Trump tariffs expected to hit Thursday
The president signed an executive order last Thursday that announced the new rates but bumped the start out a week. Once the new tariffs are implemented, the average tariff rate will be around 15 percent, compared to the roughly 2 percent rate in 2024.
He had first announced the plan for reciprocal tariffs on April 2 but imposed a 90-day extension a week later, amid pressure from Wall Street and fellow Republicans to calm the ailing markets. The early July tariff deadline for the 90-day extension to expire was then extended until Aug. 1, with Thursday expected to be the final deadline.
The executive order stated that all imports will face a 10 percent tariff. Some trading partners will face higher rates, including 41 percent on Syria, 19 percent on Indonesia and Thailand, and 15 percent on South Korea, Japan and the European Union.
The order also includes Laos (40 percent), Switzerland (39 percent), Iraq (35 percent), South Africa (30 percent), India (25 percent), Algeria (30 percent), Moldova (25 percent) and Nicaragua (18 percent).
Other trading partners will face higher tariffs because of a specific issue cited by Trump. He will hit Brazil with a 50 percent tariff, in part citing the country's prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro over his efforts to remain in power after losing an election, and he will hit Canada with a 35 percent tariff, citing frustrations with the flow of fentanyl across the U.S. border.
Trump vowed to impose steep tariffs on the campaign trail, arguing that the U.S. has been ripped off by trading partners for too long and that high tariffs could lead to more domestic manufacturing.
With tariffs finally expected, businesses and consumers alike are bracing for higher prices.
What goods are exempt?
If a good is already on a cargo ship and heading for the U.S., it is not subject to the tariff.
Goods that are covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement signed in 2020 will also be exempt from tariffs on Canada and Mexico.
The president also made rules around transshipment, including in the order that goods sent through a country that has a lower tariff rate compared to the country of origin, with the intent to evade applicable duties, will face a 40 percent tax.
And, he ended the exception on de minimis goods, meaning that on Aug. 29, goods shipped with a commercial carrier worth $800 or less no longer can avoid import fees.
What other tariffs are coming?
Friday, meanwhile, marks Trump's deadline for Russia to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine or face 'severe' tariffs. They are still expected, even after special mission envoy Steve Witkoff met Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump also threatened to slap a 100 percent 'secondary' tariff on countries that do business with the Kremlin, such as purchasing Russian oil and gas, which would target India. Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday to raise tariffs on India by an additional 25 percent, though not for another three weeks.
Trump suggested on Wednesday that more countries could face secondary tariffs for buying oil in Russia, after India.
'You're going to see a lot more. You're going to see so much secondary sanctions,' Trump said.
Trade talks with China are ongoing and Trump officials discussed extending the Aug. 12 deadline for a 30 percent tariff on China's goods. Trump would still need to agree to an extension, and it's unclear how long it would last.
The president has also threatened industry-specific tariffs, including up to 250 percent on pharmaceutical imports. The administration imposed copper tariffs this month, though certain products will not be tariffed until 2027. Tariffs on automobiles and steel and aluminum are already in place.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Shareholders in Spirax Group (LON:SPX) are in the red if they invested three years ago
Explore Spirax Group's Fair Values from the Community and select yours For many investors, the main point of stock picking is to generate higher returns than the overall market. But the risk of stock picking is that you will likely buy under-performing companies. Unfortunately, that's been the case for longer term Spirax Group plc (LON:SPX) shareholders, since the share price is down 46% in the last three years, falling well short of the market return of around 62%. Now let's have a look at the company's fundamentals, and see if the long term shareholder return has matched the performance of the underlying business. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. There is no denying that markets are sometimes efficient, but prices do not always reflect underlying business performance. One imperfect but simple way to consider how the market perception of a company has shifted is to compare the change in the earnings per share (EPS) with the share price movement. Spirax Group saw its EPS decline at a compound rate of 6.6% per year, over the last three years. The share price decline of 19% is actually steeper than the EPS slippage. So it's likely that the EPS decline has disappointed the market, leaving investors hesitant to buy. The image below shows how EPS has tracked over time (if you click on the image you can see greater detail). We like that insiders have been buying shares in the last twelve months. Having said that, most people consider earnings and revenue growth trends to be a more meaningful guide to the business. Dive deeper into the earnings by checking this interactive graph of Spirax Group's earnings, revenue and cash flow. What About Dividends? As well as measuring the share price return, investors should also consider the total shareholder return (TSR). The TSR incorporates the value of any spin-offs or discounted capital raisings, along with any dividends, based on the assumption that the dividends are reinvested. It's fair to say that the TSR gives a more complete picture for stocks that pay a dividend. We note that for Spirax Group the TSR over the last 3 years was -43%, which is better than the share price return mentioned above. And there's no prize for guessing that the dividend payments largely explain the divergence! A Different Perspective While the broader market gained around 22% in the last year, Spirax Group shareholders lost 18% (even including dividends). Even the share prices of good stocks drop sometimes, but we want to see improvements in the fundamental metrics of a business, before getting too interested. Unfortunately, last year's performance may indicate unresolved challenges, given that it was worse than the annualised loss of 7% over the last half decade. Generally speaking long term share price weakness can be a bad sign, though contrarian investors might want to research the stock in hope of a turnaround. I find it very interesting to look at share price over the long term as a proxy for business performance. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. Take risks, for example - Spirax Group has 1 warning sign we think you should be aware of. Spirax Group is not the only stock insiders are buying. So take a peek at this free list of small cap companies at attractive valuations which insiders have been buying. Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on British exchanges. 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.
Boston Globe
11 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
End the gerrymandering wars by enlarging the US House
Meanwhile, national Democratic Party leaders are Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up There are no saints or villains in this saga. Republicans and Democrats are engaging in a bare-knuckled fight for power, and what each side condemns is Advertisement The cause of all this drama is not inherent Republican or Democratic perfidy. It is an institutional flaw: With only 435 seats, the US House is far too small — which means each congressional district is far too large. The average district now encompasses nearly 760,000 people. That is a constituency vastly greater than any member of Congress can effectively or fairly represent. And because congressional districts are so large, each one is a political prize well worth gerrymandering. When each district must corral so many people, a single line on the map has an outsize political impact. Under such circumstances, partisan cartography becomes irresistible — and bitter, recurring fights like the one in Texas are inevitable. Happily, there is a structural remedy that would dramatically curtail the constant court fights, political retaliation, and vicious maneuvering surrounding redistricting. Congress ought to expand the size of the House from the current 435 members to 1,500. No constitutional amendment would be needed — it would require only a simple statute to restore each House district to a more manageable size, and thereby make gerrymandering far less tempting. That would be a return to what the framers of the Constitution intended. The House of Representatives was conceived as Advertisement And there it froze. Congress didn't expand the House following the 1920 census, because of a political standoff. Many members resented the A House of 435 might have been workable during the Hoover administration. It makes no sense now. If the House were expanded to 1,500 members, the average congressional district would have about 225,000 people — still larger than its counterparts in many other modern democracies, but far more manageable than today's bloated mega-districts. Granted, that would require more chairs in the House chamber and perhaps smaller offices and staffs for each member. But the payoff would be enormous: Not only would the House be more representative, it would also be less susceptible to gerrymandering. Here's why: When each congressional district contains three-quarters of a million seats, a carefully crafted border can determine the balance of thousands of votes — enough to flip a seat. That makes each boundary line a powerful political weapon. But when districts are a third or a quarter of that size, no single line carries as much weight. Shifting a few neighborhoods or towns from one district to another would affect far fewer voters, making it harder for mapmakers to engineer outcomes with surgical precision. Smaller districts mean smaller levers — reducing the scope for mischief. Advertisement And the more districts there are, the less potent those engineering tactics become. Gerrymandering works best when the map has fewer, larger pieces — which makes it easier to 'pack' opposition voters into a handful of districts, and to 'crack' the rest among multiple other districts, thinning out their numbers to ensure that they lose everywhere else. But multiply the number of districts, and that strategy loses force. The cartographer's advantage fades as the map gets more granular. When each puzzle piece covers a smaller slice of territory, the lines become less predictable and harder to weaponize. Last but definitely not least, in a 1,500-member House, voters would be likelier to know their elected representative — and to be known in return. In districts limited to 225,000 constituents, there would be room for more local voices, more diversity of all kinds, more candidates who reflect the communities they serve. Much smaller districts means much less expensive campaigns — and lower barriers to entry for challengers. It also encourages lawmakers to stay grounded in the concerns of their neighbors rather than the noise of national partisanship. Congress blundered badly when it froze the House at 435 seats. The chaos emanating from Texas is only the latest consequence of that blunder. Advertisement It doesn't have to be this way. Enlarging the House to 1,500 members would end the gerrymandering wars. Better still, it would revive the ideal of a legislature that truly speaks for the people — restoring the people's House to its constitutional roots. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Boston Globe
11 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A brief history of Trump pretending not to know things
Less than a week after the Justice Department took the highly unusual step of sending Todd Blanche, deputy attorney general and Trump's former personal lawyer, to interview Maxwell for more than nine hours over two days, she was quietly moved from a federal minimum-security prison in Florida to a less-restrictive facility in Texas. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But according to Trump, that decision was news to him. Advertisement Perhaps the president really has no clue as to what's happening in his administration. But Trump's pleas of ignorance are an escape hatch he has deployed for years. Here's a brief history of notable moments in Trump's performative ignorance. The David Duke endorsement (2016): After Trump launched his first presidential campaign by excoriating Mexican immigrants and later promising to enact a Advertisement James Comey's firing (2017): Months into his first term, Trump dumped James Comey as FBI director. At the time, White House officials claimed that Trump fired Comey solely on the recommendation of deputy attorney general Hush money paid to Stormy Daniels (2018): Trump Advertisement Project 2025 (2024): At a Heritage Foundation event in 2022, Trump said the conservative group 'would lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.' Two years later, Trump Trump seems to treat ignorance — saying 'I don't know' or 'I didn't know'— as evidence of his innocence. He's testing that theory again as his self-inflicted Epstein scandal refuses to go away. But whether this tactic will allow him to dodge accountability this time, no one knows. Advertisement Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
