Nvidia tumbled in afterhours trading after the company said the US government will begin requiring a license to export the company’s H20 chips to China, an escalation of restrictions that the company has publicly opposed.

The government informed Nvidia on Monday that such a license would be in effect “for the indefinite future,” the company said in an 8K filing. The company now expects to report charges of about $5.5 billion during the fiscal first quarter from “inventory, purchase commitments and related reserves” tied to the H20 line, Nvidia said.

On April 9, 2025, the U.S. government, or USG, informed NVIDIA Corporation, or the Company, that the USG requires a license for export to China (including Hong Kong and Macau) and D:5 countries, or to companies headquartered or with an ultimate parent therein, of the Company’s H20 integrated circuits and any other circuits achieving the H20’s memory bandwidth, interconnect bandwidth, or combination thereof. The USG indicated that the license requirement addresses the risk that the covered products may be used in, or diverted to, a supercomputer in China. On April 14, 2025, the USG informed the Company that the license requirement will be in effect for the indefinite future. – 8K filing

As a reminder, the H20 is a scaled-down chip that was designed to comply with US export regulations and has been Nvidia’s primary AI GPU legally available for sale in China after the H100/A100 were banned.

Bloomberg News reported in January that the Trump administration was exploring such a step. 

NVDA stock tumbled as much as 7% in afterhours trading as the market tried to make sense of this latest escalation in the trade war.

Trump’s tariffs have injected a large measure of chaos into the markets – so much so that JPMorgan sees only four potential off-ramps to right the ship;

(i) Series of Trade Deals – the key being that one or more need to be completed across the G8 with a China deal being the most impactful

(ii) Another Trump Pivot – this could look like a delay/reduction for China to the 10%, perhaps with Trump’s commitment to fostering a business-friendly environment

(iii) A Legal Injunction – about 2 weeks ago a Charles Koch-backed legal group initiated a lawsuit against Trump challenging Presidential authority over tariffs (BBG)

(iv) Congress Passes a Veto-Proof Law – we have seen two initiative with Republicans crossing the aisle to join Democrats in attempting to halt the trade war but, as of now, the 2/3 necessary in both parts of Congress has not been attained.

While (i) is allegedly in the works, and (ii) could happen depending on which way the wind is blowing at Mar-a-Lago, we’ve now we’ve got (iii) in the works – as five companies have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its decision to tariff nearly every country in the world – arguing that Trump has overstepped his authority.

As Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times notes on April 2, Trump announced that he would impose 10 percent baseline tariffs on nearly every country and higher rates for nations with which the United States is at a significant trade deficit. A week later, the president paused the reciprocal tariffs for dozens of countries, but not for China, for which he raised the tariff rate to 145 percent.

The libertarian-aligned Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of five companies in the U.S. Court of International Trade, alleging that a statute that Trump invoked “does not authorize the President to unilaterally issue across-the-board worldwide tariffs.”

“His claimed emergency is a figment of his own imagination: trade deficits, which have persisted for decades without causing economic harm, are not an emergency. Nor do these trade deficits constitute an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat,’” the group’s lawyers said.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of alcohol company Vos Selections, sportfishing e-commerce business FishUSA, toy manufacturer MicroKits, pipe manufacturer Genova Pipe, and cycling apparel brand Terry Precision Cycling.

Liberty Justice Center’s senior counsel, Jeffrey Schwab, said in a statement that the president lacks the “power to impose taxes that have such vast global economic consequences.” The plaintiffs argue that only Congress, not the executive branch, can set tax rates.

Trump said in an April 2 executive order that the initial swath of tariffs is needed to bolster national security with regard to supply chains and because U.S. trading partners have engaged in “economic policies that suppress domestic wages and consumption, as indicated by large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits.”

Trump’s announcements have caused fluctuations in the stock market this month, with indexes dropping before the partial tariff pause. On April 14, the three major stock indexes saw increases. By 3:30 p.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was up by more than 400 points, while the Nasdaq increased about 1 percentage point.

On April 13, Trump said that he would be announcing tariffs on imported semiconductors over the next week, adding that there would be flexibility with some companies in the sector.

“We wanted to uncomplicate it from a lot of other companies, because we want to make our chips and semiconductors and other things in our country,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he traveled back to Washington from his estate in West Palm Beach.

Trump declined to say whether some products, such as smartphones, might still end up being exempted.

“You have to show a certain flexibility. Nobody should be so rigid,” he said.

Earlier on April 13, Trump wrote in a post on social media platform Truth Social, “We are taking a look at Semiconductors and the WHOLE ELECTRONICS SUPPLY CHAIN in the upcoming National Security Tariff Investigations.

“What has been exposed is that we need to make products in the United States, and that we will not be held hostage by other Countries, especially hostile trading Nations like China.”

