Category: Tariffs

  • U.S. farmers contend that agriculture isn’t approaching a tariff crisis; it’s already deeply entrenched in one

    U.S. farmers contend that agriculture isn’t approaching a tariff crisis; it’s already deeply entrenched in one

    The clock is ticking on trade deals that the U.S. will need to strike with many nations, most notably China, to avoid what President Donald Trump’s Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, has described as an unsustainable tariff war. But in the U.S. farming sector, the damage has already been done and the economic crisis already begun.

    U.S. agriculture exporters say the global backlash to Trump’s tariffs is punishing them, especially through a decline in Chinese buying of U.S. farm products, leading to canceled export orders and layoffs.

    Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, or AgTC, a leading export trade group for farmers, told CNBC the number of canceled purchases of U.S. agricultural products should not be described as approaching a crisis. “It is a full-blown crisis already,” he said.

    Data released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Thursday revealed China made its biggest cancellation of pork orders since 2020, halting a shipment of 12,000 tons of pork.

    AgTC said “massive” financial losses are already being felt by its members as a result of the trade war, based on reports it is receiving from member companies.

    A wood pulp and paperboard exporter reported to the trade group the immediate cancellation or hold of 6,400 metric tons in a warehouse and a hold of 15 railcars sitting in what is known in the supply chain as “demurrage,” when fees are charged for delayed movement of goods.

    Meanwhile, the exporter said, 9,000 metric tons of the product are on the water to China, expected to arrive May 13 and facing the threat of costly diversion to Chinese bonded warehouses or to other countries, as Chinese buyers may refuse the cargo and abandon it at port.

    One grass seed exporter told AgTC it received two weeks’ notice that eight loads were being canceled by Chinese customers despite vessels already being booked.

    At a recent stakeholder meeting at the Port of Oakland headquarters regarding tariff impacts, Port of Oakland Executive Director Kristi McKenney warned that a tariff-induced downturn in the port’s cargo volume — whether from import slowdowns or retaliatory export losses — ultimately could jeopardize job stability and the region’s economic health.

    McKenney cited retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agricultural products, as well as manufactured goods; both are essential exports that move through Oakland. Exports include almonds, beef, pork, dairy, and recycled materials, much of which is destined for Asia. China ranks as the port’s top import trading partner and third export partner, representing 29% of Oakland’s total trade volume.

    US Port Data Visualization
    Containerized agricultural imports and exports from the U.S. by port
    Total TEUs | Jan. 2024—Feb. 2025
    Note: Waterborne exports
    Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

    Unlike many U.S. ports that lean heavily on imports, Oakland is unique in maintaining a near 50/50 balance of imports and exports. That leaves Oakland concerned that tariff retaliation would directly impact its top export destinations — Japan, Taiwan, China and South Korea — and could significantly erode California’s market share for perishable and high-value commodities.

    The Port of Oakland is the No. 1 refrigerated export gateway in the U.S., and nearly all containerized cargo moving through Northern California goes through the Port of Oakland.

    “So many local, union jobs depend on the Port’s robust shipping operations including dockworkers, truck operators, and warehouse workers,” said Rep. Lateefah Simon, D-Calif. “I support smart trade policies that uplift workers and lower costs for Oakland’s working families — not an illogical and retaliatory trade war.”

    Agricultural exporters warned that there are no other markets that can quickly replace China’s demand and absorb the volume, and that is already affecting prices.

    “We have diverted employees and production to other (less profitable) production and dramatically slowed down purchasing from independent venders (loggers, truckers, sawmills),” one lumber exporter reported to AgTC. Some products have already declined 20% in market value, the exporter reported, which it said will influence inventory planning and future investments. 

    “The U.S. market was stable and improving, but now awash with inventory of former China products,” the lumber exporter said.

    Waterborne Trade Data
    Waterborne containerized agriculture imports and exports from the U.S.
    Total TEUs and metric tons | Jan. 2024—Feb. 2025
    Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

    An exporter of forage such as hay and straw that is a big business for U.S. farms supplying overseas livestock operations reported 68 blanked sailings after Trump announced new tariffs April 2. It said this limits its ability to export forage goods, as vessel space for exports is restricted on freight ships still calling on U.S. ports.

    “The worry is the vessel space that remains is going to be the most expensive/most ‘premium’ services that our product cannot absorb without selling at a loss. Being a high volume, low value item, we cannot afford drastic increases in ocean freight,” the forage exporter reported to AgTC.

    There has been a sharp decline in China-to-U.S. vessel traffic, down 22.15% week over week and 44% year over year through April 14, according to the Vizion Global Ocean Bookings Tracker.

