Trump declares “mutual” definitions all over the world

On Thursday, President Trump has developed a plan for new definitions on other countries worldwide, an ambitious step that can destroy global trading rules and is likely to start from angry negotiations.

The President directed his advisers to reach new tariff levels that take into account a set of commercial barriers and other economic methods adopted by commercial partners in America. This does not only include the definitions that other countries receive, but also the taxes they receive on foreign products, the benefits that their industries, their exchange rates and other behaviors that the president sees are not fair.

The president said that the move was necessary to overcome “unfair” relations of America and prevent other countries from benefiting from the United States in trade. But he made it clear that his final goal is to force companies to re -manufacture them to the United States.

“If you build your product in the United States, there is no tariff,” he said during notes at the Oval Office.

Howard Lootnick, the president’s candidate for the Trade Secretary, and Jameson Jarir, will come to the trade representative, to the numbers “quickly”, in coordination with other White House officials, who had no permission to speak for the chain of transmission and said in a call with the reporters on Thursday.

When asked at the White House about a timetable, the president was postponed to Mr. Lootnick, who said that the measures may be ready as soon as April 2.

The decision to reformulate the definitions that America receives on imported goods will represent a major reform of the global trading system. For decades, the United States has identified customs tariff levels through negotiations in international commercial bodies such as the World Trade Organization.

A new fee – is likely to be higher than what the United States receives today – would effectively escape this system in favor of one that US officials only define and are based on their own standards.

Timothy Braretbell, a lawyer at Wayli Ryan, said that moving towards a tariff-treatment system will be “a fundamental change in American commercial policy, and among the largest of it for more than 75 years-since the creation of the current multi-framework system, in 1947.

Chad Bonn, an older colleague at the Peterson International Economy Institute, said that the tariff of Mr. Trump will violate the rules of the World Trade Organization in two ways. Applying different tariff prices to different countries would violate the commitment from members of the World Trade Organization not to distinguish against each other. If the United States raises customs tariffs beyond the maximum rate it negotiated with other members, this would also break the rules of trading.

Mr. Bonn said: “The decision to increase the tariff for the import of the United States, the product by product, is the country, according to the country, will be the largest blow to President Trump so far for the regulation -based trading system.”

The procedure appears to be likely to start intensive negotiations with governments whose economies depend on exports to the United States. Commercial wars on multiple fronts may also cause other countries to increase their definitions in revenge.

The White House official said in the invitation that other countries would be given the opportunity to negotiate the fees they will face.

Almost every country will be affected, but this step can have special severe consequences for India, Japan and the European Union. Mr. Trump and his employees have repeatedly referred to the value -added tax for Europe as an additional injustice at the top of the definitions.

Peter Navarro, the chief adviser to the commercial president, described the value -added tax of the European Union as the “stalled child” for unfair trade towards American business, saying that such treatment allowed Germany to export to the United States several times the number of cars it bought from it.

“President Trump is no longer ready to tolerate it,” said Mr. Navarro. “The plan will put the exhibition and mutual exhibitions a quick end to exploit American workers.”

the The European Union requires A standard tax rate of value added to most goods and services, and while it varies by country, it is about 22 percent on average Through European countries. The tax is applied at each stage in the supply chain, and the cost is usually tolerated by the final consumer.

US It is a strange between advanced economies In not imposing a value -added tax on products such as cars.

Mr. Trump’s proposal is a great reflection in a long batch in commercial policy towards reducing international barriers. While former presidents have often negotiated with foreign countries due to definitions, these agreements usually led to low fees, not higher. No President of Mr. Trump’s approach to raising the US tariffs to match the prices of other countries.

The mutual tariff plan is the latest step by Mr. Trump to punish allies and opponents alike with an unusual group of commercial actions. On Monday, the President signed a declaration that imposes a 25 percent tariff on all foreign and aluminum steel. Mr. Trump said his advisers will also meet over the next four weeks to discuss measures on cars, pharmaceutical preparations, chips and other commodities.

