Tesla Losing Ground in the EV Market
“I Won’t Buy Tesla Because of Musk” — Public Sentiment Turns Negative
Will Trump’s Tariff Policy Be the Key Factor Going Forward?

Tesla, once considered the frontrunner in the electric vehicle industry, is steadily losing its market footing. The brand’s image has taken a hit due to CEO Elon Musk’s political activities, resulting in a sharp decline in both sales and earnings. However, some analysts suggest that Tesla may have an opportunity to rebound, depending on changes in trade policy under U.S. President Donald Trump.

Tesla in Crisis as BYD Races Ahead

April 28 (local time) — CNN reports that Tesla is facing a confluence of crises—declining revenue, collapsing profits, and a tumbling stock price—suggesting the company’s troubles may be more severe than widely perceived.

According to CNN, Tesla posted a net profit of just $409 million in the first quarter of 2025, a 71% year-on-year drop. Most of this profit came not from vehicle sales, but from $595 million in regulatory credits sold to rival automakers. Industry analysts suggest that Tesla’s core automotive business may have actually posted an operational loss during the quarter.

The company’s automotive gross margin—once a benchmark of its profitability—has also collapsed. According to Morgan Stanley, Tesla’s vehicle gross margin fell from 30% in Q1 2022 to just 12.5% in Q1 2025, a level not seen since 2012, when the company sold fewer than 6,000 cars annually.

China’s BYD has now overtaken Tesla in quarterly EV sales. In Q1 2025, BYD sold approximately 416,400 electric vehicles compared to Tesla’s 336,600. For all of 2024, Tesla sold 1.78 million EVs, while BYD trailed closely with 1.76 million—a difference of just 20,000 units.

Elon Musk’s Political Foray Draws Consumer Backlash

At the heart of Tesla’s troubles is CEO Elon Musk, whose increasingly political behavior is alienating customers. Since the beginning of Trump’s second term, Musk has served as director of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), tasked with leading controversial federal budget cuts. He has also inserted himself into foreign politics—appearing in videos supporting Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and publicly attacking UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

These moves have provoked protests at Tesla showrooms in the U.S., Canada, Germany, the UK, and Portugal. In some cases, demonstrators have vandalized facilities and torched vehicles. In the U.S., the Cybertruck has become a symbol of anti-Musk sentiment, with viral videos showing the vehicle covered in garbage or repurposed as a skateboard ramp.

A YouGov-Yahoo News poll conducted in March 2025 found that 67% of American adults would not consider owning or leasing a Tesla. Of these, 37% cited Elon Musk as a key reason.

A Glimmer of Hope: Tariff Relief

Still, not all is bleak. Some analysts point to potential tailwinds from the Trump administration’s evolving trade policy. A recent executive order signed by President Trump temporarily waives import tariffs for vehicles assembled in the United States, offering tax credits equivalent to 15% of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP). These credits can offset future import duties on parts and components.

The exemption applies from April 3, 2025, to April 30, 2027. In the second year, the credit drops to 10% of MSRP, and it expires entirely after three years. Notably, the administration clarified that overlapping tariffs—for example, those on steel, aluminum, or imports from Canada or Mexico—will not be applied concurrently with auto tariffs, giving manufacturers like Tesla some much-needed relief.

Trump’s renewed hardline stance on China could also work in Tesla’s favor. In an interview with ABC News, the president reaffirmed his administration’s 145% tariff on Chinese imports, acknowledging that it effectively amounts to a trade embargo. “China deserves that treatment,” he said, reversing recent signals of possible détente.

Such measures could hamper Chinese automakers like BYD, which have been aggressively expanding into global markets with competitively priced EVs. If Chinese imports become prohibitively expensive, Tesla could regain ground in key markets.

France Pushes to Impose Fees on Low-Cost Small Parcels from China
Moves to Abolish VAT Exemptions for Imports Under €150, Tightening Regulations on C-Commerce
Despite Regulatory Crackdown, Chinese Platforms Expand Global Market Influence

Amid growing concerns that an influx of ultra-low-cost goods from China is eroding the European market, France and other European Union (EU) member states are stepping up regulatory measures targeting Chinese e-commerce platforms such as AliExpress, Temu, and SHEIN. France is moving to impose fees—effectively functioning as tariffs—on low-value imported parcels, while the EU is pursuing the abolition of the VAT exemption for goods priced under €150. Framed under the pretexts of safety and environmental concerns, these measures are widely seen as an attempt to put the brakes on the rapid rise of C-commerce.

France Targets E-Commerce Giants with New Fees

As the United States intensifies its tariff campaign against Chinese imports, France is preparing to implement its own crackdown on ultra-cheap Chinese goods flooding into the European market. According to a Bloomberg report on April 29, the French government plans to impose handling fees on low-value e-commerce parcels, effectively acting as a tariff. This preemptive move comes ahead of a broader EU-wide customs reform set to take effect in 2028.

Amélie de Montchalin, France’s Minister for Public Accounts, stated that the fees will not be levied directly on consumers but will require e-commerce platforms to contribute more to customs inspection processes under the guise of security. As a result, platforms such as Shein and Temu—which have already raised prices due to U.S. tariffs—are likely to face higher costs that will ultimately impact their pricing models in Europe.

