Trump Unleashes a Flurry of Trade Surprises on Eve of Deadline
The World's Data Center Capital Has Residents Surrounded
An Abandoned Art-Deco Landmark in Buffalo Awaits Revival
Budapest's Most Historic Site Gets a Controversial Rebuild
San Francisco in Talks With Vanderbilt for Downtown Campus
We Should All Be Biking Along the Beach
The US president on Wednesday announced tariffs of 15% on imports from South Korea that matched the rate for neighbor Japan, and a painful 25% levy on imports from India that was accompanied by criticism of its purchases of Russian energy and weapons.
Deals were also in the offing for Thailand and Cambodia after they agreed to a ceasefire Monday, buttressing Trump's self-professed goal of being seen as a global peacemaker. Trump also shocked markets with new tariff rules on copper, sinking prices in New York by a record after exempting the most widely traded forms of the metals from 50% tariffs.
The onslaught comes on the eve of an Aug. 1 deadline, when the White House threatened reciprocal levies for countries without bilateral agreements, which most don't have. Trump has said rates globally will come in from 15% all the way to 50% — executing policies he believes will bring home manufacturing and raise government revenue, while giving him enormous leverage on countries whose exports depend on US consumers.
'Today we got a flurry of details and it's the case of the old saying: 'you can't see the forest for the trees,'' said Rob Subbaraman, chief economist at Nomura Holdings Inc. 'Stepping back, Trump has by and large followed through on his tariff threats. Right now it's just a lot of noise.'
Most countries are still without a trade deal, and key details are scant for those who have one — including potential exemptions, investment promises and potential changes to rules of origin. The uncertainty and confusion amid the long rollout of Trump's new trade order has already hit global economic growth and weighed on investment, even as markets remain optimistic.
'These deals ramming against the clock — it's really not a good sign,' said Alicia Garcia Herrero, chief economist for Asia Pacific at Natixis. The reach pushes countries to an agreement to avoid potentially higher levies, but could end up costing their economies more, she said.
Meanwhile, the mood music between the US and China remains favorable for now. Speaking in the White House on Wednesday, Trump said the US will have a 'very fair deal with China.' Talks this week in Sweden strengthened trust between the two sides and boosted confidence in resolving economic disputes via discussions, the Communist Party's official newspaper said.
The trade news wasn't limited to foreign countries. US consumers and small businesses will soon face higher costs on shipments, as Trump announced tariffs would apply from Aug. 29 on de minimis shipments, or imports that are below $800. Such shipments have been a boon for consumers and retailers, many of them in China, that ship products direct.
A surprise reprieve for many Brazilian goods rallied its currency and stocks. Meantime, Bloomberg News reported Trump will speak with his Mexican counterpart Claudia Sheinbaum on Thursday morning, sending the peso higher.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Wednesday that talks with the US may not finish by Trump's Friday deadline. Prospects for a better deal dimmed further when Trump posted on Truth Social that Canada's decision to back Palestinian statehood 'will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them.'
For South Korea, the 15% includes autos, as well as a $350 billion South Korean fund for US investments including energy and shipbuilding. As with Japan, the US investments would be directed by Trump, the president said. And for both funds, 90% of the profits would flow back to the US, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a post on X.
For India, Trump threatened a still-undefined additional penalty over its purchases of Russian energy, on top of a 25% tariff on imports from the nation.
Any move on Russian oil may come up in talks with China, given that Beijing also takes substantial volumes of Moscow's crude, which the US has targeted since its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Oil was holding Thursday near the highest in almost six months.
