Trump says 'no extensions' to Aug 1 tariff deadline
While Trump imposed a sweeping 10 percent tariff on goods from almost all trading partners in April, higher rates customized to dozens of economies were unveiled, then halted until July 9.
But the president this week again delayed their reimposition, pushing it back to August 1.
Trump insisted that there would be no further delay in the tariffs. "There will be no change," he posted on Truth Social.
He added that levies would start being paid on August 1, in line with letters now being sent out to trading partners.
"No extensions will be granted," Trump said.
On Monday night, Trump had told reporters at a dinner that the August 1 deadline was "firm, but not 100 percent firm."
Pressed on whether the letters were his final offer, Trump replied: "I would say final -- but if they call with a different offer, and I like it, then we'll do it."
In a push for further trade deals, Trump sent letters to more than a dozen partners on Monday, including key US allies Japan and South Korea.
Products from both countries would be hit with 25 percent duties, Trump wrote in near-identical letters to leaders in Tokyo and Seoul.
Indonesia, Bangladesh, Thailand, South Africa and Malaysia were among other countries facing duties ranging from 25 percent to 40 percent.
In his messages to foreign leaders, Trump warned of further escalation if there was retaliation against his levies.
Most countries receiving the letters so far saw US tariffs at similar or unchanged rates from those threatened in April, although some like Laos and Cambodia saw notably lower levels.
The Trump administration is under pressure to show results after promising a flurry of deals following the US president's tariff threats.
So far Washington has only struck two pacts, with Britain and Vietnam, besides an agreement to dial back staggeringly high tit-for-tat levies with China.
In threatening tariff hikes on various economies, Trump cited in his letters a lack of reciprocity in trading ties.
He also warned that goods transshipped to avoid higher duties would be subjected to steeper levels.
But he added that if countries were willing to adjust their trade policies, Washington "will, perhaps, consider an adjustment to this letter."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bangkok Post
4 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
FTI mobilises data from 47 industrial groups to counter US tariff hike
The Federation of Thai Industries (FTI) is compiling data from 47 industrial groups for submission to the Ministry of Finance to initiate negotiations in a bid to reduce the retaliatory tariffs and protect Thailand's competitiveness in the US market. The Federation of Thai Industries (FTI) is is gathering data from industrial groups for the Finance Ministry to negotiate lower retaliatory tariffs and protect Thailand's competitiveness in the US of Form The FTI has voiced mounting concern over the United States' imminent enforcement of reciprocal tariffs targeting 22 countries, including Thailand, beginning Aug 1. In the federation's press release on Saturday, FTI chairman Kriengkrai Thiennukul said the federation is urgently gathering data from 47 industry groups to submit to the Ministry of Finance, with the aim of initiating negotiations to reduce the retaliatory tariffs and protect Thailand's competitiveness in the US market The urgency follows recent US trade deals with Vietnam and the United Kingdom, where tariffs were cut significantly. Vietnam saw its rates lowered from 46% to 20% for direct exports, and to 40% for transhipped goods under strict Chinese-origin control. The US also slashed tariffs on UK car imports to 10% for a quota of 100,000 vehicles per year and opened its market to British agricultural goods, raising concerns that Thailand may lose its competitive edge unless it secures similar reductions. Negotiations are still underway with China, the European Union (EU) and India. China is currently under a temporary tariff truce set to expire on Aug 12. Recent high-level talks between US and Chinese trade representatives in London concluded with a revised tariff structure: the US will maintain a 55% import duty on Chinese goods, down from 145%, while China will impose a 10% duty on US imports, reduced from 125%. However, the agreement awaits formal endorsement from US President Donald Trump and China's President Xi Jingping, with no official confirmation yet from Beijing. According to the first quarter of 2025 data, exports account for over 58% of Thailand's gross domestic product (GDP), with industrial goods comprising 47%. The FTI has warned that failure to reduce tariffs could inflate export costs, erode competitiveness and undermine investor confidence. The newly announced 36% tariff on Thai goods could result in export losses estimated between 800 billion and 900 billion baht. In May 2025, Thailand recorded export growth of 18.35% year-on-year, the highest in 38 months, reaching US$31.04 billion. However, the Joint Standing Committee on Commerce, Industry and Banking (JSCCIB) warned that without policy intervention, exports in the second half of the year could contract by over 10%, bringing full-year growth dangerously close to zero. Mr Kriengkrai said the FTI had discussions with the 47 industry groups and 11 clusters and is in the process of compiling detailed data. Some exporters are attempting to share the tariff burden with US importers and distributors, though this approach has not been universally accepted. He urged the government to push for a tariff reduction to 0% on thousands of affected items and to implement urgent support measures. Sectors hardest hit include machinery and components, electrical machinery—industries heavily reliant on the US market with 28–35% export share—as well as rubber, furniture, auto parts, toys, steel products, leather goods and ceramics. These are all classified as high to very-high risk under the new tariffs. To address the crisis and sustain Thailand's global competitiveness, the FTI outlined four key policy recommendations: 1. Relief measures for affected exporters • Low-interest loans or debt moratoriums. • Corporate income tax reductions for impacted exporters. • Subsidies or reductions in export-related costs such as port service fees, customs procedures, certificates of origin and utilities. • Triple tax deduction for legal expenses incurred in hiring US law firms to negotiate or research trade issues. 2. Market expansion initiatives • Accelerate negotiations of new Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). • Promote market diversification via small and medium enterprise (SME) pro-active programmes and trade missions. • Boost domestic consumption by expanding the 'Made in Thailand' (MiT) initiative: - All government agencies should prioritise MiT-certified products. - Tax incentives: Double deductions for MiT-related expenses. - MiT support enhances local content, brand strength, and allows firms to redeem rewards at year-end. 3. Promote local content usage • Enhance current Board of Investment's (BOI) incentives, including corporate tax cuts for firms using over 90% local content. • Boost productivity through technological upgrades and workforce development. 4. Exchange rate stability • Monitor and manage the baht to prevent excessive appreciation against regional currencies. 'This is an unprecedented crisis for Thailand,' said Mr Kriengkrai. 'The FTI is calling on all sectors to work together. With strong collaboration, we can transform this challenge into a turning point for national development and resilience.'
