logo
‘Exorbitant privilege': Can the US dollar maintain its global dominance?

‘Exorbitant privilege': Can the US dollar maintain its global dominance?

Al Jazeera2 days ago
Since the 1940s, the US dollar has held firm as the global reserve currency, driving international trade and reinforcing the status of the United States as an economic superpower.
In recent years, however, some countries have expressed opposition to the US dollar's longstanding economic dominance.
The BRICS economic bloc, named for its founding members, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, has actively sought to reduce its reliance on the US dollar. China has even pushed for 'de-dollarisation', by promoting its currency, the yuan, and forming currency swap agreements with other countries.
Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, recently noted that a 'shift' was under way that would allow for the 'euro to gain global prominence'.
Lagarde said in June that the euro accounts for approximately 20 percent of global foreign exchange reserves, and that the 'dominant role of the US dollar', which accounts for 58 percent, 'is no longer certain'.
'History teaches us that regimes seem enduring – until they no longer are. Shifts in global currency dominance have happened before. This moment of change is an opportunity for Europe. It is a 'global euro' moment,' Lagarde said.
The dollar has also weakened this year, experiencing its sharpest six-month decline in decades.
Global investors have been reacting to policy uncertainty under the administration of US President Donald Trump, rising debt, and shifting interest rate expectations – with some questioning its 'safe-haven' appeal.
Experts say that in the unlikely event that the US were to lose its reserve currency status, the impact would be profound, as the country would lose much of its leverage to influence global trade and enforce sanctions – international trade that does not directly involve the US often runs through the dollar.
Or, as Trump told reporters earlier this month, 'If we lost the world standard dollar, that would be like losing a war.
'We would not be the same country.'
'Exorbitant privilege'
As the global reserve currency, the US dollar underpins a monetary system where central banks rely on it to stabilise their economies, manage debt and implement trade policies.
Historically seen as a safe investment, the dollar remains so deeply embedded in the global system that, despite recent shake-ups, it is unlikely to be dethroned anytime soon, emboldened by a longstanding history of resilience.
The US dollar was put on this course in the 1930s, when then-President Franklin D Roosevelt centralised US gold reserves and tied the dollar to a fixed supply of gold.
Then, in 1944, the US spearheaded the Bretton Woods Agreement, which pegged international currencies to the dollar, leading to the creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
With much of the world recovering from war and the US holding the majority of global gold reserves, the dollar emerged as the anchor of the post-war financial system, and by the 1960s, gave the US what former French Minister of Finance Valéry Giscard d'Estaing called an 'exorbitant privilege'.
In 1971, US President Richard Nixon severed the last remaining ties to the gold standard, an action that became known as the 'Nixon shock', allowing the dollar to float freely in the open market. Despite the wave of changes, the US economy remained strong, bolstered by its growth in manufacturing and information, which helped the dollar maintain its status.
Since the Nixon era, the dollar's dominance has mostly only strengthened, even as countries like China have outpaced the US in economic growth, population and manufacturing output. The US has continued to wield disproportionate influence through trade agreements and financial sanctions.
'Many times, even between emerging markets when one converts a currency, like the Brazilian real and the South African rand, for example, there is a transaction to US dollars in between, and so, the US extraterritorial power here stems from the fact that other countries, global banks, don't want to lose their access to the US dollar-based financial system,' Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera.
This also adds weight when the US imposes sanctions.
'From a geopolitical standpoint, the US having a reserve currency gives it more flexibility to weaponise its currency via financial sanctions and the like,' Ziemba said.
Because transactions often pass through banks that work in tandem with the US Federal Reserve, they can be subject to US sanctions – even if the US is not directly involved.
That is why the financial sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine led to a default on Moscow's sovereign debt. In 2022, sanctions from the administration of former US President Joe Biden effectively cut Russia off from dollar-based trade, freezing $300bn in assets held by its central bank and crippling its economy. As a result of the sanctions led by the US, Russia's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by $104bn.
If the dollar did lose its status, domestically, it would mean higher borrowing costs. Without foreign demand for US debt, interest rates would rise, driving up the cost of mortgages and credit cards. This is because private banks peg their interest rates to those of the Federal Reserve.
'It would mean the US no longer has this big pool of foreign savings to rely on to keep the US borrowing costs down. It's kind of a fundamental threat to the US economic model of the past few decades, which has generally been relatively low interest rates, which has enabled consumers, firms and the government to finance a lot of debt at relatively cheap prices,' Pearce said.
'A loss of dollar dominance for the US means higher interest rates in the US, and that's really going to put pressure on demand. Mortgages are gonna get a lot more expensive,' he added.
A new era of economic uncertainty
Unlike in Nixon's era, when US dominance was largely uncontested, the current global economy is more interconnected.
Emerging powers such as China and India have expanded their global influence, and alternative financial systems, including the rise of cryptocurrencies, have gained traction. Repeated policy whiplash from one US administration to the next risks undermining that stability in a landscape of growing threats.
Trump's erratic approach to tariffs and global agreements has revived doubts about the US's reliability on the world stage and raised long-term concerns about the stability of the dollar.
'I think Trump has done more than anybody in modern history to undermine key institutions,' said Alex Jacquez, a special assistant to the president for economic development at the White House National Economic Council under Joe Biden.
