US and China Relations

Feb 13
Micron Insight Series

US and China Relations

Trade relations between the U.S. and the People’s Republic of China.

Tariffs & Trade Policy History & Context Manufacturing Perspective
We Build It Better

The Trade Relationship Between the US and China

Welcome back to TAXING TARIFFS! In this post we will start to detail the trade relations between the U.S. and the People’s Republic of China.

On Jan. 30, 2026, The Wall Street Journal published an Opinion Commentary article by the U.S. President titled “Donald J. Trump: My Tariffs Have Brought America Back.” In the article he extolled his imposition of tariffs on nearly all foreign countries last April. Trump went on to mention the deals that he has made with China, the U.K., the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia. It is worthy of note that he began this list of deals with China and didn’t list or mention Canada and Mexico. It’s interesting that he would begin the list with China since Trump’s dominant player position in the series of post-tariff setting negotiations and deals came to an end when he faced China in this set of rounds. Whatever Trump’s motivation for listing China first it is certain that U.S. – China trade relations are important to both countries and to the rest of the world.

In 2024, the People’s Republic of China total trade in goods with the U.S. was $582.5 billion.

In 2024, the People’s Republic of China total trade in goods with the U.S. was $582.5 billion. This total trade was made up of $143.5 billion of U.S. exports to China, and $438.9 of U.S. imports from China. China is the fourth-largest U.S. export market and includes aircraft, agriculture, semiconductor chips and equipment, gas turbines, medical devices, various and sundry U.S. consumer goods, and many different production inputs.

Our tale of trade between China and the U.S. begins in 2018. That’s when Trump first introduced new Chinese tariffs in this latest set of tariff volleys. We’ll take 2017 as the baseline for our investigation of trade rates; that coincides with the beginning of Trump’s first term (Jan. 20, 2017). In 2017 the U.S.-China Two Way Average Tariffs, not accounting for tariff exemptions, were 2.7% and 8%. That is to say, the average U.S. tariff rate on goods from the China was about 2.7%, and China’s average tariff rate on U.S. goods was about 8%. This data comes from the Congressional Research Service and can be found at crsreports.congress.gov. Tariffs were below 10% on both sides of the China-U.S. trade relationship. Oh, how the magnitude of tariff rates has changed since then.

There are three pieces of legislation that Trump has used to impose tariffs on China, as well as other countries. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. sub-Section 214) addresses unfair trade barriers. Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. sub-Section 2251) protects U.S. industry against import surges. And Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. sub-section 1862, as amended) considers the national security effects of U.S. imports and allows/requires for an investigation to precede decisions on tariffs. In 2018, using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, then-President Trump imposed import tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum for China and other countries. China retaliated by raising tariffs on aluminum waste scrap to 49%, and on pork, fruits, and nuts to 20%. The tit for tat had begun, and the volleys would only continue.

The U.S. imposed tariffs from 7.5% to 25% on approximately $370 billion of Chinese goods imports. China came back with tariffs on $110 billion of U.S. trade.

Also in 2018 the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative found “that the PCR engaged in forced technology transfer, cyber-enabled theft of U.S. intellectual property and trade secrets, discriminatory and non-market licensing practices, and state-funded strategic acquisitions of U.S. assets.” As a result the U.S. imposed tariffs from 7.5% to 25% on approximately $370 billion of Chinese goods imports. China came back with tariffs on $110 billion of U.S. trade. By 2023 the average tariff percentages between the U.S. and China rested briefly at 19% and 21% respectively. Both sides well above 10%.

Then in 2020 there seemed to be a pause in the rush to tariffs. The U.S. and China signed a “Phase One” trade deal. The deal addressed the U.S. trade deficit with China. And this is where relations changed from a back-and-forth imposition of tariffs to a purchasing deal. China agreed that in a two-year period starting in 2020 that it would purchase at least $200 billion of goods above a 2017 baseline. This deal included products from agriculture, energy, and manufacturing, as well as some services. By 2021 U.S. Census Bureau had determined that China had fallen short of its commitments by 60%.