Currently, EU law allows imported goods valued under €150 (approx. $160) to be exempt from import duties. European lawmakers have voiced concern that this exemption has enabled a flood of ultra-cheap Chinese goods to enter the EU unchecked. France has already begun targeting fast-fashion brands: as of January 1, 2024, a €5 environmental fee is applied to each article of clothing, set to rise to €10 by 2030. Advertising for such products—both online and offline—has also been banned.

EU Considers Repealing Duty-Free Threshold

The European Commission is also working to eliminate the €150 duty-free threshold altogether. According to a statement, this reform targets Chinese e-commerce platforms such as AliExpress, Temu, and Shein, which have faced growing scrutiny for violating EU safety standards. The EU cited public health and safety risks, noting a sharp increase in unsafe product reports across the bloc.

In 2023 alone, over 3,400 hazardous products were identified, marking a 50% year-on-year surge. A notable case involved the European Toy Industry group, which claimed that none of the 19 toys ordered from Temu met EU safety regulations—and that 18 posed direct risks to children.

E-Commerce Giants Continue to Thrive in Europe

Despite regulatory crackdowns, Chinese cross-border e-commerce platforms continue to flourish in Europe. During the 2023 holiday shopping season, platforms like AliExpress, Temu, and Shein dominated app store rankings in countries such as France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Alibaba International reported that its gross merchandise volume (GMV) rose 30% year-on-year since December, with nearly 40% growth in transaction volume across Europe.

These platforms are also innovating with a “semi-consignment” or “one-stop” fulfillment model that streamlines operations, warehousing, promotion, shipping, and customer service—lowering entry barriers for third-party sellers and improving operational efficiency.

The expansion of Chinese platforms abroad is strongly supported by Beijing. In December 2023, China’s Ministry of Commerce unveiled a policy package to stabilize foreign trade, including provisions to boost cross-border e-commerce and smart logistics infrastructure. The plan includes regulatory support for overseas warehousing and legal, tax, and compliance services to help domestic firms enter and grow in foreign markets.

This strategic alignment between government policy and platform innovation has allowed China’s digital retail giants to circumvent traditional trade restrictions and gain a foothold in foreign consumer markets—even as regulatory scrutiny in the West intensifies.

The two countries remain on parallel paths regarding key issues.
China: “The U.S. is violating market principles.”
Messages bordering on threats, beyond mere pressure.

Although both Washington and Beijing insist that tariff negotiations are underway, the reality beneath the surface is far more combative. What is being described diplomatically as dialogue increasingly resembles a geopolitical face-off—a battle not just over economic policy, but over pride, image, and national standing. On paper, the two countries are still at the negotiating table. In practice, they have dug into hardened positions, trading blame and escalating threats in what now looks like a full-blown strategic confrontation.

The U.S. is intensifying its pressure with punitive tariff hikes, while China has launched a formal counterattack through a methodical, logic-laden government report. These actions mark a shift from traditional trade negotiation into a high-stakes game of economic brinkmanship—one where neither side appears ready to compromise and both are increasingly preoccupied with saving face in front of their domestic and global audiences.

Trading Tables Turn to Podiums: Washington Shifts Blame, Beijing Pushes Back

On April 29, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent drove a wedge further into the strained relations by highlighting the vast trade imbalance between the two countries. “China exports five times more to the U.S. than we export to them,” he said in an interview with CNBC. He argued that the 125% and 145% tariffs in place are not America’s burden to ease, implying instead that it is China that must act. His message was unmistakable: the path to de-escalation starts with Beijing, not Washington.

This position stood in sharp contrast to President Donald Trump’s earlier remarks, where he suggested that talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping were happening “daily” and progressing. But China dismissed Trump’s statement as “fake news,” signaling frustration with what it saw as insincere posturing. Some analysts interpreted Trump’s remarks as a softening gesture to soothe markets, but Bessent’s tone suggested that the U.S. government is moving away from China as a priority and toward other trade partners.

Indeed, Bessent openly stated that the U.S. is pivoting toward faster agreements with other nations, especially in Asia. “China, which retaliated with its own tariffs, can be set aside,” he remarked. “Many Asian countries are coming to the table with meaningful solutions to this fairness issue.” Among them, India was singled out as a strong candidate for the first new trade agreement under the revised U.S. strategy. Meanwhile, Japan, despite early expectations, appears to be proceeding more cautiously. Economic Revitalization Minister Ryosei Akazawa's mid-April visit to Washington ended without resolution, reportedly due to Tokyo’s commitment to protecting its own industries rather than yielding to American demands.

China Fights Back with Data, Reports, and Market Logic

Unlike the more confrontational American approach, China has opted to build its case through documentation and logic. On April 9, the Chinese State Council’s Information Office released a 22-page white paper titled “China’s Position on Certain Issues in China-U.S. Economic and Trade Relations.” Rather than focusing on emotion or ideology, the report presents an argument grounded in economics and legality, accusing the United States of violating market economy principles and undermining global trade norms.

The report begins by painting a picture of longstanding cooperation between the two nations, emphasizing the mutual benefits of trade. It points out that U.S. exports to China surged 648.4% from 2001, when China joined the World Trade Organization, to 2024—rising from $19.18 billion to $143.55 billion. This growth, it notes, vastly outpaces the 183.1% increase in America’s overall global exports during the same period. The data supports Beijing’s claim that economic ties between the two countries have historically been productive and mutually beneficial.

