Amazon’s Tariff Climb Down

Today has seen a classic example of how the Trump administration’s rapid response to events can bring about rapid change. Speaking at the White House during a briefing to mark the Trump administration’s 100th day in office press secretary Karoline Leavitt tore into plans that Amazon was preparing to provide customers with the cost of Trump’s tariffs next to the price of products on its website. “This is hostile and political act,” she insisted, adding further, “Why didn’t Amazon do this when the Biden administration hiked inflation to the highest level in 40 years?” Despite the concern, she declared that the anticipated move by Amazon was “not a surprise,” highlighting a 2021 report in Reuters that noted how Amazon had “partnered with a China propaganda arm.” This, Leavitt insisted, was “another reason why Americans should buy American.” The incident then prompted a direct phone call from the president to Amazon owner, Jeff Bezos, a move that led to a swift retraction by the company. In a statement provided to The Washington Post, also owned by Bezos, Amazon announced that “The team that runs our ultra low cost Amazon Haul store has considered listing import charges on certain products. This was never a consideration for the main Amazon site and nothing has been implemented on any Amazon properties.”

So. Job done, story over. What transpired today appears to have been a concerted effort by the White House to get ahead of the story and prevent Amazon from ever implementing this pricing policy by shaming the company into acquiescence. By bringing in comparisons to the inflation that occurred under the previous administration, the Trump White House has cornered Amazon into an apparent submission by not wishing to be seen as favoring one party over another. It is, of course, interesting, that the Amazon denial of this policy was issued by the Washington Post, a publication also owned by Jeff Bezos, which has itself been the focus of Donald Trump’s ire due to its reporting and inclination to favor Democratic candidates and policies.

The suggestion that Amazon planned to reveal any price increases that were due to increased tariffs also carried with it the all too obvious risk that Amazon would be revealing just how many of its goods were imported, which could well have led to a backlash at a time when there is a concerted effort to repatriate manufacturing and to get Americans to buy goods that are made domestically when possible. In light of what appears to be an immediate move by Amazon to refute this story, and the willingness of the Trump administration to be so quick to get ahead of the story, other companies may well be forced to think twice before considering any effort to include any line item detailing the impact of the tariffs.

The tariff strategy has so far not hindered the Trump administration’s dealings with tech companies, and has, instead, been a driving force behind several high-profile decisions to repatriate manufacturing to the United States, or, in the case of Apple, away from China. It has also announced that companies who repatriate will be able to off-set the costs involved, as Treasury Secretary Bessent has emerged as perhaps the most critical member of the administration in such matters.

If the tariffs begin to impact the cost of production, then it is likely that those overheads will eventually be passed on to the consumer, especially by smaller firms who cannot afford to merely assume such increases. Much will depend upon the ability of the UK government to strike a deal with the United States in the coming weeks and months to prevent this from happening. The tariffs themselves are designed to do just this: drive foreign nations to the negotiating table to agree new, bilateral agreements with the United States and end what the Trump administration sees as a system that has penalized US exports, driven manufacturing jobs overseas, and led to the rapid rise of China as a world economic power.

The tariffs are part of a multi-pronged policy, designed to address a systemic problem with the US economy that has seen real wages fall for decades, along with the standard of living, causing people to be working harder for less. The White House strategy is to cut a trillion dollars from the federal deficit by reducing government waste and over-employment, to make permanent the tax cuts it introduced in its first term, eliminate taxes for those earning under $200k, and eliminate taxes on tips and overtime. This is being done in a series of Executive Orders and forms the central component of the budget that is currently making its way through Congress.

The incident should be viewed ominously by Kier Starmer’s government in London, which really does need to get a much firmer grip on its policies and its messaging. It does itself no favors to be forecasting a trade deal with the EU at the exact time that the Chancellor is in Washington seeking to assure the White House of the priority that Downing Street places on securing a new bilateral trans-Atlantic trade agreement.

Discussing Trade & Tariffs on France 24

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcNq3tYBmsg

For decades, Donald Trump has held firm to his view that the United States has routinely been ripped off by international allies as well as its more obvious competitors. Newly returned to power, but with a window of opportunity that narrows every day, he and his economic team have moved swiftly to impose tariffs and exert pressure on foreign governments. In Brussels this week, the UK government refused to sign a Joint Statement on Artificial Intelligence. This might not have appeared out of the ordinary had the Conservative Party had still been in Downing Street, but with the current Labour government seeking to curry favour with the EU, this was somewhat unexpected. However, the British Prime Minister, Sir Kier Starmer, is not the first, nor will he be the last British Prime Minister to find himself in a pincer movement, caught between Washington and Brussels. Where he chooses to place his ultimate allegiance will be of great significance for himself, his administration, and the future direction of US-UK relations.

