Tariff Rates Against China Still Historically High as Trump Touts New Trade Deal
President Donald Trump on Wednesday took to Truth Social to tout a new tentative trade agreement with China, albeit one that leaves the tariff rate against Beijing at historically high levels.
"WE ARE GETTING A TOTAL OF 55% TARIFFS, CHINA IS GETTING 10%," Trump's post to Truth Social read, with a later post adding, ""President Xi [Jinping] and I are going to work closely together to open up China to American Trade. This would be a great WIN for both countries!!!"
Under this new arrangement, if it stands, the US tariff rate against China will be set at 55%, which is actually an increase from the 30% rate set when the two countries declared a truce in May at the start of their negotiations. This came after multiple rounds of escalation that saw the import taxes against China hiked all the way to a rate of 145%. In addition, Trump said that the US will get access to rare earth minerals from China -- including ones vital to the production of technology like smartphones -- while in return Chinese students will be allowed to attend American colleges and universities.
During his first term, Trump's trade war with China saw the average tariff rate against China increased to around 20%, which went largely unchanged during the presidency of Joe Biden. Given how much the US has traditionally imported from China, increased tariffs on goods from there will have a much greater impact on the cost of goods than tariffs against other countries.
It is unclear at this point when this 55% rate would take effect. The earlier 30% rate was supposed to remain in effect until August while negotiations continued. It is also unclear if this rate will effect all imports from China the same, or if some will be spared.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
15 minutes ago
- New York Times
Protest Is Underrated
The first thing to know is that it was all basically willed into being — not by 'paid protesters' or the Mexican government or socialists or union leaders, but by Stephen Miller, the architect of President Trump's xenophobic immigration plan and his deputy chief of staff. In a May meeting at ICE headquarters, Miller reportedly demanded that field agents forget about targeting only those undocumented immigrants with criminal records and instead stage purposefully cruel, attention-getting sweeps in places like the parking lot of a Home Depot. That is precisely where, last Friday, those raids began. The second thing to know is that the unrest was really quite limited: a roughly five-block stretch downtown, in a city of nearly four million people spread over almost 500 square miles; several driverless Waymo robot taxis, lined up on one street and set ablaze. There was some more serious violence, too: some journalists were shot with rubber bullets and other less-lethal munitions, a few cop cars were pelted with rocks, and at least one was set on fire, but no serious law-enforcement injuries were reported. But this was not 1965, with widespread arson and 34 deaths, or 1992, with disorder spreading through whole neighborhoods and more than 60 people killed. None of that means that what began last Friday in Los Angeles — a series of spectacular ICE raids, a direct-action response to block them, large-scale peaceful protests punctuated in places by bursts of familiar violence — is insignificant. To the contrary: Hundreds of migrants and protesters have been arrested over the last week, with many of the raids conducted by ICE officers in the now-familiar uniform of masked anonymity. The National Guard was mobilized over the objection of California's governor, Gavin Newsom, and without the support of the Los Angeles Police Department's leadership, with hundreds of Marines on active duty mobilized to join them in a rare deployment of military personnel to a site of domestic unrest. On Tuesday, Trump disparaged Los Angeles as a 'trash heap' in an incendiary speech that was met with horrifying applause from assembled loyalists in the Army, and on Thursday, Senator Alex Padilla was hauled out of a local news conference being held by the secretary of homeland security, Kristi Noem. When the senator was wrestled to the floor, the secretary had just declared 'we are not going away,' but would instead stay in L.A. to 'liberate the city' from 'socialists' and its democratically elected local government. The political scientists I spoke to throughout the week used phrases like 'competitive authoritarianism,' 'acute democratic backsliding' and 'autocratic power grab.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
More Americans support than oppose Trump's Army celebration parade: Poll
As President Donald Trump hosts events on Saturday to celebrate the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary, a new national poll indicates more Americans are likely to approve than disapprove of the president's decision to hold a military parade. But six in 10 Americans are concerned about the cost of the parade, saying it's "not a good use" of government money, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey. Trump, who is marking his 79th birthday on Saturday, is scheduled to give a speech during the parade, which will take place Saturday evening along the National Mall in Washington D.C. Defense officials say roughly 6,600 soldiers will march in the parade, with some 50 military aircraft and 150 vehicles, including tanks, rocket launchers, and missiles. The Army says it's spending $25-$45 million to pay for the parade, which includes fixing D.C. streets damaged by the tanks. Trump Warns Any Protesters At His Military Parade Will Be 'Met With Very Big Force' Trump has defended the cost of the parade, saying last month in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" that it would be "peanuts compared to the value of doing it." Read On The Fox News App "We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it," the president said. Trump To Host Military Parade To Celebrate Army's 250Th Birthday But some in Congress are criticizing the parade, saying the money could be better spent. "If it was really about celebrating military families, we could put $30 million toward helping them offset the cost of their child care, food assistance and tuition," Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a military veteran who lost both of her legs in combat while piloting an Army Black Hawk helicopter during the Iraq War, said in a social media post. "But it isn't. Trump is throwing himself a $30 million birthday parade just to stroke his own ego," Duckworth argued. According to the poll, 40% of adults nationwide approved of the military parade, with 29% disapproving, and three in 10 neither approving nor disapproving. There was an expected partisan divide, with two-thirds of Republicans approving of the president's move to hold the parade, and half of Democrats disapproving. But in a separate question, 60% of those surveyed said holding the parade was not a good use of government funds, with 38% disagreeing. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans said holding the parade was a good use of government funds, while eight in 10 Democrats disagreed. The White House, in a statement, said that the parade "will be a unifying celebration for not only the thousands in attendance, but Americans across the country who can participate in honoring our active-duty servicemembers, Veterans, and fallen heroes." Pro-democracy, progressive, and labor activists are planning protests in all 50 states on Saturday that will coincide with Trump's military parade. Many are part of a series of "No Kings" protests across the country, with more than 1,500 rallies scheduled for this weekend. But organizers decided against holding a major protest in the nation's capital and instead will hold their main event in Philadelphia. The poll, which was conducted June 5-9, also indicates that 39% of those questioned approve of the job Trump's doing in the White House, with six in ten giving the president a thumbs down. The survey had an overall margin of error of plus or minus four percentage article source: More Americans support than oppose Trump's Army celebration parade: Poll
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Grim Reality of the Conflict in Iran
A damaged residential building in Tehran, Iran, on June 13, 2025. Credit - Middle East Images—AFP/Getty In the early hours of Friday morning, Israel launched a sweeping military campaign against Iran. The ongoing operation, which was reportedly planned to unfold over several days, is targeting a list of nuclear and military facilities, as well as senior regime officials, that grows longer by the hour. Iran has thus far retaliated with drones and a substantial missile barrage that could see Israel expand its targeting further still. In a region that has seen endless bloodshed since Hamas's October 2023 attacks, the grim reality is that things may get much worse before they get even worse. Under the Islamic Republic that took power in 1979, enmity toward Israel has been a core ideological tenet of Iranian foreign policy and a key driver in its regional policy. Over decades, their rivalry played out mainly through indirect actions by Iran and by covert operations from Israel. That dynamic changed last year. In April and again in October, the two sides engaged in direct hostilities, with Iran twice launching massive missile salvoes largely repelled by Israeli and allied air defenses. After the second strike, which came shortly after Israel severely degraded the upper ranks of Hizbollah in Lebanon—the most powerful of Iran's proxies—Israel targeted Iranian air defences and missile production facilities, facing little resistance or response. But while Iran's regional power projection was diminishing and its arsenal of missiles and drones twice proved largely ineffective, a third concern—a nuclear threat which Israel considered existential—was still growing. Tehran had been steadily expanding the scale and scope of its nuclear activity ever since President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal during his first term; President Joe Biden's Administration sought and failed to revive it. In March, Trump announced that he had reached out to Iran's leadership to negotiate a new deal, and his administration conducted five rounds of talks in Muscat and Rome in attempts to reach one. For Iran, which sought sanctions relief for its embattled economy, the success of negotiations with the U.S. hinged on concessions it has long opposed: Dismantling its nuclear program altogether or even ceasing the domestic enrichment of uranium. For Israel, eliminating, rather than merely restricting, the production of fissile material that could be used to fuel a weapon has been paramount. For President Trump, the prospect of a military strike by Israel seems a means of strengthening Washington's hand in a diplomatic agreement in which he still remains interested. But at the moment, the question may be less a matter of whether diplomacy can succeed than how grievously the situation could escalate. The worst-case scenarios are dire: A cycle of Israeli and Iranian counterstrikes that draw in the U.S., Iran's non-state allies, and regional states, cause grievous harm to civilians on all sides, and inject profound uncertainty into global markets. Over time, Iran's regime could attempt to reconstitute its nuclear activity from the rubble, only with an explicit aim of fashioning a weapon in the shortest possible time as a means of deterrence in the future. Another disastrous scenario is that the regime in Tehran falls and there is a protracted war for power and chaos or an even harder line regime armed with nuclear weapons. Is there a path out of this deepening crisis? Perhaps, though not a particularly promising one. Trump's stated objective—even as the fire is exchanged in two directions—remains a deal with Iran, and Tehran could offer concessions on the stipulation that it also involve an immediate cessation of hostilities with Israel. Were Iran to concede on its red lines in an effort to stave off greater destruction, perhaps Trump would be keen enough to avert a widening conflagration to also press Israel into ending the escalation cycle as well. Iran's government has previously demonstrated that when facing particularly inauspicious circumstances, especially those that might threaten the very foundations of the regime itself, it can make concessions necessary for its survival. But facing perhaps the gravest crisis it has faced since the eight-year-long war with Iraq in the 1980s, it may end up doubling down to the detriment of its people and the region. Contact us at letters@
