Wednesday, April 30, 2025

Drivers ands Sanctuary cities new goals

Trump has been doing many things that affect Americans in ways of language laws for truck drivers, immigration, and policymaking. His ongoing goal of making English the official language and keeping minorities out keeps expanding. 



First, the language laws for truck drivers or commercial drivers are being tightened down even more. The Trump Administration claims there's a lot of miscommunication with truck drivers, and that it's nearly common sense for the safety of Americans. Even though this is already a law in place. Since 2001, drivers with a commercial license have to be able to write English and read English, In addition to understanding traffic signals and signs. It’s really not clear how many truck drivers do speak English but Trump has enforced that if the truck drivers are not fluent in English they are now considered out of service or out of their job, which could influence many Americans. Such as people who have jobs that are just not proficient or fluent in English even if they’re still capable drivers and have pasted the Initial test to get their CDL. The order reads, “Proficiency in English … should be a non-negotiable safety requirement for professional drivers.” It's crazy because this is already something implemented by a previous law.  Trump is just trying to push out as many immigrants or not white people as he can, through strange roots.


I don't know how Trump would enforce this or test the drivers even more, but it seems like a lot of people could be out of work. Even when they already have to be able to read signs etc.


In addition, Trump is affecting sanctuary cities by placing a new executive order to cut funding for these cities. Trump has been claiming that these cities are protecting criminals and that it's an endangerment to US citizens. Even though multiple sources have stated, no correlation between sanctuary cities and increased crime rates. The people who are in charge in the sanctuary cities claim that their communities are generally safer, because immigrants who live there feel like they can work and or communicate with the local police because there is no great fear of being deported so they are more honest. These cities are trying to protect immigrants by having their local police force not work with ICE. But Trump wants to end this, he claims that these cities are going against federal law he wants to cut funding to the cities unless the police comply with what he wants. Ever since Trump has been in office, he has been trying to deal with immigrants, and this executive order is just another way to do that in increasing law enforcement activity in deporting illegal immigrants. This really seems never ending. In San Francisco, this has caused a big commotion as they are claiming it's unconstitutional to deny Federal funding to these cities. This could affect so many people who are adding to America and harm so many families, I wonder what will happen next.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/30/donald-trump-sanctuary-cities

https://www.carscoops.com/2025/04/truck-drivers-who-cant-speak-or-read-english-will-be-pulled-from-the-roads/

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5271893-trump-executive-order-truck-drivers-speak-english/



Tuesday, April 29, 2025

The Never Ending Fight Over Church and State

 

St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School in Oklahoma may become the first religious charter school in the United States if the Supreme Court rules that it can receive public money. The ongoing discussion about the separation of church and state revolves around this case. The establishment clause of the First Amendment, which prevents the government from supporting religious groups, is used by opponents as the reason why public funding for a religious school would be unconstitutional. However, advocates argue that public funds should be available for religious schools under the Free Exercise Clause, especially for families looking for faith-based educational options in underprivileged communities.

A decision in support of St. Isidore might change the direction of American education by allowing other Christian charter schools to receive public funding. Decades of court rulings that have maintained religious organizations apart from government funding would be overturned by a case like this. Many anticipate that the court will rule in favor of St. Isidore because it is a conservative court that has defended religious freedom in the past. If this happens, it could create a standard for religious schools nationwide, which might result in a significant change in the spending of public funds and have effects for public/charter schools as well as the larger discussion of religion and education in America.


The case has divided Oklahoma's leadership, with some state officials, like Governor Kevin Stitt, strongly supporting the use of public funds for religious schools, seeing it as an expansion of school choice. However, others, including Oklahoma's Attorney General Gentner Drummond, oppose the idea, fearing it could take funding away from public schools and blur the lines between church and state. This ideological divide, combined with the involvement of conservative legal groups, sets the stage for a highly impactful decision. 


Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/29/politics/st-isidore-catholic-charter-school-supreme-court/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/28/oklahoma-supreme-court-catholic-public-school-st-isidores/

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-religious-catholic-charter-school-oklahoma-bd400a6e5d4045d52eca0c86bb68622e


Mark Carney isn’t Tom Brady, but he sure looks like him

The name of this blog is the Hitchhiker’s Guide to National Affairs, and as Canada is a nation (and not the 51st state, but if it was a state, even more the reason to include it in this blog), covering the Canadian election seems pretty pertinent, especially since our President's been meddling in it.


