SARAB, India: On Friday ( April 25 ), soldiers in Indian-administered Kashmir blew up the families of two men who police claim were members of a gang that carried out the region’s most deadly attack on civilians in decades. On Tuesday, American security forces launched a massive manhunt for theContinue Reading
According to several market analysts, China’s stockpile of Nvidia H20 artificial intelligence ( AI ) processors is likely to run out in about a year given that the Trump administration has prohibited sales to Chinese customers.
Huawei, a Chinese tech company, therefore, had increase production of its fresh Ascend 910C solution as quickly as possible while other Chinese AI device designers make more effort to avoid a chip shortage in the years to come.
According to several sources, Alibaba, ByteDance, Tencent, and another Chinese companies placed orders for H20 processors for between US$ 12 billion and US$ 16 billion, or even more, in the first quarter of this year. At least one million of the cards apparently arrived before the shipping were stopped.
An unnamed Chinese business executive told Japan’s Nikkei Asia news that the new US punishment “didn’t come as a surprise because it was commonly anticipated across the market.”
Every big Chinese tech firm had prepared H20 stocks in advance. After all, it wasn’t banned at the time, so why not, given its impressive efficiency?
The US has placed a cap on the performance of AI processors that can be exported to China for the next time, and it was then lifted after new, down-to-earth versions turned out to be bestsellers.
The Da Vinci style infrastructure, which was introduced in 2018 as a platform for AI processing and a replacement for Nvidia in data centers, cloud, edge devices, and other programs, is where Huawei’s Ascend collection of AI processors came from. The Ascend 910 computer was introduced the year before.
After the US ordered Taiwan’s TSMC to stop providing Huawei with device casting service, the Ascend 910B was released in 2022. The Nvidia A100, which was released two years earlier, is rated as performing about 20 % below the H100 if it is produced in China by SMIC using non-sanctioned 7nm DUV printing. In 2022, imports of those two Nvidia bits were halted.
Alibaba, Baidu, Tencent, speech recognition provider iFLYTEK, AI application provider SenseTime, regional universities and nationwide facilities, as well as Huawei itself, officially adopt the 910B.
Within the next few weeks, large shipments of the Ascend 910C are anticipated to started. The growth was revealed final August. It is the most cutting-edge Foreign solution to Nvidia, which is already being used by China’s DeepSeek, DeepSeek.
Similar to Nvidia’s cutting-edge Blackwell computer’s structure, the 910C consists of two 910B cards connected in a single package. The 910C performs well on its own, exceeding the H20 and coming close to the H100.
The 910C, which is used in Huawei’s fresh CloudMatrix 394 rack-scale AI data center answer, a complete system that includes 384 Ascend 910C processors, servers, marketing, store, energy management, and cooling, is more impressive.
The CloudMatrix 394″ competes immediately” with Nvidia’s premium GB200 Grace Blackwell Superchip, according to scientist Dylan Patel and his SemiAnalysis colleagues.
With technology at the pedal, networking, optics, and technology layers, Huawei is a technology behind in chips, but its scale-up solution is probably a generation back of Nvidia and AMD’s current products on the market, according to them.
Huawei’s solution uses significantly more electricity than Nvidia’s, but according to the report,” the power imbalances are a relevant but not a limiting factor in China.” Although this is the best thing China can do right now under the current US sanctions, that won’t always be the case.
SemiAnalysis points out that Huawei still relies on imported Samsung for its high-bandwidth memory ( HBM ) and that its AI processors are produced using imported machinery. However, attention is also being paid to those two flaws.
Hyundai Motor Securities, a Korean stockbroker, reports that Chinese DRAM manufacturer CXMT is “targeting deployment in Huawei’s Ascend AI chips within two to three years.”
In addition, China’s semiconductor equipment and materials industry has advanced to the point where, in spite of US sanctions, SMIC and other foundries, as well as CXMT and other Chinese memory chip makers, can upgrade their process technology and increase capacity.
Naura, China’s largest producer of semiconductor production equipment, is now rated by some as being in the top ten on the global scene.
Ascend 910C yields remain low, but they are rising, indicating that SMIC’s production capacity could reach 400, 000 chips per month later this year, according to industry sources. Additionally, Huawei has already revealed that the Ascend 920, which will be made using SMIC’s 6nm process, will be 30 % to 40 % more effective than the 910C.
