Trump 20% Tariff On Philippine Exports Hits Workers, Farmers Hardest
The International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines (ICHRP) condemns the July 9 unilateral 20 percent tariff imposed by the United States on imports from the Philippines as an act of economic coercion which will harm the poorest Filipinos the most.
'This unilateral punitive tariff is an act of coercion and humiliation against the Filipino people,' said ICHRP Chairperson Peter Murphy. 'This naked bullying is the economic mirror image of the US action in turning the Philippines into a massive military base for war with China. There is zero respect for the basic right to self-determination of the Filipino people.'
While the 20 percent tariff is part of a global Trump attack on almost all trading partners, the US military concentration on the Philippines is part of a tighter US Indo-Pacific Strategy, aimed at assembling all possible military allies alongside US forces for a major war with China in the near future.
The tariffs are bargaining chips in Trump's punishment of any country which has a trade surplus with the US or has tariffs on imports from the US. Trump is clearly willing to bargain with his target countries to gain access to more minerals, and to remove or reduce tariffs on US products, as he has achieved with Indonesia.
All Philippine elites since 1946, including the Marcos Jr. administration, have facilitated US demands for unfair economic treatment. Trump stands out for the brutality of his approach and the crude terms he wants to impose. No more talk of 'free trade' of 'development' or 'partnership', just 'I want a deal'.
With an August 1 deadline looming, the Marcos Jr. administration could theoretically 'do a deal' to cut the tariff back to the minimum 10 per cent rate by making other concessions to Trump. But what would be the cost?
Duterte's Rice Tariffication Act demonstrated the danger of removing protections for Philippine industries. Both Duterte and Marcos promised to reduce the price of rice to 20 pesos (US$0.35) per kilogram, but even with massive rice imports the price ranges from 33 to 60 pesos per kilo, depending on quality. The daily minimum wage in Metro Manila is now just 695 pesos (US$12.14), having increased by a paltry 50 pesos on July 1. Rice farmers have been hit hard, and the situation for the people buying rice has become far worse. Masses of Filipinos are hungry.
In 2024, the US trade deficit with the Philippines was just $5.29 billion. This is a tiny blip for the US, whose Gross Domestic Product in 2024 was just over $29,000 billion. And since US corporations dominate the export processing zones from which much of the product is exported to the US, the US profits from either a trade deficit or a trade surplus.
Trump's trade policy is driven by anti-democratic 18th century theories of empire trade, which are really obsolete because in today's empires investment and finance are supreme. The US already massively dominates in global investment and finance. Trump's policies hurt poor and working class people everywhere, smashing corporate supply chains and sharply increasing the cost of all goods imported into the US. His policies can be defeated.
ICHRP stands with Filipino peasants and farmers, and the Filipino people at large whose already poor standard of living is under real threat, and whose long-disregarded political and economic autonomy are being openly derided by Trump.
The answer is not more traditional 'free trade' deals with other Global North countries – which have already damaged the livelihoods of Filipino farmers and workers.
The answer is international solidarity with farmers and workers everywhere, including in the US, in common struggles to elevate wages for workers and livelihoods for farmers, to stop the attacks on migrant workers in the US and Europe, to stop the attacks on Filipinos across the world, to enable balanced industrialization in all countries, and to shut down the Indo-Pacific military build-up to war with China.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
15 hours ago
- 1News
Trump tells NFL team to restore Redskins name or he'll pull stadium
US President Donald Trump is threatening to hold up a new stadium deal for Washington's NFL team if it does not restore its old name of the Redskins that was considered offensive to Native Americans. Trump also said on Sunday that he wants Cleveland's baseball team to revert to its former name, the Indians, saying there was a "big clamouring for this" as well. The Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians have had their current names since the 2022 seasons, and both have said they have no plans to change them back. Trump said the Washington football team would be "much more valuable" if it restored its old name. "I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington Redskins,' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, 'Washington Commanders,'' I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington," Trump said on his social media site. ADVERTISEMENT His latest interest in changing the name reflects his broader effort to roll back changes that followed a national debate on cultural sensitivity and racial justice. The team announced it would drop the Redskins name and the Indian head logo in 2020 during a broader reckoning with systemic racism and police brutality. The Commanders and the District of Columbia government announced a deal earlier this year to build a new home for the football team at the site the old RFK Stadium, the place the franchise called home for more than three decades. Trump's ability to hold up the deal remains to be seen. President Joe Biden signed a bill in January that transferred the land from the federal government to the District of Columbia. The provision was part of a short-term spending bill passed by Congress in December. While DC residents elect a mayor, a city council and commissioners to run day-to-day operations, Congress maintains control of the city's budget. Josh Harris, whose group bought