“The White House says it has the upper hand in its trade war with China. Its actions suggest otherwise.
Top administration officials spent the weekend trying to defend a carve-out of consumer electronics from the astronomical 145 percent tariffs it levied on China last week. The carve-out was neither an exemption nor a policy rollback, the White House argued, because those electronics are still subject to a separate 20 percent tariff on China and some electronic components could face sector-specific tariffs in the future.
But to some White House allies, the exceptions are indicative of the relatively weak position the administration is in as it wages a trade war with China, which has spent years making preparations for an escalation with the U.S. on trade. The carve-outs also reveal the conundrum facing the administration: The U.S. is imposing new tariffs on Chinese goods in an attempt to move manufacturing back to the U.S., but those tariffs are particularly painful for U.S. manufacturers because they are currently so dependent on Chinese parts.
So far, the U.S. has demonstrated that it is more willing to bend than China is in this burgeoning fight.
“Xi Jinping will not back down,” said one former Trump administration official, who like others in this story was granted anonymity to share their candid assessment of the U.S.-China relationship, adding that “the CCP will lose confidence in him” if he does, using the acronym for the ruling Chinese Communist Party.”
Trump’s China tariffs are destroying this small business.
When starting the business she looked into manufacturing in the U.S., but no U.S. factory would accept such a small order. Today, the price, requirements, and availability of source materials make manufacturing in the U.S. prohibitive.
After Trump’s election, she prepared for 20 percent tariffs, but Trump’s 100 plus percent tariffs are destructive.
“My trepidation boils down to two things. First, for all the talk about cutting government waste and fraud, the DOGE-Trump team seems mostly animated by rooting out leftist culture politics and its practitioners in Washington. It feels that it is less about smaller government than it is about political transformation. While the two intersect, this strategy could fall short.
That’s in part—and this is my second point—because for those of us who care about permanently downsizing government and keeping it bound by constitutional rules to prevent the exercise of arbitrary power, DOGE is mixed. While there is a small probability the approach will succeed in reining in spending or the administrative state, it will be at the heavy cost of reinforcing the power of the executive branch and opening the door to the same abuse when the left is in power.
The probability may be higher, however, that they will fail to make a significant difference at all. If that is the case, we will be left with both a presidency on steroids and no meaningful reduction in government.”
“the sanctions failed in one crucial way. The fact that Moscow was blindsided by them suggests it grossly underestimated the severity of the penalties it would face. Although the U.S. and its allies had developed an extensive menu of possible sanctions before the invasion, they never reached consensus on how far they were willing to go. They left Putin to divine the meaning of “the most severe sanctions that have ever been imposed,” and Putin—as he so often did—read Western ambiguity as weakness.
If Biden and other world leaders had committed ahead of time to the actions they would eventually take, they might have had a much better chance of staving off Putin’s invasion. Deterrence can’t work if your adversary underestimates your ability or willingness to act. Putin never saw the sanctions coming—and that was precisely the problem.”
“A few hundred duplexes and townhomes aren’t going to push down citywide rents. They might not even lower the amount of rent any one family pays. But they will give a few hundred house hunters the option of living in a location that better suits their preferences.”
“But over the past 16 months, the IMF has increasingly praised Milei’s approach, stating that his policies have “resulted in faster-than-anticipated progress in restoring macroeconomic stability.”
Since taking office in December 2023, Milei has rolled out sweeping austerity measures aimed at fixing Argentina’s long-standing economic dysfunction. His administration cut public spending, fired tens of thousands of public employees, eliminated several public ministries, froze infrastructure projects, and slashed subsidies, among other reforms.
The fresh funds are expected to give Argentina some financial breathing room to continue with its reforms. According to the IMF, the latest agreement “supports the next phase of Argentina’s homegrown stabilization and reform agenda aimed at entrenching macroeconomic stability, strengthening external sustainability, and unlocking strong and more sustainable growth.””
“Slovakia has a population of just 5.4 million, yet it is one of Europe’s leading car manufacturers, heavily reliant on auto production and exports to the U.S. Home to five major car manufacturers and more than 350 local suppliers, Slovakia is not only the second-largest E.U. exporter of vehicles to the U.S., but also the biggest car producer per capita in the world.
Slovakia manufactures and exports higher-end SUVs from brands like Audi, Volkswagen, Porsche, Range Rover, and—starting in 2026—Volvo. With SUVs accounting for 46 percent of total annual auto sales in the U.S., the tariffs are likely to hurt models that are especially popular among American consumers.
According to the National Bank of Slovakia, the Slovak economy “would decrease cumulatively by nearly 3 percent” due to the new tariffs, and “would also mean the loss of 20,000 jobs.” The bank projects that Slovakia’s economy will “suffer the most in 2026, when its growth would barely stay above zero” and that by 2027, the automotive tariffs alone could reduce gross domestic product by 0.3 to 0.5 percentage points. The bank’s governor referred to the prospects of a 25 percent car tariff impact as a “small Armageddon.””
“Take Egypt: In 2016, facing fiscal pressure and public dissatisfaction, the government raised tariffs on hundreds of imported goods—everything from electronics to household furniture. The stated goal was to protect domestic industries and reduce reliance on foreign goods. The outcome? Inflation soared, local industries remained stagnant, and Egyptian consumers were left paying more for lower-quality products. The government hoped tariffs would nurture innovation; instead, they strangled competition and punished ordinary people.
In Iraq, where the state has tried to rebuild its shattered economy after years of conflict, officials implemented tariffs to supposedly boost “national production” and replenish government coffers. But in a country where corruption runs deep and borders are porous, the policy only incentivized smuggling and rent seeking. Goods flowed illegally across borders while customs officials took their cut. Meanwhile, consumers bore the cost, and genuine economic growth never came. Tariffs there didn’t protect industries—they protected the corrupt.”