Could copper tariff hurt US more than Chile?
Chile is the largest provider of copper to the United States, whose President Donald Trump announced a punishing levy on the metal starting Friday.
Government sources in Santiago told AFP delegations have been talking behind closed doors since Monday, seeking a Trump-pleasing deal that will in effect replace a free trade agreement in place since 2004.
Impact on the US
The United States imports about 45 percent of the copper it needs for industrial use, according to the US Geological Survey, a government agency. Of that, it gets 51 percent from Chile.
According to Trump himself, it is "the second most used material by the Department of Defense" -- used in semiconductors, planes, ships, ammunition, data centers and missile defense systems.
Trump "wants to revitalize a domestic industry that has faded and has been overtaken by China and has become reliant on foreign imports," Andy Cole, an analyst with the London-based Fastmarkets price-tracking agency, told AFP.
Raising the tariff on imported copper will increase US production costs, which may boost demand for domestically sourced copper.
But the United States does not have the capacity to increase its production overnight, and "in the long run the losers will be US consumers if they have the pay more for copper," said Cole.
Juan Carlos Guajardo, director of Chilean consulting firm Plusmining, said the United States would need to produce between 600,000 and 800,000 tons of copper per year for its domestic industry, and would not be able to reach that level for "at least 10 years."
Impact on Chile
Chile is responsible for nearly a quarter of global copper supply, which contributes 10 to 15 percent to its GDP.
Its Finance Minister Mario Marcel has warned of "medium-term" damage from a 50-percent tariff, but said the country could mitigate longer-term harms through "market diversification."
For Guajardo, this means Chile can "redirect its copper," particularly "to Southeast Asia and India" or even Europe.
China is by far the leading buyer of Chilean copper, accounting for 52 percent -- totaling $26 billion --in 2024, according to the South American country's central bank.
The United States occupied a distant second place with imports worth $5.8 billion from Chile, followed by Japan with $5.3 billion and South Korea with $2.8 billion.
According to Maurice Obstfeld, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, "copper importers other than the US could gain" from the tariff hike.
Exception?
Chile says it has not been officially notified of the August 1 starting date for a copper tariff, and is still hoping to avoid it.
The country's foreign ministry has said "confidential" talks with US delegates would continue to the last minute.
According to Marcel, copper itself is not formally on the negotiating table, but will likely be included.
"For this type of raw material, exceptions have been made in other agreements," he told Radio Duna earlier this week.
After Trump's announcement on July 8, the price of copper soared to record levels in New York.
US buyers rushed to stockpile the red metal before August 1, paying prices sometimes as much as 30 percent higher than in London.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LeMonde
2 hours ago
- LeMonde
EU artificial intelligence regulation takes effect, sparking new Europe-US clash
Despite provoking the ire of the Trump administration and many large companies on both sides of the Atlantic, European legislation affecting the tech sector has continued to move forward − for now. This is the case with the regulation on artificial intelligence (AI), some of whose central provisions take effect on Saturday, August 2, a little more than one year after the final adoption of the bill – one of the world's most ambitious in this field. This applies in particular to the governance component; the 27 member states must inform the European Commission about which national authorities will be responsible for ensuring the proper enforcement of the rules. Service providers will therefore be subject to closer scrutiny – though that remains mostly theoretical in some member states, which have yet to designate the relevant bodies. In France, the Directorate General for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control, the French Data Protection Authority, and the Defender of Rights have been chosen for this role.
