[Updating] President Trump Kinda Pauses(?) Implementation of Non-China Tariffs

Or they maybe happening at 10%... Who knows?! Clearly not the White House.

Source: The White House

Just after 10 am this morning*, President Trump announced that he is pausing some of the implementation of all tariffs, except those on China, for 90 days.

Here is the full text of the announcement:

Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets, I am hereby raising the Tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately. At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the days of ripping off the U.S.A., and other Countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable. Conversely, and based on the fact that more than 75 Countries have called Representatives of the United States, including the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, and the USTR, to negotiate a solution to the subjects being discussed relative to Trade, Trade Barriers, Tariffs, Currency Manipulation, and Non Monetary Tariffs, and that these Countries have not, at my strong suggestion, retaliated in any way, shape, or form against the United States, I have authorized a 90 day PAUSE, and a substantially lowered Reciprocal Tariff during this period, of 10%, also effective immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Donald Trump Truth Social 04/09/25 01:19 PM

Let’s get the most obvious thing out of the way: this is an unreservedly good thing for the economy in the short and long term. Whether it was Fox and Friends or others, someone finally got it through his skull that his policies were harming the US economy. And the markets have immediately reacted positively to the news.

This also doesn’t negate how reckless the tariffs were and the damage they have already done.

While Trump apologists claim that what we see is “the art of the deal” in action, I can only ask, “What is the deal that the White House is looking for?” Again, were they intended to help with negotiations? Or is it to return manufacturing to the US? Or is it to help close the deficit and make up for lost income tax revenue?

Also, no one should believe that this was always the plan. Remember the party line from the White House yesterday was “full steam ahead.”

Nor did it appear that US Trade Rep Jamieson Greer was in on the grand plan either–he was defending the tariffs in front of Congress when the news came through:

I am curious how this clear decision to back away from the edge strengthens the mercurial Trump Administration’s position. They just used a lot of soft power to extract talks and promises from nations we’ve previously had positive relationships with.

What happens 90 days from now if those nations are not willing to participate in negotiations with Trump and his zero-sum game approach to tariffs? Once you’ve established that you are willing to blink first when the political cost appears too high, it’s hard to regain the “he’s so crazy he might go through with it bargaining chip.”

Also, I have a lot questions about the meaning of this sentence towards the end:

I have authorized a 90 day PAUSE, and a substantially lowered Reciprocal Tariff during this period, of 10%, also effective immediately.

Does he mean reciprocal tariffs being collected today are reduced to 10% or that all of the reciprocal tariffs he planned to apply have already been reduced to 10% after the pause? If it’s the latter, then that completely changes the income projections the White House used to make up the budget gaps. And it also means that he’s already given up a significant amount of negotiating ground.

FWIW, reporting on this seems to be mixed. Here’s the Washington Post’s read:

[Trump] also said more than 75 other countries that were set to face what the White House has called “reciprocal tariffs” have been involved in negotiations and would see their levies paused or lowered to 10 percent for 90 days, also effective immediately.

So I guess the answer to what is going to happen is “yes*.”

Update 1: it also appears, according to the New York Times, that the Administration has also levied some unexpected tariffs on Canada and Mexico as part of this announcement:

Update 4: The White House has now offered new guidance about Canada and Mexico–it doesn’t appear they are included in the 10% roll out despite what Scott Bessent said to reporters. This is a well oiled machine, folks:

Clearly, I don’t understand the art of the deal. Or, as with all things for the last few weeks, only time will tell because it’s pretty clear they are building this plane as they fly it.

Update 2: It looks like what really moved the needle was actually the Bond market–which would have greatly impacted the United State’s long term debt.

Update 3: Here are the two best takes I’ve seen on this:

First, the pause isn’t really a pause.

And, as always, there is no plan (beyond undercutting all of your advisors and spokespeople).

* – Earlier this morning, before the President made his announcement, he sent the following message encouraging people on Truth Social to buy stocks. I’m not sure it constitutes insider trading, but it sure doesn’t feel ethical considering that (at the time this was sent) he was working with Bessett and Lutnik on the announcement about the tariffs.

** – If it turns out that the majority of the tariffs are still going forward, just at 10%, then I expect this market rally will be short-lived. On the other hand, if the majority of tariffs end up being paused, I don’t see how Trump maintains his “tough guy” image because that only supports how much he’s blinked in this case and trying to save face through empty threats. Either way, I don’t see things stabilizing for businesses doing long term planning for quite a while.

FILED UNDER: Economics and Business, International Trade, The Presidency, US Politics, World Politics, , , , , , , , , ,
Matt Bernius
About Matt Bernius
Matt Bernius is a design researcher working to create more equitable government systems and experiences. Matt's most recent work has been in the civic tech space, working as a researcher and design strategist at Code for America and Measures for Justice. Prior to that he worked at Effective, a UX agency, and also taught at the Rochester Institute of Technology and Cornell. Matt has an MA from the University of Chicago.

Comments

  1. Scott says:

    Since Trump knows his words can move the markets, I wonder if there is inside trading going on using the inside knowledge. Knowing how corrupt Trump is (and everybody around him) I wouldn’t be surprised.