Any Labour administration would be far more comfortable dealing with their colleagues across the English Channel, and this is no exception. The challenge it faces, however, is formidable following the vote to leave the European Union. If Starmer gets too comfortable with Brussels, he risks a backlash from the British electorate in any future elections. He must also appreciate the significance of trade, defense, and the historical alliances with the United States and does not want to alienate the White House.

The prime minister seems intent on keeping his head down, attempting to take the easy way out, hoping, perhaps, that if he keeps quiet then maybe nobody will notice that he isn’t doing or saying anything of note. However, his timidity has not gone unnoticed, and at some point, he will need to make his stance. At this point, he is trying to have the best of both worlds and could end up with the worst of all possibilities.

The Trump administration clearly view Downing Street as being led and populated by politicians who have been vocal in their attacks on Donald Trump over the past several years, and as being as far out of step with their own agenda as possible. It is notable that Sir Keir Starmer has not been invited to the White House and has not been the first foreign leader to visit the new president as has so often been the case with other British prime ministers.

Donald Trump does not need to push the UK back towards closer relations with Brussels, since the current administration in Downing Street would quite happily rejoin the European Union if it could, indeed, it has gone out of its way to play nice with the EU. It can, however, only go so far because of the declared wishes of the British electorate. However, many people who voted for Brexit will be fearful of what Starmer and his government are doing, as they continue to chip away at safeguards and red line agreements. Many people in the UK will be fearful of this, leading to even greater support for the Reform Party and Nigel Farage. This is already being borne out in polling that show Reform to be ahead of an increasingly unpopular Labour administration.

At the heart of current tensions are trade and tariffs. Free trade negotiations have been going on for years. People have been talking about a transatlantic free trade agreement since John Major was PM, and we still do not have one in place. There was lots of talk about an alliance between the United Kingdom and the United States after Brexit, which has not come about, neither is there one in place with the European Union. There is a great deal of discussion about the apparent tension between Washington and European capitals since Trump returned to office, but when Joe Biden was president, he made it clear that he had no interest in prioritizing a trade relationship with London, which set back trade talks substantially. It will, therefore, be interesting to see what transpires under the Trump administration, which is using the threat of tariffs as a trade negotiation tactic to get the best deals possible for American citizens and businesses, which is his responsibility and priority as the American president.

This is not merely a trans-Atlantic issue, but one that is impacting relations with the neighbour to the north. Donald Trump is engaging in an extreme form of coercive diplomacy, in large part to stem the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigrants across the northern border. There has rightfully been a lot of focus on the problems that the United States faces in regard to these issues from the southern border, but the Trump administration is trying to clamp down on these problems coming in from Canada, whose government they don’t believe are doing enough to help the situation. However, getting into a tariff war with Donald Trump is no way to solve the problem, and will only increase the pressure, both on the government in Canada and in Washington, DC.

With upcoming elections in Canada, Justin Trudeau is a lame duck Prime Minister. The imposition of tariffs, however, appears to have unified the nation. Donald Trump may will be pleased to see the back of this administration, although whether he may end up wishing for the devil he knew, one can only surmise at this point. His actions have certainly served to unify the Canadian populace into a strong anti-American sentiment, that is manifesting itself with moves to buy Canadian products, and to reject American goods and services. This has even led to incidents whereby business meetings that were due to occur in the United States have been cancelled or re-arranged as Canadian business leaders have insisted that meetings occur in Canada. The extent to which this starts to impact American businesses will be particularly telling for an administration which is looking to bolster the American economy and not do anything to hinder it.

These are very early days, but the Trump administration has made it clear that it means business and intends to do all it can to protect and defend American business interests in the face of increased overseas competition, even if that means speaking uncomfortable truths to longstanding international allies.

Pardon Me?

For the past six months, President Biden and his surrogates have repeatedly insisted that no pardon would be forthcoming for his son, Robert Hunter Biden. Time after time the president, his press secretary, their acolytes on the US news channels, and news anchors themselves, were adamant that there would be no act of clemency forthcoming and that to suggest such a thing was verging on heresy. This, however, has proven not to be the case.

The biggest clue that this was all a charade was the president’s failure to rule it out using his remarkably egotistical statement that he meant it ‘as a Biden,’ as though that was meant to mean something profound. Now, to mean something ‘as a Biden’ has a new definition: It’s not true. Of course, to Biden watchers, it never was. 