The US sanctions ‘ failure to enact a ban on China from using AI processors are demonstrated by the 910C production estimate and Ascend 920 specifications. As for Nvidia, if those restrictions are not lifted, it will likely see its once dominating share of the Chinese market disappear.
Follow this writer on , X: @ScottFo83517667
PUBLISHED: 25 Apr 2025 at 16: 05
In the most recent Times Higher Education ( THE ) rankings, the top universities in Thailand saw a drop in rankings, which also highlights how far behind their leading competitors in Singapore and Malaysia.
The positions for Chulalongkorn and Mahidol universities, which were released on Thursday, showed that even though their ratings have decreased compared to last year, they still hold their jobs as the top two primary institutions in the nation.
In the study, Chulalongkorn University ( CU) placed 132nd- the best in Thailand - , down from 117th next month. Mahahidol University ( MU) placed second at 199th overall, down 60 positions from 139th.
The top 200 universities in Thailand, including King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi ( KMUTT), have since dropped into the 201-250 group. Seventeen other countries, including Thailand, placed somewhere between 251 and 600 or lower.
The British-based newspaper categorizes institutions in bands of 50 rather than giving precise positions to those below the 200-position.
Nevertheless, Chulalongkorn received a report of 49.3, while Mahidol received a score of 43.9.
Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University school. ( File image )
Tsinghua University in China, which received a score of 93, barely edging its long-time foe Peking University, which was also the best school in Asia this year, who came in second with a score of 92.9.
According to our research, THE  found that China’s school superiority initiative has contributed to its outstanding and expanding efficiency.
Singapore’s position as the hub of higher learning in Southeast Asia was cemented by the National University of Singapore, which came in third place, and Nanyang Technological University, which came in third.
Malaysia is the only Southeast Asian nation with stronger jobs than Thailand. Six universities in the southeastern neighboring nation are ranked above Thailand, with the University of Malaya and Universiti Teknologi Petronas, which are 43rd and 64th. Chulalongkorn and University Putra Malaysia both held the same place.
Best in Thailand, but…
Based on research, teaching, knowledge exchange, and global perspective measures, THE ranked 853 institutions from 35 countries/territories for 2025.
If there isn’t growth quickly, Donald Trump has threatened to walk away from the Ukraine peace deals. The US will no longer be involved, possibly halting arms shipments and also providing humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, is the inherent danger here.
According to what it is understood that the proposed strategy the Trump team has been developing has involved giving up country, including Crimea, and giving up any chance of joining NATO. Trump has recently stated that he finds Russia much easier to cope with than Ukraine, and the program favors Russia’s new demands.
Which state, in contrast, do US voters believe is closer to their country and which do they consider to be more of a ally?
Americans were questioned on March 17 about whether they believed Russia and Ukraine to be friends or foes in an Economist/YouGov surveys conducted on March 17. Russia was perceived as an enemy by 46 %, compared to 22 % who saw it as an ally. The figures for Ukraine were 26 % ally and 4 % enemy. Trump’s anti-Russia plan seems controversial given these data.
In the meantime, the US Cooperative Election Study information has just been released. A sizable number of researchers are involved in this project, who polled 60, 000 Americans at the time of the last presidential election next year. This big test provides a reliable snapshot of US public opinion.
National perceptions of alternative policies to the Ukraine conflict
According to the review, the following response was included:” As you may know, Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. What should the US do in response to the current situation in Ukraine? Respondents were asked to pick as many of the options as they felt would be able to, with some choosing one or two and people choosing some.
This method teaches that if someone chooses an opportunity, they may not have considered it, be oblivious to it, or don’t think it will work because they did not.
Just 5 % of Americans choose to engage in combat in Ukraine, so it is obvious from the table that they do not need their forces to do so. However, 22 % of respondents to the idea of sending military support staff, 33 % to sending military aid, and 51 % to sending humanitarian aid.
Only 23 % of respondents believed the US should not become involved, which is a crucial point. Americans don’t seem to have little enthusiasm for leaving Ukraine.
This raises the question of whether the US can just withdraw from the conflict as the leader suggested. The Trump presidency may have to deal with these issues, though.
