LyrArc Article Gist
US Canada relations in a downward spiral after Carney's words about "economic coercion" and China at Davos. In this case it has incensed Luttnick and Bessent. Bessent has called for US to have relations with Alberta. The Liberal Party had run into problems with its attitude towards the US in the western hemisphere under Trudeau. Carney was supposed to fix this but Canada under Carney has sought to stoke Canadian identity as a way to win elections, when throughout  most of its history Canada and particularly after Dominion status has linked its identity to the US. In fact British constitutional expert Ivor Jennings has pointed out that Canada's trade patterns within Canada are an aberration as it would normally trade with its neighbors north to south (Quebec/Ontario with New England) not east to west  (Ontario with Alberta) as it has done when Canada became a separate state in North America. As Carney and DJT engage in tit for tat it remains unlikely that the USMCA will be negotiated and renewed, creating new uncertainty for the Canadian economy that Carney was expected to address with immigration, housing and other problems left behind by Trudeau's Liberals. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
As the August 1 deadline approached first the Japanese and then the Europeans who held out till the end sometimes treating the US with disdain and ridicule, realized that the US was dead serious about tariffs. Even the US business community tended to treat DJT tariffs with disdain not realizing that the tariff battles were first fought against Japan by Deputy USTR Robert Lighthizer under Reagan in the 1980's always to get a fair deal for the US. The recalcitrance of the Europeans and the Japanese can be understood by the non tariff barriers Japan placed on US products and the 10% tariff on US autos the European Union had in place for decades when the US only had a 2.5% tariff on German car imports.  The media in the US and Europe has utterly failed to tell the US side of the story. Here at Lyrarc we remain committed to bring out all the facts so that readers can better understand both sides. Initially the EU adopted an adversarial approach as shown in this report in WSJ by Kim Mackrael and Brian Schwartz. How is it that the Europeans and the Japanese took such a position when since 1980 there was no level playing field for the US on world trade clear for all to see? Not till late May as negotiations dragged on did Japan and the EU take stock of their own positions, DJT having to say US would impose a 50% tariff to get the EU to understand, saying "our discussions with them are going nowhere." In the end in Scotland Leyen and Sefovic for the EU accepted 15% tariff on EU imports to US. Akazawa of Japan had accepted this the week before. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
An excerpt from the hearings on the major questions doctrine and separation of powers with Congress. JUSTICE ROBERTS: Sometime ago you dismissed the applicability of the major questions doctrine, and I -- I want -- want you to explain that a little bit more. I mean, it seems that it might be directly applicable. You have a claimed source in IEEPA that had never before been used to justify tariffs. No one has argued that it does until this -- this particular case. Congress uses tariffs in other provisions but -- but not here. And yet -- and correct me on this if I'm not right about it -- the justification is being used for a power to impose tariffs on any product from any country for -- in any amount for any length of time. That seems like -- I'm not suggesting it's not there, but it does seem like that's major authority, and the basis for the claim seems to be a misfit. So why doesn't it apply again? GENERAL SAUER: Well, we agree that it's a major power, but it's in the context of a statute that is explicitly conferring major powers, that the point of the statute is to confer major powers to address major questions, which are emergencies. So it would be unusual... And another excerpt from the hearings on fentanyl- JUSTICE KAGAN: And, in fact, you know, we've had cases recently which deals with the President's emergency powers, and it turns out we're in emergencies everything all the time about, like, half the world. GENERAL SAUER: Well, this particular emergency is particularly existential, as Executive Order 14257 says, and, of course, no one disputes the existential nature of the fentanyl crisis, which, you know, we had an agreement last week to create progress on, which illustrates the effectiveness of the tariffs tool (this refers to the agrement with China last week by Nov 1 that cuts the 20% tariff from 20% to 10% if China completely cuts off flow of fentanyl from inside its borders.)  Clearly some in the US have not grasped the existential nature of the fentanyl crisis, a crisis of proportions so great that it would be an existential crisis for any nation. A concentration of the world's manufacturing in one nation with a trade surplus of $1 trillion with the world is also an emergency that extends into the existential sphere. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
India faces tariff of 25% with policies of reliance on Russia for arms and oil,  Mexico Canada and South Korea face higher tariffs August 1 2025 as they are holdouts now that UK, Japan, EU, Indonesia, Vietnam have agreements with the US on trade.

