Trump orders tariffs on dozens of countries, to take effect in a week
However, in a minor reprieve that opens the door to further negotiations, the White House said these measures will take effect in a week, not Friday as previously expected.
The tariffs are a demonstration of raw economic power that Trump sees putting US exporters in a stronger position while encouraging domestic manufacturing by keeping out foreign imports.
But the muscular approach has raised fears of inflation and other economic fallout in the world's biggest economy.
And with questions hanging over the effectiveness of bilateral trade deals already struck, including with the European Union and Japan, the outcome of Trump's plan remained uncertain.
Trump's new measures in an executive order raises duties on nearly 70 economies, from a current 10 per cent level imposed in April when he unleashed "reciprocal" tariffs citing unfair trade practices.
The steeper levels, varying by trading partner, go as high as 41 per cent.
Trump also adjusted some tariff levels threatened in April, with Switzerland now facing a higher 39 per cent duty and Thailand a lower 19 per cent rate.
The tariff on Taiwanese products was revised down to 20 per cent, but its President Lai Ching-te vowed to seek an even lower level.
Trump separately hiked tariffs on Canadian goods to 35 per cent, though indicating in an NBC interview he was open to further talks. Canada and Mexico face a separate tariff regime. But exemptions remain for imports entering the United States under a North American trade pact.
"No doubt about it, the executive order and related agreements concluded over the past few months tears up the trade rule book that has governed international trade since World War II," said Wendy Cutler, senior vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute.
"Whether our partners can preserve it without the United States is an open question," she added.
Frantic negotiations
The elevated duties come after Washington twice postponed their implementation amid a frantic series of negotiations, alongside announcements of new duties and deals with partners.
Just Thursday, Trump announced he was delaying a tariff hike on Mexican products, keeping levels at 25 per cent with existing exemptions. The 90-day postponement followed talks with his counterpart Claudia Sheinbaum.
The 79-year-old Republican has made tariffs core to his protectionist brand of hard-right politics. On Thursday, he claimed that the US economy had "no chance of survival or success" without tariffs.
But the latest salvo came amid legal challenges against Trump's use of emergency economic powers. After a lower court said the president exceeded his authority, the US Court of Appeals heard arguments Thursday in cases against Trump's blanket tariffs targeting different countries.
While Trump has touted a surge in customs revenues this year, economists warn the duties could fuel inflation.
Proponents of his policy argue their impact will be one-off, but analysts are awaiting further data to gauge for more persistent effects.
China remains a question mark
Those who managed to strike deals with Washington to avert steeper threatened levies were Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea and the EU.
Britain also reached a pact with the United States, although it was not originally targeted by higher "reciprocal" tariffs.
For Canada, transshipped goods to evade its 35 per cent duty would face even higher levels, said a White House fact sheet. Its trade ties with Washington faced renewed threat after Prime Minister Mark Carney announced plans to recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September.
Trump's latest order however appeared to raise tariffs on several countries not initially targeted in April, to 15 per cent, including Ecuador, Ghana and Iceland.
Notably excluded from the drama was China, which faces an August 12 deadline instead, when duties could bounce back to higher levels.