The US has already given Ukraine$ 66.5 billion in aid. Trump’s highly praised negotiation skills would be questioned if the country were to be abdicated, which would indicate that the country’s efforts to reach a peace deal, which had been criticized by 41 % of respondents, had been ineffective.
Republicans in the US Congress were furious with previous president Joe Biden when he withdrew US forces from Afghanistan in 2021 despite the fact that the earlier Trump administration had negotiated the withdrawal agreement.
In light of his earlier statements that he would resolve the conflict in 24 hours, his immediate departure from Ukraine could stifle yet more harsh criticism.
According to the survey’s findings, the chart above indicates that American citizens are not that reluctant to send troops overseas if they approve of the reasons for doing so. They were asked to select as many as five policy options for military deployment overseas.
Once, different respondents chose a number of different options. They are not passionate about using military power to promote democracy or guarantee that the US has a regular supply of fuel, according to the table.
National support for US military deployments worldwide
It also reveals that 38 % support using troops to stop a genocide, and 46 % support using them to defend allies from attack, or as a member of a UN peacekeeping force.
Finally, a majority of people back the idea of destroying a criminal station, which is likely to be influenced by Barack Obama’s administration’s decision to remove Osama Bin Laden from the country in 2011.
There is no disagreement between a general eagerness to employ force in different circumstances and reluctance to do so in Ukraine. All the challenges that a conflict with Russia would necessitate for Americans fighting in Ukraine.
However, due to Trump’s second term, there was a strong desire to support Ukraine, which suggests that if he attempted to leave NATO or pushes forwards a pro-Putin agreement, a sizable portion of American voters would disagree with this and might decide to support him.
The Trump administration’s advantages of high taxes and instructions of the effects of these on the world economy have received widespread criticism. And despite what some Americans might think of as an abandonment of Ukraine, Trump hasn’t shown much sign of concern for those who work abroad.
Paul Whiteley is a professor at the University of Essex’s Department of Government.
This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the text of the content.
despite announcing a peace after a big earthquake in March, the Myanmar junta has continued a deadly martial campaign, including strikes and artillery attack, according to the United Nations and information from a crisis check. The Mar 28 earthquake, the worst natural disaster to strike the poor country in years,Continue Reading
TOKYO – Asia is breathing somewhat easier as Donald Trump confronts the limits of his ability to self-immolate the US economy.
Amid historically free-falling markets and an Oval Office intervention by the CEOs of Walmart, Target and Home Depot, the US president is watering down a tariff policy, including a 145% levy on China, that’s already rocked the global economy.
It’s unclear whether the climbdown, where Trump said this week he would “substantially” pare back tariffs on China in a trade deal, is real or lasting. On Thursday, he blasted China anew on social media for canceling delivery of Boeing-made jets and its role in the continued flow of fentanyl into the US.
But as Trump flinches, it’s clear his inner circle is distressed by how catastrophically the tariff policy is going down with markets. Many are coming to the conclusion that the Trump White House’s standing will never be the same on Wall Street.
Asian leaders are right to smell blood in the water. In the short run, Japan and South Korea can take a beat as Trump World tries to rally fleeing global investors back around the dollar and US Treasuries.
For one thing, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and South Korea’s acting President Han Duck-soo now understand just how badly Trump needs a win, any win, on the trade front. This gives two of North Asia’s biggest economies greater leverage in talks than they had just a week ago.
For another, Xi Jinping now knows that China’s decision to push back instead of bowing to Trump’s threats and demands is paying off spectacularly. So is President Xi’s free-trade charm offensive from East to West as Trump torches friend and foe alike with arbitrary tariffs and bullying rhetoric.
Asian leaders now have scope to take a breath and regroup as Trump’s tariffs — particularly his 145% tax on China — trigger what Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives calls an “Armageddon scenario” for the US.
Recent reports of dissension in Trump’s top ranks shed light on his apparent pivot on “Liberation Day” tariffs. They include clashes between anti-China trade advisor Peter Navarro and US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent spilling out into the open on a near-daily basis.
Yet Trump “blinked” first in his trade war, says economist David Rosenberg, founder of Rosenberg Research. The same goes for Trump backing away from earlier threats to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for not lowering rates as recession risks flash red.
“The blinking that the president is busily doing on trade and Powell has unleashed a follow-through on the short-covering rally,” Rosenberg says.