More significantly, the report accuses the U.S. of failing to uphold the commitments it made under the Phase One trade deal signed in January 2020. While that agreement was meant to serve as a truce after 18 months of escalating tariff warfare, Beijing argues that it has fulfilled its obligations while Washington has fallen short. The document goes further to explain why Chinese companies are reluctant to import more American goods—claiming that many of them are overpriced and lack competitiveness in terms of quality and safety.

It cites soybeans and beef as examples, arguing that Chinese firms see no reason to pay nearly 50% more for U.S. agricultural goods when comparable products from South America are available at a lower cost. This technical, data-driven approach allows China to frame its stance not as resistance, but as market rationality. It also positions Beijing as the more rules-oriented party in contrast to Washington’s increasingly aggressive posture.

The “Game of Chicken” Turns into a Trade War Escalation

The trade conflict escalated sharply on April 15 when the White House announced that it would impose tariffs as high as 245% on Chinese exports—a dramatic jump from the previously announced 145% just five days earlier. While the administration did not specify which goods would be affected, the message was clear: this was not a symbolic warning. It was a deliberate effort to inflict pain, potentially tantamount to a trade ban.

Local media outlets in the U.S. and Asia quickly interpreted the move as a sign that traditional trade diplomacy had been abandoned in favor of a zero-sum strategy. The Trump administration appears to be employing a systemic approach to force China into concessions—not through negotiation, but through sheer economic pressure. This is not just a tariff dispute—it’s a calculated escalation designed to isolate and constrain China.

Beijing, unsurprisingly, has not backed down. Officials have said they are “not afraid of a fight,” and China’s posture remains firm. But market analysts warn that China’s export-reliant economic model leaves it vulnerable to prolonged U.S. pressure. The U.S. consumer market continues to serve as a lifeline for Chinese manufacturers, and entrenched high tariffs could ripple through China’s supply chains, leading to job losses and long-term structural disruptions.

The U.S. is not immune to blowback either. While calls to “replace Chinese goods” resonate politically, the reality of global supply chains is far more complicated. Finding cheaper, scalable alternatives is not easy. The imposition of steep tariffs could fuel inflation at home, driving up costs for consumers and triggering political backlash—a risk that grows as the 2026 election cycle nears.

Diplomats and observers now widely describe the situation as a classic game of chicken: both nations accelerating toward economic collision, daring the other to flinch first. But unlike in theory, this game comes with very real costs. For the U.S., it's rising prices and political peril. For China, it’s a drag on exports and rising unemployment. With national pride steering both sides, the route to compromise is narrowing—and the stakes are only getting higher.

Korean Air Moves Toward Reentry into Russian Airspace
Hyundai and Kia Also Eyeing Return to Russian Market
China Occupies Russian Market Vacated by Korean Firms

As the war between Russia and Ukraine edges toward a potential ceasefire, South Korea’s major corporations are quietly positioning themselves for a strategic return to the Russian market. From aviation to electronics to the automotive industry, signs are emerging that Korean firms are preparing to reclaim the foothold they lost amid wartime sanctions and operational suspensions. However, reentering Russia will not be a simple return—it will be a battle to regain market share from China, whose brands have filled the void left by retreating Western companies. Despite the complexity and risks, the potential economic rewards appear to justify the quiet flurry of diplomatic, logistical, and industrial activity now underway.

Behind-the-Scenes Negotiations for Route Resumption, with Diplomatic and Government Support

One of the most symbolic signs of re-engagement comes from the skies. Korean Air, South Korea’s flagship carrier, has initiated behind-the-scenes talks with Russian authorities to reopen flight routes that pass through Russian airspace—a key corridor for efficient travel to Europe and beyond. According to government and industry sources, the airline is pursuing a dual strategy: resolving previously imposed fines by Russian customs authorities and securing early access to vital air corridors in anticipation of a post-war environment.

These fines—amounting to several hundred billion won—were levied in 2022 after the outbreak of the war, at a time when relations between South Korea and Russia sharply deteriorated. To facilitate dialogue, South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport have stepped in to mediate. A senior transport ministry official acknowledged that the government is actively making “practical preparations” for a scenario in which diplomatic relations normalize and access to Russian airspace becomes feasible again.

This diplomatic movement appears to be part of a broader shift. Russia has reportedly proposed to the U.S.—a key interlocutor in ceasefire negotiations—that direct air routes between the two countries be reopened under the condition of a ceasefire or peace agreement. If the U.S. lifts its ban on Russian airspace, industry experts believe that European nations might follow, paving the way for a wider relaxation of restrictions. For South Korean airlines, this would be a critical development. While they are not directly banned from Russian airspace, they have voluntarily rerouted flights to avoid potential secondary sanctions from Western allies. These detours cost time—roughly two additional hours per flight—and money, with annual fuel costs increasing by hundreds of billions of won.

Although Korean Air has stated it is not yet at the point of resuming operations through Russian airspace, it has signaled its readiness to act quickly once the geopolitical climate allows. The stakes are high: resuming access to Russia’s vast airspace could yield significant logistical and financial gains for Korean carriers and reintegrate South Korea into efficient global flight networks.

