entirely. No More Money or Credits For Home Solar and Battery Backups This is tangential to car buying and ownership, but if you were planning to take advantage of tax credits to install solar panels and battery backups in your home to offset the cost of charging an EV, you're out of luck. Any money not already spent on those grants and tax credits has been rescinded. Likewise, the business tax credit for building specifically energy efficient new homes has been cut, along with business tax credits for training contractors to install solar panels, batteries, and more efficient appliances. Gas and Power Prices Could Be Affected Portions of the bill addressing oil drilling and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve may have a small impact on gas prices in the future. Various provisions restart new oil and gas drilling leases both in the U.S. and offshore in its oceans, which would eventually add to the global oil supply and potentially push down prices. However, it will take years for any new leases to be acquired, explored, drilled, and turned into production wells, and oil companies are already sitting on a large number of unexplored leases. Because oil is a globally traded commodity, adding more supply doesn't necessarily change the price of a barrel of oil, nor the price of a gallon of gas. The bill also requires the government to abandon a plan introduced during Trump's first term to sell down part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Instead, it requires the government to buy more oil it can store for future emergencies. Presidents like to draw on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during times of high gas prices, but the quantities withdrawn are typically so small they have little to no impact on lowering the price at the pump. With regard to electricity generation, the bill paves the way to reopen old, closed power plants and cuts tax credits for wind and solar farms. Old power plants will now be able to reopen without any retrofitting of modern pollution controls, which could make them economically viable, although it depends on the individual plant. New wind and solar farms now have a shorter window to begin operations before the tax credits are cut off, and the lack of credits is expected to make new such farms economically unviable in the future. Fewer wind and solar farms means energy prices are less likely to go down or remain flat, while old power plants coming back online could partially offset their absence at the cost of greater air pollution in those communities. The bill also undoes several provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided loans and grants for electrical infrastructure improvements nationally, including transmission line improvements in particular, as well as integrating offshore wind farms into the power grid and improving electrical infrastructure on tribal land. Any reductions in electricity prices or increases in reliability these improvements may have provided are off the table. Similarly, by cutting the clean hydrogen production credit several years earlier than planned, the bill will likely slow or halt the adoption of clean sources of hydrogen and slow or stall the nascent hydrogen vehicle industry, both for private and commercial vehicles. Most hydrogen today is produced from gas and oil, which is both cheaper and dirtier than clean alternatives.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump caught off guard by Pentagon's abrupt move to pause Ukraine weapons deliveries, AP sources say
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's decision to send more defensive weapons to Ukraine came after he privately expressed frustration with Pentagon officials for announcing a pause in some deliveries last week — a move that he felt wasn't properly coordinated with the White House, according to three people familiar with the matter. The Pentagon, which announced last week that it would hold back some air defense missiles, precision-guided artillery and other weapons pledged to Ukraine because of what U.S. officials said were concerns that American stockpiles were in short supply. Donald Trump said Monday that the U.S. will have to send more weapons to Ukraine, effectively reversing the move. Two of the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the sensitive internal discussions, said there was some internal opposition among Pentagon brass to the pause — coordinated by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby — before it was announced. One of the people described Trump as being caught 'flat footed' by the announcement. The White House did not respond to queries about whether Trump was surprised by the Pentagon pause. Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson denied that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had acted without consulting the president. 