Latest news with #CompetitiveEnterpriseInstitute
Miami Herald
5 days ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump Vowed 90 Deals in 90 Days. He's Only Made One
With only days remaining before the 90-day pause on President Donald Trump's Liberation Day tariffs expires, the administration has yet to unveil even a fraction of the trade deals that were promised at the outset. Members of his cabinet initially aimed to secure "90 deals in 90 days," but are now poised to fall short of this goal, having only secured one bona fide deal, a single set of preliminary agreements, while hinting that a handful more are on their way. On April 2, the president put markets into a tailspin and the United States' trading partners on notice by announcing country-specific "reciprocal" tariffs on nations accused of taking advantage of America to the tune of billions of dollars. When these were paused only a week later, the administration stated that countries would now have the opportunity to approach the U.S. with more favorable terms and strike deals to permanently reduce these high duties. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said early on that "more than 75" nations had approached the administration to this end, later stating that negotiations would focus on "18 important trading partners." But so far, the United Kingdom is the only country to cement a deal with the U.S.—heralded as "historic" by both leaders—under which its goods will be subject to a 10 percent tariff when entering the U.S., with 100,000 British cars per year tariffed at this rate rather than the 25 percent duty on cars announced by Trump in April. The U.S. and China have also agreed on preliminary trade terms and a framework for further negotiations. While details are scarce, Bessent said that this will likely mean easier access to Chinese magnets and rare earth minerals. India is also close to striking a deal that could bring down the 26-percent duties imposed on it in April, according to officials from both countries. In a recent interview with Newsweek, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar expressed optimism that an agreement could soon be reached. President Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Tuesday that, should India grant American firms greater access to its markets, the country would secure a deal "for much less tariffs." However, far from new, mutually advantageous trading terms, snags in negotiations have also seen certain countries facing even harsher trading restrictions than before the pause. After criticizing Japan's reluctance to accept U.S. rice exports, which Tokyo considers a threat to its agricultural sector, Trump said he was considering imposing a tariff of "30 percent of 35 percent" on Japan's imports if a deal is not struck before next week's deadline, well above the original, 24-percent reciprocal rate. "I'm not sure we're going to make a deal. I doubt it," Trump said of Japan on Tuesday, while calling the country "very tough" and "very spoiled." Ryan Young, a senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Newsweek that the conspicuous lack of new deals may stem from an international guessing game, and countries' inability to know what the Trump administration is seeking from negotiations, whether support for U.S. manufacturing, action on drug trafficking, or simply a reduction in bilateral trade deficits. "With that kind of policy incoherence, trading partners might feel that their best option is to wait out Trump's term and put up with a few years of their companies exporting less to Americans," Young said. "Then they can negotiate with a more stable future administration." With dozens of agreements still in their early stages and the deadline fast approaching, the administration has also begun providing differing views on both what will be achieved by July 9 and how trade policy will evolve beyond this date. As these questions began to emerge in late April, Trump told Time magazine he had made "200 deals," without clarifying who they were with. However, last week the president acknowledged the difficulty of cementing deals with so many countries in such a short time frame, when such negotiations typically span months or years. "You know, we have 200 countries—you could say 200 countries plus," Trump told reporters on June 27. "We can't do that. So at a certain point, over the next week and a half or so, or maybe before, we're going to send out a letter. We talked to many of the countries, and we're just going to tell them what they have to pay to do business in the United States." A day earlier, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt described the July 9 deadline as "not critical," adding that the president could extend this if he wishes, or simply "provide these countries with a deal if they refuse to make us one by the deadline." Leavitt said this would involve Trump "pick[ing] a reciprocal tariff rate that he believes is advantageous for the United States." "I'm going to send letters. That's the end of the trade deal," Trump told Fox News on Sunday, when asked what would happen before the 90 days were up. "Dear Mr. Japan, here's the story: You're going to pay a 25 percent tariff on your cars." In May, Bessent said that countries which failed to reach a deal with the U.S. would see tariffs revert to their Liberation Day rates, telling CNN, "If you do not negotiate in good faith, you will ratchet back up to your April 2 level." However, earlier this month, Bessent told the House Ways and Means Committee that those countries that are negotiating in "good faith" would likely be able to continue negotiations past the July 9 deadline without their tariff rates reverting to those announced on Liberation Day. Both Bessent and Trump have framed the impending