Bangkok Post
6 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
Dear DOGE, it's high time to tear down those dams!
No big government infrastructure project made an imprint on the landscape and economy of the West more than the US Bureau of Reclamation's 20th century dam-building spree, which peppered 490 dams across the country, created an agricultural civilisation dependent on federal hydrology civil engineering, and brought about a welter of environmental difficulties after drying up dozens of once-healthy rivers. Today, the agency claims a US$1.4 billion (45.5 billion baht) budget to maintain its fleet of ageing dams. It was perhaps inevitable that the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, would seek to cut it down. Approximately 400 workers at the bureau -- including dam tenders, emergency management specialists, and hydrologists -- received "reduction in force" letters in March, raising fears that poorly monitored dams could fail, creating catastrophic downstream flooding. This, just five weeks after President Donald Trump stoked fears of mismanagement by ordering billions of gallons of water released from two Central Valley dams, against the objections of officials, water experts, and farmers. Turmoil in the federal dam management system represents potential disaster, but also a prime opportunity: It offers environmentalists an opening to make a vigorous case for dam removal -- a move that could save costs and please business interests while achieving a longstanding goal of getting rid of the most harmful and obsolete blockages on Western rivers. The key, one vivid example suggests, is making a scientific initiative attractive in the political realm. At a place called Fossil Creek in the high country of north-central Arizona, a gorgeous waterfall now tumbles near headwaters where an Arizona Public Service (APS) hydroelectric dam stood until 2005. Ask people swimming below the falls where the dam was located, and you'll get some puzzled looks. "There was never any dam here," said one, unaware he was standing right next to its remnants, masonry concealed under travertine deposits that give it every appearance of a natural falls. Arizona built the dam in 1916 to run the ore-crushers at nearby copper and gold mines at Jerome and Crown King. Eventually, the dam also powered streetlights in Phoenix. But by the end of the century, the river had been killed, and the antique plant was providing only 0.002% of APS's total revenue. So APS took 14 feet off the top of the dam and let Fossil Creek flow, and a once-dead waterway sprang back to magnificent life. By 2009, Congress was impressed enough by the transformation to designate this once-tired industrialised trickle a Wild and Scenic River. Twenty years after the removal, rare species like the Chiricahua leopard frog, southwestern willow flycatcher, and yellow-billed cuckoo thrive in pools near the banks. Young cottonwood trees are growing. Algae are reblooming. "Biologically, it's a huge success story," said Jane Marks, professor of aquatic ecology at Northern Arizona University. There are close to a half-million dams standing in the United States today, and 90,000 of them are more than 25 feet high. The biggest ones are in the West, but obsolete remnants of 19th- and 20th-century industrialisation also litter New England and other eastern regions. These dams have served many purposes -- turning mill wheels, impounding water for crops, preventing floods, generating electricity, giving livestock a drink -- but scientific consensus now holds that they do more collective damage than good. The stagnant pools, mounds of underwater silt, mosquito-breeding artificial ponds, and detritus of long-shuttered factories do little to enhance the ecosystem or the landscape. But removing even useless dams is a complicated and often maddening process, says Dartmouth College geographer Francis Magilligan. In some cases, it is unclear who owns a dam or has jurisdiction over it. Local groups may consider a dam a historic site. And even though it is almost always cheaper in the end to remove a defective dam rather than repair it, the amount of process and paperwork involved can be enough to stymie those efforts. Only about 2,200 American dams have been successfully removed, Magilligan notes. Decommissioning Fossil Creek was possible because it presented a unique political case. Many people at APS felt proud of the dam and the plant, and resisted shutting it down. Even though it was practically an antique, the flume leading down from the dam to the Childs and Irving power plants was still helping generate four megawatts of electricity (enough to power about 1,000 homes) and making about $500,000 per year for the Fortune 500 company. But APS was not only Arizona's largest utility; it was also an immensely powerful lobbying force in the state legislature with a long-term interest in good public relations. There was also a personal quirk. Bill Post, the CEO of APS's parent company, happened to have been childhood friends with the outspoken environmentalist Robin Silvers, co-founder of the Center for Biological Diversity. Mr Silvers appealed to Mr Post's outdoorsman side in making the case for Fossil Creek. Over the objections of colleagues, Mr Post approved the dam removal as a goodwill gesture and a concession to Mr Silver's lobbying just before the facility was up for relicensing through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. "It bought them a lot of 'green points' and positive community attention," recalled Prof Marks. In fact, the greatest environmental threat at Fossil Creek now comes not from stagnant water or unhealthy biomes but from a crush of human sunseekers in the summer who create traffic and litter. Scientists are still looking at the long-term implications of shutting down the dam, assessing the movement of the 90-year silt buildup behind the dam walls, and the potential reentry of non-native fish like bass and sunfish. And Fossil Creek is not the only recent high-profile test case for Western dam removal. A coalition of Native tribes in California convinced Berkshire Hathaway Energy to transfer ownership of four dams on the Klamath River to a nonprofit organisation to oversee their dismantling, in the name of rehabilitating a salmon fishery. Not that science is a major concern of the federal government right now. Trump administration officials have even made moves aimed at expanding the holding capacity of the Shasta Dam to hold back more of the McCloud River in northern California. But if DOGE is truly interested in saving money instead of making layoffs, it will take a serious look at a dam removal programme and sell it to the public as a cost-cutting measure, ironically making the "drill, baby, drill" Trump administration a champion of riparian health. Fossil Creek may point the way, not just because of the solid science but because of the down-and-dirty politics. The dramatic waterfall over the dam's old stump stands as both a monument to physical rebirth and a challenge to blocked-up rivers everywhere. Could it be a representative showpiece for what dam removal can do, perhaps even portending truly large-scale eradications like the Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River? Or are the circumstances at Fossil Creek just too singular for it to serve as a general parable? "The myth was that science made a difference," Mr Silvers told me. "It all came down to hardball politics, because these guys were all about the bottom line." Zócalo Public Square
Bangkok Post
7 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
Canada just can't win in trade war with Trump
MONTREAL — Try as it might to appease United States President Donald Trump, Canada remains a prized target in his trade wars and subject to the whiplash of his changes of heart. The giant North American neighbours are rushing to conclude a new trade accord by July 21 but the process is proving painful for Canada. Overnight Thursday, Trump threatened to slap a 35% tariff on imports from Canada starting Aug 1. But products complying with an existing accord, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), are expected to remain exempt, a Trump administration official and a source in Canada told Agence France-Presse (AFP). "An agreement is of course possible but that shows how difficult it is for the Canadian government to negotiate with the US president," said Daniel Beland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal, referring to Trump's sudden announcement. Six months of ups and downs Canada has been a key trading partner and ally of the United States for decades. But along with Mexico, it now wears a bull's eye for Trump in his second stint in the White House as he tries to reorder the global system of largely free trade by slapping tariffs on friends and foes alike to address what he calls unfair trading practices. Trump has also spoken frequently of his idea of absorbing Canada to make it the 51st US state, a concept most Canadians find repugnant. Canada was rocked by Trump's first attacks after he took power in January. And bad blood between him and then-prime minister Justin Trudeau seemed to pour gas on the fire. Some degree of hope emerged when Mark Carney was elected in late April to replace Trudeau, pledging to stand up to Trump and defend Canada, its jobs and its borders. Since then, Carney and Trump have held two more or less cordial meetings -- at the Oval Office in May and at a Group of Seven (G7) summit in western Canada last month. Many people thought a new era was opening, and Carney won praise for his diplomatic and negotiating skills. During the second of those meetings, the two sides agreed to sign a new trade agreement by July 21. But in late June Trump angrily called off the trade talks, citing a new Canadian tax on US Big Tech companies. Canada scrapped the tax two days later so the trade talks could resume. Now they have been rocked again by Trump's new threat of 35% tariffs on Canadian goods. Stay calm Canada has taken to not reacting to everything Trump says. After Trump's latest outburst, Carney simply said, "the Canadian government has steadfastly defended our workers and businesses." But among Canadian people, Trump's threat-rich negotiating style elicits contrasting reactions, said Beland. "There are people who want a firmer response while others want to keep negotiating," he said. Since the beginning of this tug of war, Canada has responded to US action by imposing levies of its own on certain American products. Philippe Bourbeau, a professor at HEC Montreal, a business school, said people have to realise Trump has an underlying strategy. "You can criticise the aggressiveness of the announcements and the fact that it is done out in the open, but it is a negotiating tactic," said Bourbeau, adding that the relationship between the two countries is asymmetrical. "It is illusory to think this is a negotiation between parties of the same size. Canada will surely have to give up more to reach an agreement," he said. Before Trump came to power, three quarters of Canada's exports went to the United States. This was down to 68% in May, one of the lowest such shares ever recorded, as shipments to other countries hit record levels. "We are Donald Trump's scapegoats," said Genevieve Tellier, a professor of political science at the University of Ottawa. "He sees us as vulnerable, so he increases the pressure. He is surely telling himself that it is with us that he will score the big win he wants on tariffs," Tellier said.