Trump pivoting first contrasts markedly with what China is saying. As Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun puts it: “China’s attitude towards the tariff war launched by the US is quite clear: We don’t want to fight, but we are not afraid of it. If we fight, we will fight to the end; if we talk, the door is wide open.”
To be sure, Beijing is reportedly considering suspending its 125% tariff on some US imports to limit economic fallout. Bloomberg reported today (April 25) that Beijing may remove additional levies on US-made medical equipment and some industrial chemicals like ethane, as well as waive tariffs on plane leases.
But the last month has shown what it looks like when an unstoppable force like Trump meets an immovable object like Xi’s China. But Trump just demonstrated that his pain threshold for tariffs is Wall Street-dependent.
It was headlines about the many trillions of dollars in stock losses, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon being unhappy and Goldman Sachs talking recession that had the self-proclaimed “Tariff Man” changing his tune.
The only thing falling faster than the US dollar is Trump’s economic approval rating at home. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll puts it at 37% while roughly 75% of American adults worry recession is imminent.
Confidence is likely to fall even more precipitously as American households see their retirement account statements and feel tariffs boosting prices across the board. Market volatility also forced Trump to throttle back on plans to fire Powell, at least for now.
If you’re happy “just because Trump said he isn’t going to fire Powell in an era in which the independence of central banks is going to be called into question by the demands of realpolitik, or because he said something nice about China and tariffs for the nth time as the world starts to divide along geopolitical lines, well clearly you enjoy fairy tales,” says Michael Every, global strategist at Rabobank.
At a business forum this week, veteran investment strategist Jim Paulsen said that “almost every corporate CEO is revising down their outlook. The commentary warnings of the corporate sector have escalated.”
Some titans of finance think many peers are being too dramatic about what damage Trump 2.0 might do in the long run. As C S Venkatakrishnan, CEO of Barclays, tells Bloomberg: “It’s 100 years of dollar strength, so much so that important commodities — gold, oil — are denominated in dollars. I think undoing that will take a long, long time.”
Yet Wedbush’s Ives speaks for many when he says Trump’s tariffs, and the chaos surrounding their implementation, “will go down as the worst US policy mistake” since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which amplified the Great Depression.
China’s Commerce Ministry has been making a similar point, calling the US tariff moves “a mistake on top of a mistake.”
Then, after the US president vowed to ratchet up tariffs again this week, Beijing once again vowed to hold the line.
It has since clashed with Trump by insisting no trade talks are underway, which the US leader has insisted are happening behind the scenes without naming who was involved.
At a forum in Washington sponsored by Semafor this week, Citadel CEO and founder Ken Griffin warned that a Trump reversal might be too little, too late. Before the tariffs, “no brand compared” to US Treasurys, the dollar or the creditworthiness of the biggest economy. That’s now been “eroded” in short order.
“We put that brand at risk,” the billionaire hedge fund manager said. “It can be a lifetime to repair the damage that has been done.”
The financial dust cloud Trump leaves behind could play into Asia’s hands as trade negotiations are expected to heat up in coming weeks amid a 90-day pause on the imposition of his reciprocal tariffs on all global nations.
China now knows, for example, that the bond market can rattle Trump. The recent surge in yields clearly unnerved Trump’s inner circle.
And it put on display the extent to which the US is just as vulnerable as it’s perceived to be strong. Beijing holds some US$760 billion of US Treasuries.
Chinese state media regularly discusses the idea of selling, or scaling back purchases, as a retaliation tool some market watchers believe Beijing quietly did soon after Trump’s reciprocal tariff announcement.
It’s all making Trump desperate to change the narrative with a big trade deal win. The first opportunity on that front is Japan.
Of course, Team Trump is trying to put on a brave face. Asked on Wednesday whether Trump had unilaterally offered to de-escalate trade tensions with China, Treasury head Bessent claimed “not at all.”
“As I’ve said many times, I don’t think either side believes that the current tariff levels are sustainable, so I would not be surprised if they went down in a mutual way,” Bessent said.
One possible takeaway from Bessent’s comments is that they “underscored that the United States is not aiming to decouple from China,” says Thomas Lee, head of research at Fundstrat Global Advisors.
