Donald Trump’s new policies are 'stupid' — according to stupidity researchers

REUTERS/Nathan Howard
U.S. President Donald Trump reads a paper during an event with the racing champions from NASCAR Cup Series, NTT IndyCar Series, and IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship, at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 9, 2025.

The Conversation
April 09, 2025


Before he stepped down as Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau called Donald Trump’s tariff policies “very dumb.” This might be an accurate description of many Trump administration policies — but the more objectively correct word is “stupid.”


In fact, Québec’s largest newspaper, Le Journal de Montréal, published a front-page photo of Trump in early February with the word “stupid” in 350-point type. Some may call this an opinion, but the science of stupidity tells us that it’s more of a definition.

Recent research has produced a succinct label for the poorly calculated actions of decision-makers: stupidity.

This is not simple name-calling, but a phenomenon that comprises loss and features a set of actions that are either outright recognizably dysfunctional, or appear so at odds with any sensible course of action that it seems a hidden agenda could be involved.

Stupidity that causes everyone to lose

According to the seminal and transactional view of human stupidity by Carlo Cipolla, the late Italian economic historian, interactions fall into four categories:Intelligent interactions that are beneficial to all – a positive-sum game like Scottish philosopher Adam Smith’s notion of wealth through specialization and trade;Helpless interactions that result in a loss in a zero-sum game;
Bandit interactions that result in a gain in zero-sum game;
Stupid interactions that cause all parties to suffer a loss.

Free trade is based on an intelligent positive-sum interaction. Trump’s transactional zero-sum view is that for every winner there is a loser.

He apparently doesn’t understand that tariffs are only successful if other countries don’t retaliate. But other countries do retaliate, and as the world is now witnessing, the resulting trade war can decimate the global economy.

Trump’s protectionist measures aimed at boosting the U.S. economy can therefore be considered “stupid” interactions that risk deepening and lengthening an economic depression.

Stupidity as recognizable actions

Modern-day researchers have also identified three recognizable sets of actions embodying stupidity:

Confident ignorance that involves people taking risks without having the necessary skills to deal with them. It’s not just being ignorant of one’s ignorance — explained by the Dunning-Kruger effect — but being self-assured despite contrary evidence.

Trump may know what he does not know, so he delegated many tasks to Tesla founder Elon Musk and trade tariff architect Pete Navarro, both of whom seem to possess no such awareness.

Absent-minded failure means people knew the right thing to do but were not paying sufficient attention to avoid doing something stupid. Organizations create agendas, but if issues don’t reach a point where they seriously impact the organization’s objectives, they are ignored.

An example is the recent U.S. strikes against Yemeni Houthis. U.S. officials ignored critical security components by sharing information about their plans over unsecure connections and with a member of the media.

Lack of control means that autocratic decision-makers compromise their organizations by failing to accept objections from those charged with implementing the leader’s preconceived plans.

Such autocratic decision-makers may select biased information to support their proposals. Those working under these leaders either buy into efforts to selectively use information, limit alternatives and execute these preconceived plans or they leave the organization (either voluntarily or not).

In the U.S., witness the firing of Justice Department pardon attorney Elizabeth Oyer. She failed to support restoring gun rights to actor Mel Gibson, who had been convicted of domestic violence in 2011. Gibson’s pardon was reportedly based on his personal relationship with the president.

Types of stupidity

Organizational researchers have used the term functional stupidity to describe those who refuse to use their intellectual capacities when making decisions and then avoid justification for their actions. This allows group members to quickly execute routine functions without much thought.

Dysfunctional stupidity is a lack of organizationally supported reflection, reasoning and justification. Organizations fail to use intellectual resources to process knowledge or question norms or claims of knowledge when confronted with new or non-routine decisions. By blocking communications, muffling criticism and squelching doubts, organizations ensure adherence to superiors’ edicts.

One Trump administration example is the unquestioning permission given to allow the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Musk, to access to a wide array of government data.

It can take the combined efforts of organizational officials on multiple levels to maintain stupidity.

Individually, stupidity is reinforced by ignoring crucial information because of a need for a rapid response.

Consequently, quick decisions and shortcuts made by individuals result in negative outcomes. An example would be the Trump administration’s apparent need to appear to find cost savings quickly to allow for tax cuts, overriding a more logical approach to find ways to achieve those savings without gutting legally mandated services.

Organizationally, stupidity is reinforced because organizations limit acceptable alternative behaviours when they cannot process all available information. Data is restricted, controls are tightened and organization officials fall back to using previously well-learned responses in their comfort zones. Inexperienced decision-makers fall back on uninformed assumptions, or no assumptions at all.

Witness Trump’s “reciprocal” trade tariffs that battered financial markets worldwide, finally causing him to hit the pause button. No tariffs were calculated using current tariff rates, while others were based on American trade deficits with other countries. Other tariffs seem to be based on no rationale at all.

Stupidity as a hidden agenda?

Some actions that appear stupid may simply hide a hidden agenda. When the Trump administration erroneously detains and deports anyone under the Alien Enemies Act, is it an accident or a way to instil fear in everyone that authorities can detain, mistreat and deport them without due process at any point?

Many of the actions being taken by the Trump administration appear stupid. Tariffs, for example, represent a loss — a transactionally negative sum game.

Trump’s decisions exhibit confident ignorance, absent-minded failure and lack of control. They also show dysfunctional stupidity as Trump officials seemingly refuse to use their full intellectual resources. Stupidity is also being reinforced through unfounded assumptions. Is this all hiding a secret agenda?

“You can’t fix stupid,” so the saying goes. But having capable administrators in place while other branches of government exercise their constitutionally mandated oversight role might dampen some of the Trump administration’s stupidity.

Jerry Paul Sheppard, Associate Professor of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Trump Revived the Law Used to Intern Japanese Americans, and SCOTUS Let Him

This week the Supreme Court left the door open for Trump to continue invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport people.

By Camilo Pérez-Bustillo ,

Truthout

April 9, 2025

An ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations unit initiates a raid to apprehend immigrants without any legal status and who may be deportable in Riverside, California, on August 12, 2015.Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

The Supreme Court made two key initial procedural rulings on Monday in cases related to the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to grease the wheels of mass detention and mass deportation primarily through outsourcing to El Salvador’s Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) prison, which is known worldwide for its flagrant human rights abuses.

In its procedural ruling on Trump v. J.G.G., the court upheld the Trump administration’s rhetorical reliance on the Alien Enemies Act to justify the transfers but required it to comport with the barest minimums of constitutional “due process” through individualized habeas corpus proceedings in largely hostile courts closer to the location of the detention centers where those targeted by the act are likely being held. The Supreme Court’s majority opinion was simultaneously outrageous and perfunctory, and procedural challenges are likely to continue.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned what will come to be recognized as a historic 17-page dissent, expressing the arguments and sounding the warnings that should have served as a basis for the court’s ruling. Speaking as the court’s only Puerto Rican and first Latina member, Sotomayor offered a lament for how the Supreme Court has squandered its voice at this crucial historical moment. There is poetry latent in her scathing critique of the court’s limitations. At one moment in her dissent, she argued:

The Government takes the position that, even when it makes a mistake, it cannot retrieve individuals from the Salvadoran prisons to which it has sent them.The implication of the Government’s position is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress if judicial review is denied unlawfully before removal. History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise.

The J.G.G. decision revives both the notorious Korematsu case, which upheld the mass internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act (AEA), upon which their internment was based. The Supreme Court’s initial procedural ruling this week legitimized the AEA through the back door, without addressing any of the pressing substantive issues raised by its current weaponization by the Trump administration, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted in her own dissent in concurrence with Sotomayor.

Kilmar Abrego García, a Maryland man who is a legal U.S. resident, is a Salvadoran immigrant with no criminal record and no gang membership, who was “accidentally” deported to the CECOT prison in El Salvador. In the past, he fled from systematic persecution in El Salvador by the kinds of gang members he is now surrounded by in detention. The Trump administration has conceded that his “deportation” to El Salvador was the product of an “administrative error.” Yet at the same time it has continued to insist that it has neither the power nor the inclination to return him to the U.S., despite this grievous, potentially life-threatening mistake.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday breathed artificial life into one of the court’s most notorious decisions in the 1944 Korematsu case, which upheld the legality of the mass detention of over 120,000 people of Japanese origin in the U.S in response to Pearl Harbor. In so doing, the court has exercised what can only be described as a new kind of zombie jurisprudence, while leaving key threshold questions utterly and deliberately unexamined. This is evidently the Supreme Court’s way of ducking, for now, a more fundamental clash with the Trump administration’s increasingly evident intent to undermine judicial control and even review of its most dangerous policies.

Key unresolved questions include whether the Alien Enemies Act is itself constitutional or not, whether it should be for the first time activated in peacetime — not against the citizens of a country with which the U.S is at war, but against a criminal gang and its alleged members, whom the administration has deemed “terrorists” and is depriving of due process rights in the name of “national security.” Sound familiar? El Salvador’s megaprison is, for these purposes, in effect the new Guantánamo (or another equivalent “black site”), while the U.S base on illegally occupied Cuban territory continues to gear up for increased occupancy.

The Supreme Court’s majority also failed to place limits on invocations of expansive executive power along these lines, which might for example include additional executive orders that seek to expand the targets of the Alien Enemies Act — or equivalent provisions — beyond their current focus (alleged Venezuelan members of the Tren de Aragua gang) to other groups whom the president wishes to repress. Many more executive orders may be signed with even lesser transparency, and ever larger potential reach.

This implicit slippery slope effect is already evident in what has unfolded with those hundreds of young men — primarily Venezuelan, but also of Salvadoran origin — on the three “deportation” flights on March 15 that laid the groundwork for both of Monday’s Supreme Court cases. No evidence has been made public that confirms that any of these young men are or were ever members of the Tren de Aragua gang or its Salvadoran equivalents, and most do not have criminal records anywhere.

Most of those currently detained in hellish conditions in El Salvador have committed no recognizable offense, except that they were primarily young Venezuelan men who could be targeted in the dark of night — “taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons” in Sotomayor’s words — because Donald Trump and Marco Rubio said so.

As Justice Sotomayor has eloquently argued, there is in fact no material force in place that prevents the Trump administration from extending the logic of its current sweeps against alleged Venezuelan or Salvadoran gang members — or holders of green cards or student visas like Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk whose speech offends the Trump administration’s sensibilities — to others, including U.S. citizens. This is especially true under an administration that is actively seeking to redefine and restrict birthright citizenship and voting rights, and that has been acting in bad faith in cases like these, seeking to both undermine and elude judicial review of its arbitrary actions.

“The Government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law,” Sotomayor wrote in her disssent. “That a majority of this Court now rewards the Government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible. We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this.”

And yet cases like this also remind us that Sotomayor’s faith may be misplaced. Many have forgotten cases like those of Paul Robeson or W.E.B DuBois during the McCarthy era — or later Muhammad Ali — whose passports were confiscated and whose right to travel outside the U.S. was nullified for supposed “disloyalties” equivalent to those weaponized today by Rubio, at Trump’s behest.

Poets tend to be better at cultivating such memories. Bertolt Brecht once asked himself, amid his own forced exile from Nazi Germany, “In the dark times / will there also be singing? / Yes, there will also be singing. / About the dark times.”

A writer whose work carries on this spirit of resistance today is the poet Martín Espada (honored with the National Book Award for Poetry in 2021), whose extraordinary new book A Jailbreak of Sparrows is rooted in the revolutionary rhythms of the liberation struggles of Puerto Rico. Espada’s poetry is also imbued with his background as a lawyer, and like Sotomayor, is grounded in his upbringing in New York’s Puerto Rican community, as part of the same generation. Sotomayor has written eloquently about how these origins decisively shaped her experiences and approach as a student, lawyer, and ultimately federal judge and Supreme Court Justice.

Espada reminds us in concrete lyrical detail how Trump’s dehumanization of migrants through the rhetoric of “invasion” laid the groundwork for the El Paso Massacre in August 2018 and for police killings like that of Mario González in Alameda, California, in April 2021. He also reminds us of the human costs of the McCarthyist persecution of dissidents both in Puerto Rico and on the mainland through the cases of renowned poets such as Juan Antonio Corretjer and William Carlos Williams.

Espada tells us too, in the book’s stunning title poem, about how U.S. Thunderbolt fighter planes sought to bomb into submission the Puerto Rican mountain town of Utuado — his father’s and grandmother’s birthplace — in the wake of the October 30, 1950, pro-independence uprising led by the island’s nacionalistas:


In towns with names that fly, Jayuya, Arecibo, Naranjito, Utuado, they lined up

against the walls, fingers woven behind their heads, bayonets sniffing their ribs,

taken by trucks to jails with names that stop the tongue: La Princesa in a land

where the princess waves from a float, Oso Blanco in a land without white bears.

The poet who knew the room of stone returned with a face of stone. The poet new

to the room of stone scribbled on stone whatever the voices bellowed in his ear.

But it all began with the words that were forbidden-

“La Ley de la Mordaza, the Law of the Muzzle years ago,confiscating the ink of presses that stamped the page with the words colonialism

and independence, empire and political prisoner, clapping handcuffs on anyone

who sang verses that flew like a jailbreak of sparrows. The flag of Puerto Rico,

fanning a grave in the heat or asleep in a closet between the sheets, would

now become the prosecutor’s proof, good for ten years in a room of stone”

Together the combined eloquence and depth of Sotomayor’s emerging jurisprudence of resistance and Espada’s life-long praxis of the poetry of liberation provide us with a basis for the kind of critical reflection and engagement we need, from below, in response to the onslaught that seeks to erode and nullify our rights, and the channels through which we express them. Today, on campuses and in communities throughout the country, it is words like those evoked by Espada and their equivalents — or those that resonate with Sotomayor’s warnings — that could lead to our targeting, as if we were “alien enemies.” Espada and Sotomayor, together, write for us.

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Camilo Pérez-Bustillo is former executive director of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the National Lawyers Guild; member of the leadership team at Witness at the Border; a fellow at the Institute for the Geography of Peace in Juárez, Mexico/El Paso, Texas, and at the University of Bergen, Norway’s, Global Research Programme on Inequality; co-chair of the National Lawyers Guild’s Task Force on the Americas; professor of law and ethnic studies at St. Mary’s College of California; visiting chair professor of human rights at National Taiwan University’s College of Law; and co-founder of the International Tribunal of Conscience of Peoples in Movement.

Thailand revokes visa of US academic charged with royal insult


By AFP
April 9, 2025


A sign is displayed outside the Criminal Court during a protest against article 112, Thailand's lese majeste royal defamation law

 - Copyright AFP Pedro UGARTE

Thailand’s immigration authorities revoked the visa Wednesday of a prominent American scholar detained a day earlier on royal defamation charges, his lawyer said.

Paul Chambers, who has spent over a decade teaching Southeast Asia politics at a Thai university, had his bail request rejected Tuesday by a court in Phitsanulok province after reporting to police to answer a charge of lese-majeste.

His case is a rare instance of a foreigner falling foul of strict laws which shield King Maha Vajiralongkorn and his close family from any criticism and can lead to decades-long prison sentences.