As I’m writing this, polls have now closed across Atlantic Canada. It’s April 28, 2025 at 6 p.m. and I’m going to predict a Canadian victory for the Liberal Party. The Liberals are up 14 seats to 6 Conservative seats, which is not great, but it’s way better than they were doing just four months ago, given that the third parties have collapsed into a base of Liberal support.

Update: Mark Carney will serve a full term as Prime Minister leading a minority Liberal Government. The Conservative Party turned out better than it ever had (since 1988) but they lost the bid for Prime Minister, and the conservative candidate actually lost their own MP (Member of Parliament) seat. 

How the election process in Canada works is that each riding (essentially a district) votes red or blue (or any other color, as aforementioned, they have a multitude of smaller third parties), and the party that has the most representatives installs the Prime Minister.

This means that Prime Minister Mark Carney will continue to lead Canada through its tumultuous economy in an election upset that will go down in history with as much notoriety as the 2017 Super Bowl.

Now, I don't really know anything about football, but that’s one of Tom Brady’s most legendary games, with the Patriots overcoming a 3-28 deficit, and it’s also the largest comeback in Super Bowl history.

The Falcons were up 25 points, the same number of points that Pierre Poilievre, Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative nominee, was leading by.

But a lot changes in a few months. Famously unpopular former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau with a nine-year term was marked with an increase in housing costs, a suffering economy, and frankly, Canadians had begun to get tired of him.



So in comes Mark Carney flying in to save the day.

Carney has a pretty solid record. He was the governor of the Bank of Canada, then, the governor of the Bank of England (the first-ever non-British person to be appointed to the role). It’s important to note that neither of these positions are elected by the people, and thus, he is the first serving prime minister to have never before been elected. Carney also graduated from both Harvard University and Oxford University, and he worked 13 years at Goldman Sachs. So in this election, he was pitching his strong economic record in response to Trump tariff madness, and also highlighting that he could stand up to Trump in the first place.

But Carney is no Tom Brady. So what happened?

Well, Trump sold out the entire Conservative Party of Canada to make a few “51st state” jokes.

CPC leader Poilievre had been holding a strong lead throughout most of 2024. He catapulted to popularity post-COVID by leveraging media sound bites, where he’s arguably the quickest thinker and sharpest tongue Trudeau had ever faced (and Trudeau had run and won quite a few times, leaving waste to the Conservative Party candidate each time). That’s how I discovered him, and that's also probably why you will detect some bias when I'm writing this, so please take this blog with a grain of salt as I'm not writing this from a completely unbiased perspective. Anyway, you can see what I mean here when I talk about his strong speaking ability:

Poilievre calls out Trudeau for being a hypocrite

Poilievre sparring with Trudeau on Trump tariffs

People like to call Poilievre a mini-Trump, but I honestly disagree. I will make the point that Poilievre is a conservative, but he is also in support of abortion (without restrictions) and same-sex marriage, which I think highlights a culture of tolerance, acceptance, and progressiveness even from the right side of the aisle which I think is a good thing, no matter where the party lines are drawn.

Either way, Poilievre had built a really strong message around two things. The first is no more Trudeau: he’s been in office for nine years and people were overall tired of him, plus housing and food had gotten more expensive and Poilievre really railed at the economic populism aspect, hard. He attacked Justin Trudeau for breaking the Canadian Promise (I suppose that’s their version of the American Dream).

“Politicians break promises all the time. But you know what was bad about this promise? This promise didn't belong to this Prime Minister. It wasn't his promise to break. It belonged to all of us and our purpose is to bring home that promise.”

He also campaigned on “axe the tax”, a slogan representing the repeal of the carbon tax, a historically unpopular policy in the name of climate change that essentially taxed people for trying to use the heaters in their own homes, and remember, this is negative freezing Canada.


These were all incredibly popular, and he turned into a figure of hope for many Canadians. In fact, just months ago, it seemed the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) with Leader of the Opposition Pierre Poilievre at its helm would cruise to an easy victory.

But then Trudeau resigned. Poilievre lost his main talking point. He tried to talk about Trudeau during the debate, and Carney shut him down with a swift “Trudeau isn’t here tonight”, making Poilievre look pretty foolish. Plus, Carney, a conservative essentially masquerading as a Liberal in order to get the top job (previous Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper was the one that appointed him to solve economic problems in Canada back in 2008), shut down the carbon tax, so now, Carney solved the other problem that Poilievre was complaining about.