Due in part to the failure of the purchasing deal, in May of 2024 USTR extended most 2018 tariffs and raised tariffs to 100% on some goods including electric vehicles, batteries, medical products, ship-to-shore cranes, semiconductors, solar cells, steel, and aluminum. Of most importance to electronics manufacturing, in December 2024, USTR initiated an investigation on China policies in mature-node chips and their effects on critical industries, and silicon carbide substrates and wafers used in chip production. Then came 2025, and what a year it was for tariffs, tariffs, and more threats of tariffs.

Well that’s all the space and time we have for this post of TAXING TARIFFS. How do you feel about U.S.-China trade relations? Are the back-and-forth tariff volleys making your head spin? Should tariffs be involved in our semiconductor industries? Answer those questions on taxingtariffs@microncorp.com and we’ll see you next time on TAXING TARIFFS.

Micron We Build It Better
Part of the Taxing Tariffs series from Micron Corporation.
Taxing Tariffs: An Insight Series by Micron Corporation discusses Tariffs & Trade Policy, the History and Context of Tariffs, and a Manufacturing Perspective from an EMS company.

Metals: Gold, Silver and Copper

Feb 06
Micron Insight Series

Metals: Gold, Silver and Copper

Metals: what they are, where they’re used, how they’re used in the Electronics Industry, and of course, which tariffs apply.

Tariffs & Trade Policy History & Context Manufacturing Perspective
We Build It Better

Metals: Gold, Silver and Copper and their use in the Electronic’s Industry

Welcome back to TAXING TARIFFS! In this post we’ll be looking at metals: what they are, where they’re used, how they’re used, and of course, which tariffs apply.

In times of peace and times of war, in prosperous periods and those of abject poverty, there are always metals. Metals are used in industry to build useful articles and great structures. Metals feed the war machines in times of conflict. They are present throughout some societies in periods of flourishing trade and invention and are highly coveted and sought after in periods of socio-economic decline. And they are omnipresent throughout the ever-expanding world of electronics manufacturing.

Printed circuit board assemblies (PCBA) can be divided (though not inclusively) into three major part groups: PCB, electronic components, and solder. All three of these contain small yet significant amounts of metals, some of them precious. Other hardware items used on, in or with electronics such as shielding, frames, fasteners, heat sinks, and enclosures are also made of metal. Those are usually made of steel and aluminum. All of these items are used in electronics manufacturing.

By weight, gold is rare in PCBAs and, perhaps not surprisingly, copper is the most prevalent metal…

We’ll focus on three metals: gold, silver, and copper. They are the three most conducting elements (not just metals) on earth. And that is why they are used in electronics. By weight, gold is rare in PCBAs and, perhaps not surprisingly, copper is the most prevalent metal (again by weight) used in this grouping of metals in electronics manufacturing. In fact, the three are listed in ascending order of prevalence in electronics manufacturing. Take a look around you and you will see the same ordering of prevalence in society as you see in electronics. Look around your home (and thank God you have one) then consider how much copper you see and then how much you don’t see. Okay, now how much if any silver. Gold? To sum up that situation by mangling and abusing an age-old adage; as in society, so in electronics. All right then, we’re interested in three metals, one of them used mostly in industry and two of them are considered precious.

Let’s begin then with copper, silver, and gold. Their relative use in the industry can be estimated by considering ratios of the weights of each metal used in terms of orders of magnitude. To simplify the statement of the ratios we’ll use the Latin abbreviations of the elements (pure metals are elements). Copper is Cuprum in Latin and is abbreviated Cu. Silver is Argentum in Latin, thus Ag. And Gold is Aurum or Au. Then the ratios are as follows. Normalize the use of silver by weight to be 1, that is to say, whatever the total use of silver is, in any unit of weight – we’re calling it 1. Then there is 1000 times more copper use by weight. Again with silver as 1, there is 0.01 gold used. To restate this succinctly we can use the Latin abbreviations. Cu/Ag/Au ~ 1000/1/0.01. Copper is by far and away the most used of this three-metal grouping. Five orders of magnitude more than gold. There’s a reason they call gold and silver precious and one is made aware of that by their sparse use in electronics.