Washington and Beijing at one point brought tit-for-tat tariffs to triple-digit levels, but both countries have agreed to temporarily lower these duties and are working to extend their truce.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
4 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Donald Trump voters wanted relief from medical bills
President Donald Trump rode to reelection last fall on voter concerns about prices. But as his administration pares back federal rules and programmes designed to protect patients from the high cost of health care, Trump risks pushing more Americans into debt, further straining family budgets already stressed by medical bills. Millions of people are expected to lose health insurance in the coming years as a result of the tax cut legislation Trump signed in July, leaving them with fewer protections from large bills if they get sick or suffer an accident. At the same time, significant increases in health plan premiums on state insurance marketplaces next year will likely push more Americans to either drop coverage or switch to higher-deductible plans that will require them to pay more out-of-pocket before their insurance kicks in. Smaller changes to federal rules are poised to bump up patients' bills, as well. New federal guidelines for COVID-19 vaccines, for example, will allow health insurers to stop covering the shots for millions, so if patients want the protection, some may have to pay out-of-pocket. The new tax cut legislation will also raise the cost of certain doctor visits, requiring copays of up to $35 for some Medicaid enrollees. And for those who do end up in debt, there will be fewer protections. In July, the Trump administration secured permission from a federal court to roll back regulations that would have removed medical debt from consumer credit reports. That puts Americans who cannot pay their medical bills at risk of lower credit scores, hindering their ability to get a loan or forcing them to pay higher interest rates. 'For tens of millions of Americans, balancing the budget is like walking a tightrope,' said Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. 'The Trump administration is just throwing them off.' White House spokesperson Kush Desai did not respond to questions about how the administration's health care policies will affect Americans' medical bills. The president and his Republican congressional allies have brushed off the health care cuts, including hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid retrenchment in the mammoth tax law. 'You won't even notice it,' Trump said at the White House after the bill signing July 4. 'Just waste, fraud, and abuse.' But consumer and patient advocates around the country warn that the erosion of federal health care protections since Trump took office in January threatens to significantly undermine Americans' financial security. 'These changes will hit our communities hard,' said Arika Sánchez, who oversees health care policy at the nonprofit New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty. Sánchez predicted many more people the center works with will end up with medical debt. 'When families get stuck with medical debt, it hurts their credit scores, makes it harder to get a car, a home, or even a job,' she said. 'Medical debt wrecks people's lives.' For Americans with serious illnesses such as cancer, weakened federal protections from medical debt pose yet one more risk, said Elizabeth Darnall, senior director of federal advocacy at the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network. 'People will not seek out the treatment they need,' she said. Trump promised a rosier future while campaigning last year, pledging to 'make America affordable again' and 'expand access to new Affordable Healthcare.' Polls suggest voters were looking for relief. About 6 in 10 adults — Democrats and Republicans — say they are worried about being able to afford health care, according to one recent survey, outpacing concerns about the cost of food or housing. And medical debt remains a widespread problem: As many as 100 million adults in the US are burdened by some kind of health care debt. Despite this, key tools that have helped prevent even more Americans from sinking into debt are now on the chopping block. Medicaid and other government health insurance programs, in particular, have proved to be a powerful economic backstop for low-income patients and their families, said Kyle Caswell, an economist at the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, DC. Caswell and other researchers found, for example, that Medicaid expansion made possible by the 2010 Affordable Care Act led to measurable declines in medical debt and improvements in consumers' credit scores in states that implemented the expansion. 'We've seen that these programs have a meaningful impact on people's financial well-being,' Caswell said. Trump's tax law — which will slash more than $1 trillion in federal health spending over the next decade, mostly through Medicaid cuts — is expected to leave 10 million more people without health coverage by 2034, according to the latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The tax cuts, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans, will add $3.4 trillion to US deficits over a decade, the office calculated.
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
The word many powerful Americans seem to have forgotten when dealing with Donald Trump