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told ABC News on April 13 that Trump will set up a “special focus-type of tariff” on smartphones, computers, and other electronics within several weeks alongside tariffs for semiconductors and pharmaceutical drugs.

The Trump administration has not responded to the group’s lawsuit in court. The Epoch Times contacted the White House for comment on April 14.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Authored by Aaron Wood via CoinTelegraph.com,

The crypto industry’s inability to access banking services still concerns many industry observers despite recent policy victories.

In past years, financial services firms and banks concerned about fiduciary risk, reporting liabilities and reputational risk often would refuse to offer service to crypto firms — i.e., “debanking” them. 

Legislative efforts in the United States and Australia are attempting to remove these barriers for the crypto industry. In the former, legislators repealed guidelines that made it difficult for banks to custody crypto assets, as well as those stating that crypto carried “reputational risk” for banks. In the latter, the Labor Party has introduced a bill to create a legal framework for crypto, giving banks the clarity they need to interact with the crypto industry.

Despite these tangible efforts, some crypto industry observers say that the crypto’s debanking problem is far from over.

US crypto execs say debanking is still an issue 

The crypto industry has long decried “Operation Chokepoint 2.0,” its nickname for a suite of policies that they claim constrained the crypto industry from growing under the administration of former President Joe Biden. Among these were measures making it more difficult for crypto firms to access banking services. 

The early days of the second administration of President Donald Trump have seen many of these repealed or changed. One of the first was the repeal of Staff Accounting Bulletin 121, which required banks offering custody for customers’ cryptocurrencies to list them as liabilities on their balance sheets — this made it very difficult for banks to justify offering such services.

The administration also appointed a new head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Rodney Hood. Dennis Porter, CEO of the Bitcoin-focused policy organization Satoshi Action, told Cointelegraph that under Hood’s tenure, the OCC has already said banks can offer crypto-related services like custody, stablecoin reserves and blockchain participation.

“This opens the door for broader adoption of digital asset technology and custodial services by traditional financial institutions, signaling a major shift in how banks engage with crypto,” he said.

Despite these victories, Caitlin Long, founder and CEO of Custodia Bank, said on March 21 that debanking is likely to remain a problem for crypto firms into 2026.

Long said the non-partisan board of governors of the Federal Reserve is “still controlled by Democrats,” alluding to Democrats’ more skeptical stance on crypto. Long claimed that “there are two crypto-friendly banks under examination by the Fed right now, and an army of examiners was sent into these banks, including the examiners from Washington, a literal army just smothering the banks.”

Long noted that Trump won’t be able to appoint a new Fed governor until January, meaning that, while other agencies may be more crypto-friendly, there are still roadblocks. 

Australia’s Labor Party to create crypto framework

Stand With Crypto, the “grassroots” crypto advocacy organization started by Coinbase that has spread to the US, UK, Canada and Australia, said that “in Australia, debanking is quietly shutting out innovators and entrepreneurs — particularly in the crypto and blockchain space.”

In a post on X, the organization claimed that debanking results in “reputational damage, loss of revenue, increased operational costs, and inability to launch or sustain services.” It also claimed that it forces some companies to move offshore. 

In response to these concerns, the ruling center-left Labor Party in Australia has proposed a new set of laws for the cryptocurrency industry. The changes to current financial services law seek to tackle the issue of debanking in the country’s cryptocurrency industry.

Australia’s Treasury says its new crypto regulations have four priorities. Source: Australian Department of the Treasury

Edward Carroll, head of global markets and corporate finance at MHC Digital Group — an Australian crypto platform — told Cointelegraph that in Australia, debanking decisions were “not the result of regulatory directives.”

“Rather, they appear to stem from a more general sense of risk aversion due to the current lack of a clear regulatory framework.”

Carroll was optimistic about the Labor Party’s proactive stance. The major political parties were “showing a shift in sentiment and a shared commitment to establishing formal crypto regulation.” 

“We are hopeful that this will give banks the confidence to reengage with crypto businesses that meet compliance standards,” he said.

Canada unlikely to relieve crypto firms

In Canada, “debanking remains a serious and ongoing challenge for the Canadian crypto industry,” according to Morva Rohani, executive director of the Canadian Web3 Council.

“While some firms have successfully established relationships with banking partners, many continue to face account closures or denials with little explanation or recourse,” she told Cointelegraph. 

While debanking actions aren’t explicit, financial institutions’ interpretation of Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer regulations “creates a risk-averse environment where banks weigh compliance and reputational concerns against the relatively low revenue potential of crypto clients.”

The end result, per Rohani, is a systemic debanking problem for the digital assets industry.

But unlike in the US and Australia, the Canadian crypto industry may not find relief anytime soon. Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose more crypto-skeptic Liberal Party is surging in the polls ahead of the April 28 snap elections, is himself a crypto-skeptic.