Those of us who have followed his career can attest to the fact that he was always disinclined to the truth and content to pass off other people’s words and ideas as his own. When he ran for the presidency in 1988 he was caught plagiarizing a speech by the leader of the UK Labour Party, Neil Kinnock, known un-lovingly and for good reason as the Welsh Windbag. This, however, was only part of his problem that year. He was likewise caught repeating word for word, a speech given by Robert Kennedy some 20 years earlier. He claimed to have gone to college on a full scholarship. He didn’t. He claimed to have finished in the top half of his class. He didn’t. And he claimed to have three degrees. He does not. Unsurprisingly, he crashed out of the Democratic Party Primary race that year.

Biden’s narrowing group of supporters will doubtless be pointing to the sins committed by Donald Trump and may even go as far as to highlight the pardons issued by previous presidents, including Bill Clinton, that have courted controversy. All of which is irrelevant for this case. No one is questioning the president’s legal capacity to issue pardons. Although it is remarkable that, having waged a revolutionary war to rid themselves of a constitutional monarch, Americans bestowed their new president with such authority. What is at issue here are two immediate factors: Firstly, President Biden’s steadfast and repeated insistence that he would not issue such a pardon, and secondly, the sweeping nature of the decree.

That the president pardoned his son should come as no surprise, despite the all too obvious conflict of interest involved. What is deeply disturbing is the blanket nature of the pardon, covering not only the two cases before the courts, to which he has pled guilty or been found guilty, but to any and all crimes he MAY have committed stretching back to 2011. It shouldn’t take the sharpest legal brain to leap to the obvious conclusion: What exactly is being addressed in this that is not yet in the public domain? What potential crime are the Biden family concerned could come to light in the years to come that they have now shielded Hunter from?

Intriguingly, the pardon that Biden has now received was similar to the deal that Hunter was offered by the DOJ back in the summer as part of a plea deal that was rejected by the presiding judge precisely because it was far too broad and shielded him from any further prosecution for unrelated incidents. This, of course, goes further, to shield Hunter Biden from any breaches of federal crimes dating back eleven years. Why eleven? It’s hardly a round number, or a figure that leaps out as being the obvious time period to apply to a pardon. Unless, of course, there is a hidden significance? The time frame covered by the pardon all but ensures that any wrongdoing will be impossible to address, especially when compounded by the statute of limitations which similarly constrains prosecution for acts committed in the past. The time frame also relates to the scope of an investigation being conducted by the House of Representatives into Hunter’s business dealings. Make no mistake, this is a concerted effort to shield him from any future findings of wrong-doing, and is, in itself, a tacit admission of wrong-doing on the part of the president’s son.

Hunter’s long struggle with addiction is now being used as a form of justification for his presidential pardon. To quote the Inbetweeners, ‘that’s awful, obviously, but not relevant.’ Hopefully my British understatement, dry wit, and sardonic sense of humor is coming through at this point? If not, let me be blunt. It’s a smokescreen being used to hide a far greater series of malfeasances.  It’s also a terrible insult to those who do suffer and who do not have a president as a father to grant them absolute immunity from prosecution.

The wording of the pardon is therefore significant. By going beyond the two crimes that Hunter was about to be sentenced for, the pardon acknowledges that more crimes were likely committed and would come to light. What these were, who else may have been involved, and the implications of these acts may, or may not now come to light. If they do, Hunter will remain absolved from any criminal liability due to the pardon. But will others be so lucky?

Which raises my final point. It’s only the first week in December. I had expected a presidential pardon to be forthcoming, but not until Biden’s final day in office. Issuing this pardon so soon after the election raises the question as to what will follow? Who else will be pardoned? The White House has announced that more pardons are forthcoming, but of who? 

Right now, Biden’s supporters are twisting themselves into pretzels in an effort to defend the indefensible, suggesting somehow that the facts had changed since Biden last insisted that he would not pardon his son. That will doubtless continue until the next opinion polls emerge that will likely show a collapse in support for the president. When that happens, expect his supporters to run for the hills.

For years we have been told that a certain politician was only seeking the presidency to shield himself and his family from legal jeopardy, that he was using the office for his own financial gain, that he intended to issue sweeping pardons to his children, and that he was, fundamentally, corrupt. It turns out that this was indeed the case, it’s just that the individual in question was not Donald Trump. It was, as it always was, Joe Biden. And that’s no malarkey.