tariffs

Trump seeks to shore up support among rural voters hard hit by tariffs, economic fallout of war with Iran.

United States President Donald Trump has sought to reassure farmers hard-hit by tariffs and the economic fallout of the US-Israeli war with Iran during a visit to Wisconsin.

The stop in Chippewa Falls on Friday for a farming roundtable comes months before the midterm elections in November. Trump was seeking to bolster support for Republican US Representative Derrick Van Orden, who has been targeted by Democrats hoping to take control of the chamber.

Van Orden has closely aligned with Trump and has long espoused the president as the best leader for rural Americans. Democrat challenger Rebecca Cook has proven a strong fundraiser and has led Van Orden in recent polls.

Democrats are considered favourites to take control of the US House of Representatives, currently controlled by Republicans, in the midterms.

“I love the place,” Trump said, referring to Wisconsin, “and hopefully you’re going to be voting Republican, because frankly, Republican is – I call it the sane way to go.”

Success for Democrats would allow the party to seriously restrict Trump’s agenda in the final two years of his term.

The Wisconsin visit was also more broadly aimed at shoring up support among farmers, who had largely backed the president in his 2024 election bid.

Farmers have been particularly hard-hit by Trump’s aggressive tariff policies, with many countries limiting imports of US products, notably soybeans, in response. The tariffs have also made importing items needed for daily operations more expensive.

The administration has sought to offset the fallout with temporary aid packages for farmers.

At the same time, fertiliser costs have surged since the US and Israel launched the war with Iran on February 28, with the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz increasing prices of several key components, including urea.

An April survey by the American Farm Bureau Federation found that 70 percent of farmers in the US reported they cannot afford all of their fertiliser needs.

The average gas price of $4.04 per ⁠gallon of petrol this week was also $1.08 higher than a year ago, according to the American Automobile Association.

Trump assured those gathered that the administration had “largely finished” the war “one way or the other”.

He vowed fertiliser and gas prices would come “way down”.

The visit comes as several polls have shown Trump’s overall approval rating hovering at all-time lows, about or under 40 percent.

His approval was lower on specific issues, with a Marquette Law School poll conducted from May 20-26 finding just 19 percent of respondents approved of Trump’s handling of gas prices. Only 22 percent approved of his handling of inflation and cost of living.

Several top Republicans have also warned that several of Trump’s recent actions could risk alienating voters concerned about the economy.

That included a $1.8bn “anti-weaponisation fund” launched by the Department of Justice to repay individuals, including Trump supporters, who allege they were victims of political prosecutions.

The Department of Justice has since abandoned the plan.

Trump has also requested $1bn in funding for security for his controversial White House ballroom, despite earlier saying that taxpayers would not have to foot the bill.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has proposed new tariffs of up to 12.5 percent on imports from 60 economies after determining they had failed to curb trade in goods made with forced labour, an assertion that was rejected by US trading partners.

The proposal from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), issued late on Tuesday, comes from a Section 301 unfair trade practices investigation designed to help rebuild US President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs, struck down by a US Supreme Court decision in February.

Despite laws banning them, the products of forced labour are deeply embedded in supply chains across the world. European lawmakers bristle at the accusation that the region is less effective than the US at curbing the trade in such goods, with one describing the US findings as “utterly absurd”. Business leaders said the US move created more confusion for companies.

The USTR proposed 10 percent additional duties on imports from Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Malaysia, Taiwan and Britain. The USTR said all had plans or partial schemes in place.

The trade agency said it would impose additional duties of 12.5 percent on the remaining 45 countries that it investigated. These include China, India, Nigeria, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand.

“The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labour is unacceptable,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement. “This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field.”

The USTR said it would accept public comments on the proposed tariffs and other remedies through July 6, with a public hearing scheduled for July 7.

The announcement comes ahead of the July 24 expiration of a 10 percent temporary tariff imposed by the Trump administration on February 20, the day the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It also shows how determined the Trump administration is about building a wall of tariffs around the US economy, the world’s largest, despite repeated setbacks in court.

