logo
Analysis-Trump may look like he's winning the trade war, but hurdles remain

Analysis-Trump may look like he's winning the trade war, but hurdles remain

Yahoo3 days ago
By Andrea Shalal
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -At a glance, U.S. President Donald Trump appears to be winning the trade war he unleashed after returning to the White House in January, bending major trading partners to his will, imposing double-digit tariff rates on nearly all imports, narrowing the trade deficit, and raking in tens of billions of dollars a month in much-needed cash for federal government coffers.
Significant hurdles remain, however, including whether U.S. trading partners will make good on investment and goods-purchase commitments, how much tariffs will drive up inflation or stymie demand and growth, and whether the courts allow many of his ad-hoc levies to stand.
On inauguration day, the effective U.S. tariff rate was about 2.5%. It has since jumped to somewhere between 17% and 19%, according to a range of estimates. The Atlantic Council estimates it will edge closer to 20%, the highest in a century, with higher duties taking effect on Thursday.
Trading partners have largely refrained from retaliatory tariffs, sparing the global economy from a more painful tit-for-tat trade war. Data on Tuesday showed a 16% narrowing of the U.S. trade deficit in June, while the U.S. trade gap with China shrank to its smallest in more than 21 years.
American consumers have shown themselves to be more resilient than expected, but some recent data indicate the tariffs are already affecting jobs, growth and inflation.
"The question is, what does winning mean?" said Josh Lipsky, who heads economic studies at the Atlantic Council. "He's raising tariffs on the rest of the world and avoiding a retaliatory trade war far easier than even he anticipated, but the bigger question is what effect does that have on the U.S. economy."
Michael Strain, head of economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said Trump's geopolitical victories could prove hollow.
"In a geopolitical sense, Trump's obviously getting tons of concessions from other countries, but in an economic sense, he's not winning the trade war," he said. "What we're seeing is that he is more willing to inflict economic harm on Americans than other countries are willing to inflict on their nations. And I think of that as losing."
Kelly Ann Shaw, a White House trade adviser during Trump's first term who is now a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, said a still-strong economy and near-record-high stock prices "support a more aggressive tariff strategy."
But Trump's tariffs, tax cuts, deregulation and policies to boost energy production would take time to play out.
"I think history will judge these policies, but he is the first president in my lifetime to make major changes to the global trading system," she added.
DEALS SO FAR
Trump has concluded eight framework agreements with the European Union, Japan, Britain, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines that impose tariffs on their goods ranging from 10% to 20%.
That's well short of the "90 deals in 90 days" administration officials had touted in April, but they account for some 40% of U.S. trade flows. Adding in China, currently saddled with a 30% levy on its goods but likely to win another reprieve from even higher tariffs before an August 12 deadline, would raise that to nearly 54%.
Deals aside, many of Trump's tariff actions have been mercurial.
On Wednesday he ratcheted up pressure on India, doubling new tariffs on goods from there to 50% from 25% because of its imports of oil from Russia. The same rate is in store for goods from Brazil, after Trump complained about its prosecution of former leader Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally. And Switzerland, which Trump had previously praised, is facing 39% tariffs after a conversation between its leader and Trump derailed a deal.
Ryan Majerus, a trade lawyer who worked in both the first Trump administration and the Biden government, said what's been announced so far fails to address "longstanding, politically entrenched trade issues" that have bothered U.S. policymakers for decades, and getting there would likely take "months, if not years."
He also noted they lack specific enforcement mechanisms for the big investments announced, including $550 billion for Japan and $600 billion for the EU.
PROMISES AND RISKS
Critics lit into European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen after she agreed to a 15% tariff during a surprise meeting with Trump during his trip to Scotland last month, while gaining little in return.
The deal frustrated winemakers and farmers, who had sought a zero-for-zero tariff. Francois-Xavier Huard, head of France's FNIL national dairy sector federation, said 15% was better than the threatened 30%, but would still cost dairy farmers millions of euros.
European experts say von der Leyen's move did avert higher tariffs, calmed tensions with Trump, averting potentially higher duties on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and cars, while making largely symbolic pledges to buy $750 billion of U.S. strategic goods and invest over $600 billion. Meeting those pledges will fall to individual EU members and companies, and cannot be mandated by Brussels, trade experts and analysts note.
U.S. officials insist Trump can re-impose higher tariffs if he believes the EU, Japan or others are not honoring their commitments. But it remains unclear how that would be policed.
And history offers a caution. China, with its state-run economy, never met its modest purchase agreements under Trump's Phase 1 U.S.-China trade deal. Holding it to account proved difficult for the subsequent Biden administration.
"All of it is untested. The EU, Japan and South Korea are going to have to figure out how to operationalize this," Shaw said. "It's not just government purchases. It's getting the private sector motivated to either make investments or back loans, or to purchase certain commodities."
And lastly, the main premise for the tariffs Trump has imposed unilaterally faces legal challenges. His legal team met with stiff questioning during appellate court oral arguments over his novel use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, to justify his tariffs. A ruling could come any time and regardless of the outcome seems destined to be settled ultimately by the Supreme Court.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Midterms are more than a year away, but Trump is already challenging them
Midterms are more than a year away, but Trump is already challenging them