    19
  2. Slugger says:

    Is this Trump admitting that the tariffs of the last few weeks were a mistake, an own goal, or is this yanking of the steering wheel first one way then the other a way for him to have fun?

    3
  3. Andy says:

    I’m not too surprised at this. This is his standard MO, and he’s done it with tariffs and other things in the past.

    The China tariffs are still quite dangerous, both in terms of economic effects and also geopolitically. I keep remembering the circumstances that led to Japan’s decision to attack the US in 1941, as foolish as that decision was. While thinks are much different in the current situation, a lot of the big-picture factors are directionally very similar:

    – Imperial/territorial expansion (South china sea/Taiwan)
    – Economic sanctions/embargoes that directly threatened Japan’s economy and plans – 125% tariffs could well be ruinous to China’s economy.
    Domestic pressures: China may be authoritarian, but, like Imperial Japan, it does have internal constituencies, many of which are openly hostile to the US.
    – Military buildup – China has been developing military capabilities that are specifically designed for a conflict with the US. Japan and the US had a similar military build-up dynamic.
    Strategic calculations – Much of Japan’s leadership believed that war with the US was inevitable, concluding that striking first was the prudent thing to do. Is the same true with China? Directionally, it’s looking that way.

    13
  4. Matt Bernius says:

    @Scott:
    I just updated the post to acknowledge the question about insider trading relative to a Truth Social posting the President made just before the announcement.

    I’m not a lawyer and cannot speak to the rules. I think under past circumstances (especially prior to the Supreme Court immunity ruling) this would have been something that might get investigated. But I don’t see that happening today.

    6
  5. Barry says:

    @Scott: “I wonder if there is how muchinside trading going on using the inside knowledge.”

    17
  6. Kathy says:

    I feel confident in predicting some tariffs will be on again well before 90 days have passed.

    5
  7. Jen says:

    ….aaaand he’s bragging about how much the market is up. “up 2500 points. Gotta be a record.”

    I cannot believe this man was given the keys to the country. What an ignoramus.

    12
  8. Kurtz says:

    @Andy:

    Economic sanctions/embargoes that directly threatened Japan’s economy and plans – 125% tariffs could well be ruinous to China’s economy.
    Domestic pressures: China may be authoritarian, but, like Imperial Japan, it does have internal constituencies, many of which are openly hostile to the US.

    I’ve made this point about how people seem to view kings of the Middle Ages. People think kings and autocrats have 100% of the power, so no one else has any power at all. That is not really how it works.
    Yes, an autocrat has far more power than anyone else—they are likely to come out on top if challenged—but there are other people with significant influence. There is an art to cowing various constituencies that could eventually form an alliance.

    5
  9. drj says:

    @Andy:

    Somehow you turned this into a story in which China (rather than the US) could do something incredibly stupid and reckless.

    It’s also rather rich to worry about China’s imperial ambitions considering that Trump is openly arguing for the annexation of allied countries and territories.

    And this is besides the fact that Trump has threatened to bomb Iran (again) and has moved additional military assets to Diego Garcia. Iran would likely manage to close the Strait of Hormuz for commercial traffic if the US were to attack. As if things aren’t spicy enough.

    The main danger certainly isn’t China, nowadays.

    Just saying.

    (Also, China isn’t even close to being as isolated as Japan was in 1940/41.)

    11
  10. charontwo says:

    @Slugger:

    or is this yanking of the steering wheel first one way then the other a way for him to have fun?

    One of his top priorities is grabbing people’s attention, getting more attention paid to him than anyone else. So sudden dramatic announcements, changes in positions, are totally in character.

    Also, he just plain likes chaos.

    2
  11. JohnSF says:

    So, the UK still gets whacked with 10%.
    And is the 25% on vehicle exports still on?
    And if so is that 25% including or additional to the basic 10% “universal tariff”?

    Various governments reporting they are unable to obtain clarity on ANY of this from Washington.

    A complete and utter circus.

    9
  12. Pylon says:

    Soooo…. Canada gets a 35% tariff. Mexico too. I suspect he just didn’t think about it but still soi stupid.

    1
  13. Argon says:

    Dear FOX News, Newsmax and assorted fellow travelers: Trying spinning that story, about the super-genius, 4D chess playing, dear leader, you motherfluckers.

    4
  14. Daryl says:

    What a f’ing moron.
    Are we supposed to think he’s sane?

    3
  15. Scott says:

    I am curious about the mechanisms that the Government (and the poor saps who work for the Government) have to go through to implement all these changes to tariffs. One, is it automated? Two, what is the decision flow from Trump’s maw to Sec Sociopath to Asst Sec Joe Blow down to GS-12 poor sap? How long does it take and is it longer than the inevitable changes that will occur?

    3
  16. Lucysfootball says:

    Given how weak Trump looks after he caved, I don’t think Greenland has anything to fear from the US. maybe Greenland should consider taking over the US, having our military at their disposal would greatly improve their security.

    6
  17. DK says:

    Yesterday, Trump’s bootlicking Rethuglikkklan sheep were insisting Trump’s tarrifs, Trumpflation, stock market crash, and looming recession were necessary pain and sacrifice to bring iPhone assembly factories back to the US in ten years — presumably to Florida, where Ron DeFascist wants children back at work as wage slaves.

