Several hours after a person eats death cap mushrooms and becomes violently unwell, there is a period of relief. They feel as if they are improving. They are not.
This pause soon gives way to “a relentlessly progressive and quite frightening rapid deterioration into multiple organ failure”.
“The body’s different organ systems essentially shut down and the patient is extremely unwell, at a very high risk of dying,” the director of intensive care at Austin Health, Dr Stephen Warrillow, told Erin Patterson’s triple murder trial.
At times it seemed almost an afterthought, during an extended trial subject to ghoulish fascination, that Don Patterson, Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson died terrible deaths.
Ian Wilkinson barely escaped the same fate, but he was watching in court as Warrillow gave his evidence. Not five metres to Ian’s left was the woman who allegedly tried to kill him.
There was no dispute that Patterson poisoned him and the others with death cap mushrooms, that the blame for their deaths fell at her feet. But had she meant to do it?
On Monday, a Victorian supreme court jury convicted Patterson of murdering her estranged husband’s parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and his aunt, Heather Wilkinson. The 12-person jury also found Patterson guilty of attempting to murder Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson.
The difficulty in proving Patterson’s intent – as the defence made sure it repeatedly emphasised – was that the prosecution could not say why she killed three people and tried to kill a fourth.
Despite the law being clear that no motive was required, this was no small thing for a jury: how to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a mother of two, with no criminal history, is guilty of triple murder, when nobody can tell you why she did it?
Don and Gail Patterson died in hospital after eating the beef wellington meal served by Erin Patterson.
Patterson said the deaths were due to the most trivial thing, a slight reorganisation of her pantry. At some point, she put foraged mushrooms that she did not realise were death caps in the same Tupperware container as mushrooms bought from an Asian grocer.
She started foraging around the start of the pandemic, Patterson told the jury, and continued the habit for the next three years every autumn, picking mushrooms that grew on her properties and in public spaces including botanic gardens.
Patterson bought a dehydrator in April 2023 because she loved wild mushrooms, but they didn’t keep for long. Drying them meant they would last longer.
A few days earlier, Patterson said, she bought dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs. They were too “pungent” for the dish she was making, so she removed them from their packet, and put them in a different Tupperware container.
This container was stored in her pantry at her home in Leongatha in May and June. At about this time, Patterson said she put wild mushrooms that she foraged and dehydrated in that same container.
Patterson said none of this was clear to her until Simon confronted her in Monash hospital three days after the lunch, and asked whether the dehydrator was “how you poisoned my parents”.
“Did that comment by Simon cause you to reflect on what might have been in the meal?” Patterson’s barrister, Colin Mandy SC, asked her on 4 June.
“It caused me to do a lot of thinking about a lot of things, yeah,” Patterson answered.
She went on: “It got me thinking about all the times that I’d used [the dehydrator] … how I had dried foraged mushrooms in it weeks earlier, and I was starting to think, ‘what if they’d gone in the container with the Chinese mushrooms? Maybe – maybe that had happened’.”
Patterson started to feel scared, responsible, worried her children would be taken away, because “Simon seemed to be of the mind that maybe this was intentional”, the court heard.
This conversation with Simon was the fulcrum, where the wheel started to turn, as Mandy put it, where Patterson decided to cover up her foraging, the Covid habit turned deadly.
Illustration: Guardian Design
She dumped the dehydrator the next day, lied to police repeatedly in an interview about foraging and the dehydrator three days later still, and remotely reset her phone to conceal evidence of both those parts of her life from homicide squad detectives, the court was told.
But there was a significant point of contention about Patterson’s version of events: Simon said the conversation at Monash hospital never happened.
According to the prosecution, Patterson bought the dehydrator as a murder weapon on 28 April 2023, soon after she travelled to the township of Loch to source death cap mushrooms.
She bought it for the sole purpose of disguising death caps so she could fatally poison the lunch guests, not to preserve wild mushrooms so she could cook with them year-round, the court heard. This was no pantry error, the prosecution said, but a murderous plot, weeks in the making.
Even the fact Patterson was in Monash hospital was, on the prosecution case, a ruse: she was pretending to be sick so as not to arouse suspicion about why the others were fatally unwell, and she was not.
A lot turned, therefore, on what the jury made of Patterson’s account about these weeks before the lunch.
What in general did they make of her, a self-confessed liar, urging them to believe her now? Is someone more believable once they admit their untruths? Or are they damned as a liar?
Mandy told the jury that Patterson was not on trial for lying, but the conclusions they made about her lying could help them reach a verdict.
Patterson’s evidence bookended by tears
Patterson could have taken the stand regardless of the advice of her lawyers. There was much about her extended period in the witness box that may have caused them anxiety.
Her eight days in the stand left their mark on Patterson; she was in tears soon after she started, and in tears as she ended, but it did not seem to harm her case. Whether she came out, as Mandy said, unscathed, or as the prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC said, with yet more lies attached to her name, was a matter for the jury.
What certainly emerged was a fuller picture of her, edges and shape, the third dimension to the flat picture of her seen on screens and in the dock.
Patterson said she was a binge eater, who had struggled with her body image since she was a child whose mother forced her to weigh herself, she said. The day of the lunch, she binge ate two-thirds of an orange cake brought by Gail, then vomited it up – a plausible explanation, the defence said, for why she was less unwell than her guests later.