Mr. Trump admitted that the mutual tariff plan could lead to high prices. This is because consumers tend to pay higher prices when taxes are imposed on goods at a higher rate. But the president said that any short -term increase and that his plan would lead to more jobs. “Prices can rise in the short term to some extent, but the prices will also decrease.”

In the long run, he said, it will make our country a wealth. “

In the past weeks, the threats of Mr. Trump rocked almost daily tariffs. The United States imposed An additional tariff of 10 percent On all products from China last week, it came within hours of the situation Comprehensive definitions In Canada and Mexico, which would have brought us the tariff rates To an unprecedented level since the 1940s.

President Canada and Mexico have criticized the transmission of drugs and migrants to the United States, but he agreed to postpone the tariffs for 30 days after the two countries. He gave him some privileges.

The mutual definitions of the commercial battle of Mr. Trump are likely to expand to more countries. It remains to see whether the president is using the strategy to raise the US barriers significantly to imports, or as a lever to extract concessions from countries that end with the opening of foreign markets.

When asked about the legal authority to be used to impose a tariff, the White House official said that the president can benefit from many work and country, including Article 232, which relates to national security; Section 301, which relates to non -fair trading; And the law of economic powers in international emergency situations.

The official said that Mr. Trump did not rule out another “global” tariff later to reduce the American trade deficit, but at the present time the president chose to follow the mutual treatment.

Mr. Trump made the factors of proposals in his first term and carried it for 2024 to make trade more exchange by matching the tariff prices imposed by the two countries on American products.

He often indicated that the rate of tariffs in America has decreased as evidence that the country is being used. The average US tariff rate is about 3 percent, and less than other countries, but is still almost in line with the percentage of Canada, Britain, Japan and the European Union. On the global level, rich countries tend to decrease in customs tariffs, while poor countries have negotiated to protect their less developed industries and dawn farmers.

But Mr. Trump criticized other countries on charges of imposing higher fees on certain American products more than US accusations. For example, a 10 percent tariff pointed out that the European Union accuses American cars, compared to a 2.5 percent tariff for cars sold in the other direction.

The United States has set the customs tariff rates less than the rates of some trade partners, because for decades, US officials have been convinced of free trade benefits. They believed that the decrease in definitions would allow the United States to import cheap products for US consumers and raw materials for their factories, providing the American economy.

The opinions of Mr. Trump vary. He argues that equality of American tariff rates is necessary to restore American manufacturing, and that high definitions will reduce the trade deficit. Some economists do not agreeOn the pretext that the movements in the currency can compensate for any effects on the commercial deficit.

Economists and historians also say that the various definitions that the two countries have put on each other’s products are not evidence of discrimination. Instead, it reflects the priorities that have each government when it agreed to the maximum tariff rates in negotiations with other members of the World Trade Organization.

These negotiations gave governments the opportunity to fight for high tariff rates on the industries they wanted to protect, and to accept low customs tariff rates on products that are likely to import.

Ino Manak, a commercial expert in the Council of Foreign Relations, said that the customs tariff rates were “a reflection of the local political economy concerned specified for a particular country.” For example, she said that US officials negotiated a two -digit tariff on wool jackets and shoes to protect American producers at that time.

She said that other countries protect their industries as well, but they want to keep the definitions low “so that consumers and manufacturers have access to a wide range of elements at the most competitive prices.”

Douglas Irwin, a professor of economics at Dartmouth College, said that the two countries had left the great depression and the Second World War with the various tariff symbols. When commercial negotiations began in 1947, the two countries began to reduce the customs tariff. In the sixties of the last century, many countries agreed to reduce all definitions, but there was no effort to draw them on specific products.

He said: “The reciprocity in this case was” Let’s all cut the same amount “and not” let’s get the definitions of our definitions on the basis of the product on the basis of the product, “which should be Trump’s point of view of reciprocity.”

Raising definitions that exceed the United States rate approved by the United States in the World Trade Organization would violate the commitment of the group, and other members of the World Trade Organization can challenge this measure. But the painting in the World Trade Organization responsible for resolving such conflicts was Effective neutral At the first Trump administration when the United States refused to appoint any other members. The Biden Administration continued this policy.

Gina Smileick It contributed to the reports from Brussels.