After Trump's first term, global partners felt the US had returned to diplomacy under Biden, Jacquez told Al Jazeera.
'When I came in with the Biden administration and worked on these issues, certainly, we had our disputes and our issues with our trading partners, but the international community welcomed us back with good-faith negotiations. But that came with scarring and pain with their interactions with the Trump administration.'
However, Jacquez noted that regaining that trust may now be harder. This is not simply because of Trump, but also because of the broader pattern of reversals in US policy that his administration has driven.
Jacquez argues that frequent U-turns, abrupt withdrawals from agreements and threats to longstanding alliances have created global instability, making it difficult for other nations to formulate long-term plans, which could compromise the long-term stability of the dollar.
That comes alongside Trump's tax legislation, which he recently signed into law, and is expected to add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit. This is stoking fears about long-term US economic stability, potentially raising borrowing costs that could impact global investors, central banks and everyday consumers.
In 2023, then-Senator JD Vance questioned the value of the dollar as the global reserve currency in an exchange with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.
'I think in some ways, you can argue that the reserve currency status is a massive subsidy to American consumers, but a massive tax on American producers,' Vance said.
But since Trump took office with Vance as vice president, tariffs have put pressure on US producers, not the status of the dollar.
There are also concerns over Trump's attempts to influence the Federal Reserve, which could impact the status of the dollar. The president has long criticised Powell for not lowering interest rates, and has threatened to fire and replace him.
Earlier this month, US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent told Bloomberg that the White House has begun the formal process of finding a successor for Powell, whose term ends in 2026. This comes amid reporting from CBS News that last week, the president asked a group of Republican lawmakers if he should fire Powell.
However, Trump told reporters later that firing Powell was 'highly unlikely'.
'Policies of that nature, which would make investing in US treasuries risky, particularly for foreign investors, I think that would make me a bit more concerned about a loss of reserve currency status,' Michael Pearce, deputy chief economist at Oxford Economics, told Al Jazeera.
'Tariffs and other policies have taken that kind of US exceptionalism off the table at least for this year. We expect the US to be relatively hard-hit by these tariffs compared to the rest of the world. However, when you think of the long-term performance, it's still a relatively dynamic economy,' Pearce added.
Contenders for the global reserve currency
There are groups of nations that are increasingly positioning themselves to take on a larger role in global finance, but none has yet matched the dollar's influence. This means it is unlikely that any currency could replace the dollar as the de facto global reserve currency.
But there are attempts to challenge the US's influence. BRICS nations have moved to reduce their reliance on the US dollar in recent years, which has become a growing concern for Trump.
At the same time, the European Central Bank is also pushing for the euro to play a more central role in the global system, but as Lagarde noted in her essay, a 'step towards greater international prominence for our currency will not happen by default: it must be earned'.
Despite attempts by other nations to expand their influence over the global reserve, and the recent decline in the dollar's value, economists argue that it is unlikely the dollar will lose its status as the world's reserve currency. And, if it did, it might take decades to even see a minor shift.
'It's definitely premature to worry about the dollar losing the global reserve currency status. Even if [it did], that would take multiple years for that to happen,' Hong Cheng, the head of fixed income and currency research at Morningstar, told Al Jazeera.
Pearce also said that a change in the global reserve hierarchy was unlikely.
'A dramatic shift in which the US clearly loses its place atop the pile, I think that's far off the cards. I find it difficult to see any viable contender emerging to the dollar in that sense,' Pearce said.
Instead, experts say a more realistic future could involve a multipolar currency system, where the dollar shares its role with other major currencies, including China's renminbi.
'We could be heading into some kind of multipolar reserve currency environment where there is an additional role for currencies like China's renminbi. There's no one clear alternate currency,' said Ziemba, the adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.
Even if a transition were to occur, it would take decades.
'You would need kind of a managed unwinding through either coordination or kind of some sort of alternative system to emerge, which again would take time,' Jacquez said.
While the dollar's share in global reserves has declined, it is not at an unprecedented low.
'The dollar share in FX [foreign exchange] reserves was lower in the early 1990s, so the recent decline in its share is not completely out of the norm to just under 60 percent,' according to JPMorgan Chase.
In emerging markets, 'the same ratio of USD reserves as in 1995' still holds. Even after recent sell-offs, including one by China in April, analysts do not expect a major impact.
Countries often hold US Treasuries as liquid assets, which provides stability to their own currencies, so unravelling the US dollar's status could also undermine their own interests.
'With more than 30 percent of foreign Treasury holdings maturing in the next 2 years, international investors are more likely to let these assets mature and choose to reinvest part of the proceeds elsewhere. We think large-scale selling is unlikely,' the note added.
That signals that the US dollar will likely remain dominant for the foreseeable future.
'I don't think there's one dominant currency that's gonna replace the dollar. And if there was hypothetically a change, I think that's going to take many years to shift,' Cheng added.
'We're talking about the next 20, 30, or even 50 years.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Corporation for Public Broadcasting to shutter following Trump-era cuts
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to shutter following Trump-era cuts