'It is the job of the Secretary of Defense to make military recommendations to the commander-in-chief. Secretary Hegseth provided a framework for the President to evaluate military aid shipments and assess existing stockpiles. This effort was coordinated across government. The Department will continue to give the President robust options regarding military aid to Ukraine, consistent with his goal of bringing this tragic war to an end and putting America first,' Wilson said in a statement to The Associated Press. The pause in critical weapons deliveries had come at a difficult moment for Ukraine, which has faced increasing — and more complex — air barrages from Russia during the more than three-year-old war. Trump acknowledged that in announcing the reversal on Monday night, saying, "They have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard now." Asked by a reporter Tuesday who approved the pause, Trump bristled at the question while he was gathered with his Cabinet. 'I don't know. Why don't you tell me?" Trump's change in tone on Putin The president also laid into Russian President Vladimir Putin, suggesting he was unnecessarily prolonging the war that Trump has said he's determined to quickly conclude. Trump has struggled to find a resolution, with talks between the sides stalled. The Republican leader has sounded increasingly exasperated with Putin in recent days. The two spoke by phone last week. 'We get a lot of bull---- thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth," Trump said during Tuesday's Cabinet meeting. "He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.' He has threatened, but held off on, imposing new sanctions against Russia's oil industry to try to prod Putin into peace talks. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said last week that Trump has given him the go-ahead to push forward with a bill he's co-sponsoring that calls, in part, for a 500% tariff on goods imported from countries that continue to buy Russian oil. The move would have huge ramifications for China and India, two economic behemoths that buy Russian oil. Trump said Tuesday that he's 'looking at it very strongly.' Pentagon says it's going to resume shipments to Ukraine The weapons pause announced last week impacted shipments of Patriot missiles, precision-guided GMLRS, Hellfire missiles and Howitzer rounds and more, taking not only Ukrainian officials and other allies by surprise but also U.S. lawmakers and other parts of the Trump administration, including the State Department. The Pentagon said late Monday that at Trump's direction, it would resume weapons shipments to Ukraine 'to ensure the Ukrainians can defend themselves while we work to secure a lasting peace and ensure the killing stops.' Still, spokesman Sean Parnell added that its review for Trump to evaluate military shipments worldwide continues as part of 'America First' defense priorities. It's also unclear which weaponry would now be sent, though Trump said that the U.S. will primarily be assisting Ukraine with defensive weapons. Counting the weapons On Tuesday, each of the services and the combatant commands — the multiservice organizations that spearhead U.S. military operations around the world — were still sending up information on their stockpiles of specific munitions to Pentagon leadership, a U.S. official said. 'They are literally still doing the math,' the official said. The information was being presented on a stoplight chart — where munitions were either in a red, yellow or green status, similar to slides that had been created the week before, the official said. That earlier study had concluded that some munitions were OK to keep sending to Ukraine — but others were reaching concerning levels. Getting a full visibility on the numbers of actual munitions on hand takes time, the official said, because while Patriot missiles, for example, initially belong to the Army, once they are requested and sent to a combatant command, such as U.S. Central Command, the service loses visibility on those numbers in inventory. The vast majority of the munitions and weapons the U.S. has shipped to Ukraine have been pulled from the Army, which has monitored levels closely in recent years, particularly for high-demand items like 155mm artillery shells and Patriot missiles for air defenses. It's been harder for the Army to ramp up production on those items than had been planned: It was trying to hit a goal of producing 100,000 155mm shells a month by the end of 2025 but won't meet that goal now until 2026, Army spokesman Steve Warren said. Ramping up Patriot missile production also has been challenging, Warren said. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement Tuesday that he was glad Trump was resuming deliveries to Ukraine. 'This time, the President will need to reject calls from the isolationists and restrainers within his Administration to limit these deliveries to defensive weapons," McConnell said. 'And he should disregard those at DoD who invoke munitions shortages to block aid while refusing to invest seriously in expanding munitions production.' ___ Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro and Matthew Lee contributed to this report.
28 minutes ago
What would it take for Elon Musk to create a new political party in America?
