U.S. Tariff Policy Triggers Foreign Capital Flight from Canadian Stocks

Stocks

China–U.S. Trade War

Summary:

Amid renewed economic tensions between Washington and Ottawa, foreign investors withdrew $35 billion CAD from Canadian equities in Q1 2025, reflecting waning global confidence in Canada’s stock market in the face of U.S...

Foreign Investors Pull Back as U.S. Tariff Rhetoric Escalates

The Canadian stock market has become collateral damage in the latest wave of U.S. protectionist policy under President Donald Trump. According to The Globe & Mail and data from Statistics Canada, the first quarter of 2025 saw a net foreign capital outflow of $35 billion CAD (approximately $25.3 billion USD) from Canadian equities—marking a significant shift in global investor sentiment.

The withdrawal coincides with Trump’s return to the White House and renewed warnings from the U.S. administration about rapid tariff implementation. Although no specific tariffs on Canadian exports have yet been finalized, the political signal alone was enough to spook foreign investors, who now perceive heightened geopolitical and economic risks in North America.

Contradiction Between Market Performance and Capital Flight

Interestingly, despite the scale of the capital exodus, the benchmark S&P/TSX Composite Index inched upward during Q1. This performance was largely underpinned by domestic investor activity. Many Canadian investors, especially retail participants, responded by reallocating capital from U.S. equities to Canadian stocks, essentially filling the vacuum left by departing foreign investors.

Martin Roberge, a portfolio strategist at Canaccord Genuity, noted that the foreign investor retreat stems from risk aversion and the perceived volatility linked to the uncertain direction of U.S.–Canada economic relations. Yet this has opened opportunities for local investors to reposition their holdings domestically, benefiting from lower asset prices and more predictable fiscal policy at home.

Canada's Fiscal Credibility Stands in Contrast to U.S. Turbulence

Another key factor behind the divergence in investment flows lies in sovereign credit ratings. While the U.S. recently suffered a credit downgrade by Moody’s due to rising debt and persistent deficits, Canada has retained its top-tier AAA rating. This suggests that despite short-term economic softness—or even a looming recession—Canada is still viewed as a safe and fiscally sound environment for long-term investment.

This is further evidenced by the $50 billion CAD worth of Canadian government bonds purchased by non-resident investors in Q1 2025. These inflows into fixed-income markets reflect a continued trust in Canada’s macroeconomic stability, even as equity markets face turbulence.

Equity Market Anxiety Offset by Bond Market Confidence

Foreign capital is increasingly shunning Canadian equities due to fears over U.S.-led trade disruptions, yet these same investors are simultaneously parking their funds in Canadian government bonds, attracted by the country’s fiscal discipline and top-tier credit rating. The resulting dynamic reveals a bifurcation in investor confidence—distrust in North American equity volatility, but faith in Canadian institutional resilience.

While domestic investors may continue to support stock prices in the short term, sustained foreign outflows could weigh on equity market liquidity and valuations. Much now depends on whether U.S. tariff threats materialize or recede, and how Canada leverages its fiscal credibility to restore investor trust amid regional uncertainty.

Source: Globe and Mail

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

China–U.S. Trade War

A Legislative Milestone with Deep Socioeconomic Consequences

Dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the new legislative package marks a defining moment in the Trump administration’s economic policy. Passed by the House after intense lobbying and last-minute drafting, the bill combines major tax cuts with deep reductions to federal welfare programs such as Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps). While Republicans frame it as an efficiency-driven economic reform, critics argue it constitutes a reverse wealth transfer—from the most vulnerable citizens to the richest.

Although the bill still faces hurdles in the Senate, where opposition is expected even within the GOP, its passage in the House signals a radical fiscal pivot: slashing over $1 trillion in social support to finance tax relief, largely favoring high-income earners.

Tax Cuts: Disproportionate Gains for the Wealthy

The bill’s core is an extension of Trump-era tax cuts originally set to expire at the end of 2025. Without Congressional action, most Americans would have seen their taxes rise. However, the renewed tax breaks predominantly benefit top earners.

According to estimates from the Tax Policy Center, 60% of the tax reductions would flow to the top 20% of income earners—those earning above $217,000 annually. The top 5% alone (earning $460,000+) would receive over a third of the total cuts. In contrast, those earning under $35,000 would see only modest gains, averaging $160 per year—equivalent to a mere 0.8% boost in after-tax income.