And with Trump’s language, Poilievre started looking a lot like Trump. National patriotism skyrocketed in Canada like never before. Hence why my characterization of Mark Carney as Tom Brady might not be too far off… Patriots, anybody? Poilievre pointing out the real, glaring problems of Canada no longer looked so patriotic and he lost support in the eyes of his viewers. Plus, his general inability to speak up well against Trump as well as he was speaking before made him look weak and highlighted potential to be subverted by Trump.

He’s been in a very precarious scenario: much of the media that has been giving him attention flowed from American conservative media, and many of his hardcore Conservative fans also aligned with Trump, so pushing back against Trump too much could alienate his base. However, at the same time, not pushing back against Trump made the centrist/left-leaning and overall mostly newly patriotic base push back against him.

But Poilievre actually didn’t “go down” that much. If you look at the poll, it’s the Liberals that had a sharp increase. To this point, I’m not entirely sure why. But I do know that in times of war or national uncertainty, the nation doubles down on the existing government, which is why, as a generally accurate but not absolute rule of thumb, war is good for the party in power. Increased patriotism as a result of conflict from a third party connects to the current leader and floats them upwards. I’m sure you can find examples of this happening in America and around the world. You can see this with both of the Bush’s.



This is also an opportunity to plug course content from the first semester of AP Government, where we learned about political parties. When I've been writing about Canada, I've been highlighting the strong divide between the Liberals and Conservatives, but what I'm leaving out of the larger picture (partially because they've taken themselves out of the picture) is the New Democratic Party, a more progressive left-leaning party that was formerly the second-largest party and formed the Official Opposition in the 41st Canadian Parliament, highlighting that "third parties" can succeed in Canada. On the contrary, minor and “third” parties in America generally fail. There are a few reasons for this, the first of which being the winner-take-all election system, where, for example, Teddy Roosevelt and his own third party split split the vote and caused both his own 3rd party and his former affiliation which had some policy overlap to lose.  Another time, Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote but got no electoral votes, highlighting how the election system is not conducive to third parties as a whole. Major parties also absorb third-party issues, for example, the Free Soil Party policy, etc. in slavery was adopted by major parties. 

This is not as much the case in Canada, where the Liberals can present themselves as a more moderate left-leaning party, win the election, and if they are a minority party, then form a coalition in Parliament with the NDP, promising to achieve some of their objectives. (There's also the Bloc Québécois, but they only run candidates in Quebec.) However, due to this election's historic nature, a lot of the NDP votes were siphoned to the Liberals, simply due to the mantra that "a vote for NDP is a vote for the Conservatives". The NDP dropped to historic lows, and Jagmeet Singh (the leader of the NDP) lost his own seat. This highlights sort of the winner-take-all election system even though Canada has no electoral college, where the NDP did not want to risk splitting the vote and handing the win over to the Conservatives, since aligning themselves with the Liberals is more advantageous for the party platform. As aforementioned, Carney is seen as more patriotic and better in the fight against Trump as a Harvard-educated economist and experienced manager through the 2008 recession, so his patriotism and conviction in Canada brought people supporting multiple parties (even Bloc Québécois voters threw their name in the hat for Canada in spite of his poor connection to Quebec and even poorer French) together, highlighting the nature of patriotism behind the incumbent party in times of need.

And so, through Carney’s patriotism, he clutches the Liberal comeback by continuously bashing Trump because he has the freedom to do so. He talks about rebuilding Canadian industry in a positive image, highlighting his economic experience. Canadians see him as caring more about Canada, and whether that be real or not, his love and pride for the country have been at the center of his messaging.



So this is what it’s come down to. An economic populist focused on change, championing freedom and quality life for Canadians, falling flat in the final stretch, just like the five conservative leaders that came before him versus a never-before-elected economist. The economist has shown that he cares deeply about Canada and knows how to protect its sovereignty, in the face of Trump and a Trump-esque figure in the shape of Poilievre. A uniquely run campaign with excellent results, up 25 points in the third quarter, all coming crashing down in the final quarter at the feet of Prime Minister Mark Carney.

The Patriots win the Canadian election.


