Trump's tariff reset: From Canada to Laos, even dealmakers face higher costs as legal fight brews; US allies & rivals hit with steep import taxes
Under the new policy, countries face steep new import duties unless they agree to revised trade terms with the US. Trump has framed the plan as a campaign for "fairness" under the slogan of "Liberation Day," invoking a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency and bypass Congress. But legal and economic blowback is mounting, with US courts weighing challenges and allies questioning Washington's reliability, AP reported.
'Everybody's a loser': Experts flag fallout
"In many respects, everybody's a loser here," said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at New York Law School. "The U.S. consumer's a big loser," added Alan Wolff, a former WTO deputy director-general and trade official.
Even countries that struck deals to reduce their tariff exposure are still facing steeper import duties than before. The UK agreed to raise tariffs on its exports to the US from 1.3% to 10%, despite the US running a trade surplus with it for nearly two decades.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Your Finger Shape Says a Lot About Your Personality, Read Now
Tips and Tricks
Undo
The EU and Japan accepted 15% tariffs, lower than the threatened rates but still significantly higher than last year's levels.
Steep tariffs for those resisting Trump's demands
Nations that refused to negotiate fared far worse. Laos and Algeria, despite low per capita incomes, now face tariffs of 40% and 30% respectively. Brazil was slapped with a 50% levy, reportedly over its treatment of former president Jair Bolsonaro. Canada drew a 35% tariff, tied in part to its position on Palestinian statehood.
Even Switzerland, which did not reach an agreement, was hit with a 39% import tax, exceeding the originally announced 31%.
"The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington to make a deal," said Wolff, now a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Legal battle escalates as costs rise for US consumers
Five US businesses and 12 states have filed lawsuits against the new tariffs, arguing that Trump overstepped his authority. In May, the US Court of International Trade sided with plaintiffs, blocking the tariffs, though collections continue during the appeal process.
Economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that US businesses and consumers are absorbing most of the cost. Companies including Walmart, Nike, Best Buy and Procter & Gamble have all raised prices in response.
"This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those with lower incomes," said Appleton. "Your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to go up."
According to Yale University's Budget Lab, the average US tariff has jumped from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3%, the highest since 1934. The lab estimates this will cost the average US household $2,400 annually.
Winners still end up paying more
Even countries that reached deals to avoid Trump's harshest penalties are still absorbing high tariffs. Taiwan saw its rate lowered from 32% to 20%, and Angola's from 32% to 15% — but both were paying less than 2% before the new policy.
Lesotho, one of the poorest nations affected, saw its tariff reduced from 50% to 15%, though economists say the damage may already be done.
"He [Trump] wants to do it because he found an undervalued franchise -- not because the market says you need to do a deal," said Wolff, referring to Trump's transactional approach to global trade.
Stay informed with the latest
business
news, updates on
bank holidays
and
public holidays
.
Discover stories of India's leading eco-innovators at Ecopreneur Honours 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
10 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's America First biodiesel policy could cost US companies, consumers, trade groups warn
The Trump administration's push to discourage the use of foreign feedstocks in domestic biodiesel could lead to higher energy prices for US consumers and restricted domestic production, according to some refining and biofuel trade groups. The warning reflects ongoing friction between President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency and the administration's traditional allies in the energy and agriculture industries over biofuels policy. Trump has promised to slash consumer energy costs , but is also trying to advance his America First agenda to support domestic production through trade protectionism - which can often make costs go up instead. At issue is a proposal from the EPA in June that would for the first time allocate only half as many tradable renewable fuel credits to biodiesel that is either imported or made with foreign feedstocks. Under the Renewable Fuel Standard, refiners must blend large volumes of biofuels into the US fuel supply or purchase the credits, called RINs, from those that do. While meant to help domestic farmers and producers, the new proposal - set to be finalized this autumn - would place unprecedented demand on domestic raw materials needed to make biodiesel like soybean oil, used cooking oil, and animal fat, in a market that currently must look abroad to meet its needs. Meanwhile, restricting the number of RINs that can be generated through such imports will raise credit prices, with a potential spillover impact on diesel and home heating oil, according to the industry groups. "This credit restriction ... will jeopardize the economic viability of renewable fuel production assets and raise overall compliance costs for all obligated parties, which ultimately harms US consumers," Chet Thompson, head of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers group representing refiners, said in a July 25 letter to top Republican lawmakers. The Advanced Biofuels Association also said the policy could mean ramped up consumer costs, by putting a $250 per metric ton premium on domestic versus imported feedstocks, according to a study it commissioned. "Economic analysis shows this would impose significant costs on US biorefineries, raise fuel prices for millions of Americans, and benefit only a narrow set of stakeholders," ABFA President Michael McAdams said in a statement. The White House and EPA declined to comment directly on the price concerns, saying the administration is still seeking public comment on the proposal until August 8. Others in the biofuel industry backed the proposal. "American farmers need all the demand they can get. We should be developing our capacity here, rather than relying on imported used cooking oil from China, or giving Brazilian feedstocks preferential treatment at the expense of US producers and their farm partners," said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy. However, US companies such as ADM, Bunge and Cargill that have global assets and process US soy, as well as foreign companies with significant US operations, will likely see negative effects. That includes Australia's Nufarm , which contracts with farmers in South America to grow new oilseed crops. Uncertain numbers The biofuel industry had not been seeking the import shift in EPA's June proposal, according to multiple renewable fuel lobbyists and company officials. The White House has since held several meetings with industry officials to hear about potential unintended consequences of the changes, according to multiple sources. The EPA's proposal in June was meant to set out biofuel blending mandates for the next two years. It included a quota of 7.12 billion biomass-based diesel RINs for 2026 - a measurement of the number of tradable credits generated by blending the fuel - and projected that mandate would lead to the blending of 5.61 billion gallons. The biofuels industry and the American Petroleum Institute, an oil trade group, had banded together to lobby the administration to set biomass-based diesel mandates to at least 5.25 billion gallons. The mandate was just 3.35 billion gallons in 2025. Still, there are scenarios in the EPA's accounting that could lead to a lower volume outcome. If all the biodiesel and renewable diesel used in the US next year came from domestic feedstocks, for example, the RIN mandate would yield just 4.45 billion gallons, according to several industry analyses reviewed by Reuters. Ditching the penalty on imported feedstocks could help raise that number, according to the analyses. "That probably aligns with what the administration was trying to do in terms of supporting the agricultural side and farmers," said one industry analyst, who asked to remain anonymous to speak candidly.
Mint
10 minutes ago
- Mint
P Chidambaram's BIG charge against Election Commission: ‘Abusing its powers and trying to change electoral character'
Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram on Sunday alleged that the Election Commission is trying to change the electoral character and patterns of states. The former Union Minister's allegation comes amid a raging row over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar Chidambaram asserted that this 'abuse of powers' must be fought politically and legally. The former home minister said the Bihar voter revision exercise is getting curiouser and curiouser. While 65 lakh voters are in danger of being disenfranchised in Bihar, reports of 'adding' 6.5 lakh persons as voters in Tamil Nadu is alarming and patently illegal, Chidambaram said in a post on X. "Calling them 'permanently migrated' is an insult to the migrant workers and a gross interference in the right of the electorate of Tamil Nadu to elect a government of its choice," the Rajya Sabha MP said. Why should the migrant worker not return to Bihar or his/her home state to vote in the State Assembly election, as they usually do, Chidambaram asked. "Does not the migrant worker return to Bihar at the time of the Chhath puja festival?" he said. "A person to be enrolled as a voter must have a fixed and permanent legal home. The migrant worker has such a home in Bihar (or another state). How can he/she be enrolled as a voter in Tamil Nadu?" Chidambaram said. If the migrant worker's family has a permanent home in Bihar and lives in Bihar, how can the migrant worker be considered as "permanently migrated" to Tamil Nadu, he further asked. "The ECI is abusing its powers and trying to change the electoral character and patterns of States. This abuse of powers must be fought politically and legally," Chidambaram said. The opposition has been protesting in both Houses of Parliament against the SIR, alleging the EC's exercise was aimed at "disenfranchising voters" in Bihar ahead of the Assembly elections. They have been demanding a discussion on the issue in both Houses of Parliament. Key Takeaways Concerns over the legitimacy of the Election Commission's voter roll revisions. Impact of migrant workers on electoral processes in their home states. The necessity for political and legal action against perceived electoral abuses.
