Talk:Tariffs in the second Trump administration

incorrect info in the list of country-specific tariffs

In the table in the section "Country-specific tariffs", there's a line indicating "All other nations: 10%", but this is incorrect because a few countries like Russia and North Korea are not targeted by those tariffs (sure, it's because they're already under other sanctions, but this is still incorrect to say they have 10% tariffs imposed on them). I corrected to "most other nations", but I'm afraid this is not very useful to people who'd want to use this table; but at least this is not incorrect.  — The preceding un­signed comment was added by 37.167.199.149 (talk)

Thank you for this information, which I believe to be correct.[1][2] I'm going to look for your edit and see if any adjustments are necessary, maybe via a footnote or parenthetical? 1101 (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Talib1101: I’m not sure the footnote you added is correct. While those countries weren’t included in the “Reciprocal Tariffs” tables the White House posted on Twitter, the actual executive order states that “The additional ad valorem duty on all imports from all trading partners shall start at 10 percent”, later providing exceptions only for Canada and Mexico, not Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, or Russia. “Liberation Day” tables seem to be wrong in another way too; they include Saint Pierre and Miquelon (50%), Réunion (37%), and Norfolk Island (29%), but the executive order states that “the additional ad valorem duty shall increase for trading partners enumerated in Annex I to this order at the rates set forth in Annex I to this order”, and Annex I doesn’t list any of the three territories. Brainiac242 (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. The system is quite confusing. So you say there's a baseline 10% with "reciprocal" (calculated) tariffs added onto that, and that's what the countries in the note are spared? Feel free to revert, or maybe even use the note to clarify something else. 1101 (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Trump said he would impose a 10% baseline tariff on all imports to the United States and higher duties on dozens of countries. Russia, Cuba and North Korea did not appear on the list of countries facing higher 'reciprocal' tariffs, ... I think you're right. They are exempt from the calculated part of the reciprocal tariffs, but not the 10% part, which applies to literally everything? 1101 (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Talib1101: Yeah, I think what’s different for these countries is that, because they are already subject to tariffs higher than the 10% baseline, nothing immediately changes for them. But if their sanctions were lifted, they would still be subject to this 10% tariff. Brainiac242 (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure 10% is the baseline baseline? I think it's the additional baseline, if that makes sense. We can't speculate on what he'd do in a hypothetical speculation. Or, we can but we don't know. I believe he isn't setting the tariffs to 10%, but adding a 10% tariff. It is confusing, though.

As for your thing about "already higher than baseline", well, that's true. But so were some other countries, such as China, right? And he still tariffed them. I do think we should make it clear in the table which countries aren't subject to additional, "reciprocal" (baseline plus calculated) tariffs.

So I'll be adding the note back.[3] 1101 (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Reuters:

• "U.S. customs agents began collecting President Donald Trump's unilateral 10% tariff on all imports from many countries on Saturday" (emphasis mine)
• "President Donald Trump this week unveiled a 10% baseline tariff on all imports to the U.S. and much higher duties on many of the country's biggest trading partners, ... Russia, along with Belarus, Cuba and North Korea ... avoided additional tariffs." (I'm not sure if the additional tariffs refers to the baseline or the baseline plus calculated in this context)

I'm getting contradictory information

• "Imports from Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, and Russia (known as Column Two countries) will continue to be subject to their separate duty rates only." (Sounds like no change, meaning now baseline, which — as I understand it — is an additional baseline, not an absolute set baseline)
• The Hill sayys: "The White House on Thursday defended its decision to not include Russia, North Korea, Cuba or Belarus in the latest round of tariffs (once again, it sounds like they're completely exempt from the Liberation Day tariffs) But then goes on to say "President Trump on Wednesday imposed a 10 percent baseline tax on goods being imported into the U.S.", which doesn't sound like it has exceptions.