    Set aside, momentarily, that these were the same MAGA clowns who had a meltdown over wearing a mask on occasion so someone’s grandma wouldn’t die.

    Does the unqualified, incompetent rapist buffoon’s sudden “PAUSE” mean the sacrifice and pain from his reckless and stupid tariffs is and always was unnecessary? Or have the the Fox News talking point desperate excuses and tortured justifications not come in yet?

    4
  18. Gustopher says:

    MAGA hats are going to be so much more expensive.

    Also, can’t China just stop buying US debt? That would seem to pretty much win this economic war in one stroke. It’s a nuclear option if done with full force, but just buying less US debt would let them be a bit more careful and send a powerful message.

    And, before the right wing deficit hawks come to blame Democrats, the deficit typically expands faster under Republicans because they keep cutting taxes on the rich and on corporations. Ideally we wouldn’t be in a situation where China can cripple the US by halting debt purchases, but that’s where we are and the Republicans have been leading us down this path.

    2
  19. CSK says:

    The MAGAs are high-fiving each other that Trump is playing 3D chess while the Democrats are playing checkers.

    1
  20. DrDaveT says:

    You should maybe have titled this one “Confirmed: There Is No Plan”

    4
  21. Lucysfootball says:

    @Gustopher: The deficit and the debt are due primarily to the Reagan, Bush 2 and Trump tax cuts which were not accompanied by spending cuts. Budgeting 101! Except in very narrow situations if you reduce you revenue you need to reduce your spending. Almost none of the $36+ trillion debt is due to the actions of Democratic presidents. The Democrats tax and spend, the Republicans borrow and spend. Since most Americans have a poor understanding of financial issues this allows the Republicans to be labeled the party of fiscal responsibility when they are anything but.

    4
  22. JohnSF says:

    @Gustopher:

    Also, can’t China just stop buying US debt?

    I have a suspicion they may be doing just that.
    Indications are that in addition to the US domestic bond active sales (apparently much of it due to hedged margin position re stocks) bond demand is markedly down globally.
    China, Europe, Japan …

    5
  23. inhumans99 says:

    I am just worried this is a dead cat bounce, and the folks who could get away with it engaged in some insider trading in the past couple hours or so, who made a small fortune and now no longer care if tomorrow the market crashes again.

    Also, I actually appreciate what Andy articulated in his post on China. That is kind-of what I was getting at in my comment in Matt B’s Fox and Friends Has Fallen post, that it is dangerous thinking that many in the U.S. have had for decades now that hey, it looks like we have Europe and most of Asia on a leash so they are powerless in the shadow of President Trump.

    I feel that we are going to learn in the coming days and months that most of Asia and Europe will be surprisingly quick to pivot to relying on each other, but not the U.S. for things like trade agreements and security, this should stress folks out in the U.S., so yeah…I hear what Andy is saying.

    5
  24. this is an unreservedly good thing for the economy in the short and long term

    I think it is good short-term news (but not all good) and I have no clue what it means long-term, TBH.

    2
  25. Daryl says:

    From Investing.com.
    I don’t know if they’re credible, I just searched “China selling Bonds”.
    https://www.investing.com/news/economy-news/is-china-dumping-us-treasuries-3975344

    One such source is venture capitalist and Trump supporter Chamath Palihapitiya. Palihapitiya said Tuesday afternoon that he is hearing from people that China has been dumping U.S. Treasuries in an effort to move yields up and shift the narrative.
    “I’m hearing they are dumping UST to try and move rates to shift narrative and make our upcoming Treasury auctions more expensive,” Palihapitiya commented on X. “May make sense to delay auctions to next week. China can’t sell indefinitely.”
    Today, the U.S. 5-year treasury rose 2% to 3.918%, the 10-year rose 3.2% to 4.291%, and the 30-year rose 3.6% to 4.762%.
    China held $761 billion in U.S. treasuries as of the end of January, the second largest foreign holder behind Japan at $1.08 trillion.

    3
  26. DK says:

    @CSK:

    The MAGAs are high-fiving each other

    ‘Taruffs are really good actshually but it’s also super good if they’r3 paused for 90 days or if they don’t happen at all, something something art of the deal something something 4D Yahtzee! suk it owned liburlz’

    3
  27. JohnSF says:

    @Andy:
    I have doubts this will drive China to a gamble.
    The one thing that might would be a dollar shortage wrecking ability to import crucial raw materials.
    But China would not get around that by a war that initiated a US blockade.

    Patience on Taiwan would enable Beijing to wait for the consequences re US alliance positions in Asia and beyond.
    While the US tariff reduction (?) on China trade partners enables that trade to US at one remove to continue.
    And recent US behaviour may open up more opportunity for China to replace the US as a trade and investment partner globally.

    The other unknown factor in this is the outcome of US/Iran moves.
    And how deep a wedge Trump is going to insert into US/Europe relations.
    I’ll bet on patience.

    Sit down by the river, and wait for the corpse of your enemy to float downstream.

