U.S. gov't mulls tariffing devices based on the number of chips used and their estimated value — policy would impact nearly every type of electronic device

Arm
(Image credit: Arm)

The U.S. government is evaluating a plan to tax imported electronics based on the number of chips they contain and their estimated value within the device, according to Reuters. This plan, which is still under internal review, could impact everything from basic gadgets like the Apple Watch to high-end servers, marking a shift toward chip-specific trade penalties. However, there are obvious difficulties associated with implementing such tariffs.

The proposed system would calculate tariffs as a percentage of the estimated value of semiconductors within a product. A preliminary version under consideration suggests rates of 25% for chip-dense imports and 15% for devices originating from Japan or the EU. Although still uncertain, the numbers indicate a shift toward creating a tiered tariff system based on origin and chip usage intensity.

Inflation concerns

Both policies aim to encourage (or rather, force?) chipmakers and chip designers to produce more chips in the U.S. However, such policies may create their own set of problems. Critics warn that the plan could exacerbate inflation, particularly given the current price pressures in the U.S. economy. Since chips are embedded in all electronic devices (even cheap kettles), a wide range of consumer products could become more expensive. Economists note that even goods assembled domestically might carry higher price tags due to increased costs of foreign components.

Sources familiar with the matter told Reuters the White House is opposed to broad exemptions, viewing them as weakening the intended pressure on industry players to localize operations. Apparently, while chip-making lithography tools from ASML are currently exempt from tariffs, the Commerce Department is at least considering tariffs on chip-making equipment, which could increase the costs of fabs in the U.S.

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!

Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • Notton
    Ah yes, the throw-enough-mud-at-the-wall method of the-means-justifies-the-end.

    Do they even remember what their goal was?
    Reply
  • COLGeek
    Please focus on the tech aspects of the topic and less about the politics, please. Thank you.
    Reply
  • BloodLust2222
    COLGeek said:
    Please focus on the tech aspects of the topic and less about the politics, please. Thank you.
    What tech aspects? Everything about the article is political and it's impacts.
    Reply
  • COLGeek
    BloodLust2222 said:
    What tech aspects? Everything about the article is political and it's impacts.
    Really? I disagree. Just one example is with availability of tech. Think about it.

    These notions have multiple layers of 2nd, 3rd, etc order effects. All directly applicable to tech and consumers.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    BloodLust2222 said:
    What tech aspects? Everything about the article is political and it's impacts.
    "Tech aspect" would be to define what level "chip" this is talking about.

    Pretty much everything has a 'chip' in it.

    USB charger, flashlight, solar powered string lights, plug in timer for a floor lamp, etc, etc, etc.
    Reply
  • jlake3
    COLGeek said:
    Really? I disagree. Just one example is with availability of tech. Think about it.

    These notions have multiple layers of 2nd, 3rd, etc order effects. All directly applicable to tech and consumers.
    But expressing an opinion on whether reduced availability and higher prices is good or bad could be considered political. These were enacted for political reasons and to achieve political goals.

    None of us like it, but politics has come for technology.
    Reply