After the loss in the Supreme Court, Trump turned to another law to impose temporary 10 percent tariffs globally. But those stopgap levies expire July 24. And a specialised trade court ruled last month that they, too, were illegal – though the government can continue collecting them while that case works its way through the courts.

Unjustified tariffs

The European Commission said the tariffs were unjustified and reiterated its commitment to the trade deal sealed with Washington last year.

Bernd Lange, the chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, which voted on Tuesday to accept that trade deal, said the new tariffs were expected, but said the results of the US investigation were still “utterly absurd” given a 2024 EU law to ban imports of forced labour products.

“The impression is increasingly emerging that a tariff measure is sought first, and only then is a suitable legal justification found,” he said. However, he added that the key question would be whether the additional tariffs would exceed those agreed between both sides last July.

The US’s largest trading partner, the EU, agreed last July to accept tariffs of 15 percent on a broad range of its exports. In its report, the USTR said the EU anti-forced labour measures only came into force in December 2027 and lacked key elements.

It was unclear whether the proposed tariffs – which the US release described as “additional duties” – would come on top of levies agreed in bilateral deals signed with the US.

Britain said it was in regular talks with the US and was taking action to tackle forced labour. It added that the preferential access to US markets that it had negotiated for UK businesses remained in place.

Mexico said that goods that were compliant under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) would be exempt from the new tariffs.

Taiwan said it was “hopeful and confident” that the final results would reflect agreements already reached, securing relatively preferential treatment.

Beijing, facing 12.5 percent tariffs, said that it opposed all forms of unilateral tariffs and that there was no forced labour in China. India, confronted with the same rate, said it was engaged with Washington on the Section 301 proceedings, noting the proposed tariffs were not final.

“There will be deep concerns in the international business community that the US [forced labour law could] become a global template,” said Andrew Wilson, deputy secretary general of the International Chamber of Commerce.

“Anyone can make a claim, get a shipment impounded and the company has to prove no forced labour in supply chain.”

Certain exemptions

The USTR said it would exempt from tariffs products including energy, rare earths and some other metals, beef, coffee, certain fruits and vegetables, pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals and aircraft parts.

It also said it was proposing a textile mechanism that would allow for a certain volume of apparel and textile imports to enter the US at a reduced tariff rate, without giving details.

The ICC’s Wilson said the list of exemptions, stretching for more than 76 pages, suggested sensitivities over the potential cost-of-living hit to food and other goods with known forced-labour risks.

“It doesn’t make sense if the object of this is to enhance controls on modern slavery,” he said.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has proposed a new 25 percent tariff on imports from Brazil amid allegations of unfair trading practices.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced the new punitive tariffs late on Monday, stemming from issues including digital trade and illegal deforestation.

The new tariffs would be imposed under Section 301 of US trade policy — a statute that gives the US government broad authority to impose trade sanctions based on violations of trade agreements, as well as what it deems “unfair” trade practices under the Trade Act of 1974.

Greer said there has been an investigation that began in July. The practices under investigation were related to issues such as illegal deforestation, ethanol market access, and anticorruption enforcement, among other key issues, according to the summary released by the US Department of Commerce on Tuesday.

In the 107-page document, the US government said that trade practices between the two nations “are unreasonable and burden or restrict US commerce”, and pointed to agreements that Brazil has with Mexico and India.

“Brazil’s trade arrangements with Mexico and India also create incentives to offshore US production by creating a financial advantage to exporting to Brazil from these countries, as opposed to exporting from the United States,” the document says.

There is a comment period for the general public to weigh in on the proposed tariffs, which begins on Thursday. The written comment period ends on July 1, and there will be a public hearing in Washington on July 6.

Beef, coffee, rare earths, other metals, energy, and aircraft parts are among the products that would be exempt from the tariffs.

On CNBC, Greer said that it would release more findings on unfair trade practices in the next several weeks in order to address what Greer called a “giant” trade deficit.

