Trump To Impose Tariffs On Semiconductor Imports From Firms Not Moving Production To US
- Reference: 0179032284
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/09/05/1859232/trump-to-impose-tariffs-on-semiconductor-imports-from-firms-not-moving-production-to-us
- Source link:
> President Donald Trump said on Thursday his administration would [1]impose tariffs on semiconductor imports from companies not shifting production to the U.S. , speaking ahead of a dinner with major technology company CEOs. "Yeah, I have discussed it with the people here. Chips and semiconductors -- we will be putting tariffs on companies that aren't coming in. We will be putting a tariff very shortly," Trump said without giving an exact time or rate.
>
> "We will be putting a very substantial tariff, not that high, but fairly substantial tariff with the understanding that if they come into the country, if they are coming in, building, planning to come in, there will not be a tariff," Trump told reporters. "If they are not coming in, there is a tariff," Trump said in his comments on semiconductors. "Like, I would say (Apple CEO) Tim Cook would be in pretty good shape," he added, as Cook sat across the table.
Further reading: [2]Trump Basks in Tech Leaders' Spending Vows at White House Dinner
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-impose-tariffs-semiconductor-imports-002239511.html
[2] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-basks-tech-leaders-spending-005921620.html
In other Trump related news (Score:1)
Congratulations to President Trump on impregnating Satan! [1]https://www.youtube.com/shorts... [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lkIgmXng9Pw
Except (Score:2)
There's an ongoing court battle regarding when or if Trump can unilaterally adjust tariffs. If the Senate were involved then it wouldn't be an open question. But, thus far, they've been silent. They haven't even bothered retroactively approving the tariffs after Trump imposed them as a part of an emergency. It's best not to take these threats too-seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe. But until then semiconductor smuggling is going to be a promising side-hustle.
Re: (Score:2)
That's more to dodge embargoes than tariffs.
Re: (Score:2)
All GOP members that had morals were forced out during the last couple election cycles. I may not have agreed with many of their stances but I could at least respect not selling out.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the issue, not enough shared that stance. Republican voters demanded their politicians sell out to Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
If they sold out they'd rubber-stamp his tariffs and kill all the court actions against Trump. They aren't doing that, at all. Meanwhile, actual Conservative think tanks say:
[1]https://www.foxnews.com/politi... [foxnews.com]
[1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tariff-case-pits-cato-institute-against-trump-over-unlimited-executive-power-under-emergency-law
Re: (Score:2)
Cato has about as much influence in this admin as I do. As a former libertarian I appreciate there are a couple dozen true believers out there still but they're movement was awfully easily rolled by an authoritarian. Worrisomely so.
Also that's a real funny way to say "They support the tariffs and the continuing cucking of their Constitutional power"
[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/m... [forbes.com]
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2025/04/07/house-speaker-mike-johnson-says-house-will-give-trump-space-on-tariffs/
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The GOP was pretty fucked up since the seventies. Google it. Nixon started to drug war specifically to attack his political opponents. And the shit we know about Iran Contra is fucked up to all hell and back.
When Goldwater lost absolute psychos took over. They figured out they could use racism and religious extremism and they wouldn't need to bother taking care of the general public anymore. There were a handful of people that warned about that but they were quickly shut down. That happened in the mid-
Re: (Score:1)
yep its just a overdue correction and oh boy the democrats dont like a gop that doesn't fold to there every demand.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As a Democrat I demanded that the GOP stop destroying the economy and raping children.
And you are correct the GOP would not give in to those demands.
Mike Johnson just said that Trump was an FBI informant against Jeffrey Epstein.
That means Trump cut a deal.
And if Trump cut a deal that means he did something that required him to cut a deal.
And to spell it out for the people in the cheap seats that means Trump fucked kids.
We all already knew that but as long as the right wing can have p
Re: (Score:1)
nice try but if they had that on Trump you bet they would have used it. oh wait there all on the list to. in short they would have just damaged themselves on both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
You know it is disturbing and suspicious that you are so dedicated to protecting a kiddy fucker.