LyrArc Article Gist
US and Chinese trade negotators vice premier Lifeng for China and Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary, Jamieson Greer USTR, meet in Switzerland, for talks on tariffs of 145% and 125% on each others goods. An agreement for a 90 day pause is reached. During that pause period tariffs will be 30% by the US, and 10% by China on imported goods. The 30% tariff of the US includes the original 10% tairff on all nations and the 20% tariff for China not doing enough to stop flow of fentanyl  into the US. China says it now recognizes the seriousness of the damage to communities in the US from fentanyl.

LyrArc Article Gist
USC Justices Roberts, Gorsuch and Coney Barrett questioning Solicitor General Sauer, and lawyer for the small business Katyal, on Tariffs by the US president DJT in November 2025. Coney Barrett says the whole thing is a big mess. Treasury Secretary Bessent who watched the proceedings in the Court benches says the issue of fentanyl is one of the reasons for tariffs on China which has played a uncooperative role on this issue of fentanyl sourced by drug trafficking gangs on America's borders. Bessent saying that it is a policy tool when unfriendly powers seek to hurt America. DJT says a SCOTUS ruling against the Tariffs would reduce America to Third World status. Most American themselves are being told by the media interests that the issue of young Americans dying from fentanyl is an issue like many others not that it is the heart of the issue that more Americans have died from fentanyl than the youth of America who died in the Korean, Vietnam and First World Wars combined. The wine import company with 19 employees whose lawyer Katyal filed a petition to SCOTUS is a tiny part of the people harmed by tariffs. It could easily be compensated from the tariffs revenue of $500 billion in 2025-2026 as could other businesses. How does the SCOTUS decide what policy the US is to use. With recalcitrant Asian nations Japan and China the only way is years of negotiations that lead nowhere on world trade. Is SCOTUS responsible or Congress to the American people when the supply chain disruptions caused by concentration of the supply chain in China led to huge price increases making life unaffordable for the low income earners,  including cost of automobiles? Large companies acting on the DJT signals are reducing this concentration in China actively, the trade deficit is coming down, the tariffs revenue is a fund to offset the cost to Americans mostly smaller businesses as large businesses increased their margins in 2022-2024 pricing moves so that today only about 30% of the tariff cost is borne by the average Americans, the rest by large businesses and some of it by exporters in China and Japan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
 President Trump says China is backing off in negotiations to address U.S. demands for a fair relationship on trade. He says the U.S. will increase tariffs from 10% imposed in September 2018 to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods starting May 10, 2019. China has put tariffs of 10% on $60 billion of American goods exported to China responding to the American tariffs in last September.  The U.S. says since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001 with the approval of president Clinton it has unfairly benefited in trade with the U.S., leading to closure of factories and loss of jobs in the U.S. with state subsidized Chinese exports to the U.S. contrary to the spirit of the WTO and its rules. China has made promises to correct this and not kept them says the U.S. side in negotiations led by Robert Lighthizer. The tariffs moves are a tactic of president Trump to get China to relent and make fundamental changes in the way it exports to the U.S.  So far the Chinese response has been tit for tat. But this can change. As this report points out what is already known that China benefits far more and exports far more to the U.S. than the U.S. does to China. The $60 billion of American goods exports on which China placed tariffs represent two fifths of China's imports from U.S. With smaller exports from the U.S. to China, China has not much leverage in trade negotiations in this kind of tit for tat retaliation. It hurts China's exporters and economy much more than it does U.S. consumers. The increase in prices for U.S. consumers are also not expected to be significant, according to this report in the NYT, if China increase tariffs further. Aware of this and China's belief that past administrations have not responded is a guide to what the Trump administration can or will do, has convinced president Trump that there is no other way to get a fair trading relationship that respects U.S. interests, its jobs and workers. As Robert Lighthizer who leads the U.S. negotiating team faced this type of response from the Japanese when he negotiated with them (shoving off U.S. demands to reduce Japan's trade surplus in the eighties before accepting them), the U.S. thinks this strategy will work again. In any case it sees no alternatives to achieve its goal of a fair and balanced trading relationship. The U.S. international trade deficit in goods was up to $891 billion in February 2019 even after the tariffs on Chinese goods in September, showing that it will take a lot more to turn this as well as other trading relationships around.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Some companies have raised prices by 5% on footwear and clothing. Out of the total tariffs of about $50 billion in the first half, the Census department numbers show that about $22 billion is from machinery and electronic, about $12 billion from automobiles and about $12 billion from items such as clothing, footwear.  The major manufacturers in Japan, South Korea and Europe of automobiles and electronics, machinery, make up $34 billion out of the $50 billion in tariffs. To maintain US market access  these large companies are absorbing most of the tariffs. It is only in clothing and footwear making up $12 billion that some of the tariff related price increases will be seen.  Overall this impact could be 5% of $12 billion or $600 million. The DJT administration will find ways to offset this for American buyers in 2025-2026 similar to the deduction of auto lease interest costs in the One Big Act 2025 to cut automobile expenses, using the new $100 billion Customs revenue.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
