Trade War Hits Sharp Escalation

Trade War Hits Sharp Escalation

Workers work on a production line manufacturing smart automotive central control navigation products at a factory in the High Tech Industrial Development Zone in Suqian, Jiangsu Province, China April 9, 2025.
Workers work on a production line manufacturing smart automotive central control navigation products at a factory in the High Tech Industrial Development Zone in Suqian, Jiangsu Province, China April 9, 2025. Reuters

April 9, 2025 9:45 am (EST)

Workers work on a production line manufacturing smart automotive central control navigation products at a factory in the High Tech Industrial Development Zone in Suqian, Jiangsu Province, China April 9, 2025.
Workers work on a production line manufacturing smart automotive central control navigation products at a factory in the High Tech Industrial Development Zone in Suqian, Jiangsu Province, China April 9, 2025. Reuters
Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

Welcome to the Daily News Brief, CFR’s flagship morning newsletter summarizing the top global news and analysis of the day. 

Subscribe to the Daily News Brief to receive it every weekday morning.

Top of the Agenda

More on:

Daily News Brief

Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs went into effect overnight, as did 104 percent duties on Chinese goods in response to China’s retaliation. Dozens of U.S. trading partners now face tariff rates of over 20 percent, and almost none have a rate lower than 10 percent. Many foreign leaders have scrambled to negotiate relief—and Trump has signaled openness to talks—though no deals to prevent the tariffs were finalized ahead of today. China has stood apart in its embrace of retaliatory duties, today announcing a hike in tariffs on U.S. goods to 84 percent.

Foreign responses. A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson today said that if Washington insists on a tariff war, Beijing will “fight to the end.” A new Chinese government white paper on bilateral economic relations said that differences could be resolved through “equal-footed dialogue,” though none was immediately announced. In Europe, officials are due to set their response to U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs today, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni announced plans to travel to Washington next week. Meanwhile, Trump celebrated a “great” call with South Korea’s acting president yesterday. 

Economic waves. Asian and European stocks slid today, and a selloff in U.S. Treasury bonds intensified overnight. U.S. firms have begun to announce how tariffs could affect their prices and delivery times. Reuters reported that plane part supplier Howmet declared a force majeure event and warned customers it is considering halting shipments. Companies including truckmaker Peterbilt, oil and gas equipment manufacturer DynaEnergetics, and industrial automation firm Honeywell have all announced tariff surcharges.  

Stances in Washington. Trump’s team has largely defended the levies, though Elon Musk has publicly criticized Trump’s trade advisor. While Republican lawmakers have mostly defended the tariffs as well, some voiced skepticism after a Senate hearing yesterday with Trump’s trade representative Jamieson Greer. Greer is due to be questioned at a House hearing today. 

“The only path to U.S. scale relative to China—the world’s most formidable manufacturer—is U.S. alliances and partnerships. Tariffing allies ensures we end up divided against China’s scale. So potential deals like [that with South Korea], if concluded quickly, are critical. More [are] needed. Fast.”

More on:

Daily News Brief

—CFR expert Rush Doshi on X

Across the Globe

Ukraine reports Chinese fighters. Ukrainian forces captured two Chinese nationals fighting for Russia in eastern Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said yesterday. A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said today that Beijing “asks its nationals to stay away from areas of armed conflict,” while unnamed Western officials told CNN they did not see “evidence of state sponsorship.” Also yesterday, the United States said it would pull troops and equipment from a logistics hub in Poland used to supply Ukraine. Poland said other NATO allies would fill the United States’ role.

Senior U.S. official at NATO fired. Defense Secretary Hegseth removed Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield “due to a loss of confidence in her ability to lead,” a spokesperson for Hegseth said. Four of the nine senior military officers dismissedduring the Trump administration have been women; the percentage of women who become U.S. generals or admirals is in the single digits. Chatfield did not immediately comment publicly. 

Rare-earth plant expansion. Belgian chemical company Solvay inaugurated a plant expansion of their La Rochelle, France, facility yesterday that will be devoted to rare earth processing. China has recently restricted its exports of rare earths, and Solvay says it aims to provide 30 percent of processed rare earths for magnets in Europe by 2030. 

U.S. pullback of migration parole. Some migrants allowed into the United States during the Joe Biden administration under a policy called humanitarian parole received notification that their legal status was terminated yesterday and were told “to leave the United States.” The messages went out to people who had obtained appointments at the U.S.-Mexico border via a Customs and Border Protection app. Hundreds of thousands of migrants have entered the United States using the app since January 2023. It was not immediately clear how many received the termination notice. 

Clean power’s global growth. More than 40 percent of worldwide electricity was generated from renewable or nuclear energy in 2024, think tank Ember said in a new report. Solar is the fastest-growing energy source; the amount of power it produces has doubled in the last three years. Even so, the report cautioned, factors including the increased demand for air conditioning meant that fossil fuel generation rose, too.

U.S. relations with Panama. Hegseth said the two countries would work in “partnership” on a visit to Panama yesterday. While in recent months Trump has threatened to “take back” the Panama Canal, Hegseth praised Panama’s security cooperation and said that “together we will take back the canal from China’s influence.” Also yesterday,  the country’s top auditor said the Hong Kong company that owns two ports on the canal owes hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid fees.

Zimbabwe’s land compensation. Zimbabwe issued more than $300 million in bonds as part of measures to repay farmers whose land was seized twenty-five years ago in a land reform program. The program sparked violent land evictions in 2000 and prompted Western sanctions in the past. 

Argentina’s new IMF deal. Argentina reached a preliminary agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a $20 billion loan, the fund said yesterday. Details are due to be confirmed at an upcoming IMF board meeting. Buenos Aires has been negotiating a new agreement with the IMF for months as part of President Javier Milei’s economic reforms. 

What’s Ahead

  • Today, Honduras hosts a leaders’ summit for the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.

  • Today, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is on a visit to Vietnam before traveling on to China.

  • Today, a group of European Parliament delegates begins a visit to the United States.

  • Tomorrow, defense ministers of the Coalition of the Willing group to support Ukraine are due to meet at NATO headquarters in Brussels.
  • Tomorrow, the United States and Russia will hold consultations on embassy relations in Istanbul.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Europe

On the eighty-first anniversary of D-Day, CFR President Michael Froman and senior fellows discuss the Trump administration’s diminished appetite for engagement in European security affairs—even as the Russia-Ukraine war drags on.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.