South Korean Conglomerates Begin Restarting Factories in Russia

Beyond aviation, South Korean industrial giants are cautiously testing the waters for a return to Russia’s consumer market. Among them, LG Electronics has emerged as a leading indicator of what may become a broader re-engagement. The company has quietly restarted partial operations at its factory in Dorokhovo, in the Ruza district of Moscow Oblast. The move is not yet a full-scale production restart, but rather a cautious effort to revive aging equipment and make use of inventory stockpiled since operations were halted at the war’s onset.

This development follows comments from Kusein Imanov, founder of the Russian electronics company Zakiss, who told national newspaper Kommersant in March that LG is likely to be the first major foreign supplier to return to Russia officially. Before suspending operations in February 2022, LG had commanded roughly 25–26% of the Russian washing machine and refrigerator market. The recent partial restart of the factory suggests that LG may be warming up for a full-scale reentry should sanctions ease and conditions improve.

CEO Cho Joo-wan of LG Electronics emphasized that the company is still “monitoring the situation with caution,” stopping short of confirming a full return. Nonetheless, the symbolic and operational implications of restarting even part of a shuttered factory suggest that LG is preparing to move swiftly when the time is right.

Hyundai Motor Group is also drawing attention as a potential early mover in the post-war Russian economy. In late 2023, Hyundai sold its St. Petersburg plant to Russian venture capital firm ArtFinance for just 10,000 rubles (about 170,000 KRW), but crucially included a buyback clause allowing it to reclaim the plant within two years. With the repurchase window closing in December 2025, Hyundai has a strategic window in which to monitor developments and reenter the market on its own terms.

Before the war, Hyundai and its affiliate Kia were dominant players in Russia. In 2021, the two companies sold 357,000 vehicles, commanding a 21% share of the Russian car market. That same year, automobiles and auto parts made up over 40% of South Korea’s total exports to Russia, valued at $2.5 billion and $1.5 billion respectively. Hyundai’s potential return would not only restore a significant trade channel but also reshape competition in a market that has changed dramatically in the past three years.

Re-entry Strategy Needed for China-Dominated Russian Market

Yet the landscape awaiting Korean firms in Russia is no longer what it was. During the war, Chinese brands aggressively filled the vacuum left by global firms—including Hyundai and LG—leveraging both proximity and political alignment with Russia to expand their footprint.

According to an April report by the Korea Automobile Mobility Industry Association (KAMA), Chinese car exports to Russia skyrocketed from 154,000 in 2022 to 1.17 million in 2023, a staggering 7.6-fold increase. As a result, Chinese brands now dominate 60.4% of the Russian car market, up from just 8% in 2021. Data from Russian auto analytics firm Autostat shows that 8 of the top 10 best-selling brands in 2023 were Chinese, including names like Haval, Chery, and Geely.

This dominance extends beyond automobiles. In the home appliance sector, brands from China, Türkiye, and Belarus now collectively control over 40% of the market. The vacuum left by Samsung and LG was quickly filled by imports from countries not subject to Western sanctions, making it considerably more difficult for Korean firms to regain their former stronghold.

An industry insider acknowledged the uphill battle ahead: “Since the war, Korean firms have drastically reduced production in Russia, and Chinese firms stepped in to fill the gap. We’ll have to watch the situation closely until sanctions are officially lifted, but once that happens, there will be an opportunity for Korean companies to recover lost ground.”

In short, a return to the Russian market will require more than reopening factories or flight paths. It will demand carefully crafted strategies, nimble diplomacy, and a willingness to compete against entrenched players who have used wartime disruptions to solidify their dominance. Still, as geopolitical conditions shift and diplomatic negotiations progress, Korean firms may find that the door to Russia is not closed—it’s simply harder to open than before.

UK Youth Shun Jobs Offering Less Than £40,000 a Year
Job Market Mismatch Deepens Youth Employment Crisis in South Korea
Wages Below Reservation Threshold Offer No Real Solution

Across the globe, young people are turning their backs on the job market—not out of apathy or laziness, but because the labor market is increasingly failing to offer them jobs that are worth taking. From the United Kingdom to South Korea and beyond, a quiet rebellion is taking place, rooted in dissatisfaction with stagnant wages, precarious job conditions, and the psychological toll of unfulfilling work. This phenomenon is not isolated, nor is it temporary. It is symptomatic of deeper structural issues in modern labor systems, driven by rising global competition, technological disruption, and the erosion of employment quality.

At the heart of this issue lies a key concept from labor economics: the reservation wage—the minimum amount of income a person is willing to accept in exchange for their time and labor. As more young people conclude that available jobs do not meet this threshold, they are choosing instead to “rest,” study further, or retreat from the workforce altogether. This growing wave of youth detachment reflects a serious economic and social challenge facing both advanced and developing economies alike.

The British Example: High Expectations, Low Rewards

In the United Kingdom, the mismatch between what young people expect and what the labor market delivers has reached a tipping point. Employment advisor Graham Cowley, speaking to the UK House of Lords, reported that unemployed young people increasingly refuse job offers that pay less than £40,000 per year (approximately 77 million KRW or 6.41 million KRW per month). His claim, initially met with skepticism, reflected a sobering truth: the traditional labor market no longer appeals to many young Britons.