Tariffs on these three metals make it apparent, perhaps in a perverse way, which two are precious (silver and gold) and which is a base metal mostly of industrial use (copper). Gold and silver are exempt from tariffs (or 0% if you like) and copper has a 50% tariff. Admittedly, some collectible coins, bullion coins and special bars made of gold and/or silver do have tariffs.

The other main application of gold in electronics is on the surface of PCB pads.

Gold is used in component terminations for surface mount devices such as chip resistors and Integrated Circuit (IC) leads. The other main application of gold in electronics is on the surface of PCB pads. Two surface finishing procedures use gold, these are Electroless Nickel Immersion Gold (ENIG) and Electrolytic Gold. In the electronics industry we call 1/1000th of an inch a “mil” and it is not to be confused with a millimeter. ENIG lays down a thin layer of gold some 5 mil thick. Electrolytic processes can lay down 15 to 50 mil of gold. It may cost a lot per gram but that’s not a lot of grams.

Silver is found mostly in solder joints. It appears in both lead-free solder pastes and on the surface of pads. During reflow the silver on the pads quickly diffuses into the solder joint. All the silver ends up in the solder joint. Immersion silver (ImAg) is the most common process by which silver is deposited onto the PCB pads. By far, most of the silver comes from the solder. Solders such as SAC305 contain 3% silver. SAC305 refers to the Latin abbreviations; S (for Stannum) being Tin, A being silver, and C for copper. The 305 indicates 3% silver and 0.5% copper with the rest made of tin. More than gold, yes, but still not a lot of silver.

Copper is used in quantities that are three orders of magnitude more than silver use in electronics. It is used primarily in the conducting planes of PCBs.

Copper is used in quantities that are three orders of magnitude more than silver use in electronics. It is used primarily in the conducting planes of PCBs. Copper traces and planes are the guts – if you will – of the PCB. And there’s a lot of guts in a twelve-layer PCB. Electronic component leads are also often made of copper. Though most comes from the PCB itself. Copper, also known as Dr. Copper, is the super heavyweight of this group.

Do you have any comments about Gold, Silver, or Copper? Are you appreciative of the fact that gold and silver are not subject to tariffs? Let us know at taxingtariffs@microncorp.com and then we’ll see you next time on TAXING TARIFFS.

Micron We Build It Better
Part of the Taxing Tariffs series from Micron Corporation.
Taxing Tariffs: An Insight Series by Micron Corporation discusses Tariffs & Trade Policy, the History and Context of Tariffs, and a Manufacturing Perspective from an EMS company.

Trade Relationship Between Canada and the US

Feb 04
Micron Insight Series

The Trade Relationship Between Canada and the United States

We examine the long and complex relationship with the US’s neighbor to the North.

Tariffs & Trade Policy History & Context Manufacturing Perspective
We Build It Better

The Trade Relationship Between Canada and the United States

Welcome back to TAXING TARIFFS! In this post we’ll be taking a closer look at the trade relationship between Canada and the United States.

The current President of the U.S. has been using tariffs as a negotiating tool with other countries since his last term in office. Donald J. Trump served as the 45th President of the United States from January 20, 2017 to January 20, 2021 and has been elected to a nonconsecutive second term that started on January 20, 2025. Since the beginning of his second term he has upended U.S. trade relationships with the rest of the world, or at least with America’s most valued trading partners. Primary among them Mr. President is the great and proud nation of Canada.

American companies and consumers combined bought 62 billion U.S. dollars more worth of goods from Canada than Canadian companies and consumers bought from the U.S.

