Despite tariff reprieve, Lesotho says it is already hurting
Lesotho's tariff rate was slashed to 15% in last week's executive order by US President Donald Trump, down from the level of 50% tariff threatened in April — the highest of any US trading partner.
Textile industry players in the country — which produces jeans and other garments for popular US brands such as Levi's and Walmart — said the uncertainty around tariffs over the past few months had already devastated the sector, with orders cancelled and jobs cut.
"We were on the verge of building [our] American market," Teboho Kobeli, founder and managing director of Afri-Expo Textiles, told Reuters at his factory in Maseru.
He said the US market made up 10% of his company's production — about $1m (R18m) a year — and that he had to lay off 200 workers, or 40% of his workforce, after the announcement in April as orders dried up.
"That is a lot lost," he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
9 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Goose-step by goose-step, Republican Party authoritarianism marches into the political arena
Donald Trump's efforts to channel his authoritarian-wannabe style are bringing forth new insults to democratic practice and coherent governance. These run from the vindictive firing of a government labour statistician to the promotion of ultra-partisan redistricting of congressional districts to fend off a Democratic majority in the 2026 mid-term election. On the mean-spirited, small-minded side of the ledger, US President Donald Trump abruptly announced he was firing Erika McEntarfer, the head of the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. This office is one of the government's most important economic data compiling and analysis agencies. Among other things, it tracks the country's unemployment rate and the number of new jobs being created — information crucial for decisions and calculations by the government and business. The ostensible reason for Trump's ire was that the most recently reported number of new jobs created was well below what he had hoped to hear. That came in tandem with significant downward revisions to earlier monthly totals of new jobs. The Trump administration, however, took these mundane, even ordinary statistical calculations and routine revisions as direct slaps at the imaginary triumphs of Trumpian economic policies. The resulting damage from this firing to a heretofore broad trust in the reliability of the government's economic data will be difficult to repair, almost regardless of who is handed the poisoned chalice as the new head of that bureau. For many, any replacement's judgment and independence may well be seen as a politically tainted toady, tweaking (or falsifying) the data to curry favour with the current administration — and maybe the succeeding ones as well. While that position is a high-level yet specialised political appointment, when she was initially nominated and confirmed, McEntarfer had overwhelming support in the Senate. But to Trump, she was just one more agent of the imaginary deep state designed to bring him low. It's another of Trump's efforts to channel his authoritarian-wannabe style, bringing forth new insults to democratic practice and coherent governance. Attack on DEI Reaching deeply into the standard ways of academic appointments, the president's team usurped the authority of the commandant and staff of the US Military Academy at West Point to appoint lecturers. The Trumpians forced the withdrawal of the appointment of a highly regarded, academically qualified, experienced former military officer to a prestige professorship, Jen Easterly, a West Point graduate who served as the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency under Biden. The ostensible grounds for this sudden decision remain somewhat murky, but presumably it was something she had said or written in the past, plus the fact that she is, well, quite obviously, female. Academic performance and the enthusiastic support for her by the school's commandant and academic officers were insufficient to secure the appointment. Yes, in the larger picture of a vast defence and security establishment, this personnel action might be seen as pretty small beer, but it is simply one more demonstration of the administration's desire to extirpate every supposed tendril of DEI — diversity, equity, inclusivity — in the Department of Defense. Trump's fury Then, the other day, one of those young comrades who are the hoplites of the so-called Doge — or Department of Government Efficiency — whose online moniker was Big Balls (we're not making this up), was the victim of an assault on the streets of Washington, DC. This single act was sufficient to drive Trump into a fury. He publicly threatened to seize control of the city's government on the grounds that it was an ungoverned, chaotic, crime-ridden shambles. All this fire and brimstone came despite the reality that ultimate control of the city's governmental mechanisms is constitutionally vested in the Congress and that branch of government has delegated some, but not all, of its powers to an elected mayor and city council. The president is not involved. Random tariffs Meanwhile, the Trumpian tariff roulette wheel continues to spin, with the pointer seemingly landing at random at new levels and countries. Okay, there are actually two pointers: one is for the applicable tariff rates, and one for the country. Regardless, it is hard to discern much deeper logic behind many of these choices (ask the gobsmacked folks in Lesotho or Laos), save for the impact of leaders expressing demurs over US policy or their economies' abilities to generate trade surpluses. All of that utopian nonsense about free trade, the World Trade Organization and most favoured nation treatment is going out the window, and the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 is now in the saddle and will be riding humankind. That Act is regarded as having provoked massive trade wars, cuts in international trade and contributed to the Great Depression. Oh, and Germany's slide towards dictatorship as a result of the economic collapse there. Most economists believe the costs to US consumers from these new tariff regimens will, soon enough, begin to bite as importers pass along the new tariff charges (even if foreign producers cut prices a bit to hold on