“The immigration police just came into the detention centre earlier this afternoon,” said Wannaphat Jenroumjit, who is with the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) and representing Chambers.

The Thai military filed a complaint against Chambers earlier this year over an article linked to a think-tank website which focuses on Southeast Asia politics.

“Urgent! Lawyers have been informed that immigration police have revoked the visa of Paul Chambers,” TLHR posted on X.

The organisation said it will appeal the visa revocation decision within 48 hours and continue efforts to secure Chambers’ release.

Wannaphat told AFP she had submitted a second bail request on Tuesday and was awaiting the court’s decision.

She said Chambers was “not confident but remains hopeful” in the Thai justice system.

Chambers told AFP last week he felt “intimidated” by the situation, but was being supported by the US embassy and colleagues at his university.

The US State Department said Tuesday it was “alarmed” by the arrest.

Chanatip Tatiyakaroonwong, a researcher at Amnesty International who campaigns for the release of political prisoners, said the visa revocation was meant to “intimidate” Chambers.

“They found his work threatening, so revoking his visa means he can no longer remain in Thailand and continue his work,” he told AFP.

“The visa revocation is meant to send a message to foreign journalists and academics working in Thailand, that speaking about the monarchy could lead to consequences.”

He added that the chances of Chambers being granted bail looked grim, given a “pattern” in which people charged under lese-majeste laws are rarely granted bail.

International watchdogs have expressed concern over the use of the laws — known as Article 112 — against academics, activists and even students.

One man in northern Thailand was jailed for at least 50 years for lese-majeste last year, while a woman got 43 years in 2021.

In 2023, a man was jailed for two years for selling satirical calendars featuring rubber ducks that a court said defamed the king.

Samsung under pressure as US tariffs rattle South Korean economy


By AFP
April 10, 2025


Samsung, the world's second-largest phone maker, produces around half of its handsets in Vietnam - Copyright AFP Nhac NGUYEN

Nhac Nguyen with Hieun Shin in Seoul

Sipping tea on her break outside a Samsung Electronics factory in northern Vietnam, worker Nguyen Thi Mai said she had heard about US President Donald Trump’s tariffs, but hoped it would not affect business.

Samsung, the world’s second-largest phone maker, produces around half of its handsets in Vietnam, and Trump’s threat to impose a 46-percent tariff threat on the country sent shockwaves through the South Korean giant’s supply chains.

“We don’t understand much about macro issues,” 27-year-old Mai told AFP, adding that daily life inside the factory in Bac Ninh province was unaffected, despite global market whiplash from on-again-off-again US levies.

“Our work goes on normally,” agreed Le Van Binh, 30, adding that he hoped the Vietnamese government would be able to work out a deal.

“Our top leaders are arranging to negotiate with the United States. I hope they can be successful and things will be good for all of us.”

Samsung turned to Vietnam because labour costs are “about one-tenth of those in South Korea”, Kim Dae-jong, a professor at Sejong University, told AFP.

But US tariff threats — even after Trump abruptly paused them on Wednesday — are now shaking the logic that has underpinned decades of rapid growth and manufacturing investment in developing Asian economies, he said.

If Samsung “fully absorbs” the proposed tariff cost instead of shifting production elsewhere “approximately four trillion won ($2.7 billion) — or some 33 percent of its smartphone operating profit — would be directly exposed”, said Kim Dong-won, managing director at KB Securities.

Samsung has built up inventory, and this week forecast record results for the first quarter of 2025. And there is scope for negotiations between Hanoi and Washington, he said — but even so, it is concerning.



– ‘Reallocating production’ –



If Trump does follow through, Samsung and fellow South Korean giant LG, which has also invested heavily in Vietnamese factories, may have no choice but to shift their investments to the United States, said Kang In-soo, an economics professor at Sookmyung Women’s University.

“Despite the additional costs involved, this appears to be an inevitable decision to maintain or expand their presence in the strategically important US market,” he said.

For Samsung, high-end televisions are their key driver of revenue stateside, Yong Seok-woo, president and head of the visual display business at Samsung Electronics told reporters.

“Most of the TVs sold in North America are produced in Mexico,” said Yong, which dodged Trump’s latest round of tariff threats — potentially leaving Samsung in a better position than many rivals.

“We have 10 production sites worldwide,” Yong added.

“We plan to overcome these challenges by reallocating production based on tariff conditions.”



– Domestic base? –



The tariff threats appear to be aimed at securing additional foreign investment, but with the United States lacking a strong domestic base to produce the high-end chips that are the lifeblood of the global economy, many experts expect they will not last in the longer term.

Trump’s decision to pause the imposition of the levies sparked euphoria on global markets on Thursday — but he raised tariffs on China to 125 percent because of a “lack of respect”.

Apple, Samsung’s chief rival, produces the bulk of its iPhones in China.

Sky-high tariffs “could impose substantial costs on US-based semiconductor consumers”, said Kang of Sookmyung Women’s University, with the fear of price increases already sparking iPhone panic buying.

However, “it is expected that the tariffs will be adjusted downward once a sufficient level of investment is secured”, Kang added.

Samsung’s exposure underscores the broader vulnerability of export-driven Asian economies.

In 2024, net exports accounted for more than 90 percent of South Korea’s total economic growth.

The country has been particularly ill-prepared to face the economic headwinds, having been effectively leaderless since December, when impeached former president Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law.

Officials are scrambling to contain the fallout: Acting leader Han Duck-soo spoke to Trump this week, with the trade minister also flying to Washington for emergency talks.

The government announced a battery of support measures for South Korea’s beleaguered car makers on Wednesday — hit by sector-specific 25 percent tariffs — but they need to do more to help the country’s export-focused conglomerates, experts said.

Seoul must “focus on a proactive response to US tariff measures and swiftly implement a supplementary budget to stave off a deeper economic downturn”, Kang said.

Taiwan exporters count the cost of Trump’s ‘ridiculous’ tariffs


By AFP
April 9, 2025


Taiwan President Lai Ching-te says he has no plans to retaliate in kind to Donald Trump's tariffs, as the island's companies scamble to work out how to deal with the US blitz - Copyright TAIWAN PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE/AFP Handout

Joy Chiang and Allison Jackson

Taiwanese exporters are crunching numbers and talking to American clients as they scramble to figure out how to respond to US President Donald Trump’s tariff blitz that threatens to derail their businesses.

While the final impact is not yet known, factory owners on the island are clear eyed on one thing: moving operations to the United States is easier said than done.

“Taiwan’s structure is what makes this industry viable,” the owner of a machine tool exporter told AFP on the condition of anonymity, highlighting the island’s network of small and medium-sized factories supplying his company.

“There are so many components, like gears, belts and others — the US doesn’t have these industries. Setting up a factory in the US would not be worth it,” he said, describing Trump’s policy as “ridiculous”.

From Wednesday, Taiwanese products shipped to the United States, including electronics, machinery components, auto parts and bicycles, will be hit with a hefty 32 percent levy.

It is part of Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs that have rocked world markets and sparked recession fears, as he seeks to reduce the US trade deficit and push companies to shift manufacturing to American soil.

Many in Taiwan were stunned by the size of the duty, after chipmaking titan Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s plan to invest an additional $100 billion in the United States raised hopes the island would be spared.

While chips have so far avoided tariffs, analysts have warned the critical sector could be impacted anyway as levies drive up the cost of iPhones, laptops and other technology, and reduce consumer demand.



– ‘Unsophisticated understanding’ –



Taiwanese companies have spent days calculating the impact on their operations and speaking to US clients about how to absorb the cost of the new tariff.

“They’ve been receiving a lot of calls or instructions,” said Kristy Hsu, director of the Taiwan ASEAN Studies Center at Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.

She told AFP that US customers have requested deliveries be postponed or prices lowered.

