logo
WSJ journalist admits Trump is winning the trade war

WSJ journalist admits Trump is winning the trade war

Daily Mail​3 days ago
The Wall Street Journal's chief economics correspondent has delivered a surprise assessment of President Donald Trump 's trade policies while criticizing the cruel nickname assigned to him after he 'chickened out' of imposing extreme tariffs. Greg Ip published his latest take on Trump's tariff wars in the publication on Tuesday, sensationally noting Trump is ' winning' on trade policy.
'Trump has, by his own definition of success, already won his trade war,' Ip wrote, 'even without [the] deals' he vowed to reach with foreign allies. Trump faced harsh criticism for backing down on his 'Liberation Day' tariffs, earning him the moniker 'TACO' for 'Trump Always Chickens Out .'
After threatening extraordinary reciprocal tariffs on most countries, markets crashed and doomsday economists feared a recession was inevitable. In the midst of the backlash, Trump walked back on the tariffs, instead offering countries 90 days to reach new agreements with his administration . Some within his inner circle were boasting of the possibility of achieving 90 deals in 90 days.
That deadline has since passed, and Trump has inked one deal with the UK, and two more are on track with Vietnam and Indonesia. But Ip (pictured) notes this is not necessarily a negative for Trump. To the contrary, Ip said Trump's behavior leading to this point suggests he was never particularly keen on making such deals to begin with.
'This narrative misconstrues Trump's goals, overstates the importance of deals and breeds complacency about his willingness to raise tariffs,' Ip wrote. When Trump backed down on his steep tariffs, markets rallied and economists breathed a sigh of relief. But he never removed the 10 percent baseline tariff, which he had initially imposed on all goods coming into the United States.
On the campaign trail, Ip notes, a 10 percent tariff seemed like worst-case scenario for markets. Now, in the face of Trump's brash actions and threats of tariffs as high as 145 percent (on China), the 10 percent tariff appears to have flown under the radar, now considered the best-case outcome for nations coming to the negotiating table . In June alone, Treasury pocketed $27 billion in customs revenue - $20 billion more than it did in the same month last year.
With higher tariffs on steel and aluminum, the average tariff for all goods coming into the United States as of July 2 was 13.4 percent. Last year, it was 2.3 percent. Ip argues in his piece that Trump has no major need to forge new trade deals, because doing so would imply backing down or compromising on something he wants - which isn't often the Trump way .
But while he said Trump is winning the trade war he created, Ip noted local manufacturing has not skyrocketed as Trump had hoped it would. Consumers in America are also increasingly feeling the pinch as businesses up their prices to accommodate the tariffs they're now paying on imported goods. Ip concluded: 'Trump might emerge a winner from his trade wars; it remains to be seen if the U.S. will as well.'
Ip's assessment of Trump's trade policy may ruffle feathers at the publication, which has drawn Trump's ire a number of times during this administration. In May, he gave a reporter from the publication a verbal lashing after asking a question on board Air Force 1. 'Boy, you people treat us so badly,' he said of the paper Murdoch acquired in 2007.
'Wall Street Journal has truly gone to hell... Rotten newspaper. You hear me? What I said? It's a rotten newspaper.' Months earlier, he panned it as a 'globalist' rag and 'polluted' after it criticized his tariffs. In March, the paper sensationally suggested 'someone should sue' over the tariffs and said: 'He's treating the North American economy as a personal plaything, as markets gyrate with each presidential whim.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Major Friston solar farm could be built alongside substation
Major Friston solar farm could be built alongside substation