Lee points to Trump’s press secretary claiming there are “ongoing trade discussions with 34 countries and referencing President Trump’s optimistic outlook regarding a potential deal with China.”
Yet the lack of progress with Japan could be a warning sign for the White House.
Last week, Navarro tried to suggest a bilateral Japan deal was imminent. It was his Exhibit A for the argument that Trump’s “90 deals in 90 days” pledge remains operational.
Yet Navarro was left holding only his ego when Tokyo reported that Economic Revitalization Minister Akazawa Ryosei was already back home with no deal in sight.
Seeing Trump caving this week, why wouldn’t Ishiba slow things down even further? This strategy worked well for former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2019. Back then, the late Abe signed a bilateral deal that Trump touted as “phenomenal.”
But, in reality, Japan gave up less on agriculture than it had as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multilateral free trade pact that Trump scrapped. Autos were excluded and everything from pharmaceuticals to financial services was left to a future date.
The end result was negligible in altering US-Japan trade dynamics and “was a poignant reminder of how much President Trump gave away when he turned his back on the TPP,” observed economist Matthew Goodman, who at the time was at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
It’s also a timely reminder of how far Ishiba can get with some flattery and moving slowly. Presumably, Trump’s inner circle is aware that Japan outmaneuvered Trump 1.0, just as China is so far getting the better of Trump 2.0.
But Trump World also knows the illusion of pulling off the “art of the deal” with Japan could be packaged as a badly needed trade war win.
Ishiba’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), after all, faces a tough national election in July. And with approval ratings around 26%, Ishiba can hardly appear to be getting fleeced by a Trump White House with no allies among major economies.
Any perception that Ishiba gave away too much to Trump could usher his LDP out of power a few months from now. Tokyo knows, too, that if they lather Trump with concessions, he’ll likely be back for more in short order.
South Korea’s negotiations could go a similar way. At the moment, Bessent is suggesting that US-Korea talks “may be moving faster than I thought, and we will be talking technical terms as early as next week.”
Perhaps. But just like China and Japan, South Korea has good reason to think its negotiating position is improving as Trump’s global standing and trade war credibility falls by the day.
Follow William Pesek on X at @WilliamPesek
BBC News
Getty ImagesIn the midst of rising trade tensions, Australia’s prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has pledged to invest A$ 1.2 billion ( £580 million ) in a strategic reserve for crucial minerals.
The news came after China imposed trade restrictions on seven rare earth elements, which are essential to the development of cutting-edge solutions like computers, fighter jets, and electric cars.
China’s restrictions apply to all nations, but they were commonly accepted as retribution for US President Donald Trump’s taxes.
Albanese stated that Australia had give priority to vitamins that are essential to both its safety and that of its companions, including rare earths. But had his strategy concern China’s dominance?
A group of 17 components is known as “rare” when they are extremely challenging to harvest and enhance.
Rare earths, such as samarium and terbium, are crucial to the development of cutting-edge technology that will shape the world in the upcoming years, such as electric vehicles and highly developed weapons systems.
Rare planets as well as other crucial minerals, of which Australia is a leading producer, like potassium and chrome, are included in Albanese’s proposed stockpile.
Rare universe resources exist in both China and Australia. However, China has a significant amount of control over source, making 90 % of rare earth processing, which makes them useful in technology.
And European institutions have been spooked by this.
Beijing asserted that its restrictions on unique earths were in response to Trump’s extensive taxes, which are currently 14 % on Chinese exports to the US.
However, according to analysts, Washington’s inability to stable the supply of rare earths has grown to be one of the Trump administration’s main worries, especially as Beijing’s political tensions have gotten worse.
According to the US Geological Survey, between 2019 and 2022, about 75 % of US imports of rare earths came from China.
The US and EU “dropped the game,” according to Philip Kirchlechner, chairman of Iron Ore Research in Perth, Western Australia, as China quickly gained a monopoly over elegance.
He continued,” China has its base on the body vein of the US and European defense methods.”
Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, claimed this week that China’s decision to stop exporting rare earths used in innovative magnets was having an impact on the company’s ability to create humanoid robots, an early example of the problems Beijing has the power to impose on US businesses.
Getty ImagesAccording to Albanese’s proposal, minerals in the reserve may be accessible to both “domestic business and international partners,” with a good research to allies like the US and EU.