    (Having said all this, you can now expect Xi to invade Taiwan tomorrow morning. God hates me when I tempt Him. lol)

    4
  28. Lucysfootball says:

    I don’t see other countries dumping US treasuries, but I also think you won’t see any countries buying in large amounts either. With Trump you get the worst of both worlds, a cheat and an idiot. I expect at some point he will float some crazy ideas about “negotiating” US debt. He has a history of paying people pennies on the dollar, in his mind why should US debt be any different. And Lutnick, Bessant and other s will just act like it’s him playing 4D chess instead of being, as Rex Tillerson so accurately and eloquently stated, a fucking moron.

    1
  29. Michael Reynolds says:

    You realize what this is about? Trump says he’ll make each decision on each US company which may get a break. It’s extortion, just like his attacks on law firms, the 15 million dollar bribe from ABC. His firm ‘policy’ went out the window when he realized he could line his pockets. Like any banana republic caudillo.

    It’s corruption, extortion, pay-offs, solicitation of bribes. Very much like his master in Moscow. And it’ll all be legal because SCOTUS gave him a pass.

    What do you think the over/under should be on just how much Trump manages to enrrich himself?

    12
  30. Jen says:

    @CSK: That is so obviously untrue, it’s truly alarming that people are that brainwashed.

    This is a mess/shitshow/disaster.

    Businesses HATE uncertainty and all this has done is confirm whatever the worst possible case scenario anyone wants to consider.

    These fools do not know what they are doing. At all.

    3
  31. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Andy: @drj: @JohnSF:

    I tend toward China taking action on Taiwan. They’re already effectively embargoed from the US market. The PLAN can blockade Taiwan and nibble it to death with missiles and drones. Trump won’t try to confront China – it’d be all risk and no profit for him.

    But as @drj pointed out:

    The main danger certainly isn’t China, nowadays.

    @Andy, I wonder if you don’t need to re-orient yourself a bit. We need to understand that we are no longer the good guys, we are the villains. The USA, Russia and North Korea are the new Axis of Evil. China can continue to be independently evil, but we don’t have a moral leg to stand on objecting.

    5
  32. CSK says:

    @Jen:

    Oh, I know, but the MAGAs have so much emotional investment in Trump’s being the best president of their lifetimes that they’ll never see what he really is. It’s obvious to the rest of us, but…

    2
  33. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Jen:

    it’s truly alarming that people are that brainwashed.

    Yes. Almost like they’re in a cult. Almost.

    2
  34. Rob1 says:

    Trump’s global “Pump and Dump” scheme —- and pump and dump some more.

    I hope someone is looking at insider trading.

    3
  35. Jen says:

    @Rob1: Who? Pam Bondi?

    6
  36. JohnSF says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    Trump won’t try to confront China

    All depends on the outcome of the isolationist vs anti-China factions in the war for Trump’s ear.
    Which makes it a gamble for China.
    I can’t see Xi rolling the dice when he has no obvious need to do so.

    Similar but different re Iran: the Likud lobby vs “detatchers”
    The interesting thing being the Saudis now seem very wary about being dragged in, given they can’t now trust either Jerusalem to be reasonable, or Washington to be reliable.
    Also (if rather second or third order) indications from UK that we have little inclination to put our assets in harms way given the clownery in Washington.

    1
  37. James R Ehrler says:

    @DK: Or, as Max Kennerly said on Bluesky:

    Take that, Trump haters. If you had bought $10,000 worth of the S&P 500 on the day of Trump’s inauguration, today you’d have $9,053!!

    Which will probably will be more like $8k when markets realize the massive tariffs still on our three largest trading partners.

    https://bsky.app/profile/maxkennerly.bsky.social/post/3lmfximj2g22t

    2
  38. Michael Reynolds says:

    @JohnSF:
    Here’s why I believe Trump won’t fight a real war:

    1) He has contempt for soldiers, and a war will shift the spotlight from Trump to generals and common soldiers. I think he’ll find it intolerable to be upstaged by ‘suckers.’

    2) There is no profit in it for Trump. Offer Trump 100 billion, and he might fight. If China paid Trump enough to be the richest man on Earth, all tariffs would be gone a minute later. He’s for sale.

    3) The risk of losing. Losing a major battle would leave Trump where, exactly? He certainly won’t accept any responsibility. He’ll blame Biden (somehow) and his own generals and admirals, but it would still be a loss. And if we lose the whole war?

    4) Personal danger. He’ll fear everything from assassination to a multi-megaton warhead landing on Mar a Lago.

    5) I don’t think Putin wants a US-China war

    3
  39. Matt says:

    @Scott:That’s been basically my hobby horse since the whole tariff thing started. The crashing of the market is completely predictable and easy money for the uber rich.

    @Andy: The situation with old imperial Japan was significantly different in some important ways. About 74% of Japan’s scrap iron, 93% of its copper, and 80% of it’s oil came from the USA in 1939. The USA cut all those off along with aviation fuel and other lesser exports to Japan in response to their expansion. So at that point Japan either HAD to expand quickly or reverse all the policies that have been enacted in the last 10 years. Ego and national pride meant that the course would continue but at an accelerated rate. That is when war became inevitable.