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Guns, Jeans, and Republican: How Syndey Sweeney became MAGA's new muse – and a Conservative icon
In the first of the Republican National Conservative debates, when Trump steadfastly refused to participate to show Fox who was the man, his surrogate attack dog summed up the inflection point that was about to overshadow America: 'You want to be a rebel? You want to be a hippie? You want to 'stick it to the man'? Show up on your college campus and try calling yourself a conservative. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now ' It's true. Being liberal used to be an act of rebellion. But that rebellion became mainstream, corporatised, and institutionalised. It now lives on as HR slideshows, Twitter mobs, and avocado ad campaigns. Being young and Republican in 2025 is an act of defiance. And today's protestants become tomorrow's mainstream—evidenced by the fact that there are now more young people who identify as Republican than Democrat in America. It's not clear when the Left lost the youth. Perhaps it was the cascade of madness: the woke craze of pushing trans behaviour in grammar schools. Demanding biological males be allowed to play in women's sports. Saying illegal immigrants should have unfettered access to welfare. Shouting 'Defund the Police' while shoplifting turned into organised retail looting. Declaring obesity a form of body positivity. Telling working-class white kids that their skin colour was an inherited sin. Declaring that whiteness ought to be apologised for. Slowly, the country shifted. Not by campaign ads or policy briefings—but by exhaustion. And as America began tuning out the moral lectures from elites, late-night comedians, and Hollywood, a new icon quietly emerged. Not a pundit. Not a senator. Not a firebrand. A muse. . In an era where even a sneeze can be interpreted as a political statement, Sydney Sweeney has become the conservative darling of the year—without attending a single rally or issuing a single press release. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The star of Euphoria and The White Lotus has, quite by accident, become a MAGA icon. All it took was a leaked Republican voter registration, a denim ad campaign misread as a white supremacist dog whistle, and a shooting range video that could've doubled as NRA propaganda. Welcome to 2025, where political identity is crafted less by what you say, and more by which side claims you. The Republican Registration That Launched a Thousand Memes It recently emerged that That was it. She didn't make a political speech. She didn't wear a MAGA hat. She didn't retweet Ben Shapiro. All she did was file the correct paperwork, and the internet found it. Her name. Her address. Her party. Suddenly, the Right had its new pin-up girl. The Left had a meltdown. For conservatives, this was a cultural coup. A beautiful, talented Hollywood starlet—young, blonde, wildly popular—was officially red. Not pink. Not centrist. Red. And best of all? She wasn't saying sorry for it. The silence was glorious. No apology tour. No clarifying tweet. No 'I was hacked' statement. Liberals demanded answers. Progressives called it a betrayal. But Sydney Sweeney didn't flinch. And in an age where even Instagram captions are pored over for political subtext, saying nothing is a weapon. 'Great Jeans' and the Eugenics Panic of Summer 2025 Then came the American Eagle campaign. Sydney Sweeney, in tight denim and a tank top, staring into the camera under the caption: 'Great Genes.' That's it. That's the ad. Within hours, the internet exploded. Not because of the fashion. Not because of the cut. But because of the word: 'genes.' Not jeans. Genes. The Left read it as a eugenics dog whistle. A blonde-haired, blue-eyed woman fronting a brand with a tagline that sounded suspiciously like white supremacy. Satirical Twitter lit up: 'This is Leni Riefenstahl for Gen Z.' 'Are they selling pants or the master race?' But the Right? The Right cackled. This was proof. Proof that the outrage industry had gone too far. That even a pun could be labelled fascist. That Sydney Sweeney, just by existing in her natural body and not issuing trigger warnings, was now enemy number one. American Eagle didn't back down. Sales spiked. The controversy became the campaign. Sydney didn't write the tagline. She was just the face. But once again, the narrative moved around her. She became the accidental symbol of conservative resistance to liberal hysteria. Shooting Range Superstar: From HBO to the NRA And then the final seal was pressed: the shooting range video. Sydney, in casualwear and earmuffs, loading a Glock like she was born in Fort Benning. First-time shooter? Didn't look like it. Her stance, her focus, her shot grouping—it was enough to make half of Republican Twitter swoon. Clips went viral: 'Sydney Sweeney: America's New Annie Oakley .' .' 