The USAID revelations exposed one of the ways Democrats continue to enforce their agenda even when out of office: Through taxpayer funded NGOs.
As we’ve learned recently, partly as the result of Department of Government Efficiency digging, many “non-governmental” entities are really just fronts for government activities that Americans would never stand for if Washington attempted them directly.
For example, America’s border crisis was funded in large part by President Joe Biden’s government, which sent large sums of money in the form of grants to various NGOs that helped train migrants on how to get to the United States — and how to claim asylum when they arrived.
NGOs helped the illegal immigrants with expenses on their way, and then provided legal resources and more than $22 billion worth of assistance for them — including cash for cars, home loans and business start-ups — once they got in.
This was US taxpayer money, laundered through “independent” organizations that served to promote goals contrary to US law, but consistent with the policy preferences of the Biden administration.
So if you were wondering who was paying for Biden’s illegal alien invasion: You were.
Under President Trump, this funding halted — and, unsurprisingly, the flow of illegal immigrants did, too.
Likewise, the weird wave of sudden global enthusiasm for “trans rights” and novel ideas about gender turns out to have been largely funded by the US government through USAID grants.
Federally funded NGOs spent millions on everything from a transgender opera in Colombia, to a campaign promoting “being LGBTQ in the Caribbean,” to an LGBTQ community center in Bratislava, Slovakia.
As data expert Jennica Pounds (“DataRepublican” on X) put it, “Over the last few months, we’ve come to a realization that should have landed much harder: NGOs weren’t just adjacent to government.”
They were tools of government, “the parallel government,” Pounds wrote, specifically doing things that Washington bureaucrats knew full well they couldn’t easily do themselves.
The big surprise is that we’re so surprised this has been going on.
The lack of accountability also made NGOs a perfect conduit for funneling money to Washington insiders.
It’s been a profitable cycle: Politicians fund agencies; agencies make grants to NGOs; NGOs hire politicians’ wives and offspring — and sometimes the politicians themselves, once they’ve left office.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), for example, voted to award $14.2 million to Ocean Conservancy since 2008, Fox News reported — and the NGO, in turn, paid his wife, Sandra Whitehouse, and her firm $2.7 million for consulting work.
One hand washes the other, and you’re the one paying for the soap.
No wonder the Washington establishment went crazy when Trump and DOGE started cutting off such funds.
And it was striking to see how many NGOs folded their tents almost immediately when Trump shut down USAID’s sprawling and largely unmonitored grant-making activities.
An NGO that can’t function without government money is anything but “non-governmental.”
This is part of a global pattern.
Most developed countries are, at least nominally, democracies — but pretty much all of them have evolved various techniques for ensuring that the voters know as little as possible about, and have as little influence as possible on, what’s being done with their money.
The bureaucracy — described as far back as the 1930s as a “headless fourth branch of government” subject to no real political control — makes most of the decisions.
Deep, meet State.
Taxpayers’ money is doled out via vast omnibus bills that make scrutiny, much less actual control, of what is being spent nearly impossible.
And then, to make it even more opaque, much of the money flows to NGOs and domestic nonprofits that spend it in obscure and often untraceable ways, so voters have no way of knowing, or ever objecting to, what is happening with their cash.
DOGE’s ongoing federal spending probe has made all this apparent.
But it’s going to take political will to do something about it.
Drastic cuts to federal spending in general is a first step: Republicans now hammering out a budget bill in Congress must hold firm on that promise.
But they must also move to drastically limit — or even outright ban — federal grants to private organizations, and at the very least to require rigorous audits of every grant that’s made.
Indeed.
Every government agency that’s been doling out money this way, via grants to NGOs or “consultants” who somehow make tons of donations to Democrats, needs a forensic audit to determine where the money was going, with indictments where the money was clearly supporting policies that violated federal law or lining political pockets.
China’s foreign trade hit a record high in total value in 2024 as the world’s second-largest economy further consolidated its top position globally in goods trade.
The nation’s total goods imports and exports in yuan reached 43.85 trillion yuan (about 6.1 trillion U.S. dollars) last year, up 5 percent year on year, according to data released Monday by the General Administration of Customs (GAC).
Exports grew 7.1 percent year on year to 25.45 trillion yuan last year, while imports expanded 2.3 percent from one year earlier to 18.39 trillion yuan, the data showed.
I have my doubts.
We looked at the situation just under a year ago, and there hasn’t been any shortage of “China is doomed” videos (many from China Observer) depicting the effects of of deep recessions in many of China’s export sectors since then. Video after video shows closed factories, shuttered storefronts, and people complaining about a lack of jobs.
This one, from a year ago, talks about a drastic decline in Chinese exports:
Here’s a video on how Microsoft is just the latest western company to pull out of China entirely:
Or this video from early December, showing how supply chain companies in Guangzhou are failing from lack of business and vast rows of shops are now closed:
Nor have things improved this year. This video, from two months ago, of a businessman complaining that no one is buying industrial machinery because exports are way down:
Or this video of Shanghai from five days ago, talking about a 90% decline in foreign investment in China and how lots of shops in Shanghai are closing down.