BBC News

timea few seconds ago

  • BBC News

Major Friston solar farm could be built alongside substation

A "nationally significant" solar farm could potentially be built alongside a planned substation in a Solar 12 (Helios Energy Park) Ltd has proposed constructing a 250 megawatt solar farm and battery site near Friston, Suffolk, which will be decided upon by the government. According to the company's application it would be built in the vicinity of a substation due to be constructed as part of National Grid's Sea Link project and offshore windfarms by ScottishPower. Suffolk County Council said it would be a "nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIP)" and "difficult news" for people living in the area. The government gave planning permission for the substation in 2022. If Scottish Power does not build the site, it will fall to National Grid as it works through the planning process for Sea for the solar farm were revealed within documents for the Sea Link project. The documents added Helios was looking to work with the National Grid on the Sea Link project and help it "realise its own ambitions for the wider Suffolk geography".Plans for the solar farm are in early stages and the applicant has yet to finalise said a "draft statement of common ground" was being worked on between itself and Sea Link. Suffolk County Council said it would carefully consider the "potential cumulative implications" of the solar farm on the local community and environment. Richard Rout, the cabinet member for devolution, local government reform and NSIP on the authority, said the council would "object to plans where justified"."We knew that National Grid's official register of connection offers had indicated the Helios proposal, but that potential now feels more real," he said."National Grid's customers must not damage or weaken the mitigation planting in the consented scheme," he added. A Helios Energy Park spokesperson said: "Our plans for a new solar project with battery storage near Friston, East Suffolk will help to meet growing demand for sustainable power while improving the resilience and capacity of the national grid."We are working with other developers in the area, including Sea Link, to ensure we co-ordinate all development activities including mitigation measures. "We are looking forward to engaging comprehensively with the community around Friston and east Suffolk once we have draft plans to present." Follow Suffolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.

Councillor 'devastated' after A47 dual carriageway scheme axed
Councillor 'devastated' after A47 dual carriageway scheme axed

BBC News

timea few seconds ago

  • BBC News

Councillor 'devastated' after A47 dual carriageway scheme axed

Councillors have criticised the decision to axe a scheme that would have seen a section of the A47 turned into a dual carriageway. National Highways planned to make a 1.6-mile (2.5km) stretch between Wansford and Sutton, in Cambridgeshire, into double Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander later announced plans to cut the £100m scheme and accused the previous Conservative government of promising infrastructure projects with "no plan to pay for them".Marge Beuttell, Tory, Huntingdonshire councillor, said he was "devastated" by the news and added: "The deaths that we've had [on the road]... seem to count for nothing." She added: "I think they are making a big mistake by not doing it; it has been a danger area for years, and for me, they have not taken that into account."Beuttell said the scheme looked as though it was going ahead until two months ago, and she was "appalled" it was cancelled. "A lot of money has already been spent on this project, so I just don't understand why they're pulling it," she said. "I think they are making a big mistake." Mick Grange, Conservative Sutton Parish councillor, said: "I've lived in the village for just over 30 years and I've seen numerous deaths along that stretch of road."Cyclists won't use it - it's just unsafe."Grange said speed cameras and speed limits should be put in place in the area to make the area Carling, Labour MP for North West Cambridgeshire, said a lot of residents will be "really disappointed that the scheme isn't going ahead now", but was hopeful a positive solution would be found. He added: "This may not have come as an immense surprise. The previous government did not leave us enough money to fund all of the schemes that they promised."He continued: "I'm hopeful that their will be a positive way forward." Follow Cambridgeshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.

Why Putin thinks Trump's Russia tariffs are a bluff
Why Putin thinks Trump's Russia tariffs are a bluff

