Frequent Job Postings Signal HBM Push, But Slack Foundry Utilization Creates Surplus Workforce
“Are We Sacrificing Long-Term Competitiveness?” Some Employees Ask

Strategic Talent Reallocation to Bolster HBM Capabilities

Samsung Electronics has launched an aggressive strategy to regain its memory leadership by accelerating development and production of next-generation high-bandwidth memory (HBM4). As part of this effort, the company has implemented an internal free agent (FA) program allowing employees from its struggling foundry division to voluntarily transfer to HBM-related teams.

Key business units such as the Memory Manufacturing Technology Center and Semiconductor Research Center are actively recruiting staff to bolster R&D and production for HBM4. The move is seen as a direct response to increasing pressure from rivals SK hynix and Micron, both of whom have made significant gains—particularly in supplying HBM3E to NVIDIA.

Once-Robust DRAM Growth Slows, Triggering Redeployment

Internally, the realignment has sparked debate. While Samsung portrays the redeployment as a way to flexibly utilize surplus foundry personnel, concerns have emerged about weakening focus and morale in the foundry business, which posted over KRW 2 trillion ($1.5B) in estimated losses in Q1 2025. Poor 3nm yield rates have cost Samsung key clients like Qualcomm and NVIDIA, limiting its share in high-end foundry services.

Employees worry that continuous talent shifts will further erode the foundry’s competitiveness at a critical time when TSMC is maintaining a strong lead. Some insiders report growing dissatisfaction and a sense of inequality between business units, particularly over wage disparities and uncertainty about long-term prospects.

📉 Losing Ground in DRAM After 33 Years

In another blow, Samsung has lost its DRAM market crown for the first time in 33 years. SK hynix overtook it in Q1 2025 with 36% market share versus Samsung’s 34%, buoyed by its early and aggressive rollout of HBM3 and HBM3E. Once the pioneer of the global DRAM race, Samsung’s dominance is now being tested amid a generational transition in memory technology.

Inter-Divisional Tensions May Undermine Long-Term Strength

With HBM3E efforts facing delays due to thermal and yield challenges, Samsung is skipping ahead to HBM4. The technology leverages foundry logic die integration for better customization and performance—an area where Samsung’s vertically integrated structure could outpace competitors. The company aims to begin mass production of HBM4 using its 1c-nanometer node by late 2025.

At the latest shareholders’ meeting, Vice Chairman Jeongyeon Hyun reiterated Samsung’s commitment to significantly increasing HBM supply and ensuring no repeat of HBM3E missteps. Early HBM4 samples have already been delivered to select clients for testing.

Samsung’s decision to prioritize HBM4 may offer a short-term edge in the next-gen memory race. However, critics argue that continued disruption in human capital allocation could hurt long-term foundry innovation and widen the gap with rivals like TSMC. With internal morale reportedly fragile and external competition fiercer than ever, Samsung faces a delicate balancing act between aggressive ambition and operational cohesion.

Is a 'Made-in-America iPhone' Just a Pipe Dream?
Amid the trade war, stark differences in U.S.-China manufacturing capacity are on full display. Despite tariff pressures, many companies hesitate to relocate, opting to stay in China.

As U.S. President Donald Trump continues his aggressive trade policies against China, concerns are mounting that a full decoupling of global supply chains—particularly in electronics—could send product prices soaring. A key example is Apple’s iPhone, which could cost approximately $3,500 if it were manufactured exclusively in the United States. Despite political pressure, experts say a complete “exit from China” remains virtually impossible for global firms like Apple.

What If iPhones Were Made Only in the U.S.?

On April 9 (local time), major international outlets reported that Trump’s administration is moving forward with a 125% tariff on Chinese imports. While other countries were granted a 90-day grace period, China was excluded due to its retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. This has reignited fears that electronics—many of which rely heavily on Chinese components or assembly—will see sharp price hikes.

At the center of this concern is Apple. The White House previously suggested that iPhone production could be moved to the U.S. “President Trump believes Apple can bring iPhone production home,” a spokesperson said. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick echoed this sentiment on CBS, saying, “The days of millions of tiny screws being assembled abroad are coming to an end.”

But industry analysts disagree. According to the Wall Street Journal, which cited Gary Gereffi, a professor emeritus at Duke University, iPhones include components sourced from over 40 countries, with the most critical and complex parts produced across six nations—China being central to that supply chain. To shift production to North America, Apple would need to reconstruct its supplier network and relocate core component manufacturing—a process that would take at least 3 to 5 years and still rely on suppliers in Mexico, Canada, and Western Europe.

Cost is another formidable barrier. Dan Ives, head of global tech research at Wedbush Securities, told CNN that an iPhone built entirely in the U.S. could cost up to $3,500. The Wall Street Journal also noted that assembly, which costs roughly $30 per unit in China, could rise tenfold in the U.S. If display and memory components were also domestically produced, the final price tag would be “astronomical.”

Diverging Paths of Two Manuafacturing Giants: U.S.' and China's Industrial Strategy

Observers say the current crisis underscores the diverging manufacturing trajectories of the U.S. and China. While China’s manufacturing sector has rapidly expanded, the U.S. has seen its industrial base decline—a contrast laid bare by the ongoing tariff war.

Lu Yongxiang, former vice chairman of China’s National People’s Congress and a prominent strategist, wrote last year that “the overall decline of U.S. manufacturing and its waning global competitiveness has become irreversible.” While the U.S. still leads in some advanced sectors, Lu warned that its edge is rapidly eroding.

He attributed this decline to a strategic pivot in American policy: “The U.S. outsourced low-margin, labor-intensive manufacturing to developing nations and focused instead on high-tech R&D and financial services.” The result, he argued, has been “excessive financial bubbles, constant international conflicts, and deepening political polarization—accelerating the shift from a real to a financial economy.”

Lu predicted that if these trends continue, “Made in China” could overtake the U.S. in global leadership by 2035, with China’s economy surpassing that of the U.S. He added that China’s vast labor pool and rapidly growing domestic market make it a “magnet for global talent and international capital.”

Global Firms' Reluctance to Leave China

Paradoxically, Trump’s hardline trade policies appear to be reinforcing China’s position in global supply chains. On April 9, The New York Times reported that the reciprocal tariff strategy has had an unintended effect: making China even more attractive to international businesses.

By imposing high tariffs not only on China but also on alternatives like Vietnam (46%), Thailand (36%), and India (27%), the U.S. has created confusion and disruption that, ironically, encourages firms to stay in China. What was intended to be an exodus has turned into entrenchment.

Travis Lutter, founder of Denver-based bamboo fiber bedding company MOSO Pillow, told the NYT, “Companies now see the best strategy as staying in China and navigating the hurdles.” He added, “It’s not just about price—it’s China’s unmatched manufacturing and engineering capability.”

The NYT concluded that despite Trump’s belief that tariffs would bring manufacturing back to the U.S., “most American factories simply can’t match China in productivity or speed, even with tariff-adjusted costs.”

If global firms maintain their reliance on Chinese manufacturing, the economic consequences for the U.S. could be significant. A 125% tariff on Chinese goods would likely fuel inflation, raising consumer prices across a range of sectors.

Should the Trump administration also pursue a weak-dollar strategy to improve the U.S. current account balance and revitalize domestic manufacturing, the inflationary pressure could intensify further. These rising costs would be passed on to American consumers, potentially depressing spending and tipping the U.S. economy into a recession.

Trump Links Overseas Troop Presence to Defense Cost-Sharing
Amid questions over U.S. troop reductions abroad, US President Trump signals a stronger tie between defense spending and trade negotiations, calling for an integrated approach — especially in talks with South Korea.

U.S. President Donald Trump has signaled that the presence of American troops overseas—including those stationed in South Korea—may be directly tied to negotiations over defense cost-sharing, hinting at a possible connection to ongoing trade talks. Trump's suggestion that defense contributions could be part of a broader "package deal" is expected to influence the recently launched trade negotiations between South Korea and the United States.

Trump Signals Security Issues May Be Folded into Trade Talks

On April 9 (local time), during a White House executive order signing ceremony, President Trump was asked whether there were plans to reduce the number of U.S. troops stationed overseas, particularly in Europe. “It depends on the situation,” he replied. “We pay to maintain troops in Europe and don’t get much in return. It’s the same with South Korea.” He went on to state that while such matters are not directly related to trade, “it makes sense to deal with it as part of a comprehensive package—it’s cleaner that way.”

White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt echoed this sentiment during an April 8 briefing, saying, “President Trump is taking a tailored approach, and that may include foreign aid, troop deployments, and the associated costs as part of the negotiations.”

Although South Korea signed a new Special Measures Agreement (SMA) on defense cost-sharing with the Biden administration before his departure—locking in contributions from 2026 to 2030—Trump has repeatedly criticized South Korea during his 2024 campaign, calling it a “money machine” and demanding significant increases.

While the White House has stated that the U.S.-Korea alliance remains a priority, Trump’s remarks suggest that trade talks may now encompass a broader range of diplomatic and security issues, potentially extending the negotiation timeline. For now, however, there are no indications that U.S. trade officials are actively tying tariffs to defense cost-sharing in their talks with Seoul. Whether Acting President Han Duck-soo can resolve the matter during his remaining time in office remains a key question.

EU Moves Swiftly to Meet U.S. Demands on Defense Budget

Amid growing U.S. pressure over defense spending, the European Union has also taken action. On April 6, all 27 EU member states adopted a joint declaration at a special summit in Brussels, pledging to “significantly and continuously increase expenditures on European security and defense.”

The statement emphasized reducing strategic dependency—widely interpreted as a desire to lessen reliance on the U.S. for security. EU leaders instructed the European Commission to develop measures that would enable all member states to ramp up military spending.

Two days earlier, the Commission unveiled its “European Re-Armament Plan,” which proposes temporarily suspending EU fiscal rules to allow increased defense investment. The plan includes leveraging €150 billion in unused EU budget capacity to provide low-interest loans for joint procurement of weapons systems such as air defense, missiles, and drones.

However, the EU failed to reach unanimous agreement on expanding aid to Ukraine. Hungary’s pro-Russian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán abstained, leaving 26 countries to issue a separate annex document stating their commitment to “enhanced support for Ukraine and increased pressure on Russia.”

Meanwhile, the UK and France are moving forward with their own post-war security initiatives. According to the BBC, both countries are engaged in talks with around 20 others to establish a “Coalition of Willing” to ensure long-term peace in Ukraine. Reuters reports that the UK and France plan to present a peace framework to Washington in the coming weeks.

During a recent visit to a British defense firm, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that any Ukraine security agreement “must be developed in coordination with the United States.” French President Emmanuel Macron took a more combative tone, labeling Russian President Vladimir Putin “an imperialist” and accusing him of making a “historic mistake.”

Japan Moves Swiftly to Meet U.S. Demands on Defense Budget

Japan has responded swiftly to Trump’s defense cost demands. Following a February 7 summit with Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, Trump announced that Japan would double its defense spending by 2027 compared to levels during his first term.

A joint U.S.-Japan statement released that day praised Japan’s “positive momentum” on defense and welcomed Tokyo’s commitment to “develop the capabilities needed to assume primary responsibility for its own defense by 2027 and beyond.”

Japan’s defense budget for 2025 is already at a record high—¥8.6691 trillion (about ₩82.6 trillion), or approximately 1.6% of its GDP. This increase follows the Kishida administration’s 2022 revision of Japan’s three core security documents, which set a goal of raising defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2027, totaling ¥43 trillion (about ₩418 trillion) over five years.

This acceleration reflects both Japan’s internal push toward becoming a “normal country” and its efforts to meet commitments made to Trump during his previous term. However, Ishiba recently pushed back on further U.S. demands. After Elbridge Colby, Trump’s nominee for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, suggested that Japan raise defense spending to 3% of GDP, Ishiba responded firmly: “Japan’s defense budget will be determined by Japan.”

Colby, who previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during Trump’s first term, is known for crafting the Pentagon’s 2018 National Defense Strategy, which emphasized a hardline stance on China and called for greater allied burden-sharing. His nomination was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 9, paving the way for his official appointment.

Fears of Recession Mount Amid Escalating Trade War
The U.S. will impose a 104% tariff on Chinese imports starting on the 9th, further intensifying global economic uncertainty.

Fears of a global recession triggered by escalating trade tensions have sent international oil prices plummeting to their lowest levels in four years. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures have now dropped below the $60-per-barrel threshold, as investors, rattled by Washington’s aggressive tariff policies, rush to liquidate positions in oil and other commodities.

Crude Falls Below $60 per Barrel

On April 8, Brent crude futures for June delivery closed at $62.82 per barrel on the ICE Futures Exchange, down $1.39 or 2.16% from the previous session. WTI crude for May delivery ended trading at $59.10 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), a drop of $1.34 or 2.22%. This marks the first time WTI has fallen below $60 since April 2021, during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Oil prices have fallen for four consecutive sessions since U.S. President Donald Trump announced sweeping reciprocal tariff measures on April 2. These tariffs, which triggered retaliatory moves from China, have amplified concerns of a prolonged trade war leading to a global economic downturn and weakened oil demand.

Beijing escalated tensions further on April 8, declaring it would “stand its ground to the end” if the U.S. persisted in its approach. On the same day, White House spokesperson Caroline Levitt confirmed that a total of 104% tariffs on Chinese goods would take effect at 12:01 a.m. (ET) on April 9—an additional 50% hike on top of the already imposed 54%.

Commodity Prices Plunge Amid Tariff Shock

The fallout from the trade war is not limited to oil. In a sign of mounting economic stress, prices of key commodities and precious metals are also tumbling. On April 8, gold futures fell 3.77% from a week earlier to $3,025.94 per troy ounce on COMEX. Silver fared worse, plunging 12.41% to $30.005 per ounce.

Analysts attribute the sell-off to widespread liquidation across asset classes. As equity markets plunged following Trump’s tariff announcement, investors began offloading even traditional safe havens like gold. Global investment bank ING noted, “Investors have been selling precious metals to cover losses elsewhere. Even gold, which reached an all-time high earlier this month, has come under pressure.”

Highly leveraged investors are also facing the largest margin call squeeze since the onset of the pandemic in 2020, intensifying the sell-off. Silver, which is used in electronics, solar panels, and medical devices, saw steeper declines due to its industrial applications. ING warned that “a global trade war will have an especially negative impact on industrial metals,” pointing out that China—the U.S.’s main trade adversary—is the world’s largest consumer of such materials.

Worst Crash Since 2008 Financial Crisis

The trade-driven market carnage has dealt a major blow to Asia’s export-dependent economies. On April 7, Asian stock markets experienced their worst crash since the 2008 global financial crisis. South Korea’s KOSPI plunged over 5% in early trading, triggering a sidecar circuit breaker. It eventually closed down 5.57%, with the KOSDAQ falling 5.25%. Japan’s Nikkei 225 ended the day with a steep 7.83% loss.

Chinese markets bore the brunt of the impact after reopening from a two-day Qingming Festival holiday. Taiwan’s Taiex index plummeted 9.7%, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index lost 13.22%, and the Shanghai Composite fell 7.34%.

European markets followed suit, with major indices falling between 3% and 6% during intraday trading. Wall Street also opened sharply lower, with the S&P 500 losing over 4% and breaking below the 5,000-point mark. The tech-heavy Nasdaq dropped more than 4%, falling under 15,000 points.

Despite global turmoil, President Trump remains defiant. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on April 6 en route from Florida to Washington, he stated, “Nobody wants anything to fall, but sometimes you need medicine to fix something.” The remark signaled his intent to continue waging the tariff war to reduce the U.S. trade deficit—even at the risk of further market damage.

This hardline stance has prompted strong reactions from leading economists and financial figures. Jeremy Siegel, renowned investment strategist and professor at the University of Pennsylvania, warned, “This could have even worse consequences than the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that worsened the Great Depression. It may go down as the most catastrophic policy mistake in nearly a century. Markets will be in turmoil for some time.”

Even prominent Trump supporters are voicing alarm. Bill Ackman, billionaire hedge fund manager and CEO of Pershing Square Capital, posted a stark warning on X (formerly Twitter): “If we launch an economic nuclear war against the world, investment will freeze, consumers will stop spending, and America’s global reputation will suffer immense damage.” He added, “President Trump is losing the trust of business leaders around the world. This isn’t what we voted for. If he doesn’t walk back these tariffs, we’re heading into an economic nuclear winter.”

LG Electronics Faces Possible IPO Delay in India, But Local Market Outlook Remains Strong
IPO Funds Targeted for Development of ‘Made-for-India’ Products
India Seen as Resilient Amid Trump-Era Tariff Wars

LG Electronics' Indian subsidiary, which was slated to go public by the end of this month, may postpone its listing due to rising uncertainty in global markets triggered by U.S. trade policy under President Donald Trump. While some analysts expect India’s stock market to recover quickly, having been relatively insulated from the worst of the global tariff wars, others caution that volatility could still impact upcoming IPOs.

India Subsidiary Gears Up for Stock Market Debut

On April 8, India’s leading financial daily Business Standard reported that LG Electronics India and electric two-wheeler manufacturer Ather Energy are seriously considering delaying their initial public offerings. Citing an unnamed investment banker, the report noted, “Market conditions are unfavorable right now. Investors are exercising caution, and that’s affecting the IPO environment.” The source added that both companies are likely to monitor the situation and wait for a more opportune moment.

LG Electronics India filed its Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) in December 2024 and received approval from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in February for an IPO worth ₹150 billion (approximately ₩25 trillion or $1.8 billion USD)—the fifth-largest IPO in Indian stock market history. It is poised to become only the second Korean firm, after Hyundai Motor (₩26 trillion), to list on the Indian exchange.

The company had planned to submit a revised red herring prospectus (UDRHP) and debut on the Bombay Stock Exchange in the final week of April.

Accelerating Local Market Penetration

To fuel local growth, LG has laid out bold investment plans alongside the IPO. The offering is expected to raise between $1 billion and $1.5 billion (₩1.4 trillion to ₩2.2 trillion), representing 15% of the subsidiary’s market value. This would inject more cash into LG than the ₩1.2 trillion in cash and equivalents the company held at the end of last year.

Proceeds will be used to build LG’s third factory in India, located in Sri City, the first new manufacturing base in the country since the Pune plant opened in 2006. The new facility will focus on producing region-specific products tailored to Indian consumers, such as ultra-low-cost air conditioners priced around $100. Despite India’s tropical climate, AC penetration remains low at just 12% as of 2024—mainly due to price barriers.

LG plans to streamline its supply chain and focus on simplified, affordable cooling units to target India’s expanding middle class. Other India-specific products on the horizon include washing machines with settings to protect delicate saree fabrics, and water purifiers equipped with UV sterilizers and stainless-steel tanks, designed to address India’s water quality and pressure challenges.

India Remains Unscathed by U.S. Tariffs

Despite short-term concerns, many market watchers believe LG’s India strategy remains sound. “It’s true that U.S.-driven tariff shocks are rattling global markets,” said one analyst, “but it’s premature to assume India’s instability will persist.” The source added, “In fact, India is quietly benefiting from the tariff war.”

Unlike export-heavy economies such as China, India is relatively shielded from U.S. tariff threats thanks to its domestic demand-driven growth model. Between January and November 2024, only 18.6% of India’s exports went to the United States. For the automotive sector, U.S. exposure is below 1%.

Moreover, India faces relatively mild reciprocal tariffs from the U.S.—just 26%—compared to 104% for China, 46% for Vietnam, 37% for Bangladesh, and 32% for Indonesia. In an increasingly fragmented global trade landscape, India has emerged as a rare "neutral zone," or a tariff-free oasis.

If global companies view this geopolitical advantage as an opportunity and ramp up investments in India, the current turbulence in its stock market may quickly subside—paving the way for IPOs like LG Electronics India to proceed smoothly.

New Zealand to Double Defense Spending
Trump Administration Ramps Up Pressure on Allies 
NATO Summit Ends Without Breakthrough

New Zealand has announced a significant increase in defense expenditure aimed at bolstering deterrence against China’s growing military power. The plan focuses on modernizing equipment, expanding personnel, and enhancing interoperability with partner nations.

New Zealand to Double Defense Spending

On April 8, Nikkei Asia reported that New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon unveiled an ambitious defense capability plan that will double the nation’s defense spending from 1% to 2% of GDP within the next eight years. The announcement marks New Zealand’s first comprehensive defense strategy update since 2019 and includes a projected NZ$12 billion (approximately ₩9.88 trillion) in funding over the next four years, with an additional NZ$9 billion in planned expenditures.

Given that New Zealand currently spends around NZ$5 billion annually on defense, the new plan represents a significant increase in both scope and ambition. The fresh funding will be allocated to personnel expansion and a major modernization of military hardware, including new transport aircraft, upgraded missile systems, and maritime helicopters. Investments will also be made to extend the operational life of aging frigates.

In a press release, Luxon emphasized that “global tensions are escalating rapidly, and New Zealand’s current defense spending is far too low for us to shoulder our responsibilities on the world stage.” He framed the current proposal not as a “ceiling” but as a “floor,” suggesting the budget could increase further in future years.

Trump Administration Ramps Up Pressure on Allies

The expanded defense strategy reflects growing concern over China's maritime assertiveness. In February, the Chinese military conducted live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea—uncomfortably close to New Zealand. The defense blueprint explicitly cites “China’s rapid and opaque military growth” as a key concern.

The plan also emphasizes bolstering defense cooperation with Australia. It prioritizes ensuring interoperability between the two nations’ military forces and equipment, allowing for more effective joint operations. Beyond the trans-Tasman relationship, New Zealand is also aiming for tighter integration with the broader Five Eyes alliance—comprising the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada—and key defense partners such as South Korea, Malaysia, and Japan.

To achieve this, New Zealand may seek to develop its own strike capabilities to align with those of its defense partners. Another major challenge will be personnel recruitment and retention. The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) currently comprises 8,700 regular troops, and will need to add 2,500 more by 2040 to meet operational goals.

This shift marks a clear departure from New Zealand’s traditionally pacifist foreign policy, indicating a pivot toward a more proactive defense posture in response to evolving regional threats.

New Zealand’s defense recalibration is also seen as a response to mounting pressure from the Trump administration. In a speech to Congress on March 4, President Trump delivered two core messages: strengthening allied defense capabilities and cracking down on unfair trade practices through tariffs.

These remarks signal a shift in the United States’ approach to its alliances in East Asia and beyond. Elbridge Colby, Trump’s nominee for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, echoed this stance in his Senate confirmation hearing the same day, stressing the principles of “peace through strength” and “America First.”

NATO Summit Ends Without Breakthrough

The Trump administration’s demands are not limited to the Indo-Pacific. At the NATO foreign ministers meeting that opened on April 3, just a day after Trump’s reciprocal tariff announcements, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated Washington’s call to raise NATO’s defense spending target from 2% of GDP to an ambitious 5%.

Rubio declared that the United States would commit to this new benchmark, putting added pressure on European allies. However, the proposal was met with skepticism. Norway’s foreign minister said the country was “not ready to commit,” while Germany capped its goal at 3%.

Many NATO members pointed out the current 2% benchmark is already unmet by 23 of the alliance’s 32 countries. Even the United States currently spends just 3.38% of GDP on defense, making the 5% target appear unrealistic. Critics noted that raising the bar so dramatically would be difficult, particularly given global economic challenges.

Tensions flared further over the Trump administration’s recent imposition of 20% reciprocal tariffs on the European Union. With 23 of the EU’s 27 member states also being NATO members, many European leaders voiced frustration.

In a closed-door meeting, the French delegation reportedly asked, “How can you destabilize the global economy with indiscriminate tariffs and then demand a 5% increase in defense spending?” The UK and EU officials warned that a trade war with the U.S. would only benefit strategic adversaries like Russia and China.

U.S. Pushes Alaska LNG to East Asian Allies
An Energy Strategy That Could Shake China's Maritime Dominance
Potential to Reshape the Global Energy Market

The issue of South Korea’s participation in the Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) development has emerged as a central point in tariff negotiations between the United States and South Korea. Just as tariffs under President Donald Trump are wielded not merely as trade tools but as geopolitical weapons, LNG is no longer viewed simply as an energy commodity to reduce trade deficits. The Alaska LNG project goes beyond trade balance or import-export benefits—it is part of a broader strategic energy diplomacy effort. It carries the potential for multiple geopolitical “multiplier effects”: countering China’s maritime blockade strategy, enhancing allies’ energy security, diversifying export routes through the Arctic passage, and curbing the influence of the Middle East and Russia.

U.S. Pushes Alaska LNG to East Asian Allies

On April 8 (local time), U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant stated that the Alaska LNG project could be a “solution” in tariff negotiations with South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. In an interview with CNBC, Besant said, “There are discussions about major energy deals from Alaska, potentially involving Japan, possibly South Korea and Taiwan,” adding, “They’ll provide pipelines and financing.” He emphasized, “This not only creates many jobs for Americans but also helps reduce the trade deficit, so it could be a viable proposal—they can make the first move. Everything is on the table.”

The Alaska LNG project involves transporting natural gas via pipeline from Prudhoe Bay in northern Alaska to Nikiski on the Pacific coast. The core of the project is laying about 1,300 kilometers of pipelines. Although large oil and gas fields were discovered in this area 60 years ago, the U.S. has repeatedly shelved development plans due to lack of economic feasibility. With initial construction costs estimated at $44 billion (approximately 65 trillion won), it has long been seen as too costly. Furthermore, the boom in shale gas development from Ohio to Texas reduced the need for Alaskan gas, pushing it out of the spotlight.

However, President Trump has recently revived interest by suggesting that South Korea and Japan could invest billions of dollars in the project. These two nations are key players in the LNG import market. As of 2023, Japan (16.5%) and South Korea (11.3%) together account for nearly 30% of global LNG imports—surpassing even China (17.6%).

South Korea, which relies entirely on imported energy, currently sources LNG from the Middle East, including Qatar and Oman. Shipping from these countries takes around 20 days, whereas LNG from the U.S. Gulf Coast usually takes about 30 days—up to 50 for larger tankers. In contrast, LNG shipments from Alaska could reach South Korea in as little as 7 days, significantly cutting delivery times and costs.

Additionally, switching from Middle Eastern LNG to U.S. LNG could reduce South Korea’s dependence on volatile Middle East pricing and provide a strategic tool to ease U.S. trade pressure.

An Energy Strategy That Could Shake China's Maritime Dominance

There’s also a national security aspect amid growing military tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Direct gas supply from North America would bolster South Korea’s energy security. In August 2022, China responded to then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan with “encirclement drills,” which included the Bashi Channel east of Taiwan. Notably, about 90% of South Korea’s crude oil imports transit through the Hormuz–Malacca–Bashi Strait route. If the Bashi Channel is blocked, it would severely disrupt South Korea’s maritime lifelines.

Although China’s stated goal is diplomatic unification with Taiwan, many analysts argue that Beijing’s deeper ambition is to secure maritime dominance over East Asia—impacting key players like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Controlling the Taiwan Strait militarily would allow China to cut off oil and gas shipping routes from the Middle East and block export routes for semiconductors and advanced manufacturing goods bound for Europe.

If realized, this strategy could bring even smaller ASEAN economies under China’s maritime dominance. From the U.S. perspective, it resembles Japan’s expansionist control over the western Pacific prior to the Pearl Harbor attack in World War II.

Potential to Reshape the Global Energy Market

Within this context, the Alaska LNG project is valued not just as an energy venture but as a potential strategic weapon. The LNG produced could be supplied to South Korea, Japan, and even Taiwan, fundamentally reducing reliance on Middle Eastern sources. U.S. LNG—thanks to its flexible pricing and supply stability—could serve as a key instrument for creating a “post-Middle East” energy structure.

If Alaska LNG becomes a mainstream global alternative, it could significantly weaken the bargaining power of OPEC+ countries, which have traditionally controlled oil and gas prices.

Furthermore, if the Arctic shipping route—from Alaska through the Bering Strait, Greenland, and to the UK—is activated, LNG supply lines could be extended to Europe. This would diversify South Korea’s export logistics to Europe and diminish the strategic effectiveness of China’s potential maritime blockade around Taiwan

Alaska LNG could also serve as a counterbalance to the OPEC+ alliance and Russia’s energy weaponization. Russia currently relies heavily on energy exports for national revenue. If Alaska LNG reaches Europe and East Asia reliably, it could directly erode Russia’s gas market share and neutralize its use of energy as geopolitical leverage

Tariff Truce Reversed Just 13 Hours After Mutual Measures Take Effect
After China matched the U.S.’s 34% and 50% tariff hikes with proportional retaliation, Trump escalated again — slapping a 125% tariff squarely on China, while sparing other nations for negotiation leverage.

Just 13 hours after enacting sweeping reciprocal tariffs, U.S. President Donald Trump abruptly backtracked, announcing a 90-day suspension of the policy for most countries—while sharply escalating tariffs on China to 125%. The move reflects growing financial market turmoil and rising recession fears within the United States, as well as an effort to isolate Beijing and intensify pressure in the ongoing U.S.-China trade war.

Trump Halts Mutual Tariffs for 90 Days — Except on China

On April 9 (local time), Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that more than 75 countries had not retaliated against U.S. tariffs “in any way, shape, or form” since their enactment at 12:01 a.m. As a result, he said, he had approved a “90-day PAUSE” during which reciprocal tariffs would be drastically reduced to 10%.

Just a week earlier, during the “Make America Wealthy Again” (MAWA) event at the White House Rose Garden, Trump had announced across-the-board reciprocal tariffs of “10% + α” on all trading partners. The initial 10% base tariff was implemented on April 5, with additional punitive tariffs, calculated by country, taking effect on April 9.

These tariffs included both a flat base rate and additional “worst offender” surcharges for 57 nations, including China, South Korea, Japan, the EU, Taiwan, and India. Country-specific rates were as follows:

China: 34%

EU: 20%

Vietnam: 46%

Taiwan: 32%

Japan: 24%

India: 26%

Thailand: 36%

Switzerland: 31%

Indonesia: 32%

Malaysia: 24%

Cambodia: 49%

UK: 10%

South Africa: 30%

South Korea: 13% (on par with Canada and Mexico)

China Hits Back With 84%, U.S. Counters With 125%

While most countries will benefit from the 90-day pause and reduced 10% tariff, China is notably excluded. “Effective immediately, China’s tariffs will be raised to 125%,” Trump declared. “They need to understand that their days of ripping off the U.S. and the rest of the world are numbered.”

This bifurcated “two-track” strategy reflects Trump’s anger over China’s retaliatory tariffs, which were raised to 84% after the U.S. imposed a total of 104% duties. The tariff tit-for-tat has sharply escalated:

January: Trump imposed 20% tariffs twice, citing China’s lack of fentanyl control.

April 2: A 34% hike brought the total to 104%.

China responded with 50% more, raising its duties on U.S. imports to 84%.

April 9: Trump countered with another 50% hike, pushing U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods to 125%.

The move signals a strategic shift in the trade war, with the White House narrowing its focus from a global campaign to a full-force offensive on China.

From Global Trade War to China-Focused Offensive

The reversal also comes amid growing fears that Trump’s tariff strategy could spark not just a recession but a financial crisis. U.S. Treasury markets have seen a massive sell-off, with 30-year bond yields spiking 50 basis points over three trading days. The falling value of Treasury bonds is triggering margin calls on leveraged trades, threatening broader liquidity and even systemic financial instability.

Analysts believe the pause underscores Trump’s view of tariffs as a negotiating tool, rather than a long-term policy. Wall Street has long suspected that Trump was using tariffs to extract investment and trade concessions, not to implement permanent protectionism. However, his recent hardline rhetoric had shaken market confidence and triggered panic.

It remains unclear whether the pause was part of Trump’s original strategy or a tactical retreat. Experts note that with most countries swiftly entering negotiations, Trump may feel he has already gained leverage—paving the way for a temporary rollback.

Following the pause announcement, the Trump administration reiterated its commitment to dialogue. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant said, “Each country will get a tailored solution, and that takes time. The president wants to personally oversee these talks, which is why we’ve paused for 90 days.”

Jamieon Greer, U.S. Trade Representative, added, “Many countries are now saying they want cooperation, not retaliation. The president is actively seeking ways to negotiate with them.”

As the trade war shifts from a global blitz to a targeted battle with Beijing, the next 90 days may determine whether diplomacy or escalation wins the day.

Markets Rattle as Trump Unleashes Tariff Blitz
Xi Jinping’s Search for Allies Amid Economic Siege
Trade Turmoil Spreads as Global South Faces the Fallout

Markets Rattle as Trump Unleashes Tariff Blitz

In April 2025, a dramatic escalation in global trade tensions was set in motion by U.S. President Donald Trump. In an unprecedented move, Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from nearly every trading partner. The campaign began with a blanket 10% import tariff but quickly expanded to include specific and punitive tariffs on countries deemed major offenders. China, the U.S.'s largest source of imports, became the primary target, facing a 54% tariff. When Beijing retaliated with a 34% levy on U.S. goods, Trump threatened to nearly double his country's tariffs to a staggering 104% if China didn’t reverse its move.

Trump framed these actions as necessary corrections to decades of what he described as unfair trade practices. Speaking during a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he declared, "We’ve been ripped off and taken advantage of by many countries over the years, and can’t do it anymore." He linked the tariff campaign to his broader fiscal agenda, citing America’s $36 trillion national debt as a reason for urgent action. The president asserted that the U.S. had allowed foreign nations free access to its markets while being denied reciprocal treatment, and he vowed that "those days are over."

Markets reacted sharply. The S&P 500 and Dow Jones dropped by more than 5%, and the ripple effects reached Asia where the Hang Seng index in Hong Kong plummeted by 13.2% in a single day—the steepest drop since the 1997 financial crisis. Japan's Nikkei 225 fell by 7.8%, and Indonesia's markets were hit so hard that a 9% fall triggered an automatic trading halt. In response, Goldman Sachs revised the likelihood of a U.S. recession to 45%.

The backlash wasn’t limited to financial analysts. Business leaders raised alarm bells. Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman warned that Trump's approach risked a "self-induced economic nuclear winter," criticizing the administration for launching an economic war that could erode confidence in the U.S. as a global trading partner. Economists also highlighted errors and inconsistencies in the methods used to calculate tariff rates, questioning the transparency and coherence of the strategy.

Still, Trump appeared resolute. He acknowledged that reshoring industry and building new manufacturing capacity would take time, saying, "You got to build a thing called the factory. You have to build your energy. You have to do a lot of things." But he argued it was worth it if it meant competing effectively with China and securing the economic future of the United States.

Xi Jinping’s Search for Allies Amid Economic Siege

Across the Pacific, Chinese President Xi Jinping was left scrambling to shield China from the fallout. The escalation of U.S. tariffs threatened to destabilize China’s vital export economy. Analysts like Dan Wang of Eurasia Group warned that such tariffs would eliminate profit margins for many exporters. Nevertheless, Beijing signaled it would not retreat. "It will be tit-for-tat," Wang emphasized.

In an attempt to reduce reliance on the U.S. market, Xi reached out to other nations, seeking to strengthen economic partnerships. To India, he proposed marking 75 years of bilateral trade with a deeper collaboration he dubbed the "Dragon-Elephant Tango." However, India responded cautiously, given past tensions and its increasingly warm ties with Washington.

Xi's outreach extended further—to Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. But these overtures were met with skepticism. While many countries are uneasy about Trump's trade policy, they remain wary of aligning too closely with China due to concerns over its trade practices and growing geopolitical assertiveness. In the UK, leaders are caught in a difficult position: choosing between low U.S. tariffs and the economic appeal of cheap Chinese imports.

China has also attempted to reroute exports through Southeast Asia, using countries like Vietnam and Cambodia as alternate supply chain hubs. But this strategy hit a wall when the U.S. extended secondary tariffs to these nations, neutralizing the workaround.

Facing these external roadblocks, Beijing turned inward. It began promoting domestic consumption as a way to absorb excess goods. Four major state-owned enterprises pledged to invest billions into local stock markets, while financial regulators allowed insurance funds to buy more Chinese shares. Meanwhile, the People’s Daily—the Communist Party's official mouthpiece—adopted a combative tone, calling the U.S. tariffs an abuse of economic power and portraying China as a champion of multilateralism. The editorial argued that while the U.S. had failed to reduce its trade deficit or revitalize its manufacturing sector, China had continued to demonstrate economic resilience.

Trade Turmoil Spreads as Global South Faces the Fallout

For the international community, the sudden rupture in global trade norms has caused both confusion and damage. Nations have responded in a variety of ways. Israel, for example, has sought to placate the U.S., with Prime Minister Netanyahu pledging to work toward reducing the trade deficit with America. But Trump showed no signs of flexibility, reminding reporters of the substantial aid Israel receives from the U.S. and leaving a new 17% tariff on Israeli goods untouched.

Japan responded by appointing Economy Minister Ryosei Akazawa to lead negotiations with Washington. Other countries, like Canada and Australia, are engaged in diplomatic outreach while quietly preparing for economic consequences. In the Global South, the impact has been more severe. Bangladesh, facing a 37% tariff on garments—its top export—formally requested a three-month delay to help recalibrate its trade structure. Vietnam, hit with a 46% tariff, has offered to buy more U.S. military equipment and aircraft in hopes of brokering relief. Thailand, subject to a 36% tariff, has seen significant financial fallout, including a sharp drop in its stock market and the implementation of emergency measures such as banning short-selling.

Some of the White House’s moves have also drawn ridicule. For example, tariffs were applied to imports routed through the Heard and McDonald Islands—remote, uninhabited Australian territories. The Australian government labeled the decision an error and evidence of hasty policymaking.

Nevertheless, Trump and his team remain undeterred. Former economic adviser Tomas Philipson dismissed fears of inflation and recession, instead arguing that tariffs were necessary to curtail China's growing military and technological dominance. He defended the policy as a tool to protect U.S. interests and reduce dependence on adversarial nations.

There are also unconfirmed reports of a broader strategic plan dubbed the "Mar-a-Lago Accord," aimed at pressuring trading partners to devalue their currencies relative to the U.S. dollar. This would, in theory, boost U.S. exports and erode China's substantial dollar reserves. Whether this is a calculated maneuver or a reckless gamble is still a matter of debate.

As the April 9 deadline for additional tariffs on China approaches, the world braces for potentially irreversible changes to the international trade order. With alliances shifting, economic models being reexamined, and nationalistic trade policies on the rise, Trump's tariff war is more than a short-term shock—it may be the beginning of a new economic era.

Smartphones Step Up as Chip Sales Stall
Tariff Fears Spark Chip Stockpiling Frenzy
Strategic Balance: Samsung’s Dual Engines of Growth

Smartphones Step Up as Chip Sales Stall

Samsung, one of the world’s largest technology companies, recently announced that its first-quarter profits exceeded market expectations, even as the company faced challenges in its key memory chip business. While the semiconductor sector, which has traditionally been a major contributor to Samsung's revenue, showed signs of sluggishness, the company’s smartphone sales stepped in to fill the gap, delivering a much-needed boost to profitability. Looking ahead to the second quarter, Samsung is optimistic about further growth, particularly as the demand for memory chips is expected to rise amid growing concerns over looming tariffs on these critical components.

Despite a soft performance from its semiconductor division, Samsung managed to report better-than-expected profits, much of which was fueled by strong sales in its mobile business. In fact, the South Korean tech giant saw a notable surge in demand for its smartphones, driven by a combination of factors, including the release of new models and seasonal buying trends. While the semiconductor industry has been facing difficulties—partly due to fluctuating demand and supply chain issues—the mobile division’s performance helped offset some of these challenges, underscoring Samsung’s ability to pivot and maintain profitability even when one of its core businesses is under pressure.

In the first quarter of 2025, the company’s profit performance was aided by strategic product launches and an effective marketing strategy that resonated with both consumers and businesses. These sales figures have provided a much-needed cushion to Samsung’s bottom line, compensating for a dip in its memory chip business, which has been grappling with oversupply and reduced demand. Nevertheless, analysts have pointed out that the profitability from phone sales may not be enough to sustain the company’s growth momentum in the long run if the semiconductor business doesn’t recover.

Samsung’s outlook for the second quarter is notably more optimistic, especially for its semiconductor business. One key factor contributing to this positive forecast is the expected rise in memory chip prices, which have been bolstered by stockpiling activities as customers anticipate the impact of tariffs. In early April, Samsung announced that it would be increasing the price of its key memory chips by up to 5%. This price hike is a direct response to growing concerns over potential tariffs on chips, which have sparked a buying frenzy among companies hoping to stockpile essential components before the tariffs are imposed.

The decision to raise prices is also indicative of broader market trends that are putting upward pressure on semiconductor costs. As tariffs loom, many companies are rushing to secure chips at current prices, fearing that future supply shortages or tariff-related price increases could drive up costs in the months to come. Samsung’s price increase is a clear sign that the semiconductor market is responding to these dynamics. It’s not just a reactive move in anticipation of tariffs—it’s also a strategic decision that capitalizes on the supply-demand imbalance in the industry.

Tariff Fears Spark Chip Stockpiling Frenzy

The surge in demand for memory chips ahead of the expected price hikes is a direct result of concerns over tariffs, particularly on the critical components used in a variety of consumer electronics. This behavior mirrors previous instances when companies preemptively bought up inventory to shield themselves from future price increases caused by trade restrictions or export curbs. The rising price of chips reflects not only supply chain pressures but also the broader uncertainty in global trade relations. As customers rush to purchase memory chips in advance, it creates a temporary surge in demand that benefits manufacturers like Samsung.

This stockpiling trend has proven advantageous for semiconductor companies, as it pushes up prices and helps cushion the impact of ongoing market volatility. Given that the demand for memory chips is expected to continue to rise through the second quarter, Samsung’s decision to raise prices is likely to bolster its revenue and improve the outlook for its semiconductor division. With this strategy in place, Samsung is positioning itself to benefit from the heightened demand, even if the longer-term effects of the tariffs remain uncertain.

The upward trend in memory chip prices isn’t just a Samsung-specific phenomenon; it’s indicative of broader shifts in the semiconductor industry. Memory chip prices have been on the rise over the past few weeks, driven by concerns about potential supply shortages and higher costs. These price increases have been further exacerbated by trade restrictions, such as Japan’s export curbs, which have limited the availability of key materials needed to manufacture high-performance chips.

For the semiconductor industry as a whole, this price jump is a positive development. It signals that demand for chips remains strong, despite the volatility in global markets. For companies like Samsung, the ability to raise prices during a time of heightened demand is a strong indicator of market power and strategic agility. These price hikes suggest that the memory chip business may be poised for a recovery in the coming months, as customers scramble to secure components before tariffs take effect.

In many ways, the price surge can be seen as a sign of confidence for the semiconductor sector, as it indicates that companies are successfully navigating the challenges of global supply chain disruptions and trade-related uncertainties. If the price increases continue and demand remains steady, Samsung and other semiconductor businesses could see their profitability rise in tandem with the price adjustments.

Strategic Balance: Samsung’s Dual Engines of Growth

Samsung’s ability to weather the storm of fluctuating semiconductor prices and sluggish demand for memory chips is a testament to its strategic positioning within the tech industry. As one of the leading producers of both memory chips and smartphones, Samsung is uniquely positioned to capitalize on trends in both sectors, especially when one business division faces challenges.

The company’s diversified portfolio has allowed it to adjust to changes in market conditions quickly. When the memory chip business was struggling, Samsung relied on the strength of its mobile phone sales to sustain profitability. Now that memory chip prices are expected to rise, Samsung stands to benefit once again. This kind of agility is crucial in an industry where rapid technological advancements, global trade tensions, and supply chain disruptions are all common factors.

Looking forward, Samsung’s ability to maintain a balance between its mobile and semiconductor businesses will be key to its continued success. If the company can successfully navigate the volatility in the memory chip market while maintaining strong sales in its smartphone division, it could emerge as a stronger player in the global tech industry. However, the company will need to remain vigilant about the ongoing challenges posed by tariffs and other external factors that could disrupt the supply chain or dampen demand.

Samsung’s strong first-quarter performance is a reminder of the company’s resilience in the face of market uncertainty. Even with challenges in its semiconductor business, Samsung has been able to rely on the strength of its smartphone sales to sustain profitability. Looking ahead, the company’s strategic decision to raise memory chip prices in response to rising demand and the threat of tariffs is a smart move that positions it well for the second quarter of 2025.

The looming tariffs on chips may continue to disrupt the global semiconductor market, but Samsung’s ability to adapt and capitalize on market trends, including the stockpiling of chips, will likely help it navigate these challenges. As the company moves into the second quarter, the rise in chip prices and the ongoing demand for smartphones could provide the stability needed to drive growth. In an increasingly volatile market, Samsung’s strategic decisions and diversified business model will be key to maintaining its competitive edge.