Russia Builds a New Web Around Kremlin's Handpicked Super App
Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash
It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan
Everyone Loves to Hate Wind Power. Scotland Found a Way to Make It Pay Off
Cage-Free Eggs Are Booming in the US, Despite Cost and Trump's Efforts
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Micah Parsons' dad once named Chiefs, Steelers, Lions as preferred trade destinations
With Micah Parsons officially requesting a trade from the Dallas Cowboys, an old clip of his father, Terrence Parsons, talking about preferred destinations for his son in a hypothetical trade scenario has resurfaced. During an appearance on the "Life in the Stands" podcast in December 2024, Parsons' dad stated that his preferred trade landing spots for the superstar edge rusher are the Kansas City Chiefs, Pittsburgh Steelers, and Detroit Lions. "I know Pittsburgh fans are like, 'whoa,' but I'm sorry, him [Micah Parsons] and [T.J.] Watt together would be like cheating," Terrence Parsons said. "Him and [Aidan] Hutchinson together in Detroit would be like cheating. I love it. Kansas City, that's who they are right now." Parsons requested a trade out of Dallas due to the franchise's lack of communication with his agent. The 26-year-old's relationship with the Cowboys and owner Jerry Jones seems to be completely destroyed. Dallas has no plans of trading Parsons, but if they can't agree on a long-term extension with him, they may be forced to move him at some point. Parsons' father's landing spots for the four-time Pro Bowl edge rusher are bold. Adding Parsons to Kansas City's defense would be lethal, while pairing the disgruntled Cowboy with Watt or Hutchinson in Detroit would also be pretty much unstoppable. However, none of the teams Parsons' dad listed as preferred spots have the money to sign Parsons to a record-breaking extension. The Chiefs are slated to have negative $61 million in cap space next offseason, and the Steelers already have two expensive edge rushers in Watt and Alex Highsmith. As for the Lions, the team must prioritize getting an extension done with Hutchinson first, which likely takes them out of the running for Parsons. It's possible that Parsons lands with one of three destinations his dad spoke about during a podcast appearance last year, as all three franchises are playoff contenders, and two are legitimate Super Bowl contenders in Kansas City and Detroit. However, it remains to be seen whether any have the money to sign Parsons to a new deal after trading valuable picks for him while also keeping their core together. MORE:Infamous Raiders trade used as measuring stick for potential Micah Parsons deal
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What a weaker dollar means for inflation
The US dollar ( has fallen this year, and that can have big implications for inflation. RSM chief economist Joe Brusuelas talks about that connection and when the impact of tariffs may start to show in the US economy. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination Overtime. turning out to the dollar index, it's seen many swings we know amid economic uncertainty. Joe, you highlight what the moves in the currency mean for inflation? Walk us through that. All right. When you get a sustained 10% decline in the value of the dollar, typically, you should expect to see a 1/2 of 1% increase in inflation over the next 6 to 12 months. We clearly are at that point, even though we had a nice rebound. I think it was 3.3% for the month of July, strongest month for the greenback this year, but nevertheless, the policy mix out of the administration, all points towards a weaker dollar, and I think that's what we're going to get. Moreover, when you take a look at import prices, especially import prices ex petroleum, it tells the tale. We're going to see more inflation and a weaker dollar going forward. Does Trump want a strong dollar? I would think he does, and I think, well, I think like all politicians, he wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He doesn't want de-dollarization, clearly, but he wants a weaker dollar because A, it really tends to juice the tech sector, and B, it will provide relief to the beleaguered manufacturing sector that's been in an effective recession for the past couple of years. Is it too soon to say the kind of impact the softer dollars had during this earnings season, particularly what it's meant for the multinationals? It's way too early to jump on that bandwagon. I think we're really going to be talking in the fourth quarter earnings, and then next year. Moreover, a lot of those firms that he wants to help are actually having real problems with the tariff issue because, you know, 45% of everything we import goes into domestic manufacturing. So policies at a cross purposes, a good portion of the time this year, which is why that economy slowed to 1.2% growth in the first half of the year, and we think it's not going to do much better. Our forecast for this year is 1.1%. Can I ask you when we talk about these tariff policies? We've been talking about them all show. There's the near to intermediate impact, but how long do we have to wait to see what the long-term impact is? Meaning, do I have to wait till does it have to be August 2026, and Joe and Josh are back on set for me to really know, okay, it's really boosted manufacturing job. It's really opened up all these new markets for American business. It's really raised this much revenue. It's a little worse, actually. So as of midnight last night, on once we get to October 5th, we're going to have an effective 18.3% tariff. The real problem is we won't really understand what any of this means, not till October 5th, 2026, but more like October 5th, 2027. Why? Why do you say that, Joe? Because it takes so long to pass through the tariff costs. You know, there are four points along the chain. You've got your retail, you've got your consumers, you've got your importers, and you've got your exporters. At each point of the supply chain, you're going to see a bit of it absorbed, a bit of it eaten. When we went through this in 2018, for example, we didn't see the full price of the increase in the price of washing machines, dryers, and dishwashers caused by tariffs show up on consumers' balance sheets until about two years later. Turned out 90% of that cost was eaten entirely by consumers. So when we talk about whether where the cost falls falls on the value chain, and there was this big debate, maybe it's really the key debate inside the Fed. Tell me if I'm wrong, but this debate about whether the the the tariff induced inflation is one time or transitory persistent. Even if it's one time, it could go on for some time. Is that part of the point? Well, that's right, and that's why they've been counseling patients because you just don't know. Right now, for all of the noise, right? The tariff rate that's showing up, which is causing revenues to rise, right? And from the Trump administration's point of view, that's an absolutely good thing. It's about 8.85%. It's not 30, it's not 50, it's not 15. But as we get into mid-October, it'll be closer to 20 is my sense because we're still not done with Mexico, and we're still not done with China, and then USMCA has to be renegotiated next year. So this is going to be a variable target. It's going to be a moving target, but nevertheless, if you cause the average price of goods imported in the United States to rise by 18.3%, that's going to be eaten. And here's why we say that. There's a lot of talk that, well, foreign exporters are just eating the price. You know, they're going to engage in invoice pricing. If that was the case, import prices would be falling significantly. They're not. They're actually rising. So that's just not happening. So that means it's not the exporter, it's going to be the importer, the retail, or the consumer. Those points on the chain where those are going to be eaten. Joe, I can honestly say that given the news flow today, you were the perfect guy to be sitting in that chair. That's very kind of you to say. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much, Joe.