Re: (Score:1)
more your democrat judges are. but keep trying.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the activist Democrat-appointed judges who are upholding the constitution and checking Trump's power and illegal and unconstitutional actions?
The bizarre thing about this child abuser stuff is that for years right-wingers have been asking for Epstein files to be released because they were sure these files would indict many prominent Democrats of horrific child abuse. Possibly the Clintons, hopefully Obama, etc. Trump pandered to those people and promised he would release the files. But he lied no
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that right wingers can't understand is that Democrats simply do not have sacred cows. We don't worship people just because they are higher up on a totem pole.
You get that with Christians and the atheists where they keep going on and on and on about Richard Dawkins when atheists couldn't care less about him. How these days the atheists hate him because he's the absolute worst kind of transphobic piece of shit, somebody who has enough education to know trans people are real but that denies their
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and lest you bring up the judges who refused to unseal the grand jury testimony, two things. First one of the judges was a republican-appointed judge. Second the judges have no authority to release the transcripts by law. It's pure hypocrisy Trump even asked the judges to release the transcripts when he and the DOJ knew all along they couldn't be unsealed. They did it just to cloud the issue of them releasing their files that contain actual evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
And here you go wandering off-topic. In the seventies, Republicans OPPOSED tariffs, unless your name was Pat Buchanan, mostly because the John Birch society had lost most of its bite.
Re: (Score:2)
They’re all massive pussies and only ever speak up when their term is up or retiring.
Re: (Score:1)
none of those gop had any balls. spent there entire careers talking a big game then just chasing democrats and folding to there every demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol wut, you mean people like Mitt Romney have morals? Please.
Re: (Score:3)
As I understand it he's been losing those cases as well. It hinges on him being able to justify his fake emergency that's allowed him to do this with the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. He doesn't have a leg to stand on and all this bullshit he's done is going to crumble in a month or two.
Re: (Score:3)
He might win at the SC because either (a) he's stacked the court with judges who will do his bidding, or (b) the SC won't want to rule against Trump only to have him ignore the ruling and ignite a full-blown constitutional crisis if not civil war.
Re: (Score:2)
Except when the president is a democrat.
Re: (Score:1)
biden lost alot in the courts. the media just liked to never report all of the crap that got thrown out.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden also enjoyed ignoring the Supreme Court and trying the same stupid thing over and over again using bogus technicalities.
Re: (Score:1)
I think Scalia and Thomas will vote whatever Trump wants as they've always done but I don't think they'll win this case. The rest of the court wouldnt even hear his 2020 election denialism, given how clear cut this is I don't think they'll find in Trumps favor this time either.
Re: (Score:1)
Is Scalia back from the dead?
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha, my mistake there. I meant Alito.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy to confuse the two. They are both brain dead, even though only one of them is currently breathing.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they'll just claim that tariffs are outside the lower court's jurisdiction, and that only an action by Congress (particularly the Senate) could challenge Trump's tariff policy. They'll overrule the lower courts and leave the entire issue unresolved.
Re: (Score:2)
He's already started claiming other laws give him authority to set tariffs. Those will requires new lawsuits that take months at least to go through the courts, and then he'll appeal them, and by the time appeals courts rule on them, he'll have come up with yet more justifications.
I predict he'll be able to keep this up for a long time. Unless congress decides to get involved and make him stop, but so far they're showing no interest in doing it.
Re: (Score:1)
because its a trade war long overdo you need to brake it to fox it. everyone was willing to just let are economy die slowly.
Re: (Score:2)
He has all three branches, why aren't they voting on this? Is he so weak he can't whip his base?
If it's so obvious that it's overdue then why isn't it so easy to demonstrate it for everyone?
Re: (Score:1)
because they focus only on short term personal gain and never looking at the long term damage. damage we all are seeing now.
Re: (Score:2)
Then just go to Hungary already if you don't believe in our laws.