Companies were also trying to determine if their products contained at least 20 percent “American content”, which could partially shield them from Trump’s levy, she added.

During Trump’s first term in office, US tariffs against China prompted many Taiwanese companies operating there to relocate to Southeast Asia to avoid the tax.

This time, however, there are fewer places to hide.

Trump has slugged imports from Vietnam and Thailand with 46 percent and 36 percent tariffs, respectively, and there was uncertainty about whether duties could be cut or raised even higher.

“Right now, the only option for setting up factories overseas is the United States, but the cost of doing so is extremely high,” an official from an electronic industry group told AFP.

“This truly isn’t something that can be done easily,” she said, adding “we didn’t expect the US would come down this hard.”

Trump’s across-the-board tariffs revealed an “unsophisticated understanding” of how supply chains worked, said Ho Ming-yen, non-resident fellow of the Research Institute for Democracy, Society and Emerging Technology.



– Levy ‘impossible to absorb’ –



Even if companies shifted their factories to the United States, they would still be slugged with tariffs on imported components needed for their products, Ho said.

Ho expected most Taiwanese companies would likely take a “wait-and-see” approach and cut costs as they “wait for the calamities to end”.

Taiwan President Lai Ching-te said he had no plans for “retaliatory tariffs” against the United States, the island’s most important security partner.

The government has pledged US$2.7 billion to help affected industries, but that was a “drop in the ocean” for what was needed, said Jason Hsu, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute think-tank.

Hsu estimated tariffs would cost Taiwanese exporters US$15 billion-US$20 billion a year.

To secure any relief from Trump, Taiwan needed to come up with deals for the president, said Hsu, a former member of Taiwan’s legislature for the opposition Kuomintang party.

“Trump doesn’t care about allies and partnerships, he cares about how much business you can bring to the US,” Hsu said.

The machine tool exporter said the United States was a “very important market” for the company, accounting for 30-40 percent of its sales.

While the business would survive in the short term, the owner hoped Taiwan could strike a deal with Washignton.

“A four to five percent hike we can split (with our clients) and absorb,” he said.

“But 32 percent is impossible to absorb. Our profit margin isn’t that high.”

‘Curve ball’: Irish whiskey producers fret over US tariffs


By AFP
April 9, 2025


Whiskey distillers in Ireland and Northern Ireland are bracing for the impact of US tariffs - Copyright AFP Paul Faith
Peter MURPHY

For Tony Healy, an Irish whiskey producer in Dundalk, near the UK border with Northern Ireland, US tariffs of 20 percent on EU alcoholic drinks were a huge and unexpected “curve ball”.

“But it’s here now, so we have to deal with it,” the 62-year-old told AFP on the factory floor where his “Healy’s” family-name whiskey brand is made.

Aiming to tap into the large Irish-American diaspora, Healy’s Dundalk Bay Brewing Company began exporting to the United States five years ago and was “just breaking in”.

Now they are faced with working out how to shave the 20 percent tariff from the bottom line.

“It will make already tight margins even tighter,” he said.

And with the firm’s New York distributor putting things on hold “for a month or two to see what comes now”, the picture looks even more uncertain.

“We don’t know what’s going to happen next but if there’s panic, there’s going to be chaos,” he warned.

According to the Irish Whiskey Association (IWA), a trade body, the US market represents 40 percent of total exports.



– Bourbon –



The worst case scenario for Ireland’s whiskey producers remains Trump’s threatened 200-percent tariffs on wine, champagne and other alcoholic products from France and other European Union countries.

Trump threatened to impose the huge tariffs in retaliation against the bloc’s planned levies on US-produced whiskey.

But according to a document seen by AFP on Tuesday the EU will spare bourbon to shield European wine and spirits from reprisals.

“If 200 percent is applied, we’re no longer in business in the US, new markets will have to be found. Asia may be the next place for us,” Healy told AFP.

“We also have other customers in different parts of Europe. We’ll explore as much as possible there, It’s all about adapting,” he said.

Producers in the Republic of Ireland are looking enviously at distilleries across the border in the UK region of Northern Ireland where the tariff rate is just 10 percent.

“Where there’s a border, there can be trade that’s not terribly legal, jumping products from one side to the other to suit needs,” said Healy.

“So there’s a possibility you wind up in this smuggling type of environment which none of us want, that’s unhealthy for business,” he said.

A short distance away in Northern Ireland at the Killowen Distillery, owner Brendan Carty acknowledges the tariff differential between the two parts of the island of Ireland could provide a “slight competitive edge”.

“Just across the border they have been hit twice as badly as we have,” Carty told AFP at the tiny facility in the picturesque Mourne mountains not far from the Irish Sea.



– Biggest market –



Since 2018 the 38-year-old has been making award-winning single malt whiskies and planned to ramp up sales in the United States this year.

“That hasn’t gone to plan,” he said, with a wry smile.

Although the US market has been a main growth target, Carty said “with this new Trump economics” the tariffs were not a surprise.

“To act like we’re shocked would be untrue, to be honest the 10 percent is nowhere near as bad as we feared,” he said.

“Although we love working with our US partners there we also have great markets in the rest of the world, diversity is key,” he said.

IWA head Eoin O Cathain told AFP that the Irish whiskey market was worth about 420 million euros ($464 million) in 2024.

“It is by far and away our biggest market, where we make our most sales,” said O Cathain.

“This tariff imposition — the effects of which will be immediate — will seriously undermine exports to the key market,” he said.

“Where you have tariffs, tit for tat, going over and across the Atlantic, this is a situation that we ultimately want to avoid,” he said.

“Time is of the essence to find a resolution,” he added.

How tariffs in the EU work

By AFP
April 9, 2025


Cars at the storage tower at the Wolfsburg Volkswagen Plant in Germany on November 15, 2024 - Copyright AFP Brendan SMIALOWSKI

Luca MATTEUCCI

Customs duties, or tariffs, have become a political punching ball as the European Union prepares to respond to US President Donald Trump’s recent offensive.

But what exactly do we mean when we talk about tariffs? How does the EU policy work? Who pays them and what are they for?

Some answers:

– What are tariffs? –

Used by almost every country, tariffs are a tax on products imported from abroad.

They take many forms, the most common being a percentage of the economic value of the product — the “ad valorem” duty.

The EU, like other economies, also uses so-called “specific” tariffs, such as an amount set per kilogramme or per litre of any given product.

Globally in 2022, the average tariff was 3.6 percent, according to the CCI-Cepii database (Centre for Prospective Studies and International Information).

In other words, each product crosses a border at a price 3.6 percent higher than its cost domestically.

“This average figure hides very strong differences between countries and sectors,” Houssein Guimbard, a trade policies specialist at Cepii, told AFP.

– What are they for? –

The most immediate objective of these taxes is to give domestic producers a competitive advantage against foreign competition, said Guimbard.

Another goal, which is more the case in developing countries, is to supplement the government budget.

Some African or island countries, for example, finance more than 30 percent of their expenses this way, according to Guimbard.

Countries also use tariffs to maintain a positive trade balance and keep the amount of imports down by taxing them.

“It’s a bit like President Trump’s current logic,” Guimbard told AFP.

– Who decides them in the EU? –

As a consequence of the customs union, the 27 member states have a common customs tariff for imported goods.

They do not apply any internal customs duties. The common customs tariff rates are set by the EU Council, based on proposals from the European Commission (EC).

They vary depending on agreements negotiated with trade partners and according to the “economic sensitivity of the products,” the Commission says.

Typically, very low customs duties are applied to oil or liquefied gas “because consumers and companies need them, and the European Union does not necessarily produce them,” said Guimbard.

