logo
Trump's tariffs have launched global trade wars. Here's a timeline of how we got here

Trump's tariffs have launched global trade wars. Here's a timeline of how we got here

Yahoo08-05-2025

NEW YORK (AP) —
Long-threatened tariffs from U.S. President Donald Trump have plunged the country into trade wars abroad — all while on-again, off-again new levies continue to escalate uncertainty.
Trump is no stranger to tariffs. He launched a trade war during his first term, taking particular aim at China by putting taxes on most of its goods. Beijing responded with its own retaliatory tariffs on a range of U.S. products. Meanwhile, Trump also used the threat of more tariffs to force Canada and Mexico to renegotiate a North American trade pact, called the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, in 2020.
When President Joe Biden took office, he preserved most of the tariffs Trump previously enacted against China, in addition to imposing some new restrictions. But his administration claimed to take a more targeted approach.
Fast-forward to today, and economists stress there could be greater consequences on businesses and economies worldwide under Trump's more sweeping tariffs this time around — and that higher prices will likely leave consumers footing the bill. There's also been a sense of whiplash from Trump's back-and-forth tariff threats and responding retaliation seen over the last few months.
Here's a timeline of how we got here:
January 20
Trump is sworn into office. In his inaugural address, he again promises to 'tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens." And he reiterates plans to create an agency called the External Revenue Service, which has yet to be established.
On his first day in office, Trump also says he expects to put 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico starting on Feb. 1, while declining to immediately flesh out plans for taxing Chinese imports.
January 26
Trump threatens 25% tariffs on all Colombia imports and other retaliatory measures after President Gustavo Petro's rejects two U.S. military aircraft carrying migrants to the country, accusing Trump of not treating immigrants with dignity during deportation.
In response, Petro also announces a retaliatory 25% increase in Colombian tariffs on U.S. goods. But Colombia later reversed its decision and accepted the flights carrying migrants. The two countries soon signaled a halt in the trade dispute.
February 1
Trump signs an executive order to impose tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada and China — 10% on all imports from China and 25% on imports from Mexico and Canada starting Feb. 4. Trump invoked this power by declaring a national emergency — ostensibly over undocumented immigration and drug trafficking.
The action prompts swift outrage from all three countries, with promises of retaliatory measures.
February 3
Trump agrees to a 30-day pause on his tariff threats against Mexico and Canada, as both trading partners take steps to appease Trump's concerns about border security and drug trafficking.
February 4
Trump's new 10% tariffs on all Chinese imports to the U.S. still go into effect. China retaliates the same day by announcing a flurry of countermeasures, including new duties on a variety of American goods and an anti-monopoly investigation into Google.
China's 15% tariffs on coal and liquefied natural gas products, and a 10% levy on crude oil, agricultural machinery and large-engine cars imported from the U.S., take effect Feb. 10.
February 10
Trump announces plans to hike steel and aluminum tariffs starting March 12. He removes the exemptions from his 2018 tariffs on steel, meaning that all steel imports will be taxed at a minimum of 25%, and also raises his 2018 aluminum tariffs from 10% to 25%.
February 13
Trump announces a plan for 'reciprocal' tariffs — promising to increase U.S. tariffs to match the tax rates that countries worldwide charge on imports 'for purposes of fairness.' Economists warn that the reciprocal tariffs, set to overturn decades of trade policy, could create chaos for global businesses.
February 25
Trump signs an executive order instructing the Commerce Department to consider whether a tariff on imported copper is needed to protect national security. He cites the material's use in U.S. defense, infrastructure and emerging technologies.
March 1
Trump signs an additional executive order instructing the Commerce Department to consider whether tariffs on lumber and timber are also needed to protect national security, arguing that the construction industry and military depend on a strong supply of wooden products in the U.S.
March 4
Trump's 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico go into effect, though he limits the levy to 10% on Canadian energy. He also doubles the tariff on all Chinese imports to 20%.
All three countries promise retaliatory measures. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announces tariffs on more than $100 billion of American goods over the course of 21 days. And Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum says her country would respond with its own retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods without specifying the targeted products immediately, signaling hopes to de-escalate.
China, meanwhile, imposes tariffs of up to 15% on a wide array of key U.S. farm exports, set to take effect March 10. It also expands the number of U.S. companies subject to export controls and other restrictions by about two dozen.
March 5