However, the data shows that the US maintains a trade surplus with Brazil. In March, Brazil bought more goods, worth $3.3bn, from the US than it exported at $2.9bn, representing a $420m trade surplus.

Other countries under investigation include China and Vietnam.

The new tariff would partially replace a tariff of 50 percent on many Brazilian goods imposed last year by Trump, with 40 percent serving as a punishment for Brazil’s prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally.

The White House also recently dropped tariffs on select aluminium, copper, and steel imports, which include agricultural equipment such as harvesters. Those tariffs will drop from 25 percent to 15 percent. The tariffs expire in December 2027.

The new tariffs come after the Supreme Court, in February, struck down the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the White House used to impose its sweeping global tariffs.

“They are the first of many new tariffs to replace the IEPPA national security tariffs. The period of public comment will allow for potential modest tweaks and exemptions. Ultimately, it will add to some inflation pressure compared to the last few months but not compared to a year earlier,” Rachel Ziemba, a senior adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera.

Political tensions

The changes come despite President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s visit to Washington last month, as relations have deteriorated in recent months.

The US State Department has also designated two of Brazil’s criminal gangs as “terrorist organisations”, a move that supported Senator Flavio Bolsonaro’s position, Lula’s main rival in October’s election, and over the objections of Brazilian officials.

“I expressly asked President Trump not to tariff our companies,” Bolsonaro wrote on X on Tuesday. “Tariffs are not the solution.”

The White House did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

NEW YORK — American businesses big and small have started receiving tariff refunds after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump lacked the constitutional authority to impose higher import taxes on goods from nearly every other country.

The process could grind to a halt, however, after the Trump administration said Friday that it intended to appeal a federal judge’s order to allow all companies that paid the illegal import taxes to seek refunds, not just the ones that filed lawsuits.

Until the Department of Justice informed the judge of its planned appeal, the refund system overseen by U.S. Customs and Border Protection had been working fairly smoothly. Refunds reached the bank accounts of the first successful applicants on May 12, about three weeks after American importers and their customs brokers could start submitting claims through an online system, according to CBP.

Applications for refunds totaling $85 billion — more than half of the $166 billion the agency estimated the government owes to companies that paid the illegal tariffs on imported goods — were accepted for processing as of May 22, CBP reported in a legal filing earlier in the week. It said it had so far directed the Treasury Department to issue $20.6 billion in refunds.

The administration revealed its appeal preparations while objecting to a demand by Judge Richard K. Eaton for CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott to appear in the U.S. Court of International Trade to answer questions about how long it would take to repay all 330,000 importers that might be eligible for refunds. The judge has scheduled a June 9 hearing on why he shouldn’t require the government do whatever it takes to speed up the process.

Justice Department lawyers asked Eaton to allow one or two of Scott’s deputies to appear in his place, arguing that as a high-ranking presidential appointee, the CBP chief could not be compelled to testify in court. They also argued that Eaton exceeded his own authority when he determined in March that the Supreme Court’s ruling entitled “all importers of record’’ to refunds.

“For that reason, defendants intend to appeal the court’s universal injunction,” the lawyers wrote, adding that CBP would continue to move “as quickly as it can to process refunds in a phased approach” for businesses that filed some 485 pending trade court complaints to assert their rights to refunds.

In a terse reply Friday, Eaton said he needed to hear directly from Scott whether the government would return all of the money it collected between when Trump imposed what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods from most countries in April 2025 and when the Supreme Court struck them down in late February.

“This case involves $166 billion,” the judge wrote. “It is undisputed that the remedy for this unlawful collection is for the United States government to refund the unlawfully collected duties.”

Some national retail chains said they planned to use their tariff refunds to lower customer prices on some items. Walmart Chief Financial Officer John David Rainey told analysts last week that the company would implement price cuts even though the maximum refund it might be eligible for represented less than half of 1% of Walmart’s $483 billion in annual U.S. sales.

