lexpress.fr
Amazon Reverses Plan to Display Import Costs After Trump Intervention
Faced with White House pressure, Amazon abandoned a plan to display import costs on some products, a move that followed President Trump's direct call to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. The White House deemed this a political act, referencing a past partnership between Amazon and Chinese authorities.
- What was the immediate impact of Amazon's initial consideration of displaying import costs on products, and how did the White House respond?
- Amazon initially considered displaying import costs on some US online products, a move seen as opposition to Donald Trump's tariffs. However, Amazon confirmed on April 29th that this plan was never approved and will not be implemented, following pressure from the White House and President Trump himself.
- What were the underlying causes of the White House's strong reaction to Amazon's proposed action, and how does it relate to broader trade tensions?
- The White House viewed Amazon's proposed action as a political act, citing Amazon's past partnership with Chinese authorities. This partnership involved creating a website for Chinese government books, including those by President Xi Jinping. The threatened display of tariff impacts would have primarily affected low-cost Amazon Haul products, impacted by the expiring "minimis" tax exemption on May 2nd, which previously shielded small imports from tariffs.
- What are the long-term implications of this incident for US-China trade relations and the future strategies of major corporations operating in the US market?
- The incident highlights the significant influence of US trade policy on major corporations and the potential for political ramifications of business decisions. Amazon's backtrack, following direct presidential intervention, suggests a high sensitivity to political pressure and potential reputational damage. The incident also underscores the competitive landscape of online retail, where cost pressures from tariffs are felt across the industry.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative strongly emphasizes the conflict between Amazon and the Trump administration. The headline (assuming a headline similar to the first sentence of the article) frames Amazon's initial consideration of displaying import costs as a significant event, potentially portraying Amazon as acting against the US government's interests. The article highlights Trump's personal involvement and anger, further emphasizing the conflict angle.
Language Bias
The article uses some charged language. Phrases such as "monstrueux droits de douane" (monstrous customs duties), "acte hostile et politique" (hostile and political act), and "Trump 'furieux'" (furious Trump) convey strong negative emotions and opinions. More neutral alternatives could be used, such as "high tariffs," "controversial action," and "Trump expressed displeasure.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the actions and reactions of Amazon, the White House, and Donald Trump. While it mentions that other companies are raising prices to offset tariffs and that Amazon is taking measures to maintain low prices, it lacks detailed information on the extent of these actions by competitors and the specific strategies Amazon is employing. This omission prevents a complete understanding of the broader economic impact of the tariffs.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the situation as either Amazon displaying import costs or not. It ignores the possibility of alternative solutions or strategies that Amazon could have employed to address the tariff issue, such as lobbying efforts or negotiating with suppliers.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights how increased import tariffs disproportionately affect low-cost products, potentially exacerbating economic inequality. Higher prices due to tariffs could particularly harm low-income consumers who rely on affordable goods from online retailers like Amazon, Temu, and Shein. The conflict between Amazon and the Trump administration regarding displaying tariff costs underscores this issue.