Or another video from five days ago, of Yiwu International Trade City already reeling from Trump’s sanctions:
Somebody, somewhere is lying about the strength of China’s economy and the health of their export sector. Remember, there were already plenty signs of a slowing economy in China before Trump took office. Is China Observer overselling economic difficulties in China? Probably some. Gloom and doom is their stock in trade. You never get any “Everything in China is honky dory!” videos from them (with good reason). But I don’t think they’re making things up from whole cloth.
Everyone know China’s communist rulers manipulate economic figures to their advantage. There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence that they’re falsifying their export statistics to make things look better than they are. I rather strongly suspect that their hand in the trade war poker game they’re having with Trump is much weaker than they let on.
The Trump administration released new guidance late Friday night on its tariff on China, exempting electronic devices such as smartphones and laptops.
The guidance, posted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which oversees collecting taxes on imports, could relieve some anxiety among consumers and tech giants like Apple and Microsoft, which manufacture many of their products in China, The Wall Street Journal reported. Around 20 electronic products — which also include memory cards and machines used to make flatscreens and tablets — will now be exempted from Trump’s massive “reciprocal” tariff on China. The exemption comes after the president increased the tariff on China in recent days in response to China’s retaliatory tariff on U.S. goods.
Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and Homeland Security adviser, wrote on X, “These products are subject to the tariff under the original IEEPA [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] on China of 20 percent.” The IEEPA tariff was the first one Trump imposed on China after taking office in January. The tariff was levied on China, along with Canada and Mexico, in an attempt to “hold” the countries “to their promises of halting illegal immigration and stopping poisonous fentanyl and other drugs from flowing into our country.”
The Trump administration has suggested that the tariff on China will encourage companies, including Big Tech companies, to manufacture their products on U.S. soil, arguing that the move would be better for the economy and national security.
“President Trump has made it clear America cannot rely on China to manufacture critical technologies such as semiconductors, chips, smartphones, and laptops,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Saturday, according to the Wall Street Journal. She added, “Companies are hustling to onshore their manufacturing in the United States as soon as possible.”
Next came word that the pause in semiconductor tariffs will only be a month or two.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Sunday that the administration’s decision Friday night to exempt a range of electronic devices from tariffs implemented earlier this month was only a temporary reprieve, with the secretary announcing that those items would be subject to “semiconductor tariffs” that will likely come in “a month or two.”
“All those products are going to come under semiconductors, and they’re going to have a special focus type of tariff to make sure that those products get reshored. We need to have semiconductors, we need to have chips, and we need to have flat panels* — we need to have these things made in America. We can’t be reliant on Southeast Asia for all of the things that operate for us,” Lutnick told “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl.
He continued, “So what [President Donald Trump’s] doing is he’s saying they’re exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, but they’re included in the semiconductor tariffs, which are coming in probably a month or two. So these are coming soon.”
With all respect to President Trump and Secretary Lutnick, you can’t set up a new fab to manufacture semiconductors in America in two months. In fact, you’d be really hard-pressed to do it in two years. It usually takes a fab about three years to get up and running. Bosch took three years to get their 65nm fab in Dresden up and running, and Samsung broke ground on their Taylor fab in 2022 and it hasn’t entered production yet.
Setting up a semiconductor fabrication plant is much more difficult and time-consuming than setting up just about any other factory.
As I’ve mentioned before, you can’t just take an existing building and turn it into a fab, it has to be specially built from the ground up with exacting standards for cleanroom air filtering, concrete slab level uniformity, etc. You need extremely exacting air purity handling equipment, as well as a system for running de-ionized water throughout the plant. Then you need to purchase, install, bring up and qualify all the hundreds of pieces of semiconductor equipment necessary to run a modern fab. And 2-3 years is probably the lead time to get an ASML EUV stepper, if you’re going to be building a cutting edge fab. (If the goal is to reshore the semiconductor industry, then you probably need to build a lot of less-demanding fabs as well.)
I’m in favor of the Trump Administration using tariffs to bring other countries to the negotiating table to eliminate their tariffs on American goods, and for kicking China out of the global free trade order for repeatedly breaking the rules and just being general asshats. But a two-month difference in tariff implementation dates isn’t going to change the timeline for opening new semiconductor fabrication plants in America.
*Flat panel display manufacturing uses some of the same semiconductor processes to make displays. The technology is less demanding overall, but the substrate sizes are considerably larger. Because the feature size is less demanding, I imagine bring-up and qualification is somewhat quicker, but I’ve never worked on a flat panel display machine, so I have no idea how the lead time varies to obtain and install that equipment.
Ever since Kid Rock announced that he had invited Bill Maher to have dinner with President Trump, I was interested in hearing his perspective on the event, and now we have it.
“12 days ago, I had dinner with President Trump, a dinner that was set up by my friend Kid Rock, because we share a belief that there’s got to be something better than hurling insults from 3,000 miles away.”
“And let me first say that, to all the people whom treated this like it was some kind of summit meeting, you’re ridiculous! Like I was going to sign a treaty or something. I have no power. I’m a comedian.” I think Maher is underselling the importance here. Maher was one of the earliest sufferers of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Like many on the left a decade ago (and, indeed, up through now), Maher seemed to loath Trump on an almost instinctual or class level. Indeed, at lot on the left still exhibit this all-consuming loathing. Even before 2020, Maher was willing to ding the excesses of social justice, but the Flu Manchu lockdowns seemed to accelerate his red pilling, to the point that he now regularly slams the left for even more extreme social justice madness and ever-more pro-censorship policies. Like RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard endorsing Trump, Maher’s dinner invitation is provides a sort of psychic permission to those ever-dwindling numbers of “sane liberals” to abandon their own TDS blinders and take a long, critical look at what social justice-infected liberalism and the Democratic Party have become.
“So okay. So meet up in person. Maybe it’ll be different. Spoiler alert: It was.”
“Before I left for the capital, I had my staff collect and print out this list of almost 60 different insulting epithets that the president has said about me. Things like stupid, dummy, low-life, dummy, sleazebag, sick, sad, stone cold crazy, really a dumb guy, fired like a dog, his show is dead. I brought this to the White House because I wanted him to sign it. Which he did, with good humor.”
“And I know as I say that millions of liberal sphincters just tightened. ‘Oh my God, Bill, are you going to say something nice about him?’ What I’m going to do is report exactly what happened. You decide what you think about it. And if that’s not enough pure Trump hate for you, I don’t give a fuck.”
“So no, I didn’t go MAGA. And to the president’s credit there was no pressure too.”
“After we left the Oval Office, he showed me the little room off the office. You know the one where Clinton used to…OK, the blowjob room. Now it’s the merch room. And and he gave me a bunch of hats, but he didn’t ask me to take a picture in one, which I appreciated.”
“My friend said to me ‘What are you going to wear to the White House?’ I said ‘I don’t know, but I’m not going to dress like Zelensky.'”
“Just for starters, he laughs. I’d never seen him laugh in public, but he does, including at himself. And it’s not fake. Believe me as a comedian of 40 years, I know a fake laugh when I hear it, and I thank you for them.”
“In the Oval Office, he was showing me the portraits of presidents, and he pointed to Reagan and said, in all seriousness, ‘You know, the best thing about him: His hair.’ I said ‘Well, there was also that whole bringing down communism thing,’ waiting for the button next to the Diet Coke button to get pushed and I go through the trap door. But no, he laughed. He got it.” It’s good to hear liberals praising Reagan for ending communism, since they never did it when he was alive.
“At at one point we were walking through his amazing tour of the whole house, and I don’t remember exactly what we were talking about, but it must have been something with the 2020 election, because I know he used the word ‘lost,’ and I distinctly remember saying, ‘Wow I never thought I’d hear you say that.’ He didn’t get mad. He’s much more self-aware than he lets on in public.” Also, I think Trump himself knows how radically more impactful the Trump47 term has been than a second term would have been. (And the 2020 election was still stolen.)
“Look, I get it. It doesn’t matter who he is at a private dinner with a comedian, it matters who he is on the world stage. I’m just taking as a positive that this person exists, because everything I’ve ever not liked about him was, I swear to God, absent at least on this night with this guy.” I suspect that much of what Maher hates (or hated) about Trump (racist, antisemitic, Russian stooge, etc.) were lies created by relentless media campaign of systemic preference falsification.
“Bob, Kid Rock, told me the night before he said ‘If you want to get a word in edgewise, you’re going to have to cut him off, he’ll just go on.’ Not at all. I’ve had so many conversations with prominent people who are much less connected. People who don’t look you in the eye. People who don’t really listen, because they just want to get to their next thing. People whose response to things you say just doesn’t track. None of that with him.”
“And he mostly steered the conversation to ‘What do you think about this?’ I know, your mind is blown. So is mine. There were so many moments when I hit him with a joke, or contradicted something, and no problem.” Why, it’s almost like he’s a master of persuasion and reading a room than the distorted caricature the MSM keeps feeding us.
Trump asked him about the Iran situation and Maher says he should have kept the Obama Iran deal. I disagree. He seems to be taking Iranian declarations at face value, which is always a mistake, and I have a feeling the real driving factor behind the Iran deal and its literal pallets of American cash were to line the pockets of Obama functionaries just as they were exiting the White House. (See also: All those USAID revelations.)
“I told him I thought parts of his plan for Gaza were wacky, but that I had supported him in the idea that Gaza could be Dubai instead of Hell.”
“I told him he was wrong when he tweeted the night before that I was critical of all things Trump. Not true. Check the tapes. Moving Israel’s embassy to Jerusalem: Loved it. The border did need to be controlled. I’m glad the cops are getting their morale back. DEI had gone too far. Biological men shouldn’t be playing women’s sports. Europe should pay for their defense. And, of course, it makes sense that Arab countries should take in Arab refugees.”
There’s a good bit on how he wishes Trump’s public persona could be like the Trump he met in private. But Trump’s rhetorical shit-talking is an integral part of his persuasion/negotiating style (not to mention his tit-for-tat), as well as the whole “seriously, not literally” thing, and he wouldn’t be nearly as effective a President without it.
“So MAGA fans, don’t worry: Your boy gave me nothing. Just hats. Hats and a very generous amount of time, and a willingness to listen and accept me as a possible friend even though I’m not MAGA, which was the point of the dinner.”
