Connect with us

Published

on

Tariffs, explained: How they work and why they matter

What are tariffs?

Tariffs are taxes placed on imported goods by a government or a supranational union. Occasionally, tariffs can be applied to exports as well. They generate government revenue and serve as a trade regulation tool, often to shield domestic industries.

Four main categories of tariffs are:

  • Ad valorem tariffs: These are calculated as a percentage of the good’s value. For instance, a 20% tax might be placed on $100 of goods.
  • Specific tariffs: These are fixed fees based on the quantity of goods. For example, there might be a tariff of $5 per imported kilogram of sugar.
  • Compound tariffs: These combine a specific duty and an ad valorem duty applied to the same imported goods. Both tariffs are calculated together to determine the total tax. For example, a country might place a tariff on imported wine at $5 per liter plus 10% of the wine’s value.
  • Mixed tariffs: Mixed tariffs apply either a specific duty or an ad valorem duty, based on predefined conditions. For instance, for imported trucks, a country might charge either $5,000 per vehicle or 15% of the car’s value, whichever is greater.

The objective of such policy is to influence international trade flows, protect domestic industries, and respond to unfair practices by foreign countries. When a tariff is applied to an imported good, it raises its cost, making domestically produced alternatives more lucrative for customers regarding price.

In the US, the Trump administration uses reciprocal tariffs as a key instrument in influencing the trade policies of other countries. Reciprocal tariffs are trade duties a country imposes in retaliation to tariffs or barriers set by another country. This policy seeks to correct trade imbalances and safeguard domestic industries.

Tariffs are generally collected by the customs departments of a country at ports of entry based on the declared value and classification of goods.

Did you know? Some countries use tariff-rate quotas, allowing a set quantity of a product to be imported at a lower tariff. Once the quota is exceeded, a higher tariff kicks in. This system balances domestic protection with access to global markets, especially in sectors like agriculture and textiles.

Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on April 2, 2025, a day he called Liberation Day, citing his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The order placed a minimum 10% tariff on all US imports effective April 5, 2025. Reciprocal tariffs went into effect on April 9, 2025. 

Trump stated that the US would apply reciprocal tariffs at roughly half the rate imposed by other countries. For instance, the US imposed a 34% tariff in response to China’s 67%. A 25% tariff on all automobile imports was also announced.

Breakdown of reciprocal tariffs by country

The Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy is rooted in the belief that the US faced long-standing trade imbalances and unfair treatment by global trading partners. To address this, his administration pushed for what it called reciprocal tariffs, aiming at setting a tariff structure that matched or at least was close to tariffs that foreign nations imposed on American exports.

Under this approach, the administration used tariff policies to pressure countries to lower their trade barriers or renegotiate trade deals. The policy drew support from domestic manufacturers and labor groups for attempting to rebalance trade and support the US industry. But it also sparked criticism from economists and international allies who viewed it as protectionist and destabilizing the prevalent economic system in the world. 

The reciprocal tariffs policy has reshaped US trade relations and marked a departure from decades of multilateral, open global trade policy.

Did you know? Tariffs can reshape supply chains. To avoid high import taxes, companies often relocate manufacturing to countries with favorable trade agreements. This shift doesn’t always benefit consumers, as savings are not always passed down, and logistics become more complex.

The US–China tariff war: A defining economic conflict

The US–China tariff war, which began in 2018 under the first Trump administration, marked a significant shift in global economic relations. The conflict between the world’s two largest economies had broad implications for global supply chains, inflation and geopolitical dynamics.

The trade conflict between the US and China wasn’t just a bilateral spat. It signaled a structural rethinking of trade policy in a multipolar world. The trade war began after the US imposed sweeping tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers by China. 

Over time, the US levied tariffs on more than $360 billion worth of Chinese goods. China retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion of US exports, targeting key sectors like agriculture and manufacturing.

The conflict disrupted major supply chains and raised costs for American businesses and consumers. American farmers were hit hard by retaliatory Chinese tariffs on soybeans, leading the US government to provide billions in subsidies to offset losses.

While the Phase One Agreement in 2020 eased tensions and required China to increase purchases of US goods and enforce intellectual property protections, many tariffs remained in place. The Biden administration retained most of the economic measures imposed by the first Trump administration, signaling bipartisan concern over China’s trade practices.