    “What we’ve seen in the last two weeks is a continued correction in booking demand for U.S. imports, especially U.S. imports from China,” said Ben Tracy, Vizion’s vice president of strategic business development. “We are now seeing this translate to a drop in departures as well.”

    Agriculture Categories Chart
    Top 15 containerized agriculture export and import categories from the U.S.
    Total TEUs | Jan. 2024—Feb. 2025
    Animal feed, hay, brewer grain
    971.7K
    Braid, canvas, cloth, fabric, textile
    660.7K
    Banana, plantain
    Paste, pulp, whole
    638.3K
    Foodstuffs, pastes, sauces, soups
    556K
    Soybean
    Corn soya milk, isolates
    535.2K
    Meat
    468.8K
    Vegetables
    364.3K
    Fruit
    358.9K
    Beverage
    277.6K
    Wine
    266K
    Bread, cereal, grain, malt, flour
    254K
    Rice
    Crackers, pasta, table articles
    252.5K
    Fowl, poultry
    202.8K
    Milk, eggs, dairy
    170.7K
    Edible nuts
    165.3K
    Note: Waterborne exports
    Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

    A hay exporter in central Washington that sends a large amount of its crop output to Hong Kong and mainland China was told to reroute most of the exports shipped in the past two weeks to Japan, Dubai, Taiwan, and a few Chinese ports. Those changes came at a cost to the company, which told the AgTC that “it’s not sustainable, no one can replace all the volume that China buys.”

    The hay exporter said it immediately put a stop on all orders in process, and has begun layoffs.

    “We had to adjust our employee count down by 12 persons. This accounts for one-fourth of our total employees,” it wrote. The company said it has been communicating to customers and employees its hope that “hasty and reckless decision-making at the top of our country will reverse, easing deep troubles that we are facing at this time.” 

    In addition to the tariff backlash, agriculture is facing another looming financial challenge with the recently announced SHIPS Act measures approved by the US Trade Representative, with Chinese-made vessels calling at U.S. ports to be charged port fees of more than $1.5 million starting in the fall.

    Bulk agriculture was carved out of the port fees imposed under the USTR rule, but agriculture shipped in containers is not exempt from the fees. Friedmann said an exemption is essential because the most valuable U.S. agriculture exports are shipped in containers, not bulk.

    Containerized exports include refrigerated beef, pork, poultry, fruit, vegetables, dairy, and processed foods such as french fries. Cotton, nuts, dried dairy, lumber, paper, soybeans for human consumption, and forage, such as hay and alfalfa, are also shipped in containers. “Efforts to exempt all agriculture exports, including containerized agriculture, are continuing,” Friedmann said.

    Based on U.S. trade data, the share of U.S. agriculture moved in containers is approximately 25% by volume and nearly 55% by value. 

    The USTR did not respond to a CNBC request for comment on fee exemptions for containerized agriculture.

    “So much of our future lies in the hands of so few,” a hay exporter wrote to AgTC. “We plead for those few to take a very long careful look at what can be done to keep shipments flowing while they work out the trade imbalances and perceived differences.”

  • Trump eased one trade war. Another may just be getting started.

    Trump eased one trade war. Another may just be getting started.

    The United States and China have sharply raised tariffs on each other’s imports over the last week, raising the prospect of a long and painful trade war between the world’s two largest economies.

    Even as investors rallied to his decision to pause “reciprocal” tariffs on imports from dozens of countries Wednesday, President Donald Trump raised tariffs on Chinese goods to 145 percent — an increase of nearly 50 percent in a day, and his fourth tariff action against Beijing since January. President Xi Jinping has not backed down, either, retaliating by raising China’s tariffs on U.S.-made goods to 84 percent and imposing new curbs on critical resources. (Trump on Wednesday said the tariff rate on China would be 125 percent, but a White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to explain government policy, said Thursday the actual rate would be 145 percent.)

    The intensifying financial hostilities represent a potentially significant threat to the United States and global economies regardless of the delay in higher tariffs for other trading partners. Government officials in Beijing and Washington have, for years, girded for a major clash between the two superpowers, and some economists say further escalation could do perhaps as much to push the U.S. into a recession as Trump’s initial tariff proposal would have.

    Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday morning that “everything is on the table” to respond to China, and lawmakers in Congress have begun pushing measures designed to increase financial pressure on Beijing.

    The two nations have become increasingly interlinked over the past several decades, with Americans dependent on cheap consumer imports and Chinese exporters reliant on the vast U.S. market. The trade ties include iPhones (made in China), soybeans (grown in the United States) and financial instruments that form the bedrock of the U.S. financial system. The consequences of an all-out trade war would be global; combined, the two countries account for more than 40 percent of the world economy.