Re: (Score:1)
are laws are working just fine. your just made its just not in your favor.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a 57 year old man and now you're asking me to explain how America works to you? I ain't got the time right now.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two reasons why the Senate isn't ratifying Trump's tariffs ex post facto:
1). Many in the Senate don't actually like the tariffs, they and/or their backers were making good money on cheap foreign labor
2). It takes too long for the Senate to operate quickly enough to keep up with Trump
Trump keeps setting up and knocking down tariffs at a whim. It would take weeks to get one tariff vote through the Senate, only for Trump to change his mind later. They Senate could pass a resolution authorizing Trum
Re: (Score:2)
> you need to brake it to fox it
So one of our political parties is taking wisdoms from tech bros now?
Re: (Score:1)
i said everything covid was bs day one. called every name in the book lost nearly all my friends. hear we are only a few short years later and look at that it was.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not unlikely he'd see the courts pick up speed in hearing these cases if he starts manipulating things like that. We'll see what he comes up with as I havent heard him make any claims less ridiculous then the current ones in regards to justifying tariffs.
Re: (Score:2)
> If the Senate were involved then it wouldn't be an open question. But, thus far, they've been silent.
That's not really true. Conflicted maybe, but not silent.
[1]https://www.klobuchar.senate.g... [senate.gov]
[2]https://www.politico.com/live-... [politico.com]
The House of Representatives has been silent, but they've been compelled to be so:
[3]https://www.politico.com/live-... [politico.com]
[1] https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2025/4/senate-approves-resolution-to-end-trump-s-tariffs-on-canadian
[2] https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/04/30/congress/senate-rebukes-trumps-global-tariffs-00319829
[3] https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/05/05/congress/house-rules-tariff-votes-blocked-00330130
Re: (Score:2)
LOL
Only four Republicans voted for it. That was a Democrat measure. Plus Murkowski + McConnel + Collins pfft. Whatever. Meanwhile, if the Senate were ACTUALLY doing its job, it wouldn't be passing resolutions like that (per se) but instead take on the task of drafting actual tariff measures as is their Constitutional power and duty. Unlike with foreign treaties, the House would probably have to get involved too (eventually) but I'm fairly certain tariff bills would need to originate in the Senate. Cou
Umm ok (Score:2)
I just hope they don't bamboozle him like the last 20 times he got bamboozled by and for everyone. 100% guaranteed the production "factory" will take exactly 4 years to finish and it will be an empty field until at least November 2028.
semiconductors is not just mass market big compute (Score:2)
this shit is killing small music tech boutique brands that already do manufacture here; if they cant get parts at reasonable prices the market breaks; they cant just move production overseas when its like 20 people working out of a shed making modular synth modules and the like
Tarrif this and tarrif that (Score:2)
1. Will cause small fledgling businesses to shut down or leave the USA
2. Will cause consumers to buy less.
3. May cause an economic depression (History repeating itself after the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff act).
4. Will cause some people to emigrate who have more than a US citizenship.
5. Will cause the rate of inflation to increase and affect other things besides semiconductors.
Trump's wrecking ball is deliberate. He wants to tear it all down and rebuild it in a way which is more appealing to the conservative elite
Re: (Score:1)
company's will never leave the biggest market and thats the usa,
Re: (Score:2)
> company's will never leave the biggest market and thats the usa,
"market"? It's starting to sound a bit like a managed economy.
Re: (Score:1)
oh lord dont tell congress we are acully trying to manage are economy and not only focus of short gains and long tern ruin.
Re: (Score:2)
Centrally manage the economy you say comrade?
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't they just throw a bunch of darts at a board every few days with different taxes and countries marked in the different areas and declare that to be the US trade policy for the next few days? It'd save a lot of mucking around with white house press releases and the like.
Re: (Score:1)
> Why don't they just throw a bunch of darts at a board every few days with different taxes and countries marked in the different areas and declare that to be the US trade policy for the next few days? It'd save a lot of mucking around with white house press releases and the like.
What makes you think they aren't doing that already?