    There is simply no comparison to what is going on with China.

    I believe you’re over estimating the impact of USA tariffs on the Chinese economy. I wouldn’t call the tariffs ruinous but they would have some impact.

    The interconnection of the world’s economy is another obstacle to a war between the USA and China. Soon as China does anything aggressive it WILL experience ruinous results on it’s economy as the world mostly stops buying from them. Not to mention the whole going to war with their biggest trade partner.

    A bigger driver to potential conflict in my view is the Chinese real estate collapse and domestic unrest as a result. Wars have historically been a great way to distract your population from the terrible decisions of leadership. There just happens to be a tiny island nation nearby with historical connections and lots of advanced technological production facilities…

    3
  40. JohnSF says:

    @Michael Reynolds:
    Reasonable points.
    Though you must also note, Putin is now Beijing’s bitch.
    I wonder if Putin is smart enough to look for an escape route from that?
    Unlikely, as the escape route is via Europe, not the US, and that runs contrary to much of Putin’s world view and ambitions.

    All things considered, China has time and opportunity.
    Because Trump has gifted it.
    If Taiwan, and the rest of east Asia, decides it can’t rely on the US, China simply does not need to invade or blockade Taiwan at all.
    War is massively risky; gathering up the fruits of Trump’s folly far less so.

    3
  41. Michael Reynolds says:

    @JohnSF:
    I’m least confident of my #5. If I were Vlad, I’d be attracted by the increased closeness a war might bring, and that it might clear the way to take the Baltics. OTOH, a militarily successful China might start eyeing Manchuria. On still another hand, Putin is currently the tail on the second biggest dog, would he want to be tail on a whipped dog? And then, what if China comes out on top, especially if it does it without Russian help.

    There are many hands.

    This BTW is almost exactly like plotting. Means, motive, opportunity, character, Black Swans, risk tolerance, geography and setting, and the eternal weight of history (backstory).

    1
  42. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Scott:

    I wonder if there is inside trading

    Had the same thought.

    2
  43. Matt says:

    @Michael Reynolds: Lets be real it’s not a matter of “if” it’s a matter of how much insider trading is going on.

    I would of made a killing off the markets at this rate and I’m pretty dumb when it comes to the minutia of investing.

    2
  44. Beth says:

    @Lucysfootball:

    I don’t see other countries dumping US treasuries, but I also think you won’t see any countries buying in large amounts either.

    So, those are actually the same problem, because as the flamboyantly Italian waiter we had yesterday says, “VIOLA!!!!!!!”

    Republicans also agree they’d like to extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in 2017 under Trump’s first term. However, the cost of extending those cuts is closely tied to fiscal hawks’ concerns. The independent, non-partisan tax analysis arm of Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation, has estimated extending the cuts could cost more than $4 trillion. But there is a significant dispute among Republicans about that cost and how to account for it in the policy writing process.

    If nobody’s out their buying those Treasuries, the Republican’s can’t spend and borrow their way into a tax cut. Now, I suspect they are all so monumentally stupid they could read this very comment and not understand what they are about to do. Maybe someone with a better grasp of the economics of this could sus this one out a bit better. It seems to me (and please correct me if I’m wrong on this), if no one is buying the bonds, they will have to raise the interest on them to get people to take the risk of buying the shit bonds. That will raise the cost of borrowing, which the Republicans lie about anyway. But they think they are gonna need to borrow what, 5 Trillion between now and just after the next election. Where’s that money comin from Miran?

    I just have to throw this in cause it’s hilarious, both that Republicans think this and that NPR would write this bullshit with a straight face:

    The tax cuts are set to expire by year end, which Republicans argue would mean a tax hike for millions of Americans.

    Fucking people are stupid.

    https://ticdata.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/slt_table5.html

    This is another interesting one.

    https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/who-owns-us-debt-2025-02-10/

    1
  45. Beth says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    1) He has contempt for soldiers, and a war will shift the spotlight from Trump to generals and common soldiers. I think he’ll find it intolerable to be upstaged by ‘suckers.’

    I know I’ve mentioned this before, but I’d have to imagine a whole lot of the Officer Corps (Com and Non) have to know that if anything at all goes sideways, it’s on them entirely. Hegseth could text the exact war plan to the Chinese and the General in charge will be the one in the brig and not Hegseth. That’s gotta be giving people ulcers.

    @Scott:
    @Matt:
    @Michael Reynolds:

    The other part of this equation is that the IRS has or will shortly be effectively destroyed. There’s no way anyone’s paying taxes on this shit. Why bother. I’d love to ask an accountant what the actual likelihood of getting caught fucking with your taxes, just blatantly fucking them, before the statute of limitations runs out.

    Looks like it’s between 3-6 to tax unless they catch you with something that looks enough like intent to fuck the taxes, then they have forever to grab you by the returns. Then there’s another 10 years for them to collect.

    Also, at this point, I want some idiot schmuck who failed to pay something stupid, like 5 grand to sue on equal protection grounds that billionaires are straight up ripping off the government and no one says shit. Make the courts go on record protecting the Billionaires.

    2
  46. Kathy says:

    @Beth:

    But they think they are gonna need to borrow what, 5 Trillion between now and just after the next election. Where’s that money comin from Miran?