This disparity underscores the regressive nature of the policy: higher earners gain substantially more both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of income. Meanwhile, lower- and middle-income Americans receive only marginal relief, insufficient to offset rising living costs or the policy’s hidden trade-offs.

Social Program Cuts: A Deep Blow to the Poor

To partially offset the $3.8 trillion in tax-related revenue loss over a decade, the bill proposes aggressive reductions in federal spending on health and nutrition programs. Medicaid, which provides health coverage to low-income Americans, would see nearly $700 billion in federal spending cuts. SNAP funding would be reduced by $267 billion, with new work requirements and eligibility restrictions that would affect both individuals and families.

The combined impact of these cuts is expected to push millions off coverage and support programs. Particularly at risk are children, the elderly, people with disabilities, and rural residents, whose access to health services and food assistance is already constrained.

The Penn Wharton Budget Model forecasts net negative outcomes for the lowest income brackets: those earning under $17,000 annually would lose an average of $820 per year, equivalent to a 14.6% decrease in income after accounting for both tax relief and lost benefits. Middle-income groups would see modest gains, while the top earners would experience the greatest financial uplift—averaging $12,000 annually.

A Ballooning Deficit and Avoidance of Structural Reform

While one of the GOP’s core arguments is deficit reduction, the bill paradoxically worsens the national debt. The U.S. debt currently exceeds $37 trillion, and independent analyses project this legislation would add over $3.1 trillion more within a decade, primarily driven by tax cuts that outweigh spending reductions.

Furthermore, the bill sidesteps fundamental fiscal challenges—most notably, the unsustainable trajectories of Medicare and Social Security. With the baby boomer generation retiring en masse, these programs face solvency risks. Yet, both parties have largely avoided reforms, deeming them politically toxic. Ideas like gradually raising the retirement age or expanding payroll taxes on high earners remain excluded from serious policy discussions.

Uncertain Senate Fate and Political Risk

Despite House approval, the bill’s survival in the Senate is uncertain. Republican senators are split—some demand further austerity, while others are wary of the backlash to Medicaid cuts. Proposals to enhance child tax credits may complicate consensus, and procedural constraints could strike out non-budgetary provisions altogether.

If the Senate passes a revised version, the bill must return to the House for final reconciliation. Speaker Mike Johnson has shown skill in navigating intra-party dynamics, but the Senate's new Majority Leader John Thune faces his first major test in brokering cross-factional alignment.

A Bold Move with Polarizing Impact

Trump’s “super bill” illustrates a bold ideological wager: that economic growth and fiscal responsibility can be achieved by shrinking government support while enriching upper-income taxpayers. Yet the bill’s structure suggests a different outcome—growing inequality, limited macroeconomic stimulus, and deeper fiscal imbalances.

As the debate moves to the Senate, the legislation’s fate will hinge not only on partisan politics but on public response. For now, it represents one of the most consequential attempts in recent history to reshape the economic foundations of American society—tilting the balance of public policy decisively toward the affluent, while leaving the nation’s most vulnerable with less support and more uncertainty.

Source: Yahoo Finance

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

China–U.S. Trade War

Market Optimism Reversed by Sudden Escalation

In recent weeks, initial agreements with the United Kingdom and China had sparked cautious optimism on Wall Street and among multinational corporations. Investors speculated that the Trump administration was preparing to ease its long-standing tariff campaign. However, President Trump’s May 23 declaration of possible 50% tariffs on EU imports and 25% on smartphones shattered that sentiment. Global equity markets declined sharply, the U.S. dollar fell to a new low since 2023, and corporate leaders were forced to confront a familiar reality: policy uncertainty remains a defining feature of Trump’s trade strategy.

Economist Marcus Noland of the Peterson Institute for International Economics remarked that these developments confirm trade volatility will persist—potentially for the rest of the year. “Peace has not arrived,” he warned, suggesting the cycle of escalation and reprieve may continue in unpredictable bursts.

G7 Disappointment Fuels Trump’s Aggressive Posture

Insiders suggest that President Trump’s reaction may have been influenced by the perceived lack of progress at the recent G7 finance ministers’ meeting. Compared to his quick agreement with the UK, the EU’s cautious negotiation style appeared frustratingly slow. Steve Bannon, a long-time Trump ally, implied that the EU’s failure to meet U.S. expectations reinforced the president’s belief in leveraging aggressive, public pressure tactics to force movement at the negotiation table.

According to White House officials, the 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs—currently underway—was intended to provide room for bilateral trade breakthroughs. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed on May 24 that deals with several key economies, including India, are nearing completion, and that the administration hopes to announce more before the truce period expires.

EU Readies Retaliation as Trust Deteriorates

The European Union, caught off guard by Trump’s renewed threats, is now preparing a second wave of retaliatory measures. If negotiations falter, Brussels plans to impose additional tariffs on U.S. goods worth €95 billion ($107 billion), targeting sensitive American exports. This would follow earlier EU authorizations to retaliate against Trump’s prior steel and aluminum tariffs.

Earlier this month, the EU had agreed to suspend its own countermeasures for 90 days, following Trump’s decision to reduce existing retaliatory tariffs to 10% for most partners. But the President’s continued threats—paired with his suggestion of forthcoming duties on copper, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, timber, and aerospace parts—signal that this suspension may be short-lived.

Goldman Sachs: Tariffs to Remain High, Growth Impact Limited

In a research note dated May 24, Goldman Sachs projected that the U.S.’s effective tariff rate will likely rise by 13 percentage points this year, potentially reaching levels not seen since the Great Depression era. Yet, the firm cast doubt on the administration’s core objective. “Higher bilateral tariffs are unlikely to drive significant gains in domestic manufacturing,” the report noted.

Instead of stimulating industrial output, these tariffs may increase costs for businesses and consumers while damaging global trade relationships. The ongoing use of tariffs as a strategic threat—even against nations with existing trade agreements—has begun to erode international trust in the durability of any U.S.-brokered deal.

Trust Deficit Undermines U.S. Trade Credibility

Perhaps the most consequential outcome of Trump’s tariff rhetoric is its long-term impact on U.S. credibility. As Marcus Noland highlighted, the administration’s willingness to target even partners with formal trade agreements—such as South Korea and Australia—raises red flags about the enforceability and consistency of U.S. commitments. This unpredictability complicates negotiations, as partner nations must now weigh not only the economic terms of a deal but also its political durability.

With investors jittery, allies cautious, and adversaries emboldened, the global trade environment faces renewed uncertainty. The administration’s tariff-first strategy has become a source of economic and diplomatic volatility—one that undermines both near-term stability and longer-term cooperation.

While President Trump’s tariff threats may serve immediate negotiating objectives, they come at a growing cost. Markets are destabilized, international confidence is shaken, and the prospect of genuine “trade peace” grows increasingly remote. As the 90-day pause on tariff escalation nears its end, businesses and governments worldwide are preparing not for resolution, but for another round of economic brinkmanship. The message is clear: the era of transactional diplomacy and strategic tariff warfare is far from over.

Source: Axios

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Mounting Tensions in a Critical Transatlantic Relationship

The U.S.–EU trade relationship, long considered a cornerstone of global economic stability, is now teetering on the edge of a full-scale tariff war. President Donald Trump’s surprise threat on May 23 to impose 50% duties on EU imports starting June 1 marks a sharp deterioration in talks and exposes a deepening strategic rift over how trade policy should be conducted in an increasingly fragmented world order.

While initial trade negotiations had shown modest optimism, Trump’s sudden escalation has alarmed European officials and market observers alike. According to the Wall Street Journal, the dispute reflects more than just tariff levels—it uncovers structural disagreements in negotiation styles, regulatory philosophies, and the geopolitical calculus around China.

Three Core Frictions Undermining U.S.–EU Dialogue

Trump’s economic advisers have expressed consistent frustration with what they see as an obstructive and bureaucratic EU approach to trade talks. Three main grievances have emerged:

First, sluggish negotiation progress. The U.S. has criticized the EU’s cumbersome consensus model, which requires alignment among 27 member states. This, they argue, has led to procedural delays and a lack of actionable counterproposals.

Second, regulatory and fiscal tensions. Washington is demanding changes to EU digital service taxes, auto regulations, and competition law fines targeting American tech firms—penalties Trump has called “disguised tariffs.” These measures, in Trump’s words, illustrate how “the EU was formed to exploit the U.S.”

Third, diverging strategies on China. The U.S. wants Europe to join in placing direct trade pressure on Beijing, particularly through reciprocal tariffs on Chinese industrial exports. Although EU leaders share concerns about Chinese subsidies, they have refrained from committing to U.S.-style retaliatory action. In contrast, the post-Brexit UK has already moved closer to Washington’s position, agreeing to tariff measures on Chinese steel.

Trump’s Abrupt Ultimatum and the EU’s Cautious Pushback

Trump’s May 23 threat—issued via social media—was met with disbelief in Brussels, especially given recent hopes of constructive dialogue. EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič reiterated the bloc’s commitment to ongoing talks but emphasized that negotiations must be based on mutual respect, not coercion. “We are prepared to defend our interests,” he said.

Officials clarified that China is not the main obstacle in current discussions; rather, it is the sharp contrast in negotiation frameworks. Trump favors rapid, unilateral pressure tactics. The EU, by contrast, operates on consensus and institutional procedure, which while more methodical, often slows decision-making. This misalignment has become a key source of U.S. frustration.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently echoed these concerns, pointing to the EU’s rigid stance on VAT policy and digital regulations as sticking points. These areas have proven especially contentious, as the U.S. perceives them as discriminatory against its global tech champions.

China’s Role: Common Concern, Divergent Tactics

Although both the U.S. and EU view China’s state-backed industrial practices with suspicion, their methods of response differ substantially. Washington prefers aggressive economic countermeasures and seeks allies to isolate China strategically. The EU, however, views China as both a competitor and a crucial export destination, making it reluctant to provoke Beijing with harsh trade sanctions.

This divergence illustrates a broader transatlantic gap—not in threat perception, but in the tools and pace deemed appropriate for addressing it. Europe’s hesitancy reflects internal divisions as well as economic pragmatism, particularly given China’s importance to German manufacturing and French agriculture.

Retaliation Looms as Trade War Edges Closer

Trump’s tariff threats, even if not immediately enacted, have already provoked a defensive stance in Brussels. The EU previously authorized retaliatory tariffs on $21 billion worth of U.S. goods and has drafted a secondary list targeting an additional €95 billion should negotiations fail.

This escalation risks reigniting a tit-for-tat trade war reminiscent of U.S.–China tensions in earlier years. If implemented, such measures would affect a wide array of industries, from autos and aviation to pharmaceuticals and electronics, with ripple effects across global supply chains.

From Strategic Partnership to Structural Confrontation

The U.S.–EU trade dispute is no longer just a temporary rift—it is evolving into a structural confrontation rooted in incompatible worldviews. Trump’s high-stakes, transactional approach clashes with the EU’s multilateralist philosophy, making compromise increasingly difficult.

While both sides acknowledge shared challenges—especially regarding China—their conflicting priorities and negotiation tactics are pulling them further apart. As the June 1 deadline approaches, the risk is no longer just tariffs, but a long-term unraveling of the transatlantic trade alliance that has underpinned global economic cooperation for decades.

Source: NBC

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

China–U.S. Trade War

A Surge of Optimism Quashed by Sudden Escalation

In the wake of initial trade breakthroughs with the UK and China, investor confidence was gradually rebounding, suggesting a possible de-escalation in Trump’s long-standing tariff battles. However, his sudden declaration on Friday of potential tariffs as high as 50% on the European Union and 25% on imported smartphones has sharply reversed sentiment. Global stock indices tumbled, the U.S. dollar sank to its lowest level since 2023, and CEOs across multiple sectors began preparing for renewed instability.

The source of this disruption: Trump’s insistence that firms like Apple and Samsung must repatriate production or face punitive tariffs. This stance, reinforced publicly from the Oval Office, made clear that he is not interested in compromise—at least not with the EU. "I’m not looking for a deal," he remarked bluntly.

Market Reactions Reflect Deepening Uncertainty

Markets responded swiftly. Apple’s stock slipped further after already facing pressure from earlier tariff threats, and European market indices posted broad declines. According to Marcus Noland of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the escalation showed that hopes for tariff peace were premature. The timing was particularly jarring as Trump had just secured a legislative win with the passage of his tax and spending bill in Congress.

Yet rather than signal stability, this victory emboldened new threats. Trump’s remarks implied that even long-standing allies are not immune to tariff pressure—a sentiment echoed by U.S. Trade Representative Howard Lutnick, who described the EU as a "very difficult" counterpart, suggesting negotiations would remain strained.

Trump’s Trade Doctrine: Disruption as Leverage

Trump’s strategy appears rooted in maintaining leverage through persistent uncertainty. According to officials, new trade deals with India and potentially Japan, Vietnam, and Israel are in progress. However, the White House’s unpredictable stance is raising alarm about the durability of any agreement. Trump’s willingness to override existing trade pacts—such as those with South Korea and Australia—adds to this perception of volatility.

The EU, anticipating deadlock, has already drafted retaliatory plans targeting $107 billion worth of U.S. exports. Although a temporary 90-day suspension of counter-tariffs was agreed earlier this month, that ceasefire now appears fragile. Trump has held firm on existing levies—particularly on steel, aluminum, and autos—while signaling broader duties on copper, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, timber, and aerospace parts.

The Return of Peak Tariff Risk

A May 14 note from Goldman Sachs predicts the U.S.’s effective tariff rate will rise by 13 percentage points this year, potentially reaching levels unseen since the 1930s. Despite the aggressive stance, the bank remains skeptical about Trump’s desired outcome: a large-scale revival of U.S. manufacturing. Analysts believe that elevated bilateral tariffs are unlikely to stimulate domestic production meaningfully in the near term.

Meanwhile, U.S. willingness to impose tariffs even on nations with existing trade agreements sends troubling signals to allies. "It’s deeply unsettling that countries like South Korea and Australia—despite having formal trade pacts—are still being hit with tariffs," Noland emphasized.

A Trade Strategy That Breeds Instability

Trump’s latest tariff threats reinforce a core feature of his trade strategy: using uncertainty and unilateral pressure to force concessions. While this may secure short-term gains or political leverage, it comes at the cost of investor confidence, multilateral trust, and long-term predictability in global commerce.

As more countries brace for retaliatory actions, and businesses weigh the cost of disrupted supply chains and eroded planning horizons, the broader danger is clear. Trump’s aggressive posture risks fragmenting the global trading system—replacing structured negotiation with volatility as a permanent policy tool. Investors, businesses, and foreign governments are left navigating a landscape where trade peace is not only elusive but potentially illusory.

Source: FXStreet

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Tariffs and Trade Tensions: A Strain on Asia’s Economic Engine

Amid escalating global trade frictions—particularly U.S.-China tensions—tariffs have become a disruptive force for emerging economies. According to the Asian Development Bank, rising tariffs could reduce Asia’s GDP growth by nearly 1 percentage point by 2026. Nowhere is this pressure more acutely felt than among Southeast Asia’s small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which make up over 97% of all businesses in the region and are vital to employment and economic output.

Unlike multinational corporations, SMEs lack the financial buffers to absorb cost increases and supply disruptions. In Indonesia, textile SMEs face rising input costs due to tariffs on dyed fabrics from China. In Vietnam, electronics assemblers struggle with higher taxes on Chinese components. In the Philippines, food exporters are seeing delays from tariffs on raw materials sourced from Europe and Australia.

Turning Adversity into Adaptation: Regional Supply Chain Shifts

Rather than retreat, many Southeast Asian SMEs are recalibrating their business models. A prominent shift involves strengthening intra-ASEAN trade ties. With regional frameworks like the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), companies are increasingly sourcing materials from neighboring countries to bypass external tariff exposure.

Vietnamese leather goods manufacturers are sourcing from Thailand instead of Europe. Malaysian electronics startups are procuring components from Indonesia. These regional shifts not only reduce tax burdens but also reinforce regional trade resilience. This reconfiguration signals a strategic long-term pivot toward ASEAN-centric supply chains, insulating SMEs from external volatility and deepening regional integration.

Digital Commerce: E-Commerce as a Borderless Solution

Digital transformation has emerged as a vital countermeasure. E-commerce offers SMEs the ability to bypass traditional intermediaries and engage directly with consumers in other markets, reducing both logistics and tariff-related costs.

For instance, a Filipino skincare brand that once relied on bulk exports to the U.S. has successfully transitioned to direct-to-consumer sales via TikTok Shop in Singapore and Malaysia. This move has lowered costs, streamlined distribution, and eliminated tariffs on wholesale imports. As Southeast Asia’s digital economy continues to grow, SMEs are gaining new lifelines to international markets without relying on traditional trade channels.

Fintech Adoption: Redefining Transactional Efficiency

Fintech is playing a crucial role in helping SMEs manage cross-border operations. By using digital platforms to handle payments, currency risk, and real-time exchange rates, SMEs are mitigating costs historically associated with traditional banking. This is especially important in contexts where tariffs exacerbate logistical and financial bottlenecks.

