Trade War

International

Trump Threatens Shock Tariffs on Indian Rice — A Trade War Twist That Could Hit Your Grocery Bill Next

by
trump

President Donald Trump used a White House roundtable on agricultural support to flag the possibility of fresh tariffs on rice imports from India, accusing exporters of “dumping” cheap rice into the U.S. market and promising to “take care of it.” The announcement was made as the administration unveiled a $12 billion farmer relief package aimed at offsetting pressure on U.S. producers. Reuters+1

This article breaks down what Trump said, why U.S. rice producers are alarmed, how tariffs could be implemented, and what the move — if pursued — would mean for markets and U.S.–India ties.Click Here To Follow Our WhatsApp Channel

What happened at the roundtable

At the White House event, Trump highlighted complaints from domestic farmers — particularly rice producers in the Gulf South — about an influx of low-priced imports that they say undercut U.S. prices. He pressed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on whether India had an “exemption” from tariffs for rice, declared that countries “should not be dumping” rice into the United States, and signaled the administration could respond with duties. The announcement came alongside details of a $12 billion “Farmer Bridge Assistance” package intended to cushion producers. NDTV Profit+2Reuters+2

The president also mentioned potential “very severe tariffs” on other agricultural inputs — notably Canadian fertilizers such as potash and phosphate — as part of a broader effort to boost domestic agricultural resilience. Analysts saw the comments as both a political signal to farm constituencies and a practical warning to trading partners that tariff tools remain on the table. news.bloombergtax.com+1

Why U.S. rice producers are concerned

U.S. rice production is concentrated in states such as Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and California. Growers and millers say sustained inflows of low-priced basmati and non-basmati rice from major exporters (India, Thailand, Vietnam) have compressed margins and reduced market share for domestic brands — a trend producers describe as “devastating.” Industry representatives at the roundtable pointed to changed retail ownership (including Indian firms owning leading U.S. retail rice brands) and alleged government supports abroad that lower export prices. Those producers have pushed for anti-dumping or countervailing duties as a remedy. dtnpf.com+1

Market data published around the same period showed U.S. rice futures had moved higher this year amid global supply concerns; domestic producers contend that duty-free or low-duty imports worsen price swings by adding cheap supply to the U.S. market. dtnpf.com

How tariffs or trade remedies would work (the mechanics)

The two principal U.S. trade remedies used to counter “dumping” or subsidies are anti-dumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) cases. Under U.S. law, domestic producers file petitions alleging imports are sold at less than fair value or receive prohibited subsidies; the Department of Commerce investigates pricing or subsidy margins and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) determines whether U.S. industry has suffered material injury. If both agencies rule for relief, additional duties are imposed. Separate measures — such as emergency national-security tariffs under Section 232 or presidential proclamations — have also been used historically, though they carry different legal and political risks. Trade.gov+2USITC+2

That process can take months (or longer, if appealed), but national administrations can also use broader tariff proclamations or temporary measures to signal intent — a tactic Trump explicitly favored in the roundtable when he said “tariffs… solves the problem in two minutes.” NDTV Profit

Immediate market and corporate reactions

News of the president’s comments triggered immediate market attention. Shares of Indian rice exporters and listed companies tied to the rice trade saw intraday weakness on concerns that duties, if imposed, would cut U.S. shipments and revenue. Media and trading platforms flagged vocal responses on X (formerly Twitter) and rapid social-media distribution of the roundtable clips. Domestically, farm groups largely welcomed a tough stance on imports while some trade groups warned of higher food costs for consumers. NDTV Profit+1

Analysts cautioned that if a tariff were implemented unilaterally and without careful WTO-compatibility or solid anti-dumping findings, it could trigger retaliation or cross-border disputes and risk destabilizing other agricultural trade flows. A Washington Post opinion piece and other commentators argued that recurring tariff escalations can create a policy environment that raises costs for both producers and consumers. The Washington Post+1