“My favorite part of the whole night was we were standing in the blowjob room. And he said ‘You know, I’ve heard from a lot of people who really like that we’re having this dinner. Not all, but a lot.’ And I said. ‘Same. A lot of people told me they loved it but not all.’ And we agreed: The people who don’t even want us to talk, we don’t like you. Don’t talk? As opposed to, what, writing the same editorial for the millionth time, and making 25 hour speeches into the wind? Really? That’s what liberals have? He takes the piss out of everybody else and we can hold ours?”
“OK, that’s my report. You can hate me for it, but I’m not a liar. Trump was gracious and measured. And why he isn’t that in other settings, I don’t know, and I can’t answer. And it’s not my place to answer. I’m just telling you what I saw. And I wasn’t high.”
I think Maher is doing his level best to report honestly and faithfully what happened when he met Trump.
Yes, screaming into the wind is all liberals have, because victimhood identity politics has taken over the Democrat Party. Because Trump is anathema to that, Trump Derangement Syndrome and virtue signaling have become so central to many liberal’s self worth that many would literally rather than die than give them up. (The same thing applies to admitting all the ways they were wrong, and their critics right, when it comes to Flu Manchu.) They have to continue believing the MSM-created caricature of Trump as the racist rapist buffoon because to stop doing so would mean admitting that they were wrong, that they’ve been living a lie for going on a decade, and that they are not, in fact, infinitely smarter and nicer than rednecks with MAGA stickers on their pickup trucks.
As mentioned in yesterday’s LinkSwarm, Trump has offered temporary tariff relief for everyone…except China. China got hit with even higher tariffs. Evidently the only “trade war” that is happening right now is with China…and China is losing.
Behind the global economic chaos provoked by president Trump’s tariff tsunami, there are growing indications of a strategic purpose. It is now conceivable that plunging into, and then retreating from, a generalised trade war was actually a deliberate means to a truly geostrategic end: to thwart China’s ambition to replace the US as the dominant world superpower.
While Trump’s public statements still chiefly concern the need to impose economic measures to correct decades of unfair foreign trade, senior US officials, including Pete Hegseth, defence secretary, and Scott Bessent, treasury secretary, are increasingly taking a more strategic geopolitical line.
In late January, Hegseth told the US armed forces that America would “work with allies and partners to deter aggression in the Indo-Pacific by communist China”. In Panama, he said that Beijing was investing in the region for military and economic advantages. “War with China is certainly not inevitable … But together we must [deter] China’s threats in this hemisphere.”
Bessent has linked recent US tariff tactics with a shared geostrategic pushback against China, stating that “we can probably reach a deal with our allies, and then we can approach China as a group”.
In this light, the suspension of tariff combat for 90 days with most countries, while doubling down on the levies imposed on China, leaves Beijing isolated and in the firing line.
So far, after reciprocal gestures and vowing to “fight to the end”, Beijing has focused mainly on rallying anti-US sentiment across the globe. But India and Australia declined to join forces with China. ASEAN remains caught between opposing powers. The EU, in a quandary over Russia and Ukraine, likewise continues to hedge.
China has long sought to frame the West as a feeble, fragmented anachronism. Is it conceivable that, by unleashing economic fire and fury on friends and then provisionally reining it in, Trump might succeed, where Western multilateral diplomacy failed, in forcibly forging a credible consensus of opposition to the threat of global Chinese hegemony?
One assumes that Washington understands that it cannot prevail over China alone and a substantive US pivot to the Asia Pacific to press home a contest with China is starting to emerge. Trump has already reached out to Japan and South Korea, and US officials have tackled Vietnam. The Philippines, in striking distance of any hostilities over Taiwan, support the US and talk about preparing for war.
Taiwan, South Korea, India, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines: It’s like a greatest hits of nations that have bad blood with China. It’s no wonder they’ve chosen to trade with the world’s biggest economy rather than a historical enemy with designs of territorial expansion.
The developing world now faces a binary choice, and ruthlessly exploited debt and resource dependencies are not a firm basis for loyalty. This remains the case despite decades of nugatory US investment and engagement.
Under Trump’s tariffs, it is too soon to know how far China will be able to maintain the global supply lines on which its aspirations to become the world leader of innovative consumer production depend. Nor will it be easy to develop export markets big enough to compensate for declining sales to the West and its allies. Beijing’s military influence has begun to expand, but remains localised.
Most importantly, the question of Taiwan is now implicit in US language about deterring Chinese aggression. How does Trump’s assault on China’s geostrategic ambitions affect the threat of an imminent blockade, or even a full-scale invasion? The widespread view that an invasion isn’t inevitable now gives little real assurance.
Indeed, with the US taking an active stance, the status quo based on “ambiguity” is gone. Preparations to besiege Taiwan, let alone to invade, would be spotted in time for pre-emptive action.
104% tariffs on China are not enough, I’m advocating 400%. I do business in China, they don’t play by the rules. They’ve been in the WTO for decades. They have never abided by any of the rules they agreed to when they came in for decades. They cheat, they steal, they steal IP, I can’t litigate in their courts. They take product, technology, they steal it, they manufacture it and sell it back here …
I want Xi on an airplane to Washington to level the playing field. This is not about tariffs anymore. Nobody has taken on China yet … As someone who actually does business there, I’ve had enough. I speak for millions of Americans who have IP that have been stolen by the Chinese … the government cheats and steals and FINALLY an administration … that puts up and says “enough!” …
Xi can only stay the supreme leader if people are employed … It’s time to squeeze Chinese heads into the wall NOW!