According to PwC’s ASEAN Fintech 2024 report, 28% of Singaporean SMEs and 31% of Vietnamese SMEs have adopted fintech tools to manage international transactions. The ability to automate payments, optimize cash flow, and reduce transaction fees enables SMEs to maintain competitiveness even as external pressures grow.

Government Intervention: Facilitating SME Resilience

Government policy across ASEAN is evolving to bolster SMEs against tariff-driven shocks. In Singapore, Enterprise Singapore offers grants and digitalization initiatives to help SMEs scale internationally. Indonesia’s National Logistics Ecosystem (NLE) aims to digitize cross-border shipping and lower transaction costs, especially for rural enterprises.

Thailand’s Office of SMEs Promotion (OSMEP) trains local businesses to take advantage of RCEP provisions and provides financial support for expanding into ASEAN markets. These initiatives enable SMEs not just to survive disruptions but to reposition for future growth.

Persistent Barriers: Infrastructure and Information Gaps

Despite these successes, challenges remain. SMEs in rural areas continue to face digital and financial exclusion. Complicated customs procedures and opaque tariff rules often lead to costly delays, disproportionately harming smaller firms that lack the administrative bandwidth to navigate such hurdles.

Moreover, while fintech and e-commerce offer scalable solutions, they require digital infrastructure, training, and trust—factors that are still unevenly distributed across the region.

Resilience Through Innovation and Regionalism

Southeast Asian SMEs are no longer passive casualties of global tariff upheaval. They are proactively adapting through regional sourcing, digital platforms, fintech solutions, and policy partnerships. These shifts are not just tactical responses but reflect a deeper transformation toward structural resilience and long-term competitiveness.

The path forward requires continued investment in digital infrastructure, policy clarity, and inclusive support to ensure that SMEs in every corner of Southeast Asia can participate fully in the evolving global economy. Amid rising trade barriers, these agile firms are proving that adaptability—not size—is the true determinant of survival.

Source: E27

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

China–U.S. Trade War

Trump’s Tariff Ultimatum Triggers Global Market Ripples

In a stark escalation of his protectionist agenda, President Trump declared that not only Apple but also Samsung—and any company manufacturing abroad—could face a 25% import tax unless production is relocated to the United States. This marks a significant policy shift, extending beyond previous tariffs largely aimed at China and placing two tech giants from the U.S. and South Korea directly in the line of fire.

Apple’s stock dropped by 3% and Samsung’s by nearly 1% following Trump’s remarks. The President confirmed his demand during a conversation with Apple CEO Tim Cook, warning that building iPhones in India would not exempt the company from import duties. Trump doubled down by stating, “If you make it abroad, you’re going to get taxed,” and warned of similar tariffs on other companies, including a possible 50% tariff on the European Union—further rattling financial markets.

Strategic Production Moves Now Under Pressure

Apple has spent recent years diversifying its supply chain to mitigate previous tariff impacts on Chinese goods, notably shifting some iPhone production to India. The company also announced plans to invest $500 billion in the U.S. over four years, including new facilities in Texas and Michigan. However, these efforts have not satisfied the White House, and analysts warn that shifting the entire iPhone supply chain to the U.S. would be economically and logistically unfeasible.

Similarly, Samsung, the world’s largest Android phone maker, faces a deeply entrenched supply network in South Korea, China, and Vietnam. Relocating this ecosystem to the U.S. would involve monumental costs and a lack of supporting industrial infrastructure, making the proposal commercially impractical.

Cost Implications and Industry-Wide Disruption

If implemented, Trump’s tariffs could significantly inflate tech product prices in the U.S. Bloomberg Intelligence projects Apple’s gross margin would shrink by 3 to 3.5 percentage points in fiscal 2026 if tariffs are enacted without production relocation. iPhone prices could soar by hundreds or even thousands of dollars, undermining consumer demand and threatening the company’s global competitiveness.

Despite these projections, Trump insisted that consumers should not bear the financial burden, a claim that contradicts basic economic pass-through logic. Unless the government subsidizes the added costs or companies absorb them—both unlikely—price hikes seem inevitable.

