Trump hits dozens of countries with steep tariffs
Trump set rates including a 35% duty on many goods from Canada, 50% for Brazil, 25% for India, 20% for Taiwan and 39% for Switzerland, according to a presidential executive order.
The order listed higher import duty rates of 10% to 41% starting in seven days for 69 trading partners as the 12.01am (EDT) deadline on Friday approached.
Some of them had reached tariff-reducing deals; others had no opportunity to negotiate with his administration. Trump included an exception for some goods shipped within the coming week.
Goods from all other countries not listed would be subject to a 10% US import tax. Trump had previously said that rate might be higher.
The administration also teased that more trade deals were in the pipeline as it seeks to close trade deficits and boost domestic factories.
Facing a Friday deadline of his making, the Republican president has tapped emergency powers, pressured foreign leaders, and pressed ahead with trade policies that sparked a market sell-off when they were first announced in April.
This time, markets had a more muted reaction. Stocks and equity futures fell modestly in Friday morning trading in Asia.
Trump's order said that some trading partners, "despite having engaged in negotiations, have offered terms that, in my judgment, do not sufficiently address imbalances in our trading relationship or have failed to align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national-security matters."
Other details are still to come, including on the "rules of origin" that will determine what products might face even higher tariffs.
Trump also said "we have made a few deals today that are excellent deals for the country," and a U.S. official later told reporters that they were still to be announced.
CANADA, MEXICO
Trump issued a separate order for Canada that raises the rate on Canadian goods subject to fentanyl-related tariffs to 35%, from 25% previously, saying Canada had "failed to cooperate" in curbing illicit narcotics flows into the United States.
The higher tariffs on Canadian goods contrasted sharply with Trump's decision to grant Mexico a 90-day reprieve from higher tariffs of 30% on many goods to provide more time to negotiate a broader trade pact.
Trump complained to reporters earlier that Canada had "been very poorly led."
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said he was disappointed by Trump's decision, and vowed to take action to protect Canadian jobs and diversify the country's export markets.
"While we will continue to negotiate with the United States on our trading relationship, the Canadian government is laser focused on what we can control: building Canada strong," he said in a post on X.
The extension for Mexico avoids a 30% tariff on most Mexican non-automotive and non-metal goods compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade and came after a Thursday morning call between Trump and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum.
"We avoided the tariff increase announced for tomorrow," Sheinbaum wrote on X, adding that the Trump call was "very good."
About 85% of US imports from Mexico comply with the rules of origin outlined in the USMCA, shielding them from 25% tariffs related to fentanyl, according to Mexico's economy ministry.
Trump said the US would continue to levy a 50% tariff on Mexican steel, aluminium and copper and a 25% tariff on Mexican autos and on non-USMCA-compliant goods subject to tariffs related to the US fentanyl crisis.
"Additionally, Mexico has agreed to immediately terminate its Non Tariff Trade Barriers, of which there were many," Trump said in a Truth Social post, without providing details.
INDIA DISCORD
Goods from India appeared to be headed for a 25% tariff after talks bogged down over access to India's agriculture sector, drawing a higher-rate threat from Trump that also included an unspecified penalty for India's purchases of Russian oil.
Although negotiations with India were continuing, New Delhi vowed to protect the country's labour-intensive farm sector, and the threat of higher rates from Trump triggered outrage from the opposition party and a slump in the rupee.
Trump's rollout of higher import taxes comes amid more evidence they have begun driving up consumer goods prices.
Commerce Department data released Thursday showed prices for home furnishings and durable household equipment jumped 1.3% in June, the biggest gain since March 2022.
Recreational goods and vehicles prices shot up 0.9%, the most since February 2024. Prices for clothing and footwear rose 0.4%.
TOUGH QUESTIONS FROM JUDGES
Trump hit Brazil's exports on Wednesday with a steep 50% tariff as he escalated his fight with Latin America's largest economy over its prosecution of his friend and former President Jair Bolsonaro, but softened the blow by excluding sectors such as aircraft, energy and orange juice from heavier levies.
The run-up to Trump's tariff deadline was unfolding as federal appeals court judges sharply questioned Trump's use of a sweeping emergency powers law to justify his sweeping tariffs of up to 50% on nearly all trading partners.
Trump invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare an emergency over the growing US trade deficit and impose his "reciprocal" tariffs and a separate fentanyl emergency.
The Court of International Trade ruled in May that the actions exceeded his executive authority, and questions from judges during oral arguments before the US Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit in Washington indicated further scepticism.
Meanwhile, China is facing an August 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with Trump's administration, after Beijing and Washington reached preliminary deals in May and June to end escalating tit-for-tat tariffs and a cut-off of rare earth minerals.