Al Jazeera

time2 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Corporation for Public Broadcasting to shutter following Trump-era cuts

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a nonprofit that distributes federal funds to public radio and television stations in the United States, has announced it would be shutting down as the result of funding cuts under President Donald Trump. On Friday, the group issued a statement saying it had launched an 'orderly wind-down of its operations' in response to recent legislation that would cut nearly $1.1bn of its funding. 'Despite the extraordinary efforts of millions of Americans who called, wrote, and petitioned Congress to preserve federal funding for CPB, we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations,' its president, Patricia Harrison, wrote. According to the statement, the CPB would remain in operation for the next six months, albeit with a reduced staff. The majority of its employees will be let go on September 30. Then, a 'small transition team' will remain through January 2026 to 'ensure a responsible and orderly closeout'. The death knell for the nonprofit came last month in the form of two legislative actions. The first was the passage of the Rescission Act of 2025, which was designed to revoke funding that Congress approved in the past. The Rescission Act targeted federal programmes that Trump sought to put on the chopping block, including foreign aid and federal funding for public broadcasters. The Senate voted to pass the act by a margin of 51 to 48, and the House then approved it by a vote of 216 to 213. The second legislative wallop came on July 31, as the Senate Appropriations Committee unveiled its 2026 funding bill for labour, health and human services, education and related agencies. That bill earmarked $197bn in discretionary funding, but none of it went to the CPB. Never in five decades had the corporation been excluded from the appropriations bill, according to the nonprofit. Both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans, and party members have largely fallen in line with Trump's legislative priorities. Defunding public media has long been a priority of Republicans, stretching back to President Richard Nixon's feud in the 1970s with public broadcasting personalities like Sander Vanocur. Nixon, like Trump, had an adversarial relationship with the media, and in 1972, he vetoed a public broadcasting funding bill, forcing Congress to return with a slimmed-down version of its funding. That move helped establish a trend of Republicans seeking to whittle down federal support for public, non-commercial TV and radio. Trump, during his second term, has made it a priority to slash at what he considers government 'bloat', and that includes reducing federal spending. He and his allies have accused news outlets like National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) of being left-wing soapboxes. The CPB distributes its funds to NPR and PBS member stations. NPR boasts a weekly audience of 43 million. PBS, meanwhile, reaches 130 million people each year through its television offerings alone, not counting its online presence. Still, in the lead-up to the passage of the Rescissions Act, Trump threatened to yank his support from any Republican who opposed his efforts to defund the corporation. Trump also said public broadcasting was worse than its commercial counterparts, including MSNBC, which he frequently misspells as 'MSDNC' to imply alleged bias towards the Democratic National Committee (DNC). 'It is very important that all Republicans adhere to my Recissions Bill and, in particular, DEFUND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING (PBS and NPR), which is worse than CNN & MSDNC put together,' Trump wrote on social media on July 10. 'Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' But Harrison, the president of the CPB, framed the organisation's closure as a loss for education and civic engagement. 'Public media has been one of the most trusted institutions in American life, providing educational opportunity, emergency alerts, civil discourse, and cultural connection to every corner of the country,' Harrison said. 'We are deeply grateful to our partners across the system for their resilience, leadership, and unwavering dedication to serving the American people.'

