EventAction
US raises China reciprocal tariff to 125% (145% cumulative); China matches up to 125%
The US reciprocal tariff on China rose from 34% (announced 2 April 2025, in force 9 April) to 84% and then 125% (announced 9 April, in force 10 April), or 145% including the 20% fentanyl tariff. China answered with 84% from 10 April and 125% from 12 April, and said it would not raise tariffs further.
- Date
- (known to the nearest estimate)
- Kind
- Tariff action
- Where
- United States / China
- Evidence
- Action: Something was done: a law switched on, a tariff imposed, money committed. How evidence is weighed
- Who
- United States federal government (acted); Government of China (counterparty)
Latest articles
No article cites this record yet.
Sources
- Wikipedia, “Liberation Day tariffs” (external site). source record
- China Briefing, “US-China Tariff Rates - What Are They Now?” (external site), . source record
Tested hypotheses: a thought experiment
Suppose Washington foresaw and wanted this. Would this event look any different than under the rival readings? This is a deliberately contrarian test, explained here, not the author’s belief. Judgments, not measurements.
Non-discriminating: this event fits the plain self-interest reading and the foresight reading equally. It does not tell them apart. What this means
| Reading | Fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| I0a Accident Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | This escalation concerns the US-China escalation, not Canada; it fits all readings equally and says nothing about Canada's build-out or about Canada as a target. |
| I0b Plain self-interest; Canada's response not considered Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | This escalation concerns the US-China escalation, not Canada; it fits all readings equally and says nothing about Canada's build-out or about Canada as a target. |
| I1 Foreseen and welcomed, not the reason Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | This escalation concerns the US-China escalation, not Canada; it fits all readings equally and says nothing about Canada's build-out or about Canada as a target. |
| I2 Foreseen and wanted (this level or higher) Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | This escalation concerns the US-China escalation, not Canada; it fits all readings equally and says nothing about Canada's build-out or about Canada as a target. |
| I3 Worked-out plan with specific targets Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | This escalation concerns the US-China escalation, not Canada; it fits all readings equally and says nothing about Canada's build-out or about Canada as a target. |
| R-annex Annexation Rival reading | Neutral weak | This escalation concerns the US-China escalation, not Canada; it fits all readings equally and says nothing about Canada's build-out or about Canada as a target. |
| R-frag Fragmentation Rival reading | Neutral weak | This escalation concerns the US-China escalation, not Canada; it fits all readings equally and says nothing about Canada's build-out or about Canada as a target. |
| R-weaken Weaken-Canada rivals (annexation or fragmentation) Rival reading | Neutral weak | This escalation concerns the US-China escalation, not Canada; it fits all readings equally and says nothing about Canada's build-out or about Canada as a target. |