By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Trump’s new tariffs will not affect Cuba, Belarus, North Korea, and Russia, as these nations already face significant trade restrictions and high tariffs. Existing sanctions largely preclude substantial trade with these countries. In contrast, a 10% tariff will be implemented on Ukrainian goods. This targeted approach highlights the selective nature of the new tariff policy.
Read the original article here
The White House’s recent announcement regarding new tariffs has sparked considerable controversy, particularly concerning the exemption granted to Russia and North Korea. The lack of tariffs on these nations, despite significant trade deficits with the U.S. and their openly hostile stances towards America, raises serious questions. This inconsistency stands in stark contrast to the tariffs imposed on other countries, including those with far smaller trade relationships. For example, Botswana, with a significantly smaller trade deficit compared to Russia, faced new tariffs, highlighting the puzzling nature of the exceptions made for Russia and North Korea.
The claim that the exemption is due to a lack of substantial trade with Russia and North Korea seems unconvincing given the substantial trade volume reported. In 2024, the U.S. engaged in billions of dollars’ worth of trade with Russia, creating a sizeable trade deficit. Simultaneously, sanctions against Russian individuals were lifted, further fueling speculation regarding the true motives behind these decisions. This raises the suspicion that other factors, unrelated to trade volume, are at play.
The exemption of Russian fertilizer from tariffs adds another layer to this perplexing situation. While tariffs were placed on Canadian fertilizer, the U.S. continues to import Russian fertilizer without any restrictions. This action directly undermines American farmers who might otherwise source their fertilizer from allied nations. The apparent prioritization of Russian interests over those of America’s allies is a significant point of concern.
The comparison with Venezuela further complicates the narrative. Venezuela, despite facing sanctions, was still subjected to new tariffs, suggesting that the presence or absence of sanctions is not the determining factor in the application of these tariffs. This inconsistency undermines any argument suggesting that the exemption of Russia and North Korea is based solely on existing sanctions.
The assertion that the decision is driven by a deliberate attempt to weaken America and foster dependence on adversarial nations resonates with many. The situation feels like a calculated move to undermine U.S. economic and political strength, potentially benefiting countries hostile to American interests. The fact that the U.S. shows itself to be prioritizing Russia while harming trade relationships with Canada, a trusted ally, is a major cause for concern.
The overall lack of transparency surrounding these decisions fuels distrust. The White House’s explanations, perceived by many as inadequate and contradictory, have only deepened the sense of confusion and outrage. The apparent inconsistency between the stated reasons and the actual actions taken suggests an underlying motive that remains unexplained, leading many to suspect a deeper, more problematic issue at play. The seemingly arbitrary nature of the tariff application – with some small, remote islands facing tariffs while major adversaries do not – further undermines the credibility of the official explanation.
The timing of these events and simultaneous actions, such as the lifting of sanctions on a Russian oligarch’s wife, further casts doubt on the official rationale. The lack of a coherent, consistent policy raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest and the influence of external forces on decision-making processes. The implication that the actions benefit certain adversarial nations over the interests of the United States itself cannot be ignored.
Ultimately, the exemption of Russia and North Korea from the new tariffs raises more questions than it answers. The lack of transparency, the inconsistencies in policy application, and the implications for U.S. national security and economic interests are deeply troubling. The situation calls for greater accountability and a more comprehensive explanation from the White House to restore public confidence and address the serious concerns raised by this controversial decision. Until a credible and satisfactory explanation is provided, the public’s skepticism and suspicion will likely persist.