Conversely, agriculture is highly protected: 40 to 60 percent protection on beef or dairy products, including all rights and quotas, compared to an average protection of 2.2 percent in the EU in 2022, according to Guimbard.

Since 2023, the EC has planned a “graduated response if our companies were victims of a significant increase in customs duties,” Yann Ambach, head of the Tariff and Trade Policy Office at the Directorate General of French Customs, told AFP.

“It is within this framework that the countermeasures currently being considered by the EC would be implemented,” Ambach said.

– Who pays them? –

In the EU, as a general rule, the importer, rather than the exporter, pays the customs duties.

If they increase, the main question is whether companies pass on the additional costs to the consumer.

“One must consider how important the product is for consumers and whether companies can raise the price of this product without reducing their margins,” said Guimbard.

“The translation of the increase in customs duty also depends on the ability of companies to find alternative sources when importing, or alternative destinations when exporting.”

– Who collects them? –

The member states are responsible for collecting customs duties.

They “must have adequate control infrastructure to ensure that their administrations, especially their customs authorities, carry out their tasks in an appropriate manner”, according to the EC.

“The American measures and the subsequent European retaliatory measures correspond to an intensification of the missions of monitoring, verification, and control of imports and exports,” said Ambach.

– Where do they go? –

For the period 2021-2027, the member states retain 25 percent of the collected customs duties.

“This measure not only covers collection costs but also serves as an incentive to ensure a diligent collection of the amounts due,” the EC says.

The remaining 75 percent directly funds the EU budget. Tariffs on imported goods therefore account for approximately 14 percent of the community budget.

Volkswagen says first-quarter profits impacted by Trump tariffs


By AFP
April 9, 2025


Volkswagen says profits have already taken a hit from US tariffs on cars - Copyright AFP DANIEL DUARTE

German auto giant Volkswagen said Wednesday that tariffs on car imports into the United States ordered by President Donald Trump had dragged down its first quarter operating profit.

Europe’s largest auto manufacturer said its operating profit in the first three months of 2025 fell to 2.8 billion euros ($3.1 billion) from 4.6 billion euros in the same period last year.

The result “deviates significantly” from market expectations that operating profit would come in at around four billion euros, Volkswagen said in a statement.

The steep drop was due to one-off impacts which totalled 1.1 billion euros, the group said.

These included 600 million euros in provisions related to the European Union’s emissions targets for auto manufacturers and another 200 million euros to restructure Volkswagen’s struggling software unit.

In addition, Volkswagen said it felt a 300 million euro impact from adjustments in “provisions for the diesel issue” and a write down in the cost of “vehicles in transit in connection with the import duties introduced in the United States at the beginning of April”.

Trump last month announced a 25-percent tariff on autos imported to the United States, which is the number one destination for German car exports.

Volkswagen — a 10-brand group which also includes Audi, Porsche, Seat and Skoda — sold just over one million vehicles in North America last year, 12 percent of its sales by volume.

About 65 percent of the cars it sells under the Volkswagen brand are shipped into the United States. The figure rises to 100 percent for its high-end Audi and Porsche brands.

The hit to Volkswagen’s operating profit came despite the group’s sales revenue for the first quarter rising to 78 billion euros from 75.5 billion euros in 2024, an increase of three percent.

The Wolfsburg-based group kept its outlook for 2025, but noted that “announced increased import tariffs, particularly in the United States of America, are still not included in the forecast”.

The omission was down to the fact that “the effects and their interactions cannot be conclusively assessed at present”.

Volkswagen, which has struggled with foreign competition, said it currently expected sales revenue to increase five percent over the full year in 2025.

The auto group will publish its full results for the first quarter on March 31.

‘Catastrophe’: Volkswagen town rattled by Trump trade war

By AFP
April 9, 2025


The power plant at the headquarters of German carmaker Volkswagen in Wolfsburg - Copyright AFP Paul Faith

Raphaelle LOGEROT

The dour mood at Germany’s crisis-hit auto giant Volkswagen has given way to angst and fury as US President Donald Trump has escalated a trade war against friends and foes alike.

Veteran auto workers who spent decades at the plants of Germany’s storied industrial titan fear for the worst since Trump has ramped up a range of import tariffs, sparking global market turmoil.

“A catastrophe, terrible,” said retired VW autoworker Richard Arnold, 85, expressing a sentiment widely shared in Wolfsburg, where the carmaker is headquartered and which is dominated by the smoke stacks of its own power plant.

A veteran of Europe’s biggest car manufacturer, Arnold predicted that “America will suffer just as much with the price increases” sparked by Trump’s aggressive trade policies.

Volkswagen — which has been battered for years by high energy and labour costs as well as stiff competition from China, especially in electric vehicles — announced in December, after a bitter, months-long industrial dispute, that it would cut about 35,000 jobs by 2030.

Last week Trump, who has long railed against the sight of imported German cars on American streets, gave automakers in Europe’s biggest economy another headache when he slapped 25-percent tariffs on car imports.

The US president followed up with a baseline tariff of 10 percent on worldwide imports, and extra levies on dozens of countries exporting more to the United States than they buy.

The auto industry is a flagship sector in Europe’s biggest economy, and the United States was last year the top importer of the country’s cars, receiving about 13 percent of Germany’s shipments.

Volkswagen — a 10-brand group which also includes Audi and Porsche as well as Seat and Skoda — sold just over one million vehicles in North America last year, 12 percent of its sales by volume.

The company has so far been restrained in its response, with a Volkswagen spokesman telling AFP that the carmaker was assessing its options.

“We have our dealers’ and customers’ best interests at heart, and once we have quantified the impact on the business we will share our strategy with our dealers,” he said.



– ‘Nonsense, idiocy’ –



But another retired VW worker, Friedhelm Wolf, 70, was far more outspoken.

“Absolute nonsense … actually just idiocy,” he fumed. “The man in the White House doesn’t know what he’s doing.”

Now, Wolf said, it’s time “to wait and see” how the conflict pans out.

“Well, you can first try to negotiate,” he said. “And if that doesn’t help, you just have to raise the tariffs.

“The problem is, we don’t buy that many cars made in the USA.”

He pointed out that Volkswagen has long employed thousands of workers at plants in Tennessee and Puebla, Mexico.

“VW doesn’t just make Volkswagens here in Germany, they also manufacture in the USA. They also have a plant in the United States and one in Mexico,” said Wolf.

“Vehicles are imported from Mexico to the USA, and also parts that US vehicles need come from Mexico,” he added.

“So, it will definitely become more expensive for American consumers.”

Citing a Volkswagen memo to dealers in the United States, trade publication Automotive News has reported that the manufacturer planned to add an “import fee” to cars it ships into the country.

Volkswagen also indicated it would pause rail shipments of vehicles made in Mexico to the United States, Automotive News said, in a report not yet confirmed by the company.

Another 85-year-old VW veteran, who only gave his name as Nicky, voiced dark fears about the impact of it all on VW’s current workforce.

“Those who are still working don’t even know what’s going to come their way,” he told AFP.

He said the EU had proposed a zero-tariff regime with the United States, “but it’s not being accepted”.

This, Nicky said, could spark a transatlantic tit-for-tat battle “which will escalate things …. It’s a catastrophe at the moment.”

Thorsten Groeger of trade union IG Metall said that for VW’s auto production, “the proportion exported to the USA is relatively high, and Volkswagen employees share these concerns as well”.

He called on German politicians and auto companies to do whatever they can to ensure that the workers’ jobs stay safe.

“Trump’s policies must not be allowed to lead to German colleagues having to fear for their jobs.”

