After 125% tariffs, tit-for-tat moves: Why Trump announced 90-day pause on China duties
The White House's halt on steeper tariffs will be in place until November 10.
"I have just signed an Executive Order that will extend the Tariff Suspension on China for another 90 days," Donald Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
Earlier this year, Washington and Beijing imposed increasingly steep tariffs on each other's goods, pushing them to crippling triple-digit rates and disrupting trade. However, in May, both sides agreed to scale them back temporarily.
So, why did Donald Trump change his mind?
In the executive order posted Monday to its website, the White House reiterated its position that there are 'large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits' and they 'constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.'
The order acknowledged Washington's ongoing discussions with Beijing "to address the lack of trade reciprocity in our economic relationship" and noted that China has continued to 'take significant steps toward remedying' the US complaints, news agency AFP reported.
Here's the timeline on the development of US-China trade war this year:
January 21: A day after taking office, Donald Trump threatened 10% penalty on Chinese imports, citing fentanyl flowing from China.
February 1: Trump imposed 0% on goods from China along with 25% on Mexico and Canada, demanding they curb the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigrants into the US.
February 4: In a tit-for-tat move, China responded with a wide range of measures targeting US businesses, including Google, farm equipment makers and the owner of fashion brand Calvin Klein.
Beijing also slapped levies of 15% on imports of US coal and LNG and 10% for crude oil and some autos, beginning February 10. It also restricted exports of five metals used in defence, clean energy and other industries.
March 3: The US doubled fentanyl-related tariffs on all Chinese imports, increasing levies to 20%, effective March 4.
March 4: China hit back with 10-15% retaliatory levies on US agriculture exports, affecting about $21 billion in US exports. Beijing also imposed export and investment curbs on 25 US firms, on grounds of national security and banned imports of genetic sequencers from US medical equipment maker Illumina.
April 2: Trump escalated global trade friction with sweeping "liberation day" tariffs, announcing a baseline 10% across all imports and significantly higher duties on some countries. Trump levies 34% on all Chinese goods, took effect on April 9.
The Trump administration also decided to end duty-free access for low-value shipments from China and Hong Kong, known as "de minimis" exemptions, from May 2.
April 4: China announced retaliatory tariffs of 34% on all US imports from April 10 and export curbs on some rare earths. It imposed restrictions on about 30 US organisations, mostly in defence-related industries.
Beijing also suspended sorghum, poultry and bone meal shipments from some US firms.
April 8: The US raised tariff on all Chinese imports to 84% from 34%.
April 9: China raised its levies on US imports to 84% too, and added 12 US companies to a control list that prohibits exports of dual-use items and another six to its "unreliable entities" list, which allows Beijing to take punitive actions against foreign entities.
The US further hiked tariffs on Chinese imports to 125% from 84%. China later on the day issued risk warnings to its citizens against travelling to the US.
April 10: China announced it would immediately restrict imports of Hollywood films.
April 11: China also raised levies on imports of US goods to 125%, dismissing the Trump tariff strategy as 'a joke' and indicated it will ignore any further US 'numbers game with tariffs'.
May 10-12: Beijing and Washington held high-stakes trade talks over the weekend in Geneva. Both sides released a joint statement agreeing to a 90-day pause on their steep tariffs.
The temporary truce meant US tariffs on China would fall to 30% from 145%, while China tariffs on the US drop to 10% from 125%. China also committed to removing non-tariff countermeasures imposed against the United States since April 2.
May 28-29: The US said will start "aggressively" revoking visas of Chinese students. It also ordered a broad swathe of companies to stop shipping goods covering semiconductors, design software and aviation equipment to China.
June 5: Chinese President Xi Jinping and Trump held an hour-long phone call.
June 9-10: The US and China held a new round of trade talks in London and reach a framework agreement.
July 6: Trump threatened an additional 10% tariff on countries he said were aligning themselves with the "Anti-American policies" of BRICS, which includes China.
July 28-29: The US and Chinese officials agreed to seek an extension of their 90-day tariff truce after two days of talks in Stockholm. Both sides described the talks as constructive, but no major breakthroughs were announced.
August 8: The US started issuing licenses to Nvidia to export its H20 chips to China.
August 11: The US and China extended their tariff truce for another 90 days.