On the heels of the Fourth of July -- and amid his feud with President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans over the president's tax policy bill -- tech billionaire Elon Musk announced plans for a brand new political party, dubbed "America Party," to represent what he called "the 80% in the middle." Musk, who recently left his temporary government post as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, told his X followers that his new party will "give you back your freedom." In a series of posts over the weekend, Musk said his party would use "extremely concentrated force at a precise location on the battlefield" to target "2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts," which he believes "would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws." So what would it take for Musk to launch his third-party effort? Here's an overview. Getting on the ballot To start, Musk would have to get his party on the ballots in the states where he wants to compete -- each with its own process for qualifying. In many states -- including Kentucky, where the race to fill retiring Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell's open seat in 2026 is heating up -- a party-designated candidate must win a nomination from a state-recognized political party that has received a certain percentage of votes in the previous presidential election -- or else a candidate has to run as an independent or a write-in candidate. In other states, the America Party's name itself could present a problem -- like in New York, where state law prohibits political parties from having the word "American," or any part of it, as part of their party names, according to Election Law Blog. Bankrolling these state-level efforts would take significant resources. Experts would be needed to navigate each state's election laws and political systems in order to identify and nominate promising candidates, and canvassers would have to gather thousands to tens of thousands of signatures for each candidate to get them on the ballot. Traditionally, candidates and their parties spearhead these operations, working together to strategize signature-gathering, voter registration, and campaign fundraising and spending. But Musk's America Party is unlikely to become a certified political party anytime soon, because the Federal Election Commission, which reviews political organizations' qualification as political parties, has not been in quorum to do so since a commissioner resigned in April, leaving the agency with just three commissioners. FEC commissioners can only be appointed by President Trump himself. It's not yet clear if Musk has filed any paperwork for his America Party, and an FEC spokesperson declined to comment on whether the agency has received any paperwork from Musk's team. Going the PAC route Faced with the long odds of gaining party certification, some election experts say that Musk, at least for the time being, could focus on House and Senate candidates through a super PAC. That's because ballot access for congressional races is governed by the states -- not the federal government -- so the America Party could still put its designated candidates on the ballot without the FEC's certification, as long as they pass state qualifications. And because super PACs are unconstrained by fundraising or spending limits, an America Party super PAC could be funded by unlimited donations from supporters including Musk himself, and could independently spend an unlimited amount of money in support of its candidates. The only catch is that super PACs are unable to work directly with campaigns the way FEC-certified political parties can -- but election lawyer Matt Sanderson of Caplin and Drysdale told ABC News that the efficiency of a super PAC can actually outweigh the advantages of a political party. "Form a super PAC, just call yourselves a political party -- that's not against the rules. The FEC blessing is not needed," said Sanderson, who was legal counsel for the No Labels movement during the 2024 election. "I actually don't think it makes a lick of sense in this day and age to try to form yourself as a national party committee." "They can call themselves whatever they want," Sanderson said, explaining that the FEC doesn't prohibit a super PAC from calling itself a political party as long as it doesn't coordinate directly with campaigns. "Just skip right past this very cumbersome and not-all-that-beneficial process, hold themselves out as a political party, and move forward." Joining forces Additionally, Musk could enlist the help of existing third parties, like the Libertarian Party or the Green Party. However, third parties historically have had little success in gaining office in the United States. During the 2024 election, the centrist group No Labels led a third-party presidential movement but ended its efforts months before the Republican and Democratic national conventions, after failing to find their candidate before their self-imposed deadline. Longstanding Libertarian Party nominee Chase Oliver ran in the 2024 presidential race but received less than 0.5% of the total vote. Still, a possible collaboration could be in the works: Musk has been in touch with one-time Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who in recent days has spearheaded a third party centrist effort of his own, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to ABC News. Caleb Burns, an election lawyer at Wiley Rein, acknowledged the potential significance of obtaining an official party status through the FEC instead of bypassing that step with a super PAC -- stressing the role of a political party as a "brand for politicians." "The success of any new political party will turn on whether there are sufficient candidates -- and, by extension, members of the public -- interested in aligning with that new brand," Burns said. "If the answer is yes, then it makes sense to do everything possible to enhance and promote that brand -- which means proceeding with the organizational and legal burdens necessary to create and formalize a new political party." "The critical predicate, however, is the political question of whether or not there is sufficient interest in a new brand of politician," Burns said. "For that, it seems we will have to wait and see what Mr. Musk concludes."