CNN
21 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump's tariffs are as unpopular as ever, but the GOP's tolerance is growing
Donald Trump TariffsFacebookTweetLink Follow There has been something of a shift in the conventional wisdom about President Donald Trump's tariffs of late. On the one hand, economists and political analysts have warmed to the idea that Trump is more or less getting what he bargained for out of his threats of a global trade war. This has come as a number of foreign nations come to the table and, in a few cases, cut apparent deals. On the other, that's different from saying Trump's tactics will ultimately work. And the picture there certainly got more complicated this week, including with yet more judges suggesting they could rein in Trump's tariff authorities and the increasingly troubling economic numbers highlighted by another bad jobs report Friday. Many have been wondering when (and if) the economic pain many economists predicted would actually arrive, and signs are increasing that it might be upon us. In other words, we seem to be at an inflection point, particularly with Trump signaling Thursday that he'll finally press forward with global tariffs (probably!) next week. But how is all of this playing? Are people reevaluating their previous positions? It's too soon to gauge public opinion on Trump's latest moves this week. But the short answer is that we haven't seen many shifts of late in the already pretty dismal views of Trump's trade war at the macro level; if anything, views appear to have gotten slightly worse. But there have been some key shifts that suggest his base is more on-board than it used to be, which could allow Trump to press forward. Overall, foreign trade and tariffs remain some of the president's worst issues, and it continues to look like the policy that very few people (besides Trump) are asking for right now. Gallup polling shows Trump's approval on 'foreign trade' dropping from 42% in February to 36% in mid-July. Fox News polling around the same time showed Americans disapproved of Trump on tariffs by a 26-point margin, virtually the same as in April (25 points). And CBS News-YouGov polling shows people increasingly dislike that this is a priority for Trump. Its most recent data, from mid-July, show 61% say Trump is too focused on tariffs, similar to April but up from March. It also showed a new high in the percentage of people who say Trump isn't focused enough on lowering prices (70%). (This also ties into the tariffs, because tariffs are often inflationary.) The CBS data also show a slight drop in the percentage of Americans who think Trump's policies are making them better off financially (23% in March versus 18% today), and an increase in perceptions that his policies are making food prices increase (52% in March versus 62% today). Overall, Americans went from opposing the tariffs by 12 points in March to opposing them by 20 points today. So if there is a vibe shift on Trump's tariffs, it hasn't really shown up in the polls – at least yet. But as with most things Trump, overall views probably don't matter as much as how his base feels. The president has proven over and over again that he's happy to plow ahead as long as his supporters are on board. And those supporters might be growing in their tolerance for this gambit. The percentage of Republicans who say Trump is focused too much on tariffs in the CBS poll actually fell from 34% in April to 28% today. And polling from Quinnipiac University suggests Republicans are also less pessimistic about economic pain from the tariffs. Republicans were already much more patient with Trump's gambit. More than 8 in 10 said in that polling in both April and today that the tariffs were likely to help the economy over the long term. That's been consistent. But there has been a shift in Trump's favor in views of their short-term impact. While Republicans back in April were about evenly split on whether the tariffs would help or hurt in the short term, they now say by about a 2-to-1 margin that they'll help over the short term. While Republicans in April said 46-44% that the tariffs would help in the short term, they now say that 62-30%. Republicans also overwhelmingly express confidence in Trump's strategy on tariffs, saying it's working, 84-9%, in Quinnipiac's July polling. All of which suggests Trump's leash on this has lengthened with his base, which matters a great deal. It means GOP lawmakers who might feel compelled to try and check Trump on this gambit will probably be less likely to do so. But all of this is subject to change, particularly if the economic numbers look suspect like many economists predicted they will. How Republicans respond to that is when the rubber will really meet the road and the White House could face some really hard choices.