However, Kirchlechner continued, saying that the proposal is” never going to solve the problem,” despite praising the move as “long overdue.”
The basic problem is that China will continue to be generally in charge of the refining process of rare earths, yet if Australia stocks more crucial materials.
An excellent example of sodium is certainly a rare world, but it is a crucial metal in the production of solar panels and batteries for electric vehicles. Only a small portion of the country’s sodium is refined and exported, accounting for 33 % of it. The International Energy Agency claims that China refines 57 % of the world’s lithium while mining only 23 % of it.
As part of its Potential Made in Australia initiative, Australia has been making an investment in rare earths to use the nation’s vast mineral deposits to promote the development of a green economy.
The second mixed plant and plant for rare planets in the world was founded last year by Arafura Rare Earths, headquartered in Perth, Western Australia, with funding from A$ 840 million coming in last year. Australia’s second rare earths processing facility, owned by Lynas Rare Earths, opened in Western Australia in November.
However, the nation is anticipated to rely on China for refining until at least 2026, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which has its headquarters in Washington.
Getty ImagesChina has been attempting to capitalize on Trump’s uncertainty.
China’s adviser to Canberra criticized Washington’s strategy to global trade in a number of articles in American newspapers, which Albanese swiftly rejected.
In its discussions with Trump, Australia has praised its reference sector. He imposed a 10 % tax on the importation of the majority of Australia’s items on some crucial vitamins.
However, according to analysts, Albanese’s proposal is primarily intended to shield Australia and its companions from corporate adversaries like China.
Natixis ‘ chief economist for Asia-Pacific, Alicia Garca-Herrero, told the BBC that Albanese’s plan was “more advanced” than previous ideas because it allowed for the sale of Australia’s resources in times of economic pressure.
She added that Australia might start selling more of its nutrient reserves to support lower prices on world markets and release China’s influence over setting prices.
She did point out that Australia is still unable to fully remove China.
There are areas where China could have a strong foothold, and refining is the most crucial step if Australia’s goal is to serve the West, becoming more critical to the West, particularly the US.
Hong Kong and Shanghai both increased by one percent, while Tokyo increased by one percent. Nissan, a struggling Japanese vehicle company, issued a stark income warning on Thursday, which predicted a significant reduction of up to US$ 5.3 billion in the 2024 to 2025 fiscal year. As Nissan stock roseContinue Reading
The official start of massive global tariffs was announced on Donald Trump’s” Liberation Day” on April 2, 2025, cappiling the start of escalating disclosures since his election as president. Amplifying the financial patriotism of his first term, it marks the climax of Trump’s decades-old campaigning for raising taxes and reviving British market.
His most recent press builds on more than 20 years of earlier political attempts to reform trade in a much more aggressive way. Influenced by Project 2025’s section on fair business by longtime adviser Peter Navarro, it calls for quick, uncompromising business action to reduce deficits, lower bill and reshore production.
Similar to how Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has framed taxes as part of a larger financial rebalancing to recover US industrial and economic supremacy.
Though often stated explicitly, Trump aims to crack the supremacy of China’s export-led financial model, with the understanding that there will be some effects for the US economy.
Although his strategy builds on previous attempts to restructure industry, the public’s understanding of Trump’s agenda and perception of how it is carried out are only moderately supported domestically. The bargain carries the dangers of global financial instability, backlash from allies and handing China even more energy on the international stage.
From 1798 to 1913, tariffs covered 50 % to 90 % of income and shielded American industry from foreign competitors. Nevertheless, the US sought to restore allied markets and ward off communism by opening its buyer, professional, and capital markets following World War II. Trade imbalances emerged by the 1970s, but abandoning the gold standard in 1971 let the US printing money more quickly and support the imbalance.
The US was convinced that it could continue to control worldwide industry on its own terms after the Cold War’s close in the first 1990s. It pushed for global tariff cuts and free trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ), while US corporations helped build up foreign manufacturing, particularly in China, which benefited from preferential trade terms under its most-favored-nation trade status. While corporate profits rose and global overproduction was absorbed by American consumers, many American workers were becoming significantly indebted.
