Economic Watch: Trump's sweeping new tariffs spark extensive criticism
WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order that further modified tariff rates with 69 trading partners, drawing criticism across the world.
The order, set to be implemented on Aug. 7, imposes "additional ad valorem duties on goods of certain trading partners," with rates ranging from 10 percent to 40 percent.
SWEEPING TARIFFS
Under the new executive order, the "universal" tariff for goods entering the United States will remain at 10 percent, the same rate implemented on April 2. However, the 10-percent rate will only apply to countries with which the United States has a trade surplus, CNN reported, citing a senior official.
For countries with which the United States has a trade deficit, a 15-percent rate will serve as the new tariff floor. Still, for more than a dozen other countries, the tariff rates are higher than 15 percent, either because they agreed to a trade framework with the United States or because Trump sent their leaders a letter requiring a higher tariff, it added.
On Thursday, Trump signed an executive order increasing the tariff on Canada from 25 percent to 35 percent, with the higher tariff taking effect on Aug. 1.
Goods qualifying for preferential tariff treatment under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will continue to remain exempt from the new tariffs. Goods transshipped to evade the 35-percent tariff will be subject, instead, to a transshipment tariff of 40 percent.
On Wednesday, Trump signed an executive order implementing an additional 40-percent tariff on Brazilian goods, bringing the total tariff amount to 50 percent.
On the same day, Trump announced that Washington had reached a "full and complete" trade deal with South Korea, setting 15-percent tariffs on its exports.
South Korea has also agreed to invest 350 billion U.S. dollars in projects "owned and controlled by the United States," and selected by himself, Trump said.
Trump said on Wednesday that the United States would impose a 25-percent tariff on imports from India, starting on Aug. 1.
On July 27, Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that they had reached a trade deal under which the United States would impose a baseline tariff of 15 percent on EU goods.
The deal allows the United States to impose a broad 15-percent tariff on EU goods while securing zero-tariff access for a range of strategic American exports.
In contrast, the EU has pledged to purchase 750 billion U.S. dollars' worth of American energy and commit an additional 600 billion U.S. dollars in investments in the United States.
WIDE CRITICISM
The higher tariffs continue Trump's reversal of the decades of globalization that made America's massive services economy the envy of the world but contributed to its long decline in manufacturing, CNN commented.
"Our businesses ... need some degree of certainty, and all they're getting is chaos and inflation. So the Trump tariff trade war is a trade war on the American people. We've seen this week the chaos and uncertainty," said Chuck Schumer, Senate Democratic leader.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said in a statement on Friday that his government is disappointed by Trump's decision to increase the tariff on Canadian goods to 35 percent.
According to the statement, the sectors of lumber, steel, aluminum and automobiles are heavily impacted by U.S. duties and tariffs.
The Canadian government will act to protect Canadian jobs, invest in industrial competitiveness, buy Canadian and diversify export markets, said Carney.
Brazilian Finance Minister Fernando Haddad said his government will soon announce a response plan focused on providing financing assistance, deferring tax payments, accelerating export tax refunds, and reactivating labor protection policies.
Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade, slammed the U.S.-EU deal as "significantly imbalanced." In a statement following the announcement of the agreement, he said that "concessions have been made that are difficult to bear."
The trade agreement is "a political, economic and moral fiasco," Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Rally party in the French parliament, said in an X post.
"Hundreds of billions of euros of gas, as well as weapons, will have to be imported each year from the United States. This is a complete capitulation for French industry, and for our energy and military sovereignty," she said.
"I don't think Trump wants a trade deal. He wants these countries to surrender their economic sovereignty," said Sizo Nkala, senior research fellow at the Center for Africa-China Studies, University of Johannesburg.
"More than anything, the tariff rates represent an assault on and a violation of a rules-based multilateral trading system administered by the World Trade Organization," Nkala said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
26 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Limited options for Democrats to retaliate if Texas Republicans redraw congressional map
WASHINGTON (AP) — As Republicans move to redraw legislative maps in red states to pad their narrow House majority in Washington, some Democrats are rethinking their embrace of a nonpartisan approach to line-drawing that now complicates their party's ability to hit back before next year's midterm elections. In many Democratic-controlled states, independent commissions rather than the state legislature handle redistricting, the normally-once-a-decade task of adjusting congressional and legislative districts so their populations are equal. Parties in the majority can exploit that process to shape their lawmakers' districts so they are almost guaranteed reelection. The commission model limits parties' ability to game the system, leading to more competitive districts. Not all redistricting commissions were created at Democrats' insistence. And, like Republicans, the party has exploited line-drawing for its own gain in the handful of states where it controls the process. But unlike Republicans, many Democratic Party leaders have embraced the nonpartisan model. That means Democrats have fewer options to match Republicans, who are redrawing the U.S. House map in Texas at President Donald Trump's urging to carve out as many as five new winnable seats for the GOP. That could be enough to prevent Democrats from winning back the majority next year. Democrats have threatened payback. During a gathering Friday in Wisconsin of Democratic governors, several of them said they wanted to retaliate because the stakes are so high. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, who has pushed for a nonpartisan redistricting commission in his state, said Democrats must 'do whatever we can' to counter the Republican efforts to redraw congressional maps. 'When you have a gun against your head, you've got to do something,' he said. Despite the ambitious talk, Democrats largely have their hands tied. Democratic states have limited ability to redistrict for political edge California Gov. Gavin Newsom has said he and the Democratic-controlled Legislature will try to redraw his state's congressional map. But they would need to repeal or defy the 2008 ballot measure creating an independent redistricting commission. Voters extended its authority to congressional districts two years later. Newsom supported the constitutional amendment at the time, when he was mayor of San Francisco. The Texas redistricting, which is expected to pass the Legislature next week, led him to modify that position. 'We can act holier than thou, we can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be, or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment,' Newsom said earlier this month. In New York, which also has a commission, the state constitution bars another map this decade. Democrats have moved for a change, but that could not happen until 2027 at the earliest, and then only with voter approval. In other states where Democrats control the governor's office and legislature, including Colorado and Washington, the party has backed independent commissions that cannot redraw, let alone rig, maps in the middle of the decade. Democrats say 'foundations of our democracy' at stake When the redistricting cycle kicked off in 2021, after the last census, independent commissions were in charge of drawing 95 House seats that otherwise would have been drawn by Democrats, but only 13 that would have been created by Republicans. In a marker of the shift among Democrats, former Attorney General Eric Holder, who heads the party's redistricting effort and has called repeatedly for a more nonpartisan approach, seemed to bless his party's long shot efforts to overrule their commissions. 'We do not oppose – on a temporary basis – responsible, responsive actions to ensure that the foundations of our democracy are not permanently eroded,' Holder said in a statement last week. In states where they weren't checked by commissions, Democrats have redistricted just as ruthlessly as Republicans. In Illinois, they drew a map that gave them a 14-3 advantage in the congressional delegation. In New Mexico, they tweaked the map so they control all three House seats. In Nevada, they held three of its four seats in November despite Trump winning the state. Even in states where they have a lopsided advantage, Democrats are exploring ways to maximize it. On Friday, Maryland's House Majority Leader, Democratic Del. David Moon, said he would introduce legislation to trigger redrawing of the congressional lines if Texas moves forward. Democrats hold seven of the state's eight congressional seats. 'We can't have one state, especially a very large state, constantly trying to one-up and alter the course of congressional control while the other states sit idly by,' he said. Commissions promote 'fair representation,' advocates say Advocates of a nonpartisan model are alarmed by the shift among Democrats. They say the party would redistrict just as aggressively as the GOP if not held in check, depriving voters of a voice in districts whose winners would essentially be selected in advance by political leaders. 'We're very desperate — we're looking for any port in a storm,' said Emily Eby French, Common Cause's Texas director. 'This Democratic tit for tat redistricting seems like a port but it's not a port. It's a jagged rock with a bunch of sirens on them.' The group's director of redistricting, Dan Vicuña, said using redistricting for partisan advantage — known as gerrymandering — is highly unpopular with the public: 'This is about fair representation for communities.' Politicians used to shy away from discussing it openly, but that has changed in today's polarized environment. Trump earlier this month told reporters about his hopes of netting five additional GOP seats in Texas and more out of other Republican-controlled states. He has urged new maps in GOP-controlled states such as Indiana and Missouri, while Ohio Republicans are poised to reshape political lines after neutralizing a push to create an independent redistricting commission. Democrats are divided over how to respond to Texas In a sign of the party's divide, Democrats have continued to push for a national redistricting panel that would remove partisanship from the process, even as some call for retaliation against Republicans in defiance of state limitations. 'No unilateral disarmament till both sides are following the law,' said Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego, like Newsom a possible 2028 presidential contender, wrote on X. Gallego's post came a day before his Democratic colleagues gathered to announce they were reintroducing a bill to create the national commission. An identical bill died in 2022 when it couldn't overcome Republican objections despite Democrats controlling Congress and the presidency. It has no chance now that the GOP is in charge of both branches. Sen. Chris Murphy, another potential 2028 contender, didn't express regret over past reforms that have implemented independent redistricting boards in Democratic states, saying the party 'should never apologize for being for the right thing.' But he added that Republicans 'are operating outside of the box right now and we can't stay inside the box.' 'If they're changing districts in the middle of the 10-year cycle, we have to do the same thing,' he said. That approach, however, hasn't caught on across the party. 'We shouldn't stoop to their tactics,' Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said. 'It's an ideal that we have accurate and fair representation. We can't abandon it just because Republicans try to manipulate and distort it.' ___ Riccardi reported from Denver. Associated Press writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin, Jaimie Ding in Los Angeles, Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, New York, and Brian Witte in Annapolis, Maryland, contributed to this report.
