"Thank You, Trump": This Woman's Viral Video Shows Exactly How The Tariff War Is Playing Out In China
Emily's video starts out, "Hello from China. So, I'm in a grocery store right now, and I wanted to show you how the American tariffs are affecting Chinese customers."
@emily.socialsss / Via tiktok.com
"So, I was gonna get some beef for dinner tonight, and I saw this," she says, holding up a package of beef. "What used to be here is American beef. But now, as you can see, it says Australian beef."
@emily.socialsss / Via tiktok.com
"And I did look around," she added. "I couldn't find one single pack of beef from America. So I guess China just stopped buying beef from America, and it went straight to Australia."
@emily.socialsss / Via tiktok.com
"The whole idea that China is hurting because of the American tariffs? Well, they're not, because they are not as dependent on the US. In fact, only 18% of Chinese imports come from America. And for stuff like beef and soy, they can just go somewhere else easily."
@emily.socialsss / Via tiktok.com
Trading Economics says that the number is even lower than Emily suggested, putting the percentage of China's imports that come from the US at around 7% in 2023.
According to the USDA, the US exported $1.58 billion worth of beef to China in 2024. Reuters also notes that in 2022, "soybeans were the No. 1 U.S. product imported by China," but that "the U.S. has lost competitive advantage to Brazil."
"So I guess I'm having Australian beef for dinner tonight instead of American beef," Emily continued. "And honestly, because of the food quality, I probably trust Australian beef better."
"And this box of beef right here is 50 RMB, which is about $7 USD."
"So to answer the question, China ain't hurting. And if anything, I think we're probably doing even better because now [we have] better beef that tastes better and at a better price."
@emily.socialsss / Via tiktok.com
"So, thank you, Trump, for that," she concluded.
Unsurprisingly, commenters had a lot to say on the topic. "USA put sanctions on themselves," one said.
"No country is hurting apart from the US," said another.
"I don't see China going back to the USA for those products in the next 4 years. Sadly a lot of American farmers are big fans of Trump."
The video even made its way over to Twitter (now known as X), where even more people shared their opinions. "So Trump trying to beef up American exports actually lead to losing customers to export to," said one.
"Our tariff tiff countries have other options. America isn't the only trade partner in the world. We're even less desirable now because we aren't trusted."
"There's nothing the United States can offer that the rest of the world doesn't already have. Except for serial killers and deep-fried hot dogs."
You can watch Emily's full video below, and follow her over on TikTok.
What do you think? Were you surprised to learn how the tariffs are affecting people in other countries? Let us know in the comments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
3 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Hysterics at Reason Cat Owner Has To Keep Camera Off for Work Meetings
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. In a viral TikTok video, a cat owner reveals the reason he always keeps his camera off during work meetings, and internet users can't cope with it. The clip, shared in July under the username @projectliryc, shows the poster working at his desk, with multiple screens open, while his feline companion lies on him, expecting love and cuddles all through the call. "Camera off during meetings [because] I have to hold my cat while working from home or else he'll yell at me," reads layover text in the clip. The caption says: "CFO: chief feline officer." Since COVID-19 hit back in 2020, it shifted workplace dynamics, allowing millions of Americans to work from home. Five years on, according to Statista, only about 1 in 5 American employees work from home regularly. Remote work has been found to make people more content. It is estimated that over 74 percent of employees feel happier when working remotely, mostly because it cuts travel times and allows them to spend more time with family. American employees are so excited about working from home that about 50 percent are happy to take a pay cut just to have the option of continuing to work remotely. Employees who have children are more likely to work in hybrid settings, splitting their workweek between home and employer's location, while those without children are more likely to work fully remote or fully on-site. While most employers struggle to believe that their employees are being productive working from home, studies have found that those with full schedule flexibility report 29 percent higher productivity and 53 percent greater ability to focus than those with no ability to shift their schedule. Stock image: A man sits on the floor while working from home on his laptop. Stock image: A man sits on the floor while working from home on his laptop. getty images The video quickly went viral on social media and has so far received over 1.8 million views and more than 374,400 likes on the platform. One user, True Crime with Tonia, commented: "When my husband works from home he has to put a blanket on the counter, where his computer sits, for one of our cats. If he doesn't this little menace spends the whole day trying to do a collapse on the keyboard." Temptations posted: "Being a cat dad is your primary job anyway." Made by Nacho added: "Wait is this not normal? Asking for a friend." Newsweek reached out to @projectliryc for comment via TikTok comments. We could not verify the details of the case. Do you have funny and adorable videos or pictures of your pet you want to share? Send them to life@ with some details about your best friend, and they could appear in our Pet of the Week lineup.
