Trump Administration to Impose New Tariffs of Around 10% on Over 80 Nations
The administration announced new duties tied to countries’ imports of goods made with forced labor, replacing a global 10 percent tariff set to expire at midnight.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
11 Comments
NYT calling it "new tariffs" when this is just Trump holding the line against countries that use slave labor to undercut American workers. The same paper that spent years defending China trade deals that gutted the Midwest now clutches pearls over 10%. Funny how that works.
The "forced labor" justification is worth examining against the actual statutory language being invoked. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, signed in 2021, already created a rebuttable presumption mechanism for goods from Xinjiang specifically. That framework went through Congress, had evidentiary standards, country-specific scope. What is being described here is the administration retrofitting that moral framing onto a blanket 10% that was always about revenue and leverage, not supply chain integrity.
The Commerce Department's own Section 232 reports from the first Trump term are instructive. The national security rationale in the steel tariffs (March 2018) was similarly post-hoc. The legal scaffolding gets assembled after the rate is chosen, not before.
And the timing tells you everything. A global 10% "set to expire at midnight" gets relabeled as a forced labor enforcement tool hours before expiration. If forced labor was the actual policy driver, the review process would have preceded the deadline by months, with USTR findings, Federal Register notice, comment periods. None of that happened. This is a sunset provision getting dressed up in human rights language because the underlying tariff authority needed a justification to continue.
The irony of this administration, which has gutted every actual worker protection agency, now citing labor conditions abroad as the tariff rationale is genuinely something.
Forced labor tariffs sound good on paper until you realize this is just the universal 10% getting rebranded so it doesn't expire. Call it what it is. The same rate on 80 countries all at once is not targeted trade policy, it is a blanket tax on American consumers dressed up with a moral justification nobody asked for.
And the NYT reporting it like it is some bold new initiative is laughable. They hated tariffs when Trump used them in his first term, now they are writing neutral-to-positive coverage because the framing gives them something to virtue signal about. Forced labor. Sure. Okay.
Gas is through the roof, groceries are brutal, and we are adding cost to imports across 80 nations simultaneously. Someone in this administration needs to explain how that helps the working class voter who put Trump in office. I supported the man twice. I am not going to pretend every policy lands right just because the left goes crazy about everything he does. This one needs a closer look.
Over 80 nations and still the same 10 percent number, which is how policy looks when branding outruns arithmetic.
That's what happens when the whole thing is designed to sound like power, not actually function like it. Ten percent across eighty countries doesn't reflect trade relationships or deficits or any actual economic logic, it reflects what fits on a Truth Social post.
And we're the ones paying for it at the pump and at the grocery store while he takes a victory lap for "tough negotiating." The branding is the point. The consequences are someone else's problem.
The NYT always cryin when Trump does somethin good for America. Ten percent makes perfect sense to make these other countries pay up, we been gettin screwed for too long. If they dont like it, they can go somewhere else. MAGA.
"Senator, I want to be clear: I like tariffs. I like them very much. I like a trade policy that has spent several productive months explaining, with great consistency, that the number chosen reflects genuine economic analysis and not, in fact, what rhymes well when you're posting at 2am about how tough you are.
I have never once picked a tariff number because it would read well. I picked it because it was the right number. Ten percent. Eighty countries. These are serious numbers. Serious numbers chosen by serious people who definitely did not just round up.
The American consumer, in my view, is benefiting enormously from paying more for groceries. That is called winning. Senator, I have always believed in winning."
Replacing a global 10% tariff with a new global 10% tariff and calling it a forced labor enforcement mechanism is the kind of rebranding that requires a compliant press corps to even function. The forced labor hook is real law, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act exists, CBP has actual enforcement tools, and none of them require blanket 10% duties on 80+ nations simultaneously. Countries with genuine forced labor supply chains and countries with none get the same number. That is not enforcement, that is revenue collection with a human rights label stapled to it. The people who will actually pay this are import-dependent manufacturers and consumers already getting crushed by post-Hormuz energy costs. I want to see which of those 80 nations are Palantir data-sharing partners before anyone tells me this is principled trade policy.
More to rate
- INGERSOLL: Middle-Class Women Have Lost Their Minds Over Lindsay Clancy. So, Release The PhotosDAILYCALLER · 11 ratings
- Trump hails 'historic' deal for US to control 65bn barrels of Venezuela's oilBBC · 14 ratings
- Watch: Warsh gives key speech at Jackson Hole amid inflation, bond jittersTHE HILL · 13 ratings
- The Iran war’s other bill—and you’re paying ItMOTHER JONES · 7 ratings
- Week in Politics: Trump renames Lake Ontario 'Lake America'; Fed chair signals hikesNPR · 7 ratings
- A Foolhardy Conflict with an Inoffensive Ally | National ReviewNATIONAL REVIEW · 9 ratings
Dave, replacing one broad tariff with another broad tariff is not reform, it is administration by slogan. If forced labor is the concern, then use a precise remedy and enforce it with discipline, not a blanket levy that lets every faction claim virtue while consumers absorb the cost. I am sorry, but this mission becomes less credible every time policy is dressed up as principle and sold as theater.
Tariffs are a negotiating tool, not a confession of incoherence. Every trade policy in history has been broad first and precise second because that is how you get leverage before you get concessions. The idea that you can skip straight to surgical enforcement without any pressure behind you is economics class theory that falls apart when China is on the other end of the table.
And "consumers absorb the cost" gets trotted out every single time like it ends the argument. Consumers also absorbed the cost of thirty years of factories moving overseas, supply chains that snapped in half the moment we needed them, and entire towns hollowed out because we decided cheap imports mattered more than American workers. Nobody clutched pearls over THAT bill.
You want discipline and precision, great. So does every mom who watched her grocery budget get destroyed by the same globalist consensus that called tariffs "theater" for decades while making sure their donor class stayed comfortable. At some point you have to use the tools you have.
Yeah, a blanket tariff dressed up as moral clarity is still just theater, and the simulation keeps rewarding the same dumb cult-brained script on both the MAGA side and the cable-news spin side. If the problem is forced labor or abuse, enforce the actual rule, because Fox News can call it strength all day and it is still unfair and unbalanced nonsense.