There is a two week period before the 25% tariff on steel coming into the U.S. goes into effect. This gives time for Canada, Mexico, the EU, Japan and other countries to come up with offers to negotiate or as with the EU come up with its own plan to put tariffs on some American goods. An exemption for Canada is supported by the United Steel Workers Union, as many American companies make steel across the borders. Canada sends the most steel and aluminium to the U.S. With the departure of Gary Cohn as economic advisor, Mr. Lighthizer, the U.S. Trade Representative who pushed for the tariff plan becomes a trusted advisor to the President. Lighthizer is to be seen in Lyrarc pages as having consistently supported fair trade and protecting U.S. workers in these situations since his work in the Reagan administration. The other advisors who are ascendent are Peter Navarro, a trade expert, and Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Secretary. Ross is an experienced business veteran in consolidation of steel and auto parts companies, who pushed for a moderate position to renegotiate NAFTA and convinced president Trump to pursue renegotiation instead of rejecting NAFTA following calls from president Nieto of Mexico and Trudeau of Canada. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Nathaniel Taplin of the WSJ says the tariffs put on $50 billion high tech products by the U.S. and retaliatory tariffs on $50 billion products are not about a trade war but a way both countries will negotiate setting out their two positions.  A look at the role of foreign firms in China shows China has access to new technology using these firms as a conduit and these firms are also generating more jobs, being highly productive. These firms Taplin says will set back their investments if no agreement is reached or if it is harder to bring Chinese made products into the U.S. At this time China badly needs this investment and technology access because of their dynamism compared to inefficient state run firms as it struggles under a massive debt load with very high debt to GDP ratio.  A major issue is job growth as companies getting foreign investment are much more effective in jobs generation, delivering 10% of all urban job growth from 2007 to 2016, using just 5.5% of total investment. Return on assets at 9% compares to 4% at state run firms. If this dynamism is reduced or affected in some way China could have to provide more unproductive debt buildup stimulus.  For these reasons China has good reason to make concessions, says Taplin. Trump administration will ask for greater semiconductor purchases, much looser joint venture or foreign ownership requirements, higher Chinese payment for U.S. intellectual property. For all these reasons this is not about a trade war but about serious negotiations taking place so that there is a level playing field in the next phase of competition in high tech between the U.S., China and the E.U. changing the dynamics of the trade relationship in ways that reverse the trends of the past. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Indian exports to US drop from $8.8 to $5.5 billion May to September drop of 37%. A trade agreement is likely and should be similar to Japan's or EU where with Japan it is now 15% and with EU it is 10%, both key allies of the US. India is also a key ally in Asia requiring the DJT administration -once it gets over Modi-DJT differences on the nuclear aspect of the India-Pakistan 48 hour conflict in 2025, and India reverts to getting oil and energy from non Russian sources as it did in 2019, and issues of agricultural exports to India- to drop this tariff of additional 25% for Russian oil and drop the basic tariff of 25% to 15% as the US did with Japan. At 15% Japan and India will still be able to compete with China's 47% (dropped from 57%) to export to the US.  The result can be positive for India as it improves it's cost effectiveness to export to the US and EU, with rapid investment to improve logistics, and streamlining import of technologies and machinery to rapidly cut costs of production. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
10% tariff on Canada's exports to the US after Ontario Reagan ad misrepresenting trade facts is aired on television. The ad seeks to show US tariffs in the light of the Smoot Hawley tariffs of the 1930's, when the tariffs today date back to Reagan's use of tariffs when Asian partners (at that time Japan in the 1980's) followed unfair trade practices to the detriment of American workers and industry. The US Trade Representative who acted for Reagan was Lighthizer, the same USTR who worked for DJT in the first term to fight the unfair trading practices of China, and whose deputy USTR Jamieson is now the USTR in DJT second term negotiating with Asian partners. Tariffs ae being used as an additional tookl in the toolbox by DJT and Lighthizer/Jamieson to counter the unfair trading practices of other nations, which includes partners of the US such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and EU. It also includes nations such as Switzerland who ignored US interests in trade whie having open access to the US market. Most of these nations know that these practices harmful to world trade exist, only Canada, China and some other countries have pretended they do not exist and they are the so called "champions of free trade." These nations attempt to make DJT appear to be doing this on whim when this is an issue in trade relations between the US and Asian partners, the EU, and Canada/Mexico for the last 50 years. DJT pointed this out- “The sole purpose of this FRAUD was Canada’s hope that the United States Supreme Court will come to their “rescue” on Tariffs that they have used for years to hurt the United States,” Mr. Trump said in a social media post Saturday afternoon. “Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act, I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Rollback of food tariffs on beef coffee and other agricultural goods by the US November 2025 to address cost of living concerns.