Polls show Carney firmly in the lead. Source: Ipsos

Carney has stated that the future of money lies more in a “central bank stablecoin,” otherwise referred to as a central bank digital currency.

Rohani said that “no comprehensive legislative solution has been implemented” with regard to debanking. “A more structured approach, including mandated disclosure of reasons for account termination and regulatory oversight, is needed,” she said.

Critics claim crypto is “hijacking” the debanking issue

There is another side to the debanking debate, which claims that crypto’s debanking “problem” is a non-issue or a vehicle for crypto firms to get what they want in terms of regulation. 

Molly White, the author of Web3 Is Going Just Great and the “Citation Needed” newsletter, has noted that, in the US at least, crypto firms have claimed to be victims of debanking while lauding Trump’s efforts to end protections for debanking at the same time.

In a Feb. 14 post, White stated that the crypto industry had “hijacked” the discussion around debanking, which contains legitimate concerns regarding access to financial services — particularly regarding discrimination due to race, religious identity or industry affiliation. 

She claims the crypto industry has used debanking as a means to deflect legitimate regulatory inquiries into crypto companies’ compliance efforts. 

Further of note is the fact that Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has applauded the efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with Elon Musk at the helm, to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

One of the CFPB’s responsibilities is to investigate claims of debanking. But when DOGE instructed the agency to halt all work, Armstrong said it was “100% the right call,” in addition to making dubious claims about the agency’s constitutionality.

In the meantime

Whether the industry’s debanking concerns stem from legitimate discrimination or an attempt at regulatory capture, crypto firms are developing solutions in the interim. 

Porter said that, as an alternative to banking services, “many crypto companies have leaned on stablecoins as a primary tool for managing finances,” while others have worked with “smaller regional banks or specialized trust companies open to digital assets.”

Rohani said that this kind of “patchwork of relationships” can increase operational costs and risks and are “not sustainable long-term solutions for growth or to build a competitive, regulated industry.”

Porter concluded that the banking workarounds could actually strengthen the industry’s position, stating that they may “continue evolving into fully integrated relationships with traditional financial institutions, further cementing crypto’s place in mainstream finance.”

The Trump administration is moving to eliminate federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which supports PBS and NPR, while also cutting billions in foreign aid, according to a draft memo from Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought. The New York Post reports the plan would strip $1.1 billion from CPB and $8.3 billion from USAID, pointing to CPB’s “consistent anti-conservative bias” as a driving factor.

The memo, part of a “rescissions” strategy to rescind previously approved funds, was requested by GOP congressional leaders. Once delivered to Capitol Hill, the Republican-led Congress will have 45 days to approve or reject the proposal. White House officials are confident it will pass.

The plan also solidifies foreign aid cuts led by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, aligning with efforts to slash federal spending.

“Since day one, the Trump Administration has targeted waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal spending through executive action, DOGE review, and other efforts by departments and agencies. Congress has expressed strong interest in supporting those efforts, and requested the Administration transmit rescissions to the Hill for swift approval,” the memo reads, according to the NY Post. “OMB recommends the Administration respond with two proposals to cut $9.3 billion. The first includes a rescission of $8.3 billion in wasteful foreign aid spending (out of $22 billion) that does not expire in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025. The second is a separate rescission of all Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) — which funds the politically biased public radio and public television system.”

The memo also highlighted examples of coverage of President Donald Trump, noting that NPR CEO Katherine Maher previously referred to Trump a “fascist” and a “deranged racist.”

Trump has long demanded that NPR and PBS be stripped of federal funding, writing last month on Truth Social: “NPR and PBS, two horrible and completely biased platforms … should be DEFUNDED by Congress, IMMEDIATELY.”

On March 28th, Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX) introduced legislation to to eliminate federal funding for NPR and PBS, labeling them “chronically biased” following a DOGE hearing.

“For decades, radical Democrats have funneled taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS under the guise of ‘serving the public,’ despite both organizations abandoning their founding missions to provide non-biased content and instead promoting the same radical-left propaganda as any other fake news outlet,” Jackson said in a statement. “If these organizations want to push partisan agendas, they do not deserve another dime of federal support.”

Cosponsors of the bill include DOGE Subcommittee Chairwoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Reps. Jodey Arrington (R-TX), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Tim Burchett (R-TN), Michael Cloud (R-TX), Mike Collins (R-GA), Neal Dunn (R-FL), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Troy Nehls (R-TX), Chip Roy (R-TX), Keith Self (R-TX), and Randy Weber (R-TX).

“I’m proud to cosponsor Ronny Jackson’s bill to defund PBS and NPR,” said Greene. “As my DOGE subcommittee hearing showed, these taxpayer-funded PR arms of the Democrat Party don’t deserve the American people’s hard-earned money. NPR and PBS hate President Trump, his supporters, and the majority of Americans who sent us a mandate in 2024. They can hate us on their own dime.”

