This message updates guidance on reciprocal tariffs imposed by Executive Order 14257, as amended, excluding specific products from these duties. Products classified under HTSUS headings 8471, 8473.30, 8486, and others listed in the April 11, 2025 Presidential Memorandum are exempt, effective April 5, 2025. Importers should use heading 9903.01.32 to claim this exclusion and correct entries accordingly within ten days of cargo release. Further guidance will be provided via future CSMS messages.
Read More
Despite President Trump’s assertions, U.S. shippers report no tariff increases on containers as of Thursday. This inconsistency adds to existing confusion surrounding the tariff implementation timeline, fueled by erratic rate changes announced via social media and executive orders. The situation highlights significant challenges for customs brokers in navigating the constantly shifting regulatory landscape. Ultimately, the administration’s inability to effectively implement its own tariffs raises serious questions about the policy’s efficacy.
Read More
In retaliation for President Trump’s 104% tariff on Chinese goods, China implemented an 84% tariff on US imports, effective Thursday. This escalation follows Trump’s expansive tariffs on numerous countries, impacting Chinese exporters significantly and shrinking already thin profit margins. The Chinese government, facing a sluggish economy, is exploring further retaliatory measures, while expressing hope for global unity against what it calls “trade tyranny.” Economists warn of potential global recessionary impacts from these widespread tariffs.
Read More
Trump’s unwavering stance on tariffs, even amidst high-profile visits like Netanyahu’s, reveals a perplexing and seemingly arbitrary trade policy. The administration’s consistent refusal to offer concessions, even when countries like Vietnam propose substantial tariff reductions, suggests a strategy detached from traditional negotiation.
This isn’t about striking deals; it feels more like a shakedown. The US offers nothing in return for paying these tariffs, only continued access to the American market – and the looming threat of future increases. There’s no give-and-take, no compromise; it’s pure extortion.
The lack of any discernible end goal further compounds the mystery. Netanyahu’s visit, seemingly at Trump’s request, didn’t even address the tariff issue, suggesting Israel may not even consider them a major concern.… Continue reading
President Trump announced an impending “major” tariff on imported pharmaceuticals, aiming to encourage domestic production. He further asserted that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) faces a potential 100% tax if it doesn’t establish U.S. plants, criticizing a $6.6 billion government grant to TSMC as unnecessary. These actions reflect Trump’s broader strategy to bolster American manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign goods. The pharmaceutical tariff and TSMC pressure tactics represent significant policy shifts with potentially far-reaching economic consequences.
Read More
The Trump White House cited my research to justify tariffs. They got it all wrong. It’s frustrating, to say the least, to see your work twisted to support policies that are fundamentally flawed. My research, which they selectively quoted, never intended to endorse the reckless application of tariffs without a comprehensive industrial policy. The administration’s approach was not just misguided, it was demonstrably incompetent.
Instead of employing a thoughtful strategy, the administration seemed to operate on gut feelings and a lack of understanding of basic economics. They treated tariffs as a silver bullet, ignoring the potential for unintended consequences and the complexities of international trade.… Continue reading
In response to President Trump’s new tariffs, a House Republican plans to introduce legislation limiting the White House’s ability to impose tariffs without Congressional approval. This bill, mirroring a bipartisan Senate proposal, would require the President to inform Congress within 48 hours of any new tariff, providing reasoning and impact analysis. Congress would then have 60 days to approve the tariff or it would expire. While facing challenges in the House, the bill has garnered initial support and could gain momentum depending on the economic impact of the new tariffs. The legislation underscores the constitutional debate over Congress’s authority on tariffs and taxes.
Read More
Elon Musk’s recent criticism of Trump administration officials, particularly regarding the president’s tariffs, signals a growing distance between the two. Musk, who has reportedly lost billions due to the tariffs’ impact on global markets, advocates for a “zero tariff situation” between the U.S. and Europe. Despite Trump’s continued defense of the tariffs and reported desire to keep Musk involved in the White House, Musk’s public dissent highlights a significant policy disagreement. This divergence comes amidst ongoing protests against both Musk and the Trump administration.
Read More
Representative Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican, opposes President Trump’s recent tariffs, arguing that past Republican support for protectionist trade policies contributed to the Great Depression. He supports bipartisan Senate legislation, the “Trade Review Act of 2025,” which would require congressional approval for new tariffs and limit the president’s unilateral tariff authority. Bacon will introduce a House companion bill, aiming to restore Congress’s constitutional role in setting trade policy. The bill faces an uphill battle in the House, but has garnered some support from Republican members.
Read More
Trump’s tariffs, according to a conservative think tank, stemmed from a fundamental miscalculation. The entire policy was built upon a flawed understanding of basic economics, leading to significantly inaccurate estimations of their impact. This wasn’t simply a minor oversight; it was a profound error in judgment that had far-reaching consequences.
The core issue lay in the formula used to determine the tariff levels. The administration’s approach fundamentally misunderstood how tariffs affect import prices, resulting in drastically inflated levies. They incorrectly assumed that a minimal portion of the tariff would be reflected in the final price paid by consumers.
The reality, as highlighted by the think tank, is far different.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood