This article is based on ideas originally published by VoxEU – Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) and has been independently rewritten and extended by The Economy editorial team. While inspired by the original analysis, the content presented here reflects a broader interpretation and additional commentary. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of VoxEU or CEPR.
CXMT DDR5 Faces Yield Risk Leakage Current and Signal Integrity Defects Identified Samsung and SK Hynix Expected to Benefit Indirectly
A shift in the global memory chip market is underway, sparked not by innovation, but by a crisis. Chinese memory manufacturer CXMT (Changxin Memory Technologies) has encountered quality issues with its DDR5 products—an event now sending ripples through the industry. The immediate consequence has been a rebound in DDR5 prices, but the broader impact hints at strategic realignments and potential windfalls for South Korea’s leading chipmakers, Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix. As the disruption deepens and CXMT scrambles for solutions, questions emerge: can Korea capitalize on this momentary advantage, and how long will it last?
In late March, the spot price of DDR5 (16Gb 2Gx8), a new generation DRAM used in high-performance PCs, climbed to $4.25—a sharp 11.84% increase from the previous month, according to DRAMeXchange. The price premium over legacy DDR4 also edged higher, rising from 38% to 39%.
At the heart of this surge are CXMT’s production woes. The company’s newly mass-produced 1b nanometer DDR5 chips have shown abnormally high leakage current between cells, compromising performance. Some units also demonstrated instability under high-speed operations, failing to meet customer testing standards and prompting buyers to search for alternative suppliers.
An industry expert pointed out the technical challenges inherent in CXMT's process: the 1b nanometer generation introduces tighter spacing between cells, which increases the difficulty of controlling electrical interference and leakage current. While CXMT has proven itself with LPDDR4 and DDR4, it lacks the large-scale manufacturing experience required for high-speed DDR5.
This gap in expertise is becoming evident. DDR5’s data transfer speeds are more than double those of DDR4, meaning stability in fine process nodes is crucial. Korean manufacturers have honed their technologies through years of validation and testing, but CXMT, still new to the DDR5 segment, is encountering the growing pains of mass production. The company began DDR5 output after launching mobile LPDDR5 in November 2023 and currently achieves a chip yield of around 80%, according to Zhongguancun Online. By comparison, Samsung and SK Hynix maintain yields closer to 90%.
Compounding the issue, CXMT relies on deep ultraviolet (DUV) lithography, not the more advanced extreme ultraviolet (EUV) process used by its Korean rivals. DUV, while adequate for older nodes, struggles with the precision demands of cutting-edge DRAM like DDR5. Industry consensus holds that resolving the defects may require several months of cell redesign and process optimization.
With confidence shaken, some customers have begun suspending orders from CXMT and turning instead to Samsung and SK Hynix—companies known for reliable, high-yield production. These Korean firms, already established leaders in high-bandwidth memory (HBM) and DDR5, are now in a prime position to absorb the redirected demand, particularly from AI servers and advanced data centers where stability and performance are paramount.
Despite its current setbacks, CXMT is aggressively scaling its output, raising concerns that the Korean memory duopoly may not maintain its edge for long. Market research firm Omdia projects that CXMT’s DRAM production will reach 2.73 million wafers in 2025—a 68% jump from last year’s 1.62 million. This far exceeds earlier forecasts of a 20% increase and encompasses both DDR4 and DDR5 production.
Should this growth continue, CXMT may soon rival U.S. chipmaker Micron in production volume and close the gap to about half of SK Hynix’s capacity. Analysts predict that within the next one to two years, the DRAM market could evolve from its current three-player dynamic into a more competitive four-way structure, potentially ushering in a new era of oversupply.
This shift is already underway. In the first quarter of 2024, CXMT doubled its monthly DRAM output to 200,000 wafers—up from 100,000 wafers a year earlier—and is expected to reach 300,000 wafers per month by 2026. While DDR4 remains its primary product, DDR5 production is clearly part of CXMT’s long-term strategy.
The company’s aggressive DDR4 ramp-up last year triggered a wave of price cuts that shook the market and fractured the 15-year dominance of Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron. Even Samsung and SK Hynix acknowledged during earnings calls that competition from low-cost Chinese DRAM was impacting their bottom line.
Chinese consultancy Qianzhan reported that CXMT’s market share, which was virtually zero in 2020, rose to 5% by the end of 2024. TrendForce anticipates this figure could double to 12% by the end of 2025. According to Dan Hutcheson, Vice Chairman of TechInsights, CXMT’s growth is creating a “snowball effect” reminiscent of how South Korea once surpassed Japan in the memory sector.
CXMT’s rapid rise has not occurred in isolation—it is the product of a national strategy. Backed by the Chinese government’s "semiconductor rise" policy, CXMT has benefited from enormous subsidies, especially for domestic companies that adopt Chinese-made memory. These financial supports have fueled the firm’s expansion in both capacity and technological development.
Though its revenue-based market share remains modest at around 5%, CXMT’s impact is outsized due to its aggressive pricing tactics. These tactics have left competitors unable to engage in direct price wars, forcing them instead to refocus on advanced, premium-tier products.
This is a playbook China has used before. In the 2000s, Korea dominated the LCD display market until Chinese companies—designated as strategic by their government—ramped up production with state support. A flood of low-cost displays from China soon eroded Korea’s market position. Ultimately, Samsung Display and LG Display withdrew from the large LCD business altogether, shifting their focus to high-end technologies like OLED.
The semiconductor industry may now be witnessing a similar transformation. CXMT’s current quality issues provide Korean firms with a temporary reprieve, but with China’s backing and an aggressive growth trajectory, the global memory market could soon face renewed turbulence—and a redefined balance of power.
Production targets reduced and workforce reassigned to Model Y Tesla faces sharp decline in sales amid boycotts and recall crisis Cold reception even in the used car market
Once celebrated as a trailblazing icon of progressive innovation, Tesla is now weathering a storm of controversy, recalls, and consumer disillusionment. The company’s flagship electric pickup—the Cybertruck—once hailed as a futuristic marvel, has become emblematic of deeper woes surrounding its founder Elon Musk and his increasingly polarizing influence. From slashed production lines to acts of vandalism and public protests, Tesla’s fall from grace illustrates how quickly the tides can turn when public trust falters.
The Cybertruck made waves when it was first unveiled, generating global headlines and over a million pre-orders, according to CEO Elon Musk. But behind the hype, Tesla is now quietly scaling back its production. On April 17, Business Insider reported, citing several Tesla employees, that production targets for multiple Cybertruck assembly lines had been drastically lowered. Some production lines are barely operational, and since January, staff at Tesla's Texas Gigafactory have been reassigned from the Cybertruck line to focus on the more stable Model Y.
These adjustments are not without precedent. Reports show Tesla intermittently halted Cybertruck production as early as October 2023. In December, the company even issued internal surveys to reassign workers more efficiently. The reason behind these cutbacks is straightforward: sales are floundering. Market research from Cox Automotive revealed that Cybertruck sales in the first quarter of 2025 dropped to just 6,406 units—barely half of the previous quarter’s numbers. In stark contrast to its initial promise, Tesla has delivered fewer than 50,000 units so far, despite enormous early demand. Now burdened with $200 million worth of unsold inventory, the Cybertruck’s future looks increasingly uncertain.
Compounding Tesla’s troubles is the Cybertruck’s persistent quality issues. Marketed as a “bulletproof” beast, the vehicle has instead been plagued by embarrassing failures. Its 2019 debut became an internet spectacle when a live demonstration—intended to showcase the vehicle’s shatter-resistant windows—ended in disaster as a metal ball smashed the glass instantly.
Even after its long-delayed release in November 2023, the Cybertruck’s struggles continued. Within just six months, it has been recalled more than four times, with faults ranging from wiper motor failures and stuck accelerator pedals to jammed trunks and faulty trim. And the problems haven’t stopped there. A viral video last year captured a thief peeling off a Cybertruck window with his bare hands to steal a bag from inside. The vehicle’s owner, Anuj Thakkar, posted the footage online, voicing frustration that not only did the window come off so easily, but no alarm or phone alert was triggered. “Literally nothing happened until I discovered the damage,” he said, highlighting serious concerns about the truck’s security system.
