&w=3840&q=100)
Trump tariffs a call for nations to consider trade governance reforms
Premium
Amita Batra
Listen to This Article
It is now close to 60 days since 'liberation day' and the subsequent announcement by United States President Donald Trump of a 90-day stay on the implementation of reciprocal tariffs. Notwithstanding this, tariff threats by the US President against not just 'countries of concern' but also allies and domestic firms continue almost on a daily basis. While this uncertain trade policy context makes it difficult to discern trends, some early signs of how global trade is evolving may be worth outlining.
First, while the exemption from reciprocal tariffs for United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement-compliant products and value added in case of auto/
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
22 minutes ago
- NDTV
As Trade Tensions Rise, A Look At How Trump Has Roiled Financial Markets
With sweeping tariffs on friend and foe, US President Donald Trump has roiled financial markets and sparked a surge in economic uncertainty -- and tensions are mounting days before a fresh volley of higher duties are due to kick in. Here is a rundown of what Trump has implemented in his second presidency, with levies on dozens of economies set to bounce from 10 percent to a range between 11 percent and 50 percent on Wednesday. Global tariffs While Trump imposed a 10 percent tariff on most US trading partners in April, the rate is set to rise for dozens of economies including the European Union and Japan come Wednesday. To avoid higher levies, countries have been rushing to strike deals with Washington. So far, the UK and Vietnam have struck pacts with the United States, while China has managed to temporarily lower tit-for-tat duties. There are notable exceptions to the duty. Immediate US neighbors Canada and Mexico, which were separately targeted over illegal immigration and fentanyl, are not affected by the 10 percent global tariff. Also off the hook are copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and lumber -- although these are sectors that Trump is mulling levies on. Gold and silver, as well as energy commodities, are excluded too. China focus China has borne the brunt of Trump's levies. The world's two biggest economies engaged in an escalating tariffs war this year before a temporary pullback. Both sides imposed triple-digit tariffs on each other's goods at one point, a level effectively described as a trade embargo. After high level talks, Washington agreed to lower its levies on Chinese goods to 30 percent and Beijing slashed its own to 10 percent. The US level is higher as it includes a 20 percent tariff imposed over China's alleged role in the global fentanyl trade. Autos, metals Trump has also targeted individual business sectors in his second term. In March, he imposed a 25 percent levy on steel and aluminum imports and last month doubled them to 50 percent. He has also rolled out a 25 percent tariff on imported autos, although those imported under the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) can qualify for a lower levy. Trump's auto tariffs impact vehicle parts too, while the president has issued rules to ensure automakers paying vehicle tariffs will not also be charged for certain other duties. Canada, Mexico Canadian and Mexican products were initially hard hit by 25 percent US tariffs, with a lower rate for Canadian energy. Trump targeted both neighbors saying they did not do enough on illegal immigration and the flow of illicit drugs across borders. But he eventually announced exemptions for goods entering his country under the USMCA, covering large swaths of products. Potash, used as fertilizer, got a lower rate as well. Other threats Beyond expansive tariffs on Chinese products, Trump ordered the closure of a duty-free exemption for low-value parcels from the country. This adds to the cost of importing items like clothing and small electronics. Trump has also opened the door for 25 percent tariffs on goods from countries importing Venezuelan oil. He has threatened similar "secondary tariffs" involving Russian oil. And he has ordered investigations into imports of copper, lumber, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and critical minerals that could eventually bring new duties. Legal challenges Trump's sweeping tariffs on countries have faced legal challenges. The US Court of International Trade ruled in May that Trump had overstepped his authority with across-the-board global levies. It blocked many of the duties from going into effect, prompting the Trump administration's challenge, and a US federal appeals court has since allowed the duties to remain while it considers the case.
