Business
How Trump’s One-for-One Tariff Plan Threatens the Global Economy
The world economy was already grappling with a perplexing assortment of variables, from geopolitical conflicts and a slowdown in China to the evolving complexities of climate change. Then, President Trump unleashed a plan to uproot decades of trade policy.
In starting a process to impose so-called reciprocal tariffs on American trading partners, Mr. Trump increased volatility for international businesses. He broadened the scope of his unfolding trade war.
In basic concept, the argument for reciprocal tariffs is straightforward: Whatever levies American companies face in exporting their wares to another country should apply to imports from that same country. Mr. Trump has long championed this principle, presenting it as a simple matter of fairness — redress to the fact that many American trading partners maintain higher tariffs.
Yet in practice, calculating individual tariff rates on thousands of products drawn from more than 150 countries poses a monumental problem of execution for a vast range of companies, from American manufacturers dependent on imported parts to retailers that buy their goods from overseas.
“It’s potentially a herculean task,” said Ted Murphy, an international trade expert at Sidley Austin, a law firm in Washington. “For every widget, every tariff classification, you can have 150 different duty rates. You’ve got Albania to Zimbabwe.”
The order that Mr. Trump signed on Thursday directed his agencies to study how to proceed with reciprocal tariffs. That raised the risk of increasing costs for American consumers at a time of deepening concern over inflation, challenging the president’s own vows to bring down prices on groceries and other everyday items. And that heightened the possibility of greater delay from the Federal Reserve in lowering borrowing costs.
It also hastens the diminishing of the world trading system, which has long been centered on multilateral blocs and adjudicated by the World Trade Organization. Mr. Trump is aiming to advance a new era in which treaties give way to country-to-country negotiations amid a spirit of nationalist brio.
The transition threatens to add to strains on global supply chains after years of upheaval. International businesses have contended with an unfolding trade war between the world’s two largest economies, the United States and China. They have confronted impediments to passage through the Suez and Panama Canals, sending shipping prices soaring.
Now, Mr. Trump has presented them with another formidable puzzle.
Under the system that has held sway for three decades, member countries of the World Trade Organization set tariffs for every type of good, extending the same basic rate to all members. They have also negotiated treaties — with other countries, and via regional trading blocs — that have further eased tariffs.
Mr. Trump has long described the United States as a victim of this structure, citing trade deficits with China, Mexico and Germany. In announcing the advent of reciprocal tariffs on Thursday, he served notice that he claims authority to renegotiate the terms to his liking, absent respect for existing trade agreements.
It seemed no coincidence that Mr. Trump made his announcement on the day that India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, visited the White House. The United States runs a substantial trade deficit with India, with the value of its imported goods outweighing its exports last year by $45 billion.
Those imports include plastics and chemical products that incur tariffs of less than 6 percent when shipped to the United States, according to data compiled by the World Bank. When similar categories of American goods are exported to India, they confront tariffs ranging from 10 to 30 percent.
If the Trump administration were to lift American levies to equal levels, that would force American factories to pay more for chemicals and plastics.
The same pattern holds across a broad sweep of consumer and industrial products — footwear from Vietnam, machinery and agriculture from Brazil, textiles and rubber from Indonesia.
A leading electronics industry trade association, IPC, on Thursday warned that increased trade protectionism would damage the American economy.
“New tariffs will raise manufacturing costs, disrupt supply chains, and drive production offshore, further weakening America’s electronics industrial base,” the association’s president, John W. Mitchell, said in a statement.
Some experts see in Mr. Trump’s approach a potential negotiating tactic aimed at forcing trading partners to lower their own tariffs, rather than a prelude to the United States lifting its own. If that proves true, the process of calculating new tariff rates might actually lower prices.
“There are a lot of ways this can go very badly for us,” said Christine McDaniel, a former Treasury official under President George W. Bush and now a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. “But if he can get other countries to open up their markets, there is a narrow path where this could end up promoting trade,” she said.
