Trump says US to impose 15% tariff on South Korean goods
"South Korea will give to the United States $350 Billion Dollars for Investments," Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform, adding that the country would buy $100 billion in liquefied natural gas or other energy products.
The 15 percent rate is below a 25 percent rate that Trump had threatened earlier, and was equivalent to levies determined from US trade deals with Japan and the European Union.
Trump added that an additional unspecified "large sum of money" will be invested by Seoul.
"This sum will be announced within the next two weeks when the President of South Korea, Lee Jae Myung, comes to the White House for a Bilateral Meeting," Trump said, offering congratulations to his South Korean counterpart for his "electoral success."
- 'Overcome a major hurdle' -
The meeting will be their first since Lee assumed the presidency in June.
In a statement posted to Facebook, Lee called the deal "the first major trade challenge" since his administration took power, adding: "We have overcome a major hurdle."
"Through this deal, the government has eliminated uncertainty surrounding export conditions and ensured that US tariffs on our exports are either lower than or equal to those imposed on our major trade competitors," Lee said.
Lee was elected in a snap vote last month following the impeachment of his predecessor, Yoon Suk Yeol, over his disastrous martial law declaration in December.
Now at the helm of Asia's fourth-largest economy, which is heavily reliant on exports, the trade deal marks an early victory for Lee's tenure.
"This agreement represents the convergence of US interests in revitalizing its manufacturing sector and our determination to strengthen Korean companies' competitiveness in the American market," Lee's statement continued.
Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has imposed a sweeping 10 percent tariff on allies and competitors alike -- with rates set to increase for dozens of economies on August 1 -- alongside steeper levels on steel, aluminum and autos.
In contrast with the 15 percent tariff for South Korea, Trump on Wednesday also placed 25 percent tariffs on imports from India and 50 percent on those from Brazil.
The latter rate was determined in part as retaliation for what Trump has called a "witch hunt" against his far-right ally Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil's former president who is currently undergoing a criminal trial.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bangkok Post
12 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
Higher US tariffs officially take effect
WASHINGTON - Higher US tariffs came into effect for dozens of economies on Thursday, drastically raising the stakes in President Donald Trump's wide-ranging efforts to reshape global trade. As an executive order signed last week by Trump took effect, US duties rose from 10% to levels between 15% and 41% for a list of trading partners. Many products from economies including the European Union, Japan and South Korea now face a 15% tariff, even with deals struck with Washington to avert steeper threatened levies. But others like India face a 25% duty — to be doubled in three weeks if it keeps buying Russian oil — while Syria, Myanmar and Laos face staggering levels at either 40% or 41%. Thailand succeeded in negotiating its tariff rate down to 19% — on par with most regional peers — from 36% threatened earlier. Taking to his Truth Social platform just after midnight, Trump posted: 'IT'S MIDNIGHT!!! BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TARIFFS ARE NOW FLOWING INTO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!' The latest wave of 'reciprocal' duties, aimed at addressing trade practices that Washington deems unfair, broadens the measures Trump has imposed since returning to the presidency. But these higher tariffs do not apply to sector-specific imports that are separately targeted, such as steel, autos, pharmaceuticals and chips. Trump said on Wednesday he planned a 100% tariff on semiconductors — though Taipei said the chipmaking giant TSMC would be exempt as it has US factories. Even so, companies and industry groups warn that the new levies will severely hurt smaller American businesses. Economists caution that they could fuel inflation and weigh on growth in the longer haul. While some experts argue that the effects on prices will be one-off, others believe the jury is still out. With the dust settling on countries' tariff levels, at least for now, Georgetown University professor Marc Busch expects US businesses to pass along more of the bill to consumers. An earlier 90-day pause in these higher 'reciprocal' tariffs gave importers time to stock up, he said. But although the wait-and-see strategy led businesses to absorb more of the tariff burden initially, inventories are depleting and it is unlikely they will do this indefinitely, he told AFP. 'With back-to-school shopping just weeks away, this will matter politically,' said Busch, an international trade policy expert. Devil in the details The tariff order taking effect on Thursday also leaves lingering questions for partners that have negotiated deals with Trump recently. Tokyo and Washington, for example, appear at odds over key details of their tariffs pact, such as when lower levies on Japanese cars will take place. Washington has yet to provide a date for reduced auto tariffs to take effect for Japan, the EU and South Korea. Generally, US auto imports now face a 25% duty under a sector-specific order. A White House official told AFP that Japan's 15% tariff stacks atop of existing duties, despite Tokyo's expectations of some concessions. Meanwhile, the EU continues to seek a carveout from tariffs for its key wine industry. In a recent industry letter addressed to Trump, the US Wine Trade Alliance and others urged the sector's exclusion from tariffs, saying: 'Wine sales account for up to 60% of gross margins of full-service restaurants.' New fronts Trump is also not letting up in his trade wars. He opened a new front Wednesday by doubling planned duties on Indian goods to 50%, citing New Delhi's continued purchase of Russian oil. But the additional 25-percent duty would take effect in three weeks. Trump's order for added India duties also threatened penalties on other countries that 'directly or indirectly' import Russian oil, a key revenue source for Moscow's war in Ukraine. Existing exemptions still apply, with pharmaceuticals and smartphones excluded for now. And Trump has separately targeted Brazil over the trial of his right-wing ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro, who is accused of planning a coup. US tariffs on various Brazilian goods surged from 10% to 50% Wednesday, but broad exemptions including for orange juice and civil aircraft are seen as softening the blow. Still, key products like Brazilian coffee, beef and sugar are hit.