    The printing press at the US Mint.

    It worked wonders for the Weimar Republic, Argentina and other countries in South America, and Zimbabwe. What’s a little hyperinflation compared to the divine right to buy back shares? Besides, let’s see those rotten foreigners refuse to buy Treasury bonds that pay 165% interest!

  47. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Beth:
    You and I have found common ground: eat the rich. And I am, technically, the rich.*

    *I say technically because I will absolutely find a way to fuck it up so I can die, drunk and alone in a single room occupancy hotel in a dying steel town, muttering, ‘shades of gray. . . it’s all just shades or gray. . .’

    1
  48. Fortune says:

    Matt Bernius, this is why I only said that I was really worried about Trump’s tariffs. I oppose tariffs on principle, but I don’t know what’s going to happen. Trump applied some tariffs in his first term but the US came out of them with good or even stronger trading relationships. It keeps going back to the horse loose in the hospital. No one knows what Trump’s next move is, or his end goal. He’s unexpected even when he does the things he campaigned on.

  49. Kurtz says:

    @Matt:

    Trump posted the good time to buy on Truth Social a few hours before the pause. This is enough for the sycophants on X to argue it’s not insider trading. Maybe that is true.* But:

    1.) It is market manipulation, Though probably not part of a grand plan.

    2.) The X folks seem to equate a Truth Social post that comes out of nowhere, given that the administration had repeatedly stated that Trump would not change his mind, with a public statement of information. One even drew a distinction between X, which requires login to see posts and Truth Social, which does not require an account.

    That second point is the crucial part of this.

    Most people are not on X, even fewer are on Truth Social. I just checked, Trump has 9.45 million followers on his social network. That’s not nothing, but hardly representative of “the public”, though it does track with the rest of their worldview about who constitutes a person or a real American or whatever.

    If anything, Trump was not giving the general public a heads up, rather his most ardent supporters time to react. I checked and see no post on X from either the POTUS or Trump’s personal accounts (unless those were deleted, but the Truth post was not). That supports the idea that he specifically targeted the message to those on his own social network rather than the much larger networks populated by everyone else.

    One last thing: other supporters on X did that thing where they say something like, ‘Congress does it all the time! You prefer that?!?!????’ One even name checked Pelosi. Which, well, no, we don’t prefer that.

    Moreover, and most importantly, there is a reason public companies and the government release earnings reports and aggregate data at specific scheduled times. It is to reduce the influence of non-public information. It ain’t perfect, but it’s better than this.

    *This is one of those times when I have to chide the people who repeat the scary concept when it doesn’t quite fit or does not fit as well as a different concept that is no better but less defined in the public consciousness.

    2
  50. Kurtz says:

    On cue, dude Susan Collinses whistles right past the graveyard, looking at the horses zigging and zagging, and fantasizing about how how fun it is to break 1000 dozens of eggs for a three egg omelette.

  51. Franklin says:

    @Jen: I’m reminded of Homer asking his family to make sacrifices, and Bart offers to start smoking so he can give that up.

    2
  52. Daryl says:

    @Kurtz:
    I’d love to see who bought, when they bought, and how much they made.
    They claim to be transparent, right?

  53. Andy says:

    @Kurtz:

    Definitely, authoritarian governments do need legitimacy from key constituencies.

    @drj:

    Somehow you turned this into a story in which China (rather than the US) could do something incredibly stupid and reckless.

    It’s also rather rich to worry about China’s imperial ambitions considering that Trump is openly arguing for the annexation of allied countries and territories.

    I haven’t turned this story into anything, but you flatter me. In reality, I made a short comment on a blog.

    Let me spell it out since you seem to have misunderstood the context.

    I had thought it was obvious that the subtext of the comment was how China might potentially react to Trump’s actions, given various factors that have been in play for many years now. You may think this is not worth worrying about, well I disagree. I think a potential war with China is definitely something to worry about.

    If you think Trump’s actions are incapable of promoting miscalculation or Chinese military adventurism, then that’s fine. Again, I disagree. It’s not a high probability for sure (Note: I never said it was), but it’s not zero. A potential war with China has long been a potential going back to the so-called “pivot to Asia” from the Obama administration and I think the current situation has increased probabilities, although they remain remote.

    In short, my comment suggested that this potential has increased because of Trump’s actions and their effects – not only directly on China, but also regionally. Just the general increasing in uncertainty and conflict in relations between two super powers is generally not considered to be a good thing. Does that make it clearer for you?

    And this is besides the fact that Trump has threatened to bomb Iran (again) and has moved additional military assets to Diego Garcia. Iran would likely manage to close the Strait of Hormuz for commercial traffic if the US were to attack. As if things aren’t spicy enough.

    Yes, and that movement of military assets reportedly includes weapons from the PACOM AOR (the region relevant to China) that would be needed in any conflict in that region – weapons which have low volumes of production and limited stockpiles. Part of this story is the US wasting valuable assets on the Houthis and doing so while also racheting up tensions with China. Not very smart IMO, but perhaps you think that doesn’t matter either.