USA Today

time2 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Midterms are more than a year away, but Trump is already challenging them

Trump's DOJ and Republicans are building the machine now to meddle in the 2026 midterm elections 15 months from now. The 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act came and went on Aug. 6 amid a massive mission shift within the U.S. Department of Justice. That agency spent six decades using the Civil Rights Movement law to protect the ability of all Americans to cast ballots in elections. Now, the people President Donald Trump put in charge at the DOJ have shifted that mission entirely to protecting him from election results he dislikes. The DOJ is out of the civil rights business. Now its officials making demands, with not-so-veiled threats, for data from state election administrators while regurgitating Trump's oldest lie about elections – that hoards of noncitizens cast ballots, changing who wins and loses. They're building the machine now to meddle in the 2026 midterm elections 15 months from now. And those machinations are built on two lessons learned from 2020: Attack the election with everything you have before it happens, and stock the Trump administration only with officials who will do exactly what he says on elections, no matter what the law says. Election denial and mistrust are baked into the Trump administration Trump's team of election deniers, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, represent both of these lessons. The first they learned in 2020, when they failed while trying to help Trump overturn a free and fair election. It was all so careless and chaotic back then, a dizzying series of unsubstantiated claims and discombobulated news conferences punctuated by judge after judge tossing out Trump's challenges as meritless. I was reminded recently of a news conference I attended at Philadelphia's airport on the day after the 2020 election. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, then working as Trump's lawyer doing work that eventually got him disbarred, was the ringmaster for the election deniers that day. And Bondi was right by his side. I watched on Nov. 4, 2020, as Bondi started and ended her remarks by insisting twice that Trump had already won Pennsylvania … while everyone knew that the state's election officials were still counting the votes. Trump lost Pennsylvania in 2020 when the race there was called three days later. The Trump team's takeaway from all that: Set up the infrastructure to destabilize the administration of elections at the state level well before Election Day, not just after the polls close. The second lesson was to purge the team of lawyers and officials who will follow the law, even if that means an election result that infuriates Trump. He had top aides who held the line during his first term, acknowledging his loss in 2020. They're all gone now, leaving only Trump's unquestioning sycophants in the second term. And that's exactly who has been bombarding state election administrators with letters for months, demanding copies of the voter rolls for those states, along with records from previous elections when Trump was on the ballot. This is the plodding setup that will eventually lead to Trump and his team making new – and still unsubstantiated – claims that they're trying to protect the 2026 midterm elections from looming fraud. Expect Trump to bully Republicans into interfering with elections Trump has already made clear he'll use any political power he has to influence who wins control of Congress in 2026, even if that means taking actions he has no legal authority to take as president. Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at The Brennan Center for Justice, told me that Trump and his team appear to be building a "pretext" on the false claim of rampant election fraud as justification for their potential meddling in the elections. They're systematically removing "the brakes" that protect democracy during the voting process, she said. "They're taking aim at all of the brakes that applied before. And they're starting earlier," Weiser said. "That just shows you he's laser-focused on interfering in elections here by any means necessary. Bend the rules. Throw out the playbook." David Becker, a former Department of Justice lawyer who founded The Center for Election Innovation and Research, has been hosting monthly webinar meetings with hundreds of state election officials since March. Those officials – Republicans and Democrats – have plenty of questions and concerns about the "unprecedented level of federal interference in state election processes," he told me. "They're not sure where all this is leading," Becker said. "They hear the rhetoric coming out of the White House. They hear the continued false statements about past elections and election security in the United States." It's worth noting here, as Weiser told me, that presidents have no role in running or overseeing elections in America, except for enforcing voting laws passed by Congress. And Becker noted that Congress, now controlled by Trump's Republican allies, has not authorized the DOJ intrusions into state election systems. "This is not so much about election policy as it is about a completely radical rebalancing of the balance of power between the White House and the states," Becker said. "And the Constitution has said, with regards to elections in particular, that the balance of power is tilted toward the states." As with so many Trump scams in his second term, Democrats in the minority in Congress will howl but have no real power now to stop him. And Republicans in Congress have surrendered any real authority as a coequal branch of government. They just do what Trump tells them now. So it falls to election officials in the states, appointed or elected, Republican or Democrat, to engage with Trump's DOJ election deniers while insisting that everyone follows the law. These officials have faced an extraordinary increase of repulsive abuse from Trump's supporters that he egged on. That was Trump's objective, then and now, to intimidate them into submission. We can only hope they hold the line, like the Trump officials in his first term who refused to endorse his lies about the election. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.

