Talk:Tariffs in the second Trump administration/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 8 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). Dasomm (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

---

Tariffs in the second Trump administration → Global trade war (2025–present) – It is global economic conflict like we've never seen before, which began Trump administration with countries around the world. Trump’s tariffs already inflicting serious economic damage. Dasomm (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose as a much less concise title. Departure– (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The proposed title is less words and less characters, whether you count what's inside the parentheses or not. 1101 (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose I think this article has a scope that is different from the current global economic conflict. It's about all tariffs imposed during these four years, not just the ones in April 2025. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 21:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as this is not a global trade war. A global trade war would refer to a lot of countries fighting a lot of other countries economically. This is really just the US vs the world. Timetorockknowlege (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I would still call that a global trade war as financial markets are screwed up around the world and some countries could be in dire straights. But, that is not a !vote for or against this RM. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. The current title is sufficient. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 02:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. The current name is clear. The proposed name leaves many questions unanswered. 1101 (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment — I personally am unconvinced one way or another but I wanted to add some missing context here. Several reputable journals are referring to this event as a "trade war" of some kind.

"Global Trade War" WSJ

"Trump’s Trade War" WSJ

"Trump Trade War" WSJ

"Trade War" NPR

"President Trump's trade war" NPR

"global trade war" CNN

AP Reuters NYT etc.

and many more examples this is all just from a quick search. So I don't think it's fair to dismiss the proposal just on whether we don't like it. Bausen Slaw (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment — I began working on Draft:2025 global trade war. While renaming this article would be shifting its focus and would not be appropriate, an article on the trade war is not a bad idea. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Great, thank you! Dasomm (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - as per other comments regarding the suitability of the title. Calling it a "Global trade war" seems like borderline whitewashing from the cause, especially when the article makes it clear that the cause and rise of the situation are Tariffs in the second Trump administration. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reactions by country

The article seems to be missing content about each country's reaction to the tariff. Perhaps it could be included in the article or on its own page. Syn73 (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Found it. Syn73 (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Someone moved the section to Executive Order 14257 which is ...odd? I feel like these articles are getting confusing (Donald Trump's Liberation Day speech and Executive Order 14257 felt like conveying the same thing) and I need to go to the obscure executive order article to view the countries' reactions. Syn73 (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Syn73 agree, the on-going AFD at liberation day speech seems to have a consensus of moving "Donald Trump's Liberation Day speech" to a new name that would include info on the speech as well as expand on Tariffs in the second Trump administration#"Reciprocal tariff" policy.

I began a discussion on what the new name should be over here. Yes, there really are a lot of articles connected to this topic; I'm skeptical they'll all be maintained well. satkara❈talk 15:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Exempted countries

@Nice4What I undid your edit for now so we can talk it out. Please see this discussion as well. Other users have attempted to add "Belarus, Burkina Faso, Palau, Seychelles, Somalia, and Vatican City" as well, but the executive order does not include an exemption for them.

The two relevant exclusions are:

1. "The additional ad valorem duty on all imports from all trading partners shall start at 10 percent and shortly thereafter, the additional ad valorem duty shall increase for trading partners enumerated in Annex I" -- these are the Annex I countries, ie just the ones with rates above 10%.

2. "(v) all articles from a trading partner subject to the rates set forth in Column 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS);" -- which is just Cuba, Russia, Belarus and North Korea.

The other countries may not have been listed on Trump's board, but according to the EO they would still be impacted by the "duty on all imports from all trading partners" EO.

Do you have a reliable source explaining not just that they weren't included, but how they aren't impacted? satkara❈talk 15:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The two Tariff Posters (3 columns) and the two page document (2 columns)

The two Tariff Posters (3 columns):

• "Posters displaying information on reciprocal tariffs in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, DC, US". The Irish Times. Bloomberg News. April 2, 2025. Archived from the original on 11 April 2025. Retrieved 11 April 2025.
• "In pictures: Trump signs executive order on global tariffs". The Irish Times. 2 April 2025. Archived from the original on April 2, 2025. Retrieved 11 April 2025.

the two-page document (2 columns):

• "ANNEX I" (PDF). The White House. 2025-04-02. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 3, 2025. Retrieved 2025-04-03.

Is there reporting on the third column?

69.181.17.113 (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Should we remove the "Germany" section and just make it part of the wider "EU"?

I do not quite see the reason of "Germany" being separate from the rest of the EU, especially since the section is really small. Also if we were to do a section for every Major EU nation it'd be too long. So my idea is to merge EU nations into the same section as its already done besides from Germany. But this does bring the debate on if we should make a separate article on Country-specific tariffs WITHIN the EU as each EU member reacted and was affected differently from Trump's tariffs. VitoxxMass (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@VitoxxMass I support this! WP:NOTDATABASE means we should shorten or get rid of a lot of the countries. satkara❈talk 13:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Please include more numbers

While "trade deficit" is mentioned, no value is given. Let's have an NPOV and included some reasoning. For example, the US trade deficit with China is about 2 trillion dollars. https://countryeconomy.com/deficit/usa Furthermore, congress has repeatedly shut down the government because of increasing debt, i.e. the debt ceiling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_United_States#List_of_federal_shutdowns What the tariffs are supposed to address is lost in a sea of political opinion. Sad, and what a short memory: perhaps another debt ceiling crisis would help? Nah, the past few didn't seem to wake anyone up.

Perhaps put in the lede that the government has been shut down 10 times over the debt ceiling since 1980, and it will likely be shut down again.

What interest does the US pay for the existing deficit/debt? I need a number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.99.105 (talk • contribs)

No, the trade deficit with China is not $2 trillion. The goods and services gap was about $263 billion last year. Government shutdowns are for political reasons usually unrelated to the US debt. Historically more about efforts to demand abortion legislation or other such issues. Besides, the government is not buying all this stuff. The rates depend on the various treasury auctions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)