    Regardless, China can certainly see what is going on, see that the bulk of the operational B-2 fleet is focused on CENTCOM, plus a lot of other assets including both deployed aircraft carriers. Is it really that unreasonable to assume they are not at least thinking this would be a good time to make a play for Taiwan?

    The main danger certainly isn’t China, nowadays.

    Just saying.

    My comment wasn’t about the “main danger.” Just saying

    (Also, China isn’t even close to being as isolated as Japan was in 1940/41.)

    As I noted in my original comment, “While things are much different in the current situation, a lot of the big-picture factors are directionally very similar:” So yes, the relative isolation is one of those things that are different. I’m sorry I did not list out all the differences for you in a quick blog comment.

    @JohnSF:

    I have doubts this will drive China to a gamble.

    I have doubts, too, and I don’t think it’s likely. But the space for adventurism or miscalculation has increased, in my view.

    @Michael Reynolds:

    I tend toward China taking action on Taiwan. They’re already effectively embargoed from the US market. The PLAN can blockade Taiwan and nibble it to death with missiles and drones. Trump won’t try to confront China – it’d be all risk and no profit for him.

    Yes, that would be the most likely scenario, not a direct attack on the US.

    I wonder if you don’t need to re-orient yourself a bit. We need to understand that we are no longer the good guys, we are the villains. The USA, Russia and North Korea are the new Axis of Evil. China can continue to be independently evil, but we don’t have a moral leg to stand on objecting.

    Reorient myself how exactly? If “we” are the villains then what do you specifically suggest?

    My view is that I’m still an American. As bad as Trump is, he is neither the beginning nor the end of history. And as I’m sure you know, America has done a lot of villainous things in our lifetimes, more villainous, I would argue, than what’s going on now (regime change, black sites, torture being probably the biggest three).

    I’m not going to abandon America or what it’s supposed to stand for because of him. My orientation is still in the arena of small “d” democratic politics and not in something more…kinetic. On that point, I do not expect it to ever get to that point.

    @Matt:

    The situation with old imperial Japan was significantly different in some important ways.

    Yes, hence why I said, “…things are much different in the current situation.”

    That said, there are undeniable parallels (IMO), and things are moving directionally toward and not away from confrontation (again IMO).

    There is simply no comparison to what is going on with China.

    Well, I disagree, and I cited the similarities in broad strokes. I do agree that “ruinous” was probably too strong a word to use, but I was making a brief blog comment, not a researched treatise. But I would just point out that the effects will be non-trivial and will be additive to the other issues in China that you cited (and which I agree are problems for China).

    5
  54. Daryl says:

    I’m imagining Sam Donaldson tearing into this obvious market manipulation and insider trading.
    Maybe I’m overestimating Donaldson and the power of journalism.
    That’s probably true. And sad AF.

    1
  55. Matt says:

    @Andy:

    That said, there are undeniable parallels (IMO), and things are moving directionally toward and not away from confrontation (again IMO).

    I don’t see them. Could you help me with that? I’ve already pointed out why I view them to be significantly different.

    China has vastly more trade with the USA than Japan ever hard. That’s a significant difference that you just skipped over. Tariffs = still trading and still making money. Japan meanwhile was completely cut off from trade with most of the world. That’s not happening with China.

  56. Matt Bernius says:

    @Fortune:

    Trump applied some tariffs in his first term but the US came out of them with good or even stronger trading relationships

    I’m really curious about the basis for that claim. My understanding from a range of sources is that the first Trump tariffs were ultimately a boondoggle that created more downsides than upsides (including essentially generating no increased revenue because all of the revenue they generated went to bailing out farmers and others impacted by the tariffs–see the Tax Foundation for more details).

    I’ve not seen anyone argue that they were a net positive (though you may be looking at other sources).

    Also, out of transparency, I’ll also note that Biden kept most of the China tariffs in place.

    6
  57. Flat Earth Luddite says:

    @James R Ehrler:

    The shear incompetence of the venality and corruption are an embarrassment. Makes Luddite long for the days of everyone being bent out of shape by Clinton getting prison sex (ie, a blow job in a closet). How far have we fallen…

    As a friend said years ago, “an endless parade of doofus’s, each one more incompetent than the one before.”

    2
  58. just nutha says:

    @Kathy:

    The printing press at the US Mint.

    Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner ladies and gentlemen. Please clear your cards for the next game.

    4
  59. Andy says:

    @Matt:

    I specifically listed out (some) the factors in bullet form in my original comment. The current economic/trade brinksmanship is only one of them – it’s additive to the others. Yes, if you ignore everything else but that and only consider Trump playing hard-ball, then it’s nothing like Japan in 1941. I don’t ignore everything else.

    1
  60. DrDaveT says:

    @Fortune:

    No one knows what Trump’s next move is, or his end goal.

    You say that as if it were a mitigating factor, but it isn’t. Quite the opposite — the uncertainty is even more disruptive to the economy than certainty about a stupid policy would be. Trump is managing to achieve the worst of both worlds — very stupid policies implemented in a way that magnifies the impact of the stupidity. With no imaginable relief in sight.