Some smaller companies told the Associated Press that the partial refunds they’ve received so far would go toward paying remaining or future tariffs, reducing debt or just keeping the lights on after more than a year of uncertainty and additional import costs.

Jay Foreman, chief executive of toy company Basic Fun, said he received about $450,000, or 7% of his total claim, over two consecutive days this month. He took the initial repayment as a positive sign but said that after having less than $10,000 refunded since then, the process seemed like a “total slow roll.”

“It’s time to release the funds back into the economy, especially given how much we and others need these funds to support our businesses and fund our operations,” Foreman said.

Anderson writes for the Associated Press.

Taipei, Taiwan – Chinese President Xi Jinping is expected to seek concessions on Taiwan and US tariffs when he meets United States President Donald Trump for a high-stakes summit taking place in the shadow of the war on Iran.

Trump will arrive in China on Wednesday evening for a three-day visit that will mark the first trip by a US leader to the country since 2017, when Trump visited in the early days of his first term.

Unlike Trump, who is renowned for his mercurial policymaking, Xi is widely seen as predictable in his goals for the summit, particularly as they concern Beijing’s longstanding “core interests” related to national security and territorial integrity.

At the top of that list is Taiwan.

While Taiwan’s government considers itself the head of a de facto sovereign state, Beijing views the island as an inalienable part of its territory.

The US formally cut ties with Taiwan – also known as the Republic of China – decades ago, but is committed to aiding the self-governing democracy’s defence under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act.

Under the law, Washington has provided Taiwan with billions of dollars in arms and pursued cooperation in areas such as military training and intelligence sharing, which Beijing considers interference in its internal affairs.

The US government officially acknowledges that China views Taiwan as part of its territory, but does not express a stance on whether it agrees.

Washington is also intentionally vague about whether it would intervene to defend Taiwan if China sought to annex it by force.

In a call with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio last month, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made clear that Taiwan would be raised at the summit, describing the issue as “the biggest risk in the China-US relationship”, according to a Chinese readout of the call.

China’s embassy in Washington, DC, reiterated that message after Trump’s departure for the summit on Tuesday, naming Taiwan as the first of “four red lines” that “must not be challenged”.

While analysts say it is unlikely that the US will change its position on Taiwan due to Chinese pressure, Trump said this week that the summit’s agenda would include US arms sales to the island, raising questions about the future of a stalled multibillion-dollar arms deal.

The US Congress approved the arms package reportedly worth $14bn earlier this year, but the sale still requires Trump’s final approval.

Xi will use his meetings with Trump to “influence and potentially convince Trump to agree to scale back, if not completely suspend, sales to Taiwan,” William Yang, a Taipei-based analyst at the Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera.

If Trump were to make concessions on weapons sales to Taiwan, he would be breaking with a longstanding policy against consulting with Beijing that dates back to former US President Ronald Reagan.

Cancelling or watering down the deal would be a serious blow to Taiwanese President William Lai Ching-te, who is locked in an intense fight with the opposition over defence spending, Yang said.

“They are hoping to first influence Trump’s decision around this issue and potentially create a situation where it will be much harder for [Lai’s] government to request more special defensive spending in the future,” Yang said.

Restoring the US-China framework

Xi is also eager to smooth over US-China relations after a tumultuous 18 months that saw Trump launch a second trade war with the world’s second-largest economy, according to analysts.

The standoff saw each side roll out escalating tit-for-tat tariffs – briefly sending duties well above 100 percent – and other punitive measures, such as export controls, before Washington and Beijing hit pause in May.

During their last meeting in South Korea in October, Xi and Trump agreed to a one-year reprieve in their trade war, while keeping some trade measures in place, including certain tariffs and export controls.

Over the past month, the US has rolled out several rounds of new sanctions targeting Chinese firms, including refiners accused of buying Iranian oil and companies accused of helping Tehran obtain materials to build drones and missiles.

Earlier this month, Beijing issued a “prohibition order” directing firms to disregard the US sanctions on its oil refineries.