Strength in numbers: Latin America urges unity in face of Trump tariffs

By AFP
April 9, 2025


Donald Trump's tariffs on imports of non-US products -- some of them suspended and altered numerous times -- threaten economic disruption for Latin American and Caribbean economies - Copyright AFP Orlando SIERRA

Noe LEIVA

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Wednesday lambasted “arbitrary” US import tariffs at a summit of Latin American leaders that urged a united front against Donald Trump’s economic measures.

Lula was among 11 heads of state gathered in Honduras for a meeting of the 33-member Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC).

It was also attended by China, which is seeking to replace the United States as the main political and economic influence in the region.

“Arbitrary tariffs destabilize the international economy and raise prices,” said Lula, the president of Latin America’s biggest economy.

“History teaches us that trade wars have no winners,” he added.

On April 5, US trading partners were slapped with a 10-percent “baseline” tariff which remains in effect despite Trump backing down Wednesday on a host of other, more onerous duties announced last week.

Trump’s tariffs — some of them suspended and altered numerous times — threaten economic disruption for CELAC economies.

Mexico is the United States’ biggest trading partner and source of much of its car imports, while Brazil is its second-biggest provider of steel.

Gathered in the Honduran capital Tegucigalpa, CELAC leaders said unity of purpose was needed in these economically uncertain times.

“We cannot continue walking separately when the world is reorganizing,” host President Xiomara Castro said.

“The United States is redrawing its economic map without asking which people are left behind,” she added.

Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum said these were “times of profound changes in global trade.”

“Today more than ever is a good time to recognize that Latin America and the Caribbean require unity and solidarity among their governments and peoples and to strengthen greater regional integration,” she told the summit.

For his part, Colombian President Gustavo Petro said CELAC members “should help each other… let’s not fall into the trap of solving problems alone.”



– Beijing conference –



While Washington is increasingly seen as a volatile associate, China has been making inroads in the region.

Two-thirds of Latin American countries have joined President Xi Jinping’s trillion-dollar Belt and Road infrastructure program, and China has surpassed the United States as the biggest trading partner of Brazil, Peru and Chile, among others.

In Honduras, a Chinese delegation led by Qu Yuhui, Beijing’s number two for Latin American Affairs, has been holding bilateral meetings with CELAC delegates since Monday — including envoys from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Venezuela and Cuba.

Beijing also plans to host a China-CELAC ministerial conference on May 13, to be attended by Xi.

“China is set to increase its influence in Latin America; it is a gift from the United States,” Peruvian international relations analyst Francisco Belaunde told AFP.

“China wants to appear now as a reliable partner that is in favor of free trade, it wants to take advantage of the mess generated by Trump and the annoyance of all countries over these tariffs,” he added.

Art of the deal? How Trump backed down on tariffs


By AFP
April 9, 2025


THE THREE STOOGES

US President Donald Trump said he huddled with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick before announcing the 90-day pause on tariffs - Copyright AFP SAUL LOEB
Danny KEMP

It ended not with a bang, but with US President Donald Trump and two top aides writing a social media post.

Trump’s decision to pause worldwide tariffs capped an extraordinary week of global panic since he announced the levies on what he called “Liberation Day.”

After repeatedly denying that he was considering a halt, the first sign that something was up came as markets braced for another brutal session.

“BE COOL!” Trump urged Americans on his Truth Social network at 9:33 am in Washington (1333 GMT) before adding that it was a “GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!”

Few seemed to take the 78-year-old Republican seriously, and turmoil started to spread to usually safe bond markets.

But Trump later admitted that he had made the decision “early this morning” on Wednesday to pause the tariffs.

The author of the “Art of the Deal” is rarely known for his humility, but he appeared to be in a reflective mood as he answered questions about the decision.

“Over the last few days, I’ve been thinking about it,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he signed a series of executive orders — including one titled “Maintaining Acceptable Water Pressure in Showerheads.”

Trump said he then huddled early Wednesday with Scott Bessent, his bespectacled US Treasury Secretary, and Howard Lutnick, the brash Commerce Secretary and former trader.

“It probably came together early this morning,” said Trump. “We didn’t have access to lawyers. We wrote it up from our hearts, right? It was written from the heart, and I think it was well written too.”

What emerged was a lengthy post on his Truth Social network at 1:18 pm local time (1718 GMT) saying that Trump had “authorized a 90 day PAUSE” in tariffs, except on China, which he punished with even higher levies of 125 percent.

Trump’s administration insisted it was all part of a grand strategy that had brought 75 countries to the negotiating table in his quest to reduce America’s trade deficit.

“Many of you in the media clearly missed the art of the deal,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters afterward.

Lutnick posted that he and Bessent “sat with the President while he wrote one of the most extraordinary Truth posts of his Presidency.”



– ‘Yippy’ –



The White House posted a picture of Trump at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, flanked by Lutnick and Bessent, with his mobile phone in front of him.

It also posted one of Trump’s own posts from 2014, reading: “Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully or write poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals.”

As markets made a turbocharged rebound, Trump hosted a group of racing drivers with their brightly-colored cars at the White House.

Trump said the markets had become “a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid — unlike these champions,” as he pointed to the drivers.

“Liberation Week” turned out to be a frantic one in which the White House struggled to get its message straight about whether or not it was prepared to negotiate.

Trump spent the weekend in Florida playing golf, but appeared touchy as he flew back to Washington, saying that “sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something” in reference to the tariffs.

Lutnick, who has become one of Trump’s top cheerleaders, repeatedly said there would be no negotiations, as did trade advisor Peter Navarro.

But then Bessent was rolled out on Monday to deliver a softer message that, indeed, negotiations might be possible.

What followed was the remarkable spectacle of Trump’s tariff-skeptical aide Elon Musk publicly branding Navarro “dumber than a sack of bricks.”

But by Wednesday evening it was over — for 90 days at least — and the White House was keen to turn attention towards the stock markets, where the Nasdaq had its biggest single day leap since 2001, while the Dow Jones had its best day since 2020 and the S&P 500 its best since 2008.

Trump, who spent most of the week bashing allies and adversaries alike, struck a magnanimous tone about his announcement.

“It was written as something that I think was very positive for the world and for us,” he said.

‘Malignant stupidity’, ‘weak’: Economists on Trump’s tariffs

ByAFP
April 8, 2025


Wall Street: — © Digital Journal.
Ali BEKHTAOUI with AFP bureaus

A wide range of economists are voicing alarm over US President Donald Trump’s tariffs blitz, which has sparked a trade war that experts say could lead to a global recession.

Here are comments from some leading economists:

– ‘Spectacle of failed policies’ –

Li Daokui, one of China’s most influential economists, told AFP that Trump’s tariffs mainly aim to “squeeze other countries” for concessions.

“It is hard to imagine that there is any other economic policy that can make people around the world, including people in the United States itself, suffer losses at the same time.

“This is simply a ‘spectacle’ of failed economic policies,” Li said.

“Both the US government and the US economy will suffer huge losses,” said Li, an economics professor at Tsinghua University and former member of China’s main political advisory body.

He said the Chinese government has fully prepared for tariffs — Beijing has readied countermeasures and stepped up efforts to stimulate domestic consumption.

While Trump’s trade policy signifies the end of US leadership in globalisation, it gives Beijing opportunities to negotiate free trade agreements with other countries and play a key role in any effort to establish a new system that would replace the World Trade Organization, Li said.

“China has the economic foundation to lead globalisation.”

– ‘Failure of Reaganism’ –

For Thomas Piketty, French author of the best-selling “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”, “Trumpism is first of all a reaction to the failure of Reaganism” — the liberalisation of President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

“Republicans realise that economic liberalism and globalisation have not benefitted the middle class as they said they would,” the left-leaning economist told AFP.

“So now they’re using the rest of the world as a scapegoat,” he said.

“But it’s not going to work. The Trump cocktail is simply going to generate more inflation and more inequalities.”