Tech analysts caution that such policies risk igniting a broader industry crisis. Electronics like smartphones and laptops, previously spared from retaliatory tariffs, could soon be targeted. If semiconductor products are included in future tariff rounds, the fallout could engulf the entire technology sector, from chipmakers to software platforms.

A Radical Realignment of Global Supply Chains?

The looming threat of targeted tariffs is part of Trump’s broader “Made in America” push. While intended to revive U.S. manufacturing, the strategy runs counter to decades of supply chain globalization in the tech sector. Companies like Apple and Samsung have spent years optimizing production across borders for cost efficiency, scalability, and specialization.

A forced repatriation of production could force a complete strategic overhaul. Supply chain models optimized over decades may need to be dismantled and rebuilt, which would incur massive transitional costs, workforce dislocation, and potential innovation slowdowns.

Policy Shock Meets Supply Chain Reality

Trump’s tariff ultimatum confronts global tech leaders with a policy shock that challenges the foundational logic of their operations. While the political goal of reshoring production aligns with nationalistic economic narratives, its practical implications risk widespread disruption—not only in costs and corporate margins but also in global trade dynamics and technological advancement.

In an era where geopolitical pressures are increasingly shaping economic policy, the question is not just whether Apple and Samsung can adjust, but whether the global tech economy can absorb such a seismic shift without destabilization. The countdown to Trump’s June deadline may mark a pivotal moment for the future of global manufacturing.

Source: HuffPost

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Recent Searches

Top Searches

Markets

News

Analysis

User

24/7

Economic Calendar

Education

Data

U.S. Tariff Policy Triggers Foreign Capital Flight from Canadian Stocks

Foreign Investors Pull Back as U.S. Tariff Rhetoric Escalates

Contradiction Between Market Performance and Capital Flight

Canada's Fiscal Credibility Stands in Contrast to U.S. Turbulence

Equity Market Anxiety Offset by Bond Market Confidence

Source: Globe and Mail

Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” and the Great American Wealth Shift

A Legislative Milestone with Deep Socioeconomic Consequences

Tax Cuts: Disproportionate Gains for the Wealthy

Social Program Cuts: A Deep Blow to the Poor

A Ballooning Deficit and Avoidance of Structural Reform

Uncertain Senate Fate and Political Risk

A Bold Move with Polarizing Impact

Source: Yahoo Finance

Fading Hopes of Trade Peace as Trump’s Tariff Threats Renew Market Volatility

Market Optimism Reversed by Sudden Escalation

G7 Disappointment Fuels Trump’s Aggressive Posture

EU Readies Retaliation as Trust Deteriorates

Goldman Sachs: Tariffs to Remain High, Growth Impact Limited

Trust Deficit Undermines U.S. Trade Credibility

Source: Axios

U.S.–EU Trade War Escalates: Trump’s Tariff Threat Deepens Strategic Divide

Mounting Tensions in a Critical Transatlantic Relationship

Three Core Frictions Undermining U.S.–EU Dialogue

Trump’s Abrupt Ultimatum and the EU’s Cautious Pushback

China’s Role: Common Concern, Divergent Tactics

From Strategic Partnership to Structural Confrontation

Source: NBC

Trump’s New Tariff Threats Rattle Markets and Undermine Global Trade Confidence

A Surge of Optimism Quashed by Sudden Escalation

Market Reactions Reflect Deepening Uncertainty

Trump’s Trade Doctrine: Disruption as Leverage

The Return of Peak Tariff Risk

A Trade Strategy That Breeds Instability

Source: FXStreet

How Southeast Asian SMEs Are Navigating the Tariff Storm Through Tech and Regional Realignment

Tariffs and Trade Tensions: A Strain on Asia’s Economic Engine

Turning Adversity into Adaptation: Regional Supply Chain Shifts

Digital Commerce: E-Commerce as a Borderless Solution

Fintech Adoption: Redefining Transactional Efficiency

Government Intervention: Facilitating SME Resilience

Persistent Barriers: Infrastructure and Information Gaps

Resilience Through Innovation and Regionalism

Source: E27

Trump’s Tariff Threats Shake Tech Giants as ‘Made in America’ Mandate Intensifies

Trump’s Tariff Ultimatum Triggers Global Market Ripples

Strategic Production Moves Now Under Pressure

Cost Implications and Industry-Wide Disruption

A Radical Realignment of Global Supply Chains?

Policy Shock Meets Supply Chain Reality

Source: HuffPost

Risk Disclosure