4 minutes ago
Federal judge dismisses lawsuit seeking to stop DOJ grant cancellations
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge has allowed the Trump administration to rescind nearly $800 million dollars in grants for programs supporting violence reduction and crime victims. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington on Monday denied a preliminary injunction sought by five organizations on behalf of all recipients of the more than 360 grant awards, and granted a motion by the federal government to dismiss the case. Mehta called the Department of Justice's actions 'shameful,' but said the court lacked jurisdiction and the organizations had failed to state a constitutional violation or protection. 'Defendants' rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence,' Mehta wrote in his ruling. 'But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.' The Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs cancelled the grants worth more than $800 million in April, saying it had changed its priorities to, among other things, more directly support certain law enforcement operations, combat violent crime and support American victims of trafficking and sexual assault. A message left seeking comment from Democracy Forward officials was not immediately returned. A Department of Justice spokesperson declined to comment on the ruling. The lawsuit filed by the Democracy Forward Foundation and the Perry Law firm argued that the grant terminations did not allow due process to the organizations and lacked sufficient clarity. The lawyers also said the move violated the constitutional separation of powers clause that gives Congress appropriation powers. Many of the organizations that lost the federal money said the unexpected cancellations mid-stream had meant layoffs, program closures and loss of community partnerships. The five organizations named as plaintiffs sought class status to represent all affected grant recipients. Attorneys General from at least 18 states and the District of Columbia had filed amicus briefs in support of the action, as well as local governments and prosecuting attorneys- several of whom had lost grants for victims programs, alternatives to prosecution programs or others. The Justice Department asked Mehta to dismiss the suit, arguing in a court filing that there was 'no legal basis for the Court to order DOJ to restore lawfully terminated grants and keep paying for programs that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States.' Noting that it intended to redirect the grant funds, it called the suit a 'run-of-the mill contract dispute' and said it belonged in a different court.
New York Times
4 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump's Big Bill Is Now Law. What Was Learned?
To the Editor: Re 'Three Lessons From the Big, Awful Bill,' by Jason Furman (Opinion guest essay, July 7): I'm afraid that Professor Furman drew the wrong lessons from this bill. Its passage had nothing to do with the quality of ideas, experts or even economics. It was all about greed (for power and money) and fear (of President Trump). The legislators' constituents or the fate of the country meant nothing in the face of the Big, Awful Tyrant in the White House. Susan BodikerWashington To the Editor: Jason Furman is wrong to think that the way the Republicans brought us the worst piece of legislation in modern times holds a lesson for Democrats. It's easy to put together legislation that enriches the rich, brings cruelty to the vulnerable and is fiscally irresponsible. It's what Trump supporters do. It's much harder to craft legislation that helps bring about economic growth that can be widely shared among all Americans and do good for the world. The lesson here is more simple: Whatever debates Democrats are having between more centrist and progressive elements pales in comparison to the damage we do when we don't get out the vote to prevent Republicans from taking power. Richard DineSilver Spring, Md. To the Editor: Maybe there's only one lesson from President Trump's hugely horrific bill: Legislating works very differently when there is a large dose of authoritarianism in the body politic. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