No. It's one of the shortest, simplest and most important words in the English language. But, when it comes to President Donald Trump, many key players in the US power structure appear stricken with lockjaw. In the 20th and 21st centuries, it's axiomatic that strongman powers are more typically given than taken. When dealing with an uncompromising and ruthless chief executive, it's easier to give in and not put up a fight. Financial calculations are most obvious. The government can use regulatory powers or lucrative government contracts to shape the condition and prospects of a given business, no matter how large. When the President makes it implicitly clear that a merger, for example, won't be approved by the relevant regulatory body unless some form of acquiescence is forthcoming, in purely pecuniary terms it's a no-brainer to just give in. Historically, Americans hardly lack courage. They have died to defend their Constitution and democratic traditions. They have gone to prison rather than betray their values and principles We've seen several alarming examples of this since Mr Trump returned to office, and even simply following the election. Mr Trump sued CBS over an interview conducted by its well-known 60 Minutes programme with his then campaign rival, former vice president Kamala Harris. The programme had edited her remarks for broadcast, as is standard practice. Mr Trump's $20 billion lawsuit alleged that this editing amounted to consumer fraud and election interference. CBS released the full transcript, which readily demonstrated that the edits were routine and insubstantial. In July, however, Mr Trump received a $16 million settlement from CBS's parent company, Paramount, which has been in the process of attempting a merger with Skydance Media. That has just been approved by the Federal Communications Commission, a part of Mr Trump's executive apparatus. An earlier collapse came from ABC when Mr Trump sued the network for liable and defamation over remarks made by anchor George Stephanopoulos. In December, even before Mr Trump was back in the White House, ABC settled for $15 million. Again, Mr Trump's case was weak. Mr Stephanopoulos said that Mr Trump had been found civilly liable for rape in the E Jean Carroll case. Technically, under New York law, Mr Trump was only found liable for sexual abuse. However, a federal judge repeatedly ruled that Mr Trump had indeed committed rape under the common understanding of the term. Given the high bar under US law for defamation cases, it is unlikely that Mr Trump would have prevailed. But ABC's parent company, Disney, with its myriad business empire, preferred to simply cave. It was just easier, and, they may well have calculated, in the long run cheaper that way. CBS has also just cancelled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, a favourite of Mr Trump's critics because of its relentless and incisive mockery of him. Paramount insists that this was purely a business decision, but given the 60 Minutes settlement, the deeper calculation may have been at least as political. It's hardly just the media that is capitulating, often in advance. Several top US law firms such as Paul Weiss have allegedly agreed not to represent Mr Trump's adversaries or to represent his allies pro bono. In Mr Trump's attack on higher education, Harvard University is distinguishing itself by putting up a brave fight in court. However, many other major private universities, most notably Columbia, have given the federal government unprecedented powers over their decision-making. The administration is using legal and administrative investigations especially into 'anti-Semitism', huge funding cuts and freezes, executive orders and visa restrictions on international students as pressure to force the universities to surrender their autonomy to the White House. And both Columbia and possibly Harvard are allegedly about to give the administration hundreds of millions of dollars in supposed penance for non-existent transgressions. Social media, too, is folding like a dinner napkin. Meta, Facebook's parent company, agreed to a $25 million settlement over the suspension of Mr Trump's account after the January 6, 2021 violent insurrection against Congress. Its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, also donated $1 million to Mr Trump's inauguration fund. The Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos, has essentially eliminated what had been among the most dynamically critical opinion section in the country regarding Mr Trump, and greatly scaled back negative coverage of him. Needless to say, Mr Bezos's other companies, most notably Blue Origin, enjoy lucrative dealings with the federal government, including a recently approved $2.3 billion military space contract. The blue-ribbon in this cavalcade of cowardice obviously would go to Republican Party lawmakers in Congress, except that they are far more vulnerable to Mr Trump's wrath and less able to fight back than major law firms, huge media organisations and crucial universities. Harvard has said no. So have several important law firms, including Witmer Hale and Perkins Cole. Even after 10 years of dealing with him, the news media still cannot figure out how to cover Mr Trump without being bamboozled and manipulated, but The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and others show no signs of backing down. Historically, Americans hardly lack courage. They have died to defend their Constitution and democratic traditions. They faced extreme, even deadly, police brutality in the fight for civil rights. Some went to prison or fled to other countries rather than fight in the misguided, pointless Vietnam War. They have gone to prison rather than betray their values and principles. But now, with a president clearly acting as a would-be strongman, the caution shown by so many in the US power structure is proving to be his most valuable asset. It's not asking much for them to recover the ability to utter the short, simple and profound word, 'no'.