Or check out this video from Chris Chappell of China Uncensored.
“The CCP wants to defend global trade. But they’re the ones who destroyed it in the first place.”
“The Chinese Communist Party is freaking out about US tariffs. They’ve launched a full-on propaganda blitz, calling the tariffs abuse. And blackmail. And if anyone is an expert on abuse and blackmail, it’s the CCP. The CCP is also claiming to be the defender of global trade. Yes, China is going to safeguard multilateralism and the multilateral trading system. And they totally are! I’m not being sarcastic here. They really are.”
“The CCP is going to fight for the current global trading system. It’s not because they love international cooperation, which is just propaganda BS. It’s because the CCP has spent decades manipulating global trade to their advantage. So there’s no way they’re going to let all that lying and cheating go to waste. Plus, global trade is basically the only thing keeping China’s economy afloat.”
“China is an export economy. That means their economy relies on manufacturing stuff for the rest of the world to buy. Chinese manufacturing exploded after China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. Because China was able to make stuff more cheaply than other countries, consumers around the world benefited from lower prices on Chinese imports. But countries also lost tons of manufacturing jobs to China. The US alone lost more than two million jobs between 1999 and 2011 as a result of Chinese imports.”
“Besides manufacturing, the other big driver of China’s recent economic growth was real estate investment. Which became a problem after China’s real estate market started to collapse in 2020. So, the CCP decided to double down on manufacturing. They pumped billions of dollars into building more factories and exporting more goods to keep China’s economy from crashing. Which did work, but now China is making way more stuff than the rest of the world can buy. That’s called overcapacity.”
“China is making way more batteries, solar panels, and electric vehicles than the rest of the world wants. And because China has so much overcapacity, it also doesn’t import much from other countries. Which means China now has a trade surplus of almost a trillion dollars. That’s more than any country’s trade surplus in the past century, even adjusted for inflation. And China doesn’t show signs of stopping. Its export volume is growing three times as fast as global trade. That’s insane.”
“So what happens when China exports more and more stuff? They have to cut prices to be able to sell it all. Which means other countries lose even more jobs to China. Entire industries shut down. There are now certain products you can only buy from China. And when those are critical things like medical supplies, that gives China massive political and economic leverage on other countries. Remember when China stopped exporting medical goods during the early days of Covid? Yeah, that, but on an even bigger scale.”
“So that’s why the Chinese Communist Party is fighting to maintain the global trading system. They dominate it. And without it, China’s economy would fail. And their political control would crumble.”
“But how did China get here? It’s not just about cheap labor. The CCP has built an entire economic system to dominate global trade. Back when China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, they promised to follow rules to ensure fair trade practices. To be fair to the CCP, something I never thought I’d say, they did make a bunch of economic reforms in order to get into the WTO. But after they joined, they violated the WTO rules repeatedly. They’ve been cheating the system for decades. And largely getting away with it. You see, the WTO rules are set up to prevent government intervention that would artificially distort global trade. But in a communist system, it’s government intervention all the way down.”
He brings up the example of honey producers getting subsidies at every step of production.
“This industrial policy is incredibly effective for the CCP. It’s how the CCP jump-started its entire electric vehicle industry. And they’re now flooding the rest of the world with cheap EVs.”
“Yes, these are all things that other countries do, too. But no one does them on the same scale as the CCP. In 2019, the CCP spent almost $250 billion dollars on its industrial policy. That’s massive.”
“But it’s not just industrial policy. There are also ways China’s entire financial system distorts global trade. Like everything in China, the financial system is political. All banks in China are either state-owned or state-linked, so the CCP controls how they give out loans. Which means state-owned banks give lots of loans to state-owned enterprises, and to other companies the CCP wants to support. And if those companies can’t pay them back? The banks just keep extending the loans. Because it’s better to take the financial risk than to risk getting on the CCP’s bad side.”
“The CCP’s industrial policy and financial system is destroying the global trading system. More countries have stopped relying on the World Trade Organization to stop the CCP’s unfair trade practices. Instead, they’re putting their own tariffs on Chinese goods. Like Europe’s tariffs on China’s EVs. Or President Trump’s tariffs on China’s…everything.”
Then there’s China’s use of transshipping to other countries to get around tariffs and sanctions. “The US has had anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese honey since 2001. So Chinese exporters have tried to get around it with what’s called ‘honey laundering.'”
“So that’s how the CCP’s industrial policy, their financial system, and their export system are all designed to manipulate global trade. They’ve kept China’s economy going, while hurting other countries. Both advanced economies and developing economies are dealing with the fallout. But it’s gotten so bad, that the rest of the world has no choice but to fight back. Not just the US, but also Europe. And as a result, we may be watching the collapse of global free trade. And it’s the CCP’s fault.”
Also, Trump has the upper hand in the fight because China’s factories had already been closing left and right before he took office, due to rising labor costs and dwindling foreign customers. Here’s a China Observer video from 11 months ago speculating that 90% of Chinese factories might have to close.
And that was before Trump’s tariffs.
Trump is going to win his trade showdown with Xi because American has a much stronger economy than China, one that supports vastly higher domestic consumption, and because he holds all the cards.