(With inputs from agencies)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
6 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Federal agents will be out 24/7 on patrol in Washington, the White House says
As a wary Washington waited, the White House promised a ramp-up of National Guard troops and federal officers on the streets of the nation's capital around the clock this week after President Donald Trump's unprecedented announcement that his administration would take over the city's police department for at least a month. The city's Democratic mayor walked a political tightrope, referring to the takeover as an "authoritarian push" at one point and later framing the infusion of officers as boost to public safety, though one with few specific barometers for success. The Republican president has said crime in the city was at emergency levels that only such federal intervention could fix - even as District of Columbia leaders pointed to statistics showing violent crime at a 30-year low after a sharp rise two years ago. For two days, small groups of federal officers have been visible in scattered areas of the city. But a significant increase was expected Wednesday at the Guard's armory and troops were expected to start doing more missions in Washington on Thursday, according to a Guard spokesman who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the planning process. On Wednesday, agents from Homeland Security Investigations patrolled the popular U Street corridor. Drug Enforcement Administration officers were seen on the National Mall, while National Guard members were parked nearby. DEA agents also joined Metropolitan Police Department officers on patrol in the Navy Yard neighborhood. Hundreds of federal law enforcement and city police officers who patrolled the streets Tuesday night made 43 arrests, compared with about two dozen the night before. D.C. Councilmember Christina Henderson downplayed the arrest reports as "a bunch of traffic stops" and said the administration was seeking to disguise how unnecessary this federal intervention is. "I'm looking at this list of arrests and they sound like a normal Saturday night in any big city," said Henderson. Unlike in other U.S. states and cities, the law gives Trump the power to take over Washington's police for up to 30 days. Extending his power over the city for longer would require approval from Congress, and that could be tough in the face of Democratic resistance. Trump suggested that he could seek a longer period of control or decide to call on Congress to exercise authority over city laws his administration sees as lax on crime. "We're gonna do this very quickly. But we're gonna want extensions. I don't want to call a national emergency. If I have to, I will," he said. Later, on his Truth Social site, Trump reiterated his claims about the city, writing, "D.C. has been under siege from thugs and killers, but now, D.C. is back under Federal Control where it belongs." Henderson, who worked for Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York before running for the D.C. Council, said she was already in touch with "friends on the Hill" to rally opposition for any Trump extension request. She added, "It's Day Three and he's already saying he's going to need more time?" Targeting a variety of infractions The arrests made by 1,450 federal and local officers across the city included those for suspicion of driving under the influence and unlawful entry, as well as a warrant for assault with a deadly weapon, according to the White House. Seven illegal firearms were seized. There have now been more than 100 arrests since Trump began beefing up the federal law enforcement presence in Washington last week, White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said. "President Trump is delivering on his campaign promise to clean up this city and restore American Greatness to our cherished capital," she said. The president has full command of the National Guard and has activated up to 800 troops to support law enforcement, though exactly what form remains to be determined. Neither Army nor District of Columbia National Guard officials have been able to describe the training backgrounds of the troops who have so far reported for duty. While some members are military police, others likely hold jobs that would have offered them little training in dealing with civilians or law enforcement. The federalization push also includes clearing out encampments for people who are homeless, Trump has said. U.S. Park Police have removed dozens of tents since March, and plan to take out two more this week, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has said. People are offered the chance to go to shelters and get addiction treatment, if needed, but those who refuse could be fined or jailed, she said. City officials said they are making more shelter space available and increasing their outreach. Violent crime has dropped in the district The federal effort comes even after a drop in violent crime in the nation's capital, a trend that experts have seen in cities across the U.S. since an increase during the coronavirus pandemic. On average, the level of violence Washington remains mostly higher than averages in three dozen cities analyzed by the nonprofit Council on Criminal Justice, said the group's president and CEO, Adam Gelb. Police Chief Pamela Smith said during an interview with the local Fox affiliate that the city's Metro Police Department has been down nearly 800 officers. She said the increased number of federal agents on the streets would help fill that gap, at least for now. Mayor Muriel Bowser said city officials did not get any specific goals for the surge during a meeting with Trump's attorney general, Pam Bondi, and other top federal law enforcement officials Tuesday. But, she said, "I think they regard it as a success to have more presence and take more guns off the street, and we do too." She had previously called Trump's moves "unsettling and unprecedented" while pointing out he was within a president's legal rights regarding the district, which is the seat of American government but is not a state. For some residents, the increased presence of law enforcement and National Guard troops is nerve-racking. "I've seen them right here at the subway ... they had my street where I live at blocked off yesterday, actually," Washington native Sheina Taylor said. "It's more fearful now because even though you're a law-abiding citizen, here in D.C., you don't know, especially because I'm African American." ___ Associated Press writers Konstantin Toropin and Will Weissert, photographer Jacquelyn Martin and video journalist River Zhang contributed to this report.