These policies added to the anti-globalization movements of the late 1990s, most visibly at the 1999 World Trade Organization ( WTO ) summit in Seattle, prompting a rethink of trade policy. Domesticated companies like steel were crashing out as a result of cheap imports, and former US President George W. Bush reintroduced steel tariffs quickly in 2002 before the WTO ratified them.
The 2008 global financial crisis brought republican calling for economic reform, with the Obama administration pledging to reshore manufacturing work. Obama later distanced himself from the Trans-Pacific Partnership ( TPP ), a free trade agreement, in a move that Hillary Clinton repeated in her 2016 presidential campaign.
Trump’s first-term business plan broke from the previous prudence. He withdrew from the TPP in 2017 and fought with the WTO, favoring punitive motion, and renegotiated NAFTA. He therefore imposed tariffs on important business partners, especially China. The cost of outsourcing had already gotten clear by that time.
With US multinational support, China had gained investment and technology skills to become the “world’s factory”. Beijing became the world’s top exporter and creditor in 2024 thanks to low-tariff access to the US market, which resulted in a$ 300 billion surplus over America in 2024.
President Biden struck a less aggressive develop upon assuming office in January 2021, but he also raised taxes on China. He aimed to address the issue of his trade deficits with the US, which the EU and Japan did, but the US’s commitment to global unity and its role in global affairs attenuated condemnation. Despite lowering tariffs on Europe, Biden yet passed the Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS and Science Act, both criticized by the EU as mercantilist.
Trump’s second-term target has once more targeted allies, but the focus is still on China, with increased tariffs on Beijing and personal tariffs halted on April 9.
Apart from direct exports, Washington also seeks to target China’s role in global business. The limitations of decoupling were exposed by Biden’s force to “nearshore” manufacturing in nations like Mexico, where Chinese companies immediately established themselves in brand-new Latino industrial parks.
Many goods shipped to the US from different countries also contain Chinese elements, meaning Trump’s 10 cent “baseline” tax hike on all imports is meant to counter additional countries serving as conduits for Chinese goods.
In Project 2025, Peter Navarro emphasized the impact of non-tariff barriers like stringent safety standards, customs delays, and local content requirements on US exports. The US uses these, too, and in early February 2025, Trump cited fentanyl smuggling as justification for raising tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada.
Trump’s tariff increases and the resulting supply chain rerouting may prove challenging to reverse even if a more conventional president comes along. Critics question whether this transition can be fast, affordable or effective, but the Covid-19 pandemic proved supply chains can reorient under pressure relatively quickly, just as China showed its agility by setting up operations in Mexico during the 2020s.
A tariff war will nonetheless raise prices for consumers and businesses, ending the era of cheap global goods that the US economy has depended on for decades.
Countries kept close ties to protect consumer access to the market and invested US dollars in American stocks, bonds, and real estate. Uncertainty over Trump’s policies saw a fake tweet about tariffs on April 7 trigger multi-trillion-dollar swings. Pensions, household wealth, and corporate valuations would be impacted by continued stock volatility or declines.
Some argue that if the stock markets crash, money could flow into and lower the price of US treasuries, reducing their prices and allowing the government to refinance long-term bonds with cheaper debt.
However, many traditional US debt holders may want concessions before continuing to finance it. Treasury yields have already risen, making new debt more expensive, and China, the second-largest holder of US debt, is suspected of shedding bonds to help do so.
China has also retaliated by enforcing its own tariffs and recently halting exports of some rare earths and essential minerals that are essential to modern technologies. Its state-backed firms can flood global markets with cheap goods and advanced tech, squeezing out competitors.
Beijing, which is increasingly present in international organizations and trade blocs, could become a more influential force in shaping global economic norms if these organizations and agreements become more fluid and the US steps back.
Trump also wants to devalue the dollar to make US exports more competitive, but insists on keeping the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, which eases access to cheap debt. Even if no obvious alternative has been found yet, his strategy is undermining global confidence in the dollar.
Trump’s pressure on a resistant Federal Reserve to cut interest rates further reflects limited borrowing options and coordination in US financial policy as he embarks on major economic upheaval.
Democrats have largely avoided serious opposition to Trump’s policies because they believe it may be a losing political strategy. Still, some top members like Chuck Schumer and Gavin Newsom have marked early opposition, along with seven GOP senators who recently voted against Trump’s Trade Review Act.