Trump fires official overseeing jobs data after dismal employment numbers
Trump fires official overseeing jobs data after dismal employment numbers

Al Jazeera

time3 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Trump fires official overseeing jobs data after dismal employment numbers

United States President Donald Trump has removed the head of the agency that produces the monthly jobs figures after a report showed hiring slowed in July and was much weaker in May and June than previously reported. Trump, in a post on his social media platform on Friday, alleged that the figures were manipulated for political reasons and said that Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, should be fired. He provided no evidence for the charge. 'I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY,' Trump said on Truth Social. 'She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified.' Trump later posted: 'In my opinion, today's Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad.' After his initial post, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer said on X that McEntarfer was no longer leading the bureau and that William Wiatrowski, the deputy commissioner, would serve as the acting director. 'I support the President's decision to replace Biden's Commissioner and ensure the American People can trust the important and influential data coming from BLS,' Chavez-DeRemer said. Friday's jobs report showed that just 73,000 jobs were added last month and that 258,000 fewer jobs were created in May and June than previously estimated. The report suggested that the economy has sharply weakened during Trump's tenure, a pattern consistent with a slowdown in economic growth during the first half of the year and an increase in inflation during June that appeared to reflect the price pressures created by the president's tariffs. 'What does a bad leader do when they get bad news? Shoot the messenger,' Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said in a Friday speech. Revisions to hiring data Trump has sought to attack institutions that rely on objective data for assessing the economy, including the Federal Reserve and, now, the BLS. The actions are part of a broader mission to bring the totality of the executive branch – including independent agencies designed to objectively measure the nation's wellbeing – under the White House's control. McEntarfer was nominated by Biden in 2023 and became the commissioner of the BLS in January 2024. Commissioners typically serve four-year terms, but since they are political appointees, they can be fired. The commissioner is the only political appointee of the agency, which has hundreds of career civil servants. The Senate confirmed McEntarfer to her post 86-8, with now Vice President JD Vance among the yea votes. Trump focused much of his ire on the revisions the agency made to previous hiring data. Job gains in May were revised down to just 19,000 from 125,000, and for June they were cut to 14,000 from 147,000. In July, only 73,000 positions were added. The unemployment rate ticked up to a still-low 4.2 percent from 4.1 percent. 'No one can be that wrong? We need accurate Jobs Numbers,' Trump wrote. 'She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified. Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes.' The monthly employment report is one of the most closely-watched pieces of government economic data and can cause sharp swings in financial markets. The disappointing figure sent US market indexes about 1.5 percent lower on Friday. While the jobs numbers are often the subject of political spin, economists and Wall Street investors – with millions of dollars at stake – have always accepted US government economic data as free from political manipulation.

