Trump's trade war victory is already under siege
David Goldman
, CNN
US President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during a 'Make America Wealthy Again' trade announcement event at the White House on 2 April, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Photo:
CHIP SOMODEVILLA / Getty Images via AFP
Analysis:
The economy was supposed to crumble. The trade war was expected to escalate out of control. Markets were forecast to plunge.
None of that happened - at least, not yet.
President Donald Trump has pulled off what few outside the White House predicted: A trade war victory of sorts that sets America's taxes on imported goods higher than the infamous Smoot-Hawley era, without any of the damaging fallout so far. Customs revenue has increased sharply while inflation remains reasonably low. And America's trading partners, for the most part, have been willing to accept the higher tariffs without significant retaliation.
Multiple framework agreements between the United States and other trading partners have jacked up tariffs on foreign goods imported to America while setting levies on US exports at or near zero. Overseas trading partners have agreed to open previously closed markets to some US goods, pledged increased investments in the United States and dropped some of what the Trump administration has lambasted as non-trade barriers, like taxes on digital services.
But Trump's early trade victory may be short-lived. In fact, it is already showing signs that it may not last.
The European Union, fresh off its 11th-hour compromise to get a trade agreement done before Trump's self-imposed August 1 deadline, is already in revolt.
French Prime Minister François Bayrou called Sunday a "dark day." Hungarian Prime Minister and Trump ally Viktor Orban said Trump steamrolled the EU. Belgium's Prime Minister Bart De Wever lambasted the Trump administration's "delusion of protectionism." And Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament's trade committee, said the deal is "not satisfactory."
The 27-member bloc has to hammer out key aspects of its framework, and the fragile trade truce between two of the world's largest economies could quickly break apart if sentiment turns against the arrangement.
The Trump administration's trade talks with its northern neighbor and one of its largest trading partners have been effectively shut down. Despite Canada relenting on its digital services tax that the president has lambasted, Trump continued to threaten higher tariffs on some Canadian goods, including lumber.
Although many goods imported from Canada continue to be tariff-free because of the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement, the USMCA only covers just about half of Canadian goods. So higher tariffs on Canada could raise some costs for American consumers down the road.
And the fact that America is even embroiled in a trade spat with Canada in the first place is a sign that the recent cooling off in the trade war may not last: Trump negotiated and signed the United States' current trade agreement with Canada during his first term. At any time, even after an agreement is inked, Trump could turn around and decide to raise tariffs again.
A third round of talks between China and the United States' trade negotiators is expected to result in a continued pause of their historically high tariffs on one another. But it's unclear what else might come from the discussions, and the Trump administration has grown frustrated by what it has described as China's slow-walking of its previous agreements.
Both sides have aimed to reduce more regulatory barriers on shipments of key technologies. China has sought more access to critical semiconductors, and the United States wants the flow of rare earth magnets to increase further.
But the Trump administration has tried repeatedly to speed up China's slow progress, claiming the country has failed to live up to its agreement to approve the critical materials for crucial electronics. Trump has also said he wants China to open up its market to more US goods - a desire that Chinese Premier Xi Jinping is unlikely to give in to significantly.
Trump's rhetoric against China has cooled in recent months, but the truce appears to be on a knife's edge.
A crucial appeals court hearing Thursday could determine whether most of Trump's tariffs are legal at all.
For most of his tariffs, Trump has cited powers listed in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. But a federal court in May ruled that Trump overstepped his authority to levy tariffs on that basis.
An appeals court paused that ruling from taking effect and will hear oral arguments Thursday. It's not clear when the court will rule, and the White House would likely appeal to the Supreme Court if it loses.
If Trump ultimately loses his ability to levy tariffs using emergency powers, he has plenty of other options - but legal experts have said those alternatives could limit his ability to set tariffs without Congress. For example, Trump may be able to impose some tariffs as high as just 15 percent but only for 150 days, potentially taking some of the bite out of his tariff regime.
Although the US economy remains strong, with rebounding retail sales, a still-robust labor market and rising consumer confidence, there is some evidence that inflation in key areas is starting to creep higher - slowly - because of tariffs. That's a potential warning sign as the tariffs take full effect.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index earlier this month showed that some tariff-affected goods have started to gain in price. Clothing, appliances, computers, sporting goods, toys, video equipment, hardware and tools prices have been on the rise. And it's starting to become a trend - in many of those categories, the rise has been happening for a few months.