Cowley noted that these young individuals are often digitally connected and socially active but see little incentive to accept jobs that fail to meet their financial or lifestyle expectations. “You may laugh,” he said, “but this is the reality.” Lord David Leonard Watts supported this view, stating that today’s youth are not irrational; they simply perceive that low-income jobs offer no future, and so they lower their ambitions or disengage altogether.

The data supports their concerns. As of the third quarter of 2024, the UK's Office for National Statistics (ONS) recorded 946,000 young people aged 16–24 as NEETs (Not in Education, Employment, or Training). This marks the highest level since the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis. Nearly 60% of these NEETs are men, and the majority—around 595,000—are not actively seeking work. Only about 392,000 are classified as unemployed in the formal sense, meaning they are willing and trying to find jobs.

This growing number of economically inactive youth signals more than a temporary pause; it is a sign of eroded trust in the labor system. For many, the risk of psychological burnout, low wages, and stalled mobility outweighs the perceived benefits of employment.

South Korea’s Youth: Opting Out of a Broken System

Thousands of miles away, South Korea faces a strikingly similar crisis. According to the Ministry of Employment and Labor, the country's youth employment rate dropped to 44.5% in March 2025, continuing an 11-month downward trend. Meanwhile, youth unemployment climbed to 7.5%, the highest in eight months. Perhaps more revealing is the number of “resting youth” now counted at 455,000—young individuals who are neither employed nor actively seeking jobs, despite being capable of working.

Unlike traditional definitions of unemployment, this group includes people who are deliberately choosing to step away from the labor force without medical or familial impediments. As Korean society becomes increasingly competitive and stressful, the concept of “쉬었음” (resting) has emerged to describe young people who disengage for psychological, economic, or existential reasons.

Experts trace this disengagement to a declining number of stable, high-quality jobs. One labor market analyst emphasized that “job mismatch” is the core issue. The public and large private sectors, traditionally offering secure, well-paid roles, have slashed recruitment. This has raised barriers to entry and left young people feeling powerless and frustrated. The result? A steady rise in those who have given up on finding a meaningful job.

A 2024 report from the Bank of Korea sheds further light. It found that 32.4% of young people who were “resting” had done so voluntarily due to their inability to find jobs that matched their preferences or qualifications—much higher than the 20.1% among those aged 35–39. Many others had been pushed out of undesirable roles in small- and mid-sized firms or low-paying, face-to-face service industries.

A Global Crisis: Youth and the New Economics of Work

What’s unfolding in the UK and South Korea is not unique—it is part of a global labor crisis that is redefining the future of work. Youth unemployment and disengagement are rising in countries as diverse as Japan, Spain, Brazil, and South Africa. In Southern Europe, youth unemployment remains stubbornly high. In the U.S., labor force participation among those under 30 has yet to recover to pre-pandemic levels, despite a low national unemployment rate. In Japan, the long-standing issue of "freeters"—young people working in temporary or part-time jobs without career prospects—has become institutionalized.

Underlying this global pattern is a harsh economic reality: job markets are becoming increasingly competitive due to globalization, automation, and corporate cost-cutting. In an effort to remain viable in international markets, companies are outsourcing labor, adopting AI, and minimizing full-time employment—all of which lead to fewer high-quality opportunities for domestic workers, especially young ones. As global firms race to the bottom in wage and labor costs, national labor markets struggle to retain their youngest and brightest talent.

The reservation wage offers a clear lens for understanding this shift. As the minimum compensation a worker requires to give up leisure and engage in labor, the reservation wage has been steadily rising—especially among younger generations who value work-life balance, purpose, and personal well-being more than previous cohorts. If available jobs fall below this wage—whether in terms of pay, benefits, or dignity—many simply opt out.

Moreover, the internet has dramatically changed how leisure is valued. Young people can now earn money, build communities, or learn new skills online—sometimes without needing formal employment at all. As the opportunity cost of traditional work increases, especially when jobs are unfulfilling or underpaid, the incentive to engage in the labor market weakens.

The result is a systemic failure across multiple economies. Governments are not generating enough attractive employment. Employers are not meeting the expectations of a more informed and empowered workforce. And young people, caught in between, are choosing to retreat.

Today’s global youth are sending a clear message: employment must offer more than just survival—it must provide dignity, growth, and a real future. The crises in the UK and South Korea, mirrored in labor markets around the world, highlight the urgent need for new policies and economic models that address the evolving nature of work. These include wage reforms, youth-focused employment programs, mental health support, and a revaluation of labor in the context of automation and global competition.

Unless these challenges are met head-on, countries risk losing a generation—not to unemployment, but to disillusionment. And the cost of that loss, in both human and economic terms, could be profound.

Warm Welcome on the Surface, Complex Calculations Behind the Scenes
Firm Line Drawn Against Overt Anti-U.S. Alliances
Significant Impact on Supply Chains and Trade Order

As trade tensions between the United States and China escalate, largely triggered by tariffs, Chinese President Xi Jinping has completed a tour of three Southeast Asian countries—Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia. While these nations gave Xi a warm welcome on the surface, they were cautious about forming any overt anti-U.S. alliance, revealing a more complex underlying stance. Facing the dual realities of China's economic slowdown and their heavy reliance on exports to the U.S., Southeast Asian countries appear to be choosing a path of balance rather than aligning with either side.