“Beijing wants predictability and certainty for the remainder of Trump’s term through January 2029, because Beijing needs to be able to plan its own economic policies,” Feng Chucheng, a founding partner of Beijing-based Hutong Research advisory, told Al Jazeera.

These policy considerations include understanding tariff levels the US will apply to China and its trade partners, Feng said.

Wang Wen, dean of the school for global leadership at Renmin University in Beijing, said China wishes to return to a relationship based on “peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation”.

“We hope that this meeting will bring the US policy towards China back to these three principles,” Wang told Al Jazeera.

The stakes are high for Beijing, where the view of Trump has shifted from a “predictable transactional counterpart” to a “more action-oriented and harder-to-restrain opponent,” Hung Pu-Chao, deputy executive director of the Center for Mainland China and Regional Development Research at Taiwan’s Tunghai University, told Al Jazeera.

Restoring the US-China relationship to a stable footing is one way to mitigate these risks, Hung said.

Rather than secure concessions, Hung said, China’s priority is “trying to adjust the current strategic position and negotiating pace that are unfavourable to it, and bring US-China interactions back into a framework that it can better control”.

At the summit, Xi is likely to agree to increase purchases of US agricultural exports and Boeing planes, Feng said, and could also back Trump’s plan to create a “Board of Trade” and a “Board of Investment” to oversee US-China economic ties.

But China is unlikely to make compromises on rare earths – a sector it dominates – unless the US makes major political concessions, Feng said.

Calling for dialogue on the war on Iran

The US-Israel war on Iran will loom large over the summit.

Although not a main player in the conflict, China has been hit by the economic fallout of the war and the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of global oil and natural gas supplies usually pass.

Beijing has called for negotiations and a comprehensive ceasefire since the start of the conflict, a message Xi is likely to reiterate in his talks with Trump, according to Jodie Wen, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

“Xi will talk about this issue with Donald Trump and say that we all know that the war has a huge impact on the world, on Asian countries and the US, so we must have dialogue,” Wen told Al Jazeera.

Trump said on Tuesday that he does not need China’s “help” resolving the war, though the White House has pressured Beijing to lean on Iran to reopen the strait.

Xi and his top diplomat, Wang, have met more than a dozen global leaders and high-level officials since the start of the war, playing a behind-the-scenes mediating role.

China has had a “comprehensive strategic partnership” with Iran since 2016, and buys more than 80 percent of its oil.

Wen, the postdoctoral fellow at Tsinghua University, said Xi is unlikely to agree to any involvement except as a mediator, which she described as consistent with China’s longstanding approach to global affairs.

“China’s foreign policy principle is non-intervention,” she said. “This is our principle.”

May 8 (UPI) — President Donald Trump threatened to raise tariffs to “much higher levels” on the European Union if it doesn’t agree to a trade deal by July 4.

“I had a great call with The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. We discussed many topics, including that we are completely united that Iran can never have a Nuclear Weapon. We agreed that a regime that kills its own people cannot control a bomb that can kill millions. I’ve been waiting patiently for the EU to fulfill their side of the Historic Trade Deal we agreed in Turnberry, Scotland, the largest Trade Deal, ever! A promise was made that the EU would deliver their side of the Deal and, as per Agreement, cut their Tariffs to ZERO! I agreed to give her until our Country’s 250th Birthday or, unfortunately, their Tariffs would immediately jump to much higher levels,” the president said Thursday afternoon on Truth Social.

The threat came after The EU has struggled to agree on the terms of the Turnberry Accord, which was for the United States to lower tariffs on EU products and for the EU to remove tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and invest billions in U.S. industries, including energy.

Von Der Leyen said on X that the bloc is still committed to the deal.

“I had a very good call with @POTUS. We discussed the situation in the Middle East and our close coordination with regional partners. We are united that Iran must never possess a nuclear weapon. Recent events have clearly shown that the risks to regional stability and global security are too great.

“We also discussed the EU-U.S. trade deal. We remain fully committed, on both sides, to its implementation. Good progress is being made towards tariff reduction by early July.”