I honestly cannot tell (Score:1)
If the supreme Court is going to allow Trump to keep up with the illegal trade war or not. I think they will because the purpose of the trade war is to create a national sales tax so the wealthiest can shift their tax burden to you and me. But it might be doing a little bit too much damage to the economy too fast.
We had 22,000 jobs added last month for the entire country. 167 million people and 22,000 new jobs. And remember 30% of those are likely to be ghost jobs. Fake stuff that aren't real. We now hav
Re: (Score:1)
so a government that made one sided deals that wrecked are economy sense the 80s and destroyed nearly all are production thats ok. he finely get someone willing to undo that and you got a problem with that.
Re: (Score:2)
The administration seems to know their legal standing is worthless - so, instead of talking legal points, they're basically daring the Supremes to defy him by claiming "it'll be the end of the country" and other ridiculous statements. Yeah, as if forcing the administration to stop something they *just* started doing a couple months ago is somehow going to completely destroy a country that's been around for 250 years.
Now it's true that Trump's policies, incompetent cabinet, and overall general stupidity may
Re: (Score:1)
Yankland has descended into a far right money laundering cult with Intel, Apple, Facebook and others seeming to bend the knee.
Explain to me like I'm seven why I would continue to support USA businesses with my hard-earned?
He will just give this guys two weeks to comply (Score:1)
Then another two weeks and then another ad infinitum
Re: (Score:1)
no ti will be 90s days then he will extend it. then quietly drop it just like he did when he first got into office and told them that and make himself look foolish. he should never backed down the first time.
Where did all the Data Centers go? (Score:2)
What a great way to get all future data centers to be built outside the US. Even if there's negotiations to remove the threatened tariffs, we know he'll come back again and ask for something else. Why bother risking it? Plus by fighting renewables Trump is cutting off the cheapest forms of electricity. Data centers don't need to be near the users. And of course if those users are scientist Trump will try to deport them.
Where did all the data centers go?
Long time passing,
Where did all the data ce
Re: (Score:1)
Silicon heaven...
I'm sorry, what happened to (Score:1)
"the tariffs are illegal, only Congress can set tariffs"?
I mean, what do I know, I'm not American I'm just following the news even when it doesn't make sense. Like, how you people could have possibly allowed your stupid fat orange maniac rifle target into power in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is using an emergency powers act to set the tariffs. He didn't have a real emergency so he cited our trade deficits as the emergency. It's pretty clear cut his justification is bullshit and so far the courts have found this. We are now waiting on the Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:2)
Trade deficit as an emergency, I think that's the economic equivalent of declaring the color of a T-shirt to be an emergency.
Some of the tariffs are about fentanyl (Score:2)
As I understand the executive order abolishing de minimis entry, the tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China aren't based on trade deficit as much as on these countries' failure to cooperate in preventing fentanyl and fentanyl precursors from getting smuggled into the USA.
Re: Some of the tariffs are about fentanyl (Score:2)
If they can ditch de minimis, then they can prevent these things entering the USA themselves...maybe de minimis wasn't valid anyway, any more...otherwise it's costing the USA to do this, since that's what de minimis is for.
Re: (Score:1)
I thought they LOVED supply-side economics :P /s
Just put the price up (Score:2)
These companies should just increase their prices for the USA, then tariffs aren't necessary.
And the stupid continues (Score:3, Insightful)
"Moving" semiconductor production is essentially impossible. You can just build new Fabs some other place, with pretty high requirements as to available engineers, infrastructure, etc. and then this will take a few years or longer. Remember the "great win" of the orange moron with Foxconn?
Re:And the stupid continues (Score:4, Insightful)
TSMC already has a fab in the US, which will probably exempt them. Samsung is still working on getting their AZ fab operational (it's delayed in perpetuity). Intel is already here, and so is GF. And TI. So that covers the actual manufacturing. When it comes to the designers who outsource their semicon production to actual fabs . . . they may get caught up as well, at least until they send token amounts of production to the aforementioned American facilities.
It shouldn't be too hard to get around the tariffs, even if they stay in place.
Re:And the stupid continues (Score:4, Insightful)
TSMC is having a [1]nightmare of a time [youtube.com] with its Arizona fab. Advanced fabs are complicated things to build and run. They rely on supply chains that sometimes just don't exist in the USA. For a lot of semiconductor manufacturers, it's much cheaper to take the tariff hit than move production to the USA. Especially for chips that have no equivalents manufactured within the USA, it's the customers who have no choice but to pay the tariffs, not the manufacturers, so for the manufacturers it's a big meh.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD1jyk3LhA8
Re: (Score:1)
but its one they created themselves as they where ass usa based before.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a culture problem. TSMC underpays their engineers and expects a lot of 996 bullshit. They'll learn.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus Samsung is doing a lot worse.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also another dirty little secret - you can't design a chip for one fab and then transplant it over to another fab. Every fab is unique in its own special way and there are unique design rules for each fab.
Even if TSMC runs a new fab in AZ, you can't just take a chip designed for the fab in Taiwan and run it on AZ unaltered. You have to redesign it and get all new masks made (at $100K each mask - so a chip may need 20 or more masks making the cost of a new mask run over $2 million). So you have to re
Re: (Score:3)
Still can’t admit this is a dumb move and come to terms? What was wrong with semiconductor manufacturing before this whole mess?
Re: (Score:2)
The automotive industry (and others) are still reeling from the pandemic. People woke up and realized that supply chain disruption can be really bad, especially when Intel has essentially murdered semiconductor manufacturing in the US. Plus there is the possibility of the ENTIRE WORLD losing access to TSMC if China actually invades Taiwan. TSMC is not going to cooperate, and it would take years for the CCP to get those facilities up and running again.
Also who said anything about the tariffs being a good
Re:And the stupid continues (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be stupid to move almost any business to the US to avoid tariffs. The tariffs change almost weekly and the next administration might abolish them entirely. You can't base major business decisions on the quicksand that is the current US tariff policy.
Re: (Score:3)
Watch closely at the end of Trump's term. There will be a number of proposed constitutional amendments, or maybe even an Article V convention. These amendments will be all about giving more power to the president, marginalizing certain people with "unacceptable" life styles, and making the right to vote less available to the citizens.
Re: (Score:1)
You mean watch in horror.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish you were joking. Alas, I tend to agree with you.
Re: (Score:1)
> There will be a number of proposed constitutional amendments, or maybe even an Article V convention.
In today's divided political climate this won't happen. At least not based on what's happened in America so far.
Now, if Trump's actions put America in a severe crisis (severe even by 2025 standards), there may be calls for a constitutional amendment to prevent such a crisis from happening again. But that's not likely to happen either: Even with a crisis, there will be enough Trump supporters to keep it from happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Why amend the constitution when you can just pretend it doesn't exist, which is pretty much what's been happening since January?
Honestly, I'm waiting for a Democrat to be bold here and say "Trump and the Roberts court have set a precedent invalidating the current constitution. Good. From the day I take over we'll set up a new one, and the states can either sign on, or become territories. Their choice. The new one will include checks and balances to prevent something like Trump will ever happen again, plus c
Re: (Score:2)
And to answer some obvious questions:
1. I would propose simply replacing SCOTUS, invalidating the current supreme court justices, maybe with a larger group of judges that require not just executive and congressional support, but also support from their peers. And no judge should have a life time appointment.
2. Healthcare is in this new constitution because nobody gives a shit about competence when voting right now, just focusing on parties. That goes out the window if your ability to get quality healthcare
Re:And the stupid continues (Score:5, Funny)
Semiconductor companies should take a leaf from Trump's book and tell him construction will start in two weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it's illegal anyway. Trump has limited, Congress given, tariffing powers that require an emergency and need to be declared in the context of that emergency.
I'm having a hard time with the hoops the administration would have to jump through to declare certain companies favorable and others not simply on the basis of planned US investments.
Thus far, judges have been striking down his rationales for tariffs left, right, and center. I don't see this one flying, and I see the treasury having to pay out