Indian Express
7 hours ago
- Indian Express
Vietnam trade pact has multiple takeaways, a clear China red-flag, and some pointers for the impending India-US deal
As the India-United States trade deal looks set to be announced over the next few days, a new deal inked by the Donald Trump administration with Vietnam offers fresh pointers for how Washington DC is approaching these trade agreements. One, the Vietnam deal shows that Trump is serious about tariffs, and that any belief that his administration plans to put off the tariff threats might be misplaced. The US Vietnam deal is clearly lopsided against the smaller, developing country, given that the US will impose a 20% tariff on Vietnamese goods entering the country while Vietnam has been arm twisted to drop all tariffs on American goods. For other countries too, including smaller nations, there is a strong likelihood of the deals being completely lopsided in favour of the US. Also, while the 20% rate is lower than the original proposal of 46% tariff on Vietnam, this rate is certainly higher than the 10% that was levied when the reciprocal tariffs were withdrawn. But there is a really big catch in the deal fineprint. Two, the catch in this deal is that any goods that are transshipped through Vietnam to the US will face a double tariff of 40%. That is a move clearly aimed at one country only — China. A lot of Chinese components make their way to Vietnam and are integrated into goods that the South-East Asian country eventually ships to the US, and the rest of the world. For instance, Chinese fabrics are used in Vietnamese clothing, given that the latter does not really have a cotton or man-made fibre production base. Chinese components go into electronics that are assembled in Vietnam and sent abroad. A higher tariff rate on goods that are made and assembled in Vietnam, but include foreign components, is clearly a move aimed at targeting Chinese producers and potentially make them less competitive while using production bases such as Vietnam. Now, that is a template, which could be followed for other ASEAN countries that are increasingly being regarded by Washington DC as transshipment hubs for China. The broader message from this is perhaps that the Trump administration could continue to act tough on China. In both respects, this could be good news for countries such as India if they are able to wrangle better terms in their deals with the US. Vietnam is a competitor for India, and benefits greatly from the China alliance. Third, the Vietnam deal shows that the pact seems to be centered on headline tariffs, even as they do not seem to really address the sectoral tariffs, which has been a key sticking point for countries such as Japan and South Korea, who were earlier seen as frontrunners to clinch early deals. Sectoral tariffs are an issue for India too. What the Vietnam deal likely shows is that there is still going to be a lot of fog even after a deal is clinched, especially with Asian countries that generally have multiple tariff lines and an array of tariffs. Fourth, the big takeaway from this deal is that the tariff onslaught initiated by the US is likely to continue focusing on China. With the July 9 deadline looming, which is just three-working days away, there are indications the about 20-odd countries that are in active talks with the Trump administration are eventually going to land up in three main buckets — the ones like possibly India, Taiwan and the European Union, which are likely to get a deal, just like the UK and Vietnam. Others might get more time to negotiate, maybe another three months or so. Then there's going to be the third grouping of countries that are just going to get handed their tariff rate without any negotiation whatsoever. Canada and Mexico are outside of these three categories, since the reciprocal tariffs were not slapped on them in the first place. Meanwhile, the last word on the validity of the reciprocal tariffs is likely to come from the judiciary, since the matter is being heard in American courts. There are some implicit assumptions that New Delhi seems to be working with in its approach to a deal with Washington DC. Despite President Trump's vacillations on trade policy, there is confidence here that the administration in Washington DC will maintain a steady differential in tariffs between China and countries such as India. Precisely for that gap to be maintained, a deal, officials said, needs to be clinched by India. The Vietnam deal is being seen as a vindication of this view. Also, while agriculture is a concern, as is the perceived arm twisting by the Trump administration on issues that are sensitive from an Indian point of view, there is a growing sense within an influential section of policymakers here that a deal for New Delhi is vital to keep the differential with China in place, especially since Beijing is also trying to strike a deal of its own. The question really is whether the Indian negotiators would have to settle for a limited early-harvest type of mini deal, or would they have to turn away from the negotiating table for now, let the July 9 deadline pass, and then rebuild efforts to bridge the gaps. A full-scale deal looks out of the question for now. Second, there is now a realisation that cutting tariffs across segments, especially intermediate goods, might be a net positive for India. Also, while the redlines for India would include sensitive sectors such as dairy products and cereals, where agri livelihoods are at stake, there is now greater receptiveness within India's policy circles to cut tariffs on some industrial goods, including automobiles, and some agri products of interest to the Amercians. Also, India has headroom to import more from the US, especially in three sectors — crude, defence equipment and nuclear, to manage Trump's constant references to the trade gap. Third, there is a growing view that the baseline tariffs are here to stay. So, effectively, what India would be negotiating for is a rate between 10% and 26 %. Prior to Trump's taking over in January, the effective duty on India was just 4%, and there were virtually no non-tariff barriers. That number is now a thing of the past. What is more consequential is the effective duty on Chinese products on a landed basis across US ports in commodity categories where Indian producers are reasonably competitive. The net tariff differential with India, and how that curve continues to move, is of particular interest here, given the firm belief in policy circles here that Washington DC would ensure a reasonable tariff differential between China and India. This is, in turn, expected to tide over some of India's structural downsides — infrastructural bottlenecks, logistics woes, high interest cost, the cost of doing business, corruption, etc. Anil Sasi is National Business Editor with the Indian Express and writes on business and finance issues. He has worked with The Hindu Business Line and Business Standard and is an alumnus of Delhi University. ... Read More
Indian Express
8 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘No one likes to work 140 hours a week': Soham Parekh admits to holding multiple jobs across US startups, cites financial struggles
Indian tech professional Soham Parekh has come clean about juggling multiple jobs across different United States-based companies–something he now admits was wrong, though it stemmed from financial desperation rather than malice or greed. In a candid conversation on a TBPN show, Parekh openly acknowledged the allegations. When asked directly, 'Is it true?', he didn't dodge the question. 'It is true,' he replied. 'I would surely like to add colour to it but it is true.' Parekh, who misrepresented both his employment status and his location to various companies, said he never set out to deceive for personal gain. 'No one really likes to work 140 hours a week, but I had to do it out of necessity,' he explained, insisting that it was survival–not ambition–that was at the heart of his choices. Pressed on whether he believed he had broken any laws or simply taken advantage of legal grey areas, Parekh leaned into his remorse. 'I'm not proud of what I've done. It's not something I endorse either,' he said. 'I did what I had to do to get out of a tough situation.' Despite criticism, including allegations that he misused his authority over junior developers, Parekh firmly denied that part. 'That's simply not true,' he said. While he admits he made serious errors in judgment, Parekh says he has learned from the experience and takes full ownership of his actions. 'I was determined to change my situation, and I took action to help myself through it,' he concluded. The video is going viral and have drawn reactions from netizens as well. A user commented, 'If anyone is going to be the first 1-person unicorn, it'll be Soham Parekh.' Another user wrote, 'There's nothing wrong in working for multiple companies at same time if he's delivering results. Companies are unreliable these days, just see the number of layoffs. Infact everyone needs to have multiple jobs. So I don't think he did anything wrong.' A third person wrote, 'I can't believe I'm watching this as it's happening. Film directors are probably scrambling to get as much as they can out of this.' A fourth individual commented, 'Again putting people in a guilt trip citing his personal financial situation because he didnt have money for going to a grad school. Total BS.' Soham Parekh, who hails from Mumbai, eventually made his way to the United States in 2020–a move that had been in the works since 2018 but was delayed due to financial hurdles. He had initially planned to begin graduate studies that year but had to put those plans on hold. Now, Parekh is at the center of controversy after Suhail Doshi, co-founder of Mixpanel, publicly accused him of deceiving multiple US-based startups by holding several jobs at once. In a tweet, Doshi alleged that Parekh was 'scamming US startups' by simultaneously drawing salaries from four to five companies–many of them backed by Y Combinator–while operating from India. Despite the accusations, Parekh's resume paints a picture of someone with strong academic and professional credentials. After completing his undergraduate studies in Computer Engineering from the University of Mumbai in 2020, he went on to earn a Master's degree in Computer Science from Georgia Tech in 2022.