Last week, Trump threatened to raise tariffs on European autos to 25%. It’s unclear if his renewed threat is specifically for vehicles or if it encompasses all EU exports.

Complicating matters is that Trump’s current method of levying tariffs was blocked Thursday by the U.S. Court of International Trade.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the administration’s tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Trump then added a 10% across-the-board tariff and then later upped it to 15%.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in an interview with Politico Thursday that the EU is moving slowly.

“With the tariffs, they’ve at least started a process. They’re working it through,” Greer said. “It’s a pain. I understand it’s slow. We’re not patient. But there are other things where they haven’t even started a process.”

“We’re 95% compliant for nine months … and they’ve been 0% compliant during that time. What am I supposed to do?” he said.

NEW YORK — President Trump’s 10% global tariffs were declared unlawful by a federal trade court in a fresh blow to the administration’s economic agenda, several months after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated earlier levies he’d imposed.

A divided three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan on Thursday granted a request by a group of small businesses and two dozen mostly Democrat-led states to vacate the tariffs. Trump imposed the 10% duties in February under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which had never previously been invoked.

The court for now only immediately blocked the administration from enforcing the tariffs against the two companies that sued and Washington state, making clear that it was not issuing a so-called universal injunction. The panel found that the other states that sued lacked standing because they aren’t direct importers, instead arguing that they were harmed by having to pay higher prices for goods when businesses passed on tariff costs.

It wasn’t immediately clear what the ruling would mean for now for other importers that had been paying the contested levies.

The majority of the panel rejected the administration’s stance that “balance-of-payments deficits” — a key criterion for imposing the Section 122 tariffs — was “a malleable phrase.” They concluded that Trump’s proclamation imposing the levies failed to identify that such deficits existed within the meaning of the 1974 law, instead using “trade and current account deficits to stand in the place.”

The decision is the latest setback for the president’s effort to levy tariffs without input from Congress. Earlier duties — overturned by the Supreme Court on Feb. 20 — were issued under a different law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. In that case, the justices ruled Trump had exceeded his authority, kicking off a legal scramble by importers for almost $170 billion in refunds.

The U.S. Justice Department could challenge the trade court’s latest ruling by taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled against the Trump administration during the last tariff fight.

Section 122 allows presidents to impose duties in situations where the U.S. faces what the law defines as “fundamental international payments problems.” Even before Trump issued the tariffs, economists and policy experts debated whether the president would be able to build a solid legal framework using the statute.

In a proclamation declaring the use of Section 122, Trump said that tariffs were justified because the U.S. runs a “large and serious” trade deficit. He also pointed to the negative net flows of income from investments Americans have overseas and other things that showed the U.S. balance-of-payments relationship with the rest of the world was deteriorating.

Under the law, presidents have the ability to impose tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. on a short-term basis to address concerns about how money is flowing in and out of the country. Those concerns include “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” and an “imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar.”

Unlike other legal options Trump might pursue to impose tariffs, Section 122 can be invoked without waiting for a federal agency to conduct an investigation to determine whether the levies are justifiable. But they can still be challenged in court.

The small businesses and states that sued argued that Section 122 became outdated when the U.S. ditched the gold standard decades ago. They say Trump improperly conflated “balance-of-payments deficits” with U.S. trade deficits in order to justify using the law.

They also allege that Trump’s order announcing the Section 122 tariffs was “riddled with omissions and mischaracterizations” around the meaning of a balance-of-payments deficit. The trade deficit cited by Trump is just one part of calculating the country’s balance of payments position, the states say.

Under Section 122, the president can order import duties of as much as 15%. The executive action can last 150 days, at which point Congress would have to extend it. Trump has said he would aim to increase the rate to 15% from 10%.

The states argue that Trump’s new tariffs violate other requirements in Section 122, including that such duties not be discriminatory in their application. The states argue that Trump’s new tariffs improperly exempt some goods from Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.

According to the complaint, the Trump administration conceded during the previous litigation over his IEEPA tariffs that trade deficits “are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits.”