Beyond mechanical issues, Tesla is also contending with a wave of public resentment directed at Elon Musk himself. His increasingly vocal political activity—particularly his associations with Donald Trump—has sparked fierce backlash among former supporters and progressive consumers. What began as dissatisfaction has escalated into outright hostility, including coordinated boycott efforts and even acts of arson.
One such incident occurred on March 3 at a Tesla charging station near Boston, where investigators determined that a deliberately set fire had caused extensive damage. The New York Times and other outlets linked the attack to growing anti-Musk sentiment. Elsewhere, Cybertruck owners have reported being publicly harassed—facing verbal abuse, graffiti, and even paintball assaults. “It’s shocking to be threatened just for driving my truck,” one owner said, adding that he frequently receives obscene gestures and insults while on the road. Another driver recounted a terrifying moment on the highway when a large truck refused to yield lanes, creating a dangerous situation.
The aggression hasn’t been isolated. On March 10, four Cybertrucks caught fire in a Seattle parking lot used for temporarily storing Tesla vehicles before delivery. Over 50 electric cars were parked at the site, but the Cybertrucks appeared to be specifically targeted. This climate of hostility has heavily impacted Cybertruck’s resale value—The Economic Times reports a 55% decline over the past year, with prices dropping over 10% more since the start of 2025.
Despite Musk’s pledge during a White House briefing to double U.S. vehicle production in the next two years, Tesla is facing intensifying competition, public protests outside its showrooms, and a crumbling stock price—down roughly 40% since January. Adding to the turbulence, a recent report by the Financial Times raised alarms over Tesla’s internal accounting practices, warning that its lax controls could indicate deeper vulnerabilities.
Once a symbol of the future, Tesla now finds itself at a crossroads—one shaped as much by mechanical missteps as by the divisive personality behind the brand. Whether it can regain its former luster remains to be seen.
Aftermath of the Xiaomi Electric Vehicle Crash That Killed 3: Debate on the Limits of Autonomous Driving Under Renewed Scrutiny The Essence of the Technology Remains at the Level of ‘Driver Assistance’
In a bold regulatory move that has captured the attention of the global automotive industry, the Chinese government has officially banned the use of phrases like “autonomous driving” and “smart driving” in automobile advertisements. Authorities argue that such terms foster misleading expectations among consumers—suggesting that vehicles can fully operate without human intervention. The sweeping ban applies to all manufacturers, from international giants like Tesla to homegrown tech disruptors like Xiaomi. At the heart of the decision lies growing concern that the illusion of self-driving technology is advancing faster than the technology itself, and with deadly consequences.
The urgency behind this policy shift was brought into sharp relief by a tragic crash involving Xiaomi’s first electric sedan, the SU7, in March. On the night of March 29, a high-speed accident on a highway in Anhui Province claimed the lives of three young passengers, including the driver, Mr. Luo. The vehicle had its Navigate on Autopilot (NOA) function activated and was traveling at 116 kilometers per hour when it issued a warning about an obstacle. Despite the driver's attempt to slow down manually, the car crashed into a guardrail just two seconds later. The impact triggered a battery explosion, setting the vehicle ablaze and leaving no survivors.
This incident shattered any lingering public confidence in the idea of safe, driverless travel. While automakers often describe NOA as a “driver assistance” feature, their marketing narratives frequently imply far greater autonomy. Consumers, drawn in by the allure of “autonomous driving,” entrust their safety to these systems, often unaware of their limitations. The fact that the SU7 was Xiaomi’s debut model only deepened concerns about the adequacy of its safety protocols. Unverified reports suggesting that the doors failed to unlock during the fire have further fueled scrutiny.