As of April 10, 2025, Trump had imposed 125% tariffs on China, while for 75 countries, he had paused the imposition of tariffs for 90 days.

Trump regime has imposed harsh tariffs on China

Compared to disputes with allies like the European Union or Canada, the stakes are higher in the US–China conflict, and the consequences are more far-reaching. 

Here are the responses of various governments to Trump’s tariffs:

  • Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney implemented a 25% tariff on US-made cars and trucks.
  • China will impose a 34% tariff on all US imports, effective April 10.
  • The French prime minister described the tariffs as an economic catastrophe.
  • Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni criticized the tariffs as wrong.
  • European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen pledged a unified response and prepared countermeasures.
  • Taiwan’s government denounced the tariffs as unreasonable.

How do tariffs work?

When a tariff is applied — for example, a 30% tax on imported steel — it raises the price of that good for importers. They, in turn, pass these added costs to downstream businesses, which further transfer these costs to consumers.

For importers, tariffs mean higher purchase costs. If a US company imports machinery from abroad and faces a tariff, its total cost increases. This possibly reduces its profit margins or forces it to search for alternatives. Exporters in other countries may suffer if US buyers reduce orders due to higher prices, hurting their competitiveness.

Domestic producers may benefit initially from a high tariff regime. Tariffs can shield them from cheaper foreign competition, allowing them to increase sales and potentially make profits. But if their operations rely on imported components subject to tariffs, their input costs may rise, offsetting gains.

Consumers often bear the brunt. Tariffs can lead to price hikes on everyday goods — from electronics to apparel. In the long term, high tariffs contribute to inflation and reduce purchasing power.

Tariffs also disrupt global supply chains. Many products are assembled using components from multiple countries. High tariffs on one component can cause delays, prompt redesigns, or force companies to relocate manufacturing, increasing complexity and costs.

Overall, while tariffs aim to protect domestic industries, their impact is felt across the economy through altering prices, trade flows and business strategies. One way or another, tariffs influence everyone — from factory owners to workers and everyday shoppers.

Trump excluded various tech products, such as smartphones, chips, computers and certain electronics, from reciprocal tariffs, providing the tech sector with crucial relief from tariff pressure. This step of Trump eased pressure on tech stocks. 

Trump’s tariff announcement on April 2 triggered a sharp sell-off in both equities and Bitcoin (BTC), with BTC plunging 10.5% in a week. Once seen as a non-correlated asset, Bitcoin now trades in sync with tech stocks during macro shocks. According to analysts, institutional investors increasingly treat BTC as a risk-on asset closely tied to policy shifts. While some view Bitcoin as digital gold, recent behavior shows it reacting more like Nasdaq stocks — falling during global uncertainty and rallying on positive sentiment.

Bitcoin vs. tech stocks

Did you know? Tariff exemptions can be highly strategic. Governments may exclude specific industries or companies, allowing them to import goods tariff-free while competitors pay more. This creates an uneven playing field and can spark domestic controversy.

Why do tariffs matter for global markets?

Tariffs are a robust tool in the hands of governments to shape a nation’s economic and trade strategy. They are not merely taxes on imports but a tool that influences domestic production, consumer behavior and global trade relationships.

For the US, tariffs have historically been used to assert economic power on the global stage, protect emerging industries, and respond to unfair trade practices. 

When countries with large economies are involved, tariff decisions can impact global supply chains, shift manufacturing hubs, and alter the price of goods worldwide. Even for the smaller countries, in an interconnected world, tariffs matter because their impact goes far beyond national borders. 

Domestically, tariffs could boost local industries by making foreign goods more expensive. This can create jobs and support economic resilience in the short term. 

Governments getting larger revenue via tariffs will enable them to reduce direct taxes as Trump proposed. But they can also raise prices for consumers, hurt exporters, and trigger retaliation from trade partners.

As geopolitical tensions rise and nations reevaluate their economic dependencies, tariffs have reemerged as a central element of US trade policy. 

Whether used defensively or offensively, they shape the balance between protectionism and global engagement. This makes tariffs a matter not just of economics, but of national strategy and global influence.

Who sets tariff policy in the US?

In the US, tariff policy is shaped by a combination of legislative authority, executive power and administrative enforcement. Various agencies also help in the execution of tariff policy.