Trump says economic growth ‘shatters expectations'. Data says otherwise
Trump says economic growth ‘shatters expectations'. Data says otherwise

Al Jazeera

time4 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Trump says economic growth ‘shatters expectations'. Data says otherwise

The White House has launched an aggressive public relations campaign promoting a narrative of economic strength during the first six months of United States President Donald Trump, with claims of his policies fueling 'America's golden age'. But an Al Jazeera analysis of economic data shows the reality is more mixed. Trump's claims of his policies boosting the US economy suffered a blow on Friday when the latest jobs report revealed that the country had added a mere 73,000 jobs last month, well below the 115,000 forecasters had expected. The only additions were in the healthcare sector, which added 55,000 jobs, and the social services sector added 18,000. US employers also cut 62,075 jobs in July — up 29 percent from cuts in the month before, and 140 percent higher than this time last year, according to the firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas, which tracks monthly job cuts. Government, tech, and retail sectors are the industries that saw the biggest declines so far this year. It comes as this month's jobs and labour turnover report showed an economic slowdown. There were 7.4 million open jobs in the US, down from 7.7 million a month before. The Department of Labour on Friday released downward revisions to both the May and June jobs reports, significantly changing the picture the White House had previously painted. 'For the FOURTH month in a row, jobs numbers have beat market expectations with nearly 150,000 good jobs created in June,' the White House said in a July 3 release following the initial June report. The Labor Department had reported an addition of 147,000 jobs in June. On Friday, it sharply revised down that number to just 14,000. May's report also saw a big downgrade from 144,000 to only 19,000 jobs gained. Even before the revisions, June's report was the first to reflect early signs of economic strain tied to the administration's tariff threats, as it revealed that job growth was concentrated in areas such as state and local government and healthcare. Sectors more exposed to trade policy – including construction, wholesale trade, and manufacturing – were flat. Meanwhile, leisure and hospitality showed weak growth, even in peak summer, reflecting falling travel demand both at home and abroad. The administration also claimed that native-born workers accounted for all job gains since January. That assertion is misleading as it implies that no naturalised citizens or legally present foreign workers gained employment. However, it is true that employment among foreign-born workers has declined – by over half a million jobs – claims that native-born workers are replacing foreign-born labour, are not supported by the jobs data. Jobs lost in sectors with high foreign-born employment, including tech, have been abundant, driven by tariffs and automation, particularly AI. In fact, recent layoffs in tech have been explicitly attributed to AI advancements, not labour displacement by other groups. Companies including Recruit Holdings — the parent company of Indeed and Glassdoor, Axel Springer, IBM, Duolingo and others have already made headcount reductions directly attributed to AI advancements. Wage growth The pace of rise of wage growth, an indicator of economic success, has slowed in recent months. That is partly due to the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates steady in hopes of keeping inflation stable. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, wages have been outpacing inflation since 2023, after a period of declining real wages following the COVID pandemic. Wage growth ticked up by 0.3 percent in July from a month prior. Compared with this time last year, wage growth is 3.9 percent, according to Friday's Labor Department jobs report. Earlier this year, the White House painted a picture that wage growth differed between the era of former President Joe Biden and now under Trump because of policy. 'Blue-collar workers have seen real wages grow almost two percent in the first five months of President Trump's second term — a stark contrast from the negative wage growth seen during the first five months of the Biden Administration,' the White House said in a release. However, Biden and Trump inherited two very different economies when they took office. Biden has to deal with a massive global economic downturn driven by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump, on the other hand, during his second term, inherited 'unquestionably the strongest economy' in more than two decades, per the Economic Policy Institute, particularly because of the US economy's rebound compared with peer nations. Inflation Inflation peaked in mid-2022 during Biden's term at 9 percent, before falling steadily because of the Federal Reserve's efforts to manage a soft landing. A July 21 White House statement claimed, 'Since President Trump took office, core inflation has tracked at just 2.1 percent.' On Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett said 'inflation is cooling' in a post on X. However, the Consumer Price Index report, which tracks core inflation – a measure that excludes the price of volatile items such as food and energy – was 2.9 percent in the most recent report and overall inflation was at 2.7 percent in June. Prices The most recent Consumer Price Index report, published July 15, shows that on a monthly basis, prices on all goods went up in June by 0.3 ,percent which is 2.7 percent higher