Fact Check: U.S. tariff on Chinese products is expected to surpass 100%.

Fact Check: U.S. tariff on Chinese products is expected to surpass 100%.

April 8, 2025by TruthOrFake
VERDICT
True

# U.S. Tariff on Chinese Products Expected to Surpass 100% ## Introduction The claim that "U.S. tariff on Chinese products is expected to surpass 100...

U.S. Tariff on Chinese Products Expected to Surpass 100%

Introduction

The claim that "U.S. tariff on Chinese products is expected to surpass 100%" has emerged amidst ongoing tensions between the United States and China regarding trade policies. This assertion suggests that tariffs on Chinese imports could reach or exceed a 100% rate, significantly impacting the prices of goods in the U.S. market. This article will explore the available evidence surrounding this claim, examining the context, facts, and the reliability of the sources.

What We Know

  1. Current Tariff Rates: As of early April 2025, reports indicate that tariffs on Chinese goods are set to increase significantly. For instance, the White House announced that tariffs would rise to at least 104% on certain products, following an additional 34% tariff imposed on top of existing rates 810.

  2. Historical Context: The U.S.-China trade war has seen fluctuating tariff rates since 2018, with various administrations implementing tariffs as a means to address trade imbalances and intellectual property concerns. The Trump administration initially imposed tariffs ranging from 10% to 25%, which escalated over time 14.

  3. Impact on Prices: Analysts predict that these increased tariffs will lead to higher prices for American consumers on a wide range of products, including electronics and clothing 25. The expected price increases are a direct consequence of the tariffs, which are designed to make imported goods more expensive.

  4. China's Response: In retaliation, China has also announced its own tariffs on U.S. goods, which have reached rates as high as 34% 39. This tit-for-tat escalation has characterized the trade relationship between the two nations.

Analysis

The assertion that U.S. tariffs on Chinese products will surpass 100% is supported by several sources, but the reliability and context of these sources vary:

  • Credibility of Sources: Major news outlets such as CNN and USA Today have reported on the impending increase in tariffs, citing official announcements from the White House 810. These sources are generally considered reliable, as they adhere to journalistic standards and fact-checking protocols.

  • Potential Bias: While mainstream media sources strive for objectivity, it is essential to consider the political context. The framing of tariffs can be influenced by the political leanings of the publication, which may affect how the information is presented. For example, reports from outlets with a business focus, like Forbes, may emphasize economic implications more than political motivations 5.

  • Methodology and Evidence: The reports do not always provide detailed methodologies regarding how the tariff rates are calculated or the specific products affected. This lack of detail can lead to misunderstandings about the scope and impact of the tariffs. For instance, while some sources mention a blanket tariff of 104%, it remains unclear if this applies uniformly across all goods or only to specific categories 48.

  • Conflicting Information: Other reports suggest varying rates of tariffs, with some indicating that the overall tariff burden may not reach 100% for all products, but rather for specific categories 7. This discrepancy highlights the need for clarity in reporting and understanding the nuances of tariff applications.

Conclusion

Verdict: True

The claim that U.S. tariffs on Chinese products are expected to surpass 100% is substantiated by credible reports indicating that certain tariffs will indeed reach rates of at least 104%. This conclusion is drawn from official announcements and analyses from reputable news sources, which highlight the significant escalation in tariff rates as part of ongoing trade tensions.

However, it is important to note that while the overall tariff rate may exceed 100% for specific products, this does not necessarily apply uniformly across all goods imported from China. The complexity of tariff applications means that consumers may experience varying price impacts depending on the specific items affected.

Moreover, the evidence available is primarily based on current announcements and projections, which may be subject to change as negotiations and political dynamics evolve. As such, readers should remain aware of the potential for further developments in this area.

In light of these factors, it is crucial for readers to critically evaluate the information presented and consider the broader context of U.S.-China trade relations as they navigate the implications of these tariffs.

