How Trump turned the tide in his trade war
President Donald Trump has pulled off an impressive feat: He is raising tariffs on some of America's most important trading partners, and the world is largely cheering the agreements as victories.
Placing historically high taxes on imports from around the world — particularly at a time when American consumers are still reeling from the highest inflation they've experienced in four decades — marked one of Trump's boldest gambles of his presidency. Trump was largely elected on his pledge to fix Americans' finances. Economists have widely shunned his trade policy, which is expected to raise costs for businesses and consumers.
But Trump zagged when everyone was zigging, and — so far — the bet has paid off. He achieved that with some old-fashioned psychology: setting the bar so high for potential tariff pain that anything that has come below that bar appears like a win.
Trump 'always has a plan, but it's not always obvious,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Bloomberg Television Wednesday morning.
For example, Trump had threatened Japan with a 25% tariff earlier this month when negotiations stalled. But late Tuesday, a trade agreement between the two nations was announced, including a tariff rate of 15% on Japanese goods imported into the United States. US markets got a healthy bounce higher Wednesday. Japan's markets took off like a rocket.
But 15% is more than the 10% that US importers have been paying for Japanese exports since April, when Trump first rolled out his so-called reciprocal tariffs on trading partners — and much more than what the Japanese were paying before Trump took office.
The victory, some analysts say, is the certainty that the trade agreements provide investors, consumers and businesses.
'The positive is that hopefully we're coming to the end of all the tariff cloudiness in terms of what the ultimate rates will be so businesses can plan around them,' said Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer of One Point BFG Wealth Partners, in a note to investors Wednesday morning. Boockvar, however, acknowledged this is 'a bizarre political and economic theory world we now live in.'
Trump is winning by moving the goal posts, noted Ed Mills, Washington policy analyst at Raymond James.
'Compared to what he threatened, it looks like he caved. Compared to what was previous, it's a significant tariff,' Mills told CNN. 'Investors just want to know a number. They almost don't care what it is, they just want the uncertainty to go away.'
Or as TD Securities Analyst Chris Krueger put it: Trump has shifted the Overton window – the range of outcomes that the public is willing to accept.
'(A) 15% tariff on the US's fifth-largest trading partner? Better than 25%,' Kruger said in a note to investors.
The trade war is far from complete, and the long-term implications of Trump's decisions could yet be damaging — economically and politically. But, in the near term, Trump appears to be winning.
That tide began to turn on April 9, when Trump paused for 90 days his 'Liberation Day' tariffs announced a week earlier that had sent the stock market plunging and briefly entering bear market territory. The bond market had also begun to show signs that it might break — until Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent guided Trump away from his harshest tariff levels.
Markets have rallied from that point on, and consumer sentiment — which sank near all-time lows — has rebounded.
Several other events helped soothe fears since the tariff pause: On April 12, the Trump administration excluded smartphones and electronics from the historically high tariffs it had placed on China, leading to another market bounce-back. In mid-May, the Trump administration reached an agreement with China to lower tariffs dramatically and open some markets that both sides had closed off as tensions rose. Tariffs on Chinese imports fell to 35% from 145%, which had been a historic level that served as an effective shipping embargo.
A trade agreement with the UK, a reinforced China agreement and a slew of announcements Tuesday on trade, from Indonesia to the Philippines and then Japan also provided much-needed doses of certainty.
Trump has also used tariffs, deals and threats as a way to give US industry a boost. He has fought hard against so-called non-tariff barriers, including digital services taxes, which the administration believes put undue pressure on the American tech industry.
For example, late last month, Trump railed against Canada for imposing a tax on online companies and threatened to end trade talks. Trump also said he would set a new tariff for Canada by the end of this week. Days later, Canada backed down and dropped the tax.
Trump worked to include opening US exports to foreign countries as part of his trade agreements, too, including beef to the United Kingdom, rice and cars to Japan, and various items to Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines.
However, it's not clear Trump can claim victory on trade just yet. At least dozens of trading partners are expected to get higher tariffs set at the end of next week, and Trump has floated raising the 10% universal tariff he imposed on April 2 to 15% or 20%. The European Union, another major US trading partner, has found a trade agreement elusive, and tariffs could surge on both sides of the Atlantic as a result.
The US and global economies have largely been able to withstand Trump's tariffs over the past several months, but it's not clear that they can if those rates go higher — particularly as US importers work through warehoused inventories of goods that were brought in to the United States before tariffs were put in place.
'It remains too early to fully understand the longer-term implications, especially with another round of new tariff developments expected in August,' Lynn Song, ING's chief economist for Greater China, said in a note to clients Wednesday morning.
The Trump administration knows this. And the better-than-expected deal with Japan suggests the White House may be reluctant to push important trading partners too hard, recognizing that the economic pain from high tariffs and potential tit-for-tat retaliation could prove unacceptable to businesses, investors and the public, noted Ulrike Hoffmann-Burchardi, global head of equities for UBS Global Wealth Management.
Inflation is starting to creep higher. Business sentiment is improving, but earnings and growth expectations remain pretty stagnant. Consumer sentiment is on the upswing but still comparatively low to where it was before Trump started putting tariffs in place. The job market is showing some cracks.
As a result, the US dollar continues to sink sharply, in a sign of concern about potential US economic weakness to come. US and Japanese bonds sold off Wednesday, too.
That's the market's way of waying the certainty of the present could quickly turn into more tumult in the future.
CNN's Matt Egan contributed to this report.
See Full Web Article
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Poll: 14% of Americans would consider supporting Elon Musk's America Party
In contrast, 55% say they would not consider supporting Musk's party. On July 4, Tesla CEO Elon Musk asked his followers on X — the social media platform he owns — whether he should 'create' something called the America Party to give them 'independence' from the country's 'two-party (some would say uniparty) system.' More than 1.2 million users responded to Musk's snap poll: 65% said yes; 35% said no. 'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!' Musk vowed the following day. Since then, however, Musk hasn't taken any visible steps to deliver on his promise. A new Yahoo/YouGov survey — which captures a representative sample of the U.S. population, in contrast to informal social media polls — suggests possible challenges ahead: Just 14% of Americans say they would be open to 'supporting a third party created by Musk.' In contrast, 55% say they would not consider supporting Musk's party. Why Musk wants a new party The survey of 1,729 U.S. adults, which was conducted from July 24 to July 28, comes a little more than a month after Musk and President Trump had a public falling-out over Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' Trump claimed that Musk was 'upset' about 'losing his EV mandate' (the $7,500 federal tax credit that has made buying or leasing electric vehicles such as Teslas more attractive and affordable for consumers). Musk insisted he was concerned only with the legislation's effect on federal spending — namely, initial estimates that showed it would 'massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit ... and burden America citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt,' as he wrote on X. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk continued. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' When a revised version of Trump's bill passed the Senate in early July with a $3.3 trillion deficit projection, Musk unveiled his America Party idea. 'When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,' Musk wrote on X. 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.' People don't love the 2-party system Americans aren't opposed to having alternatives at the ballot box — in theory. The new Yahoo/YouGov poll finds that more of them approve (39%) than disapprove (28%) of the concept of creating a 'third major U.S. political party to compete with the Democratic Party and the Republican Party'; 33% say they are not sure. Naturally, the idea of creating a third party is more popular with Americans who already identify as independents (56%) than with those who identify as Democrats (34%) or Republicans (32%). But the two parties themselves aren't especially well liked either. Majorities see both unfavorably (55% for the GOP, 56% for the Dems) rather than favorably (38% for the GOP, 36% for the Dems). And when respondents are asked how well each major party represents their views, more than half say 'not very well' or 'not at all' for both the Democrats (51%) and the Republicans (52%). Yet the overlap between these two categories — individuals who say they don't like either party — is relatively small, which may pose difficulties for Musk. About a quarter (22%) have an unfavorable view of both the Republicans and the Democrats, and fewer (18%) say neither side represents their views 'very well' or 'at all.' Musk keeps getting less popular In the Yahoo/YouGov poll conducted immediately after Trump won reelection last November, Musk earned a net positive rating (49% favorable, 39% unfavorable). That made him the most popular of the eight incoming Trump Cabinet members and senior advisers respondents were asked to appraise. Yet by April 2025 — following several months as the leader of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — Musk's ratings had flipped to 39% favorable, 55% unfavorable. Today, he is further underwater (32% favorable, 59% unfavorable). Musk is currently seen in a negative light by a clear majority of Democrats (9% favorable, 88% unfavorable) and nearly two-thirds of independents (30% favorable, 64% unfavorable). He still gets a net positive rating from a majority of Republicans (59% favorable, 30% unfavorable), but their enthusiasm has cooled; while 52% of Republicans saw Musk 'very favorably' last November, only 17% now feel that way about him. Since March, the number of Americans who think Musk is 'mostly trying to help the country' has fallen from 36% to 23%, whereas the number who think he is 'mostly trying to help himself' has risen from 52% to 56%. The share of Republicans who think Musk is mostly trying to help the country, meanwhile, has declined by 30 points — from 73% to 43%. The proposed policy focus of Musk's America Party — stopping the federal government from 'bankrupting our country with waste & graft,' as he put it — isn't people's top priority either. Asked what they would want a 'third major political party' to 'focus mostly on,' 26% of Americans said 'cutting government spending.' Significantly more (46%) said 'other issues.' __________________ The Yahoo survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,729 U.S. adults interviewed online from July 24 to July 28, 2025. The sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, education, 2024 election turnout and presidential vote, party identification and current voter registration status. Demographic weighting targets come from the 2019 American Community Survey. Party identification is weighted to the estimated distribution at the time of the election (31% Democratic, 32% Republican). Respondents were selected from YouGov's opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. adults. The margin of error is approximately 3.1%.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Detail still lacking ‘but Ireland would be worse off without EU-US deal'
A swathe of tariffs imposed on other nations show Ireland would be worse off if there was not an EU-US trade deal, the Irish deputy premier said. US president Donald Trump signed an executive order that sees tariffs of 15% or above imposed on trading partners including Brazil, Lesotho, Taiwan and Switzerland. The EU struck a trade deal with the US five days before Mr Trump said a 30% tariff would kick in for the bloc. The deal sees 15% tariffs on most EU goods including cars, semiconductors and pharmaceuticals entering the US. There are 'zero for zero' tariffs on a number of products including aircraft, some agricultural goods and certain chemicals – as well as EU purchases of US energy worth 750 billion dollars over three years. Simon Harris said on Friday after a meeting of the trade forum at Government Buildings that a lot of detail of the agreement still needs to be clarified as he defended the deal. 'Without a deal between the US and the EU, today would have seen 30% tariffs introduced by President Trump on the EU, and would also have seen very, very significant counter measures introduced by the EU to the tune of around 90 odd billion euro,' the Tanaiste said. 'There's absolutely no doubt that that would have been a moment of catastrophe in terms of our economic wellbeing as a country.' He added: 'We'd be in a very different and a much worse position I think if we were standing here today with no deal. 'You don't have to take my word for that, if you just see the executive order last night and all of the tariffs levelled in other countries, including countries that didn't have deals. 'They were generally much, much higher than the tariff rate for the European Union.' He said the EU tariff rate of 15% would come into effect from August 7. Tariffs on pharmaceuticals would remain at zero until the US administration concludes its Section 232 investigation, relating to imported goods of importance to national security, into the sector. Mr Harris said he was informed by Brussels that this is expected to conclude in around two weeks. Mr Harris also said 'there is too many variables' to yet know the effect of the tariff differential between Northern Ireland and Ireland. He said he spoke with Northern Ireland First Minister Michelle O'Neill, deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly, and the Economy Minister Caoimhe Archibald who agreed on this. 'So to give you an example, at the moment butter in Ireland already has a tariff of around 16% on it, pre-existing. 'It's had 10% on top of that since President Trump's last round, so that's meant butter in Ireland had a tariff of 26%. Under the new EU deal, that will fall to 16%. 'Butter in the UK, if I can use that as a comparison, will actually probably end up with 16%, plus 10%, so 26%. 'I'm just using a pound of butter as an example here, but if you look at it, you know, at a headline rate, you'd say 'Well, there'd be lower tariff on butter in the UK than Ireland', and actually that's probably not the case. 'So we need to tease our way through this. But there is no doubt that there will be challenges that will have to be worked through.' He said: 'I suppose the last point I'd make is that this is a subset of businesses. It's really a subset of a subset, because this will obviously only affect businesses that are doing cross-border trade and exporting to the United States of America. So it's not to be in any way dismissive of that, but it will obviously only affect that proportion of the business community. 'Pharma is another example. I mean, the EU seems to have a commitment in writing to 15% or less, no more than 15% for pharma. 'The UK language is much more vague. It doesn't have a number beside it, so we'll need to see where that brings us in the weeks ahead.'
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump calls on Federal Reserve board to wrest full control of central bank from Fed Chair Powell
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Friday called for the Federal Reserve's board of governors to usurp the power of Fed Chair Jerome Powell, criticizing the head of the U.S. central bank for not cutting short-term interest rates. Posting on his Truth Social platform, Trump called Powell 'stubborn." The Fed chair has been subjected to vicious verbal attacks by the Republican president over several months. The Fed has the responsibility of stabilizing prices and maximizing employment. Powell has held its benchmark rate for overnight loans constant this year, saying that Fed officials needed to see what impact Trump's massive tariffs had on inflation. If Powell doesn't 'substantially' lower rates, Trump said, 'THE BOARD SHOULD ASSUME CONTROL, AND DO WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS HAS TO BE DONE!' Trump sees the rate cuts as leading to stronger growth and lower debt servicing costs for the federal government and homebuyers. The president argues there is virtually no inflation, even though the Fed's preferred measure is running at an annual rate of 2.6%, slightly higher than the Fed's 2% target. Trump has called for slashing the Fed's benchmark rate by 3 percentage points, bringing it down dramatically from its current average of 4.33%. The risk is that a rate cut that large could cause more money to come into the economy than can be absorbed, possibly causing inflation to accelerate. The Supreme Court suggested in a May ruling that Trump could not remove Powell for policy disagreements. This led the White House to investigate whether the Fed chair could be fired for cause because of the cost overruns in its $2.5 billion renovation projects. Powell's term as chair ends in May 2026, at which point Trump can put his Senate-confirmed pick in the seat. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the Federal Reserve System at Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos