After President Trump had a direct telephone call with Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping, President Trump announced from the Oval Office that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer would meet with their counterparts from China again, only this time Bessent and Greer will be accompanied by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

President Trump repeated the same announcement via Truth Social:  “I am pleased to announce that Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, and United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Jamieson Greer, will be meeting in London on Monday, June 9, 2025, with Representatives of China, with reference to the Trade Deal. The meeting should go very well. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

While each of the trade Wolverines have teeth, Howard Lutnick is the enforcer. The issue surrounds prior promises made in Geneva to Bessent and Greer on the continuation of mined and refined rare earth minerals from China needed in batteries.

The addition of Lutnick is akin to President Trump saying, go ahead and make the promise again – only this time Lutnick will be there to spell out the consequences of inaction.

(more…)

President Trump and the trade team have made specific requests of Vietnam in order to negotiate a trade agreement.  Unfortunately, just like Canada, Vietnam’s problem is not an unwillingness to comply, it’s their inability.

CTH was in the manufacturing base of Vietnam in January; their factories are loaded with component parts from China used to produce finished goods sent to the USA (and globally).  President Trump is telling Vietnam they need to reduce their reliance on Chinese imported component goods, but China has spent billions in advanced positioning and contracts, influencing Vietnam.

Vietnam is a very poor country, and their population cannot afford to purchase the products they manufacture.  They do not have a domestic consumption base. They are reliant on exports to more wealthy nations to keep their manufacturing base afloat.  Practically, it is easy to have sympathy for Vietnam due to their economic dependence on both China (for imported raw materials) and the USA (for exported finished goods).

VIETNAM – The US has sent a “long” list of “tough” requests to Vietnam in its tariff negotiations, including demands that could force the country to cut its reliance on Chinese industrial goods imports, two people briefed about the matter told Reuters.

Washington wants Vietnam-based factories to reduce their use of materials and components from China and is asking the country to control more carefully its production and supply chains, one of the people briefed on the talks said, without elaborating on whether quantitative targets were included.

The list is part of an “annex” to a framework text prepared by US negotiators, according to four people familiar with the matter.

(more…)

A few datapoints to keep on a post-it note as things progress; starting with a rather significant new release that I think you will find interesting.

Approximately 12.3 million Mexicans live abroad, both legally and illegally, with 97% of them living and working in the United States, according to BBVA Research.  Last year Mexicans living abroad sent $64.75 billion back home in remittances, largely from Texas and California to states in central and western Mexico.

According to data just released, in April of this year remittances back to Mexico dropped 12.1%.  The Mexico central bank said April saw 8.1% fewer transactions than a year earlier, that’s down to 12.4 million transactions. For Mexico this could be a devastating trend.  [Sidenote: Remember, Trump is likely planning a complete overhaul of the USMCA later this year.]

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) -Remittances sent to Mexico slumped 12.1% in April compared to a year earlier, according to central bank data published on Monday, marking the steepest drop in over a decade as U.S. lawmakers mull a tax on such payments sent abroad.

The world’s second-largest recipient of remittances, Mexico receives these payments chiefly from migrants working in the neighboring United States. In April, Mexicans abroad sent fewer transactions and smaller payments, totaling $4.76 billion.

Analysts said the slump likely resulted from a broad crackdown on migration in the U.S. since President Donald Trump came to power in January, as authorities revoke some Biden-era protections and increase raids across the country.

The latest data marks the steepest year-on-year drop since September 2012, according to central bank data.

(more…)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appears on CBS News to counter the false information being spread by Margaret Brennan on behalf of Wall Street corporations.  The topics of interest surround China and tariffs.

Let me clarify for the audience that does not follow closely.  Tariffs are paid by the importer based on the wholesale price of the product as delivered by the exporting country depending on the exporters’ tariff rate.  Tariffs are NOT LEVIED/PAID based on the retail price of the product as sold to the consumer.

Example:  A pair of Denim Jeans made in China for Guess Brand.  The Chinese manufacturer sells the jeans to Guess Brand for $10 a pair manufactured.  Guess sells the jeans at retail in the USA for $100 (a $90 gross profit).

A 50% tariff on China means the jeans cost Guess Brand $15 instead of $10 (an $85 gross profit).  A 50% tariff on Guess brand jeans, that retail for $100, changes the cost to the retail brand by $5.

Multinational corporations who have off shored their production and manufacturing to China are the ones screaming about tariffs.  Ultimately in the final analysis, President Trump is exposing corporatism, multinational corporate vultures; he is not necessarily just exposing China.

In the example above the company makes $85 gross profit as opposed to $90 gross profit on the pair of jeans if they do not raise the retail price.  They don’t raise the price because their profit margins are already ridiculous, and that’s why consumer prices do not go up. A 50% direct tariff on Chinese goods only marginally hits the multinational corporation.  American consumers need to understand this dynamic better.    WATCH: 

[TRANSCRIPT] – MARGARET BRENNAN: Good morning and welcome to ‘Face the Nation.’ We begin today with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Good morning and thank you for being here.

SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: Morning, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: There’s so much to get to. I want to start with China, because the Defense Secretary just said there’s an imminent military threat from China to Taiwan. Days earlier, Secretary Rubio said he’d aggressively revoked Chinese student visas. On top of that, you have curbing exports to China. Trade talks you said with Beijing are stalled, and President Trump just accused China of violating an agreement, and now says no more, ‘Mr. Nice Guy.’ Are you intentionally escalating this standoff with Beijing?

(more…)

Next week on Thursday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is scheduled to travel to Washington DC and meet with President Donald Trump in the White House.  Considering the importance of Germany to the EU economy and subsequent trade relationship with the U.S, this meeting with Merz will likely be the most important discussion toward a possible U.S-E.U. trade agreement.

Germany is the largest economy within the EU and the core industrial base of the European Union.  The number one issue for the German people is their economic status: everything else circles around this priority.

Having spent time in Hamburg, Bremen, Dresden and Frankfurt, it is very clear to me the German people are very focused on work and their vocations. Germans overall, take their economic standing very personally and seriously.

Inasmuch as Merz may have to represent the interests of the larger EU in his approach, he will undoubtedly be focused on what is in Germany’s best interest, with all else second.

For President Trump this specific German interest creates a unique facet of leverage within the larger EU trade discussion.  Because the German economy is so vital, whatever terms Germany decides are the core terms the EU will manifest in their trade and tariff negotiations.

I predict we will hear a talking point from Merz, in generally German snark, something akin to a proposal for a zero-tariff base on the import and export of heavy industrial goods (machinery) for both Germany and the USA.  I say in general German snark because passive-aggressive Chancellor Merz knows the U.S. is currently not in a position to sell Germany heavy industrial goods, and that’s entirely what President Trump is trying to recreate with the trade/tariff policy.

WASHINGTON DC – German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will travel to Washington next week to meet United States President Donald Trump for the first time since taking office earlier this month.

The leaders will meet in the White House on Thursday and are expected to discuss the war in Ukraine, the Middle East and trade policy, German government spokesperson Stefan Kornelius said in an emailed statement.

(more…)

The President of the United States, representing the executive branch, takes aggressive emergency action on tariffs and trade to protect American fiscal sovereignty and solvency.  Both chambers of the U.S. congress, the house and senate representing the Legislative branch, affirm the action through legislative support.  Yet, a single court in the judicial branch intervenes on behalf of multinational corporate interests to block trade policy.

That is the framework of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s main point in a discussion with Fox News Bret Baier.  WATCH:

On the DOGE issue, listen to how a well-versed professional executive with years of experience in institutional reform discusses taking the DOGE team effort and integrating them into his massive agency as part of an operational efficiency overhaul.

Compare Secretary Bessent’s approach to other cabinet officials who have yet to grasp and execute the efficiency model that has been handed to them by the DOGE effort.  The contrast is remarkable.

(more…)

Pushed far enough, decisions are reached.

[VIA TRUTH SOCIAL] “The U.S. Court of International Trade incredibly ruled against the United States of America on desperately needed Tariffs but, fortunately, the full 11 Judge Panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court has just stayed the order by the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade. Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of “TRUMP?” What other reason could it be?

I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real “sleazebag” named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions. He openly brags how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court — I hope that is not so, and don’t believe it is! In any event, Leo left The Federalist Society to do his own “thing.” I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!

With all of that being said, I am very proud of many of our picks, but very disappointed in others. They always must do what’s right for the Country! In this case, it is only because of my successful use of Tariffs that many Trillions of Dollars have already begun pouring into the U.S.A. from other Countries, money that, without these Tariffs, we would not be able to get. It is the difference between having a rich, prosperous, and successful United States of America, and quite the opposite.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade is so wrong, and so political! Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY. Backroom “hustlers” must not be allowed to destroy our Nation!

The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly. If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same!

This decision is being hailed all over the World by every Country, other than the United States of America. Radical Left Judges, together with some very bad people, are destroying America. Under this decision, Trillions of Dollars would be lost by our Country, money that will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. It would be the harshest financial ruling ever leveled on us as a Sovereign Nation. The President of the United States must be allowed to protect America against those that are doing it Economic and Financial harm.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!” (source)

(more…)

Shortly before the federal appeals court decision to stay the lower court intervention, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett appeared on Fox Business with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the frustrating trade court decision and the pending legislation on budgets and taxes.

Director Hassett is always a solid analytical mind to follow because his job is to look into the future and see if current alignment of economic policy retains the objective of economic growth, and he does it well.  Within the interview a key point made by Hassett on the trade/tariff conflict with the court is that USTR Jamieson Greer has multiple legal pathways to support the intent of the tariffs as applied.

This is a point CTH will continue to make; both the USTR and the Dept of Commerce Secretary have alternate legal trade tools that support the tariffs.  The bottom line is that whether IEEPA is used or Sec.301/302 are used the tariff outcome remains the same, the only difference is the amount of time for the countervailing duty to trigger; put another way, ‘optimal solutions.’  WATCH:

Despite the noise and media drumbeat, Kevin Hassett continues to carry the maganomic agenda forward with a smile.  He is able to do this because all of the economic policy is grounded in America-first realism.  It can be achieved, and it will be achieved, entirely because it is achievable. Remember that!

When you reach frustration, ask yourself, “is there bread in the kitchen?”  If yes, then focus on solving the immediate non-critical problem; do not allow the dark imaginings to disrupt your focus. It’s the guys like Kevin Hassett who are keeping the bread in the kitchen.

(more…)

We all knew the system would strike back. There are trillions at stake.

UPDATES AT BOTTOM: A federal trade court based out of New York has just ruled in a three-judge decision that President Trump does not have the authority within the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to initiate emergency trade tariffs.  [The Ruling is HERE]

WASHINGTON DC – A federal trade court ruled President Trump didn’t have the authority to impose sweeping tariffs on virtually every nation, voiding the levies that have sparked a global trade war and threatened to upend the world economy.

The decision on Wednesday from the Court of International Trade blocked one of the Trump administration’s most audacious assertions of executive power, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, and sets the stage for a possible appeal by the White House.

“The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder,” a three-judge panel wrote. (link)

“The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,” the court wrote.  The court also ordered that the tariffs that the Trump administration has collected so far be “vacated.”

UPDATE #1: I’m tearing through this ruling right now and I can find several structural flaws in the 3-judge panel decision.

[From Page 6, pdf] “…[…] in 1962, Congress delegated to the President the power to take action to adjust imports when the Secretary of Commerce finds that an “article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.” Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-794, § 232(b), 76 Stat. 872, 877 (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(1)(A)). This delegation is conditioned upon an investigation and findings by the Secretary of Commerce, and agreement by the President. See id. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, requires that the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) take action, which may include imposing tariffs, where “the rights of the United States under any trade agreement are being denied” or “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country” is “unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” 19 U.S.C. § 2411(a)(1)(A)–(B). The USTR may impose duties also where the USTR determines that “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” Id. § 2411(b)(1). This power is conditioned on extensive procedural requirements including an investigation that culminates in an affirmative finding that another country imposed unfair trade barriers under § 2411(a)(1)(A) or (B) or § 2411(b), and a public notice and comment period. See id. § 2414(b).”… [source]

I’ve just gotten started, but that citation is just one reason why the ruling can be overturned on appeal.

(more…)

King Charles is arriving in Canada today in advance of an opening speech he will deliver to the Canadian Parliament.   Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney invited King Charles to attend, and while the media portray the visit as mostly symbolic there is no doubt the substantive issue for Canada is the economic dependency on the USA and how the U.K can bolster the position of Canada against that threat.

Everything is always about the money of the thing, this dynamic between the U.K and Canada is no different.  What we would call the ‘western’ global financial system is contingent upon all U.S. allies retaining the United States as their consumer base and stable currency center.  President Trump has exposed the vulnerability of Canada as he confronts the parasitic relationship {GO DEEP}.

In advance of the U.K positioning itself as the skirt behind which Canada can hide from the horrible Trump, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer extended an invitation for President Trump to attend a state visit in his honor later this year.  The effusive praise from Starmer during the White House meeting was keenly strategic, so too was their urgency in creating the first new-era free trade agreement with the USA.

Perhaps President Trump’s embrace of Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia should be viewed through this financial prism where the EU, U.K and Canada will ultimately go to war (together) against the efforts of President Trump.  Within the partnership of the UK, EU and Canada, the Snow Mexicans are the weakest link, the most vulnerable to collapse from Trump’s economic policy.

(more…)