Still others warn that any process of negotiation could be guided less by national objectives than the interests of Mr. Trump’s allies. Tesla, the electric vehicle company run by the administration loyalist Elon Musk, could benefit from exemptions to increased tariffs on key components.
The tumult is leaving companies that operate in the United States having to guess how events will transpire as they weigh the costs of importing parts or finished goods. Business, as the cliché goes, craves nothing more than certainty. That commodity is getting more scarce.
Ever since Mr. Trump’s first term, when he put tariffs on Chinese imports — a policy that President Joseph R. Biden Jr. extended — companies that sell into the American market have shifted some production out of China.
Surging prices to move cargo by container ship have prompted companies to close the distance between their factories and their American customers, a trend known as nearshoring.
Walmart, a retail empire ruled by the pursuit of low prices, has moved orders from Chinese plants to India and Mexico. Columbia Sportswear has scouted factory sites in Central America. MedSource Labs, a medical device manufacturer, has moved orders from factories in China to a new plant in Colombia.
Mr. Trump has challenged the merits of such strategies by threatening 25 percent tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada and Colombia, before quickly delaying or setting aside such plans. He has imposed across-the-board levies on steel and aluminum. He has delivered 10 percent tariffs on Chinese imports. Where he may turn next is the subject of a potentially expensive parlor game playing out in corporate board rooms.
Some surmise that the uncertainty stemming from these moves is precisely the point. Mr. Trump has long asserted that his ultimate goal is to force businesses to set up factories in the United States — the only reliable way to avoid U.S. tariffs. The more countries he menaces, the greater the risks for any company that invests in a plant somewhere else.
The trouble is that even businesses with factories in the United States depend on parts and raw materials from around the world. More than one-fourth of American imports represent parts, components and raw materials. Making these goods more expensive damages the competitiveness of domestic companies, imperiling American jobs.
Last week, Ford Motor warned that tariffs on Mexico and Canada would wreak havoc with its supply chains.
“A 25 percent tariff across the Mexico and Canadian border will blow a hole in the U.S. industry that we have never seen,” the company’s chief executive, Jim Farley, said.
For now, the business world is again struggling to divine which of Mr. Trump’s pronouncements are merely a gambit, and which portend real changes.
On spreadsheets maintained by multinational companies, the applicable tariff rates for every country on earth suddenly seem subject to reworking.
Or not.
“We take Trump seriously, but not necessarily literally,” said Mr. Murphy, the trade lawyer. “He talks in broad strokes, but we have to watch what actually emerges.”
Business
Ties between California and Venezuela go back more than a century with Chevron
As a stunned world processes the U.S. government’s sudden intervention in Venezuela — debating its legality, guessing who the ultimate winners and losers will be — a company founded in California with deep ties to the Golden State could be among the prime beneficiaries.
Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves on the planet. Chevron, the international petroleum conglomerate with a massive refinery in El Segundo and headquartered, until recently, in San Ramon, is the only foreign oil company that has continued operating there through decades of revolution.
Other major oil companies, including ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil, pulled out of Venezuela in 2007 when then-President Hugo Chávez required them to surrender majority ownership of their operations to the country’s state-controlled oil company, PDVSA.
But Chevron remained, playing the “long game,” according to industry analysts, hoping to someday resume reaping big profits from the investments the company started making there almost a century ago.
Looks like that bet might finally pay off.
In his news conference Saturday, after U.S. Special Forces snatched Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in Caracas and extradited them to face drug-trafficking charges in New York, President Trump said the U.S. would “run” Venezuela and open more of its massive oil reserves to American corporations.
“We’re going to have our very large U.S. oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” Trump said during a news conference Saturday.
While oil industry analysts temper expectations by warning it could take years to start extracting significant profits given Venezuela’s long-neglected, dilapidated infrastructure, and everyday Venezuelans worry about the proceeds flowing out of the country and into the pockets of U.S. investors, there’s one group who could be forgiven for jumping with unreserved joy: Chevron insiders who championed the decision to remain in Venezuela all these years.
But the company’s official response to the stunning turn of events has been poker-faced.