Sunday, April 27, 2025

Can Elon Musk Save Tesla From Himself?

Demonstrators hold anti-Tesla posters during a protest encouraging people to boycott Tesla in opposition to Tesla CEO Elon Musk's political efforts outside the Tesla Centre Park Royal in London, Britain.

 Tesla is facing some big challenges connected to Elon Musk's complicated political issues. Musk announced that he will minimize his involvement with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a Trump era program that attempts to reduce government spending, following a sharp decline in profits of 71% and a 20% drop in car sales. Musk made this decision in response to calls from analysts and investors for him to focus more on Tesla, a company whose price has dropped over 50% since December. In addition to making headlines, Musk's political efforts have sparked boycotts and demonstrations worldwide. Along with Musk's increasing connections to far-right groups and government employment cuts, Tesla's reputation has taken a hit due to protests in Europe and vandalism in the United States. Although Musk claims that his actions are intended to reduce government waste, many think they are diversionary measures that have hindered Tesla's advancement. The company is also up against fierce competition from traditional car manufacturers venturing into the electric vehicle sector, as well as Chinese electric vehicle producers like BYD.

The new tariffs from Trump are likely to increase the cost of parts for Tesla's factories in the U.S., even though the cars are made here. Musk has asked for lower tariffs, but he knows he doesn't have much power over trade rules. Experts are unsure, despite Tesla's optimism about future growth, because of AI, self-driving cars, and plans for more affordable electric vehicles. Investors are concerned due to the Cybertruck's significant issues and the robotaxi project's delays. Musk mentioned that he can now concentrate more on Tesla because the DOGE setup is mostly complete. It's unclear if this adjustment will be enough to increase sales and satisfy shareholders. With more competition, political issues, and a damaged reputation, Tesla has a tough road ahead. The company that used to seem unbeatable is now facing some of its hardest challenges ever, and Musk's complete attention will be crucial if Tesla wants to improve.


Sources:

Wednesday, April 23, 2025

I.C.E.'s Recent Movements and Free Speech


Mahmoud Khalil was a student scheduled to graduate from Columbia in May of this year, and had become the face of a pro-Palestinian movement. On March 8th, 2025, he was detained by ICE. Just one day 
before, ICE had attempted to detain another Columbia student, Ranjani Srinivasan. Official statements were released for both students that their detainment was in connection with Hamas, a militant group that is considered a terrorist group by many countries, including the US, whose actions and ideology have been central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, this image painted by the Department of Homeland Security and Trump is an incomplete one. Both Khalil and Srinivasan were labeled as threats due to potential connections to Hamas. Despite Khalil's public statements and protest activities, there is no publicly available evidence linking Mahmoud Khalil to Hamas. Srinivasan's detainment can be traced back to her arrest during a pro-Palestine protest occupying Hamilton Hall, which was also not directly linked to Hamas. Additionally, Srinivasan claims that she was not even participating in this break-in, but just trying to make her way through the crowd when she was arrested.

Much more recently, on March 25th, Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish international Tufts student from with a student visa was taken into federal custody. A statement from homeland security stated that she had “engaged in activities in support of” Hamas considered “grounds for visa issuance to be terminated.” These activities appear to be related to Ozturk's hand in the writing of an opinion essay published in the Tufts student newspaper one year ago. The essay was critical of Tufts' lack of a desire to detach itself from companies that were connected with Israel.


The targeting of these students, especially Ozturk, raises serious concerns for freedom of speech. These students were all attempted to be deported under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that allows the Secretary of State to start deportation for any noncitizen if their presence is seen as a threat to U.S. foreign policy. However, the lack of any concrete connections to threatening actions in any of these cases blurs the line between free speech and threatening actions. Is a protest passionately in support of Palestine also in support of Hamas? How about an op-ed against supporting Israel? The US government seems to think so, and by invoking an obscure provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, they can act on it.


This all raises concerns about the implications of these actions. What other ideas will Americans become less free to talk about? Who else can be targeted? While it seems like only major universities have been targeted thus far, we need to remember that there was a time when no universities were targeted by ICE. There is no concrete pattern. This very blog is one that often hosts opinionated pieces, and while it is small, there's no way to tell if that will even be relevant in the coming years. 