Congress holds the constitutional authority to regulate trade and impose tariffs. Over time, Congress has given the president significant power to change tariffs for national security, economic threats or trade violations.

The Office of the US Trade Representative plays a central role in formulating and negotiating US trade policy. It leads trade talks, manages disputes, and recommends tariff actions, often in coordination with the president and Congress.

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for enforcing tariffs at ports of entry. CBP collects duties based on the classification and value of imported goods according to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.

Several major trade laws have shaped tariff policy in the US. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, aimed at protecting US farmers during the Great Depression, led to retaliatory tariffs and worsened global trade. 

Later, the Trade Act of 1974 gave the president tools like Section 301, which was used extensively during the US–China trade war to impose retaliatory tariffs on unfair foreign practices.

Together, these actors and laws form the foundation of US tariff policy.

Criticism of Trump’s tariff policy

Criticism of Trump’s tariff policy surfaced following the announcement of reciprocal tariffs. Critics say this move bypasses Congress and sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive power in economic matters.

Detractors argue that these tariffs hurt American businesses more than their intended foreign targets. A Vox article argued that low-income people would be hit more by Trump’s tariffs than by the already reeling Wall Street. Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers fears that America may slip into recession due to tariffs, probably costing 2 million jobs nationwide.

A critic declares Trump's tariffs  a catastrophe

Legal challenges have also emerged regarding Trump’s tariff policy. The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a conservative legal group, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Simplified, a small business based in Florida that sells planners and sources goods from China. The lawsuit claims that the president overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when imposing tariffs in a non-emergency trade context.

Small and mid-sized businesses, many of which rely on global supply chains, will have to deal with rising import costs due to tariffs. This may lead to inflation and reduced competitiveness of such businesses. 

While the tariffs might hit China financially in the short term, the action could result in higher prices for US consumers and disrupt operations for American firms if the tariff policy continues for a long time.

Continue Reading

Politics

Coinbase crypto lobby urges Congress to back major crypto bill

Published

on

By

Coinbase crypto lobby urges Congress to back major crypto bill

Coinbase crypto lobby urges Congress to back major crypto bill

US House lawmakers have been urged by 65 crypto organizations to pass the CLARITY Act, which would hand most policing of crypto to the CFTC.

Continue Reading

Politics

Reform UK poses ‘very serious threat’ to Labour, Welsh first minister warns

Published

on

By

Reform UK poses 'very serious threat' to Labour, Welsh first minister warns

The threat from Reform in Wales is “very serious”, the country’s Labour leader said as exclusive polling revealed Nigel Farage’s party is the first choice for Welsh voters.

Speaking to Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Welsh First Minister Eluned Morgan said: “We think the threat from Reform is a very serious threat.

“I think it is important people recognise that things that we see every day in our lives in Wales may be snatched away from us, and the kind of stability that we’ve had for a long time.”

Eluned Morgan
Image:
Eluned Morgan spoke to Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

Ms Morgan admitted “we’ve got a lot of work to do to get voters back” ahead of the May 2026 Senedd (Welsh parliament) elections – something backed up by exclusive polling that reveals Reform is beating Welsh Labour, who have been in power in the Senedd since 1999.

A More in Common poll for Sky News found 28% of people in Wales would vote for Reform if an election for the Senedd was called tomorrow.

That was followed closely by nationalist party Plaid Cymru on 26%, Labour with 23%, the Conservatives on 10%, Lib Dems with 7%, the Green Party with 4% and 2% for other parties or independent candidates.

Eluned Morgan said she would never go into a coalition with Reform
Image:
Eluned Morgan said she would never go into a coalition with Reform

Of those who voted for Labour at last year’s general election, less than half (48%) would vote for them again, while 15% would go to Plaid Cymru and 11% to Reform – although 13% were undecided.

A total of 883 people representative of the Welsh population were asked from 18 June to 3 July.

Last month, Mr Farage told an event in the steel town of Port Talbot, he would reopen Welsh coal mines to provide fuel for blast furnaces.

Read more:
Welsh independence will unleash ‘full potential’

Welsh leader hails spending review as ‘big win’

Beth Rigby spoke to Welsh First Minister and Welsh Labour leader Eluned Morgan
Image:
Beth Rigby spoke to Welsh First Minister and Welsh Labour leader Eluned Morgan

Ms Morgan said she will not be “chasing Reform down a path… because those aren’t my values”.