Are Trump’s tariffs working? Falling stock prices and gloom and doom MSM posts may suggest otherwise, but there’s a growing body of anecdotal evidence that suggests the tariff announcement already has a host of foreign nations eager to make a deal to eliminate tariffs.
So right now, let’s say: Maybe
First up, a whole lot of countries seem eager to strike trade deals with the Trump Administration. “More than 50 countries have reached out to the White House to negotiate on tariffs, Kevin Hassett, the White House’s national economic council director, said on Fox News on Monday.”
The European Union has offered the United States an agreement on the reciprocal lifting of all tariffs on industrial goods, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced on Monday, days before 20% tariffs on EU exports enter into force.
“Europe is always ready for a good deal, so we keep it on the table,” von der Leyen told reporters in Brussels.
The EU remains ready to negotiate a solution despite US President Donald Trump’s tariff decisions, she said, after an exchange with representatives from the steel and metals industries.
The US imposed tariffs of up to 25% on imports of steel, aluminium and related derivative products from the EU and other trading partners in March.
Note that agricultural products weren’t mentioned. I’m guessing that will be a sticking point for the Trump Administration.
Then there’s Vietnam, which says it’s ready to eliminate all tariffs.
Confirming that Trump’s “dealmaking” was about to shine, on Friday Trump posted on his Truth Social account, announced that he had a “very productive” call with the head of the Vietnamese communist party, adding that if Vietnam wants to cut their tariffs to “ZERO”, all they have to do is “make an agreement with the U.S.”…
Fast forward just one day, and we have an example of the first official capitulation by a trading counterparty as Bloomberg reports that Vietnam has offered to remove all tariffs on US imports after Donald Trump announced a 46% levy on the Southeast Asian nation, according to an April 5 letter from Vietnam’s communist party.
The offer was made by party chief To Lam to the US president in a letter that was seen by Bloomberg. In the letter, Lam requested that the US not apply any additional tariffs or fees on Vietnamese goods and asked to postpone the implementation of the tariff announced by Trump last week by at least 45 days after April 9.
The letter confirms comments made by Trump on Friday on his Truth Social network, following a call between the two leaders. Vietnam, which has increasingly become a key manufacturing and export alternative to China, was slapped with one of the highest tariff rates worldwide last Wednesday.
Expect all the companies profiled as the biggest casualties from the Vietnam tariffs to soar, as the market realizes that for all the posturing, Trump’s tariffs were just that: a negotiating chip to minimize trade barriers against the US, which as Vietnam so aptly demonstrated, are now well on their way out.
Also coming to the table: Taiwan.
In addition to the news about Vietnam bending the knee, The Epoch Times’ Jacob Burg reports that Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te on April 6 said his nation would offer zero tariffs and no retaliation as the start of negotiations with the United States while vowing to remove trade barriers.
Lai said Taiwanese companies will also increase their investments in the United States. The comments were made in response to sweeping import tariffs announced by President Donald Trump on April 2. Taiwan has a trade surplus with America and will see a 32 percent tariff on its imports into the United States.
The new tariffs do not, however, affect semiconductors, one of Taiwan’s largest exports.
It’s less than a week since Trump’s announcement, and a whole lot of countries seem extremely eager to make a deal and remove tariffs on American goods. Trump has long been hailed as a master negotiator, and one of his main tactics to to directly threaten one of the most precious things the other side has in order to bring them to the table to make a deal.
As far as retaliatory tariffs from other countries, there’s a lot of muttering, but evidently only China has threatened an immediate 34% tariff, and Trump is threatening another 50% tariff on China on top of the previous ones as a retaliation to the retaliation. Honestly, I don’t think Trump much cares whether China signs up to eliminate tariffs. China was already cheating so many ways on trade, and is obviously America’s greatest strategic rival, that Trump probably wouldn’t mind completely decoupling red China from the American trade system.
A feature, not a bug.
There are enough facets to that last point that it may be worth a separate post…
President Trump announced his tariffs on countries, especially those that tariff goods from the United States.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday imposed sweeping new tariffs on all imported goods and unveiled a detailed list of reciprocal duties targeting more than 60 countries, asserting that the move is necessary to combat trade imbalances and restore U.S. manufacturing.
“This is Liberation Day,” Trump said during a Rose Garden ceremony, holding up a printed chart of countries and their new tariff rates. “For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike.”
The tariffs, which he described as “reciprocal,” fulfill a key campaign pledge and are aimed at pressuring trade partners to lower their own barriers. The administration expects the new rates to remain in place until the U.S. narrows a $1.2 trillion trade imbalance recorded last year.
But the extensive list of tariffs also threatens to upend the U.S. economy, as many — but not all — economists say they amount to taxes on American companies that will be passed down to consumers.
Trump held up a chart while speaking at the White House, showing the United States would charge a 34 percent tax on imports from China, a 20 percent tax on imports from the European Union, 25 percent on South Korea, 24 percent on Japan and 32 percent on Taiwan.
The centerpiece of the announcement is a 10 percent universal baseline tariff on all imports, effective immediately. For instance, Chinese imports are now subject to cascading tariffs of 10, 20 and 34 percent, for a total of 54 percent.