Many major retailers, including Walmart, have said they will raise prices because of tariffs. Procter & Gamble, which makes Tide and a host of consumer goods, said Tuesday it will raise prices in part because of tariffs. And GM, Volkswagen and Stellantis all reported tariff charges of $1 billion or more over the past quarter.
Economists widely expect inflation to pick up in the late summer and throughout the rest of the year as retailers work through the inventories of goods they had stockpiled before tariffs went into effect. No one expects anything close to the inflation crisis of a few years ago. But with consumers still dealing with price-hike PTSD, that won't be a welcome change from the return to healthy inflation levels over the past year.
David Goldman is the executive editor of CNN Business.
- CNN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
13 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
‘It's a massive tax' - can Trump's tariffs reduce inequality, or will they enhance it?
The President doesn't talk much about inequality. But his animating argument for tariffs — that they will pressure companies to bring well-paid manufacturing jobs back to America — is pitched to those workers who felt left behind and neglected. So, will the tariffs reduce inequality? Probably not, and here's why. Hyper globalisation certainly contributed to America's rising inequality. Consumers saved hundreds of dollars on the cost of televisions, shoes, and comforters. But many middle-class livelihoods and communities were destroyed when factories either relocated to countries where wages were lower or went bust because they couldn't compete with cheap imports. China's entry into the global marketplace at the beginning of this century delivered a major wallop. Between 1999 and 2011, Chinese imports were directly responsible for the loss of 2.4 million American jobs, according to researchers. It is true that more jobs were created, but many of them did not pay as well as those that were eliminated, nor were they taken by the workers who lost out. Still, cheaper imports were only one part of the story. Automation and the creation of a digital economy that introduced online selling and cloud-based services had a far greater effect on the American economy. Take manufacturing. Of the six million factory jobs erased during the 2000s, Chinese imports accounted for about one-sixth of the losses, or one million jobs. But the other five million were killed off by other forces. For years, labour unions had bargained for higher wages, overtime pay and other benefits. But their ranks significantly declined. A street in Elyria, Ohio, once home to many manufacturing plants, on September 18, 2017. Many middle-class livelihoods and communities were destroyed when factories relocated to other countries. Photo / Andrew Spear, The New York Times Automobile factories, for instance, not only moved from Michigan to Mexico, they also moved to southern states including Alabama and Tennessee, where anti-union laws were common and wages were lower. I visited a meat processing plant in Storm Lake, Iowa, during Trump's first term. One of the workers was hired in 1980, when it was a union shop. His starting salary was US$16 an hour plus benefits. When I met him, 37 years later, that plant was no longer unionised, and his pay was still US$16 an hour. The growth of mega firms like Google, Apple, Amazon and Walmart that ate up or weeded out the competition also gave companies power over pricing and wages. The result was that the slice of the total economic pie going to workers shrank. If inequality has multiple causes, why do trade and globalisation get blamed so much? The fallout from globalisation packed a particular punch. Trade can cause economic losses to pile up and overwhelm a locale, such as Hickory, North Carolina, once a powerhouse of furniture making. Another reason is that political leaders exploit economic setbacks and insecurities. Trade offered a simple and satisfying explanation — even if not wholly accurate — that outsiders were to blame. For many people, foreign competition also set off deep cultural and economic anxieties. Diana Mutz, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that many Americans, including Trump, view trade as a zero-sum game rather than a co-operative enterprise in which everyone can benefit. Foxconn workers on an assembly line at Quanta factory in Chongqing, China, on November 27, 2012. In the early 2000s, Chinese imports were directly responsible for the loss of 2.4 million American jobs, according to researchers. Photo / Gilles Sabrie, The New York Times Through that lens, trade is a pitiless dogfight that is desirable only if the US is the 'winner' and other countries are losers. Americans also tend to expect the government to respond more strongly to job losses that result from trade compared with other economic forces. Dani Rodrik, an economist at Harvard University, helped conduct a large online survey in which respondents read a made-up newspaper article about the closure of a garment factory that provided different reasons for the shutdown. One group was told it was because of new technology. A second was told management bungling was the culprit. A third group was told trade, such as relocating production abroad, was the cause. When trade was the cause, the number of people who demanded that the government respond doubled or tripled. 