the Commanders from former owner Dan Snyder in 2023, said earlier this year the name was here to stay. Not long after taking over, Harris quieted speculation about going back to Redskins, saying that would not happen. The team did not immediately respond to a request for comment following Trump's statement. The Washington team started in Boston as the Redskins in 1933 before moving to the nation's capital four years later. The Cleveland Guardians' president of baseball operations, Chris Antonetti, indicated before Sunday's game against the Athletics that there weren't any plans to revisit the name change. ADVERTISEMENT "We understand there are different perspectives on the decision we made a few years ago, but obviously it's a decision we made. We've got the opportunity to build a brand as the Guardians over the last four years and are excited about the future that's in front of us," he said. Cleveland announced in December 2020 it would drop Indians. It announced the switch to Guardians in July 2021. In 2018, the team phased out "Chief Wahoo' as its primary logo. The name changes had their share of supporters and critics as part of the national discussions about logos and names considered racist. Trump posted Sunday afternoon that "The Owner of the Cleveland Baseball Team, Matt Dolan, who is very political, has lost three Elections in a row because of that ridiculous name change. What he doesn't understand is that if he changed the name back to the Cleveland Indians, he might actually win an Election. Indians are being treated very unfairly. MAKE INDIANS GREAT AGAIN (MIGA)!" Matt Dolan, the son of the late Larry Dolan, no longer has a role with the Guardians. He ran the team's charity endeavours until 2016. Matt Dolan was a candidate in the Ohio US Senate elections in 2022 and 2024 but lost. Washington and Cleveland had another thing in common — David Blitzer was a member of Harris' ownership group with the Commanders and held a minority stake in the Guardians.
RNZ News
19 hours ago
- RNZ News
Why has a bill to relax foreign investment rules had so little scrutiny?
By Jane Kelsey* of Photo: RNZ Analysis : While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process - this time for foreign investment in New Zealand. But it has had almost no public scrutiny. If the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill becomes law, it could have far-reaching consequences. Public submissions on the bill close on 23 July. A product of the ACT-National coalition agreement , the bill commits to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 "to limit ministerial decision making to national security concerns and make such decision making more timely". There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments - especially in forestry. Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator - the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ - 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand's "national interest". If they don't perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved. Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, will require a "national interest" assessment under stage two. These would be assessed against a "ministerial letter" that sets out the government's general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals. Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act's new "purpose" to increase economic opportunity through "timely consent" of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether. If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is "contrary to the national interest", the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors. Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury's 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions. Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should "manage a wide range of risks" and "that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets". Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses. The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported "notable limitations" on the bill's quality assurance process. A fuller review was "infeasible" because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way. The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited. Time constraints meant "users and key stakeholders have not been consulted", according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations. There is no reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi or mana whenua engagement. While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting. Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land. Repeal of the " special forestry test " - which in practice has seen most applications approved , albeit with conditions - means most forestry investments could be fast-tracked. There would no longer be a need to consider investors' track records or apply a "benefit to New Zealand" test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash. The official documents don't explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First's support. It has potentially serious implications for forestry communities affected by climate-related disasters , however. Further weakening scrutiny and investment conditions risks intensifying the already devastating impacts of international forestry companies. Taxpayers and ratepayers pick up the costs while the companies can minimise their taxes and send profits offshore. Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand's free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand's investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations. A " ratchet clause " would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back. However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question. As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk. But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications. *Jane Kelsey, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau This story was originally published on The Conversation.