Bangkok Post
13 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
Trump hails $100bn US investment pledge by Apple
WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump has announced that Apple will invest an additional $100 billion in the United States, a move that could help it sidestep potential tariffs on iPhones. The new pledge raises Apple's total domestic investment commitment in the US to $600 billion over the next four years. Earlier this year, the company announced it would invest $500 billion and hire 20,000 workers across the country in that period. The announcement centres on expanding Apple's supply chain and advanced manufacturing footprint in the US, but still falls short of Trump's demand that Apple begin making iPhones domestically. 'Companies like Apple, they're coming home. They're all coming home,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday, moments after Apple CEO Tim Cook gave him a US-made souvenir with a 24-karat gold base. 'This is a significant step toward the ultimate goal of ensuring that iPhones sold in America also are made in America,' Trump added. Asked if Apple could eventually build entire iPhones in the US, Cook noted that many components such as semiconductors, glass and Face ID modules are already made domestically, but said that final assembly will remain overseas 'for a while'. While the investment pledge is significant, analysts say the numbers align with Apple's typical spending patterns and echo commitments made during both the Biden administration and Trump's previous term. In May, Trump had threatened Apple with a 25% tariff on products manufactured overseas, a sharp reversal from earlier policy when his administration had exempted smartphones, computers and other electronics from rounds of tariffs on Chinese imports. Trump's effort to reshape global trade through tariffs cost Apple $800 million in the June quarter. 'Today is a good step in the right direction for Apple, and it helps get on Trump's good side after what appears to be a tension-filled few months in the eyes of the Street between the White House and Apple,' said Daniel Ives, an analyst with Wedbush Securities. 'Savvy solution' Apple has a mixed track record when it comes to following through on investment promises. In 2019, for instance, Cook toured a Texas factory with Trump that was promoted as a new manufacturing site. But the facility had been producing Apple computers since 2013 and Apple has since moved that production to Thailand. Apple continues to manufacture most of its products, including iPhones and iPads, in Asia, primarily in China, although it has shifted some production to Vietnam, Thailand and India in recent years. Despite political pressure, analysts widely agree that building iPhones in the US remains unrealistic due to labour costs and the complexity of the global supply chain. 'The announcement is a savvy solution to the president's demand that Apple manufacture all iPhones in the US,' said Nancy Tengler, CEO and CIO of Laffer Tengler Investments, which holds Apple shares. Partners on Apple's latest US investment effort include specialty glass maker Corning, semiconductor manufacturing equipment supplier Applied Materials, and chipmakers Texas Instruments, GlobalFoundries, Broadcom and Samsung. Apple said Samsung will supply chips from its production plant in Texas for its products including iPhones, while GlobalWafers said it would be supplying 300mm silicon wafers from its Texas plant.