A US official told reporters that they are making progress toward a deal.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
10 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
New Zealand can learn from Canada's success in infrastructure planning and execution
One year, it is public-private partnerships. The next, collaborative contracts. But maybe the method is not the issue. A recent fact-finding delegation to Canada, led by Infrastructure New Zealand, saw senior industry specialists learn how their counterparts in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal get it done, and it provided some stark comparisons with how we do things here. Infrastructure New Zealand strategy and engagement manager Katie Bradford. Canada has been quietly proving that success does not come from sticking to one model. What matters more is getting the right people around the table early, setting clear goals and working together with trust and flexibility. The approach should fit the project, not the other way around. In Canada, builders and planners are brought in early. They help shape the project before any concrete is poured. That avoids confusion, cuts delays and keeps plans on track. The Canadians also break big jobs down into manageable parts so work can begin sooner and progress continues while decisions are still being made. In New Zealand, we tend to over-complicate things. The process slows down, prices go up and contractors walk away. The Canadian experience suggests we need to streamline decisions and keep projects moving. Time is not just money, it is momentum. Our public servants are expected to deliver major projects with very little support. When things go wrong, they wear the blame. When things go right, there is little reward. That kind of pressure discourages bold thinking. Canada does it differently. It invests in training, encourages teamwork between public and private sectors and rewards strong leadership. If we want brave projects, we need to back the people leading them. Canada starts with a clear national purpose. It asks how infrastructure can support housing, jobs, climate goals and long-term resilience. In Canada, the total cost of a project includes the money it will take to run and maintain the asset over decades. This long-term thinking leads to smarter choices. Things such as better drainage systems or large-scale heating infrastructure may cost more up front but save much more in repairs and upgrades in the long run. In New Zealand, we focus too much on keeping the initial price low and reducing the project scale or features as budgets come under pressure. This often creates bigger bills later. Construction companies want clear rules and manageable jobs. In Canada, projects are being restructured to attract more bidders by offering smaller, clearer scopes of work. This brings more competition, better prices and stronger delivery. The Canadians know government funding is not enough. They are finding new ways to pay for infrastructure. One method involves using rising land values near new train stations to help fund those stations. In Montreal, this helped build a major light rail network. We should explore similar tools here. That includes working with iwi and private investors on housing, water and transport projects. Canada is showing how strong partnerships with indigenous communities can deliver better outcomes for everyone, offering shared ownership, real decision-making roles and a fair share of the benefits. New Zealand has an opportunity to lead the world in this space. The Canadians talk about infrastructure to grow the country. They highlight the jobs created, the communities connected, and the benefits delivered. Here, we talk about cost and mainly ignore the benefits. We need to shift the story and show the real value of what we build. An annual 'infrastructure benefits' report could help the public see why these investments matter. There is no perfect way to deliver infrastructure. Every method has its problems, but Canada's experience shows that steady improvement, good leadership and the courage to keep learning can make all the difference. Infrastructure New Zealand is an advertising sponsor of the Herald's Infrastructure report.
NZ Herald
10 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Trump adviser defends labour official's firing, deflects on how data was politically ‘rigged'
'The President wants his own people there, so that when we see the numbers, they're more transparent and more reliable,' Hassett said on NBC. The latest jobs report, which triggered Trump's anger, hit at an especially sensitive point for the President. He called the report 'A SCAM' in a post to social media, saying without evidence that McEntarfer 'had the biggest miscalculations in over 50 years'. For months, he has boasted multiple times a week that the US now has the 'hottest' economy in the world. He has repeatedly told audiences that he has received that assessment from people he has talked to, attributing the comment at different times to Middle Eastern monarchs, European leaders and American businessmen. The Labour Department's latest monthly report showed the labour market to be at best lukewarm, adding just 106,000 new jobs over the past three months. That's far fewer than previously estimated and less than the amount needed to keep unemployment from rising. The report, which included steep downgrades of the estimates for jobs added in May and June, suggested that Trump's tariffs have started to seriously slow the economy. The revisions, while large, were not unheard of - final statistics on the number of jobs in the economy often differ widely from the initial estimates. When NBC's 'Meet the Press' host Kristen Welker pressed Hassett for proof to support Trump's claim that those numbers were 'rigged,' he deflected. 'The revisions are the hard evidence,' he said, adding, 'If I was running the BLS, and I had a number that was a huge, politically important revision … then I would have a really long report explaining what happened, and we didn't get that.' Where Hassett sees impropriety, Trump's former BLS commissioner, William Beach, sees revisions that resulted from McEntarfer 'trying to do a better job, getting more information'. On CNN, Beach rejected the argument that McEntarfer somehow manipulated the data for political purposes, saying that 'by the time the commissioner sees the numbers, they're all prepared. They're locked into the computer system.' McEntarfer has not commented publicly on her firing. Her dismissal comes amid broader concerns from policymakers and economic analysts about increasingly shaky government economic data over issues that, in many cases, predate her tenure leading the bureau. Falling response rates to government surveys, coupled with pandemic-driven seasonal quirks and long-standing budget strains, have made it harder to collect and analyse reliable data, officials have said. Agencies responsible for the data have also shed staff through early retirements, deferred resignations and normal attrition. Beach said that he will still trust the jobs numbers moving forward but that the attack by Trump undermines the public's trust in the bureau. 