LyrArc Article Gist
Does a 10% reduction in tariffs on China with the October 30 2025 agreement- made in Busan South Korea at APEC meetings- make a difference for companies relocating from China? It only does for smaller companies who are stuck with Chinese sources. Larger American companies prefer to diversify their supply chain and continue to relocate part of their factories to Vietnam, India and other countries knowing that the tariffs game will end up with allies EU, Japan and India in the 10-15% tariff range as a concession to US for putting up with trade disadvantages and job losses 2000-2025. China's will still be at 47% in comparison and the fentanyl issue causing serious questions to be asked by the American people which have not been grasped in China or even in the US by companies and politicians.   Does it affect the urgency and general shift out of China? The fentanyl issue is unlikely to change and it is likely to do lasting damage to China's credibility to a degree that it not clearly understood in China, and even not fully grasped even in the US today because of the sheer size of the number dead- more young Americans dead from fentanyl than in the Korean, Vietnam and First World Wars combined. Other issues are technology that has been transferred without a proper assessment of the importance to national security, the need to shift the manufacturing base back home that US industries have inadvertently and carelessly shifted to China in the disastrous Bush and Obama years 2000-2016, and for the jobs, the wages, and cost of living concerns when supply chains are outside one's control. This article asks the question about tariffs on India and Brazil as being contradictory and showing a lack of consistency in tariffs. India is compared to China with India facing a 50% tariff because of Russian oil purchases, and Brazil a 100% tariff related to treatment of former president Bolsonaro even though US has a trade surplus with Brazil. One expects that at some point India and the US will come to an agreement that lowers the tariffs in a way that was done with the European Union to bring it closer to 10%. China's tariff to be sure is still around 47% dropping from 57% a concession for rare earths and for the upcoming elections and economic concerns not because of policy intent which has not changed on  strong action for fentanyl which is also part of the Appeal to the People in the DJT base.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. strategy has shifted to keeping tariffs on Chinese imports intact as an enforcement mechanism to make sure China keeps to its commitments made in negotiations, says WSJ. U.S. trade negotiator Mr. Lighthizer sees the latest tariffs as leverage, and that tariffs would be removed only when China keeps its commitments made to the U.S. Initially Lighthizer opposed the move for additional tariffs imposed on September 1. Now he accepts the strategy to use tariffs as leverage. Mr. Trump told the Economic Club of New York that if no deal is reached in phase one then the U.S. will "substantially raise those tariffs, they are going to be raised very substantially." Because China is seen as not willing to provide written commitments with enforcement provisions the U.S. strategy has shifted to making the tariff removal an enforcement mechanism. President Trump has committed on the campaign trail to correct misalignment in trade with China. He makes the final decision in negotiations and use his negotiating style.  China sees making commitments on stopping all subsidies as affecting its sovereignty and its industrial model of state sponsored capitalism since opening in the 1990's to trade with the world. Both sides are looking for ways to gain the maximum concessions in Phase 1 of the trade deal as it is very uncertain whether any further progress can be made given the positions on each side, say experts. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Swiss dairy farmers cutting cheese production by 5-10% to tackle temporary US tariff rate of 39%.  Gruyere and Emmentaler cheese to US make up 13% of Swiss cheese exports. Swiss dairy farmers are looking for markets in Asia and waiting for trade negotiations to bring tariffs down so that they can bounce back. The cow is sacred in Swiss Alpine country because of its role in cheese and mil chocolate production for overseas markets. Switzerland's cheese exports are $830 million in 2024 compared to about $7 billion for Germany, $6 billion for Netherlands, $5 billion for Italy and $4 billion for France, and $2.5 billion for the US. Overall Switzerland is a small exporter for a country the size of Virginia. Much of the extra milk production from a bumper harvest in 2025 can be converted into baby milk powder  and exported to China and India. In trade negotiations the Swiss became complacent even condescending and took the US market for granted. This will now change as the Swiss now have time for some soul searching on how best to negotiate a deal that respects the interests of both nations. ...