Scroll.in
8 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Why India's plans to counter China's mega dam in Tibet may falter
The Yarlung Tsangpo river originates in the mountains of western Tibet, and flows eastwards through the Tibet Autonomous Region. It then enters Arunachal Pradesh, where it is known as the Siang. Then, it flows further downstream to Assam, from when it is widely known as the Brahmaputra. This river is currently the site of an intensifying conflict between India and China over the control, ownership and use of its waters. While the threat of competition for this water has always loomed large, it began to take firmer shape in July, when China began construction of a 60-gigawatt hydropower project in Medog, just 30 km north of Arunachal Pradesh. The dam is set to be the world's largest in terms of hydropower capacity – the current largest one, the Three Gorges Dam, also in China, has a capacity of 22.5 gigawatts. These plans have alarmed India. Ministers have described the dam as a 'water bomb' that China can weaponise – either by withholding water to India, or suddenly releasing it in large volumes, which can wreak destruction downstream. In response, India has been pushing forward with plans to build the 11-gigawatt Siang upper multipurpose project in Arunachal Pradesh's Siang district. The dam at Siang could help mitigate some of these probable risks of the Chinese dam, Indian authorities have argued. The government had been considering the project since 2017, when the Niti Ayog proposed it. In February 2022, the Ministry of Jal Shakti formed a technical group to finalise the dam's height. A month later, they recorded their findings in a report, asserting that the Siang Upper dam 'will act as a flood cushion in case of sudden release of flood due to breach in natural and man made storages' in China's proposed dam at Medog. The document noted that the dam would also help regulate glacial floods on the river, and thus minimise losses to local livelihoods. But experts warn that the Indian dam will be of limited use in these respects. Rather than offer any protection from China, India's dam will only serve as a marker of its claims over the river, experts argued. As India sees it, 'if they do not construct a dam on the Brahmaputra, then we will not have water rights over the river', said Sumit Vij, assistant professor at Netherlands-based Wageningen University, who has worked extensively on the Brahmaputra basin. The dam has also raised fears of damage to the local environment and destruction of livelihoods. Thirteen villages in Arunachal Pradesh are to be completely submerged, including agricultural fields where the Adi community grows ginger, cardamom, and paddy. Locals are also concerned that the dam will restrict sediment flow in the river. Communities in the region have been protesting against the project since 2024, noting that the government was pushing it through without adequately consulting them, and by deploying armed forces and police to quell objections. Such conflict is regrettable, particularly since, to achieve the tangible results of the kind the government seeks, 'there has to be a diplomatic solution, a dialogue solution, and not a dam solution', Vij noted. He added, 'If they get into this dam race, India will harm its own environment much more than what is expected to be harmed by China.' Scroll emailed the Ministry of Jal Shakti, seeking responses to questions about the rationale behind the construction of the dam and its planned functions. This story will be updated if it responds. Flood moderation or hydropower generation? The government intends for the Upper Siang dam to perform more than one function. Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu said the dam 'is not just about generating power, but also about maintaining the natural flow of the Siang river and mitigating potential flood risks from water releases by China'. But experts argue that such a goal is unrealistic. If the Siang dam's main function is to mitigate against the risk of floods, they said, other functions, such as hydropower generation, would have to take a back seat. A key reason for this is that since the Siang dam is a hydropower project, water levels of its reservoir would typically be kept high. Soumya Dutta, a visiting senior fellow at Impact and Policy Research Institute who works on energy and climate, noted that 'for creating electricity, dam officials keep the reservoir levels at full capacity to maximise the energy potential'. If China withheld water or released excess water, the Siang dam would allow India to 'moderate these daily cycles of peaks and troughs of water for a few days'. But because it would have a limited buffer capacity, 'beyond that, if there is a heavy rainfall or a sudden release, the dam will not be able to hold it back', Dutta explained. This risk is exacerbated by the geographical limitations the Siang dam will face. Dutta noted that a crucial feature of a dam designed for flood control is a large reservoir. The government is proposing to build a reservoir in Siang – but the geography of the region will only allow for a narrow and deep reservoir, as opposed to the wide ones found in some dams elsewhere in India, like the Nagarjuna Sagar dam, jointly operated by Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to control floods. In such broad reservoirs, flood control can be carried out even by keeping water levels 'just a little low', Dutta said. In deep reservoirs, however, maintaining a buffer capacity to guard against floods would mean necessarily keeping water levels much lower, which would impinge on hydropower generation capacity. Dams that prioritise hydropower generation are, in fact, generally prone to causing flooding when there is a sudden inflow of water into their reservoirs – Dutta noted that many independent experts argued that is what happened in the 2018 floods in Kerala. Indeed, concerns about the construction of the Siang dam do not only revolve around its efficacy – but also about the effects that it might have downstream in Assam, if the dam releases large volumes of water to prevent flooding around it. 