“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.”
“A long sliver of federal land along the U.S.-Mexico border that President Donald Trump is turning over to the Department of Defense would be controlled by the Army as part of a base, which could allow troops to detain any trespassers, including migrants, U.S. officials told The Associated Press.
The transfer of that border zone to military control — and making it part of an Army installation — is an attempt by the Trump administration to get around a federal law that prohibits U.S. troops from being used in domestic law enforcement on American soil.
But if the troops are providing security for land that is part of an Army base, they can perform that function. However, at least one presidential powers expert said the move is likely to be challenged in the courts.”
The military should be focused on fighting and winning wars, not enforcing immigration policy.
“Amid recent travel advisories warning those coming to the U.S. plus strengthened immigration enforcement, many international travelers are starting to turn away from the U.S. as a destination. Between January and March 2025, foreign arrivals dropped by around 4.4% from those first three months last year, according to data from the National Travel and Tourism Office. In a March year-over-year comparison, that reduction doubles to almost 10%.”
…
“Some fear for their safety over what could happen when trying to enter the nation’s borders. Others are angered at recent policies, like the trade wars, and rhetoric, refusing to spend their dollars in the U.S. A decline in overseas visitors could have significant long-term consequences for the economy, with travel and tourism one of the country’s leading industries, contributing 2.5% to the GDP”
“The EU can apply retaliatory tariffs on nearly €21 billion of U.S. products like soybeans, motorcycles and orange juice after the bloc’s 27 countries assented to the measures on Wednesday, the European Commission announced.
“The EU considers U.S. tariffs unjustified and damaging, causing economic harm to both sides, as well as the global economy. The EU has stated its clear preference to find negotiated outcomes with the U.S., which would be balanced and mutually beneficial,” the EU executive said in a statement.
Hitting back against U.S. President Donald Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs, the European Union’s countermeasures will apply in three rounds. Measures covering €3.9 billion in trade will go into force next week, with a further €13.5 billion from mid-May and a final round of €3.5 billion following in December.”
“San Antonio sends almost half its exports to Canada, which makes the Texas trade hub one of the most vulnerable U.S. cities in the tariff war.
Mayor Ron Nirenberg says one in five jobs in his state is exposed by President Donald Trump’s new tariff regime — “300,000 jobs immediately on the block.””
“As a congressman, he wrote what came to be known as the “McKinley tariff” of 1890, and as president he signed another increase in 1897.
But a funny thing happened after the U.S. came out of the Panic (and subsequent four-year depression) of 1893: Goosed by sharp increases in domestic iron and copper production, Americans had too many goods chasing too few consumers. And McKinley himself began agitating to tear down some of those trade barriers.
“What we produce beyond our domestic consumption must have a vent abroad,” he said in September 1901 at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. “The excess must be relieved through a foreign outlet, and we should sell everywhere we can, and buy wherever the buying will enlarge our sales and productions, and thereby make a greater demand for home labor. The period of exclusiveness is past,” he continued. “The expansion of our trade and commerce is the pressing problem. Commercial wars are unprofitable….If perchance some of our tariffs are no longer needed, for revenue or to encourage and protect our industries at home, why should they not be employed to extend and promote our markets abroad?”
McKinley’s presidency was ended by an assassin’s bullet the very next day.
Even before his late-life pivot to freer trade, McKinley had long been a champion of reciprocity, i.e., the bilateral, mutually beneficial reduction of targeted, asymmetrical tariffs. Or, as he put it in his first inaugural address, “the opening up of new markets for the products of our country, by granting concessions to the products of other lands that we need and cannot produce ourselves, and which do not involve any loss of labor to our own people, but tend to increase their employment.”
In his second term, Trump has demonstrated less enthusiasm for reciprocity than he has for the other two Rs of traditional protectionism, revenue and restriction. Asked last October by Joe Rogan whether he was serious about replacing the federal income tax with tariffs, Trump said, “Yeah, sure. Why not?”—and then engaged in some historical revisionism.”
…
“the tariff system and perennial adjustments thereof was a cornucopia of corruption, putting the gilded in Gilded Age. Far from being a sophisticated manipulation of import/export duties to nurture nascent industries, the tariff schedule was a Christmas tree decorated by special interests.”