Submitted by Jim Bovard

On Tax Day, politicians and mainstream media will hector Americans to be grateful for the opportunity to pay their taxes. The Internal Revenue Service website touts a moth-eaten quote from a dead Supreme Court Justice: “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” But recent history is the best antidote to groveling in gratitude to the federal agency that commandeers a lion’s share of your income.

The smiley face IRS should have been banished forever after revelations in the years before the 9/11 attacks.

Former IRS district chief David Patnoe observed in 1998, “More tax is collected by fear and intimidation than by the law. People are afraid of the IRS.” In 1996, an IRS instructor in the Arkansas-Oklahoma district was caught on videotape lecturing collection agents on how to treat taxpayers:

“Make them cry. We don’t give points around here for being good scouts. The word is enforced. If that’s not tattooed on your forehead, or somewhere else, then you need to get it. Enforcement. Seizure and sales. That’s our mind set…If you’ve got an assessment, enforce collection until they come to their knees.”  

One confidential IRS document uncovered in 1997 revealed that IRS auditors in the San Francisco region were expected to assess at least $1,012 in additional taxes for each hour they spend auditing a taxpayer’s return. IRS revenue officers ignored regulations and guidelines before seizing property. In one case in the Arkansas-Oklahoma region, the only effort an IRS agent made before confiscating two cars “consisted of driving to the taxpayer’s house, honking his car horn, and noting that no one came out of the house in response,” according to an IRS audit.

IRS agents have been indoctrinated to see taxpayers as a class enemy. This attitude is epitomized by “Culture Bingo,” a game used to train IRS agents and auditors. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants complained that Culture Bingo and other “economic reality training modules” encouraged examiners to think the worst of taxpayers. Culture Bingo sought to help employees recognize “an IRS organizational culture regarding the audit process.” The game encouraged IRS agents to recognize or practice the following:

• “I use summons to get third party records.”
• “Fraud referrals help an examiner get promoted.”
• “Taxpayers can skim $20,000 and we’ll never find it.”
• “Most taxpayers deposit unreported receipts in their bank accounts.”

After an IRS agent got enough other agents in the class to sign onto his “bingo” card, he shouted out “I’ve got culture!” and the class launched into a discussion of the reasons why these beliefs and practices were true and necessary. One of the most damning “lessons” of the training was the doctrine, “Taxpayers seem to live better than I do.” The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants said of the course materials, “Every ethical issue presented finds the ethical result to be pro-IRS and anti-taxpayer. There is not one scenario where an IRS agent might act unethically against a taxpayer’s interest.”

Culture Bingo was especially perilous to IRS targets because IRS auditors sometimes simply make up income—and then demand that the person pay additional taxes based on the IRS allegation. Bruce Strauss, a private tax preparer who worked for IRS collections for over thirty years, testified to Congress, “The IRS now has the authority to assign additional income to a taxpayer at its discretion, without any basis in fact.” Any IRS assertion about a person’s income—even if there is no evidence to support it—automatically receives a presumption of correctness in the Tax Court and in federal district courts. The IRS can impose crushing legal costs on someone merely by asserting that they owe an extra  $10,000 in income—which the person then must fight and disprove in court.

The federal tax code creates far more pitfalls than Americans realize. During Mark McGwire’s rush to break Roger Maris’s major league home run record, a reporter asked an IRS spokesman what would happen if someone caught the baseball that broke the record and returned it, gratis, to McGwire. IRS spokesman Steven Pyrek announced that “the giver is responsible for paying any applicable tax on any large gift.” If the record-breaking baseball was valued at $1 million, the person who returned it to McGwire could face an IRS bill of $140,000 or more. After a hailstorm of criticism, the agency backed off its interpretation. However, if the case had been less publicized, the donor might well have been gouged.

President Joe Biden sought to expand the IRS budget and IRS power more than any American president in the preceding half-century. Biden sought a new army of IRS agents to hound Americans and corporations to pay far more taxes. The Washington Post reported that “the single biggest source of new revenue in the plan comes from dramatically expanding the clout of the nation’s tax agency.” Slate reported, “Biden wants to fund a massive upgrade to the American welfare state by making the IRS great at audits again.”

In 2022, Congress enacted the Inflation Reduction Act. This Biden-backed legislation boosted the agency’s budget by $80 billion over a decade and authorized hiring 87,000 new IRS agents and employees. “Only 4% of the additional funding will be devoted to improving taxpayer service, while 58% will go to escalating enforcement efforts,” the New York Post reported. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) estimated that the law would result in more than a million new audits per year, including more than 700,000 targeting Americans earning less than $75,000 a year.