Sources

  1. AP News. "China will 'fight to the end' after Trump threatens to impose more tariffs." Link
  2. AP News. "Trump tariffs on China take effect. Here’s what may cost." Link
  3. NPR. "Trade war escalates as China hits back with 34% tariffs." Link
  4. The New York Times. "Biden Administration Ratchets Up Tariffs on Chinese Goods." Link
  5. Forbes. "China's 104% Tariffs: Expect Prices For These Products To Go Up." Link
  6. CBS News. "Which products will be affected by tariffs? Here’s what." Link
  7. NBC News. "Goods imported from China now face a 54% tariff rate." Link
  8. CNN. "Tariffs on China set to rise to at least 104% on Wednesday." Link
  9. Fox 17. "China vows to 'fight to the end' in escalating tariff standoff." Link
  10. USA Today. "Tariffs live updates: China tariffs will increase to 104% on Wednesday." Link

Got your own claim to verify? It's 100% Free!

Join thousands who trust our AI-powered fact-checking. Completely free with no registration required. Your claim could be the next important truth we uncover.

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Mostly False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: It's incredibly sad to me that people will not do the research into why decisions are made by our Government and/or President. Because of their hatred for him and their political affiliation they are blinded by what's truly taken place. When it comes to the termination of a 157 year old relationship with Canada that people are so appalled over, take a good look at what actually happened and lead to the breakdown. President Trump asked Canada to close their border to narcotraffickers. The Canadian govt chose not to. President Trump asked the Canadian government to remove trade tariffs, remove non-tariff trade barriers, and initiate reciprocal trade. The Canadian govt chose not to. President Trump asked the Canadian govt to stop being a pass-through for Chinese goods that violates the USMCA. The Canadian govt chose not to. President Trump asked the Canadian govt to open access to U.S. banks and financial services. The Canadian govt said no. President Trump asked the Canadian govt to live up to the NATO commitment of 2.5% GDP spending on military defense. The Canadian govt said no, you will defend us free of charge and basically just accept it. Now, members of the Canadian government are saying they want to "inflict the maximum amount of pain on Americans possible." Canada destroyed most of their heavy industry and chases the climate change hoax in all economic policies. They are destroying themselves. Canada imported Steel and Aluminum from China, then shipped it into the USA, undercutting U.S. industry and trying to weaken U.S. heavy industry to match their own level of dependence. President Trump said ENOUGH! Because President Trump is holding them accountable and asking them to contribute equally or pay the tariffs, they are mad. Because President Trump is trying to protect and help America, you are mad? Come on now people, stop focusing on political BS and look at the big picture. Really do your research and look into all the facts. Nova Scotia Strong Wandalee Collicutt · 3h ·

Detailed fact-check analysis of: It's incredibly sad to me that people will not do the research into why decisions are made by our Go...

Mar 31, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Unverified
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: It's incredibly sad to me that people will not do the research into why decisions are made by our Government and/or President. Because of their hatred for him and their political affiliation they are blinded by what's truly taken place. When it comes to the termination of a 157 year old relationship with Canada that people are so appalled over, take a good look at what actually happened and lead to the breakdown. President Trump asked Canada to close their border to narcotraffickers. The Canadian govt chose not to. President Trump asked the Canadian government to remove trade tariffs, remove non-tariff trade barriers, and initiate reciprocal trade. The Canadian govt chose not to. President Trump asked the Canadian govt to stop being a pass-through for Chinese goods that violates the USMCA. The Canadian govt chose not to. President Trump asked the Canadian govt to open access to U.S. banks and financial services. The Canadian govt said no. President Trump asked the Canadian govt to live up to the NATO commitment of 2.5% GDP spending on military defense. The Canadian govt said no, you will defend us free of charge and basically just accept it. Now, members of the Canadian government are saying they want to "inflict the maximum amount of pain on Americans possible." Canada destroyed most of their heavy industry and chases the climate change hoax in all economic policies. They are destroying themselves. Canada imported Steel and Aluminum from China, then shipped it into the USA, undercutting U.S. industry and trying to weaken U.S. heavy industry to match their own level of dependence. President Trump said ENOUGH! Because President Trump is holding them accountable and asking them to contribute equally or pay the tariffs, they are mad. Because President Trump is trying to protect and help America, you are mad? Come on now people, stop focusing on political BS and look at the big picture. Really do your research and look into all the facts. Nova Scotia Strong Wandalee Collicutt · 3h ·

Detailed fact-check analysis of: It's incredibly sad to me that people will not do the research into why decisions are made by our Go...