The clash over Section 122 emerged just as the legal fight over refunds from Trump’s IEEPA tariffs began to heat up. A different judge in the Court of International Trade, U.S. Judge Richard Eaton, is overseeing the massive refund effort and ordered Customs and Border Protection to give him regular updates on a largely automated process the government will use to issue most refunds.

Larson and Tillman write for Bloomberg.

Taiwan has downplayed the impact of new Chinese sanctions targeting European defense companies involved in arms sales to the island. The measures, announced by China, restrict exports of dual use goods to seven firms, marking a rare move against European entities over Taiwan related issues.

Despite the escalation, Taiwan’s Defence Minister Wellington Koo said the sanctions would not disrupt the island’s ability to procure military equipment.

China’s Expanding Use of Sanctions

Beijing has increasingly used economic and trade restrictions to respond to foreign involvement in Taiwan’s defense. While similar sanctions have frequently targeted U.S. arms manufacturers, extending them to European companies signals a broader willingness to pressure multiple partners simultaneously.

The move reflects China’s ongoing effort to isolate Taiwan internationally and deter military cooperation with the island.

Limited European Military Role

Europe’s direct role in arming Taiwan has historically been limited. Major defense exports such as fighter jets have not been supplied for decades due to concerns about damaging relations with China.

However, smaller scale cooperation and component level trade have continued, making these sanctions symbolically significant even if their immediate practical impact is modest.

Diversified Supply Strategy

Taiwan relies heavily on the United States for its defense needs, but it has also worked to diversify procurement channels in recent years. According to Koo, this strategy ensures that disruptions from any single source, including sanctioned European firms, can be mitigated.

Growing support from parts of Central and Eastern Europe, particularly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has also provided Taiwan with additional diplomatic and logistical avenues.

Geopolitical Context

The sanctions come amid heightened global tensions and shifting alliances. China views Taiwan as its own territory and strongly opposes any foreign military assistance to the island.

At the same time, Taiwan’s security concerns have intensified, prompting it to strengthen international partnerships and defense preparedness.

Analysis

China’s decision to target European companies represents an escalation in its economic statecraft, aiming to widen the cost of supporting Taiwan beyond the United States. While the immediate impact on Taiwan’s military capabilities appears limited, the move could have a chilling effect on future European involvement.

Taiwan’s confidence reflects its reliance on U.S. support and its broader diversification strategy. However, repeated sanctions and pressure campaigns could gradually narrow its options, especially if European firms become more risk averse.

For Europe, the sanctions pose a strategic dilemma between economic ties with China and growing political alignment with Taiwan and its partners. For China, they reinforce its stance on sovereignty while testing how far it can push back against international support for Taiwan without triggering broader backlash.

Overall, the episode underscores how economic tools are increasingly being used in geopolitical competition, even when their direct material impact remains limited.

With information from Reuters.

The Jamieson Greer has told Mexican industry leaders that tariffs imposed by Donald Trump will remain in place, even as negotiations to revise the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement intensify ahead of a July review deadline.

The remarks, delivered during meetings in Mexico City, signal a major shift from decades of tariff free trade under USMCA and its predecessor NAFTA.

End of Zero Tariff Era

According to multiple sources, Greer made it clear that the United States does not intend to return to a zero tariff framework.

This marks a fundamental change in North American trade policy, where free trade in autos and parts had been the norm for over 30 years. The introduction of tariffs, including a 25 percent duty on automotive imports, has disrupted deeply integrated supply chains across the region.

Impact on Key Industries

The implications for Mexico are significant:

• More than half of Mexico’s auto and steel exports go to the United States
• Vehicle exports have already declined, with job losses in the auto sector
• Steel and aluminum industries face steep duties, some as high as 50 percent

These pressures have weakened Mexico’s competitive position, especially as the United States has negotiated lower tariffs with other partners.

Shifting Trade Rules

U.S. negotiators are also pushing for stricter rules of origin.