Responding swiftly, Chinese authorities issued new guidelines requiring manufacturers to provide clear and accurate descriptions of all intelligent features. Some local governments are also considering mandatory in-vehicle labels that explicitly define the operational limits of these technologies. The nationwide advertising ban on terms like “autonomous driving” and “smart driving” is a central element of this broader campaign. Officials have emphasized that the move is not targeted at individual companies but is instead aimed at rebuilding public trust in automotive innovation as a whole.
With confidence in traditional “autonomous driving” eroding, both regulators and manufacturers are turning to a more collaborative concept: cooperative autonomous driving. This paradigm shift moves away from a vehicle's independent decision-making and instead relies on real-time communication between vehicles, and between vehicles and surrounding infrastructure. By distributing responsibility across a connected network, cooperative driving aims to compensate for the technical and ethical limitations of current automation.
Automakers are already adjusting course. Despite years of aggressive development, the commercialization of Level 4 autonomy—which allows for fully self-driving operation under certain conditions—has hit numerous roadblocks. Legal liability, ethical dilemmas, and societal resistance have slowed progress significantly. Even after reaching advanced development milestones, companies like Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz, and General Motors remain in testing phases, cautiously avoiding mass rollouts. Meanwhile, Argo AI—a high-profile autonomous driving startup backed by Ford and Volkswagen—shut down entirely, signaling a shift in industry priorities.
This recalibration is mirrored in infrastructure policy. A prominent example is the Cooperative Intelligent Transport System (C-ITS), which allows vehicles to receive real-time updates about road conditions, traffic incidents, sudden stops, or debris. South Korea’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport is actively piloting and validating C-ITS technology to enhance road safety—not just for smart vehicles but for all drivers. Authorities increasingly believe that integrating vehicles into a smart, connected ecosystem is a safer and more efficient path forward than expecting each vehicle to navigate every scenario alone.
What’s emerging is not a retreat from technological innovation, but a restructured, more grounded vision of the future. Experts agree that the era of selling dreams about fully autonomous vehicles is giving way to a reality rooted in transparency, safety, and accountability. Automakers are no longer racing blindly toward a futuristic ideal; instead, they are emphasizing verified capabilities and responsible deployment.
This philosophical shift is also reshaping consumer expectations. The language of “full autonomy” is being replaced by a focus on cooperation, supported decision-making, and clearly defined boundaries. While it may seem like the industry is pumping the brakes, this recalibration could prove vital for its long-term credibility and sustainability.
In many ways, China’s regulatory crackdown serves as both a wake-up call and a corrective measure. As the risks of technological overreach come into sharper focus, a more cautious, collaborative, and mature approach to innovation is taking hold. And with that, the automotive world is not abandoning autonomy—but rather rebuilding it on firmer, more responsible ground.
Trump: U.S. to Sign Mineral Agreement with Ukraine on the 24th Goal: Secure Critical Minerals to Offset War Aid Costs Deal Gives U.S. Firms Priority Access—May Breach EU Law
The United States is moving forward with a minerals agreement with Ukraine to jointly develop rare earths and other strategic resources. In exchange for postwar reconstruction investment, the deal is widely seen as a strategic move by the Trump administration to recoup its support for Ukraine through tangible economic returns. As potential conflicts with the European Union’s interests emerge, the race for access to Ukraine’s natural resources is entering a new phase of intensifying global competition.
On April 17 (Korea time), Ukraine’s First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy Yulia Svyrydenko announced via X (formerly Twitter) that she had signed a Memorandum of Intent (MoI) with the United States as an initial step toward a broader mineral development agreement. “The MoI paves the way for a strategic economic partnership with the U.S. and the creation of an investment fund for Ukraine’s reconstruction,” she said. “We hope the fund will become an effective tool for rebuilding infrastructure and attracting new economic opportunities.”
President Donald Trump confirmed that a formal mineral agreement is expected to be signed on April 24, telling reporters after his summit with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni that “we’re working on a minerals deal, and we believe Ukraine will follow through.” However, Treasury Secretary Scott Besant, leading the negotiations, mentioned April 26 as a more realistic target, suggesting the final signing date remains flexible.
