00:01 - 00:02

We are following the breaking

00:02 - 00:03

news of President Trump

00:03 - 00:04

threatening to slap China

00:04 - 00:05

with additional tariffs.

00:05 - 00:07

Let's go live to CNN senior

00:07 - 00:09

white House reporter Kevin Liptak.

00:09 - 00:09

So, Kevin,

00:09 - 00:10

what is the president

00:10 - 00:13

saying about this potential escalation

00:13 - 00:13

here?

00:13 - 00:15

Yeah, and it's a major escalation

00:15 - 00:17

in this tit for tat

00:17 - 00:17

tariff war

00:17 - 00:19

between Washington and Beijing.

00:19 - 00:20

Remember him?

00:20 - 00:20

Last week

00:20 - 00:21

President Trump

00:21 - 00:23

applied that 35%

00:23 - 00:25

reciprocal tariff on China.

00:25 - 00:26

China retaliated,

00:26 - 00:28

applying its own 34%

00:28 - 00:30

tariff on the United States.

00:30 - 00:32

Now, President Trump saying this

00:32 - 00:34

if China does not withdraw

00:34 - 00:37

its 34% increase above their already long

00:37 - 00:39

term trading abuses by tomorrow,

00:39 - 00:40

April the 8th,

00:40 - 00:42

the United States will impose

00:42 - 00:43

additional tariffs

00:43 - 00:46

on China of 50%, effective April 9th.

00:47 - 00:48

He goes on to say that

00:48 - 00:50

additionally, all talks with China

00:50 - 00:52

concerning their requested meetings

00:52 - 00:54

with us will be terminated.

00:54 - 00:55

And I just want to break down

00:55 - 00:56

the math for you

00:56 - 00:57

here, Pamela,

00:57 - 00:58

because remember,

00:58 - 01:01

President Trump had already applied a 20%

01:01 - 01:04

tariff on China for its role

01:04 - 01:05

in the fentanyl crisis.

01:05 - 01:08

He applied that 34% reciprocal

01:08 - 01:10

tariff last week

01:10 - 01:12

that goes into effect later this week.

01:12 - 01:13

Now he's threatening this

01:13 - 01:15

additional 50%

01:15 - 01:17

retaliatory tariff on China.

01:17 - 01:19

This tit for tat back and forth

01:19 - 01:21

that would bring the total tariffs

01:21 - 01:25

on China by the United States to 104%,

01:25 - 01:27

which is a huge number.

01:27 - 01:27

China,

01:27 - 01:28

the world's second

01:28 - 01:29

largest economy,

01:29 - 01:30

one of the United States's

01:30 - 01:32

largest trading partners.

01:32 - 01:34

This could have a serious effect

01:34 - 01:36

for American consumers,

01:36 - 01:37

given the amount of goods

01:37 - 01:39

that come into the United States.

01:39 - 01:41

And I think just as we have seen

01:41 - 01:42

today, the markets

01:42 - 01:44

clearly looking for some kind of off

01:44 - 01:46

ramp here for some kind of easing

01:46 - 01:48

on the part of the president.

01:48 - 01:49

This shows that the president

01:49 - 01:51

is very much committed

01:51 - 01:53

to this tariff plan. Exactly.

01:53 - 01:54

Not what the markets were looking

01:54 - 01:55

for, Pamela.

01:55 - 01:56

Yeah. No, you're absolutely right.

01:56 - 01:57

And you know,

01:57 - 01:59

the white House has been talking

01:59 - 02:00

about all these countries more

02:00 - 02:03

the 50 countries have come and,

02:03 - 02:04

you know, reached out to the president

02:04 - 02:06

wanting to negotiate.

02:06 - 02:07

But the white House is also sending

02:07 - 02:08

these mixed

02:08 - 02:10

messages on whether the president

02:10 - 02:11

is willing to negotiate.

02:11 - 02:13

Where do things stand on that front?

02:13 - 02:15

Yeah, it seems to be this

02:15 - 02:15

that the president

02:15 - 02:17

is willing to talk to these countries

02:17 - 02:19

about potential trade deals,

02:19 - 02:21

but that the bar will be very high

02:21 - 02:22

for him to lift these tariffs.

02:22 - 02:25

That seems to be the combination

02:25 - 02:26

of what you're hearing from

02:26 - 02:27

white House advisers today.

02:27 - 02:28

We do know this morning

02:28 - 02:30

that the president spoke

02:30 - 02:32

to the prime minister of Japan,

02:32 - 02:32

that country

02:32 - 02:34

looking to ease up

02:34 - 02:35

some of the tariffs on them,

02:35 - 02:37

saying that they will be sending

02:37 - 02:38

a high level delegation

02:38 - 02:41

to the United States to talk about trade.

02:41 - 02:42

The president will also discuss this

02:42 - 02:44

with the prime minister of Israel,

02:44 - 02:46

Benjamin Netanyahu, later today.

02:46 - 02:47

He imposed a 17%

02:47 - 02:49

tariff on Israel last week.

02:49 - 02:51

But in a way, that's a cautionary tale.

02:51 - 02:53

Remember, Netanyahu lifted

02:53 - 02:54

customs duties on U.S.

02:54 - 02:55

imports to Israel,

02:55 - 02:56

but the president

02:56 - 02:59

went ahead with that tariff and exactly.

02:59 - 03:01

That's absolutely right. Kevin Liptak.

03:01 - 03:03

Thank you so much, Wolf.

03:03 - 03:04

All right, Pamela,

03:04 - 03:05

I want to get some more

03:05 - 03:06

of the breaking news right now.

03:06 - 03:07

Joining us, Democratic Congressman

03:07 - 03:09

Mike Quigley of Illinois.

03:09 - 03:10

Congressman,

03:10 - 03:11

thanks so much for joining us.

03:11 - 03:11

First of all,

03:11 - 03:13

what do you make of the president's

03:13 - 03:15

decision to escalate his trade war

03:15 - 03:16

once again?

03:16 - 03:18

Do you see any chance for an offer

03:18 - 03:21

AMP, before this gets a whole lot worse?

03:23 - 03:24

I don't see it coming from

03:24 - 03:26

the president of the United States.

03:26 - 03:28

It talks about a very strange world

03:28 - 03:28

we live in.

03:28 - 03:30

I'm what the liberal Democrat

03:30 - 03:31

from Chicago

03:31 - 03:33

agreeing with headlines

03:33 - 03:34

from the Wall Street

03:34 - 03:35

Journal, the dumbest

03:35 - 03:37

trade war in history.

03:37 - 03:38

And I'm very concerned,

03:38 - 03:40

as are my constituents,

03:40 - 03:42

with extraordinary cost

03:42 - 03:45

increases, recession,

03:45 - 03:47

and the volatility in the markets

03:47 - 03:47

that create

03:47 - 03:49

uncertainty and,

03:49 - 03:51

great economic peril for our country.

03:51 - 03:54

I think the bigger concern right now

03:54 - 03:56

is it's part of a larger issue

03:56 - 03:58

where this country,

03:58 - 03:58

through the president,

03:58 - 04:01

thinks that we can stand alone

04:01 - 04:04

4% of the world's population.

04:04 - 04:05

we're going to be less

04:05 - 04:07

secure financially,

04:07 - 04:09

and we're going to be more vulnerable

04:09 - 04:11

in every other way from threats

04:11 - 04:13

from across the seas.

04:13 - 04:14

Do you want to start by talking

04:14 - 04:15

about this sort of tit for tat

04:15 - 04:17

trade war between the US and China?

04:17 - 04:18

Obviously,

04:18 - 04:19

a lot of threats in the air

04:19 - 04:20

between both countries.

04:20 - 04:21

Donald Trump

04:21 - 04:24

now threatening to slap an additional 50%

04:24 - 04:25

tariff on China

04:25 - 04:28

if China does not pull back its 34%,

04:28 - 04:29

tariff hike.

04:29 - 04:30

Just explain to us

04:30 - 04:31

the potential consequences

04:31 - 04:33

and which economy stands

04:33 - 04:35

to lose more from this escalating

04:35 - 04:35

trade war.

04:38 - 04:39

Well, it's hard to know which

04:39 - 04:40

is going to lose more,

04:40 - 04:41

but it's easy to tell you

04:41 - 04:43

which consumers will lose more.

04:43 - 04:45

And that's us, right?

04:45 - 04:46

I mean,

04:46 - 04:48

we consume in the United States

04:48 - 04:50

and throughout the West,

04:50 - 04:52

huge amounts of Chinese,

04:52 - 04:55

goods for everyday life.

04:55 - 04:57

think about,

04:57 - 04:59

just to take the most basic example,

04:59 - 05:02

an iPhone, which now markets at, what,

05:02 - 05:06

$1,100 for the newest, models of them.

05:06 - 05:09

And, if you ended up doing the,

05:09 - 05:12

the 50% hike on, on components,

05:12 - 05:14

you know, you're probably adding,

05:14 - 05:18

another, $500 or so to that.

05:18 - 05:19

And, of course, there's

05:19 - 05:21

everything you're looking at at Walmart

05:21 - 05:22

and much of what you're

05:22 - 05:24

looking at on Amazon.

05:24 - 05:26

So these would flow through

05:26 - 05:27

what really sort of struck me

05:27 - 05:29

about President Trump's

05:29 - 05:31

truth social posting,

05:31 - 05:31

which was just less

05:31 - 05:33

than an hour ago, was,

05:34 - 05:37

if you know much about the Chinese,

05:37 - 05:40

structure and about XI Jinping,

05:40 - 05:43

the idea of setting him a deadline

05:43 - 05:46

to back down in 24 hours,

05:46 - 05:47

he's not going to do that.

05:47 - 05:49

He's not going to end up

05:49 - 05:52

looking weaker to Donald Trump.

05:52 - 05:52

And it's

05:52 - 05:53

just not

05:53 - 05:56

in the DNA of the Chinese leadership

05:56 - 05:58

right now, because you will think

05:58 - 05:59

that will transfer

05:59 - 06:00

to the confrontation

06:00 - 06:03

over Taiwan or something else.

06:03 - 06:06

So I don't think the ultimatum strategy

06:06 - 06:08

is likely to work.

06:08 - 06:09

And David,

06:09 - 06:11

we had Rahm Emanuel on last week

06:11 - 06:11

and he said

06:11 - 06:13

the irony here is here's

06:13 - 06:13

a president

06:13 - 06:16

who campaigned on ending all wars.

06:16 - 06:17

And he starting one.

06:17 - 06:18

And he said,

06:18 - 06:19

no, it's not a combat war

06:19 - 06:22

involving F-16s or anything like that,

06:22 - 06:23

but it's a trade war.

06:23 - 06:24

And if you think about

06:24 - 06:25

one of the purposes

06:25 - 06:27

that free trade

06:27 - 06:28

or any type of trade

06:28 - 06:29

relations and trade

06:29 - 06:33

alliances, serves is to hopefully

06:33 - 06:36

avoid physical wars as well.

06:37 - 06:39

and you have a president now

06:39 - 06:41

who has fired his U.S.,

06:41 - 06:42

cyber security,

06:42 - 06:44

chief cyber command chief,

06:44 - 06:46

because of a conspiracy theorist

06:46 - 06:47

apparently reportedly

06:47 - 06:49

coming to the white House and suggesting

06:49 - 06:50

he's not loyal.

06:50 - 06:52

You have a president who continues

06:52 - 06:54

to conflate friend and foe.

06:54 - 06:56

And in saying that that even

06:56 - 06:57

our friends are treating us

06:57 - 06:58

worse than our foes.

06:58 - 07:00

Just give us a sense of where

07:00 - 07:03

that puts us in terms of,

07:03 - 07:06

security risks here in the United States.

07:06 - 07:06

Sure.

07:08 - 07:09

Well, first of all, I

07:09 - 07:10

mean, just

07:10 - 07:12

any reading of the history of the past

07:12 - 07:16

century is trade conflict can frequently,

07:17 - 07:19

spill into military conflict.

07:19 - 07:21

We've seen that happen

07:21 - 07:22

time and time again.

07:22 - 07:25

Was the source of the War of 1812

07:25 - 07:26

with Britain. Right.

07:26 - 07:28

But you also saw elements of that

07:28 - 07:31

in World War one and so forth.

07:31 - 07:32

separate apart

07:32 - 07:33

from the history

07:33 - 07:36

lesson here, the conflation of our,

07:37 - 07:39

adversaries with our allies

07:39 - 07:43

is bound to come back and haunt

07:43 - 07:44

the United States.

07:44 - 07:45

I think,

07:45 - 07:46

you know, the

07:46 - 07:49

what is our greatest military strength

07:49 - 07:51

as a country

07:51 - 07:52

beyond our nuclear weapons,

07:52 - 07:55

which you can't really go use.

07:55 - 07:56

And the answer is,

07:56 - 07:58

it's our alliance system.

07:58 - 08:00

Who is it that we have tariffs heavily

08:00 - 08:02

in the course of this?

08:02 - 08:05

Japan and South Korea,

08:05 - 08:07

who are lynchpins of the effort

08:07 - 08:08

to contain

08:08 - 08:11

Chinese expansion, to say nothing

08:11 - 08:12

of North Korea?

08:13 - 08:15

why poison that relationship?

08:15 - 08:17

I don't know,

08:17 - 08:19

and if the president turned around

08:19 - 08:20

and said, well, this is about trade,

08:20 - 08:22

not about politics,

08:22 - 08:25

go explain what we heard,

08:25 - 08:26

over the weekend

08:26 - 08:29

about why it was that he did not put any,

08:30 - 08:32

tariff penalties on Russia

08:32 - 08:33

because we're in the middle

08:33 - 08:36

of a negotiation for peace in Ukraine,

08:36 - 08:38

by the way, there are tariffs

08:38 - 08:39

that were put on Ukraine.

08:39 - 08:43

so obviously politics has entered into

08:43 - 08:45

the setting of these tariffs,

08:45 - 08:46

and yet

08:46 - 08:47

not with our main allies

08:47 - 08:50

in Europe or Asia.

08:50 - 08:50

All right.

08:50 - 08:51

David Sanger live for us there.

08:51 - 08:52

Thank you.

The Impact of US-China Trade War: Tariff Escalation and Global Consequences

In the latest development of the ongoing US-China trade war, President Trump has threatened to impose additional tariffs on China, escalating the tension in the already strained economic relations between these two global superpowers. This tit for tat tariff battle has intensified, with President Trump warning that if China does not withdraw its 34% tariff increase by a certain deadline, the United States will retaliate with a hefty 50% tariff, raising the total tariffs on China to a staggering 104%.

The repercussions of such a significant tariff increase could have far-reaching consequences, especially for American consumers who rely heavily on Chinese goods. From everyday products like iPhones to items sold at major retailers like Walmart and Amazon, the potential price hikes due to tariffs could hit consumers hard in the pocket. The threat of imposing such high tariffs has created uncertainty in the markets, with investors and analysts anxiously looking for a resolution to this trade dispute.

President Trump's steadfast commitment to this tariff plan has also raised concerns about the broader implications of the trade war. The mixed messages coming from the White House regarding negotiations with other countries further add to the confusion surrounding the trade policy. While the President is open to discussing potential trade deals with various countries, the bar for lifting tariffs remains high, indicating a challenging path to resolution.

As the trade war escalates, the Democratic Congressman from Illinois, Mike Quigley, expressed his concerns about the potentially devastating impact of this economic conflict. Labeling it as "the dumbest trade war in history," he highlighted the risks of increased costs, recession, and market volatility that could pose a significant threat to the economy. The congressman emphasized the need for a coherent strategy that considers the broader implications of isolating the US in a globally interconnected market.

Furthermore, the implications of the trade war extend beyond economic ramifications to potential security risks. The disregard for traditional alliances and the conflation of adversaries with allies could strain critical diplomatic relations and weaken the United States' strategic position on the global stage. The intersection of trade conflicts with security concerns underscores the intricate web of challenges that arise from unilateral actions in the international arena.

In light of these developments, the urgency for a balanced approach to trade negotiations and a strategic reassessment of the broader geopolitical implications of the trade war is evident. Finding a resolution that safeguards economic stability, promotes fair trade practices, and upholds strategic alliances remains paramount in navigating the complex landscape of global trade relations.

As the US-China trade war unfolds with escalating tariffs and geopolitical reverberations, the need for nuanced diplomacy, prudent economic policies, and constructive dialogue becomes increasingly essential in mitigating the risks and fostering a sustainable path forward for international trade and cooperation.


The text above discusses the escalating US-China trade war, the implications for global economies, and the broader security risks associated with the conflict. It emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach to trade negotiations and highlights the interconnected nature of economic and security challenges in the international arena.