'Foreign trade is particularly prone to charges of unfairness,' Rodrik writes, because countries operate under differing rules and conditions. Government subsidies, weaker health and environmental regulations or sweatshop conditions, for instance, bestow an unfair competitive advantage. For decades, 'fair trade' has been the rallying cry of protectionists who complained of an uneven playing field. A former glass factory is set up as a battery factory in Bridgeport, West Virginia, on February 9, 2023. Oren Cass, the chief economist at American Compass, a conservative think-tank, says that factories can boost regions that need it. Photo / Andrew Spear, The New York Times That sounds like Trump's tariffs could make a difference, no? Tariffs can certainly affect how income is distributed — either increasing or decreasing inequality. Oren Cass, chief economist at American Compass, a conservative think-tank, says that with the Trump tariffs, the effect would be positive. He argues that factories, often located outside of the tech, finance and media capitals, can boost regions that need it. A factory creates jobs and serves as an economic hub. That in turn generates other jobs — for barbers, baristas, and manicurists. 'Reorienting the economy toward one that is going to better serve the average worker,' could reduce inequality, Cass said. But other economists disagreed, arguing that the President's tariffs and the haphazard way they were imposed will amplify inequality. While some select industries will benefit from added protection, the biggest burden, they agreed, will fall on low- and middle-income households. The cost of pretty much everything will go up because of tariffs. 'It's a massive tax,' said Kimberly Clausing, a professor of tax law and policy at the UCLA School of Law. She expects that four out of five Americans will be worse off. So far, the overall average effective tariff rate has jumped from 2.4% in early January to 18.3%, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. On average, higher prices will end up costing each household an extra US$2400 this year. Shoes and clothing prices, for example, are expected to rise by as much as 40% in the short run, the Budget Lab estimated. Prices are expected to stay at 17% or 19% higher over the long run. US businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones, will also feel the pinch of higher costs. Some 40% of imports are used to produce or build things in the US. Construction costs are likely to jump. The Budget Lab estimates that by the end of this year, US payrolls will shrink by nearly 500,000 jobs. As for manufacturing, the number of jobs might grow, but they won't be like the well-paid ones that high school graduates used to get. Most factories are highly automated and run with computer technology. Last year, the US steel industry employed 86,000 people and produced roughly 88 million tonnes of raw steel. In 1970, it took 354,000 steelworkers to produce that same amount, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute. I recently visited one of the largest steel plants in Europe. I saw titanic machinery and control stations with computer screens, but hardly any workers on the floor. Today, the best paying manufacturing jobs require significant training and skills. Those that don't, offer low wages. At the moment there are more than 400,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in the US. Even if the US$1.2 trillion trade deficit were erased, and purchases of foreign goods were replaced by domestic ones, the US would still not turn into a manufacturing powerhouse, said Robert Lawrence, an economist at Harvard University. Nor would it reduce inequality. Under that scenario, Lawrence calculated that manufacturing jobs would rise from 7.9% to just 9.7% of total employment. And less than half of those would actually involve work in production. The rest are in sales, management and accounting. Lawrence, whose book Behind the Curve examines the role that manufacturing plays in the economy, explained that 'even if all these policies were actually successful in bringing back as much manufacturing as possible, it's too small to change the basic income distribution in the economy.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Patricia Cohen Photographs by: Mark Abramson, Andrew Spear, Gilles Sabrie ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
The Trump administration takes a very Orwellian turn
By Aaron Blake , CNN US President Donald Trump. Photo: AFP Analysis - Back in March, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeted at the Smithsonian Institution that began as follows: "Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth." Despite the high-minded rhetoric, many worried the order was instead a thinly veiled effort to rewrite history more to Trump's liking. The order, for example, cited a desire to remove "improper ideology" - an ominous phrase, if there ever was one - from properties like the Smithsonian. Those concerns were certainly bolstered this week. We learned that some historical information that recently vanished from the Smithsonian just so happens to have been objective history that Trump really dislikes: a reference to his two impeachments. The Smithsonian said that a board containing the information was removed from the National Museum of American History last month after a review of the museum's "legacy content." The board had been placed in front of an existing impeachment exhibit in September 2021. Just to drive this home: The exhibit itself is about "Limits of