'Unfortunately, there is no bioregional understanding of rivers,' in India, said Mirza Zulfiqur Rahman, visiting associate fellow at Delhi-based Institute of Chinese Studies. Such an approach takes into account the fact that 'if you create something upstream of the river basin, it will have an impact downstream, and also vice-versa', he added. More deliberation needed The canyon where the Medog dam will be built is one of the deepest in the world, and plunges to depths of more than 5,000 metres. The river's fall over this canyon generates massive amounts of energy, making it an ideal site for a large hydropower plant. China has spent decades studying the site and drawing up plans for the dam's construction. Experts fear that if India now rushes to catch up with its neighbour, its own dam will not be built in the most optimal way. 'China has spent years studying the geomorphology and understanding the advantage of gradient that it has to build the dam there,' said Rahman. In this regard, India is '15-20 years behind China', Rahman said. At the moment, the government is attempting to conduct a survey, based on which it would draw up a 'pre-feasibility report' of the dam in Siang. This is only one of the first steps of the process, Rahman explained. 'You need to have a long-term research analysis in order to back up your structural interventions,' he said. This work would have helped India understand the area's hydrology more precisely, and identify potential sites for the dam. He further explained that such research could have helped minimise the likelihood of protests among local communities, since information about the project could have been communicated to people on the ground in a timely way. At present, he argued, sufficient hard data about the project has not been shared with local communities, which is leading to increased speculation among them. 'If India would have invested time and money in understanding the river basin in the last 20 years, India could have been in a much better position to design a dam that could perhaps counter the Medog dam,' Rahman said. No treaty India and China both feel a strong need to demonstrate ownership over the river in this region, experts noted, because there is no international law, transboundary institution, or treaty for the Brahmaputra basin that inscribes how its water should be shared. All the four countries that use the basin – China, Bhutan, India, and Bangladesh – have diverse interests, ranging from hydropower generation to flood management and economic development. But so far, discussions between them on cooperating over the river have been limited. In 1997, more than one hundred countries came together to adopt the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, which sets out a framework for countries that have to share waters. It mandates that signatories have to share hydrological, meteorological, hydrogeological and ecological data with each other, and that conflicts be resolved 'with special regard being given to the requirements of vital human needs'. But other than Bangladesh, none of the other countries in the Brahmaputra basin signed to be party to it. 'That made it very clear that India and China did not want to engage in a multilateral diplomatic negotiation where there could be a third-party mediation,' said Vij. 'It could have allowed for a more just, equal playing field for all actors, but the downside is that it would take longer time to negotiate between the countries.' Instead, India and China signed a memorandum of understanding in 2002 aimed at helping India take steps towards flood control and mitigate the risks of disasters. Under this memorandum, China would provide hydrological information of the river to India in both the flood and non-flood season. This memorandum was renewed in 2008 and 2013 – China temporarily paused it in 2017 after the two countries clashed in Doklam, and renewed it again in 2018. But the memorandum expired in June 2023 and has not been renewed since. In any case, Vij noted that as a mechanism, a memorandum of understanding 'can be a weak institutional mechanism for water-sharing'. Rahman added that while agreements act as 'bricks of confidence building', they are not as strongly backed by international law, and can be withdrawn more easily. In contrast, under international law, treaties are typically far more comprehensive, and carry more weight. Thus, they usually 'lead to cooperation and better understanding between the riparian states', said Vij. Indeed, though India and China signed the memorandum, the process of sharing data has been fraught, Vij wrote in a 2017 paper. Such sharing is typically a means of building trust between countries, but 'in the specific case of the Brahmaputra the lack of a data sharing procedure at the basin level has fostered mistrust between the riparian countries and hindered regional cooperation', he wrote. Further, he noted, 'The power asymmetry between the countries and the broader political context, which currently considers all hydrological data relating to international borders as classified, make the process of sharing data complex.' That has left the two countries in a race to create large infrastructure in the Himalaya, which can be disastrous not just to the topography, but also to local indigenous populations. 'In the way the dam construction is going on, it probably will not have an impact on what the Chinese are doing as much as it will have on their own population, people, nature and ecology,' said Vij.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