The US business class, which once viewed China as a promising market but now views it as a rival, has some backing for Trump’s policies. No longer limited to cheap goods, Chinese companies like Temu, Shein, and BYD increasingly threaten giants like Amazon and Tesla.
Any success in restoring manufacturing will largely come from automation rather than high-paying positions, which will benefit major US corporations. Still, decades of cooperation with China means that these businesses remain exposed, with major corporate figures expressing public concern and Elon Musk publicly criticizing Peter Navarro’s role in the tariff push.
Trump has since framed tariffs as a source of revenue to offset other taxes in addition to serving as leverage over trading partners. His 2024 campaign called for cutting the corporate tax rate to 15 %, down from 21 %, already lowered from 35 % during his first term.
However, the anticipated economic boom did not materialize before Covid-19 arrived, and his suggestion that personal income tax be replaced with tariff income is unlikely to produce enough money, even in the most optimistic scenario.
And while the US needs to expand production for both domestic use and exports, current capacity falls far short. While tariffs may encourage new habits in businesses and consumers, blanket protection without government initiatives in infrastructure development, skills training, and research and development risks doing more harm than good, leaving the private sector with little guidance.
Compared to Trump’s unpredictable approach, China and the EU have positioned themselves as stable anchors of the global economy. Due to tariffs and strained ties, US demands to coordinate with major economic allies like the EU and Japan to stifle trade with China, including limiting Chinese imports and preventing its companies from establishing themselves risk falling on deaf ears.
A major pillar of global economic stability is also at risk as a result of restricting access to US consumers. The US accounted for roughly 13 % of global import consumption in 2023, acting as a safety valve for global overproduction by absorbing excess goods.
China has pledged to “vigorously boost domestic consumption,” as per the People’s Daily, to help replace American consumers, as it is facing a property crisis, high youth unemployment, and mounting local government debt.
However, its$ 300 billion trade surplus with the US demonstrates how dependent it is and has less room for retaliation. The EU has signaled it will not tolerate a flood of Chinese goods, as it, like the US, increasingly finds itself competing with China in high-end products.
The US has also experienced tariff increases from the EU and Canada. The Trump administration has tested EU unity by courting globalization-skeptic allies like Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, though tensions are likely to deepen before they ease.
The dangers of deindustrialization are being highlighted by Europe’s struggle to maintain support for Ukraine and Russia, a trend that the US is now trying to reverse systematically. And, by targeting allies with tariffs too, the US ensures that any self-inflicted economic pain is matched abroad, making the cost of reshaping trade a shared burden.
A escalating tariff conflict between Canada and China in 2025 is a surefire sign that China’s export-focused model will likely become even more vulnerable. As the US signals a reduced role in safeguarding global maritime trade, already strained by disruptions like Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and rising piracy, geopolitical tensions could disrupt other key routes. Free trade will have to increase shipping and insurance costs without US assistance.
Trump frequently changed tactics in his first term, mixing threats with negotiations. Voices like Kent Lassman’s in Project 2025, calling for a return to free trade, may gain traction if his tariff strategy falters.
But Trump has been warning of trade imbalances since the 1980s, when Japan and West Germany were his main targets. He seems determined to make China the centerpiece of his legacy by focusing on it this time.
Scrapping the old, in his view, unreformable system and embracing whatever follows is based on the belief that the US is best positioned to shape the new system. Which nations will support or be forced to do so at this point?
Whether a complete globalization teardown occurs or not, he appears ready to push as hard as possible within constraints. Dismantling Beijing’s advantages in global trade will not be simple, as evidenced by the fact that a large portion of MAGA’s products still are produced in China.
John P Ruehl is an Australian-American journalist living in Washington, DC and a world affairs correspondent for the Independent Media Institute.
He contributes to a number of foreign affairs publications, and his book,” Budget Superpower: How Russia Challenges the West With an Economy Smaller Than Texas,” was published in December of 2022.
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute, and is republished with kind permission.
WATER TREATY WAS SUPPLYED Since India and Pakistan gained their independence from British rule in 1947, Kashmir has been divided between the two, with both claiming the entire area and governing distinct regions of it. Since 1989, rebel groups have been waging an insurrection in Indian-controlled Kashmir, requesting either Pakistan’sContinue Reading