Presidential Power." And suddenly examples of the biggest efforts by Congress to limit Trump's were gone. It wasn't immediately clear that the board was removed pursuant to Trump's executive order. The Washington Post, which broke the news, reported that a source said the content review came after pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director. In other words, we don't know all the details of precisely how this went down - including whether the removal was specifically requested, or whether museum officials decided it might be a good way to placate Trump amid pressure. The Smithsonian said in a statement that it was "not asked by any administration" or government official to remove content and that an updated version of the exhibit will ultimately mention all impeachment efforts, including Trump's. But it's all pretty Orwellian. And it's not the only example. Trump has always been rather blatant about his efforts to rewrite history with self-serving falsehoods and rather shameless in applying pressure on the people who would serve as impartial referees of the current narrative. But this week has taken things to another level. Last week, Trump fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics . This came just hours after that agency delivered Trump some very bad news: the worst non-Covid three-month jobs numbers since 2010. Some Trump allies have attempted to put a good face on this, arguing that Dr Erika McEntarfer's removal was warranted because large revisions in the job numbers betrayed shoddy work. But as he did with the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey eight years ago, Trump quickly undermined all that. He told Newsmax that "we fired her because we didn't believe the numbers today." To the extent Trump did lay out an actual evidence-based case for firing McEntarfer, that evidence was conspiratorial and wrong, as CNN's Daniel Dale documented Friday. And even some Republican senators acknowledged this might be precisely as draconian and self-serving as it looked. Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, for one, called it "kind of impetuous" to fire the BLS head before finding out whether the new numbers were actually wrong. "It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for," said Lummis, who is not often a Trump critic. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina added that if Trump "just did it because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up." Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska both worried that Trump's move would make it so people can't trust the data the administration is putting out. And that's the real problem here. It's not so much that Trump appears to be firing someone as retaliation; it's the message it sends to everyone else in a similar position. The message is that you might want that data and those conclusions to be to Trump's liking, or else. It's a recipe for getting plenty of unreliable data and conclusions. And even to the extent that information is solid, it will seed suspicions about the books having been cooked - both among regular Americans and, crucially, among those making key decisions that impact the economy. What happens if the next jobs report is great? Will the markets believe it? We've certainly seen plenty of rather blunt Trump efforts to control such narratives and rewrite history before. A sampling: All of it reinforces the idea that Trump is trying to consolidate power by pursuing rather heavy-handed and blatant tactics. But if there's a week that really drove home how blunt these efforts can be, it might be this one. - CNN
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Julian Assange joins pro-Palestinian protest on Sydney Harbour Bridge
But in a joint statement with more than a dozen other nations, it expressed the 'willingness or the positive consideration... to recognise the state of Palestine as an essential step towards the two-State solution'. The pro-Palestinian crowd braved heavy winds and rain to march across the bridge, chanting 'ceasefire now' and 'free Palestine'. Tens of thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters marched across the world-famous landmark. Photo / AFP New South Wales police said it had deployed hundreds of extra staff across Sydney for the march. Mehreen Faruqi, the New South Wales senator for the left-wing Greens party, told the crowd gathered at central Sydney's Lang Park that the march would 'make history'. She called for the 'harshest sanctions on Israel', accusing its forces of 'massacring' Gazans, and criticised New South Wales premier Chris Minns for saying the protest should not go ahead. Dozens of marchers held up banners listing the names of thousands of Palestinian children killed since the Gaza war broke out after an October 2023 attack by Palestinian militant group Hamas. Labor backbench MP Ed Husic attended the march and called for his ruling party, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, to recognise a Palestinian state. Assange did not address the crowd or talk to the media. Israel is under mounting international pressure to end the bloodshed that has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's health ministry. Hamas' 2023 attack resulted in the deaths of 1219 people, mostly civilians, according to a tally based on official figures. Of the 251 hostages taken during the attack, 49 are still being held in Gaza, including 27 the Israeli military says are dead. - Agence France-Presse