Mar 31, 2025
Read more →
🔍
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Business leaders and ex bank heads throw support behind Poilievre A number of prominent business leaders formally threw their support behind Pierre Poilievre in the upcoming federal election on Saturday, arguing his Conservative Party will best handle Canada’s slowing economic growth. The group of more than 30 current and past executives includes Fairfax Financial CEO Prem Watsa, Canaccord Genuity CEO Dan Daviau, former RBC Capital Markets CEO Anthony Fell and former Scotiabank CEO Brian Porter. They published an open letter in several Canadian newspapers on Saturday saying Poilievre's plans are best to get the country's economy "back on track." "Productivity has stalled. Economic growth has slowed. Our GDP per capita is shrinking," the letter reads. "Nevertheless, this decline is not inevitable -- and it's not the Canada we know and love." To turn things around, the letter said Canada needs to eliminate barriers to productivity by streamlining permit processes and cutting outdated regulations that prevent investment and job creation. It also said the government needs to be more disciplined with its spending, impose lower taxes to make Canada more competitive and develop the country's natural resources by building pipelines, expanding mining and investing in energy. The letter, which was also signed by former RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust founder Edward Sonshine, Mattamy Homes CEO Peter Gilgan and past Toronto Blue Jays president Paul Godfrey, is one of the strongest shows of support Poilievre has seen from the business community yet. His competitor, Liberal Mark Carney, has spent much of the election campaign, which concludes on April 28 when Canadians go to the polls, touting his experience as leader of the central banks in both Canada and England. He argues that experience leaves him best equipped to address the country's economic woes and tariff threats from U.S. President Donald Trump. The Liberals did not immediately respond to request for comment on the letter. The Conservatives, however, took the missive as a sign that their platform is resonating with the business community. “Pierre Poilievre’s Canada First Economic Action Plan is being recognized as a strong plan to lower taxes and eliminate red tape to unleash our industries and bring home powerful paycheques for our people and a thriving economy," Conservative spokesman Sam Lilly said in a statement. Poilievre revealed earlier this week that his plan is designed to cut bureaucratic red tape by 25 per cent in two years through a "two-for-one" law. The law would see two regulations be repealed for every new one that's enacted and require that every dollar spent on new administrative costs trigger the cutting of two dollars in other areas. Meanwhile, Carney has said he will boost interprovincial trade by removing all exemptions under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, develop a new fund to help link natural resource extraction sites with rail lines and roads and create new programs geared toward training workers. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said it was "no surprise" some business leaders are backing Poilievre and Carney because they're giving a tax break to the ultra-wealthy," rather than focusing on "what people actually need—health care, housing, and support when they lose a job." "Canadians are working hard but falling behind," Singh said in a statement. "Wages aren’t keeping up, housing is out of reach, and public services are stretched. The economy isn’t working for most people." This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 12, 2025. Tara Deschamps, The Canadian Press

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Business leaders and ex bank heads throw support behind Poilievre A number of prominent business le...

Apr 13, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Canada has a 263% tariff on U.S. Chicken
False

Fact Check: Canada has a 263% tariff on U.S. Chicken

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Canada has a 263% tariff on U.S. Chicken

Apr 8, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Unverified

Fact Check: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ TH...

Apr 6, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Unverified

Fact Check: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ TH...

Apr 6, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: U.S. tariff on Chinese products is expected to surpass 100%. | TruthOrFake Blog