NZ Herald
21 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Analysis: Consumed by Epstein, Trump has lost ground on the economy and immigration
Other recent surveys find significant dissatisfaction with Trump's handling of the economy. When he was sworn in, Trump promised a new 'Golden Age'. It's clear that, six months into his presidency, the public isn't buying all the hype. Trump would like nothing better than to point to successes in his second term, and he has had some. The swirling Epstein controversy makes that difficult. Trump has tried to dismiss the controversy as Democratic-manufactured fakery, though this was always an issue generated by conspiracy theorists in the President's base. He wants Attorney-General Pam Bondi to seek the release of pertinent grand jury testimony, a dodge that doesn't address demands for full transparency. For now, he seems stuck, unless his threatened lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over a story that says he sent a risqué 50th birthday note to Epstein (which he denies) consolidates his base. The White House would like to change the subject, but when press secretary Karoline Leavitt tried to do that at the top of her Thursday briefing (Friday NZT), her lengthy opening statement helped to highlight apparent concerns about public sentiment on both the economy and immigration. Leavitt reeled off statistics trying to make the case that the economy is working for people. She provided citations of arrests as evidence that Trump is ridding the country of migrants with violent criminal records. It will take more than that to drown out the Epstein controversy and change public opinion about his other policies. Trump's successes This comes at a moment when the president has notched some clear successes. Congress approved the big tax cut and immigration bill. The Supreme Court has given him some victories, including a green light to fire thousands of federal workers. The airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities has brought a ceasefire between Iran and Israel and set back Iran's nuclear programme. Nato nations have agreed to increase defence spending. This past week Trump agreed to send Patriot air defence systems to Ukraine, paid for by the Europeans. That decision came after his public complaints about Russian President Vladimir Putin's continued assault on Ukraine and public perceptions that the Russian leader has played the American president on the issue of a ceasefire and settlement of the war. Immigration and raids Trump also has delivered on his campaign promise to tighten security at the US-Mexico border. Illegal crossings are at a low point. His problem is that people don't like other aspects of his immigration policy: the aggressive round-ups of undocumented and sometimes legal migrants, the deployment of US military forces to Los Angeles to quell protests, numerous legal battles over the deportations that have pitted the Administration against the courts. All have contributed to the reshaping of public opinion. The result is something Trump could never have imagined when he was sworn in: The public now sees the value of immigration more positively, and widespread deportations and the Administration's enforcement tactics less positively. Last year, 55% of Americans said they wanted a reduction in immigration, according to Gallup. Today, that's dropped to 30%. Gallup also notes that a record 79% of Americans say immigration is a good thing for the country. That's a 15% jump in the past year. Meanwhile, support for hiring more border agents, which is supposed to happen under the new 'big, beautiful bill' the President signed on July 4, has declined by 17% in the past year. Support for deporting all undocumented immigrants has dropped nine points, to 38%. In the Gallup poll, support for allowing undocumented immigrants to become US citizens has risen eight points to 78% - though that's a bit lower than the 84% in 2016. The percentage of Republicans who support a path to citizenship has risen from 46% a year ago to 59% today. The Washington Post's average of high-quality polls shows a clear deterioration in Trump's approval rating on immigration. In May, the average showed Americans evenly divided. The average so far in July shows 42% saying they approve and 54% disapproving. The protests that erupted in early June appear to be the catalyst for a reappraisal of Trump on immigration. Before the protests, his immigration approval rating was 49% positive, 49% negative. Since then, the average of the post-protests polls shows his standing at 42% positive, 54% negative. The economy and tariffs Before he was sworn in, public expectations for Trump were highest on the economy and immigration, according to a Washington Post-Schar School poll of swing state voters. In that survey, 62% said they expected Trump to do an 'excellent' or 'good' job on the economy and 59% said they thought he would do an 'excellent' or 'good' job on immigration. Also, 46% said they thought his presidency would help their finances, with 31% saying it would hurt them financially. Until the pandemic took hold in the northern spring of 2020, Trump enjoyed relatively strong ratings on the economy. Things deteriorated during the pandemic and judgments were about evenly divided just before the 2020 election. Today the public is dissatisfied with his economic performance. An Associated Press-NORC Centre for Public Affairs survey last week showed that 38% approved of his economic management and 60% disapproved. A Quinnipiac University poll put his economic approval numbers only slightly better: 43% approving, 55% disapproving. In the AP-NORC poll, nearly half (49%) said his policies have done more to hurt them than help them. About one in four (27%) said they have done more to help them. The rest said the policies have not made a difference. A majority said the new tax bill will do more to help the wealthy and that it will hurt people with lower incomes. In the Quinnipiac poll, 40% said they approved of his handling of trade, with 56% disapproving. Predictions that Trump's tariffs will trigger a major new bout of inflation have not been borne out, though all the tariffs are not in place. The Federal Reserve has been cautious about cutting interest rates because of the uncertainty around the tariffs. Trump continues to badger Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, whom he would like replaced, to cut those rates substantially. Many economists say a cut of the size Trump wants would risk an inflationary spike. There's history to buttress those concerns. In 1972, President Richard Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns, and the subsequent loosening of monetary policy helped unleash an inflationary rise. Trump continues to accumulate power in the presidency and exercise it to change government and major institutions. He plays a dominant role in the world. But his six-month report card provides indications that the public hasn't fully bought into his programme, warnings that he can't easily ignore.