Bangkok Post
18 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
The scramble for the world's critical minerals
The world's superpowers have developed a seemingly insatiable appetite for the critical minerals that are essential to the ongoing energy and digital transitions, including rare-earth metals (for semiconductors), cobalt (for batteries), and uranium (for nuclear reactors). The International Energy Agency forecasts that demand for these minerals will more than quadruple by 2040 for use in clean-energy technologies alone. But, in their race to control these vital resources, China, Europe, and the United States risk causing serious harm to the countries that possess them. As it stands, China is leading the pack, having gained ownership or control over an estimated 60-80% of the critical minerals that are needed for industry (such as for magnets) and the green transition. This control extends across the supply chain: China is heavily invested in mining across Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America, and has been building up its processing capabilities. For Western powers, China's quasi-monopoly over critical minerals looks like an economic and national-security threat. This fear is not unfounded. In December 2024, China restricted exports of critical minerals to the US in retaliation for US restrictions on exports of advanced microchips to China. Since then, US President Donald Trump has forced Ukraine to relinquish a significant share of its critical minerals to the US in what he presents as repayment for American support in its fight against Russia. Mr Trump also wants US sovereignty over mineral-rich Greenland, to the dismay of Denmark. And he has suggested that Canada, with all its natural resources, become America's 51st state. The European Union, for its part, has sought its own mining contracts, such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), touted as the "Saudi Arabia of critical minerals". From the Scramble for Africa in the 19th century to Western attempts to claim Middle Eastern oil in the 20th century, such resource grabs are hardly new. They reflect a fundamental asymmetry: less industrialised developing economies tend to consume fewer resources than they produce, whereas the opposite is true for developed economies -- and, nowadays, China. In principle, this asymmetry creates ideal conditions for mutually beneficial agreements: industrialised economies get the resources they desire, and non-industrialised economies get a windfall, which they can use to bolster their own development. But, in reality, vast natural-resource endowments have proven to be more of a curse than a blessing, with resource-rich countries often developing more slowly than their resource-poor counterparts. A key reason for this is that developed economies have more economic clout, advanced technology, and military might -- all of which they bring to bear to acquire the resources they seek. For example, European imperial powers used steam-engine technology to help them explore and exploit Africa for resources like copper, tin, rubber, timber, diamonds, and gold in the 19th century. This, together with more advanced weaponry and other technologies, meant that, far from offering local communities fair compensation for their valuable resources, European powers could subjugate those communities and use their labour to extract and transport what they wanted. But even countries that are exporting their resources for a profit have often struggled to make progress on development, not only because of imbalanced deals with more powerful resource importers, but also because their governments have often mismanaged the associated bonanzas. It does not help that resource-rich countries and regions often grapple with internal and external conflicts. Consider the mineral-rich provinces of the DRC, such as Katanga and North Kivu, which have long suffered from violence and lawlessness, fuelled by neighbours such as Rwanda and Uganda. Today, the advance of the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels is fuelling bloodshed in eastern Congo -- and creating an opportunity for outside powers to gain access to critical minerals. The DRC-Rwanda peace agreement brokered by the Trump administration promises precisely such access to the US, in exchange for security guarantees. But the resource curse is not inescapable, especially for countries with strong outward-facing institutions to manage the economy's external relations, including its resource sector's ability to attract investment and generate revenues for the state, and inward-facing institutions to govern how those revenues are used. If a country is to translate its resource endowments into economic development and improvements in human well-being, both have a critical role to play. Outward-facing institutions must negotiate fair and transparent mining contracts with multinational corporations and strengthen local governments' ability to do the same. Such contracts should include local-content requirements, which keep more high-value-added processing activities at home, increase local employment, and strengthen the capacity of local suppliers and contractors. Since acquiring a 15% stake in De Beers, Botswana has sought to ensure that diamond cutting -- not just mining -- occurs domestically, which requires inward-facing institutions to deliver adequate investment in these capabilities. Inward-facing institutions must also manage risks raised by resource extraction, from health and environmental damage (deforestation, biodiversity loss, pollution) to labour-rights violations (including child labour). Unfortunately, as it stands, many mineral-rich countries are falling far short, leading some to advocate boycotts of critical minerals coming from conflict zones or countries using forced labour. While such boycotts are unlikely to sway these governments, they could convince multinationals and foreign governments to demand better enforcement of environmental and social standards from countries with which they do business. Ultimately, however, it is up to mineral-rich countries to defend their interests and make the most of their endowments. This starts with efforts to strengthen institutions. ©2025 Project Syndicate Rabah Arezki, a former vice president at the African Development Bank, is Director of Research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research and a senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School. Rick van der Ploeg is Professor of Economics at the University of Oxford and University Professor of Environmental Economics at the University of Amsterdam.