The Biden administration and its media allies were outraged at suggestions that vastly expanding the number of IRS agents could result in bad things happening to innocent people. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) observed, “The IRS has never pointed a gun at a billionaire or his employees, so why does the IRS need 87,000 new agents, AR-15s, and 5 million rounds of ammunition? They’re not gunning for billionaires or their bank accounts.” Massie helped publicize a film clip of an IRS recruiting program showing Utah students putting on flak jackets and readying toy guns and handcuffs for a raid “taking down a landscape business owner who failed to properly report how he paid for his vehicles.” (“First they came for the tulip bulbs…”)

President Donald Trump is reportedly seeking to reduce by 50% the number of IRS employees. If that happens, The New York Times fretted, “Americans may have to wait longer to receive refunds or speak with I.R.S. employees in future filing seasons.” Some reductions in staffing have already occurred but it remains to be seen how much cutting will occur.

Regardless of the number of IRS employees, Americans remain in peril thanks to federal tax law, federal regulations, and endless court decisions entitling the IRS to sweeping deference. Unless Congress repeals a hefty stack of revenue laws and nullifies a shelf full of regulations, the IRS will continue to have far too many penalty flags to throw at hapless citizens.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

The IRS on Monday said that all residents and businesses in Arkansas now have until Nov. 3 to file their income taxes due to severe storms, tornadoes, and floods that hit the state earlier this month.

Starting on April 2, severe storms that spawned tornadoes and flash flooding hit the state, with Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signing an executive order over the past weekend to provide relief to parts of the state impacted by the weather.

The IRS extension postpones deadlines for tax filings and payments between April 2 and Nov. 3 of this year, according to a statement.

“As a result, affected individuals and businesses will have until Nov. 3, 2025, to file returns and pay any taxes that were originally due during this period,” the IRS statement said.

Specifically, the extension applies to individual income tax returns and payments that are due on April 15, contributions to health savings accounts and individual retirement accounts in 2024, quarterly estimated taxes between the aforementioned dates, quarterly payroll taxes due in that time period, calendar-year corporation and fiduciary returns and payments due on April 15, and calendar-year tax-exempt organization returns due on May 15.

“In addition, penalties for failing to make payroll and excise tax deposits due on or after April 2, 2025, and before April 17, 2025, will be abated if the deposits are made by April 17, 2025,” the IRS said.

Also on Monday, the IRS announced an extension for the entire state of Tennessee due to the storms, tornadoes, and flooding for businesses and individual taxpayers.

The IRS this year already announced filing extensions for Americans in multiple states due to weather-related incidents. Some individuals’ and businesses’ taxes are due by May 1, and people in three states have deadlines in the fall to submit their taxes.

The May 1 deadline applies to taxpayers impacted by disaster declarations issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) last year, including taxpayers in the entire states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and in Juneau, Alaska; Chaves County, New Mexico; and dozens of counties in Virginia.

The IRS also said that taxpayers in Los Angeles County, California, who were impacted by devastating wildfires in the Pacific Palisades area in January can file their taxes by Oct. 15.

Aside from those locations, taxpayers in all of Kentucky and taxpayers in the West Virginia counties of Boone, Greenbrier, Lincoln, Logan, McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Monroe, Raleigh, Summers, Wayne, and Wyoming can submit their taxes by Nov. 3, the IRS also said.

For everyone else, the deadline to file their individual income taxes is April 15, or Tax Day.

People filing their taxes electronically will typically see their refund deposited within three weeks, or 21 days, after the return has been accepted, the IRS says.

The agency has warned that taxpayers should not rely on getting their refund back by a certain date, namely when paying bills or making significant purchases.

“Some returns may require additional review and may take longer. Also, remember to take into consideration the time it takes for a financial institution to post the refund to an account or to receive it by mail,” the IRS said.

China’s largest trade show kicked off on Tuesday in Guangzhou, located in South China’s Guangdong Province. According to state-run media, the event features 31,000 exhibitors and so far attracted 200,000 overseas buyers—including mega US retailer Walmart—despite ongoing trade tensions with the U.S. 

Amid global trade frictions, the 137th Canton Fair has opened in Guangzhou with a mood of resilience. Businesses worldwide are showcasing cutting-edge innovations, adapting to shifting market dynamics. CGTN’s Li Shuang explores how exhibitors find opportunities. #CantonFair2025 pic.twitter.com/LBKL5M85Hu

— China Takeaway (@China24Official) April 15, 2025

Global Times said 255 top global retailers, including Walmart, Carrefour, Tesco, and Metro, are attending the 137th China Import and Export Fair (Canton Fair) to search for the latest and greatest products.

The 137th Canton Fair unveiled its Service Robots Zone in Area D to meet buyers’ expectation. At Booth 21.2B61-64, Hangzhou Yushu Technology Co., Ltd. showcased its humanoid robot, the G1. pic.twitter.com/543TrKD47Z

— Canton Fair (@cantonfair) April 15, 2025

One US supplier told the state-run media outlet that American buyers remain dependent on Chinese products. 