deadline as not set in stone. The president told reporters last week that "We can do whatever we want. We could extend it, we could make it shorter." In an interview with Fox News, Bessent said that the majority of America's critical trade deals would be inked by Labor Day, September 1. Young believes the deadline will be pushed back for the majority of trading partners for two main reasons. "One, negotiating trade agreements are taking longer than the administration expected. Policy is complicated, and you can't just bulldoze through it," he told Newsweek, comparing the hyperbolic promises of dozens of trade deals to those regarding DOGE's cost-cutting abilities, or Trump's campaign pledge of a 24-hour solution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. "Two, financial markets will revolt if they expect Trump to go through with his full Liberation Day tariffs," he said. For those countries that can secure a deal, either before next Monday or beyond this point, Young believes these will likely resemble that announced with the U.K., a 10-percent baseline rate, with a few specific exemptions. "The bottom line result will be higher tariffs than before Trump took office," he added. Related Articles Colombian Ambassador: When Alliances Matter Most, Look South: Colombia and the US-Partners Against Transnational Crime | OpinionZohran Mamdani Responds to Donald Trump Deportation ThreatIran Ready to Enrich Uranium Up to Bomb-Grade Levels: "We Can Do That"No Tax on Tips Passes in Trump's Big Beautiful Bill: What to Know 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Wall Street Journal
06-06-2025
- Health
- Wall Street Journal
A Day of Defiance—and Donuts
It's time to double down on National Donut Day. As Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. begins pushing his Make America Healthy Again campaign, we suggest a protest against the idea, growing in our nation's capital, that we can't have nice things when it comes to food. National Donut Day, the first Friday in June, began in 1938 to honor the Salvation Army volunteers who fried donuts for troops in World War I. It continued peacefully until 2010 when our organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, urged Americans to turn it into a day of opposition against government intrusions into our lives. These decrees ranged from 'voluntary' salt-reduction guidelines to calorie-label mandates for restaurant menus and bans on Happy Meals. Our suggested form of protest: Eat two donuts, one for yourself and one for your freedom.
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Trade War Is Eroding America's Soft Power
The direct cost of President Donald Trump's trade war will be borne by American consumers and businesses—of that, there should no longer be much debate. But trade wars also come with indirect costs and unforeseen consequences. Some of those show up on balance sheets in the form of lower profits, losses in the stock market, or stagnating wages. Some are best counted under the Christmas tree, where higher prices might mean fewer toys (as the president now admits) and other goodies that make life a little more joyful, as tariffs squeeze wallets and reduce discretionary income. Others are trickier to sum up, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. "The administration's trade policy sends a message to the world: America is an unreliable ally that sees you only as a source of wealth; and if you don't have wealth, you'll pay for it," writes Iain Murray, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in an essay recently published in The Daily Economy, a blog run by the American Institute for Economic Research. Murray's essay gets at a point that seems underappreciated in the ongoing debate over tariffs, trade deficits, and Trump's (possibly unconstitutional) wielding of tariffs as part of an effort to overhaul the global trading system that he believes is unfair to the United States. The benefits of free trade for America go beyond tangible things like the "cheap stuff" that nationalists on the political right disdain. And the costs of blowing up the global trading system will include the loss of American "soft power" and the geopolitical influence that comes with it, Murray warns. "The United States' role as a linchpin of this system has enhanced its position as the pre-eminent global power," writes Murray. "Yet the new administration's curious tariff policy threatens all of this, for no discernible benefit." Trump views trade as a zero-sum game in which one country wins and one country loses every time two individuals agree to exchange goods across national borders. He believes that America is losing those transactions and that trading less would make the country better off. A few weeks ago, while trade with China was grinding to a halt due to Trump's massive tariffs on imports from that country, the president said America was "making, in a certain way, $1.1 trillion" by not engaging in commerce. That's economically foolish, but it's also geopolitically myopic. That's because American soft power rides on the back of the global trading system. American investment and purchasing power help build factories and lift people out of extreme poverty. For the countries that benefit from all that, American interests are first and foremost. Take away the benefits of trade, and the rest fades too, warns Murray. Higher tariffs and reduced global trade "kills US soft power with these nations and leaves a geopolitical vacuum into which US rivals like China will expand," he writes. "High tariff rates on south east Asian countries, for example, will exacerbate the drift of those countries towards the Chinese sphere of influence that has been happening in the wake of trade uncertainty since the first Trump administration." The post The Trade War Is Eroding America's Soft Power appeared first on
