Connect with us

Business

The long-shot plan to save TikTok from a US ban

So far, ByteDance has shown zero willingness to spin off TikTok in the US. The Chinese parent company seems to be banking on the Supreme Court or President-elect Donald Trump rescuing the app before it’s banned next month.

The obvious names that would would buy TikTok if they could — Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Oracle, etc. — are sitting on the sidelines and waiting to see what happens in the coming weeks. The clock is ticking. Congress just sent letters to Sundar Pichai and Tim Cook reminding them that they will be legally liable for continuing to host TikTok in their app stores after January 19th. 

Then there’s Frank McCourt, the real estate billionaire and former owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers. For months, McCourt has been very public about his desire to buy TikTok. He has ramped up his drumbeat since ByteDance recently lost its legal fight on appeal. This week, he pitched more investors on his Project Liberty plan to buy the app’s US operations. 

When I spoke with McCourt over Zoom in between those investor meetings, he told me he currently has roughly $20 billion behind him for a bid. He has asked Kevin Mayer, who was briefly TikTok’s CEO the last time it was almost banned from the US, to be involved, though Mayer hasn’t signed on. McCourt told me his team has talked to “most” of ByteDance’s biggest American investors and that they’re “very interested” in his plan. (Spokespeople for these firms either declined to comment or didn’t respond to my pings, and Mayer didn’t have a comment.)

There are several reasons McCourt’s attempt to buy TikTok is a long-shot, the biggest being that, even if ByteDance wanted to sell, the Chinese government may not let it. Then there are the technical details of his proposal, which would see TikTok put on a decentralized protocol that is funded by McCourt and untested with a platform of TikTok’s size. For me, the biggest red flag of all is that there’s a cryptocurrency called Frequency tied to the project.

McCourt has high-minded ambitions for how the internet should work that are in line with the rise of federated platforms like ActivityPub and Bluesky. He imagines TikTok offering a marketplace of user-created algorithms, much like Bluesky does today, and users having the ability to own their profiles. Keep reading for more from our conversation this week…

The following Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

My understanding is there are multiple pieces of Project Liberty. You’ve got the Decentralized Social Networking Protocol (DSNP) and then the TikTok bid, and they’re connected. It all seems a little bit afield from what you have historically done.

Having seen the harms of social media and where the internet was going as it became highly centralized, I dedicated some resources to start a public policy school at my alma mater, Georgetown. I was perhaps naive in retrospect, but I thought that we could get the policymaking apparatus out in front of the problem and steer things in a better direction out of that school. 

Then I realized that the public policy making apparatus is no match for Big Tech, so I began to go back to my roots. My family has been building infrastructure for 131 years, so this actually isn’t very far afield from our core competency when you think about this not as software at the app layer, but as infrastructure at the base layer. I talked to a few brilliant computer scientists that we have in the company and put the task to them of solving this from an engineering perspective if you had no limitations. The answer came back that you would go ahead and create another protocol that would connect us, just like TCP/IP connects devices and HTTP connects data.

Our goal here is bigger than buying TikTok. It’s reimagining how the internet works. Purchasing TikTok and moving 170 million people to a reimagined, upgraded internet would catalyze that alternative and compress time.

Is this a financial endeavor or is this philanthropy for you? Do you see a return on investment here? 

I see it as both and we’ve been very careful to separate the two. Project Liberty has an institute, a 501(c)(3), that’s purely not-for-profit. DSNP has been gifted to the world. That is being supported by the institute. 

The layer-one blockchain, Frequency, is tokenized. The community will own the majority of the tokens but that will be a commercial endeavor. TikTok, when we buy it, will be a commercial endeavor.

If you were given the opportunity to buy it but a condition was that you couldn’t do it on this protocol you built, would you still do it? 

Probably not because I don’t know how you would achieve the objectives we want to achieve, which is to be able to run the platform without the algorithm and give people ownership and control of their relationships. You need an implementation device to use DSNP. 

I would be totally open, however, if someone else built an alternative to Frequency. We’re looking to decentralize, not further centralize. 

Have you studied the fediverse: Mastodon, ActivityPub, and then also what Bluesky is doing?

I admire all the people who are doing that because they are trying to improve the internet and respect individuals. A federated approach is very different than having a universal social graph that’s globally accessible. 

We’re saying that something has to change fundamentally with the internet. What Jay Graber is doing with Bluesky is great but you still have a Bluesky identity. You’re still on Bluesky and your relationships are on Bluesky. Let’s stipulate that it’s better but you’re still there, right? At some point maybe Jay is not there.

Give me an update on the status of your investor pitch and how much money you have committed. 

People are super excited about this and capital will not be an issue at all. The issue is going to be what ByteDance does. We’ve been saying for over six months that we felt the government was going to win the case.

I don’t think ByteDance’s appeal is going to be successful. This is going to be a shut-it-down or sell it scenario. Like President-elect Trump, I’d like to see it not banned. We’re not asking China for the algorithm. We’re not an antitrust threat. We’ll pass CFIUS vetting. We don’t need or want the algorithm. We have a clean stack where the user base can migrate.

We don’t know what ByteDance is going to decide. We certainly hope they decide to sell and preserve some value for their shareholders. We’ll do it on terms that we think can be a win-win. China keeps the algorithm. US citizens are protected. The app stays alive.

Is $20 billion the amount that you still have committed?

That’s what we’ve got circled right now and that’s an order of magnitude what we think this is worth. Now, I say that with a huge caveat: we don’t know what ByteDance is selling. We think we have a very good idea of what the current numbers are, but it’s not like there’s a data room that ByteDance has set up and we’re inside of it. I think we have a good sense of what this would be worth if ByteDance keeps the algorithm and sells the user base and the content and the brand.

There are three categories of investors. One group is the existing American companies that have invested in ByteDance. We’ve talked to most of them. They’re very interested, assuming ByteDance agrees to sell. They would either put more capital in or keep their capital in. 

A second category are people that are familiar with the asset because they’ve looked at it in the past. Some are looking at it for the first time. These are the large balance sheets that deploy big amounts of capital and they’re interested in what we’re doing. The third category is the bucket of cultural capital, people with influence who are interested in being a part of this and bringing their communities with them. 

When will you share who your backers are?

We’ll be able to share once we know what ByteDance is doing. It makes no sense to be barking up the wrong tree here. 

You’ve had no conversations with ByteDance leadership, right?

That’s correct. I reached out before the decision. They were not interested in speaking at that time. We’ll try it again. They know at this stage of the game that we exist, we’re interested, and we hope that there’s incoming at some point as well. But we respect their decision-making process. They’re going to decide what they think is best for their interests.

Have you spoken to Trump or his team?

We’re in the process of reaching out. I’ve heard President-elect Trump say he doesn’t want to see the app banned. I’m very interested in having that conversation once this gets sorted on the China side and they decide what they’re going to do. 

Are you concerned about other large would-be acquirers, like an Amazon, also circling TikTok?

I don’t see the big incumbents being bidders here for a couple of reasons. One is antitrust, obviously. Secondly, imagine you were a tobacco company and you built a big business and then people started to get worried because people were getting sick and dying because of the addiction of cigarettes and carcinogens. If you bought a tobacco company after the surgeon general’s warning, then you were putting a target on your back because you were buying it with the awareness that your product kills people.

The growth of these platforms happened really fast. Then we discovered that there are harms. Anybody buying TikTok and replicating the current design, which is to scrape peoples’ data, apply algorithms, and manipulate people, they’re buying this with their eyes wide open. So I don’t see a lot of bidders because people realize they’re just putting a target on their back. 

Let’s take this problem and actually use it to catalyze an upgraded internet. Then, a lot of the problems go away. A lot of the lawsuits go away. A lot of the harms go away. That’s Project Liberty. 

AI researchers want to party

Hundreds of the world’s top researchers gathered this week in Vancouver, Canada for NeuralPS, one of the world’s top academic gatherings in the field of AI. I asked The Verge’s Kylie Robison (who just published a fascinating deep dive on the history and future of ChatGPT) what it was like being there on the ground:

Are there any recurring themes you’ve been hearing in conversations?

The “Is AI hitting a wall?” conversation came up sometimes, but this is not the place where people actually believe that. AI safety was something I wound up talking about a lot. A research topic that also came up a lot was what Fei-Fei Li focuses on, which is helping AI understand the world like we do in terms of physics and objects. That touches a bunch of cool things — robotics, agents, advanced reasoning.

Which lab does everyone wish they worked at?

This conference was filled with students from Waterloo and University of Toronto who basically want any AI job. (It was quite sweet sometimes watching those students corner an AI exec at a party.) If parties are any indicator, everyone wants to get as close to OpenAI as possible. This is a highly academic conference with lots of people just wanting to do good, deep research.

What was the hottest party?

The Midjourney party was 4x oversubscribed and researchers kept sending me the RSVP link. Everyone was asking about the secret OpenAI parties, though.

Mustafa Suleyman.
Illustration by William Joel / The Verge

“These conversational interactions are going to become the future of the web… This is the next browser; this is the next search engine.”

There are plenty of interesting takeaways from Mustafa Suleyman’s recent Decoder interview with Nilay Patel. The Microsoft AI CEO doesn’t seem to agree with Sam Altman on the timing of AGI’s arrival, and he revealed that Microsoft won’t train its own frontier models when OpenAI is doing it for them anyway. He also takes some shots at Google’s management culture versus Microsoft’s, which I’m sure will cause some eyes to roll in Mountain View, given the way Suleyman excited.

As a follow-up to this conversation, I recommend listening to Sayta Nadella’s interview this week with Brad Gurley and Brad Gerstner. Reading between the lines, it’s clear that there is ongoing tension between the level of compute Altman wants and what Nadella feels comfortable spending. For those closely following Nvidia’s stock price, Nadella also mentions that Microsoft no longer feels GPU constrained but rather constrained by the power requirements for its data centers. 

Elsewhere

  • Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Altman buy their inauguration tickets. There have been lots of headlines this week about these three tech CEOs donating $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund. That number just so happens to be the minimum requirement to receive “as many as a half-dozen tickets to eight inaugural events,” including access to an “intimate dinner” with the Trumps. (And you thought Taylor Swift tickets were expensive!) I’m not surprised by Bezos or Altman making donations. This is a 180-turn for Zuckerberg, however, who told me just a couple of months ago that he was going to stay out of this political cycle.
  • Google’s big week of demos. Aside from a smaller version of its Gemini 2.0 model that appears to be quite good, Google’s blitz of product announcements this week — a quantum chip breakthrough, Android XR platform for headsets, a handful of AI agents — were all about hyping stuff that’s coming some day or not publicly accessible. I completely understand the desire to want to upstage OpenAI’s 12 days of “shipmas” but I am asking for a New Year’s resolution from tech companies: please stop announcing so many things without a ship date.

Job board

A few notable job moves this week:

  • Rohan Anl, a DeepMind distinguished engineer and head of Gemini pretraining, joined Meta to help lead training for Llama.
  • Zheng Gao, Tesla’s former head of hardware design for Autopilot, joined Zoox as director of hardware engineering.
  • Google’s chief lobbyist, Mark Isakowitz, left to be chief of staff for incoming Pennsylvania Republican Senator-elect Dave McCormick.

More links

If you aren’t already getting new issues of Command Line, don’t forget to subscribe to The Verge, which includes unlimited access to all of our stories and an improved ad experience on the web. You’ll also get full access to my archive, featuring scoops about companies like Google, Meta, OpenAI, and more.

As always, I want to hear from you, especially if you have a tip or feedback. Respond here, and I’ll get back to you, or ping me securely on Signal. I’m happy to keep you anonymous. 

source

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

Trump Says US Banks Can’t Do Business in Canada. It’s Not That Simple.

Hours after imposing steep tariffs on Canada, President Trump raised an issue that even the American lenders whose cause he’s championing find perplexing: the access, or lack thereof, of U.S. banks to the Canadian market.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, “Canada doesn’t allow American Banks to do business in Canada, but their banks flood the American Market.” He added sarcastically, “Oh, that seems fair to me, doesn’t it?”

While this issue doesn’t often come up in conversations with prominent American bank executives, it appears to be increasingly on the president’s mind.

Mr. Trump mentioned the Canada banking issue early last month as part of a broader criticism against what he views as the unequal economic balance between the United States and its northern neighbor. Writing on Truth Social, Mr. Trump said Canada “doesn’t even allow U.S. Banks to open or do business.”

Here is the actual state of play for U.S. banks in Canada:

Canada’s banking sector is dominated by the “Big Six,” the half-dozen institutions including the Royal Bank of Canada and TD Bank. They are permitted to take deposits, extend mortgages and advise corporate clients — all the core activities for banks. And Canadian customers disproportionately still prefer to do their banking in person, as opposed to online, meaning it would require a major physical presence for any entrant to attempt to enter the market.

Additionally, U.S. banks are restricted in what they can do in Canada.

Foreign banks, including American ones, must either work with a Canadian middleman, establish a Canadian subsidiary or receive special government permission to do business. Unless they agree to follow Canada’s stringent banking rules that include holding a hefty sum of cash-like assets in reserve at all times, they cannot operate retail branches that take deposits under around $100,000.

Given how dominant Canada’s homegrown banks are, any international bank that tries to compete faces “an additional regulatory burden for what would begin as a small prize,” said James R. Thompson, associate professor of finance at the University of Waterloo.

The upshot is that U.S. banks have minimal operations in Canada. The largest American lender, JPMorgan Chase, says it has roughly 600 employees in Canada, out of more than 300,000 worldwide. Many international banks limit themselves to areas that don’t involve lending, such as offering investment advice to wealthy Canadians or local companies.

So Mr. Trump is incorrect in asserting that American banks cannot do any business in Canada, but it is true that they are hamstrung in their activities.

While there are more than 4,000 banks in the United States, Canada has just a few dozen, and more than three-quarters of deposits are held by the Big Six.

For decades, Canadian political leaders have crowed about that restrictive financial regulatory model. They argue that fending off foreign entrants in the country’s mortgage market helped the country largely avoid the 2008 collapse south of its border.

In light of Mr. Trump’s criticism, Maggie Cheung, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Bankers Association, was quick to point out on Tuesday that foreign banks were an integral part of the banking landscape. She said 16 U.S. banks were operating to some degree in Canada, with a cumulative of nearly $79 billion in assets — a statistic that the nation’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, also cited on Tuesday.

“American banks are alive and well and prospering in Canada,” Mr. Trudeau said.

But in relative terms, their successes are small. U.S. bank assets represent 1 to 2 percent of the $6.5 trillion held by banks operating in Canada writ large.

“The major impediment faced by U.S. banks,” said Laurence Booth, professor of finance at the University of Toronto, “is simply they can’t compete with the Canadian banks as they don’t have the scale, while they can’t take any of them over as there are restrictions on foreign ownership.”

International banks — including Canadian ones — are largely free to establish U.S. arms. The United States is a more attractive target for international banks than Canada, both because it is a hub for world finance and because its market permits more exotic, higher-profit lending activities like 30-year mortgages. (The most common mortgage in Canada carries a five-year term.)

The largest Canadian bank in America, TD Bank, operates more than 1,000 U.S. branches through a Delaware subsidiary. That size puts it in line with well-known regional lenders like Citizens and Fifth Third.

The Canadian Bankers Association said the six largest Canadian lenders held less than 3.5 percent of U.S. bank assets.

Big U.S. banks had plenty of hopes that Mr. Trump would decrease regulations, encourage merger activity and slash taxes. Expanding their presence in Canada was not on the list.

A U.S. banking industry trade group, the Bank Policy Institute, said Tuesday that it had released no statements on the matter, and no bank chief executive has taken up the rallying cry.

More pressing for the global banking industry are Mr. Trump’s tariffs, which have helped push the industry’s stocks down 8 percent over the past month, according to the KBW Nasdaq Bank Index.

source

Continue Reading

Business

Trump’s New Tariffs Could Strain Collection of Customs Fees

The sweeping tariffs on Canadian, Mexican and Chinese products that President Trump imposed on Tuesday could strain the system that collects import duties and the government agencies that enforce those fees, trade and legal experts said.

Collecting import duties is usually a routine task, but the new tariffs are being imposed on Mexican and Canadian goods, many of which have been imported into the United States duty-free for many years. Adding to the challenge is the sheer volume of goods subject to the new tariffs — U.S. imports from China, Mexico and Canada totaled over $1.3 trillion last year, or about two-fifths of all imports.

The tariffs apply a 25 percent duty on goods from Mexico and Canada and an additional 10 percent on imports from China.

Importers typically employ customs brokers to calculate and pay tariffs to the government agency that collects them, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Adam Lewis, a co-founder and the president of Clearit, a customs broker, said that it would not be hard to tweak software to collect the new tariffs, but that a crucial part of the tariffs payment system might need significant adjustments. Importers must buy a “customs bond,” a type of insurance that guarantees the duties will be paid. Mr. Lewis said some customers might have to increase the size of their bonds to cover the extra tariff payments.

“Many of their products were coming in duty-free, and all of a sudden there’s going to be a 25 percent increase,” he said. “It’s quite large.”

In addition, policing importers for tariff evasion will now become a much bigger task for Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Justice. Some importers may try to avoid tariffs by understating the cost of goods in customs declarations or by falsely claiming they were imported from countries not subject to tariffs.

“The greater the breadth and severity of these new tariffs, the greater the likelihood that at least some potential importers may want to misrepresent the value or the origin of their goods,” said Kirti Vaidya Reddy, a former federal prosecutor who is now a partner at the law firm Quarles.

If the government finds that an importer has not paid duties, customs officials are likely to demand that the importer pay what is owed and a penalty that can double or even triple the amount due.

In a statement, a customs agency spokeswoman said: “The dynamic nature of our mission, along with evolving threats and challenges, requires C.B.P. to remain flexible and adapt quickly while ensuring seamless operations and mission resilience. These tariffs will help maintain America’s global competitiveness and protect American industries from unfair trade practices.”

Some evasion cases have become the subject of criminal prosecutions. Last year, a Miami importer pleaded guilty to participating in an import scheme involving Chinese truck tires that the Justice Department said had cost the United States more than $1.9 million in forgone tariff revenue.

But stepping up enforcement efforts is likely to require that the Justice Department devote significantly more staff to pursuing tariff evasion cases, which, lawyers said, can take time to build.

“The Department of Justice has the personnel and infrastructure to do it, but these cases are complex, transnational and document-heavy,” said Artie McConnell, a former federal prosecutor who is a partner at the law firm BakerHostetler. “You can’t rush it, and prosecutions likely won’t come quickly.”

source

Continue Reading

Business

China Retaliates Against Trump, Imposing Tariffs and Blacklisting U.S. Companies

Minutes after President Trump’s latest tariffs took effect, the Chinese government said on Tuesday that it was imposing its own broad tariffs on food imported from the United States and would essentially halt sales to 15 American companies.

China’s Ministry of Finance put tariffs of 15 percent on imports of American chicken, wheat, corn and cotton and 10 percent tariffs on other foods, ranging from soybeans to dairy products. In addition, the Ministry of Commerce said 15 U.S. companies would no longer be allowed to buy products from China except with special permission, including Skydio, which is the largest American maker of drones and a supplier to the U.S. military and emergency services.

Lou Qinjian, a spokesman for China’s National People’s Congress, chastised the United States for violating the World Trade Organization’s free trade rules. “By imposing unilateral tariffs, the U.S. has violated W.T.O. rules and disrupted the security and stability of the global industrial and supply chains,” he said.

President Trump has contended his tariffs are essential to stopping the flow into the United States of fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths through overdoses.

But the U.S. imposition of tariffs “will deal a heavy blow to counternarcotics dialogue and cooperation,” Lin Jian, a spokesman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said at a news briefing.

Mr. Trump has now tagged almost all goods from China with an extra 20 percent in tariffs since taking office in January. He announced 10 percent tariffs on Feb. 4 and another round on Tuesday. Mr. Trump also moved ahead on 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada on Tuesday, after a monthlong delay.

China had responded to the February tariffs by immediately announcing that it would start collecting, six days later, additional tariffs on liquefied natural gas, coal and farm machinery from the United States. But those tariffs combined hit only about a tenth of American exports to China, making them much narrower than Mr. Trump’s comprehensive tariffs.

China’s action on Tuesday was much broader. China is the top overseas market for American farmers, wielding considerable influence over prices and demand in the commodities markets of the Midwest.

By targeting imports of food, Beijing repeated its response to tariffs that Mr. Trump imposed during his first term. China put tariffs on American soybeans in 2018 and shifted much of its purchasing to Brazil.

But the strategy backfired then: Mr. Trump responded by placing more tariffs on Chinese goods. Because China sells much more to the United States than it buys, it quickly ran out of American goods to impose tariffs on. And American farmers had some success in finding other markets for their crops.

China’s tariffs in 2018 also had less of a political impact in the United States than Beijing’s leaders had hoped. In 2018 Senate elections in three of the top soybean-exporting states, voters gave little evidence they held the Chinese action against Mr. Trump or the Republican Party. All three states saw Democratic senators replaced with Republicans that year, as social issues proved more compelling for many voters than trade disputes.

Yet China has potential trade weapons that go beyond tariffs on food. In early February, Beijing implemented restrictions on exports to the United States of certain critical minerals, which are used in the production of some semiconductors and other technology products.