“Even when sourcing from other countries, the goods are often still manufactured in China. Whether the tariff is included or the goods are imported from elsewhere, American importers and consumers will ultimately bear the costs.

“In appliances like air conditioners, Chinese products’ price-to-performance ratio has no global rival. While imports may be paused for a month to monitor tariff policies, we’ll return to Chinese manufacturers.” 

Global Times cited other global suppliers that boasted about China “possessing the world’s most comprehensive supply chain” to build low-cost electronics, home goods, and all other items. 

Another buyer—this time from Germany—told the media outlet that “Chinese goods are hard to replace,” adding that the trade war has unleashed uncertainty across global markets. 

Global Times made it clear:

The main reason for global buyers to stick to Chinese products is the favorable price-to-performance ratio.

One key challenge in restructuring global supply chains—whether through friend-shoring or reshoring—is that such transitions take time. In the interim, top suppliers will continue relying on China (or other Southeast Asian countries) for specific goods.

Walmart’s attendance at China’s largest trade show highlights just how unlikely a complete decoupling between the world’s two largest economies truly is. Instead, the U.S. is expected to prioritize reshoring critical supply chains—such as semiconductors, rare earths, drones, and robotics—that are essential to national defense.

Meanwhile, China can continue dominating soft-line manufacturing, such as footwear and luxury handbags. If America intends to dominate the 2030s, it must focus on expanding the capacity of advanced production lines at home, including ones for drones, robotics, and chips.

Update (1442ET):

Goldman analysts Noah Poponak and others reacted to Bloomberg’s report earlier this morning regarding China’s suspension of Boeing jet deliveries amid the deepening trade war between the U.S. and China.

“We think the impact to Boeing is very small because China had already stopped taking Boeing deliveries and stopped ordering Boeing aircraft during the last Trump administration, such that there is no real reduction to implement,” Poponak wrote in a note to clients in the late afternoon hours of the cash session. 

The analyst continued:

Per company data, customers from China have only ordered 28 aircraft since 1/1/2018 (ex. unidentified customers), and China is 2% of Boeing’s large backlog that is sold out through 2030 with other customers. China was in the built but not delivered inventory balance, but the majority of that has now been delivered with around only 25 737-8 MAX aircraft (produced prior to 2023) left designated to the country. Boeing has previously stated that it can build a multi-year delivery skyline assuming China is not taking airplanes over at least a medium-term window, while it operates in a long-term secular growth market where all other regions have substantial growth and replacement needs.

“We are buy-rated on the stock,” he added.

He explained that China was once a “meaningful portion of Boeing’s total order and delivery activity,” but not since President Trump’s first term, which resulted in the first trade war round with Beijing.

The activity chart data shows Boeing’s order activity with China plummeted after 2016.

Boeing deliveries to China, 2010 to present day.

Trump will likely need to sprinkle some Max jets and 777s in any trade deal when he renegotiates with Beijing. 

*     *     * 

Days after Juneyao Airlines postponed the delivery of a widebody jet from Boeing, Beijing has escalated its trade war response—quietly ordering all Chinese carriers to suspend further Boeing deliveries, according to Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the situation. The move marks a broadening of non-tariff retaliation amid a deepening tit-for-tar trade war between the U.S. and China. 

Here’s more color from the report:

China has ordered its airlines not to take any further deliveries of Boeing Co., according to people familiar with the matter.

. . . 

Beijing has also asked that Chinese carriers halt any purchases of aircraft-related equipment and parts from U.S. companies, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing matters that are private.

The order came after China unveiled retaliatory tariffs of 125% on American goods this past weekend, the people said.

. . .

The Chinese government is also considering ways to provide assistance to airlines that lease Boeing jets and are facing higher costs, the people said.

. . .

Delivery paperwork and payment on some of these jets may have been completed before the reciprocal tariffs announced by China on April 11 took effect on April 12, and those planes may be allowed to enter China on a case-by-case basis, some of the people said.

Last week, Beijing hiked its effective tariff rate on US goods to 125%, countering President Trump’s 145% tariff rate. 

Beijing also shifted to non-tariff retaliation, limiting Hollywood film imports, slowing rare earth export shipments, and weakening the yuan. 

The Bloomberg report sent Boeing shares down roughly 3.5% in New York trading. The stock is down 10% year-to-date (as of Monday’s close) and hovering near Covid-era lows, still showing no signs of a meaningful recovery.

Let’s not forget that China’s non-tariff countermeasures may also include:

• Export Controls and Quotas

• Currency Devaluation

• Boycotts (State-Inspired)

• Licensing & Certification Hurdles

• Restricting Market Access

• Pressure Big Tech With Cybersecurity & Data Laws

• Limiting Cultural Imports

• Selling U.S. Treasuries

The trade war might be far from over…

By Michael Every of Rabobank

The US has opened two new Section 232 trade actions likely to lead to 25% tariffs on semiconductors and pharma, as already flagged. Obviously, both industries will reel, and Ireland is likely to take a particularly large hit.

