The United States has been imposing tariffs on China in a crazy manner, with President Trump claiming this would bring manufacturing back to America. But can American industries truly break free from "Made in China"?
According to an April 23 report by The New York Times, the U.S. once dominated the global market for personal protective equipment (PPE), now, with the flood of Chinese medical supplies, over 90% of the medical gear used by American healthcare workers is made in China. As one U.S. medical equipment executive bluntly put it: even with a 100 percent tariff, the Chinese masks is still going to be cheaper than the American-made masks.
The report highlights that few American industries have been hit as hard by cheap Chinese imports as manufacturers of masks, exam gloves, and other disposable medical gear. The sector’s decline had led to catastrophic consequences during the COVID-19 pandemic. When China temporarily halted exports, American healthcare workers found themselves defenseless as the deadly airborne virus rapidly filled up emergency rooms and morgues.
Now, with Trump announcing a new round of tariffs this month and China retaliating with an 84% tariff on U.S. imports, the handful of American PPE manufacturers left felt mostly unease.
Lloyd Armbrust, CEO of Armbrust American, a Texas-based N95 mask producer, admitted, "I’m pretty freaked out. On one hand, this is the kind of medicine we need if we really are going to be independent of China. On the other hand, this is not responsible industrial policy."
The U.S. once led the world in PPE, inventing the N95 mask and disposable gloves. Yet today, over 90% of the medical equipment worn by American healthcare staff is produced in China.
During the first year of the pandemic, more than 100 new American medical supply companies sprang up. Five years later, nearly all have vanished. As the pandemic receded, demand for PPE fell. For many Americans, masks became a symbol of government overreach and loss of freedom. Chinese products then returned to the market.
Despite bipartisan vows to end reliance on foreign medical supplies and support the dozens of domestic manufacturers that emerged during the pandemic, federal agencies have reverted to buying inexpensive Chinese imports. Industry experts warn that, with the ongoing measles outbreak, avian flu threats, and the trade war with China, renewed dependence on imported medical products is especially concerning.
According to the American Medical Manufacturers Association, of the 107 companies founded during the pandemic, only five still produce masks and gloves.
Eric Axel, the association’s executive director, says that maintaining high tariffs on Chinese PPE would give U.S. manufacturers an edge: "I think it will change behavior, because people will have to adjust to the reality that you can’t buy below-market price rate stuff from China anymore."
Other industry leaders fear that an escalating U.S.-China trade war could disrupt supply chains and trigger fresh PPE shortages. Tariff policies also breed economic uncertainty, stifling new investment. Scott McGurl, a healthcare industry expert at consulting firm Grant Thornton, notes, "It’s difficult to make business decisions when policies change every four years, and now every couple of days."
Mike Bowen, now-retired but still a shareholder of Prestige Ameritech, one of the few pre-pandemic American mask makers, said the collapse of the U.S. PPE industry in recent years was entirely predictable. He had repeatedly warned Congress about the risks of relying on foreign-made PPE, but no lessons were learned.
Earlier, when California bought millions of N95 masks for residents affected by the Los Angeles wildfires, they chose Chinese products.
Some American medical equipment manufacturers believe that what’s needed now is legislation and policy mandates to push government agencies and hospitals to buy American-made masks and gloves.
Yet, as Armbrust American’s Lloyd Armbrust points out: "Even with a 100% tariff, the Chinese mask that sells for a penny is still going to be cheaper than an American-made mask selling for eight cents."
Deep Throat
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
President Donald Trump, notorious for his frequent policy reversals—especially on tariffs—has once again changed course, this time regarding the fate of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. After weeks of escalating attacks and hints at Powell’s removal, Trump now insists he never intended to fire him, accusing the media of spreading falsehoods, although he continues to pressure Powell for more aggressive interest rate cuts. What he said this time sent U.S. stocks soaring. According to American media, Trump’s abrupt change of heart was influenced by the intervention of Treasury Secretary Bessent and Secretary of Commerce Lutnick, while White House lawyers quietly reviewed whether the president could legally dismiss the Fed chair.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell speaks during a news conference after the Federal Open Market Committee meeting, Wednesday, March 19, 2025, at the Federal Reserve in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
On April 16, Powell said, “Markets are struggling with a lot of uncertainty, and that means volatility.” Given the sweeping changes in President Trump’s tariff regime, his view is that markets are “functioning just about as you would expect them to function”. He further noted that the real issue is the direction of trade policy, and until that’s clear, it’s impossible to make sound assessments, implicitly criticizing the administration’s erratic approach. Unsurprisingly, this triggered a barrage of attacks from Trump.
On April 17, Trump posted on his social platform: “Powell’s actions are always ‘too late and wrong.’ He should have cut rates like the European Central Bank long ago, and now he should cut them immediately. The sooner Powell leaves, the better.”
The next day, during a White House interview, Trump was asked about Powell’s claim that he wouldn’t resign even if the president requested. Trump retorted, “He’ll leave. If I ask him, he’ll leave… I’m not happy with him. If I want him out, he’ll be out there real fast, believe me,” making clear his intent to replace Powell.
Trump’s chief economic adviser, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, later stated the administration would continue to study the issue.
On April 21, Trump again lashed out on social media, “Jerome Powell of the Fed, who is always TOO LATE AND WRONG, yesterday issued a report which was another, and typical, complete ‘mess!’ Trump wrote, “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!”, warning that without timely rate cuts, the U.S. economy could slow down. These remarks triggered a sharp selloff, with the Dow plunging nearly 1,000 points.
Yet the very next day, when asked in the Oval Office if he planned to fire Powell, Trump abruptly reversed course, claiming he never intended to do so, though he still urged Powell to take more aggressive action on rates.
What happened behind the scene to prompt this reversal?
According to The Wall Street Journal, before Trump’s public U-turn, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick intervened. Some senior White House officials had taken Trump’s threats seriously, prompting White House lawyers to privately examine legal options, including whether Powell could be dismissed “for cause”—a standard typically interpreted by courts as requiring misconduct or wrongdoing. Any attempt to oust Powell would have escalated tensions between the White House and the Fed.
Earlier in the week, these discussions ceased after Trump told senior aides he would not try to remove Powell,. Insiders say Bessent and Lutnick warned that firing Powell could trigger severe market turmoil and legal battles. Lutnick also told Trump that removing Powell would likely not change interest rates, as other Fed governors might maintain similar policies.
In fact, as financial markets reacted negatively to Trump’s aggressive trade and economic moves, he was forced to retreat and compromise.
Media analysis suggests that, despite Trump’s indifference to market swings in the eyes of the public, both he and his advisers closely monitor Wall Street and corporate reactions to his policies.
Most analysts believe that even if Trump managed to remove Powell before the end of his term, it would not deliver the lower rates Trump wants. At the last FOMC meeting, all 12 governors supported keeping rates unchanged.
Notably, last month, Trump promoted Fed Governor Michelle Bowman to Vice Chair for Supervision, but Bowman herself has repeatedly warned against premature or excessive rate cuts.
The Fed’s independence has long been regarded as “sacrosanct” by Wall Street bond investors. If foreign investors fear government interference in Fed policy, they could reduce purchases of U.S. debt, driving up rates. Political pressure on the Fed could also lead to short-term policymaking, increasing economic and market volatility.
As the world’s most important central bank, the Fed’s independence is critical not just for the U.S. economy but for global financial stability.
Tim Mahedy, chief economist at Access/Macro, warns that forcing out the Fed chair would trigger a “doomsday” market reaction: “The pain would be swift and severe,” likely forcing the president to backtrack immediately or risk a systemic financial crisis.