8 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Judge weighs if Trump violated law by deploying National Guard to LA
A federal judge in San Francisco is weighing whether the Trump administration violated federal law by sending National Guard troops to accompany immigration agents on raids in Southern California. A three-day trial on the matter concluded Wednesday. California has argued the troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits military enforcement of domestic laws. Lawyers for the administration said the law doesn't apply because President Donald Trump called up the National Guard under an authority that allows their deployment if "the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. Federal and military officials were called to testify, and the trial's third day largely focused on weedy arguments about the 1878 law and whether the court even had a role in determining the limits of presidential power. Trump deployed 4,000 National Guard members and later 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June after protests in response to immigration raids around the city. They were originally deployed to protect federal property, including a detention center targeted by protesters. The Guard members later began guarding agents as they continued arresting people suspected of being in the US illegally. Between 250 and 300 Guard troops remain and have been activated through November. **Wednesday's arguments Deputy Assistant Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton said Wednesday that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply because the Guard was deployed under a section of US Code that allows the president to call any state's guard into federal service when the country is invaded, when there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government, or when the president is unable to execute the laws of the United States. He said Guard members weren't engaged in law enforcement and were just providing backup security for federal agents. If the purpose is the protection of law enforcement officers, it isn't law enforcement in the first place, he said. On top of that, there's the fact that a (president's) constitutional inherent protective power is at work. That is itself an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. California Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong argued the troops' role went beyond providing protection to federal agents and buildings. The troops, she said, had an active, direct role enforcing the law when they detained people at least in two occasions and set up roadblocks and perimeters blocking access to public streets. For all the pretense and wordsmithing defendants have tried to employ, the facts are inescapable: The activities defendants have ordered Task Force 51 troops to engage in across Southern California violate the Posse Comitatus Act, she said. Task Force 51 was the name of the command post activated to coordinate the troops deployment deployment. The Trump administration, she said, broke the law by using the troops to illegally enforce civilian law and operate as a single force with federal immigration officers, who often don military garb. California is asking Judge Charles Breyer to order the Trump administration to return control of the remaining troops to the state and to stop the federal government from using military troops in California to execute or assist in the execution of federal law or any civilian law enforcement functions by any federal agent or officer. **Judge weighs whether troops crossed the line The question in this case is whether the troops that have been stationed in Los Angeles have or have not crossed that line, said David Levine, a professor at UC College of the Law San Francisco. Are they acting as military or are they acting as police? They can't act as police. They can only act within their bounds. Troops deployed to Southern California received at least 60 requests for assistance from federal officials and responded to the majority of them, Hamilton told the judge. Army Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who commanded Task Force 51, said there were some times when troops outnumbered federal officers. He said that during an immigration enforcement at an illegal marijuana growing operation in Mecca, a desert community about 225 km east of Los Angeles, about 300 task force soldiers were present, compared to 200 federal law enforcement agents. National Guard troops also accompanied federal immigration officers on raids at two state-licensed marijuana nurseries in Ventura County and to an operation at MacArthur Park in downtown Los Angeles intended as a show of force against people in the US illegally and those protesting the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. Sherman testified during the second day of the trial that he raised concerns the deployment could violate the Posse Comitatus Act. He said soldiers were trained on the law and given materials that included a list of specific activities prohibited by the act, including doing security patrols and conducting traffic control, crowd control and riot control. Sherman said that while the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits troops from carrying out those actions, he was told by his superiors that there was a constitutional exception that permitted such activities when the troops are protecting federal property or personnel.