President Trump also suggested he may temporarily pause auto parts tariffs for firms shifting production to the US. Expect other industries to ask for the same, and to get the same response: only for a while, and only if you are moving production Stateside.

US Treasury Secretary Bessent has a shortlist of countries for trade deals: Japan, South Korea, Australia, the UK, and India – plus Canada and Mexico. Vietnam and ASEAN are loitering outside the door, being deeply entwined with China’s economy, but mostly running huge trade deficits with it and equally huge surpluses with the US. President Trump is unhappy with Vietnam’s recent state visit from China’s Xi –with calls for a joint stance against “bullying” and 45 deals signed– but Hanoi boosting its defence budget 30% could mean it buys US F-16s, and more, to narrow the bilateral trade deficit. However, that’s almost certainly not going to be all the US demands. From a statecraft perspective, it will want countries to mirror what it is doing vis-à-vis China, creating a new closed trade/finance/energy/defence loop.

As the US snaffles up those trade partners, plus the Middle East (more on which shortly), who would that leave for Europe to deal with if it didn’t join that gang? Micronesia and those penguins who are facing a 10% US tariff? Naturally, there are reports the EU and US are to start trade negotiations too, even if visiting EU officials now take burner phones for secrecy. Here, Europe again thinks just buying more US LNG will be a solution; but those China terms and conditions are not going to go away. That’s as Chinese social media is showing its consumers how luxury European brands are actually made in China, encouraging them to opt for local alternatives.

$28000 Birkins bag can be bought from China by the same factory at $1000 (sans logo)

Chinese suppliers have flooded American TikTok with cost breakdown of luxury products from Gucci, LV, Hermes & the 3000-5000% markups of brands pic.twitter.com/f8gIPEjeJQ

— Ayoosh (@ayooshveda) April 14, 2025

In the UK, ‘Senior Labour figures call for review of Chinese investment in UK infrastructure’, and the “Government’s rapprochement with Beijing may risk national security in wake of British Steel crisis, party members say”. Also, household and business refuse may start piling up in the streets outside just Birmingham as unions reject a pay deal ahead of May 1 local elections. So, lots of things that came in nice boxes last week now risk being publicly dumped.  

Former Treasury Secretary Yellen says the Trump admin is undermining the status of the US dollar: the same former Fed Chair who borrowed vast sums at the short end of the yield curve and didn’t refinance US debt cheaply at the long end when she had the chance. Yellen also says onshoring manufacturing jobs is “a pipe dream” and not desirable after presiding over tariffs on China and the CHIPS Act and IRA subsidies aimed at bringing industry and jobs back to the US.

speaking of self-inflicted wounds, US debt increase while Janet Yellen was in charge of Fed or US Treasury : $15 trillion https://t.co/2j3kHOdwIB pic.twitter.com/Uf1SA9RCRU

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 14, 2025

A Financial Times editorial argues Trump has no cards and will lose the trade war, because the pro-globalisation Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) says so. For them, despite being wrong for years, this is still an auto-(pharma & chips)-da-fe, an act of faith requiring public penance and the burning of heretics by the Inquisition. This religious view on trade is the latest in a series of with-us-or-against-us bifurcations – and it’s not helpful to those trying to look at the matrix of potential outcomes and the risks involved either way. After all, what ‘cards’ are the PIIE looking at? Yes, China makes stuff and the US doesn’t. But a larger trading bloc without China can, after a period of adjustment, leave China with vast excess production to absorb.

Likewise, Bloomberg commentary says the US dollar will soften as its reserve currency appeal fades; then provides zero commentary on what the follow-on consequences of not having a global reserve currency are for everyone who still has dollar debt to repay:

The total collapse of the dollar? The total collapse of the dollar-based financial system as everyone defaults on trillions in debts they can’t get the bucks to service through trade? The inflationary debasement of said debts? Global bifurcation into different currency (or commodity), trade, clearing, energy, and defense blocs – within which the dollar may remain primus inter pares at gunpoint despite a narrower trade deficit?

After all, the US can use its legacy financialized weakness as a strength if it opts to. Bessent just stated the White House is thinking about who replaces Powell at the Fed next year – and in an age of economic statecraft it’ll surely be someone who understands the power of dollar swap lines (see “The “Nuclear” Button For The Dollar: The Fed’s Swap Lines“.)

That’s as the Japanese 30-year yield is just shy of its highest level since early 2004 and not far from its highest ever going back to 2000. How will deeply indebted Japan do: more rate hikes? Equally, how will the Eurozone cope with the flip side of EUR being the new ‘global reserve shmurrency’: trade deficits, deindustrialisation, and polarisation, not unity and remilitarisation? So much is unclear on so many fronts: market volatility reflects this rather than masking it.