As Washington axes aid for the most vulnerable, legislation in Mass. would tackle inequities
As Washington axes aid for the most vulnerable, legislation in Mass. would tackle inequities

Boston Globe

time2 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

As Washington axes aid for the most vulnerable, legislation in Mass. would tackle inequities

It's vital work, and many of its recommendations are worth enacting. Advertisement This proposed legislation comes at a time when the Trump administration is seeking to limit diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and racial preferences. The work of the Health Equity Compact is not that. It's about finding practical solutions to address the health needs of places like Brockton, where the according to the Atrius Health Equity Foundation. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up One of the Compact's specific proposals, for which this editorial board Advertisement In general, anything the state can do to advance career ladders for health care workers is valuable. For example, UMass Chan Medical School just The health equity bill allows the public health commissioner to have a role in creating 'stackable' credentials for health care workers, where one credential can be added to the next, creating a career path. Another intriguing idea in the proposed bill is the creation of a trust fund to give grants to 'health equity zones,' specific communities with poor health outcomes. This is a model The In particular, at least for now, lawmakers should resist the temptation to pass new health insurance mandates. Advertisement The bill would require insurance coverage for interpreters, community health workers, and patient navigators. It is important for hospitals and health centers to be able to employ staff who help patients, including non-English speakers, navigate a complex health care system. These positions are typically funded through grants and, in some cases, by insurance under negotiated agreements or payment models. But a wide-ranging insurance mandate like the one in this bill would increase premiums for all payers — including those who can least afford them. In 2023, the Division of Insurance The bill would also require insurers to reimburse equally for telehealth and in-person care for primary care and chronic disease visits. There is ongoing debate over reimbursement rates for telehealth, which exploded in popularity during the pandemic. It's worth studying the costs and benefits of telehealth in specific specialties before mandating payment parity because ideally, telehealth would provide opportunities for cost savings. Those quibbles aside, the proposed health equity bill would move the state in the right direction. At a time when the federal government is cutting health care spending and eliminating benefits that help the poorest citizens, it would be a strong statement if Massachusetts were to take the lead in passing a bill to improve the health of people in communities that today suffer the most. Advertisement Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us

Declining Stock and Solid Fundamentals: Is The Market Wrong About Filtronic plc (LON:FTC)?
Declining Stock and Solid Fundamentals: Is The Market Wrong About Filtronic plc (LON:FTC)?

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Declining Stock and Solid Fundamentals: Is The Market Wrong About Filtronic plc (LON:FTC)?

Explore Filtronic's Fair Values from the Community and select yours With its stock down 21% over the past month, it is easy to disregard Filtronic (LON:FTC). However, a closer look at its sound financials might cause you to think again. Given that fundamentals usually drive long-term market outcomes, the company is worth looking at. In this article, we decided to focus on Filtronic's ROE. Return on Equity or ROE is a test of how effectively a company is growing its value and managing investors' money. In simpler terms, it measures the profitability of a company in relation to shareholder's equity. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. How Is ROE Calculated? ROE can be calculated by using the formula: Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity So, based on the above formula, the ROE for Filtronic is: 40% = UK£14m ÷ UK£35m (Based on the trailing twelve months to May 2025). The 'return' refers to a company's earnings over the last year. One way to conceptualize this is that for each £1 of shareholders' capital it has, the company made £0.40 in profit. See our latest analysis for Filtronic What Is The Relationship Between ROE And Earnings Growth? So far, we've learned that ROE is a measure of a company's profitability. Depending on how much of these profits the company reinvests or "retains", and how effectively it does so, we are then able to assess a company's earnings growth potential. Generally speaking, other things being equal, firms with a high return on equity and profit retention, have a higher growth rate than firms that don't share these attributes. Filtronic's Earnings Growth And 40% ROE To begin with, Filtronic has a pretty high ROE which is interesting. Secondly, even when compared to the industry average of 11% the company's ROE is quite impressive. Under the circumstances, Filtronic's considerable five year net income growth of 76% was to be expected. We then compared Filtronic's net income growth with the industry and we're pleased to see that the company's growth figure is higher when compared with the industry which has a growth rate of 7.1% in the same 5-year period. The basis for attaching value to a company is, to a great extent, tied to its earnings growth. The investor should try to establish if the expected growth or decline in earnings, whichever the case may be, is priced in. This then helps them determine if the stock is placed for a bright or bleak future. Is Filtronic fairly valued compared to other companies? These 3 valuation measures might help you decide. Is Filtronic Making Efficient Use Of Its Profits? Given that Filtronic doesn't pay any regular dividends to its shareholders, we infer that the company has been reinvesting all of its profits to grow its business. Conclusion On the whole, we feel that Filtronic's performance has been quite good. In particular, it's great to see that the company is investing heavily into its business and along with a high rate of return, that has resulted in a sizeable growth in its earnings. With that said, on studying the latest analyst forecasts, we found that while the company has seen growth in its past earnings, analysts expect its future earnings to shrink. To know more about the company's future earnings growth forecasts take a look at this free report on analyst forecasts for the company to find out more. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store