In response, “Europe needs to define its own priorities and prepare for the global recession that’s coming” with a massive investment plan in “energy and transport infrastructure, education, research and health”.

– ‘Malignant stupidity’ –

Paul Krugman, the Nobel economics prize laureate, said the United States was essentially the founder of the modern trade system that had led to lower tariffs over the past decades.

“Donald Trump burned it all down,” Krugman wrote on his popular Substack blog before the president’s baseline 10-percent tariffs on imports took effect on Saturday.

“Trump isn’t really trying to accomplish economic goals. This should all be seen as a dominance display, intended to shock and awe people and make them grovel,” he said.

Krugman accused the US administration of “malignant stupidity” at a time when “the fate of the world economy is on the line”.

“How can anyone, whether they’re businesspeople or foreign governments, trust anything coming out of an administration that behaves like this?”

– ‘Major problem’ for the poor –

For Nasser Saidi, a former economy minister of Lebanon, “a major problem is the impact on the least-developed and emerging countries” from Trump’s “seismic shock to the global trade landscape”.

“Countries like Egypt, Lebanon or Jordan are going to face disruptions in terms of their trade relations” as well as the prospect of cuts to foreign investments.

“When you have tariffs of this type being set up — high levels of tariffs with no economic basis — what you’re going to do is severely disrupt supply chains,” he added.

“I think we’re finished with the era of globalisation and liberalisation”, which will lead countries in the Middle East, for example, to reinforce ties with Asian partners.

– ‘Big boys will suffer’ –

Kako Nubukpo, an economist and former government minister in Togo, warned that Trump’s tariffs would hit African nations already suffering from political difficulties.

“Those left behind by globalisation appear more and more numerous. And so we’ve seen an increase in illiberal regimes, whether that’s in Europe, Africa or America,” he said.

“(But) protectionism is a weapon of the weak and I think Trump has realised that in the competition with China, the United States is now the weaker one.”

In response, “African countries should promote their own national and regional value chains” as buffers against Trump’s tariffs.

Bismarck Rewane, CEO of Financial Derivatives Co. in Nigeria, said “big powers” would suffer most from a global recession.

“The small powers, we don’t have that much to suffer because we were already bleeding before, so we just stay where we are,” he said.

“Africa will suffer but not as much as the big boys.”


Op-Ed: The Art of the Squeal — Flailing away at China with tariff threats won’t work at all

By Paul Wallis
April 8, 2025

DIGITAL JOURNAL


China imported $29 billion of US farm produce in 2023 - Copyright AFP/File STR

Trump’s threats to raise 104% tariffs against China look much more like desperation than any sort of serious attempt to trade. They also suggest a total lack of ideas and a complete misunderstanding of the situation’s realities.

All you’ve got are tariffs? Game over.

The overall picture is that Trump is threatening, and China isn’t budging. Strategically, it’s more like slapstick comedy than policy, just bring your own banana skins.

There’s another unavoidable issue here. Unlike America’s cushion-like Western allies, China is a very hard target. America has very little real leverage with China on any level.

Consider this:

The world is already up in arms against the tariffs, and America has effectively isolated itself.

Trump’s rhetoric is a constant major liability when talking to other countries.

Many countries have taken great offense at US foreign policy on all levels, particularly threats of annexation and statehood.

America’s longtime friends and allies are simply finding new options for trade without the US. Japan and South Korea have already done a deal with China. Canada could do a deal for oil with China that might undercut Russian oil.

As public relations, the tariffs and ignorant comments have been a total failure, and America’s image couldn’t be worse.

Nobody’s mentioning the possible effect of no Chinese imports to America. That’s odd because it’s such an obvious own goal for America. Domestically, it’d be a Daisy Cutter bomb in the market when people are struggling to survive paycheck to paycheck.

Nobody believes America can deliver at all on so many major policy initiatives.

That last sentence is new. Non-delivery isn’t exactly an American tradition. Inability to deliver is a first. The administration seems to have a shopping list of things it can’t do and has made them policies.

Compare China’s position:

China already does business with the whole world. That’s not going to change.

China is taking full advantage of the clumsy “bullying” with tariffs. This Xinhua link spells out exactly what’s happening, quite politely.

China doesn’t even need to use diplomacy to make its points. All China needs to do is good business, and it’s game over for tariffs.

The tariffs and general tantrum-based policies have simply united the world in their hatred of an unbelievably stupid, ignorant, dictatorial, and arguably insane infantile America. China doesn’t need to say a word or do a thing to win.

The descent of America from the fabulous boom times to a broke gangland to Trump can only go so far. There’s not much further to fall.

This absurd, idiotic confrontation with China could be fatal to a seriously weakened America.

_________________________________________________

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.

Trump's proposed pharmaceutical tariffs could drive up costs, lead to drug shortages: Experts

 added costs would be passed onto the consumer

MARY KEKATOS
Wed, April 9, 2025

ABC News

At a political fundraising dinner on Tuesday night, President Donald Trump said he plans to announce tariffs on pharmaceuticals soon.

"We're going to tariff our pharmaceuticals, and once we do that, they come rushing back into our country, because we're the big market," Trump said at the National Republican Congressional Committee dinner in Washington, D.C.

"And when they hear that, they will leave China, they will leave other places, because ... most of their product is sold here, and they're going to be opening up their plants all over the place in our country -- we're going to be announcing that," he continued.

Although Trump recently implemented a 90-day pause on some tariffs, he said Wednesday he's still serious about putting tariffs on pharmaceuticals to boost U.S. drug manufacturing. "We're going to put tariffs on the pharmaceutical companies, and they're going to all want to come back," Trump said, speaking from the Oval Office.

MORE: Drug shortages hit record high, pharmacists warn

The raw ingredients of almost all medications are made overseas, even for drugs that are manufactured in the U.S., meaning tariffs could drive up the costs of several medications including over-the-counter painkillers as well as antibiotics, heart medications and asthma drugs.

Pharmacy and economics experts said such tariffs could also lead to drug shortages and could even potentially stall research and development.

PHOTO: President Donald Trump attends the National Republican Congressional Committee dinner in Washington, April 8, 2025. (Nathan Howard/Reuters)

Added costs

Experts say any added costs would be passed onto the consumer.

Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at The Budget Lab at Yale, a nonpartisan policy research center, told ABC News that the average household spent an average of $4,200 on prescription drugs in 2024. That figure includes a combination of out-of-pocket costs and spending covered by insurance.

Tedeschi said an assessment from The Budget Lab found that a tariff of 25%, for example, would raise pharmaceutical prices by 15% on average.

"Based on our assessment … costs for prescription drugs would rise by an average of around $600 per year per household in the United States," he said. "Now, not all of that would necessarily be out-of-pocket for the average family … but if a family is not paying that full $600, their insurance company is paying the other part of it."

He went on, "So even if families don't see a price increase that they are responsible for, they may end up paying higher insurance premiums [and] higher co-pays as a result of this."


MORE: Drug shortage can put patients' lives at risk, experts warn

Drug shortages

Tariffs could also impact generic drug makers operating on thin margins, according to Dr. Erin Fox, associate chief pharmacy officer at University of Utah Health who tracks drug shortages.

Specifically, Fox told ABC News she is worried about drugs that are already often in shortage, including injectable medications. This includes drugs like lidocaine, which is used to numb pain.

She said medicines that people take every day, usually in pill form, are less likely to be likely not going to be as impacted in the near term because there are many suppliers of those products.

"An injectable product might only have two or three [suppliers] max," she said.

PHOTO: A bottle of prescription medication is seen in an undated stock photo. (STOCK PHOTO/Getty Images)

Fox said most generic companies have six- to 12-month supply of their active pharmaceutical ingredients on hand, and some companies may have bought some extra products in anticipation of these tariffs.