In addition, Trump’s administration imposed country-specific reciprocal tariffs on nations it accuses of unfair trade practices — including India, Vietnam, and the European Union, in adding to China. The rates are calibrated at approximately half the rate those countries impose on U.S. goods.
For example, China, which Trump said charges 67 percent in tariffs on U.S. goods when factoring in non-tariff barriers, will now face a 34 percent reciprocal tariff under the new system, in addition to the 10 percent baseline tariff and the 20 percent tariffs already in effect. Vietnam, assessed at 90 percent, will face a 46 percent tariff; India at 52 percent will now see 26 percent duties; and the EU, which imposes 39 percent, will be met with a 20 percent response, according to the White House chart.
This is a “devil in the details” issue that has a lot of ramifications depending on how the directives are written. But several of those countries are big players in semiconductors, so here’s a quick and dirty look at winners and losers if those tariffs stay in place a significant amount of time.
The main countries here, along with the reciprocal tariffs being applied to them:
Taiwan (32%)
South Korea (25%)
China (34%)
European Union (not a country, but they play one on TV) (20%)
Japan (24%)
Singapore (10%)
Israel (17%)
Save a few smaller, older fabs here and there, that’s pretty much 99% of semiconductor manufacturing, though Vietnam (46%) and the Philippines (17%) do a lot of semiconductor package assembly work, and the tariffs may apply to them, depending on wording.
So let’s look at the business Losers and Winners in the space. (Note: You might find this post useful, as it defines some of the semiconductor industry terms used here.)
Losers
TSMC: As the world’s biggest and most important chip foundry, the Taiwanese tariffs will hit TSMC hard. Their U.S. fab in Arizona isn’t ready for production yet, so all their chips will (theoretically) get hit with tariffs, assuming Trump doesn’t grant them a waiver because they’re already constructing a plant. But if they do go into effect, possibly even more heavily impacted will be:
TSMC customers, including Apple, Nvidia and AMD. All three get their very highest-end, cutting edge, sub-10nm chips fabbed there. For Apple, the M-series and A-series chips made there form the heart of all their Macs and iPhones. Likewise, Nvidia gets its highest end GPU/AI/etc. chips fabbed by TSMC. AMD’s most powerful CPU’s are also fabbed by TSMC, though some lower end chips are made elsewhere (like GlobalFoundries).
Tokyo Electron: Japan’s biggest semiconductor equipment manufacturer assembles pretty much all their equipment in their home country. 24% tariffs may make their equipment uneconomical compared to rivals Applied Materials and LAM Research.
South Korean DRAM manufacturers Samsung and SK Hynix: 25% tariffs will definitely impact sales in a market segment whose overall margins (robust in booms, and barely breaking even during busts) are thinner than others.
Every American electronics company that uses DRAM. Which is pretty much every American electronics company.
Every American AI boom company. Their data center costs are going up, while those of their foreign competitors are not.
Korean flat panel display manufacturers Samsung and LG Semicon, who between them control over 50% of the market.
Every American TV and monitor manufacturer, the vast majority of which have their devices manufactured overseas.
UMC: They’d fallen woefully behind TSMC for foundry work, and they won’t be winning much additional American business now.
Every company trying to build a sub-10nm fab in the U.S., as steppers from Netherlands-based ASML just got more expensive and the competition to obtain them might have increased.
Pretty much every fab in China just got more screwed…but they were pretty screwed (and trailing badly) before.
American fabless chip startups: Their costs for getting chips to market probably increased.
Winners
Applied Materials, LAM Research and KLA Tencor. Buying competing Tokyo Electron equipment just got more expensive, and a bunch of companies now have incentives to build fabs in America.
Intel: Assuming they’ve finally got their process technology sorted out (a big if), they’re well-positioned to take CPU market share from AMD and to grow their under-performing foundry business.
Micron (sort of): As the only American DRAM manufacturer, they can probably earn more per each chip produced domestically. But Micron has a lot of overseas fabs these days, and building new domestic DRAM fabs will take years.
GlobalFoundries: The costs of their global competitors just increased, so they can probably win more business for their domestic foundries…if they have the available wafer starts. But they have a lot of foreign fabs as well.
Samsung‘s US foundry business. Presumably the wafer starts for their Austin and Taylor fabs will see increased demand.
Maybe Texas Instruments, but I’m not sure how much mixed-signal and analog competition they have, and that’s their bread and butter.
Neutral
ASML: Being in the Netherlands and having TSMC as their biggest customer, you figure they’d be hurt, but no. You can’t get EUV steppers from anyone else, and I get the impression they’re building EUV steppers as fast as they possibly can already. Anyone building a cutting-edge fab will just have to pay more to get them.
Tower Semiconductor: Half their foundries are in Israel and half in the U.S., so I figure it’s a wash.
That’s my quick and dirty analysis. Of course, Trump is using tariffs like a battering ram to smash foreign tariffs, and if he’s immediately successful, there probably will only be minor hiccups in the global supply chain. But if not, a whole lot of disruption might lie ahead, and it usually takes a minimum of 3-5 years to bring a new fab online.
In some under-reported news, “Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said Tuesday that the intelligence community maintains its assessment from prior years that Iran is not currently actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, but that open discussion of nuclearization has increased inside the regime.”