Spectator

time30 minutes ago

  • Spectator

Why Putin thinks Trump's Russia tariffs are a bluff

Moscow's response to the latest ultimatum issued by Donald Trump last week has been to deploy that most Russian of diplomatic weapons: contemptuous laughter. The US president's threat to impose draconian sanctions unless Putin ends his invasion of Ukraine within fifty days has been met with the kind of theatrical disdain that would make Chekhov proud. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, never one to miss an opportunity for diplomatic sarcasm, openly sneered at Trump's intervention on Tuesday. 'We want to understand what exactly is behind this statement. Fifty days. It used to be 24 hours, and then it became 100 days. Russia has gone through all this and now wants to understand what the US president's motives are,' he said. Russian officials have pledged to continue 'achieving the aims of the special military operation – the Kremlin's Orwellian euphemism for what the rest of us call the invasion of Ukraine. Putin himself has yet to comment, but then again, he's never been one to appreciate being lectured by anyone, least of all an American president. 'If and when President Putin considers it necessary, he will certainly respond,' Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. This defiance might appear to be typical Russian bravado, but a closer examination suggests Moscow's confidence may be rather more calculated than theatrical. Trump's volte-face has been spectacular. After months of courting Putin and pressuring Ukraine to accept what amounted to capitulation, the President abruptly changed course on Monday. Fed up with Putin's intransigence, Trump promised to resume arms supplies to Ukraine and threatened to impose 100 per cent import tariffs on goods from any country trading with Russia. On paper, this threat is enormous. Russian oil exports, the lifeblood of Putin's war machine, would be in the crosshairs. Such sanctions could deprive Moscow's already strained budget of roughly a quarter of its revenues and remove five million barrels per day from global markets. Yet oil prices barely flinched. The markets, it seems, share Moscow's scepticism – and with good reason. The fundamental problem is that neither the Kremlin nor the stock market's trading desks appear to understand how these tariffs would actually work. This is hardly surprising, given that the idea seems to have been conceived more as a political gesture than a practical policy. Trump's track record with deadlines provides little comfort for those hoping he'll follow through. He has previously presented Putin with ultimatums that proved to be more bluster than bite, while simultaneously bombing Iran, but only after issuing warnings shortly beforehand. In March, he signed an executive order imposing 25 per cent tariffs on countries importing Venezuelan oil – tariffs that have yet to materialise. The fifty-day deadline itself presents Putin with both opportunity and incentive. It's sufficient time to pursue his summer offensive – the most successful, if costliest, since 2023. Rather than seeking immediate peace, Putin might well decide to go all in, intensifying his bombardment of Ukrainian cities while gnawing at Ukrainian defences. By September, he could be better positioned to offer a ceasefire from a position of strength, or perhaps to persuade his American counterpart that he needs just a little more time to complete his objectives. Should Trump's tariffs actually materialise, they would devastate America's relationships with some rather important countries. China, India, and Turkey – Russia's primary oil customers – would face prohibitive trade barriers. The notion that America could simply cease trading with China, which is what the 100 per cent tariffs would result in, defies economic reality, as it became clear in the wake of Trump's trade war earlier this year. Similarly, alienating India at a time when Washington needs Delhi's support against Beijing seems strategically myopic. The issue of Turkey would also present an absurd scenario: sanctioning a Nato ally whose cooperation is essential for American interests in Syria and the Caucasus. Perhaps most tellingly, removing five million barrels of Russian oil from global markets would trigger precisely the kind of price surge that Trump has spent years promising to avoid. With no spare production capacity to replace Russian crude in the short to medium term, American motorists would face soaring fuel costs just as inflation begins to bite harder. For a president who campaigned on economic competence, this would look like a self-damaging strategy. Ironically, Trump's threat has already delivered Putin an unexpected gift: it has effectively neutered congressional efforts to impose more serious sanctions. Senate Majority Leader John Thune announced on Monday that he would postpone advancing a bipartisan sanctions package that boasted 85 Senate co-sponsors. The senators' bill would have imposed even more severe, but equally prohibitive, tariffs – 500 per cent rather than 100 per cent. More importantly, though, it would have codified existing sanctions within a congressional framework, preventing future presidents from simply lifting them by declining to extend emergency powers. The bill also included provisions to exclude countries supporting Ukraine from the sanctions, potentially redirecting Russian oil flows and forcing Moscow to sell below the agreed price cap. Instead, the Senate has put the legislation on ice and seems unlikely to revisit it soon. Putin could hardly have asked for a better outcome. As theatre director Konstantin Stanislavsky once famously told his unconvincing actors, 'I don't believe you.' The markets appear to share this assessment. Trump's tariffs threat represents a change in rhetoric rather than substance. Moscow's mockery, therefore, may be justified. Putin has called Trump's bluff before and emerged victorious. With economic reality, political constraints, and America's own strategic interests all working in his favour, the Russian president may well have calculated that he can afford to laugh at yet another American ultimatum. The question isn't whether Putin will blink – it's whether Trump's threats will prove any more substantial than his previous deadlines. Moscow's confidence suggests they know the answer.

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