“Chevron remains focused on the safety and well-being of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets,” spokesman Bill Turenne emailed The Times on Sunday, the same statement the company sent to news outlets all weekend. “We continue to operate in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations.”
Turenne did not respond to questions about the possible financial rewards for the company stemming from this weekend’s U.S. military action.
Chevron, which is a direct descendant of a small oil company founded in Southern California in the 1870s, has grown into a $300-billion global corporation. It was headquartered in San Ramon, just outside of San Francisco, until executives announced in August 2024 that they were fleeing high-cost California for Houston.
Texas’ relatively low taxes and light regulation have been a beacon for many California companies, and most of Chevron’s competitors are based there.
Chevron began exploring in Venezuela in the early 1920s, according to the company’s website, and ramped up operations after discovering the massive Boscan oil field in the 1940s. Over the decades, it grew into Venezuela’s largest foreign investor.
The company held on over the decades as Venezuela’s government moved steadily to the left; it began to nationalize the oil industry by creating a state-owned petroleum company in 1976, and then demanded majority ownership of foreign oil assets in 2007, under then-President Hugo Chávez.
Venezuela has the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves — meaning they’re economical to tap — about 303 billion barrels, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
But even with those massive reserves, Venezuela has been producing less than 1% of the world’s crude oil supply. Production has steadily declined from the 3.5 million barrels per day pumped in 1999 to just over 1 million barrels per day now.
Currently, Chevron’s operations in Venezuela employ about 3,000 people and produce between 250,000 and 300,000 barrels of oil per day, according to published reports.
That’s less than 10% of the roughly 3 million barrels the company produces from holdings scattered across the globe, from the Gulf of Mexico to Kazakhstan and Australia.
But some analysts are optimistic that Venezuela could double or triple its current output relatively quickly — which could lead to a windfall for Chevron.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Business
‘Stranger Things’ finale turns box office downside up pulling in an estimated $25 million
The finale of Netflix’s blockbuster series “Stranger Things” gave movie theaters a much needed jolt, generating an estimated $20 to $25 million at the box office, according to multiple reports.
Matt and Ross Duffer’s supernatural thriller debuted simultaneously on the streaming platform and some 600 cinemas on New Year’s Eve and held encore showings all through New Year’s Day.
Owing to the cast’s contractual terms for residuals, theaters could not charge for tickets. Instead, fans reserved seats for performances directly from theaters, paying for mandatory food and beverage vouchers. AMC and Cinemark Theatres charged $20 for the concession vouchers while Regal Cinemas charged $11 — in homage to the show’s lead character, Eleven, played by Millie Bobby Brown.
AMC Theatres, the world’s largest theater chain, played the finale at 231 of its theaters across the U.S. — which accounted for one-third of all theaters that held screenings over the holiday.
The chain said that more than 753,000 viewers attended a performance at one of its cinemas over two days, bringing in more than $15 million.
Expectations for the theater showing was high.
“Our year ends on a high: Netflix’s Strangers Things series finale to show in many AMC theatres this week. Two days only New Year’s Eve and Jan 1.,” tweeted AMC’s CEO Adam Aron on Dec. 30. “Theatres are packed. Many sellouts but seats still available. How many Stranger Things tickets do you think AMC will sell?”
It was a rare win for the lagging domestic box office.
In 2025, revenue in the U.S. and Canada was expected to reach $8.87 billion, which was marginally better than 2024 and only 20% more than pre-pandemic levels, according to movie data firm Comscore.
With few exceptions, moviegoers have stayed home. As of Dec. 25., only an estimated 760 million tickets were sold, according to media and entertainment data firm EntTelligence, compared with 2024, during which total ticket sales exceeded 800 million.
Business
Tesla dethroned as the world’s top EV maker
Elon Musk’s Tesla is no longer the top electric vehicle seller in the world as demand at home has cooled while competition heated up abroad.
Tesla lost its pole position after reporting 1.64 million deliveries in 2025, roughly 620,000 fewer than Chinese competitor BYD.
