Thread

Suspension of the de minimis administrative exemption for imports $800 or less

161 points · 154 comments · burnt-resistor

bayarearefugee · 1790027758 · focus · HN ↗
goes into effect 12 days before a midterm election that is already starting to look like a blue tsunami.
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em.
1. cyanydeez · 1790029134 · focus · HN ↗
  you're assuming media gives a lick about doing more than soundbites. The actual affect will be at best, 2 weeks after this is implemented, but probably 2 months while they actually figure out what legal means they can to infer which packages they can safely claim are foreign, along with actual foreign pharmacies giving 2 shits about todays shipping.
2. biglyburrito · 1790030515 · focus · HN ↗
  Never interrupt your enemy when they are busy making a mistake.
  1. tremon · 1790034457 · focus · HN ↗
    Never assume your enemy is making a mistake either, unless you possess the gift of perfect knowledge.
    amanaplanacanal · 1790041281 · focus · HN ↗
    Hard to see how making things more expensive for consumers is not a mistake, but I could totally be missing something.
    pseudohadamard · 1790044552 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not just making it more expensive, it's tying every single little thing that comes into the country up in an endlessly-growing loop of red tape that CBP has no way to handle. The de minimis exemption in most countries isn't motivated primarily by not hitting the little guy but by the fact that trying to enforce it for millions of low-value items would bring postal systems to a standstill.
    tpm · 1790075354 · focus · HN ↗
    This was exploited from the other side by sending billions of low-value packages, so now the EU adds €3 per article category (so 2 shirts = €3, 1 shirt and 1 spoon = €6) to every package that's under other customs thresholds (€150 usually). With the view this will be eventually replaced by automating the tariff calculation for every package in a few years.
    As a result, the number of imported packages dropped anywhere from 30% to 80%, we'll have to wait for the full numbers, but there is a reason to expect something similar will happen in the US.
    bigbadfeline · 1790128351 · focus · HN ↗
    > This was exploited from the other side by sending billions of low-value packages
    Billions and billions... of hearsay.
    tpm · 1790145500 · focus · HN ↗
    from 1.3bn in 2022 to 5.9bn in 2025
    <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/29/eu-introduces-customs-charge-on-small-parcels-to-curb-cheap-chinese-imports" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/29/eu-introduces-...
    surely you will apologise now, right?
    bigbadfeline · 1790173489 · focus · HN ↗
    For what? Only 10 packages per person/year, less than one per month. Previously you made is sound like 10s of billions of packages were saturating the services.
    Don't bend over backwards to defend utterly oppressive regulations, simply increasing the de-minimums would reduce or eliminate package splitting, limiting the number of packs per shipping address would help too - there are many ways to solve this self-inflicted problem which comes from Byzantine regulations that use protectionism as a Trojan horse to achieve other sneaky objectives.
    tpm · 1790178384 · focus · HN ↗
    You could have checked the facts yourself, you didn't, and now when it's clear I was right you moved the goalposts. You are arguing in bad faith.
    bigbadfeline · 1790209037 · focus · HN ↗
    Don't get personal, I'm not fighting with you. All I said is true and it matters, consider it from the viewpoint of better Europe.
    tpm · 1790237581 · focus · HN ↗
    More or less anything you said is wrong and the path to better Europe is certainly not through dropping import controls.
    tancop · 1790068027 · focus · HN ↗
    It's a strategic decision. Pharma companies promised campaign donations if Trump can make sure their profits go up.
    oliculipolicula · 1790044816 · focus · HN ↗
    you'll soon find out that I'm _also_ the bond market
    --Scott "The House" Bessent maybe?
3. sanp · 1790033061 · focus · HN ↗
  Assuming there is no chicanery
4. adastra22 · 1790033942 · focus · HN ↗
  midterms are in November?
  1. jacobolus · 1790034144 · focus · HN ↗
    "The compliance date for 19 CFR 145.12(a)(2)(v) and (vi) is on October 22, 2026"
  2. parl_match · 1790036566 · focus · HN ↗
    wait until you find out what month is before november lol
  3. mmh0000 · 1790043494 · focus · HN ↗
    People are downvoting you.
    But I'm assuming this was a joke about the conspiracy that midterms will be canceled one way or another due to a "national emergency". Which, sadly, is much more probable than it should be.
  4. eli_gottlieb · 1790141302 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, even-numbered years are Congressional election years and American general elections are held on the first Tuesday in November.
5. yieldcrv · 1790034974 · focus · HN ↗
  10 years of believing your color coded wave of choice is going to happen and still winding up with a 50-50 senate
  the seats necessary to alter that aren't even open, how gullible do people have to be? well, not very, independents are the largest bloc now, but of the remaining partisans... hello? your algorithm is fake
  1. gs17 · 1790035872 · focus · HN ↗
    > the seats necessary to alter that aren't even open
    Seems to be anyone's win right now: <a href="https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/senate/2026/toss-up" rel="nofollow">https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/senate/2026/toss-up (and RCP is considered to be conservative).
    yieldcrv · 1790036582 · focus · HN ↗
    a 51% Senate gets to do agency appointments, judge appointments, and particularly SCOTUS
    but it cant pass any laws. they’re still cooked by the filibuster (until they get bored of it)
    stouset · 1790045208 · focus · HN ↗
    SCOTUS has an unassailable majority unless Democrats grow a spine and pack the court or multiple conservative members have serious and unforeseen health issues. Neither seems all that likely.
    bryanlarsen · 1790036850 · focus · HN ↗
    Nate Silver now has it at a 66% chance that the Dems take the senate. (<a href="https://www.natesilver.net/p/expert-ratings-are-ignoring-signs" rel="nofollow">https://www.natesilver.net/p/expert-ratings-are-ignoring-sig...)
    Granted, 66% chance is still essentially a toss up.
  2. _DeadFred_ · 1790040388 · focus · HN ↗
    'Kamala is no different than Trump, and she didn't earn your vote, you should just stay home' vibes.
    We have learned Kamala was in fact much, much different than Trump, and many peoples rights have been trampled because of this sort of nonsense fatalism.
    yieldcrv · 1790048285 · focus · HN ↗
    the adults are talking about the Senate, one of the chambers of Congress. Has almost nothing to do with the President, especially not how they are elected.
    [deleted] · 1790053269 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
6. ModernMech · 1790077314 · focus · HN ↗
  They are not planning on winning any more elections from here on out, I don't know what other people saw on J6 to make them think that's not the strategy from now on, whenever they lose an election.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.