    China accounts for about 14 percent of U.S. imports, and the tariffs on Chinese goods are now so high that the overall U.S. tariff rate rose slightly Wednesday even though Trump simultaneously lowered duties on many other countries, according to Ernie Tedeschi, a former Biden administration official now at Yale University’s Budget Lab.

    “Everyone is breathing a sigh of relief today, but if we’d just started with just 100-plus percent tariffs with the world’s two largest economies, we’d be saying we’re in a global trade war the likes of which we have not seen in decades‚” said Josh Lipsky, senior director of the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center. “If these tariffs were to stay on at this level … the recession risks are still high, in part because there’s still so much uncertainty.”

    Jason Furman, a Harvard University economist who served in the Obama administration, said Trump’s tariffs are “now higher and more inflationary” than they were when the president unveiled major trade measures on April 2.

    There are indications that de-escalation remains possible. On Wednesday, Trump appeared to express sympathy for the Chinese position, saying that Xi wanted to reach an agreement but that Beijing was not sure how to do so. The president said he was optimistic further escalation would not prove necessary and called Xi “a friend of mine” who understood how to reach a deal.

    “China wants to make a deal. They just don’t know how quite to go about it,” Trump told reporters. “They don’t know quite how to go about it, but they’ll figure it out.”

    Later in the day, he said he did not think higher tariffs on China would be necessary: “I don’t think we’ll have to do it more.”

    Beijing had not retaliated by Thursday afternoon local time. “We will not sit and watch the destruction of international trade rules,” said Lin Jian, a spokesman for the Foreign Affairs Ministry. “If the U.S. insists on launching a tariff or trade war, China will fight to the end.”

    Other experts warn that it’s possible both leaders would be unable to soothe the tensions inflamed by a rapid set of new trade barriers. And many officials influential with the Trump administration are pushing measures that could deepen, rather than calm, economic hostilities. Economists and policymakers in both parties have long accused China of unfair trade practices, such as stealing U.S. intellectual property and undercutting labor and environmental standards.

    Sen. Rick Scott (R-Florida), a close Trump ally, has pushed legislation to require stockbrokers to provide warning labels for investors on firms linked to Chinese entities. While in the Senate, Secretary of State Marco Rubio also pushed significant restrictions preventing Chinese firms from accessing U.S. capital markets, blocking them or their subsidies from U.S. exchanges. Investor Kevin O’Leary, who has spoken with Trump, has called for tariffs of 400 percent on China.

    “There’s not a high enough tariff for me. I don’t think we should buy anything from China,” Scott said in an interview. He added, of the Trump administration: “I think they get it — they understand that China wants to destroy us, destroy our allies, destroy our way of life.”

    Top Trump advisers such as Bessent and Stephen Miran, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, have said they believe China is in a much more vulnerable position than the U.S. That has suggested their willingness to push even greater punitive measures, perhaps beyond import duties.

    “We might end up with escalation that goes beyond tariffs,” said Eswar Prasad, a Cornell University professor who was previously chief of the financial services division at the International Monetary Fund. “As of today, many of the scenarios considered completely unrealistic are looking more likely.”

    Beijing has tools for further retaliation. China could move faster to shed its large U.S. Treasury holdings, which would drive up the price of issuing debt and disrupt the bond market. It could choose to target the U.S. housing market by selling hundreds of billions in mortgage-backed securities, which could push rates up. Other options include restricting pharmaceutical exports, semiconductor chips, critical minerals and other resources essential to the U.S. economy, said Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a centrist think tank.

    “They can create shortages of things we really need and can’t switch away from anytime soon,” Posen said.

    Posen also said China could cut off tourism to U.S. cities.

    “Essentially, China does not have to engage in the tariffs game with Trump,” he said. “They can deprive us of things we need directly either for households or for our everyday lives.”

    China cannot back down in the face of what amounts to an attack on Chinese manufacturing, said Wang Yiwei, an international relations scholar at Renmin University in Beijing.

    “When no common ground exists between ‘the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation’ and ‘make America great again,’ decoupling becomes the underlying reality and tensions will only escalate,” Wang said, referring to a favored slogan of Xi’s and Trump’s slogan.

    Yet Trump may not be seeking more confrontation. Hawkish voices in the administration believe China is weak and that the U.S. should take advantage of this opportunity to increase financial pressure, according Michael Pillsbury, a leading scholar on China at the Heritage Foundation, a right-leaning think tank. But Pillsbury said Trump’s comments suggest a desire to bring down the temperature.

    “The super-hawks are saying, ‘China is down now; we really have to finish this off.’ I oppose that approach,” Pillsbury said. “Trump is right: The Chinese don’t know exactly how to get out of this situation. We need to find a back-channel way to help them see what they should do next.”