Additionally, AI offers free, public ways for the web to be scraped quickly and effectively. Something that really concerns me is that with no effort at all, I was able to get ChatGPT to give me the name of a student who had written pieces critiquing conservative policies. It did mostly tell me about "anonymous contributors" but even the fact that it gave me one name is enough to disquiet me. As we move into this new age of rapid change and unpredictability, we must hope for the best while not forgetting to prepare for the worst.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/10/nyregion/mahmoud-khalil-ice-louisiana.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/15/nyregion/columbia-student-kristi-noem-video.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/26/us/ice-tufts-student-detained-rumeysa-ozturk.html

Tuesday, April 22, 2025

Harvard Sues the Trump Administration

 


“The government’s actions (…) are part of a broader effort by the Government to punish Harvard for protecting its constitutional rights,” stated Harvard’s lawyers.

The world’s wealthiest university has sued the Trump administration in response to threats of cutting billions in research funding and efforts to “reclaim” elite universities. Harvard’s president, Alan M. Garber, warned that the government’s actions could have “severe and long-lasting” consequences.

The Trump administration sent Harvard a list of demands tied to federal funding, including the reporting of international students accused of misconduct, changes to curriculum and admissions policies, the discontinuation of DEI initiatives, and more. Officials claim these measures aim to combat antisemitism, following pro-Palestinian protests on campus and accusations that Harvard failed to protect its Jewish students. However, many of the targeted programs have no rational connection to that cause.

Harvard has refused to comply, driving the Trump administration to threaten to withdraw student visas and freeze over $2.2 billion in federal funding. This funding supports crucial research into child cancer survivorship, infectious disease control, treatment for wounded soldiers, radiation exposure, tuberculosis, and more. Harvard’s lawsuit argues that the government’s unprecedented overreach violates the First Amendment and threatens the university’s academic freedom, in addition to jeopardizing groundbreaking research. The university accuses the government of using vague accusations as “leverage to gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard.”

While White House officials have said President Donald Trump is open to negotiating a settlement, Harvard has shown no intention of taking this path, despite donors urging the university to settle. The case could take years to reach a resolution and ultimately reach the Supreme Court.


Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/19/us/harvard-trump-administration-letter-mistake/index.html 

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372566/trump-harvard-lawsuit-antisemitism 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/us/harvard-lawsuit-trump-administration.html 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4grwkyxgjwo 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/22/us/harvard-lawsuit-trump-administration-explainer/index.html 





Gulf of what?

Something that has made me think recently has been Donald Trump's attempt to change a body of water. I never thought that something like this could cause such a big issue in our world and yet here we are. According to (ap news) The Associated Press, people in Trump's administration started to scratch the term Gulf of Mexico and instead use Gulf of America. They used this in things like public statements and even press releases.


Ap states, “It is a fact that the body of water off the coast of Louisiana is called the Gulf of America,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Feb. 12. “It’s very important to this administration that we get that right, not just for people here at home, but also for the rest of the world.”


 Trumo, for some reason, was under the impression that people would start to use this term even though people have been saying Gulf of Mexico for so every it's very widely established. All a sudden, just changing a body of water's name because the president wants to, and then expect everyone else to use it is crazy. Just because the reporters did not want to and refused to say Gulf of America, they were banished from going to the white house to cover events. Simply just because they didn't use the term Gulf of America, I believe that this is such a random and strange move by Trump, as this is limiting access to journalists access b/c they won't change their language. 


This is limiting what Americans are getting access to, as not all reporters are unable to access the same stuff and information from the white house. This seems like this is hindering our First Amendment rights as the government is controlling what information we can get in order by how we comply with what he said. (and something crazy at that, that doesn't even matter). When this came before a judge the final verdict of what was decided was that this is an infringement on our First Amendment as our rights, we are being limited on what we can and can't say. The ruling of the Court gives me a sliver of Hope that the use of checks and balances are being honored in the US.




https://apnews.com/article/trump-gulf-of-mexico-bc438f4feca1234475a1adef99344da7

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/gulf-of-america-day-2025/

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp820m733p3o



Friday, April 18, 2025

Trump Mistakenly Deports Legal US Resident

Kilmar Abrego Garcia 'healthy' in first ...

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a 29 year old Salvadorian was mistakenly deported in March to a Salvadorian mega-prison. This happened even though he was granted protection by an immigration judge in 2019 that should have prevented this from happening. ICE went ahead and deported Abrego Garcia anyways, even though the judge had said that Abrego Garcia going back to El Salvador could put him in serious danger because of gang violence. ICE tried to defend themselves that claiming it was a "mistake" and claiming that they thought he was apart of a ganged based on info that was not proven to be true. 