Emphasis on "many countries" — not all. But I could still be wrong given how confusing this tariff situation seems to be. I'll be going to bed so maybe someone else can figure it out. 1101 (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, the New York Post is a terrible source, but it claims The Kremlin was among a handful of countries noticeably exempt from Trump’s decision to slap a 10% baseline tariff on all imports to the US, as well as higher duties on some of its biggest global trading partners.

So it's possible that by "reciprocal" tariffs, Reuters used scare-quotes for good reason. The tariffs, though calculated, are at a baseline even with no trade defect. (with trade deficit conflated with retaliatory tariffs?)

So, to be exempted from reciprocal tariffs is also to be exempted from the 10% in the table. (Correct me if I'm wrong). 1101 (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Talib1101: As I understand it, tariffs on imports to the US “shall start at 10 percent”, except for the few exceptions listed on the executive order. This means countries weren’t “imposed” 10% tariffs, but the tariffs they are subject to “are increased” to 10%, regardless of how high they were. Tariffs on some countries were increased to higher levels, because of the United States’ high (as determined by the formula) trade deficit with those countries. Russia, like the United Kingdom, was spared from those higher tariffs but, unlike the UK, it won’t see tariffs increase to 10% because it was already subject to tariffs higher than 10%; they are still subject to this baseline 10% tariff, but it won’t have any practical consequences for them.

I want to emphasize the “As I understand it” part, the system is, indeed, quite confusing. Brainiac242 (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Brainiac242 - Cuba, Russia, Belarus, and North Korea are "column 2" countries and thus exempted by this part of the EO: " (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);". satkara❈talk 14:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Satkara: My mistake. Thank you for the correction. I don’t know how I missed that part. Brainiac242 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Brainiac242 No problem! It's confusing. I'm still wondering why Iran and Syria aren't column 2 countries. satkara❈talk 14:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Satkara: Or why Afghanistan got the baseline 10% tariff when, according to the formula used, they should have got 25%. Or why they listed Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Réunion, and Norfolk Island on the “Liberation Day” tables, but they aren’t included in Annex I. Brainiac242 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Brainiac242 I think you just missed the column 2 exemption but otherwise have it right. Everyone gets at least a 10% tariff, and the annex 1 countries get higher rates, unless they're a column 2 country or the good is excluded. satkara❈talk 16:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

^Are we sure we have it correct that the 10% applies to Cuba, Russia, Belarus, and North Korea?

The EO indicates that the 10% is on top of anything that exists, and that Cuba + Russa + Belarus + North Korea are exempt from the EO entirely:

S2: "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 to this order at the rates set forth in Annex I to this order..."

S3(a): "...Except as otherwise provided in this order, all articles imported into the customs territory of the United States shall be, consistent with law, subject to an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 10 percent...Furthermore, except as otherwise provided in this order, at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 9, 2025, all articles from trading partners enumerated in Annex I to this order imported into the customs territory of the United States shall be, consistent with law, subject to the country-specific ad valorem rates of duty specified in Annex I to this order...

S3(b): "The following goods as set forth in Annex II to this order, consistent with law, shall not be subject to the ad valorem rates of duty under this order:... (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) [i.e. Cuba, Russia, Belarus, North Korea]

S3(c): "The rates of duty established by this order are in addition to any other duties, fees, taxes, exactions, or charges applicable to such imported articles, except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section below [i.e. except for Canada and Mexico]."

(emphases mine)

In other words, it appears to set out two categories of ad valorem duty (i.e. the 10% addition and the country-specific additions), and then specifically exempts Cuba + Russia + Belarus + North Korea from both categories. I admit that the use of "all trading partners" in section 2 sounds sweeping, but perhaps they do not consider Cuba + Russa + Belarus + North Korea to be "trading partners"? In any case, section 3 seems pretty clear, which I think overcomes section 2's vagueness.