to market share). It will take years for most producers to meet the ostensible goal of forcing manufacturers to move their production to the US, if ever. So far, at least, the impact on prices has been modest — if only because importers worked to bring in their import orders before the new tariffs kicked in. Much of what will stock US stores for the holidays has already been manufactured and exported, but not necessarily landed yet. The reported dampening of economic growth is one reason that drove that Trumpian hissy fit about the Bureau of Labor Statistics' head. Russian confusion One example of the lack of any larger strategic thinking for all these tariffs is that after years of Trump lavishing praise on the Indian government of Narendra Modi (and courting support and campaign contributions from the Indian-American community in the US, it must be said), India has just been hit with punitive tariffs on the grounds it is financing the Russian war machine by importing its discounted oil below global market prices. That punishment meted out might seem confusing, given Trump's unrelenting, increasingly desperate effort to make nice-nice with Vladimir Putin so he can be the man who brought an end to Russia's assault on Ukraine. On Friday night, following a White House ceremony that brought together Armenia and Azerbaijan for a handshake to end their decadeslong conflict, it was announced that Trump would host Putin in Alaska this week for a summit designed to end the Russia-Ukraine war. This putative ending of hostilities would be grounded in the harsh reality of a Ukrainian cession of territory to Russia — presumably Crimea and much of the eastern Ukraine already seized by Russia in the years of fighting, although Trump positioned this as 'exchanges of territory'. It does not seem the Ukrainians will get much of a voice in this, nor will Nato's European nations. As the ancient Greek historian Thucydides put it: 'The strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must.' But Trump's unrelenting campaign to win a Nobel Peace Prize continues unabated. Gilded ballroom A Trumpian propensity for his grandiosity has been manifested in his plans to add a massive new ballroom onto the eastern side of the White House. It will be decorated in what should be called Trumpian Second Empire Grotesque — with an overabundance of gilt, painted ceilings, massive chandeliers, and oversized gold sconces and wall hangings everywhere possible. The plan to have this construction financed by private donations (and thus free from outside oversight) has led to concerns that it will be another effort at 'pay to play' special dealing, similar to corporate sponsorship of the traditional White House Easter egg roll. If one needed any further clarity about the ghastliness of such plans, the White House's Rose Garden — site of innumerable memorable public events — has now largely been replaced by an unrelenting concrete plaza. Joni Mitchell's 1970 lament in ' Big Yellow Taxi,' that '…they put up a parking lot', seems eerily appropriate. Contorted districts Still more astonishing behaviour by Trump has been his enthusiastic engagement with a gerrymandering initiative in Texas. Gerrymandering is an old habit in US politics, but this newest effort is proceeding down an especially problematic path. The term refers to the early 19th-century Massachusetts governor, Elbridge Gerry, who insisted upon shaping legislative districts that were so twisted and contorted in their boundaries that a famous political cartoon about it drew one of those districts in the shape of a winged salamander wiggling its way through the map of the state, hence the portmanteau word 'gerrymander' that has become the common description of problematic legislative constituencies. The number of each state's congressional districts is determined by the country's decennial census. (Yes, slaves were initially counted as 3/5ths of a person, a provision that became null and void after the abolition of slavery in 1865.) A Supreme Court decision subsequently upheld the requirement that congressional districts must be largely equal in population, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act mandated that minority-majority districts should be protected, rather than diminished by slicing up the state's minority populations and squeezing them into surrounding districts, thus effectively nullifying any possibilities of minority group voting power. Common sense has dictated that the districts must be, as much as possible, geographically cohesive, rather than, for example, being a modern manifestation of Governor Gerry's scheme, following a highway and including various bits of cities and towns along the way for many kilometres. One other key factor is that redistricting in accordance with the population figures after a census takes place state by state, rather than being a federal decision. Appalling redistricting plans deliberately squeezing minority populations into just one district, regardless of geography and at the expense of other plans have ended up in the courts. Clinging on The current imbroglio has arisen from the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, and that party's majority in the Texas state legislature — under the goad of Trump — to carry out a redistricting effort five years before a census takes place. That would rearrange the congressional districts in the state such that Texas would most likely end up with five additional Republican-leaning districts. The goal here is to build a bulwark that can bolster the razor-thin Republican majority in the House of Representatives in time for the mid-term election next year. The growing Republican fear is that sufficient numbers of voters in some marginal districts will be so significantly annoyed by the actual outcomes of the taxation and spending arrangements coming out of that now-passed 'Big Beautiful Bill' that Republicans may well lose control of the House. If that were to happen, investigations of Trump's governmental actions, public and adversarial hearings, and all manner of other efforts could stymie — and maybe even roll back — some of Trump's more egregious demands and desires. It could make his last two years as president a misery. In response, a significant caucus of Texas' Democratic state legislators fled the state, taking up temporary residence in Illinois (with the blessing of that Democratic Party-governed state's governor), preventing any legislative action in Texas because of the absence of a quorum. Escalating the fight, the Texas governor has threatened to have these malefactors arrested and shanghaied back to Texas, and then drummed out of office, thus allowing the redistricting to go forward without any obstacles by those pesky Democrats. Abbott has asked the FBI to help track down and arrest those dangerous criminals. The FBI, of course, is run by über-Trump loyalist Kash Patel, who is apparently itching to join the action. This is despite the absence of federal laws regarding the absence of state legislators from sittings of state legislatures. The National Review, a stoutly conservative journal, weighed in, with one columnist writing, 'Readers, we are in the midst of a major political Mexican standoff, one that feels surprisingly unremarked upon as we accelerate pell-mell toward the inevitable consequences of the breakdown of a series of electoral norms. 'I cannot help but think about it in cinematic terms. First Sergio Leone, then Quentin Tarantino, and now Democratic and Republican lawmakers across the nation are holding one another at electoral gunpoint, threatening mutually assured construction: the abrupt and hyper-partisan redrawing of congressional boundary lines in every state where it is politically possible.' In response to the Texan shenanigans, governors in Democratic Party-governed states such as Illinois, California, and New York have threatened to engage in the same kind of punitive redistricting, squeezing out Republican majorities in various congressional districts. This move has been labelled the 'nuclear option'. Such redistricting decisions would, of course, be a blow against the equal representation in Congress for the nation's citizens. And the blame for this belongs with a Republican Party desperate to hang onto power, despite changes of heart by voters. A path forward Taken together, the Trumpian onslaught is very real and, at times, startlingly specific and targeted deep in the bureaucracy. It draws on Trump's usual grievances about the government, the elites and the so-called deep state. It also draws on his famously thin skin. Together with Republican allies elsewhere, they seem determined to bring lasting change. But nothing is forever, and one election could overturn much of it. The Democrats may be coming together to draw their own lines in the sand. Going forward, salvaging the situation for the future with positions like the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics will require making such appointments fully independent of presidential choices, or, at the minimum, subject to unbreakable multiyear contracts. The model might be like the heads of the Congressional Budget Office or the Government Accountability Office. Solving the current tariff shambles is harder, but limiting presidential authority to decide on new tariffs in response to 'national emergencies' needs a serious rethink. Setting tariffs is, after all, listed constitutionally as one of Congress's enumerated powers. Finally, somehow, in some way, a new structure arbitrating redistricting for congressional seats must be found before the gerrymandering conflict locks in a deeply unrepresentative landscape that excludes political minorities, state by state. But don't count on any of this happening soon. The US's contemporary political culture is growing increasingly toxic. DM
IOL News
14 hours ago
- IOL News
South Africa Holds Hope for Review of US Import Tariffs After High-Level Call
Import tariffs by the United States could still be reconsidered, following direct communication between President Cyril Ramaphosa and US President Donald Trump. Image: Mandel NGAN / AFP The South African government remains optimistic that recently imposed import tariffs by the United States could still be reconsidered, following direct communication between President Cyril Ramaphosa and US President Donald Trump. In a phone call held on Wednesday, the two leaders discussed trade relations between the two countries, with a focus on the new tariffs that have raised concern among South African exporters. The conversation marks a significant diplomatic step as Pretoria seeks to protect local industries affected by the changes in US trade policy. While details of the discussion remain limited, government officials have confirmed that President Ramaphosa used the opportunity to raise concerns about the impact of the tariffs on South African businesses and jobs. According to sources familiar with the matter, Ramaphosa highlighted the long-standing partnership between the two nations and expressed hope that the tariffs could still be reviewed in a spirit of cooperation. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading The tariffs in question have placed added pressure on several key sectors in South Africa, particularly agriculture and steel. Exporters of these goods have already reported increased costs and reduced competitiveness in the American market since the duties came into effect. Business leaders have warned that unless the situation changes, some companies may be forced to scale back operations or even cut jobs. In response, the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition has been engaging with its counterparts in Washington, hoping to find a resolution that will allow continued access to one of South Africa's most important trading partners. Officials say they are exploring all diplomatic and legal options available under international trade agreements. Minister of Trade Ebrahim Patel said the government remains committed to finding a way forward through dialogue. 'We believe that the relationship between South Africa and the United States has always been one of cooperation and mutual benefit. We are confident that, with continued engagement, we can address these recent trade developments in a way that supports both economies.' South Africa and the United States share a strong trade relationship under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which gives eligible African countries preferential access to the US market. However, new tariff measures introduced by the Trump administration have threatened to disrupt that arrangement, especially for goods that are now facing additional duties upon entry into the US.