“The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003,” Gabbard said in her opening remarks at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.
But, Gabbard added, “In the past year, we have seen an erosion of a decades-long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decision-making apparatus. Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”
Gabbard also said that the full impacts of renewed sanctions on Iran are not yet in effect, but that the “message … is certainly heard.”
The intelligence community’s annual threat assessment, released in conjunction with the hearing, predicts that Iran will continue efforts to threaten U.S. citizens globally and develop networks and conduct operations inside the United States.
It also describes Iran’s military capabilities and proxy armies as an ongoing threat to the U.S. and its allies, despite Israeli successes in degrading those capabilities.
“The IC assesses Iran’s prospects for reconstituting force losses and posing a credible deterrent, particularly to Israeli actions, are dim in the near-term,” the report continues.
Color me skeptical on Iran not developing nukes, for a number of reasons:
The Trump Administration has only been in office a hair over two months, and Tulsi Gabbard, confirmed February 12, a bit less than that, meaning that there has not been enough time for an effective screening and purge of the national security apparatus. I’m sure vast swathes of deadwood left over from the Obama and Biden Administrations, including the careerists still in place from official efforts to sell the infamous Obama Iran deal to a properly skeptical public. As such, their judgment can’t be trusted.
We have no way of knowing just how much Uranium Iran has enriched, or how many enrichment sites Iran actually has, and there’s no reason to believe that same deadwood was terribly motivated under Obama to uncover them, given how desperately he wanted the Iran deal. Given the revelations that continue to come out from DOGE’s deep dive into government finances, it seems only reasonable to assume that untold amounts of that Iran deal cash found its way back into Democratic grandee pockets.
The entire existence of the Islamic Republic of Iran is predicated on the theocratic theories of Ayatollah Khomeini, who hated the United States, Israel and democracy long before the current ideological core of the Democratic Party did. Given its theocratic roots, Iran’s current leaders would have no compunction to lying the officials of any non-Islamic state that dwells in dar al-harb (the house of war), which it considers (along with the Sunni states) to be its enemies.
Moreover, typical Shia Twelver eschatology believes in an apocalyptic Day of Judgment when the 12th (occluded) imam, AKA the Mahdi, will reveal himself and help purify the world. Indeed, one of Khomeini’s honorifics was Na’eb-e Imam (Deputy to the Twelfth Imam). Therefore, there is little reason to believe the mullahs currently running the Islamic Republic of Iran would balk at unleashing nuclear weapons on its enemies, especially if they thought it would bring about the return of the Mahdi. And remember that Iranian catspaw Hamas believes the mere existence of Israel is an affront to God, and that destroying it is their holy duty.
So I would still take any intelligence claims about knowing the precise state of Iran’s nuclear program with several grains of salt.
For all his talk about bringing peace, Donald Trump (in both 45 and 47 incarnations) has proven more than willing to bring the wood when it comes to whacking jihadis that have attacked American interests.
On Thursday, U.S. Central Command forces, in cooperation with Iraqi Intelligence and Security Forces, conducted a precision airstrike in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, that killed Abu Khadijah, according to a statement from CENTCOM.
“As the Emir of ISIS most senior decision-making body, Abu Khadijah maintained responsibility for operations, logistics, and planning conducted by ISIS globally, and directs a significant portion of finance for the groups global organization,” officials said.
After the strike, CENTCOM and Iraqi forces moved to the strike site and found the two dead bodies, both of whom were wearing unexploded “suicide vests” and had multiple weapons, CENTCOM said.
CENTCOM and Iraqi forces were able to identify Abu Khadijah through a DNA match from DNA collected on a previous raid where Abu Khadijah narrowly escaped, officials confirmed.
President Donald Trump on Saturday ordered “decisive and powerful” U.S. airstrikes on Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen and issued a new warning in response to the group’s attacks on shipping in the Red Sea.
The strikes mark the largest U.S. military operation in the Middle East since Trump’s return to the White House for a second term.
Trump warned the Houthis in a social media post that “HELL WILL RAIN DOWN UPON YOU LIKE NOTHING YOU HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE” if they don’t cease their attacks on ships in the Red Sea.
Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.
“To Iran: Support for the Houthi terrorists must end IMMEDIATELY!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. He told the Iranians if they continue to back Houthi attacks on shipping then “America will hold you fully accountable and, we won’t be nice about it!”
The strikes resulted in the initial deaths of at least nine civilians and nine injured in Sanaa, the largest city in Yemen, according to the Houthi-run health ministry.
Residents in Sanaa said the strikes hit a building in a Houthi stronghold. “The explosions were violent and shook the neighborhood like an earthquake. They terrified our women and children,” one of the residents, who gave his name as Abdullah Yahia, told Reuters.
Will this stop the Houthis from attacking shipping? Maybe. For a while. Maybe a longer while if followed up by targeted special forces assassinations of sundry Houthi leaders and their Iranian enablers. But only bankrupting or deposing the Mullah’s regime in Iran will effect a real end to their shenanigans.
Destroying the Assad regime has eliminated that particular Iranian catspaw from backing terrorist activities outside Syria (though at the cost of some continuing low-level genocide within it). Hopefully we can fund elements in Yemen to destroy the Houthis for us without a side-order of slaughtering innocents.