    6
  61. Kathy says:

    @just nutha:

    I forgot to mention one thing After hyperinflation eventually ends, one way or another, it’s common to remove zeroes from the currency to make accounting more manageable and prices sound more real. When this happens, usually the currency gets renamed.

    Israel, for example, went from the Lira to the Shekel. Mexico didn’t, quite. We went from Pesos to New Pesos, then some years later the “New” was dropped.

    But Ameriqa has a golden opportunity to rename the dollar. I’ll give three guesses as to what it would be. It begins with T, ends with P, and has a felon rapist in the middle.

    2
  62. Flat Earth Luddite says:

    Here’s you terror thought for the day…

    Trump may actually BE the smartest man in the White House right now. If that doesn’t scare you, I don’t know what will.

    3
  63. Ken_L says:

    One of three things may happen after 90 days:
    – A series of minor tariff adjustments will be agreed and the threat of “reciprocal tariffs” will be withdrawn, exposing Trump’s wild rants as empty posturing;
    – Navarro has the final say and the “reciprocal tariffs” will be reinstated, causing another market meltdown;
    – It turns into another TikTok saga, with a series of postponements of the tariffs.

    Only the first outcome would provide some certainty … but the whole issue might be moot because of the chaos the tariff war with China will cause beginning immediately. I can only assume investors are confident that too is only going to last a few days. If it doesn’t, the impact of a 104% tariff on all Chinese imports will surely be horrendous.

    2
  64. Ken_L says:

    @Matt Bernius: The tit-for-tat tariffs with China in Trump’s first term caused the total volume of trade to shrink. The balance didn’t change significantly. Vietnam appears to have been the big beneficiary.

    1
  65. Kathy says:

    There are local content rules in most free trade agreements. Depending on the qualifying percentage, it’s possible both Canada and Mexico use some materials or parts made in China for products made for export to the US.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the felon slaps such products with higher tariffs, trade agreement he signed be damned, even up to the full tariff applied to China.

    1
  66. Gavin says:

    It wasn’t just “having a factory job” that generated American prosperity after ww2.
    It was the labor union membership which was over 30% when Reagan entered office.. combined with the nationwide labor shortage which required owners nationwide to compete with union wages to acquire more staff.
    Bringing back factories WITHOUT promoting and defending unions won’t generate high paying anything — that’s just a recipe for sweatshops.

    6
  67. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Andy:
    We are the villains in the story and I don’t support villains. Yes, we’ve done a lot of regrettable things, but this isn’t about just another fool in the White House. It’s about the collapse of the American people. This isn’t 1860. 99.9% of the American people have instant access to the sum total of recorded human knowledge in their pockets. But they can’t tell truth from obvious lies, and worse yet, they don’t care.

    They put a rapist in the White House. I mean, let’s drag the Overton window back just a bit. A rapist. A convicted felon. Six time bankrupt. A racist who howled for Black men’s blood in the pages of the New York Times. An adulterer. A pathological liar. A man devoid of empathy or kindness or humor. A pig of a man, corrupt and vile. And the American people chose him.

    We have betrayed the world, and I’m on the side of the free world – I always was. It was never about the land for me, it was about the goal of freedom and justice. I did not sign on to live in a fascist oligarchy. I’m getting out of this sad, sick country as soon as I can work it out.

    5
  68. @Gavin: The union part of all of this (or lack thereof) is key.

    2
  69. Mister Bluster says:

    @Michael Reynolds:..4) Personal danger. He’ll fear everything from assassination to a multi-megaton warhead landing on Mar a Lago.

    From the Miami Herald March 1, 2018.
    Why does Russia have Florida on its nuclear map?

    1
  70. Rob1 says:

    @Jen:

    Who? Pam Bondi?

    ProPublica or the like.

    1
  71. mattbernius says:

    @Ken_L:

    The tit-for-tat tariffs with China in Trump’s first term caused the total volume of trade to shrink. The balance didn’t change significantly. Vietnam appears to have been the big beneficiary.

    That’s my understanding as well. And additionally while that might have strengthened our trade relationship with Vietnam, in Trump’s zero-sum world they were still an enemy. That resulted in them being given significant tariffs under the current plan.

    This is also why I am really curious about the foundation of Fortune’s claim.

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    @Gavin: The union part of all of this (or lack thereof) is key.

    100% this. And given the Trump administrations’ attempt to gut the NLRB and worker’s rights (including the right to organize), it’s hard to take their “what about the workers” seriously.

  72. Fortune says:

    @DrDaveT:

    No one knows what Trump’s next move is, or his end goal.

    You say that as if it were a mitigating factor

    I compared him to a horse loose in a hospital. Not exactly mitigating, except at any given moment he might not be destroying things.

  73. Andy says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    Well, I hope you are happy wherever you end up. We’ve long (before Trump) looked at the potential of retiring overseas somewhere, but with two in college and one in high school we’re not quite ready for that. Trump hasn’t changed that calculation, although the research we have done is good for contingency planning purposes.

    As far as “we” being the villains, I do not subscribe to the idea of collective guilt. 77 million voted for Trump out of a total population of ~340 million. “We” are much more than who happens to be President. And if you’re looking for people to blame, there is a lot of it to go around. I personally don’t find that exercise very useful.

    2