While full details of the MoI have not been released, Ukrainian officials indicated that the agreement includes a provision to allocate 50% of revenues from government-owned mineral resources—such as rare earths—into a joint fund, and that U.S. assistance would not be treated as debt. The forthcoming agreement is expected to give the U.S. access to Ukraine’s strategic minerals in exchange for reconstruction aid and private sector investment—part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to recover wartime support funds through economic returns.
As the U.S.-Ukraine mineral deal gains momentum, the European Union has raised concerns that preferential treatment for U.S. companies could breach EU competition laws. Svitlana Taran, a researcher at the European Policy Centre (EPC), noted that the draft agreement includes provisions for U.S. companies to receive legally guaranteed “first-offer rights”—which directly conflict with the EU’s principles of equal access and non-discrimination in public procurement.
According to reporting by the Financial Times and Bloomberg, the U.S. draft includes clauses granting Washington broad control over Ukraine’s natural resources through a reconstruction investment fund. Notably, the draft proposes that three out of five board members overseeing the fund would be appointed by the U.S., granting it effective veto power over new mining projects. If the board declines a project, Ukraine would be prohibited from offering the project to alternative partners with better terms.
Taran warned that, as a candidate for EU membership, Ukraine must demonstrate compliance with the EU’s single market and fair competition regulations. “Ukraine’s path to membership requires structural reforms, including adherence to public procurement rules,” she said. “Unless these provisions are revised, EU accession could be jeopardized.”
The U.S.’s interest in Ukraine’s mineral wealth stems from its abundant reserves of rare earths and other strategic resources. A 2023 report by Ukraine’s Geological Service and Ministry of Environment found the country holds roughly 5% of the world’s key critical minerals, including 7% of global titanium reserves and an estimated 500,000 tons of lithium—a crucial element for electric vehicle batteries. However, only six titanium mines are currently operational, and Ukraine has no active lithium mining operations.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 22 of the 50 minerals deemed “critical to the future economy” are found in Ukraine. Trump’s urgency to secure a minerals agreement reflects these geostrategic stakes. The EU, too, has sought access, signing a strategic partnership agreement with Ukraine on mineral development in 2021 as part of its effort to reduce dependence on Chinese supplies.
Still, there are doubts about the economic feasibility of rapid development. Standard & Poor’s reports that, globally, the average time from mineral discovery to operational mining is 17.9 years. Complicating matters, two-thirds of Ukraine’s electricity infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed by Russian attacks, posing a major challenge for mineral extraction, which requires vast amounts of power.
The U.S. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) criticized Trump’s push, saying, “The president appears to be approaching this from a businessman's perspective—chasing a good deal without fully understanding the complexity of critical minerals.” Some observers suggest the final agreement may be little more than a symbolic memorandum of understanding, rather than a binding economic framework.
Trump’s Divide-and-Conquer Strategy Shifts Into High Gear Japan Caught Off Guard by Trump’s Unannounced Move Unpredictable Trump-Style Diplomacy Puts South Korea on Edge
President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariff strategy has come into clearer focus. By aiming to complete trade negotiations within the 90-day tariff waiver period, the administration has effectively prevented coordinated responses among targeted countries, opting instead for a deliberate divide-and-conquer approach. South Korea, along with Japan and key EU member states, now faces both steep tariffs and additional security cost demands. However, without forming a united front, these nations find themselves navigating a precarious "prisoner’s dilemma"—weighing national interests while cautiously searching for a path forward under mounting pressure.
On April 17 (local time), during a summit with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni at the White House, President Donald Trump fielded questions from reporters about his reciprocal tariff strategy. "Many countries want to negotiate with us," he said confidently. "In fact, they want it more than I do. We’re listening to everyone and will be fair—but ultimately, we decide the terms."
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant, who was also present, added that the U.S. is prioritizing negotiations with the "Big 15" economies. He described the previous day’s talks with Japan as "fantastic."
In Japan, Trump’s unpredictability once again drew criticism. Economic Revitalization Minister Ryosei Akazawa was en route to Washington when Trump personally declared his intention to participate in the talks. His unexpected appearance, along with a signal that defense cost-sharing would be tied to tariff negotiations, prompted Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba to call an emergency late-night meeting with senior officials. Notably, no representatives from Japan’s Ministry of Defense had accompanied Akazawa, leaving Tokyo unprepared for the shift in tone.
The impromptu first round of talks took place not at the negotiating table, but inside the White House. During a 50-minute meeting, Trump reportedly pressed his long-held grievances over Japan’s limited contributions to U.S. troop deployment costs, repeating his view that it’s “unfair” for the U.S. to shoulder the burden of Japan’s defense.
Prime Minister Ishiba responded by expressing his willingness to meet Trump directly in the near future. “It’s only natural that I meet him at the right time,” he said, adding that while the path ahead won’t be easy, “this round has laid the groundwork for what comes next.” However, Japan’s opposition party sharply criticized Ishiba’s absence, with Constitutional Democratic Party leader Yoshihiko Noda arguing that “top-level leadership is essential in dealing with the U.S.—it’s their basic approach, and Japan should mirror it.”
Some Japanese media, including Asahi Shimbun, interpreted Trump’s personal involvement as a sign of urgency, noting his decision to meet a lower-level delegation underscored a desire to seal quick bilateral deals during the 90-day tariff waiver window. “This isn’t just about trade—it signals that any U.S. grievance could become a negotiation topic,” the paper wrote.
South Korea is next in line. Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok and Trade Minister Ahn Duk-geun are scheduled to visit Washington next week. With little information emerging from the Japan-U.S. talks, concern is growing in Seoul that Trump may also demand a direct meeting—and possibly link tariffs to security costs.
The U.S. is conducting simultaneous negotiations with dozens of countries and has hinted that nations offering better deals will receive steeper tariff reductions—creating what some analysts call a “prisoner’s dilemma.” According to one government official, “In the past, countries in similar positions would quietly agree on a minimum strategy. This time, there’s been no such communication. We don’t even know when the Japan talks started or ended.”
Another official said, “Trump is pushing each country individually, stirring division, then striking deals one by one. There’s no room left to build a united front. If South Korea tries to coordinate with Japan or the EU and gets labeled uncooperative, we could be singled out. No one trusts anyone right now.”
Meanwhile, Trump struck an optimistic tone on China. At an executive order signing on April 17, he said, “We’re talking with China, and I think a deal could come in three to four weeks.” On the pending TikTok divestment, Trump remarked, “There’s a deal on the table, but that depends on China. We’ll delay the TikTok issue until the tariff deal is finalized.”
Trump had earlier imposed a 125% tariff on Chinese imports—on top of an additional 20% linked to fentanyl trafficking—prompting China to retaliate with its own 125% tariffs. As the U.S. also tightens semiconductor export restrictions, the two countries have entered a new phase of full-blown economic conflict.
Asked whether he would speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump said during the summit with Meloni, “We’re going to make a very good deal with China.” He dismissed concerns about Xi’s recent tour of Southeast Asia, saying, “No one can compete with us”—a sharp contrast to his tone just days earlier, when he accused China of “trying to destroy America.”
This article is based on ideas originally published by VoxEU – Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) and has been independently rewritten and extended by The Economy editorial team. While inspired by the original analysis, the content presented here reflects a broader interpretation and additional commentary. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of VoxEU or CEPR.
This article is based on ideas originally published by VoxEU – Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) and has been independently rewritten and extended by The Economy editorial team. While inspired by the original analysis, the content presented here reflects a broader interpretation and additional commentary. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of VoxEU or CEPR.
Massive Staff Cuts and Office Closures Planned at Social Security Administration (SSA) Democrats Warn of “Dismantling the Social Safety Net” Joe Biden Criticizes the Move as “Taking an Axe to Social Security”
Tensions continue to mount over the future of the U.S. Social Security system. Under the leadership of Tesla CEO Elon Musk, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has begun scaling back operations at the Social Security Administration (SSA). In response, Democrats have pushed back strongly, warning that President Donald Trump’s governance is threatening the livelihood of ordinary Americans.
On April 17, reports from The Washington Post and Bloomberg revealed that the Trump administration has launched a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. Social Security system in its push for federal downsizing and budget cuts. This foundational welfare program provides retirement, disability, and survivors’ benefits, funded by payroll taxes.
DOGE head Elon Musk described the program as “the greatest Ponzi scheme in history”, citing mismanagement, waste, and improper payments to deceased beneficiaries between 2015 and 2022. The administration has already announced plans to cut at least 7,000 Social Security Administration (SSA) staff and shutter 47 of the 1,200 SSA offices nationwide.
Ims Agresti, head of the conservative think tank Just Facts, echoed Musk’s stance in an interview with Fox News, calling Social Security “structurally identical to a Ponzi scheme as defined by the SEC.” He argued that the $6.7 billion administrative cost of running SSA could otherwise fund benefits for 300,000 recipients, supporting the case for staff reductions.
Ims Agresti, head of the conservative think tank Just Facts, echoed Musk’s stance in an interview with Fox News, calling Social Security “structurally identical to a Ponzi scheme as defined by the SEC.” He argued that the $6.7 billion administrative cost of running SSA could otherwise fund benefits for 300,000 recipients, supporting the case for staff reductions.
The backlash from Democrats was immediate. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Ron Wyden, and Mark Kelly condemned the policy shift, calling Social Security a national obligation and safety net now in jeopardy due to the Trump administration’s “incompetence.”
Former President Joe Biden, in his first major public rebuke since leaving office, slammed Trump’s approach during a keynote at a disability rights event in Chicago on April 15. He criticized the firing of 7,000 SSA workers, noting, “Many Americans rely on Social Security as their only source of income. Cutting it would be devastating.”
Responding to Musk’s fraud allegations, Biden said: “What nonsense. People are receiving benefits they’re entitled to.” He also criticized Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who reportedly called frustrated claimants “frauds,” remarking, “Imagine a 94-year-old mother living alone with no billionaire in the family—what then?”
Advocates warn that SSA downsizing is already fueling uncertainty—especially among immigrant communities. For immigrants, failing to update Social Security records after gaining legal status can result in missed benefits due to mismatched government databases.
Compounding the issue, the Real ID Act goes into full effect on May 7, requiring compliant ID for domestic flights and federal building access. The DMV verifies ID against SSA records, meaning outdated information may prevent access to basic services.
An immigrant rights organizer explained: “Even naturalized citizens are now carrying their certificates or passports routinely. Permanent residents must carry both ID and passport to avoid misunderstandings.”
Non-citizens must also file Form AR-11 within 10 days of changing address, or risk deportation. An immigration lawyer noted, “America today is not the same as it was just months ago. For people of color and immigrants, staying ahead of the system’s changes is critical.”
Trump Faces Blame Amid China’s Full-Scale Counterattack If Prices of Chinese Goods Rise, Americans Will Suffer China Wields ‘Multi-Dimensional Retaliation Cards’ Including Rare Earth Controls
The world is watching as the two largest economies plunge headlong into an escalating trade conflict that is increasingly being likened to a high-stakes game of chicken. What began as a volley of tariffs has evolved into a multi-dimensional standoff with global consequences. China, facing aggressive moves from the U.S., has struck back with targeted export controls and symbolic blows such as freezing Boeing aircraft purchases. While President Donald Trump deflects blame toward Beijing, analysts argue that China’s long-term preparations and strategic resilience may be tipping the power balance in its favor—raising serious questions about who truly holds the upper hand in this tariff war.
The intensifying trade clash drew sharp commentary from Gideon Rachman, Chief Foreign Affairs Columnist at the Financial Times. In an April 14 column titled “Why Xi Jinping Has More Leverage Than Trump,” Rachman asserted that President Trump is holding a much weaker hand in this "tariff poker game" with China. He warned that the longer Trump delays recognizing this imbalance, the more the United States stands to lose.
Rachman’s argument counters that of U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant, who earlier claimed that China had little leverage, equating its position to playing poker with just two cards. Besant insisted the U.S. had minimal downside, given that its exports to China are only a fifth of its imports. From this perspective, China—being more reliant on exports—appears more vulnerable.
But Rachman dismantled this logic, explaining that China’s extensive exports to the U.S. actually increase its leverage, not diminish it. American consumers are not purchasing Chinese goods out of charity, he noted, but out of necessity. If Chinese products vanish from store shelves or rise sharply in price, the U.S. public would bear the brunt. With nearly 80% of iPhones and 75% of everyday goods like bicycles, fans, and toys originating in China, the shockwaves would be widespread. Rather than face public backlash over inflation and shortages, Trump may be forced to keep expanding tariff exemptions.
Beyond trade, China wields other formidable tools. It produces nearly half of the active ingredients in antibiotics relied on by Americans and supplies critical rare earth materials for U.S. military assets like the F-35 fighter jet. Moreover, it is the second-largest holder of U.S. Treasury bonds—a financial lever with global implications.
Rachman’s conclusion was stark: while Xi Jinping has room to absorb domestic missteps, as demonstrated during the COVID-19 crisis, the White House remains captive to public opinion. “Trump has set himself up for defeat,” Rachman predicted. “He will soon be forced to concede.”
The tit-for-tat rhetoric quickly evolved into action. Just three hours before U.S. stock markets opened on April 4, China made a bold countermove by announcing—via state-run CCTV—a sweeping 34% tariff on all U.S. imports, to take effect on April 10. The timing and method of the announcement sent a clear message: this was no negotiation—it was retaliation.
The move hit hard. China is a top importer of key U.S. exports including corn, wheat, pharmaceuticals, crude oil, and natural gas, with total imports from the U.S. reaching $143 billion last year. Rather than engage in a traditional press conference that invites questions, China chose a direct broadcast, emphasizing its intent to dictate terms.
President Trump’s declaration a day earlier, on April 3, of steep reciprocal tariffs across all trading partners had already unsettled global markets. While countries like the European Union voiced swift objections, it was China’s reaction that would set the course for global economic disruption. With the U.S. and China comprising roughly 40% of global GDP, full-scale retaliation signaled the onset of a worst-case scenario.
The ripple effect was immediate. When markets opened on April 5, the S&P 500 fell 2.4% and kept sliding, while the Nasdaq plummeted over 4%. European markets didn’t fare any better—France’s CAC, Germany’s DAX, and the Euro Stoxx 50 all plunged nearly 5%. These sharp declines followed weeks of mounting anxiety over Trump’s tariff strategy, delivering another jolt to already shaky investor confidence.
Despite the mounting tension, President Trump has shown no signs of backing down. On social media, he doubled down, declaring:
“China has made a miscalculation. They’re panicking. There’s nothing they can do.”
“To all the investors looking to invest heavily in the United States: my policies will not change. This is the greatest moment to become wealthier than ever before.”
But the stakes may soon extend beyond tariffs on goods. Analysts warn the conflict could spill into services, digital content, and capital markets. China remains the largest holder of U.S. Treasury bonds, while the U.S. is a critical source of capital and a major market for Chinese exports. If China were to sell off U.S. Treasuries, interest rates could spike—an outcome the Trump administration would be keen to avoid.
Given their deep economic interdependence, each side risks injuring itself through retaliation. Yet while China’s leverage is formidable, so is America's. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt recently underscored this point: "Aside from being bigger, China is no different from any other country. The world wants what we have—the American consumer."
Both sides will inevitably incur economic costs. However, many argue that China faces a steeper climb. Grappling with deflationary pressures, rising unemployment, slowing growth, and a fragile real estate sector, China may lack the economic stamina for a drawn-out conflict. These vulnerabilities expose the limitations of Beijing’s position and suggest that while China may appear resilient on the surface, its economic foundations could buckle under the strain of an all-out trade war.