'She can shoot AND act? Wife me.' 'Meanwhile your favourite liberal thinks Nerf is a hate crime.' The symbolism was perfect. A young woman in Hollywood, not just pretending to shoot in a Netflix movie—but actually firing rounds at a paper target, calmly, confidently. No virtue signalling. No trembling hands. Just recoil and resolve. The Right didn't need words. The imagery was enough. Mainstream Republicans quickly rallied behind Sydney Sweeney. Vice President JD Vance criticised Democrats for 'calling everyone who thinks Sydney Sweeney beautiful a Nazi,' saying it showed how out of touch the party had become with young voters. Senator Ted Cruz also weighed in, posting on X: 'Wow. Now the crazy Left has come out against beautiful women. I'm sure that will poll well. ' Inside the White House, officials saw the controversy as a win, saying it helped highlight what they view as liberal overreach and cultural policing. For many Republicans, Sweeney's party registration wasn't just a detail—it was confirmation that the culture war was breaking their way. The Power of Saying Nothing What makes Sydney Sweeney such a potent figure is precisely her ambiguity. She doesn't tweet about taxes. She doesn't complain about feminism. She doesn't post 'I Voted' stickers or abortion fundraisers. She doesn't do red carpet activism. And in 2025, that absence speaks louder than any hashtag. Hollywood thrives on performative wokeness. Stars compete to signal their virtue—whether it's climate guilt on private jets or apologies for being cast as straight characters. Sydney Sweeney has opted out. That, to a large chunk of America, makes her radical. Because silence is now seen as alignment. Refusing to bend the knee is tantamount to opposition. And that's why both sides are fighting to frame her. To liberals, she's naive at best, complicit at worst. To conservatives, she's a unicorn: the apolitical star who still represents everything they believe in—beauty, freedom, guns, and denim. The Post-Woke Celebrity Archetype What Sydney Sweeney represents is something new: the post-woke Hollywood icon. Not a right-wing activist. Not a left-wing darling. But someone who has managed to float above the trench warfare. This new archetype is defined by: Ambiguity over affirmation Style over slogans Presence over preaching She's not talking about CRT, climate change, or colonialism. She's talking about her dog. Or her workout. Or her skincare routine. And yet, her silence makes her subversive. She isn't against the Left in any direct sense. She's just not of it. And that distinction matters. Why MAGA Can't Stop Posting Her There's a reason conservative media can't get enough of her: She's young. The GOP's problem has always been youth appeal. Sydney solves that. She's beautiful. Liberal feminists would call that 'problematic.' The Right calls it reality. She's talented. Awards, praise, and prestige roles, all without being preachy. She's silent. No need to cancel. No need to apologise. No moral panic. Just vibes. In other words, she's the anti-Lena Dunham. The anti-Alyssa Milano. The anti-everything that drove red-state Americans away from Hollywood. The Culture War's Most Valuable Pawn Sydney Sweeney didn't ask to be drafted into the culture war. She just voted. Then modelled. Then fired a gun. But in the content economy, you don't get to choose how you're used. She became a screen onto which America projected its anxieties and aspirations. And the fact that she never pushed back made her more powerful. The Right turned her into a meme. The Left turned her into a warning. And Sydney? Sydney went back to work. To movies. To photo shoots. To her life. That may be the most radical thing of all. The Mirror, Not the Mouthpiece Sydney Sweeney is not giving speeches. She's not asking for your vote. She's not applying to be the next Kayleigh McEnany. She is simply existing. But in 2025, that's all it takes. She is a mirror—reflecting everything America wants to believe, or fears to acknowledge. To the Right, she's the proof that Hollywood doesn't own the narrative. To the Left, she's a reminder that silence can be resistance too. And in a country where every movie, every tweet, every ad campaign becomes a battleground, Sydney Sweeney has done the unthinkable. She said nothing. And everyone heard it.