from this time last year. Grocery prices in particular are up 2.4 percent from this time last year and 0.3 percent from the prior month. The cost of fruits and vegetables went up 0.9 percent, the price of coffee increased by 2.2 percent and the cost of beef went up 2 percent. New pending tariffs on Brazil, as Al Jazeera previously reported, could further drive up the cost of beef in the months to come. Trump has pointed to falling egg prices in particular as evidence of economic success, after Democrats attacked his administration over their price in March. He has even gone so far as to claim that prices are down by 400 percent. That figure is mathematically impossible – a 100 percent decrease would mean eggs are free. During the first few months of Trump's term egg prices surged, and then dropped due to an outbreak of, and then recovery from, a severe avian flue outbreak, which had been hindering supply – not because of any specific policy intervention. In January, when Trump took office egg prices were $4.95 per dozen as supply was constrained by the virus. By March, the average egg price was $6.23. But outbreak and high prices drove away consumers, allowing farmers with healthier flocks to catch up on the supply side. As a result, prices fell to an average of $3.38. That would be a 32 percent drop since the beginning of his term and a 46 percent drop from their peak price – far from the 400 percent Trump claimed. Trump also recently said petrol prices are at $1.98 per gallon ($0.52 per litre) in some states. He doubled down on that again on Wednesday. That is untrue. There is not a single state that has those petrol prices. According to Gasbuddy, a platform that helps consumers find the lowest prices on petrol, Mississippi at $2.70 a gallon ($0.71 per litre) has the cheapest gas, and the cheapest petrol station in that state is currently selling gas at $2.37 ($0.62 per litre). AAA, which tracks the average petrol price, has it at $3.15 per gallon ($0.83 per litre) nationwide, this is up from the end of January when it was $3.11 ($0.82 per litre). While petrol prices have gone down since Trump took office, they are nowhere close to the rate he has continually suggested. In July 2024, for instance, the average price for a gallon of petrol nationwide was $3.50 ($0.93 per litre). GDP On Wednesday, the White House said that 'President Trump has reduced America's reliance on foreign products, boosted investment in the US', citing the positive GDP data that had come out that morning. That is misleading. While the US economy grew at a 3 percent annualised rate in the second quarter, surpassing expectations, that was a combination of a rebound after a weak first quarter, a drop in imports – which boosted GDP, and a modest rise in consumer spending. The data beneath the headline showed that private sector investment fell sharply by 15.6 percent and inventories of goods and services declined by 3.2 percent, indicating a slowdown. Manufacturing The administration recently highlighted gains in industrial production, pointing to a boost in domestic manufacturing. Overall, there was a 0.3 percent increase in US industrial production in June. That was after stagnating for two months. There have been isolated gains, such as increases in aerospace and petroleum-related sectors—1.6 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively. But production of durable goods — items that are not necessarily for immediate consumption— remained flat, and auto manufacturing fell by 2.6 percent last month as tariffs dampened demand. Mining output also decreased by 0.3 percent. According to the Department of Commerce's gross domestic product report, manufacturing growth among non-durable goods has slowed. While there was a 1.3 percent increase, that's a decline from 2.3 percent in the previous quarter. This could change in the future, as several companies across a range of sectors have pledged to increase US production, including carmaker Hyundai and pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, which just pledged a $50bn investment over the next five years. Trade deals and tariffs In April, the White House replaced country-specific tariffs with a 10-percent blanket tariff while maintaining additional levies on steel, cars, and some other items. It then promised to deliver '90 trade deals in 90 days.' That benchmark was not met. By the deadline, only one loosely fleshed out deal — with the United Kingdom — had been announced. As of 113 days later, the US has announced comparable deals with just a handful more countries and the European Union. The EU deal still needs parliamentary approval. Contrary to the administration's claims, tariffs do not pressure foreign exporters — they are paid by US importers and ultimately are likely to be passed on to US consumers. Companies, including big box retailer Walmart and toymaker Mattel, have announced price hikes as a direct result. Ford, for example, raised prices on three Mexico-assembled models due to tariff pressures. To protect their own economies, many countries have pivoted their trade policies away from the US. Brazil and Mexico recently announced a new trade pact. The White House and its allies continue to defend tariffs by highlighting the increased revenue they bring to the federal government, which is true. Since Trump took office, the US has brought in more than $100bn in revenue, compared with $77bn in the entire fiscal year 2024. The price of imports for consumers has only risen about 3 percent, but many expect that will change as the import taxes are passed on to consumers. The White House did not respond to Al Jazeera's request for comment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store