Political and diplomatic stakes

Trade actions that single out India — especially after earlier rounds of U.S. tariffs and reciprocal measures in 2025 — risk complicating broader U.S.–India negotiations on market access, energy, and strategic cooperation. New duties on rice would be interpreted in New Delhi as pressure within a larger, sometimes contentious, negotiating framework and could complicate cooperation on other geopolitical priorities. Indian media and officials publicly signaled concern and framed Washington’s comments as leverage in stalled talks. The Times of India+1

For the U.S. administration, the calculus is political as much as economic: protecting farm-state voters is a clear priority, but so is maintaining stable strategic ties with India — a partner on regional security and supply-chain initiatives. That balance will shape whether the administration proceeds with formal investigations or opts for targeted remedies. Politico

Who stands to gain — and who would lose

  • Short-term winners (domestic): U.S. rice producers and millers could see relief from cheaper imports if duties raise landed prices; a targeted tariff could act as a rapid cushion for margins. dtnpf.com
  • Short-term losers (consumers & importers): Higher import duties generally translate into higher retail prices for rice and rice-containing products, affecting consumers, foodservice operators and downstream processors. Investopedia
  • Exporters (India and others): Major exporters that rely on the U.S. market could face reduced shipments and downward pressure on stock valuations if access is disrupted. News outlets reported immediate share-price sensitivity for leading Indian exporters after the president’s remarks. NDTV Profit

Legal and procedural constraints

Even where political appetite exists, AD/CVD cases require evidentiary showing that dumping or subsidies have caused material injury. The Commerce Department and ITC must follow statutory timelines and legal standards; adverse decisions can be appealed domestically or at the WTO. If the administration were to attempt broader tariff actions outside the AD/CVD framework (for example, national-security-based tariffs), it would likely face legal challenges and diplomatic blowback. These procedural realities mean the most definitive responses usually take time, even if presidential rhetoric is immediate. USITC+1

What to watch next

  1. Formal petitions or investigations: Watch for AD/CVD petitions from U.S. rice industry groups and any subsequent Commerce/ITC case filings. These are the clearest path to enforceable duties. Trade.gov
  2. Outcomes from the December 10 trade talks: A U.S. delegation was due to visit India around the time of the announcement; any progress (or lack thereof) in talks could affect the administration’s next move. Reuters
  3. Market signals: Share-price movement at listed exporters, futures volatility in rice and related commodities, and import statistics (monthly customs data) will all indicate whether flows are shifting. NDTV Profit+1
  4. Diplomatic responses: Official statements from India’s commerce and foreign-affairs ministries, and whether New Delhi pursues WTO consultations or retaliatory measures, will be important for gauging escalation risk. The Times of India

Bottom line

President Trump’s December 8 roundtable comments underscore a policy posture that treats tariffs as a frontline tool for protecting U.S. agriculture. The rhetoric reflects genuine distress among U.S. rice producers, but translating that concern into sustained, WTO-compatible trade remedies requires formal investigations and legal findings — a process that takes time and invites diplomatic maneuvering. If duties are imposed, the short-term winners would likely be domestic growers; the short-term losers would include consumers and exporters to the U.S., and the move could ratchet up tensions in an already complicated U.S.–India relationship. Policymakers will have to weigh immediate political pressure against the economic and geopolitical costs of escalation.

You Might Also Like:

Islam’s Unique Civilisation: Unity of Faith, Culture and History

Nawada Man Forced to Push Mother’s Body on Stretcher for 2 km After Ambulance Denied

Is Crowdfunding and Taking Loans Allowed in Islam? Understanding Help, Tawakkul and Riba

International

China Slaps 125% Tariffs on US Goods in Retaliation, Files WTO Lawsuit Amid Escalating Trade War

by
Trade War

In a dramatic escalation of the ongoing trade war between the world’s two largest economies, China has imposed a staggering 125% tariff on all goods imported from the United States, effective April 12, 2025. This move comes as a direct response to the United States’ recent decision to raise tariffs on Chinese imports to 145%, marking a new peak in tensions that threaten to disrupt global trade and economic stability. Alongside the tariff hike, China has filed a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization (WTO), accusing the U.S. of violating international trade rules. The Chinese government has also signaled a resolute stance, vowing to “fight to the end” if the U.S. continues its aggressive trade policies. This article explores the context, implications, and potential consequences of this latest chapter in the U.S.-China trade conflict.

Background: A Tit-for-Tat Tariff Spiral

The U.S.-China trade war, which began in earnest during the first Trump administration in 2018, has seen multiple rounds of retaliatory tariffs, negotiations, and temporary truces. The conflict has been driven by disputes over trade imbalances, intellectual property rights, technology transfers, and broader geopolitical rivalry. While a “Phase One” trade deal in 2020 briefly paused hostilities, the underlying tensions never fully dissipated.

Since early 2025, the trade war has reignited with unprecedented intensity. In February, the U.S. imposed a 10% tariff on Chinese goods, citing concerns over the flow of illicit fentanyl. This was followed by an additional 10% hike in March, bringing the total to 20%. China retaliated with targeted tariffs on U.S. agricultural and energy products, including a 15% duty on coal and liquefied natural gas. On April 2, the Trump administration escalated further, announcing a 34% “reciprocal tariff” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, raising the effective tariff rate on Chinese imports to 54%. China responded on April 4 with a 34% tariff on all U.S. goods, effective April 10.

The situation spiraled further when, on April 7, the U.S. threatened an additional 50% tariff if China did not retract its measures, pushing the total to 104%. China countered on April 9 with an 84% tariff, prompting the U.S. to raise its tariffs to 125% later that day. On April 10, Trump paused most global tariffs for 90 days to encourage negotiations with other trading partners, but explicitly excluded China, hiking its tariffs to the current 145%. China’s announcement of 125% tariffs on April 11 is the latest move in this rapid tit-for-tat escalation.

China’s Response: Tariffs, Lawsuits, and Rhetoric

China’s decision to impose 125% tariffs was announced by the Customs Tariff Commission of the State Council, as reported by the official Xinhua news agency. The commission stated that the previous 84% tariff rate was no longer sufficient given the U.S.’s “excessively high” 145% duties, which it described as a “serious violation of international economic and trade rules” and “unilateral bullying.” The new tariffs apply to all U.S. goods entering China, significantly raising the cost of American exports such as agricultural products, machinery, and consumer goods.

In addition to the tariffs, China has taken legal action by filing a complaint with the WTO. The Chinese commerce ministry argues that the U.S. tariffs contravene WTO rules, destabilize global trade, and undermine the multilateral trading system. This follows a pattern of China leveraging international institutions to challenge U.S. trade policies, as seen in previous WTO disputes over steel, aluminum, and solar panels.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, in his first public comments on the renewed trade war, emphasized the futility of tariff conflicts during a meeting with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez in Beijing on April 11. “There is no winner in a tariff war, and going against the world will only result in self-isolation,” Xi said, according to Xinhua. He urged China and the European Union to collaborate in safeguarding economic globalization and resisting “unilateral bullying,” signaling an intent to rally international support against U.S. policies.

The Chinese Customs Tariff Commission also issued a provocative statement, declaring that further U.S. tariff hikes would be economically nonsensical and dismissed as “a joke in world economic history.” The commission indicated that China would not match additional U.S. tariffs beyond the current level, arguing that the market for U.S. goods in China is already untenable under existing duties. However, it warned that “should the U.S. persist in substantially undermining China’s interests, China will take firm countermeasures and fight to the end.”

Economic Implications: A Global Ripple Effect

The escalating tariffs have profound implications for both the U.S. and Chinese economies, as well as the global market. For the United States, China’s 125% tariffs will severely impact exporters, particularly in agriculture, where products like soybeans, pork, and wheat have historically relied on the Chinese market. U.S. farmers, already hit hard by earlier trade war losses estimated at $27 billion, face further erosion of their market share to competitors like Brazil and Argentina. American manufacturers and tech firms exporting to China will also encounter higher costs and reduced competitiveness.

In China, the 145% U.S. tariffs threaten to dampen export-driven growth, a key pillar of its economy. Analysts estimate that the current escalation could shave up to 2.5 percentage points off China’s GDP growth in 2025, potentially forcing Beijing to bolster domestic demand to meet its 5% growth target. The weakening Chinese yuan, recently set at its lowest level since September 2023, reflects market concerns about the trade war’s impact.

Globally, the trade war has sparked fears of a recession. Stock markets have experienced significant volatility, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq losing trillions in value since early April. Investment bank J.P. Morgan has raised its global recession probability to 60%, up from 40%, citing the disruption of supply chains and trade flows. The tariffs also risk increasing consumer prices in both countries, as businesses pass on higher costs. For example, U.S. retailers like Target and Best Buy have already warned of price hikes on goods like avocados and electronics, many of which rely on Chinese manufacturing.

Strategic Dimensions: Beyond Economics

The trade war is not merely an economic dispute but a reflection of deeper strategic competition. The U.S. has accused China of unfair trade practices, including subsidies, intellectual property theft, and restricting market access. The Trump administration’s tariffs are framed as a response to these issues, as well as broader concerns about China’s role in global supply chains and its influence over critical technologies like semiconductors and rare earth minerals.

China, in turn, has expanded its retaliatory toolkit beyond tariffs. Since February, it has imposed export controls on critical minerals like tungsten, bismuth, and rare earths, which are vital for U.S. industries such as aerospace and electronics. Beijing has also added U.S. companies to its “unreliable entity list,” restricting their access to Chinese markets, and initiated anti-monopoly investigations against firms like Google. These measures signal China’s willingness to leverage its dominance in key sectors to counter U.S. pressure.

Xi’s call for cooperation with the EU suggests China is seeking to isolate the U.S. diplomatically. By framing the U.S. as a unilateral aggressor, China aims to align with other nations wary of Trump’s tariff policies, including Canada and Mexico, which have also faced U.S. duties. However, the EU’s own 12 billion euro retaliatory package against U.S. tariffs on steel and cars indicates that China may struggle to build a cohesive anti-U.S. coalition.

Looking Ahead: Escalation or Negotiation?

The current trajectory points to further escalation, with little immediate prospect of de-escalation. The U.S.’s 90-day tariff pause for most countries, excluding China, underscores a targeted approach to pressure Beijing. Trump’s rhetoric, including claims that China “panicked” and lacks respect for global markets, suggests he sees the tariffs as a negotiating lever. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has described the strategy as creating “maximum leverage,” hinting at openness to talks if China makes concessions.

China, however, appears resolute. Its refusal to match further U.S. tariff hikes beyond 125% reflects confidence in its economic resilience, bolstered by domestic consumption and trade with non-U.S. partners. Beijing’s WTO lawsuit and outreach to allies like the EU indicate a multifaceted strategy to challenge U.S. dominance legally and diplomatically. Yet, the economic costs of prolonged conflict may eventually force both sides to the negotiating table, as seen in the 2020 Phase One deal.

For now, businesses and consumers brace for uncertainty. Supply chains rooted in China face disruption, while U.S. exporters scramble to find alternative markets. The global economy, already strained by inflation and geopolitical tensions, teeters on the edge of further instability. As Xi warned, a tariff war may have no winners, but the path to resolution remains fraught with challenges.

Conclusion

China’s imposition of 125% tariffs on U.S. goods, coupled with its WTO lawsuit, marks a pivotal moment in the U.S.-China trade war. What began as a dispute over trade practices has evolved into a high-stakes confrontation with far-reaching economic and strategic consequences. As both nations dig in, the world watches anxiously, grappling with the fallout of a conflict that threatens to reshape global trade for years to come. Whether this escalation leads to a breaking point or a new round of negotiations will depend on the delicate balance of economic pain and political will in Washington and Beijing.