I therefore think that it is not correct to say 'All other countries' get the 10%

Disclaimer: I'm not an American lawyer Gfoxwood (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gfoxwood I have the same reading you do, column 2 countries are exempted entirely. It also explains why sanctioned but non-column 2 countries like Syria appear on the list. satkara❈talk 13:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, I'm thinking therefore that the table row should be edited to "All other non-exempt countries and territories". Let me know if you disagree. Gfoxwood (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the 34.45% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber? 2604:3D09:1689:300:D8CE:2866:83DD:9D37 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

This was mentioned by Canadian officials, but I've yet to see anything about it from the White House. There is a section 232 investigation into lumber and my guess is that Canada is just talking about what's obviously coming. satkara❈talk 13:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Error in formula

This story is making the rounds in several RS today.[4] According to a conservative think tank, an incorrect number was used in the tariff formula making every tariff four times higher than that for which the formula was constructed. (Not commenting on the sanity of the formula itself) This is briefly mentioned in the lengthy NYT article cited in the article, but not in the article. If it lasts another day without comment from the administration, likely should be added. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Objective3000 this is what is referred to in the sentence "Brent Neiman said the administration used the wrong variable from his research—leading to results four times too high—and that trade deficits reflect economic fundamentals, not unfair trade" in the section Tariffs in the second Trump administration#Reactions, below formula, but maybe it could be made clearer or more visible? satkara❈talk 20:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this is of rather major significance, particularly given the multi-trillion $ swings we are seeing in the US financial markets alone, and swings in financial markets around the world. The coverage is also heavy in RS today. A factor of four is massive in this case. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Would one of you be able to say if my "plain English" version is acceptable? My goal was to make it legible for a beginning algebra student, say an 8th grader. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@SusanLesch I thought it was a little confusing where the 2 was coming from and tried to clarify. What do you think? satkara❈talk 22:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Good job, thanks. Now the whole section is consistent. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Now the formula and examples here are mathematically correct, but in the original white house press release examples [5] ε was 4 (not -4), and they used * in the formula, which has been corrected here. Should we present the formula as it was first published (accurate), or should we present it like it should have been (good faith)? Markuswestermoen (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Error in formula

This formula:

$\Delta \tau _{i}={\frac {x_{i}-m_{i}}{m_{i}}}\times {\frac {1}{2}}$

Actually yields a negative number, because the US imports are higher than the exports. The whole thing should be multiplied by -1. The issue was disguised with this bit of nonsense

Let ε<0 represent the elasticity of imports[6]

In a source that also chose to put some random asterisks in the equation. In any case, the formula does not reduce to the above It reduces to (-1) multiplied by the above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Article Protection

Should this article be protected? It has experienced some vandalism in the past, would it be safer to protect the page so that vandalism need not be a problem? MrGumballs (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Protection is only necessary when disruption overwhelms other editors and is a constant plague. That doesn't seem to be the case so far. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I've seen some problems occur, but it could be not enough for a protected article status. MrGumballs (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

New section?

I'm thinking about adding a new "summary" or "history" section to sort of and discuss how goals have conflicted and shifted. For now there's no good place to include info like this about how negotiations are going. And the whole situation is pretty confusing to keep up with.

I'm wondering first what to call this section—maybe "history" or "chronology" or "key events" or "evolving negotiations" or another idea.

And second, if it should be in timeline or narrative format. Posting to see if anyone has thoughts! satkara❈talk 03:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I wound up writing "Tariffs in the second Trump administration#Key events and negotiations". satkara❈talk 17:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Propaganda

Would it be fair to say that Trump thinks foreign films are propaganda? He's said "It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!" but in the full post it's not clear whether "it" is referring to the films themselves or the incentives by other countries. I lean towards the former because it makes more sense, but its unclear and the source doesn't mention it. Was gonna add this change but wanna ask yall first. Thanks! GiftedWithThought (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

While it's true that he said it; we really can't include every oddball thing he has said. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Deadline thinks Trump was referring to "foreign productions" but Time, Reuters, and Guardian sidestep by including the whole quote. I think we should either exclude or include the whole quote too. satkara❈talk 22:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)