Trump grants a one-month exemption on his new tariffs impacting goods from Mexico and Canada for U.S. automakers. The pause arrives after the president spoke with leaders of the 'Big 3' automakers — Ford, General Motors and Stellantis.
March 6
In a wider extension, Trump postpones 25% tariffs on many imports from Mexico and some imports from Canada for a month.
Trump credited Sheinbaum with making progress on border security and drug smuggling as a reason for again pausing tariffs. His actions also thaw relations with Canada somewhat, although outrage and uncertainty remains. Still, after its initial retaliatory tariffs of $30 billion Canadian (US$21 billion) on U.S. goods, the government says it's suspended a second wave of retaliatory tariffs worth $125 billion Canadian (US$87 billion).
March 10
China's retaliatory 15% tariffs on key American farm products — including chicken, pork, soybeans and beef — take effect. Goods already in transit are set to be exempt through April 12, per China's Commerce Ministry previous announcement.
March 12
Trump's new tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports go into effect. Both metals are now taxed at 25% across the board — with Trump's order to remove steel exemptions and raise aluminum's levy from his previously-imposed 2018 import taxes.
The European Union takes retaliatory trade action promising new duties on U.S. industrial and farm products. The measures will cover goods from the United States worth some 26 billion euros ($28 billion), and not just steel and aluminum products, but also textiles, home appliances and agricultural goods. Motorcycles, bourbon, peanut butter and jeans will be hit, as they were during Trump's first term. The 27-member bloc later says it will delay this retaliatory action until mid-April.
Canada, meanwhile, announces plans to impose more retaliatory tariffs worth Canadian $29.8 billion ($20.7 billion) on U.S. imports, set to go into effect March 13.
March 13
Trump threatens a 200% tariff on European wine, Champagne and spirits if the European Union goes forward with its previously-announced plans for a 50% tariff on American whiskey.
March 24
Trump says he will place a 25% tariff on all imports from any country that buys oil or gas from Venezuela, in addition to imposing new tariffs on the South American country itself, starting April 2.
The tariffs would most likely add to the taxes facing China, which in 2023 bought 68% of the oil exported by Venezuela, per the U.S. Energy Information Administration. But a number of countries also receive oil from Venezuela — including the United States itself.
March 26
Trump says he is placing 25% tariffs on auto imports. These auto imports will start being collected April 3 — beginning with taxes on fully-imported cars. The tariffs are set to then expand to applicable auto parts in the following weeks, through May 3.
April 2
Trump announces his long-promised 'reciprocal' tariffs — declaring a 10% baseline tax on imports across the board starting April 5, as well as higher rates for dozens of nations that run trade surpluses with the U.S. to take effect April 9.
Among those steeper levies, Trump says the U.S. will now charge a 34% tax on imports from China, a 20% tax on imports from the European Union, 25% on South Korea, 24% on Japan and 32% on Taiwan. The new tariffs come on top of previously-imposed levies, including the 20% tax Trump announced on all Chinese imports earlier this year.
Meanwhile, for Canada and Mexico, the White House says USMCA-compliant imports can continue to enter the U.S. duty-free. Once the two countries have satisfied Trump's demands on immigration and drug trafficking, the White House adds, the tariff on the rest of their imports may drop from 25% to 12%.
April 3
Trump's previously-announced auto tariffs begin. Prime Minister Mark Carney says that Canada will match the 25% levies with a tariff on vehicles imported from the U.S.
April 4
China announces plans to impose a 34% tariff on imports of all U.S. products beginning April 10, matching Trump's new "reciprocal' tariff on Chinese goods, as part of a flurry of retaliatory measures.
The Commerce Ministry in Beijing says it will also impose more export controls on rare earths, which are materials used in high-tech products like computer chips and electric vehicle batteries. And the government adds 27 firms to lists of companies subject to trade sanctions or export controls.
April 5
Trump's 10% minimum tariff on nearly all countries and territories takes effect.
April 9
Trump's higher 'reciprocal' rates go into effect, hiking taxes on imports from dozens of countries just after midnight. But hours later, his administration says it will suspend most of these higher rates for 90 days, while maintaining the recently-imposed 10% levy on nearly all global imports.
China is the exception. After following through on a threat to raise levies against China to a total of 104%, Trump says he will now raise those import taxes to 125% 'effective immediately' — escalating tit-for-tat duties that have piled up between the two countries. The White House later clarifies that total tariffs against China are actually now 145%, once his previous 20% fentanyl tariffs are accounted for.
China upped its retaliation prior to this announcement — vowing to tax American goods at 84% starting April 10. Also earlier, EU member states vote to approve their own retaliatory levies on 20.9 billion euros ($23 billion) of U.S. goods in response to Trump's previously-imposed steel and aluminum tariffs. The EU's executive commission doesn't immediately specify which imports it will tax, but notes its counter tariffs will come in stages — with some set to arrive on April 15, and others May 15 and Dec. 1.