Arabian Post
10 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Trump's Tariff War Creates De Facto Counter-Axis Driven By Common Cause
By K Raveendran Donald Trump's aggressive tariff regime, launched under the guise of bolstering American strength and reclaiming lost economic ground, has triggered a worldwide response that may ultimately defeat the very goal it seeks to achieve. Framed as a nationalist project to assert America's economic primacy, the tariff war has turned out to be a catalyst for an accelerating global shift away from unipolar US dominance toward a truly multipolar world order. What was once largely speculative—the idea of a global economic architecture not centred on Washington—is now becoming tangible as Trump's trade brinkmanship compels other nations to rethink, regroup, and realign. The essential flaw in Trump's strategy lies in its assumption that the rest of the world would blink first, caving in to American demands under the weight of economic pressure. But the world hasn't blinked. Instead, countries are finding common cause in resisting what they perceive as economic coercion masquerading as negotiation. The result is a fluid yet increasingly coherent realignment of powers—chief among them China, Russia, and India—that is beginning to operate as a de facto counter-axis to the United States. Driven by shared grievances and the common objective of shielding their strategic autonomy, these nations are cooperating more closely in trade, investment, and energy. The irony is that Trump's pursuit of economic supremacy is hastening the erosion of the very system that enabled US dominance for decades. Beijing, long a prime target of Trump's tariffs, has responded with both retaliation and redirection. Rather than capitulating to Washington's demands, China has expanded its outreach to other major economies, particularly in Asia and Africa, while deepening its engagement with Russia and India. The Belt and Road Initiative, initially conceived as a means of global infrastructure connectivity, is now also a tool for economic realignment. As Trump builds tariff walls, China builds roads, ports, and financial networks that bypass the United States. Moscow, for its part, has welcomed this pivot. Isolated by US and European sanctions, Russia sees opportunity in closer ties with China and India, both of which have shown increasing willingness to defy Western pressure. India, though traditionally more aligned with the West and an enthusiastic participant in global liberal markets, has found itself inching toward the emerging non-Western axis. Trump's tariffs on Indian goods, coupled with his administration's threats of secondary sanctions on countries trading with Russia or buying Iranian oil, have forced New Delhi to draw red lines. India's stance on Russian oil, for instance, has been unambiguous: it is a matter of national interest and energy security. Any effort by Washington to curtail these purchases is seen not just as economic interference but as a direct challenge to sovereign decision-making. In retaliation, India has dangled the cancellation of key defence deals, including the proposed purchase of the F-35 fighter jets—a symbolic snub that indicates a broader reassessment of strategic alignment. What makes this realignment especially potent is the breadth of its scope. It is not merely a matter of retaliatory tariffs or diplomatic rhetoric; it includes infrastructure cooperation, technological integration, and long-term investment planning. China and India, despite historic differences, have increased dialogue in recent months on trade facilitation and regional connectivity. Russia's role as a common energy partner and military supplier to both nations gives it leverage in the triangle. And with US credibility as a dependable trade partner being questioned, many smaller nations are also hedging their bets, diversifying their economic relations away from a US-centric model. Even traditional US allies in Europe are uneasy. Germany and France have voiced concerns about the destabilizing effects of Trump's tariffs on global trade norms. The EU is pursuing its own trade treaties with countries like Japan and Vietnam, carving out autonomous space in global commerce that doesn't necessarily involve Washington. At the heart of this geopolitical churn is a growing skepticism toward the idea that the United States can or should dictate the terms of global trade. The Trump administration's belief that economic might translates automatically into negotiating power has ignored the subtle but critical fact that globalisation has made nations more interconnected and interdependent. Trying to weaponise trade may yield short-term leverage, but it also creates lasting rifts and compels partners to seek alternatives. The economic structures of the 21st century no longer afford any single nation the luxury of acting as an economic autocrat without consequences. Furthermore, the economic impact within the United States is more complex and less flattering than the populist rhetoric suggests. While certain domestic industries may benefit from tariff protections, others are suffering from rising input costs and retaliatory measures. American farmers have been hit particularly hard by Chinese tariffs on agricultural imports, prompting the Trump administration to introduce multi-billion dollar bailout packages that, in effect, cancel out the supposed gains of the trade war. Manufacturing, far from being resurgent, is experiencing uncertainty and disruption due to volatility in global supply chains. The idea that tariff wars are 'easy to win' has proven to be one of the most misguided statements of Trump's presidency. Even American multinationals, once eager advocates of 'America First' policies, are quietly relocating parts of their supply chains to countries not caught in the tariff crossfire. This shift not only diminishes the US's leverage but also accelerates the decentralization of economic power. No longer is the American market an irresistible magnet for global commerce; it is increasingly seen as a zone of instability and risk. For many countries, the trade war has been a wake-up call—an impetus to invest in regional blocs, alternative trade corridors, and new financial instruments insulated from US influence. In the broader scheme, what Trump has unwittingly triggered is a reimagination of how global power is structured. The post-Cold War illusion of US-led globalisation is being replaced by a more pluralistic, competitive, and fragmented order. Emerging powers are no longer content to play by rules written in Washington. They are building parallel systems: China's digital yuan aims to reduce dependency on the dollar; India and Russia have revived rupee-rouble trade mechanisms; and regional trade agreements like RCEP are functioning without US participation. What's being born is a new kind of globalization—less hierarchical, more balanced, and far less dependent on any single country. (IPA Service)