Abrego Garcia was thrown into CECOT, which is one of the country's worst mega-prisons once he had landed in El Salvador. The prison is known for overcrowding and its brutal conditions. A federal judge in Maryland called the deportation "illegal" and ordered the Trump administration to bring him back to the U.S. by April 7th. The judge was very upset with the entire situation and said that the government never had a legal reason to arrest Abrego Garcia in the first place and in response to that, the Justice Department had admitted that it was a mistake caused by "an administrative error".They are still trying to find evidence that Abrego Garcia is apart of the very dangerous gang, MS-13.

Abrego Garcia's wife, Jennifer Vasquez has spoken out and said that when Abrego Garcia was taken from her and her family it destroyed them. She had also said that ICE's mistakes shattered their entire family and meanwhile her and her children have been suffering for what the Trump administration has caused, the Trump White House has been calling Abrego Garcia a danger to society without having and proof. DOJ lawyers also argued that the judge lacks authority to order his return since Abrego Garcia is no longer in the U.S. 

Abrego Garcia was arrested in 2019 for looking for work at a Home Depot parking lot, he didnt face any consequences. After that, an immigration judge had ruled that Abrego Garcia shouldn't be deported because he would most likely face harm in El Salvador. This ruling should have been enough to protect him, but instead, ICE put him on a flight with hundreds of other people with the destination of a prison full of alleged gang members. A lot of these men don't have criminal records either, they were deported mainly because of how they looked or because of their tattoos.

Even though Abrego Garcia family is not able to help him, they have realized that his case is part of a much bigger fight of how the U.S. tends to handle immigration. His wife said that she won't stop fighting, not just for her husband, but for all of the families that have been affected by these kind of mistakes and she believes that whether or not the government brings her husband back, it will change how immigrants are treated in this country moving forward.


Sources:

 https://www.npr.org/2025/04/04/nx-s1-5352448/judge-orders-the-trump-administration-to-return-man-who-was-mistakenly-deported-el-salvador  

Thursday, April 10, 2025

Trump pauses tariffs, investors finally breathe.

 

This week's increase in the stock market is thanks to a new plan announced April 9th by the White House. President Donald Trump announced a complete three month pause on all “reciprocal” tariffs with the exception of China. This announcement came with a big jump among tech companies as Trump's administration decided to exempt imported Chinese smartphones, computers, and other electronic devices from the tariff.


This announcement was a breath of fresh air for many who invested their savings in the stock market and a blessing for those who had invested during the dip. The Dow rose 7.87%, the S&P 500 jumped 9.5%, and the Nasdaq increased 12.2%. These were some of the strongest one day gains in a long time, with the Nasdaq having its second best day on record. Though a universal 10% tariff on imports remains, Wall Street and Investors worldwide cheered the administration’s pullback from even more severe trade measures, and the consequences that come with it.

While tariffs on most countries dropped back to 10%, China was hit even harder as their tariff increased from 104% to 125%. Trump cited China’s “lack of respect” for global markets and doubled down on his tough stance, insisting that China “wants to make a deal” and that the administration was open to negotiations, suggesting the pause could be foreshadowing of new trade arrangements.

The trade war with China, however, seems far from over. In response to the increase in the U.S. tariff, China announced new tariffs of 84% on American goods, effective Thursday. With both sides snapping back, experts warn that the pause may only offer temporary relief. Economist Wendong Zhang warned that China has been actively reducing reliance on U.S. imports since the previous trade war and now has broader public support to stand firm. The Chinese government slammed the U.S. move as a “mistake upon mistake,” threatening long term damage to the global trading system, as it blatantly infringes on China's trade rights and trade interests. 

Some economists say that deeper risks remain. Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM US, noted that the pause might delay but not prevent the looming recession. “The economy is still likely to fall into recession, given the level of simultaneous shocks it’s absorbed,” he said. For now, the tariff pause has given some much needed hope to the markets. But with China's promise to “fight to the end,” the path ahead is undoubtedly unsure and strenuous. Investors may be celebrating, but the game that is global trade remains as up in the air as ever.



https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/09/business/reciprocal-tariff-pause-trump/index.html