"This isn't going to be an immediate effect, necessarily, that we're going to see, but when it comes time to buy that next batch of raw materials, will it have a high tariff, and will the company be able to afford to do that?" Fox said.
Less research and development

Dr. William Padula, an assistant professor of health policy and economy at the University of Southern California and a scholar at the USC Schaeffer Institute, said he doesn't believe the tariffs will have a major impact on consumers but could impact the research and development areas of pharmaceutical companies.

He explained that pharmaceutical companies don't just make drugs but other tools including vaccines, biomedical products and even over-the-counter products, such as bandages.

MORE: Popular weight loss drugs in tight supply as Zepbound shortage could last through June

Padula added that these companies use their profits in different ways including investing in research and development.

"If they have less research and development money because fewer people are buying drugs that are priced higher as a result of tariffs then, over the long run, they're going to have to withdraw investments in research and development that could lead to fewer innovations," he told ABC News.

"As a result, we [could] end up in a situation where there aren't as many novel, new treatments for patients with different diseases," he added.

ABC News' Sony Salzman contributed to this report.

Trump's proposed pharmaceutical tariffs could drive up costs, lead to drug shortages: Experts originally appeared on abcnews.go.com

Op-Ed: 90-day tariff pause means nothing — Meds tariffs for the US are a disaster in progress


ByPaul Wallis
April 9, 2025

DIGITAL JOURNAL

Drug Mart Pharmacy, an independent drugstore in South Plainfield, New Jersey. Credit - Art Author, Public Domain (CC0 1.0)

There’s a pattern with Trump – Things go up and down before they tank completely. The much-hyped and largely meaningless tariff pause means nothing because it’s foundational to the tax cuts plan.

Remember also that these tariffs haven’t been fully implemented. In terms of actual volumes of money, they mean very little compared to full implementation.

The other problem is that markets are stupid. They oversell and overbuy and never learn. This margin-dweller stuff brings in dumb marks who think they’re buying glory, not risk.

Talking about risk, these cosmetic market moves are basically on margins. There was a huge volume of stocks on the move, but so what? A week from now could look totally different.

The current state of play says the markets and Trump are full of it:

Trump has stated that it’s now a trade war with China.

Trump was under significant pressure from business and Congress over tariffs.

China has just raised its tariffs by 84%.

The EU has put 25% tariffs on US goods.

Tesla cars still aren’t selling, but the stock went up 18% based on nothing.

In short, nothing has actually happened and is continuing to happen.

If this was a cartoon, you’d see little pink cuckoos flying around Trump’s head.

There’s another even less appealing indicator here. It’s tariffs on meds. This truly is an incredible idiocy too far. This would be a disaster for the American public like few others. Even a large-scale war would be far less destructive.

Consider:

The United States is the most heavily medicated country in the world, without exception.

US meds prices are notoriously high and have already hit people hard without tariffs.

People’s health and lives would be at serious risk if the meds aren’t accessible.

America doesn’t produce much of its own meds and does so at an incredibly high cost. Some years ago someone got charged $100 for a Band-Aid. Admittedly, it was a new one.

Many pharmaceutical ingredients would need to be imported if they can’t be locally processed, so they’d attract separate tariffs and be much more expensive.

Foreign companies can’t simply up sticks and move their production to America. You’re talking about tens of thousands of different products.

Americans have an instant source of cheaper meds over the border in Canada and Mexico, both totally antagonized by Trump.

The European pharma companies say there’ll be an “exodus to the US”. No, there won’t.

How does moving to the most expensive country on Earth help their bottom lines? It’d be an incredibly costly and slow move. The EU market is also about 35% bigger than the US, with solvent customers who can afford their meds.

Also, note that any pharma companies moving to America would have to pay higher prices for imported ingredients due to tariffs.

You think sick people want to pay tariffs as well as being quite literally gouged to death by their own health sector?

This situation is even dumber than it looks. Believe nothing.

_________________________________________________________

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.

 

Reappraisal of the constitutional realities in Britain and Ireland at a time of seismic change

Ireland's Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science launches significant new political science book

UCD Research & Innovation

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

(L-R) Dr Paul Gillespie, book co-editor, Director of CFaB, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow and expert in British-Irish relations at UCD; Prof Michael Keating, book co-editor, Emeritus Professor of Politics at University of Aberdeen; Prof Kate Robson Brown, UCD Vice-President for Research, Innovation and Impact; Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, James Lawless, TD; Prof Nicola McEwen, book co-editor, Emeritus Professor of Politics at University of Aberdeen; Prof Nicola McEwen, Professor of Public Policy and Governance at University of Glasgow. 

view more 

Credit: Photography by John Ohle

Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, James Lawless, TD, formally launched a significant new political science book Political Change across Britain and Ireland: Identities, Institutions and Futures, at an event in the Museum of Literature of Ireland (MoLI), last night.

The book is a key output of the research project ‘Constitutional Futures after Brexit’ (CFaB) which is supported by a strategic partnership between University College Dublin (UCD) and the Reconciliation Fund of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Speaking at the launch, Minister Lawless said: “We are experiencing a moment of extraordinary change. It is timely at this moment to examine ourselves as nations and ask the difficult questions about identity and how we express it, how we maintain relationships within and across borders, and what the future of these relationships will be. The research explored in this book and by the ‘Constitutional Futures after Brexit’ project aims to navigate those very questions about national identities, cohesion and fragmentation. Now is a time for careful consideration of these issues in order to strengthen our existing partnerships and build new ones.”

Dr Paul Gillespie, co-editor of the book and director of CFaB, said: “This book proposes novel concepts to examine the complexities and dynamics of the various British-Irish relationships. The two islands' political and constitutional futures are now entangled and interconnected in several new ways. We want to encourage fresh research in this area based on the framework of identities, institution's and futures the book explores.”

Prof Kate Robson Brown, Vice-President for Research, Innovation and Impact, said: “It is heartening to see a very positive energy in Ireland around scientific research as well as recognition of the importance of independent science advice. At this critical time of change in long-standing geopolitical relationships, we need robust research for evidence-based policy and decision-making in the best interests of our societies and our cross-border and global partnerships, and to help the communities of these islands continue on a positive and collaborative journey towards our joint futures.”  

The book, which is published by Edinburgh University Press, is co-edited by: Dr Paul Gillespie, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow and expert in British-Irish relations at UCD, columnist and former Foreign Policy Editor with The Irish Times; Prof Michael Keating, Emeritus Professor of Politics at University of Aberdeen; Prof Nicola McEwen, Professor of Public Policy and Governance at University of Glasgow.

Dr Gillespie is Director of the CFaB project which is led by the UCD Centre for Peace and Conflict Research at UCD School of Politics and International Relations. The book launch coincided a with a conference related to the project with a focus on the general theme ‘Ireland, Britain and Europe: Constitutional Futures after Brexit,’ examining the fundamental shift in the dynamics of the Ireland-UK relationship after Brexit.

About the Book (from Edinburgh University Press)

Constitutional order across the islands of Britain and Ireland faces critical challenges with the rise of Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalism, an emerging English consciousness, and Brexit. There is no resolution within the old assumptions about nations, states, sovereignty and borders. Nor can we rely on post-devolution practices in relations between the various governments, which are based on bilateral relations between London and Dublin, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.

Political Change across Britain and Ireland examines the whole web of what has been called the totality of relationships among the peoples of these islands, asking difficult questions about identities and institutions and what prospects for the future might be.

• Examines key issues across the nations rather than within individual nations.

• Brings the Republic of Ireland into the analysis, while also recognising its distinct status.

• Crucially includes the question of England’s place in the Union.