“What we’ll be doing is offering a very clear alternative, which is about bringing communities together,” she said.

“I think it’s really important that we’re authentic and we’re clear with people about what we stand for.

“I think we’ve got to lead with our values so we’re about bringing communities together not dividing them and I do think that’s what reform is interested in is dividing people and people do need to make choices on things like that.”

She admitted “there is a possibility” Reform could be the largest party in the Senedd “and that is really concerning”.

Nigel Farage
Image:
Nigel Farage in Wales

However, she said the way voting in Wales works means it would be “difficult for them to rule by themselves”.

Would she go into coalition with Reform?

“I wouldn’t touch Reform with a barge pole,” she said.

Continue Reading

Politics

‘A threat to national security’: Fears drones could be used to lift inmates out of prisons

Published

on

By

Drones are sending 'overwhelming amounts' of drugs into prisons - and could help inmates escape, report warns

Sophisticated drones sending “overwhelming amounts” of drugs and weapons into prisons represent a threat to national security, according to an annual inspection report by the prisons watchdog.

HMP chief inspector of prisons Charlie Taylor has warned criminal gangs are targeting jails and making huge profits selling contraband to a “vulnerable and bored” prison population.

The watchdog boss reiterated his concerns about drones making regular deliveries to two Category A jails, HMP Long Lartin and HMP Manchester, which hold “the most dangerous men in the country”, including terrorists.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Ex-convict: Prison is ‘birthing bigger criminals’

Mr Taylor said “the police and prison service have in effect ceded the airspace” above these two high-security prisons, which he said was compromising the “safety of staff, prisoners, and ultimately that of the public”.

“The possibility now whereby we’re seeing packages of up to 10kg brought in by serious organised crime means that in some prisons there is now a menu of drugs available,” he said. “Anything from steroids to cannabis, to things like spice and cocaine.”

“Drone technology is moving fast… there is a level of risk that’s posed by drones that I think is different from what we’ve seen in the past,” warned the chief inspector – who also said there’s a “theoretical risk” that a prisoner could escape by being carried out of a jail by a drone.

He urged the prison service to “get a grip” of the issue, stating: “We’d like to see the government, security services, coming together, using technology, using intelligence, so that this risk doesn’t materialise.”

The report highlights disrepair at prisons around the country
Image:
The report highlights disrepair at prisons around the country

The report makes clear that physical security – such as netting, windows and CCTV – is “inadequate” in some jails, including Manchester, with “inexperienced staff” being “manipulated”.

Mr Taylor said there are “basic” measures which could help prevent the use of drones, such as mowing the lawn, “so we don’t get packages disguised as things like astro turf”.

Responding to the report, the Prison Advice and Care Trust (PACT) said: “The ready access to drugs is deeply worrying and is undermining efforts to create places of rehabilitation.”

Mr Taylor’s report found that overcrowding continues to be what he described as a “major issue”, with increasing levels of violence against staff and between prisoners, combined with a lack of purposeful activity.

Some 20% of adult men responding to prisoner surveys said they felt unsafe at the time of the inspection, increasing to 30% in the high security estate.

Andrea Coomber, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “This report is a checklist for all the reasons the government must prioritise reducing prison numbers, urgently.

“Sentencing reform is essential, and sensible steps to reduce the prison population would save lives.”

Read more UK news:
The human impact of the Post Office scandal
Govt to ban ‘appalling’ NDAs that silence victims

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

May: Male prison capacity running at 99%

The report comes after the government pledged to accept most of the recommendations proposed in the independent review of sentencing policy, with the aim of freeing up around 9,500 spaces.

Those measures won’t come into effect until spring 2026.

Prisons Minister Lord Timpson said Mr Taylor’s findings show “the scale of the crisis” the government “inherited”, with “prisons dangerously full, rife with drugs and violence”.

He said: “After just 500 prison places added in 14 years, we’re building 14,000 extra – with 2,400 already delivered – and reforming sentencing to ensure we never run out of space again.

“We’re also investing £40m to bolster security, alongside stepping up cooperation with police to combat drones and stop the contraband which fuels violence behind bars.”

Continue Reading

Trending