Proposals include requiring 100 percent North American sourcing for key components such as engines and electronics, up from current thresholds of around 75 percent. This would force manufacturers to further regionalize supply chains, potentially increasing costs but aligning with Washington’s goal of boosting domestic production.

Mexico’s Position

The Mexican government, led by Claudia Sheinbaum, is seeking relief from tariffs as part of the USMCA review. Officials aim to secure at least partial reductions, particularly in the auto and steel sectors, before finalizing broader trade revisions.

However, the latest signals from Washington suggest that while some easing may be possible, a full rollback is unlikely.

Why It Matters

This development underscores a broader shift in global trade policy away from pure free trade toward managed trade and economic security.

For Mexico, the stakes are high due to its deep economic integration with the United States. Persistent tariffs could reshape manufacturing patterns, investment decisions, and employment across North America.

What’s Next

Formal negotiations are set to begin in late May, with both sides aiming to resolve key disputes before the July deadline.

Key areas of focus will include:

• Tariff levels on autos and metals
• Rules of origin requirements
• Broader economic security cooperation

The outcome will determine the future structure of North American trade.

Analysis

The U.S. position reflects a strategic recalibration rather than a temporary policy shift. By normalizing tariffs, Washington is prioritizing domestic industry and supply chain control over traditional free trade principles.

For Mexico, this creates a structural challenge. Its export driven model, built on open access to the U.S. market, now faces persistent barriers. While some adjustments may preserve competitiveness, the era of frictionless trade appears to be over.

Ultimately, the negotiations will test whether North America can adapt to a new trade paradigm or whether tensions will deepen within one of the world’s most integrated economic regions.

With information from Reuters.

Published on
15/04/2026 – 11:25 GMT+2

The European Commission on Wednesday imposed anti-dumping duties on glass fibre —a key input for the EU’s renewable industry— produced by Chinese companies operating in Egypt, Bahrain and Thailand.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The move confirms the EU’s push to curb Chinese imports entering the bloc via Belt and Road routes to sidestep tariffs on products officially labelled “made in China.”

Brussels seeks to shield its market from a surge of low-cost imports from the Asian giant, targeting goods it considers heavily subsidized or sold in the EU below production cost in China.

The tariffs on glass fibre from the three countries will range from 11% to 25.4% of the product’s value.

“The investigation confirms the existence of unfair practice, which is an important signal,” Ludovic Piraux, President of Glass Fibre Europe, said.

But he added that the measures adopted “remain insufficient to fully address the predatory strategies pursued through these investments in third countries.”

Job losses loom

China has invested $1 trillion through the Belt and Road initiative – a large-scale infrastructure programme which replaced the former silk road initiative and is aimed at strengthening connectivity, trade and communication across Eurasia, Latin America and Africa. The programme spans more than 150 countries, supporting infrastructure, transport, raw materials extraction and the relocation of industries and state-owned enterprises abroad.

As early as 2010, following an industry complaint, the Commission imposed anti-dumping duties on Chinese glass fibre imports. In the years that followed, Chinese producers established factories in Bahrain and Egypt, from which exports to the EU resumed.

By 2024, glass fibre imports from those countries, along with Thailand, accounted for 24% of the EU market. Egyptian imports alone reached 18%, with Glass Fibre Europe warning the situation could worsen.

This is not the first time the Commission has targeted Chinese products made in third countries under Belt and Road arrangements. It has previously imposed measures on aluminium foil from Thailand and glass fibre produced in Türkiye.

European glass fibre manufacturers have been pushing for action for more than a decade, alongside unions seeking to protect jobs in the sector.

The complaint which lead to Wednesday’s anti-dumping duties was first reported by Euronews in January 2025.

The industry directly employs more than 4,500 workers in the EU and says it supports hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs along the value chain.

Judith Kirton-Darling, General secretary of industriAll Europe, warned that “in the longer term”, the situation could worsen if the EU does not take “a stronger” stance on Chinese dumping.

“It is more than likely that we will face plant closures in Europe which will fundamentally undermine our industry,” she said.