Tesla struggled last year amid increasing competition, waning federal support for electric vehicle adoption and brand damage triggered by Musk’s stint in the White House.
Musk is turning his focus toward robotics and autonomous driving technology in an effort to keep Tesla relevant as its EVs lose popularity.
On Friday, the company reported lower than expected delivery numbers for the fourth quarter of 2025, a decline from the previous quarter and a year-over-year decrease of 16%. Tesla delivered 418,227 vehicles in the fourth quarter and produced 434,358.
According to a company-compiled consensus from analysts posted on Tesla’s website in December, the company was projected to deliver nearly 423,000 vehicles in the fourth quarter.
Tesla’s annual deliveries fell roughly 8% last year from 1.79 million in 2024. Its third-quarter deliveries saw a boost as consumers rushed to buy electric vehicles before a $7,500 tax credit expired at the end of September.
“There are so many contributing factors ranging from the lack of evolution and true innovation of Musk’s product to the loss of the EV credits,” said Karl Brauer, an analyst at iSeeCars.com. “Teslas are just starting to look old. You have a bunch of other options, and they all look newer and fresher.”
BYD is making premium electric vehicles at an affordable price point, Brauer said, but steep tariffs on Chinese EVs have effectively prevented the cars from gaining popularity in the U.S.
Other international automakers like South Korea’s Hyundai and Germany’s Volkswagen have been expanding their EV offerings.
In the third quarter last year, the American automaker Ford sold a record number of electric vehicles, bolstered by its popular Mustang Mach-E SUV and F-150 Lightning pickup truck.
In October, Tesla released long-anticipated lower-cost versions of its Model 3 and Model Y in an attempt to attract new customers.
However, analysts and investors were disappointed by the launch, saying the models, which start at $36,990, aren’t affordable enough to entice a new group of consumers to consider going green.
As evidenced by Tesla’s continuing sales decline, the new Model 3 and Model Y have not been huge wins for the company, Brauer said.
“There’s a core Tesla following who will never choose anything else, but that’s not how you grow,” Brauer said.
Tesla lost a swath of customers last year when Musk joined the Trump administration as the head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
Left-leaning Tesla owners, who were originally attracted to the brand for its environmental benefits, became alienated by Musk’s political activity.
Consumers held protests against the brand and some celebrities made a point of selling their Teslas.
Although Musk left the White House, the company sustained significant and lasting reputation damage, experts said.
Investors, however, remain largely optimistic about Tesla’s future.
Shares are up nearly 40% over the last six months and have risen 16% over the past year.
Brauer said investors are clinging to the hope that Musk’s robotaxi business will take off and the ambitious chief executive will succeed in developing humanoid robots and self-driving cars.
The roll-out of Tesla robotaxis in Austin, Texas, last summer was full of glitches, and experts say Tesla has a long way to go to catch up with the autonomous ride-hailing company Waymo.
Still, the burgeoning robotaxi industry could be extremely lucrative for Tesla if Musk can deliver on his promises.
“Musk has done a good job, increasingly in the past year, of switching the conversation from Tesla sales to AI and robotics,” Brauer said. “I think current stock price largely reflects that.”
Shares were down about 2% on Friday after the company reported earnings.
-
World1 week agoHamas builds new terror regime in Gaza, recruiting teens amid problematic election
-
Business1 week agoGoogle is at last letting users swap out embarrassing Gmail addresses without losing their data
-
Indianapolis, IN1 week agoIndianapolis Colts playoffs: Updated elimination scenario, AFC standings, playoff picture for Week 17
-
Southeast1 week agoTwo attorneys vanish during Florida fishing trip as ‘heartbroken’ wife pleads for help finding them
-
News1 week agoRoads could remain slick, icy Saturday morning in Philadelphia area, tracking another storm on the way
-
Politics1 week agoMost shocking examples of Chinese espionage uncovered by the US this year: ‘Just the tip of the iceberg’
-
News1 week agoMarijuana rescheduling would bring some immediate changes, but others will take time
-
World1 week agoPodcast: The 2025 EU-US relationship explained simply