Winnipeg Free Press
26 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Before the attacks, Senate candidates seek to define themselves in Kentucky
CALVERT CITY, Ky. (AP) — Three Republicans competing to succeed longtime Sen. Mitch McConnell tried to define themselves before the political attacks that could come Saturday when they share the spotlight at the Fancy Farm picnic, a daunting rite of passage for candidates seeking statewide office in Kentucky. 'You're going to hear some barbs tomorrow, but what I want to focus on is my vision for serving in the United States Senate,' Daniel Cameron, one of the candidates, told a GOP crowd Friday evening. Cameron's rivals in next year's Senate primary — U.S. Rep. Andy Barr and businessman Nate Morris — used their speeches at the event to introduce themselves to Republican voters in western Kentucky. All three could shift into attack mode against each other Saturday afternoon at the Fancy Farm picnic — the Bluegrass State's premier political event. Politicians compete to land the sharpest — and sometimes most outlandish — barbs, and have to endure shouting and heckling from their rivals' supporters. The picnic could turn into a Republican skirmish since Democratic politicians are mostly skipping the event. McConnell, the longest-serving Senate party leader in U.S. history, revealed in February, on his 83rd birthday, that he won't seek another term in Kentucky and will retire when his current term ends. His pending retirement has set up a fierce competition for his seat. Warming up for their appearance that will air on statewide TV at Fancy Farm, the three GOP rivals kept to one script they've all shared — lavishing praise on Republican President Donald Trump. Barr portrayed his congressional experience as an advantage that sets him apart. He represents a district stretching from central Kentucky's bluegrass region to the Appalachian foothills. 'I'm an 'America First' fighter in the United States Congress,' Barr said Friday night. 'Other people like to talk about being a Trump guy or being with Trump. I've been with President Trump from day one. I'm not just talking about supporting President Trump. I've done it. I'm continuing to do it.' Giving voters a glimpse into his political philosophy, Barr said: 'I'm a guy who was raised in the era of Ronald Reagan. I believe in limited government, free enterprise and a strong national defense.' Morris, a tech entrepreneur, portrayed himself as a populist and a political outsider while trying to attach himself to Trump's popularity in Kentucky. 'What we've seen with this president is that he has put emphasis back on the American worker,' Morris said Friday night. 'And the people that have been in Washington for all this time — the elites – they sold out the American worker.' Morris also touted his hardline stance on immigration. He said he supports a moratorium on immigration into the United States until every immigrant currently in the country illegally is deported. Cameron, who is Black, used his speech to rail against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. 'We don't need … an America built on DEI,' Cameron said. 'We need a country that's built on MEI – merit, excellence and intelligence.' Cameron entered the Senate campaign with one clear advantage — a higher statewide name recognition than his rivals. Cameron served one term as state attorney general and lost to Democrat Andy Beshear in the 2023 governor's race. 'You've been with us in the past,' Cameron told the GOP group Friday night. 'I hope that you'll be with us this time. We're going to get it done because we know that what happens in this seat will have reverberations across this country.'
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before departing on Marine One from the South Lawn of the White House, Friday, July 25, 2025, in Washington. The President is traveling to Scotland. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) NEW YORK — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of U.S. President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. It's part of a larger effort around American stories The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' It shows how the presentation of history matters In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.' Deepti Hajela And Hillel Italie, The Associated Press