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs: Why 'it's time' for Congress to intervene
Competitive Enterprise Institute senior economist Ryan Young joins Market Domination with Josh Lipton and Julie Hyman to discuss President Trump's threat to impose a 50% tariff on the EU, highlighting the ripple effects on GDP and the administration's contradictory rationales for tariff imposition. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination here. President Trump posting on Truth Social that he is recommending a straight 50% tariff on the European Union, then telling reporters in the Oval Office that he is not looking for a deal with the EU. For more, bringing in Ryan Young, senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Ryan, thank you for being here. So we get this um posturing from President Trump. Um, but as I was saying earlier, you know, markets and perhaps his counterparts in these trade negotiations, I mean, how seriously should they be taking him considering, you know, he backed down from the reciprocal tariffs, he backed down from the China tariffs at the at the highest level. So how should we be thinking about this, this latest salvo? Nobody knows. I don't think the administration even knows. Uh, the worry is that he might go through with this, especially since it's only on about one week's notice and he did actually go through with 145% tariffs on China. Thank goodness that was temporary, but we're still at 30% when before, you know, even in January it was 10 to 20%. So even after the backing down, we still have higher tariffs overall. It's the same story with the reciprocal tariffs and my guess is that while we won't get a 50% tariff against Europe, it'll still be much higher than it was just a few months ago and that is bad news for the American economy and also for America's diplomatic relations around the world. We need allies against places like Russia and China and threatening tariff wars is not the way to do that. Yeah, there is this, uh, I don't know if you saw this, Ryan, this term that the FT coined the Taco factor. Did you hear this one, Julie? The Taco factor. Trump always chickens out. That's what they said, particularly with his trade taxes. Um, I want to get your take Ryan. I asked our colleague Ben Worskoll this, but I love your insight too. I mean, Trump wants a deal with the EU. He wants a good deal. He wants a deal that looks like a win. And I'm curious as you try to think through different scenarios, what could that look like, Ryan, in your opinion? Well, Europe took a shot with reciprocal tariffs by using the word as it actually means. The trouble is when Trump uses the word reciprocal, he doesn't use that word by its common definition. Europe offered matching tariff declines along with what we were offering and Trump said that's not enough and he might have a point about Europe's competition policy, essentially using American tech companies as a piggy bank, but at the same time, threatening a 50% tariff is not the way to accomplish that objective. I mean, considering that the US economy is shrinking right now, consumer sentiment is in the toilet, inflation is likely to go up next month, tariffs are causing far more harm than any possible good it could have to say the EU's competition policy. Ryan, um, we're going to be talking to a market strategist a little bit later and one of the things he said to us was that, um, markets are overreacting to the tariffs because he says imports are only 10% of the US economy when you look at the GDP calculation. Um, why is it a bigger deal than just that 10% import? Because everything is connected. Roughly 60% of US imports, it's not cheap plastic stuff like you find at the shelves at Walmart or at Dollar General. 60% of US imports are intermediate goods. They are components, they are machinery, they are raw materials that American businesses use to make American products in America with American workers. So even if you have a product that has made in USA on it, maybe the machines that made it came from abroad. So anytime you have say a one-third shipping decline from Asia, it's not just consumers that are getting hit, it's businesses as well. So yes, it's only 10% of GDP, but that 10% affects nearly all of GDP. Everything is interconnected. Ryan, what do you make of kind of the bigger picture argument that you will hear Trump officials make, which is that, listen, they want to reform the global trading system, they want to put American firms on fair firmer ground. They think the trading system as it's configured now, it might have made sense after World War II. It doesn't make sense they'll argue in May 2025 that we impose a 2.5% tariff on, you know, auto imports from the Europe and and EU hits back with a 10% import duty on us. What do you make of that argument? Do you think they have a point? And if so, how would you address it? What they're doing is they're they're reasoning backwards. Trump just likes tariffs. That's it. Everything else that we're seeing is a rationalization of that. Just earlier today, Treasury Secretary Becent was talking about how they're going to find the revenue maximizing rate for tariffs. Well, if you're using tariffs to strike a deal with Europe, and then you back off that high rate, you get the deal, but you're not maximizing revenue. Or, if you're trying to boost American industries, you keep imports out. If you keep imports out, you're not raising revenue either. All these rationales contradict each other. It's just people trying to rationalize President Trump's gut feeling that he just likes tariffs. It's time for for Congress to step in and stop him. Ryan, thank you so much for your perspective. We appreciate it. Thank you.
Yahoo
11-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Is Trump's battle against bureaucracy a game-changer or just a short-lived stunt?
It's not just tariffs. American businesses and households are undermined by regulations that stifle competition and innovation, hamper growth and drive up prices. Federal regulations alone cost the average household over $16,000 annually, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Ten Thousand Commandments 2025 report. The question is how to fix the problem. We need our leaders in all three branches of government to achieve deregulation. But so far, only the executive branch has been working to deregulate, apart from both houses of Congress voting to overturn a few Biden-era rules. One new executive order from President Trump introduces expiration dates, or sunsets, to certain regulations, which will prod our elected representatives to consider in the future whether specific regulations are needed and prevent unchecked accumulation of regulatory sludge. Without sunset dates, once a rule is on the books, it's permanent unless Congress or an agency acts to remove it. Congress isn't inclined to do so because it requires effort and consensus. Regulatory agencies rarely eliminate rules, because the process can take months or even years. That is how the Code of Federal Regulations has ballooned to more than 188,000 pages. Another new Trump executive order directs agency heads to review their regulations for legality and constitutionality, in light of recent Supreme Court rulings curbing power wielded by the unelected administrative state. Agency self-review could deliver significant regulatory relief, especially when bolstered by another early Trump order imposing an ambitious 'one-in, ten-out' rulemaking process. Together such orders can slow the influx of new regulations while pruning the existing stock. But regulatory reformers must heed a lesson from Trump's first term: executive orders aren't enough. Permanent reform demands congressional legislation. Executive actions can be fleeting. Joe Biden reversed Trump's regulatory streamlining agenda in 2021, for example, and Trump returned the favor this January. While Trump's sunset order could help in the short term, it may not outlast his presidency. Lasting change requires legislation like Sen. Joni Ernst's (R-Iowa) SCRUB Act, which includes a sunset provision. The SCRUB Act and other bills also have a tool more effective than agency self-policing: an outside commission that would comb the books for outdated or harmful rules and put them in a repeal package for Congress to permanently repeal. This commission approach worked for closing unneeded military bases in the 1990s after the Cold War ended. Taxpayers have saved billions of dollars. If it worked for defense spending, it can work for regulations. Other Trump executive orders on regulation cover everything from cost-benefit analysis to anti-competitive regulations. The same principle applies. If reforms are to endure, Congress must do its part, and swiftly. If Trump's relentless trade war persists, a recession could erode the GOP's current majority, complicating reform efforts. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is not a sufficient force for deregulation, as it lacks Congress's legislative authority and has in any event focused more on agency payrolls than regulatory actions. We need Congress to step up. Otherwise, as the Archbridge Institute's Justin Callais points out, if Trump can cut spending without Congress, 'what is to stop future Presidents from adding to government spending without congressional approval'? Courts also need to be more engaged in regulation. If an executive branch agency issues an unconstitutional rule or one that Congress never authorized with a statute, the judiciary's proper role is to strike it down when presented with pertinent litigation. That is the court's role in maintaining the Constitution's separation of powers. Recent court decisions regarding the major questions and non-delegation doctrines make it easier for courts to do their job. Next comes the test. Whatever Trump's flaws, his administration has a unique opportunity to tackle overregulation. But the president cannot succeed without the other branches of government. The time to act is now. Federal regulations cost over $2 trillion per year. More than 3,000 new regulations hit the books last year, and the most recent Unified Agenda listed more than 3,500 upcoming rules. The 188,000-page Code of Federal Regulations is still growing. These are trends in the wrong direction. The president's push to curb overregulation is welcome, but he can't do it alone. Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr. is the Fred L. Smith fellow in regulatory studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where Ryan Young is senior economist. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