The United States has had a long and complex relationship with its neighbor to the North. Relations would seem to have settled into their current standing in 1867 when the Canadian Confederation process united three British North American provinces – the Province of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick – into one federation, called the Dominion of Canada. In the twentieth century and into this twenty first century Canada and the U.S. have been allies and highly significant trading partners with each other. Political posturing backed by threats of tariffs have currently produced wrangling on both sides.

Americans imported 411.9 $B of goods from Canada in 2024 (the last full year data available): this is from the report “Total Imports: General Custom Value (In Actual Dollars)” from DATAWEB on the United States International Trade Commission website usitc.gov. Total U.S. exports to Canada were 349.9 $B in 2024: “Total Exports: FAS Value (In Actual Dollars).” Here FAS refers to Free Alongside Ship, an Incoterm which specifies the obligations of the buyers and sellers as to the charges involved in 12 different categories. Incoterms were first published by the International Trade Commission in 1936 “to provide internationally accepted definitions and rules of interpretation for common commercial terms used in contracts for the sale of goods.” (CoPilot, Microsoft, 02/01/2026, 10:16 AM, EDT). For more information see incodocs.com. The net result of trade between Canada and the U.S. came to a trade imbalance of -62 $B, or put another way, American companies and consumers combined bought 62 billion U.S. dollars more worth of goods from Canada than Canadian companies and consumers bought from the U.S.

Whatever your take on trade flows and trade “deficits” one thing is certain, the U.S. needs Canada, and Canada needs the U.S. if their economies, lifestyles, and worldviews are to continue. Front and center of this dependent relationship that so often leads to prosperity for both countries is the agreement between the three North American nations Mexico – United States – Canada. Known by the acronyms USMCA or CUSMA or T-MEC depending on if you’re in the U.S., Canada, or Mexico, respectively. There is a July 1 deadline for a “review” of the agreement. The fear is that political rhetoric might push out that deadline which in turn may hobble investment decisions throughout the continent. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen; our shared cosmopolitan perspectives depend on it.

In counter retaliation on January 29, Trump threatened to decertify Canadian aircraft and apply more tariffs.

However, the tit for tat continues. In the fourth week of January, Prime Minister Carney reacted to President Trumps 100% tariff threat for Canada’s movement towards free-trade type agreements with China. What Carney did was to start refusing certification (for use in Canada) of U.S.-made aircraft, known as Gulfstream jets, built by Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. In counter retaliation on January 29, Trump threatened to decertify Canadian aircraft and apply more tariffs. You may wonder how this kerfuffle is playing out for both sides. Since their appearances and performances at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Carney’s approval rating at home is up to 60% (Angus Reid Institute), and Trump’s is down to 40% (Pew Research Center) and dropping before the midterm elections. And the tariff tussles continue.

Carney’s foreign policy démarches in Davos and Beijing are testament to the strength of the hand he is playing. Carney knows that Canada’s biggest export to the U.S. is by far its oil and gas that are piped to its neighbor’s refineries to the south through vast and varied networks. There are at least 12 major companies involved in the complex of natural gas pipelines, and at least twice as many named Canadian and U.S. oil pipelines. This is not a network that is going away or going to be replaced anytime soon. Canada is playing with a fifth of its gross domestic product and three-quarters of its exports on the table. I’d say they’re all in. Trump can bluff and bluster all he wants, Carney need not fold.

What do you think about the United States’ relationship with Canada? Or, for that matter, what about relations between Canadians and Americans? Do you worry about the future of the triply named USMCA – CUSMA – T-MEC agreement? Let us know at taxingtariffs@microncorp.com and we’ll see you next time on TAXING TARIFFS.

Micron We Build It Better
Part of the Taxing Tariffs series from Micron Corporation.
Taxing Tariffs: An Insight Series by Micron Corporation discusses Tariffs & Trade Policy, the History and Context of Tariffs, and a Manufacturing Perspective from an EMS company.

EMAIL OR CALL US
(781) 949-3500