The RBNZ just attacked the mainstream media for its op-eds on how it operates(!), while separately announcing a new set of coincident forecasting inputs similar to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow, neither of which have any idea about what is going to happen next as tariffs hit.  

In the hit-hard power sphere, Trump refused a Ukrainian offer to buy $50bn of US arms, saying of President Zelenskyy: “He’s always looking to purchase missiles. Listen, when you start a war, you gotta know you can win a war. You don’t start a war against somebody that’s 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles.” Clearly, hopes for a ‘peace’ deal and an inverse Nixon —Noxin— linger there.

US nuclear talks with Iran are also set to continue in Oman, not Rome, with threats of attack if no deal is struck; as a parallel US nuclear fuel processing agreement with the Saudis looms – “They are allowed to process uranium just like you. So, you both better behave!” That’s a very high risk, high reward statecraft gamble. Moreover, Arab press reports have it that, with Saudi help, 80,000 troops are massing in Yemen in preparation for a move on Houthi-held territory. As noted, this can all be taken as a sign that the Saudis and the UAE are in the US camp having seen neither China nor Russia can project serious power into the region.

Meanwhile, Australia’s federal election shows how little some Western democracies grasp about our shifting tectonic plates. Aussie media says both major parties’ policies will push up house prices by another 15%: clearly, making something more affordable can never mean its price going down, and Aussie GDP is ‘for’ even higher asset prices. Which is what the PIIE would be happy with the US going back to.

But it won’t. The US is now into an auto-da-fe of another kind and globalisation is on the pyre, and perhaps Wall Street with it until it reflects what’s happening on Main Street.

So, volatility now: but there is another world to come. Are your deeds preparing you for it?

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The intense struggle between the Trump Administration and federal judges continued this week with another court ordering a halt to a nationwide program. In Massachusetts, District Judge Indira Talwani is preventing President Donald Trump from canceling a Biden program granting parole and the right to work to immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV). Judge Talwani’s order would require individual hearings for the half of a million individuals allowed into the country under this program by President Joe Biden.

Under the announcement published in the Federal Register, the Department of Homeland Security officially moved to terminate the CHNV Program.

The announcement followed an Executive Order, signed on Trump’s first day in office, entitled “Securing Our Borders,” directing the DHS to end the CHNV program.

Under the notice, DHS said that the parole status would expire in 30 days “unless the Secretary makes an individual determination to the contrary.” It further mandated that parolees who had not obtained a legal basis to be in the United States, such as a green card or other visa, must depart the United States before their parole expires.

In the prior hearing, Judge Talwani indicated that she would not allow that to happen, stating that the Administration’s interpretation of the law was “incorrect” and that “[t]he nub of the problem here is that [Homeland Security Secretary Krisit Noem], in cutting short the parole period afforded to these individuals, has to have a reasoned decision.”

In her opinion, Judge Talwani wrote:

“If their parole status is allowed to lapse, plaintiffs will be faced with two unfavorable options: continue following the law and leave the country on their own, or await removal proceedings. If plaintiffs leave the country on their own, they will face dangers in their native countries, as set forth in their affidavits.”

The court also noted that leaving would cause family separation and jeopardize their ability to seek a remedy based on the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Administration argued that it did have a “reasoned decision” to end the CHNV program and weighed the cost to the parolees. It noted that the parolees were always going to face family separation and costs since this was just a temporary, two-year program. It asserted that it did weigh alternative periods for winding down the program. While the court may disagree with its conclusions, it asserts that it has the same discretion used by President Biden in creating the program.

There was another pressing reason for the change. If the parolees were allowed to run the course of the full period, those who did not obtain legal status could force formal removal proceedings rather than the expedited removal under the program.

The Justice Department maintained:

“DHS’s decision to terminate the CHNV program and existing grants of parole under that program is within this statutory authority and comports with the notice requirements of the statute and regulations,” they wrote. “Additionally, given the temporary nature of CHNV parole and CHNV parolees’ pre-existing inability to seek re-parole under the program, their harms are outweighed by the harms to the public if the Secretary is not permitted to discontinue a program she has determined does not serve the public interest.”

All of this presents another novel legal question. Parole is not a legal status under immigration laws. It is a status created by executive action and is now being curtailed under that same authority. However, these individuals came to the country under the promise of a two-year period. The question is whether a temporary program created by executive fiat can be treated as creating a type of vested right.

If Judge Talwani prevails, individual determinations of half a million cases would be an overwhelming burden on the Administration and easily run out the time granted under the program for these individuals. 

Indeed, for many of the individuals, the appellate process could exceed that period.

The court is not weighing the harshness of the decision but the president’s discretion in making such a decision. 

Judge Talwani suggests that, once created by President Biden, the program cannot be curtailed or shortened by President Trump.

That question could very well find itself on the Supreme Court’s ever-lengthening docket.