Separately, Canada's counter tariffs on auto imports take effect. The country implements a 25% levy on auto imports from the U.S. that do not comply with the 2020 USMCA pact.
April 10
The EU puts its steel and aluminum tariff retaliation on hold for 90 days, to match Trump's pause on steeper 'reciprocal' levies. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen says the commission wants to give negotiations with the U.S. a chance — but warns countermeasures will kick in if talks 'are not satisfactory.'
April 11
China says it will raise tariffs on U.S. goods from 84% to 125%, in response to Trump's heightened levies. The new rate is set to begin April 12.
Later, the Trump administration unveils that electronics, including smartphones and laptops, will be exempt from so-called 'reciprocal' tariffs. But in the days following, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick signals that this is only a temporary reprieve, saying that sector-specific levies on semiconductors will arrive in 'probably a month or two.' And other, non-"reciprocal" tariffs that tax some electronics, notably from China, remain.
April 14
Trump says he might temporarily exempt the auto industry from tariffs he previously imposed on the sector, to give carmakers time to adjust their supply chains.
The Trump administration also launches investigations into imports of computer chips, chipmaking equipment and pharmaceuticals — signaling next steps toward imposing tariffs on these sectors. The U.S. Commerce Department posts notices about these probes, seeking public comment within the next three weeks.
Separately, the Commerce Department says it's withdrawing from a 2019 agreement that had suspended an antidumping investigation into fresh tomato imports from Mexico. That termination, set to take effect July 14, means most tomatoes from Mexico will be subject to a 20.91% tariff.
April 29
Trump signs executive orders to relax some of his 25% tariffs on automobiles and auto parts — aimed at easing import taxes for vehicles that are made with foreign parts, but assembled in the U.S.
For one year, the administration says it will provide a rebate of 3.75% relative to the sales prices of a domestically-assembled car — a figure reached by putting the previously-imposed 25% import tax on parts that make up 15% of that price. And for the second year, the rebate would equal 2.5% of the sales price, applying to a smaller share of the vehicle's parts.
May 3
The latest round of Trump's auto tariffs takes effect. The previously-announced 25% levies now apply to a range of imported auto parts.
May 4
Trump threatens a 100% tariff on foreign-made films, while claiming that the movie industry in the U.S. is dying. It isn't immediately clear how such a tariff on international productions could be implemented, but Trump says he's authorized the Commerce Department and the U.S. Trade Representative to 'immediately begin the process.'
May 6
The U.S. trade deficit soared to a record $140.5 billion in March as consumers and businesses tried to get ahead of Trump'stariffs. Federal data showed an enormous stockpiling of pharmaceutical products. The deficit — which measures the gap between the value of goods and services the U.S. sells abroad against what it buys — has roughly doubled during the past year.
Also, the U.S. government announced that top officials are set to meet with a high-level Chinese delegation over the weekend in Switzerland in the first major talks between the two nations since President Trump sparked a trade war. No country has been hit harder by Trump's trade war than China, the world's biggest exporter and second largest economy. U.S. tariffs against China are set at 145% and China tariffs on the U.S. at 125%.
May 7
The Federal Reserve left its key interest rate unchanged at 4.3%, saying that the risks of both higher unemployment and higher inflation have risen due to uncertainty about how and when Trump's tariffs might impact the U.S. economy. Chair Jerome Powell underscored that the tariffs have dampened consumer and business sentiment and that there's currently too many unknowns to be able to predict how the Fed might adjust its monetary policy going forward.
May 8
The United States and Britain announced a trade deal, potentially lowering the financial burden from tariffs while creating greater access abroad for American goods. The president said the agreement would lead to more beef and ethanol exports to the U.K., which would also streamline the processing of U.S. goods though customs. Trump said final details were being written up. 'In the coming weeks, we'll have it all very conclusive,' Trump said.
Britain said the deal will cut tariffs on U.K. cars from 27.5% to 10%, with a quota of 100,000 U.K. vehicles that can be imported to the U.S. at a 10% tariff. It also eliminate tariffs on steel and aluminum.
Separately, the European Union published a list of U.S. imports that it would target with retaliatory duties if no solution is found to end U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff war. The EU's executive branch, the European Commission, also said it would begin legal action at the World Trade Organization over the 'reciprocal tariffs' that Trump imposed on countries around the world a month ago.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts
Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts

Black America Web

time35 minutes ago

  • Black America Web

Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts

Source: The Washington Post / Getty / Elon Musk / Donald Trump It should come as no surprise that the bromance between these two ego maniacs would have come to a fiery end. We knew this day would come, but no one had Musk and Trump beefing with each other so soon on their bingo cards. The alleged ketamine abuser couldn't keep his disdain for Trump's 'one big beautiful bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk began. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Trump was uncharacteristically quiet following Musk's initial comments about his legislative centerpiece of his second presidency, the 'one big beautiful bill.' That all changed when Trump finally 'clapped back' at Musk while taking questions during his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Trump said he was 'very surprised' and 'disappointed' by his former financier's comments about his stupid bill, claiming the Tesla chief saw the bill and understood its inner workings better than anybody, while suggesting that Musk was mad because of the removal of subsidies and mandates for electric vehicles. Elon Musk Had Time For Donald Trump Musk responded in real time via his 'former platform,' X, formerly Twitter, with a flurry of posts on X accusing Trump of 'ingratitude' and 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' while refuting the orange menace's claims. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' Musk wrote. Oh, and he wasn't done. Musk then hit the president with a low blow, writing, 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Donald Trump Claps Back Trump finally fired back on his platform, Truth Social, by threatening to cut Musk's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it.' Felon 47 wrote. Musk replied by threatening to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which could be detrimental to the International Space Station and NASA, as it is described as 'the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth' and can seat seven passengers. Musk also agreed with a post stating that Trump should be impeached and replaced by JD Vance. Oh, this is getting spicy. While all of this was going on, CNN reports that Tesla stocks took a hit and Musk's net worth shrank. Per CNN : Tesla shares plummeted 15% this afternoon as Elon Musk's battle with President Donald Trump intensified. Trump threatened in a social media post to target Musk's business empire. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The Tesla selloff has wiped off more than $150 billion off the market value of Telsa, which started the day worth nearly $1.1 trillion. It has also erased a chunk off the net worth of Musk, the world's richest person. Social media has pulled up all the seats, grabbed some popcorn and are currently watching Musk go at with Trump and his supporters, you can see those reactions in the gallery below. Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE

How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign

CNN

time36 minutes ago

  • CNN

How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign

As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store