Strategic Caution Amid U.S.-China Tensions

According to international media reports on April 29, Chinese President Xi Jinping concluded a five-day diplomatic tour of Southeast Asia, visiting Vietnam on April 14, Malaysia on April 15, and Cambodia on April 18. During this trip, he signed a combined 113 cooperation agreements—45 with Vietnam, 31 with Malaysia, and 37 with Cambodia.

The signed agreements span critical areas such as supply chain resilience, cooperation on critical minerals, cross-border railway infrastructure, digital economy and AI technology exchange, and visa exemptions (notably with Malaysia). Reuters characterized Xi’s tour as a countermeasure to growing U.S. economic pressure, aiming to bolster China’s ties with key Southeast Asian nations and offset American influence in the region.

Xi implicitly criticized the Trump administration’s trade policies in his post-summit remarks, declaring in Vietnam that “no one wins a tariff war,” and in Malaysia that China opposes “hegemonism and protectionism,” while endorsing a UN-centered international order and open global economy. The statements were widely seen as an effort to present China as a champion of multilateralism in contrast to what it sees as U.S. unilateralism.

However, Xi’s hopes of rallying a regional anti-U.S. front were unmet. The three Southeast Asian nations responded with caution, emphasizing non-aligned positions in their joint statements using generalized language such as “support for multilateral trade,” “inclusive regional cooperation,” and “respect for international law.” This reflects a long-standing strategy of diplomatic balance in the region.

South Korea and Japan Welcome Southeast Asia’s Neutrality

This diplomatic restraint by Southeast Asian nations is viewed positively by South Korea and Japan. As global manufacturers shift production away from China to Southeast Asia, maintaining regional neutrality is vital to sustaining a stable and diversified supply chain environment.

Southeast Asia already serves as a secondary manufacturing hub for many Korean firms—Samsung Electronics’ smartphone production lines in Vietnam being a prominent example. Should host nations draw too close to China politically, these networks could face heightened geopolitical risks. A balanced foreign policy in Southeast Asia ensures continued operational security, an increasingly crucial factor for Korean manufacturers.

Japan, facing its own recurring diplomatic strains with China, has long treated supply chain diversification in Southeast Asia as a corporate survival strategy. For Japanese firms to expand confidently in the region, maintaining political distance between Southeast Asia and Beijing is essential. In effect, Southeast Asia’s independent diplomacy acts as an economic safety buffer for both South Korea and Japan.

A Key Variable in U.S.-China Trade Negotiations

Beyond regional dynamics, Southeast Asia’s positioning has far-reaching implications for U.S.-China relations. Amid an ongoing tariff war, the region serves multiple strategic roles: as a supply chain alternative, a trade detour route, and a diplomatic buffer. Shifts in Southeast Asian alignment could significantly affect the leverage each superpower holds in negotiations.

Vietnam's effective rejection of Xi’s call for an anti-U.S. alliance, while reaffirming its special relationship with Washington, sends a strong signal. It demonstrates a preference for maintaining robust economic and security ties with the U.S.—a stance that could shift regional power dynamics. Other nations, such as the Philippines and Indonesia, have also shown reluctance to engage in unqualified cooperation with Beijing.

Given Southeast Asia’s role in semiconductor, electronics, and textile supply chains—as both a key intermediary and final assembly hub—its strategic value is only increasing. For the U.S., strengthening ties in the region is essential to countering China. For China, failure to secure these alliances risks strategic isolation. This delicate balancing act has effectively placed Southeast Asia in the role of global “swing state” in the unfolding U.S.-China rivalry.

Tariffs on Chinese batteries soar from 11% to 155.9%, hitting 173% next year.
U.S. security fears fuel a shift, tilting the market in South Korea’s favor.
The global ESS market is set to double within five years.

As global renewable energy adoption and data center demand surge, the market for energy storage systems (ESS) is expanding rapidly, with expectations that South Korean firms may seize new opportunities. Analysts suggest the ongoing tariff war is shifting the balance of competition between Chinese and Korean ESS companies in Korea’s favor.

U.S. Tariff Hike on Chinese Batteries Reaches 173%, Opening Doors for Korea

On the 28th, the Financial Times reported that rising tariffs on Chinese-made batteries—currently dominating the global ESS market—are creating an opening for Korean companies in U.S. and European markets. Korean firms once led with high-nickel battery tech but lost ground to China’s cheaper and now more efficient LFP batteries. China’s CATL currently controls a dominant share of both the ESS and EV battery markets, capturing 90% of industry profits.

Chinese batteries make up around 90% of the global ESS market and hold 80% and 75% shares in the U.S. and Europe respectively. Bernstein Research’s Neil Beveridge noted that Chinese and Korean ESS firms are on "two divergent paths," emphasizing CATL’s unmatched scale and efficiency.

However, with Donald Trump beginning a second term, the landscape has shifted. U.S. tariffs on Chinese batteries have risen to 155.9% and are expected to reach 173.4% next year. Growing national security concerns have led to bans on Chinese batteries at military facilities and may soon extend to civilian power grid projects.