Mail & Guardian
17 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
The new trade playbook: Africa's response to US bilateralism
US President Donald Trump announced a 30% tariff on South African goods, saying his country's relationship with Pretoria has been, 'unfortunately, far from reciprocal'. (X) On 2 April, the world witnessed a trademark move from US President Donald Trump, who declared the day Using an unprecedented and unconventional methodology, the US calculated these tariffs by taking its trade deficit with each country, dividing it by the value of that country's exports to the US, and then halving the result. The outcome was a sweeping set of tariffs ranging from 10% to 50%, with countries such as Lesotho at the upper end of the scale. This one-size-fits-all approach blatantly disregards unique country-specific realities, especially for least developed countries. Take Lesotho: years of support from successive US governments under the African Growth Opportunity Act helped it develop an export-oriented apparel industry employing about More broadly, the reciprocal tariff regime is not only punitive, it undermines US commitments under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. It poses a direct challenge to the multilateral trade system, and Africa is directly in the crosshairs. The tariffs will be felt across African countries. Although the US announced a pause in implementing full reciprocal tariffs until August, providing a window for One noteworthy example of this is the UK-US 'Economic Prosperity Deal'. The two parties seem to have agreed on a Other countries — including Vietnam, Philippines and Japan — have signed bilateral deals involving adjusted tariff rates (20%, 19% and 15% respectively). These are accompanied by supplementary conditions such as penalties on transhipped goods or sector-specific investment clauses. Notably, there is no trade deal, yet, with any African country. Zimbabwe was the first African country to respond in April 2025, prematurely, by suspending all tariffs on US imports in a bid to signal goodwill. Meanwhile, major African economies such as South Africa and Kenya are deep in negotiations, attempting to secure favourable terms in the face of mounting pressure. While another extension to the tariff pause seems likely, it's clear that the US is pursuing a transactional, bilateral trade strategy, offering selective relief in exchange for sectoral concessions or access to strategic resources like critical minerals. This approach is deeply concerning. It reduces complex trade relationships to blunt negotiations, with developing countries expected to simply 'take it or leave it'. Such a strategy fragments global trade into a patchwork of uneven bargains, privileging those with greater economic or strategic clout. For African countries, the risk is clear: without a united response, they risk being sidelined. The danger is that African nations may be pressured into accepting inequitable deals without the protection of multilateral institutions like the WTO. These deals could extend to critical sectors such as raw materials, where African leverage is significant but often underused. In response, African countries must pursue smart sector-specific bilateral deals and push for tariff exemptions on key exports like apparel, coffee and minerals. Leveraging the continents' strategic assets (minerals such as cobalt, lithium, for example) is critical to securing favourable terms. At the same time, it is crucial to diversify trade partnerships with emerging economies like China, and enhancing South-South cooperation for new export markets will be key. Long-term resilience will also require African governments to invest in industrial competitiveness and deepen regional integration under the African Continental Free Trade Area. In this new trade playbook, Africa must not be a passive player. With coordinated strategy and assertive diplomacy, the continent can protect its interests and shape a more equitable global trading order. Shimukunku Manchishi is a senior policy officer: trade at African Future Policies Hub.