Blocking key materials from reaching the United States, a tactic known as supply chain warfare, carries considerable risks for China. Beijing is struggling to attract foreign investment. China’s leaders have also stated that attempting to bolster the country’s domestic economy, weighed down by the fallout of a devastating real estate slowdown, is a priority.

Beijing could make it even harder for American companies to do business in China, but that could also hurt foreign investment. In addition to effectively preventing 15 companies from buying Chinese goods, China’s Ministry of Commerce added another 10 American companies on Tuesday to what it calls an “unreliable entities list,” preventing them from doing any business in China.

Many of the companies that China penalized on Tuesday are military contractors. But the Ministry of Commerce also blocked imports from the biotech firm Illumina. It accused Illumina, which is based in San Diego, of violating market transaction rules and discriminating against Chinese companies.

Chinese market regulators said in early February, after Mr. Trump imposed tariffs, that they had launched an antimonopoly investigation into Google. Google has been blocked from China’s internet for more than a decade, but the move could disrupt the company’s dealings with Chinese companies.

Mr. Lou, the National People’s Congress spokesman, signaled his country’s emerging strategy in dealing with Mr. Trump’s tariffs by calling for closer trade relations with Europe.

“China and Europe can complement each other’s strengths and achieve mutual benefit in many areas of cooperation,” he said at a news conference ahead of the opening on Wednesday of the annual weeklong session of China’s legislature.

But Europe has its own trade disputes with China, notably over electric vehicles. European politicians and business leaders have voiced concern about how to cope with an expected further flood of exports this year from China, which has embarked on a far-reaching factory construction program.

China’s rapid rise since 2000 to global pre-eminence in manufacturing, with a third of the world’s output, has come to a considerable extent at the expense of the American share of global industrial production, according to United Nations data. European nations have been wary of closing factories and relying on low-cost imports from China.

Mr. Trump has moved much faster on China tariffs during his second term than he did in his first. In 2018 and 2019, he imposed tariffs of up to 25 percent, in stages, on imports worth about $300 billion a year. He then concluded a trade agreement with China in January 2020, leaving in place 25 percent tariffs on many industrial goods while cutting 15 percent tariffs on some consumer products to 7.5 percent and canceling a few other tariffs.

By contrast, Mr. Trump has now imposed 20 percent tariffs on all goods that the United States imports from China, worth about $440 billion a year. That includes some products, like smartphones, that he omitted during his first term.

Mr. Trump’s actions this year have raised average tariffs on the affected Chinese imports to 39 percent — compared with just 3 percent before he took office in 2017. Apart from China, Canada and Mexico, the United States imposes tariffs averaging about 3 percent on most trading partners.

China’s average tariffs on goods from most of the world are twice as high, and much higher on imports from the United States.

In Mr. Trump’s first term, the Chinese government reduced taxes that it charges the country’s exporters. That gave them room to cut prices and offset at least part of the tariffs for their customers, which include many small American businesses as well as big retailers like Walmart, Amazon and Home Depot.

As another way around tariffs, some Chinese exporters shifted the final assembly of their products to countries like Vietnam, Thailand or Mexico, while keeping the production of core components in China. Mr. Trump is now trying to stop some of the trade through Mexico, which critics of Chinese exports see as a backdoor into the U.S. market.

Many Chinese exporters resorted to using the so-called de minimis exception to tariffs: dividing shipments into many packages, each with a value of less than $800. Each shipment is then exempt from tariffs and customs processing fees and mostly omitted from customs inspections and American imports data.

At least $1 of every $6 worth of American imports from China is now arriving through these de minimis shipments.

In early February, Mr. Trump issued an order briefly halting the de minimis tariff exemption for goods from China, Mexico and Canada. After packages quickly accumulated at American airports, he delayed the order for shipments from China until procedures could be developed to handle them, and postponed for a month his order for de minimis imports from Canada and Mexico. On Sunday, he again delayed action on those imports from Canada and Mexico.

Wu Xinbo, dean of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, said that by retaliating now, “China sends a strong signal to the Trump administration that a unilateral tariff doesn’t work — you have to sit down to talk to us and to negotiate with us.”

Alexandra Stevenson contributed reporting from Beijing, and Chris Buckley and Amy Chang Chien from Taipei. Li You contributed research.

source

Continue Reading