LG Energy Solution and Samsung SDI Expand ESS Orders

This shift has created momentum for Korean firms. LG Energy Solution secured two major ESS contracts late last year and two more already in 2025, including deals with Taiwan’s Delta Electronics and Poland’s state-owned utility PGE. Samsung SDI recently signed a $280 million ESS supply deal with U.S. firm NextEra Energy, part of a larger $700 million agreement. SK On also plans to enter the U.S. ESS market this year, according to its CEO.

China Still Competitive, but Korea Gains Ground

While earlier large-scale renewable projects were slow to start, orders are now ramping up, especially with the rapid growth of AI data centers, which require a reliable energy supply. ESS plays a key role in stabilizing power for these operations. Big tech firms like Google and Amazon are integrating ESS and solar into their infrastructure.

The North American market is particularly promising. According to Global Market Insights, the U.S. ESS market is projected to grow from $106.7 billion in 2024 to $263.5 billion by 2032. Globally, ESS has grown from 5% of the battery market in 2020 to 20% today, with total storage capacity rising 52% between 2023 and 2024. By 2030, storage capacity is expected to more than double—from 340 GWh to 760 GWh—equivalent to powering 7.6 million EVs.

However, experts caution that China’s low battery costs—about $80 per kWh compared to $130–140 in other countries—mean it could retain market share despite 150%+ tariffs. UBS analyst Tim Bush noted that while Korean firms like LG and Samsung SDI could gain ground, they’ve yet to prove competitiveness in mass-scale LFP battery production and pricing.

Dismissal of poll credibility highlights a scramble to win public support.
Tax cuts aimed at ordinary citizens backfire, weakening their purchasing power.
Distortion of market price signals is now fully underway

As U.S. President Donald Trump marks his 100th day in office, his aggressive tariff policies are drawing growing criticism from both the public and the market. Faced with mounting discontent over surging living costs, the Trump administration has attempted to deflect criticism with pledges of income tax cuts and repeated claims that unfavorable polls are inaccurate. Yet for many Americans, economic hardship has become impossible to ignore.

Trump Dismisses Tariff Fallout, Labels Polls ‘Fake’

According to reports on April 28 (local time), Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social, claiming that tariffs would reduce or even eliminate income taxes for many, particularly those earning less than $200,000 per year. He added that numerous factories are being built in the U.S., framing it as a major opportunity for the country.

These statements appear to be a response to worsening public opinion. A recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Trump’s approval rating at just 39%—the lowest for any U.S. president at the 100-day mark in the past 80 years. A CNN poll similarly recorded a 41% approval, the lowest since 1953.

The decline in support is attributed to backlash over Trump’s economic, immigration, and foreign policies. His sweeping tariff hikes, federal budget cuts, and pressure on institutions like Harvard University have drawn sharp criticism. In the Washington Post poll, 60% of respondents said Trump is abusing his power, while 63% felt his administration does not respect the rule of law.

Rather than directly addressing these criticisms, Trump has chosen to attack the credibility of public opinion surveys and media outlets. Calling them “fake news,” he suggested they be investigated for electoral fraud and accused them of suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Despite claiming near-total success on border policy, he criticized the media for focusing only on negative stories, arguing that misinformation is the real enemy of the American people.

Tax Cuts Fall Short as Costs Rise for Working Americans

To counter the growing unpopularity of his tariffs, Trump is once again promoting income tax cuts. His argument: that tax relief will offset inflation driven by tariffs. While framed as a benefit for working-class Americans, experts say the reality is more complex. Because lower-income groups already pay minimal income tax, they receive little actual benefit from the cuts.

Meanwhile, these same groups are most vulnerable to rising prices, especially for essential goods. As their disposable income shrinks, the tax cuts do little to ease their financial burden. Analysts argue that any gains from tax relief are quickly erased by the broader cost of living increases. As a result, working-class Americans could end up facing greater overall financial strain.

Trump’s tariff policy may thus hit the working class twice—first through higher daily expenses, and second through weakened government finances. As tax revenues fall, public services and social welfare programs could face cuts, disproportionately affecting those who rely on them most. Critics warn that this combination of external taxation through tariffs and internal budget tightening could worsen income inequality and saddle low-income Americans with hidden financial burdens.

Warning Signs Emerge Across the Economy

Early signs of economic strain are already surfacing. The logistics and trade sectors have been among the first hit, with the Port of Baltimore—a major hub on the East Coast—reporting a sharp drop in imports and mounting logistical complications. Long known for handling the highest cargo volume in the U.S. for 13 consecutive years since 2011, the port is now grappling with rising transport costs and shipment delays.

As the administration’s stance on tariffs fluctuates, more companies are turning to Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs) to temporarily store imports and avoid immediate duties. Larisa Salamacha, an executive at the Baltimore Development Corporation, noted that “a significant volume of imports offloaded at the Port of Baltimore now heads straight to FTZs, with many firms waiting at least a month to see how the tariff situation unfolds.”

Experts warn that tariff uncertainty is undermining business confidence and discouraging investment in production, hiring, and infrastructure. While tariffs may reduce the headline trade deficit in the short term, they risk weakening the broader economic foundation. Economists argue that in the long run, the self-inflicted harm could far outweigh any temporary gains. Trump's rhetoric of protecting domestic industry is increasingly viewed as a policy that destabilizes not only the U.S. economy, but the global economic system as well.

Used Car Prices and Sales Volume Rise Together in the U.S.
Car Prices Expected to Rise Due to Trump’s Tariff Policy
Trump Administration Proposes Measures to Ease Backlash Over Tariff Shock

Anxiety is sweeping across the American auto market as consumers scramble to secure used vehicles before a looming surge in car prices takes full effect. With the Trump administration’s sudden imposition of a 25% tariff on foreign-made automobiles, a ripple effect is reshaping the industry. Dealers are rushing to bolster their inventories, consumers are turning away from expensive new models, and fears are mounting that the country could soon experience a severe squeeze on both supply and affordability. Against this backdrop, experts believe that the U.S. used car market’s current boom is not just a short-lived reaction, but the beginning of a broader and sustained shift in consumer behavior.

Surge in U.S. Used Car Demand

The U.S. used car market has ignited with unprecedented speed. According to automotive industry sources on the 29th, the Mannheim Used Vehicle Value Index, compiled by leading research firm Cox Automotive, recorded a figure of 207.1 as of mid-month — the highest level observed since October 2023, when the index stood at 209.4. The Mannheim Index, a respected barometer of used vehicle pricing, tracks over 5 million transactions monthly, anchoring its baseline to January 1997 (set at 100).

The root of the index's steep climb lies within the wholesale vehicle sector. Jeremy Robb, Senior Director at Cox Automotive, explained that the wholesale market underwent dramatic changes at the end of the previous month and the start of the current one, corresponding closely with the implementation of the new tariffs. Dealers, bracing for a surge in consumer demand, moved aggressively to replenish their inventories, propelling wholesale prices — and thus the Mannheim Index — upward.

Parallel to the rising index, used car sales themselves surged sharply. According to Cox Automotive’s data, used vehicle sales in the U.S. reached 1.66 million units last month, marking the highest monthly sales figure since 2021. Inventory levels tightened significantly, with the average days a car remained on the lot shrinking from 43 days last month to just 39 days this month. Even more striking, used cars priced at $15,000 (about 21 million KRW) or less saw their turnover periods collapse to a mere 28 days — clear evidence of intense demand at the lower end of the market.

New Car Prices Expected to Rise

The fervor in the used car market shows little sign of abating, largely because the Trump administration’s tariff strategy has dramatically heightened the prospects of new car price increases. Analysts at Cox Automotive project that if no exemptions are made for vehicles imported from Canada and Mexico, prices for American-made cars will climb by approximately $3,000 (about 4.3 million KRW), while Canadian- and Mexican-made vehicles could see jumps of around $6,000 (approximately 8.6 million KRW).

Jonathan Smoke, Chief Economist at Cox Automotive, warned of a cascading effect: over the long term, vehicle sales are expected to decrease, while prices for both new and used vehicles will steadily climb. He emphasized that automakers would likely experience declining profit margins, scaled-back production levels, and looming supply shortages — creating a market dynamic eerily reminiscent of the disruptions experienced in 2021 during the height of pandemic-driven shortages.

Reacting to the tariff-driven cost pressures, major automakers are already preparing price hikes. Ford has signaled that if tariff policies remain unchanged, prices for vehicles produced beginning next month will rise, with the effects becoming apparent to consumers by the end of June. Volkswagen, which initially committed to freezing prices through next month, has announced that starting in June, it too will reassess and adjust its pricing to accommodate the additional costs brought on by the tariffs.

U.S. Government Moves to Adjust Tariff Policy

As the automotive sector grapples with the shockwaves of the tariff announcement, American media outlets have unleashed a wave of criticism, questioning the broader economic logic behind the policy. On the 28th, ABC News reported that the tariffs would ultimately hurt American consumers the most, forecasting that vehicle prices could rise by an average of $5,000 to $10,000 (about 7.2 million to 14.4 million KRW) per unit. Analysts predict that many consumers, faced with skyrocketing costs, will continue to flood the used car market in search of more affordable options.

Beyond the cost of new and used cars, ABC News also flagged additional financial burdens stemming from the policy. Since tariffs are being applied not only to completed vehicles but also to imported auto parts, vehicle repair costs are expected to rise significantly. This, in turn, is likely to push up insurance premiums, creating an added layer of financial strain for consumers.

California-based NBC affiliate KSBY echoed these concerns, highlighting the domino effect: escalating new car prices leading to higher used car prices, followed by more expensive repairs due to part shortages, all culminating in increased insurance costs. In interviews, used car dealers voiced fears that consumers would increasingly delay purchasing new vehicles, opting instead to hold onto their aging cars for longer periods — potentially depressing overall automotive sales volumes.

Under mounting pressure from critics and industry stakeholders, the Trump administration has begun exploring ways to cushion the blow. According to a Wall Street Journal report on the 28th, the U.S. government is preparing to prevent double tariffs from being applied to products already subject to duties, such as steel and aluminum. The planned measure will be retroactive, allowing companies that have paid overlapping tariffs to seek refunds.

Additionally, the administration is revising the 25% tariff on foreign-made auto parts originally set to take effect on June 3. Under the new terms, automakers will be eligible for refunds equivalent to 3.75% of a U.S.-made car’s value during the first year following tariff enforcement. In the second year, the refund rate will be reduced to 2.75%, offering manufacturers some measure of relief as they navigate the evolving economic landscape.