LeMonde
2 hours ago
- LeMonde
California and other liberal states sue Trump over transgender care ban
A coalition of liberal US states on Friday, August 1, said it was suing Donald Trump's administration over an order to prevent clinics providing gender-affirming care to children. The lawsuit, brought by officials from California and 15 other states, as well as the District of Columbia, challenges an executive order that denounces the treatment as "chemical and surgical mutilation." The order, which Trump signed in January, calls on the Department of Justice to investigate providers who offer such treatment, even in states where it is legal. "The President and his Administration's relentless attacks on gender-affirming care endanger already vulnerable adolescents whose health and well-being are at risk," California's Attorney General Rob Bonta said. "Their demands that our healthcare providers discriminate against transgender individuals and deny them access to medically-necessary healthcare is cruel and irresponsible." The DoJ said last month it had issued more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics providing treatment to adolescents. US Attorney General Pam Bondi said at the time that "medical professionals and organizations that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology will be held accountable." 'A chilling effect' The lawsuit, filed in a US District Court in Massachusetts, argues that the administration's actions have no legal basis and should be declared unlawful. "These actions have created a chilling effect in which providers are pressured to scale back on their care for fear of prosecution, leaving countless individuals without the critical care they need and are entitled to under law," said Bonta. LGBTQ+ rights have become a divisive subject in the United States, where Trump rode a wave of public support for his crusade against so-called "woke ideology." In his first days in office, Trump declared the federal government would recognize only two genders – men and women – and has targeted transgender people in a slew of other orders. In February, he issued an executive order aimed at banning transgender athletes, allowing federal agencies to halt funding to any institution that does not consider birth-assigned genders in determining sex. The lawsuit groups California with New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. It is the latest legal effort from a coalition of Democratic-run states aimed at pushing back at what liberals see as overreach by the Trump presidency.
France 24
4 hours ago
- France 24
Academics warn Columbia University deal sets dangerous precedent
Academics from Columbia and beyond have expressed concerns that the deal -- which makes broad-ranging concessions and increases government oversight -- will become the blueprint for how Trump brings other universities to heel. The New York institution was the first to be targeted in Trump's war against elite universities, for what the US president claimed was its failure to tackle anti-Semitism on campus in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests. It was stripped of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding and lost its ability to apply for new research grants. Labs saw vital funding frozen, and dozens of researchers were laid off. But Columbia last week agreed to pay the government $200 million, and an additional $21 million to settle an investigation into anti-Semitism. According to Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, the lack of due process -- with the government slashing funding before carrying out a formal investigation -- left Columbia in an "untenable position." Columbia law professor David Pozen agreed, saying the "manner in which the deal was constructed has been unlawful and coercive from the start" and slamming the agreement as giving "legal form to an extortion scheme." Federal oversight The deal goes beyond addressing anti-Semitism and makes concessions on international student admissions, race and ethnicity considerations in admissions and single-sex spaces on campus, among other issues. Columbia also agreed to appoint an independent monitor to implement the deal, share ethnicity admissions data with the government and crack down on campus protests. Many of the provisions "represent significant incursions onto Columbia's autonomy," said Pozen. "What's happened at Columbia is part of a broader authoritarian attack on civil society," he said, pointing to similar pressures on law firms and media organizations to fall in line. According to the law professor, the deal "signals the emergence of a new regulatory regime in which the Trump administration will periodically and unpredictably shake down other schools and demand concessions from them." In the coming weeks, Pozen said he expected the "administration will put a lot of pressure on Harvard and other schools to follow suit." Harvard University has pushed back against the government, filing a lawsuit in a bid to reverse sweeping funding cuts. But Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, said that "in terms of academic freedom and in terms of democracy, the (Columbia) precedent is devastating." - 'First round' - Education Secretary Linda McMahon said she hoped the Columbia deal would be a "template for other universities around the country." On Wednesday, McMahon announced a deal with Brown University to restore some federal funding and end ongoing investigations after the Ivy League school agreed to end race considerations in admissions and adopt a biological definition of gender. Brown President Christina Paxson admitted "there are other aspects of the agreement that were not part of previous federal reviews of Brown policies" but were "priorities of the federal administration." Harvard is reportedly considering forking out $500 million to settle, according to the New York Times. Others have made smaller concessions to appease the government, with Trump's alma mater the University of Pennsylvania banning transgender women from competing in women's sports, and the University of Virginia's head resigning after scrutiny over its diversity programs. Brendan Cantwell, a professor at Michigan State University who researches the history and governance of higher education, said government interference in universities "has not happened at scale like this, probably ever in American history." While some university staff see striking an agreement as the quickest way to reopen the federal funding spigot, Cantwell warned that concessions such as sharing ethnicity data from admissions could be "weaponized" and provide fodder for future probes. Levitsky agreed, saying: "Extortionists don't stop at the first concession. Extortionists come back for more." "There's a very high likelihood that this is just the first round," he said. Pozen noted that it will be harder for "major research universities to hold the line" compared to smaller colleges which are less reliant on federal funding. But Levitsky still urged Harvard to stand its ground and "fight back," including in the courts. "Fighting an authoritarian regime is costly, but that's what we have to do," he said. "This is an unprecedented assault, and universities need to work together."