'I don't think there's any grounds at all for this firing,' he continued. 'And it really hurts the statistical system. … This is damaging.' Polls suggest the public has more trust in the accuracy of federal statistics, such as the unemployment rate, than in the federal government overall. A national poll of about 1000 adults conducted by survey research firm SSRS in June found that roughly 70% had at least some confidence in federal statistics, compared with 51% who said the same about the federal government overall. Former Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers called Trump's claim that the BLS numbers were manipulated for political purposes 'a preposterous charge', telling ABC that McEntarfer's firing was 'way beyond anything that Richard Nixon ever did'. 'These numbers are put together by teams of literally hundreds of people following detailed procedures that are in manuals. There's no conceivable way that the head of the BLS could have manipulated this number,' said Summers, who led the Treasury Department under President Bill Clinton. Hassett also raised concerns about data quality - questioning whether the system has recovered from the chaos of economic data collection during the Covid pandemic. He argued that large revisions during the pandemic were happening 'all the time, all over the place', which was understandable given fluctuations in the job market. But after the pandemic, the large revisions have continued, he said. 'Right now, we've got BLS numbers that aren't really a lot better than they were during Covid, and we need to understand why. I think the President's right to call for new leadership,' Hassett told Fox News. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said on CBS that the President's concerns with the BLS data date back to 'everything we saw last year', appearing to reference downward revisions to the 2024 jobs data that Trump complained about. 'There are always revisions, but sometimes you see these revisions go in really extreme ways,' Greer continued. 'The president is the president. He can choose who works in the executive branch.' The Trump Administration's push to overhaul major benchmarks it calls flawed predates the jobs report. In March, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick called for a change in the way economic growth is measured, though that idea has yet to move forward. Over the past decade, as a result of budget constraints, the BLS has scaled back key activities such as in-person visits, follow-ups, field training and travel - steps that are essential for data quality. It has said it is surveying fewer outlets for the consumer price index - the most widely used benchmark for inflation - because of staffing shortages in certain cities, and that it is discontinuing the calculation and publishing of wholesale pricing data on hundreds of products in the producer price index.
Otago Daily Times
40 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Counting the costs of tariffs
What an arbitrary and unfair world. While New Zealand might not be stung as badly as many others, it is still being penalised by capricious and unjust tariffs. This nation has virtually no tariffs (about 0.8%) on goods from the United States, while US-owned giants like Meta, Microsoft and Google extract billions of dollars through tax avoidance. New Zealand, long a close friend internationally, has been forced to tread carefully around US President Donald Trump. It recently welcomed an FBI office in Wellington and has held back on pledging recognition of Palestinian statehood. Nonetheless, the baseline 10% tariff imposed by the US earlier this year rises to 15%. Why? New Zealand recorded a trade surplus with the United States last year. If food prices had not been high, or if New Zealand had imported a few US aircraft, the balance might have been reversed — and the 10% might have stayed, as it has for Singapore and Australia. However, the US might still have made dismantling Pharmac a condition of a better deal. It is, of course, futile to appease bullies. There are effectively no real negotiations. Mr Trump issues decrees, and only afterwards might there be limited room to move. The might of China may have muscle, especially because of the US debt it holds. Puny New Zealand is simply too small. If there were just a little fairness, New Zealand could also apply 15% to US imports. Nobody, however, is seriously proposing that. New Zealand has staked its reputation and its interests as a trading nation on free trade. It also dares not provoke the Trump tactic of responding with another ratchet of the rack. It says much about the state of play that wily Foreign Minister Winston Peters and others advocated keeping this country's head down. Mr Trump has so many big fish to fry — discussions are continuing with China and the European Union on the trade front alone — this seemed the wisest course. In a flurry of action, New Zealand's head trade official is now off the Washington, and Trade Minister Todd McLay will follow. Unsurprisingly, there is scepticism that this will do much good. Previously, such efforts failed to reduce steel and aluminium tariffs, and tiny New Zealand will struggle to receive much air or ear time at the highest levels. Politically, however, it makes the government look as though it is doing something. Despite Labour's criticism of poor tactics, it is doubtful whether proactive and public lobbying in Washington would have made any difference. The resulting 15% tariff matches that applied to US allies Japan and South Korea and is slightly lower than much of Southeast Asia. However, it is higher than the rate for fellow beef exporters Argentina and Uruguay. The US is also New Zealand's largest wine export market. Wine receipts are expected to suffer, and F&P Healthcare, one of New Zealand's largest companies with manufacturing in Auckland and Mexico, will be disadvantaged as it competes with a major US rival. Exporters were reconciling themselves to 10%, and 15% might not sound excessive. But it represents a 50% increase on the earlier amount and is far harder to absorb. The result will be lower returns for exporters and higher costs for consumers, while the US collects tariff revenue. Trade Minister Todd McLay estimates the tariff cost to exporters at an additional $500 million. Fortunately, this coincides with strong global food demand and prices. Unfortunately, it comes at a time when the New Zealand economy is struggling to recover from prolonged doldrums. Although not catastrophic, it dents confidence and removes another brick as the government tries to rebuild economic growth and salvage its electoral prospects. The US has overtaken Australia as New Zealand's second-largest export market, worth $9 billion last year, though still well behind China. New Zealand will bear the costs of President Trump's disruptive trade policies, both directly through tariffs and indirectly through their dampening effect on US and global growth.