She also described regularly consulting “Dr Google” to understand health ailments, and admitted to having overstated health complaints including cancer to elicit sympathy.
Patterson spoke of the camping trips and the religious epiphany at Ian’s church that occurred in the years after she met Simon, while they were working for the same suburban council.
She had owned a bookshop in Western Australia, worked as an air traffic controller, then had no need to work at all because of inheritances worth several million dollars. Her plans for 2023 included studying a bachelor of nursing and midwifery, but she had deferred before the lunch.
Nothing appeared to define her more than motherhood, however: her 16-year-old son and 11-year-old daughter were the centre of a universe that included their doting grandparents, Don and Gail.
Patterson’s five days of cross-examination were punctuated by revelations, but without moments of genuine shock. Rogers said the “starkest lie” which emerged was that Patterson claimed she was having gastric bypass surgery, when she had no such appointment.
There was probing of whether Patterson was “two-faced” – the loving daughter-in-law who helped in church every second Sunday and stayed part of her estranged husband’s family eight years after they separated, and the woman who vented “fuck ‘em” about the same family to her friends online.
The Patterson family attended Korumburra Baptist church. Photograph: James Ross/AAP
More may have emerged if so many of the questions asked of Patterson did not end with an invitation for her to give a single word response. Rogers asked Patterson more than 200 questions that ended with the words “agree or disagree” or “correct or incorrect”, and others still ended with just one of those words.
Patterson was not asked whether she tried the duxelles after, in her telling, she accidentally added death cap mushrooms to a bland dish. Is this not what any home cook would do, after adding an ingredient to improve a meal? Mandy told the jury they could infer she did just that.
Indeed, many details about how Patterson said this accident happened remained inexact, including when and where she picked the mushrooms; why she had not used them in other meals before, given they were there for some weeks and her love of mushrooms; why she combined different types of dried mushrooms in the same container, including button mushrooms from Woolworths, when one of these varieties, had been too “pungent” for a dish; what exactly did the container look like, and could Patterson identify it, given police took dozens of photos of her kitchen.
There were other questions, too, that were not asked about Patterson’s conduct after the lunch.
Patterson was asked countless times about her bowel movements, the phrase, “poo your pants” and variances a common occurrence, but not about why she was wearing white pants at a time she said she was suffering diarrhoea.
Patterson was the final witness in her trial. Her estranged husband, Simon, was the first. Between them were about 50 others, police and doctors and family and mycologists, some linked to the case in intimate, life-altering ways, others seemingly perturbed about being dragged into it.
Patterson watched these witnesses closely from her seat in the dock, mostly with her chin slightly raised, reading glasses on or close by, ready to be used should an exhibit appear on the screen to her left.
From her seat, Patterson could see through a large window, covered with translucent blinds, facing south. As the trial dragged on through the end of autumn and into winter, she could watch as leaves withered, turned the colour of the terracotta roofs below, and were blown loose.
Occasionally, one flitted against the window, an almost startling reminder that life outside court number four went on.
A travelling circus
Beyond Morwell is the Hazelwood open cut coalmine, and further still, the foothills of the Strezlecki Ranges. They are a barrier between the Latrobe Valley, where the trial was held, and South Gippsland, the region where Patterson and the guests are from.
There is little in common between Leongatha, where Patterson lived, and Morwell, where she opted for the trial to be held, despite them being only 60km apart.
As there was barely a link between the towns, there was a sense that the trial was a travelling circus: everybody would soon pack up and leave, without any lingering sense of loss or trauma in Morwell.
And a circus, at times, it was: people were chased out of court after trying to take selfies with Patterson, or, at one point, reaching out to touch her hand. Another man was marched out after directing a protest at Justice Christopher Beale. An article that was to be about the “media circus” breached a suppression order, as did multiple other publications.
Other media outlets, and a juror who was dismissed, could yet face further proceedings resulting from the trial.
On the days Patterson gave evidence, a handful of people waited outside from about 6.30am, four hours before court started, in single-digit temperatures.
Many of those who crammed into court throughout the trial appeared not unlike Patterson herself: middle aged women with an interest in true crime.
Some watchers were obsessed because it was an alleged poisoning case, others because they were from South Gippsland and wanted to see it.
There was a man with rainbow coloured hair and a matching coat, who runs a business giving people “unicorn manes”. A woman who runs a popular true crime Instagram account shared the front row with novelist Helen Garner.
There was no other way for the public to follow the case: you had to be in that room, or otherwise dip into the seemingly endless content produced about it (almost all of those in the gallery did both).
It is hard to know exactly what made it so popular. It would perhaps be easier to identify what wasn’t compelling about it.
Surely, a significant element was that this was a woman accused of the unthinkable and judged on different standards, someone who in public sentiment did not grieve in a genuine way, who must be mad or sad or bad or some combination of the three.
Of the roughly 40 seats inside court, about half were free for the public, with the rest taken by the Patterson and Wilkinson families, media, and other people associated with the case. Only one supporter of Patterson, her friend and power of attorney, regularly attended court.
Heather Wilkinson and her husband, Ian Wilkinson, the sole surviving lunch guest. Photograph: Facebook
Patterson spent week nights inside the Morwell police cells. Every day of the trial, she walked about 30 steps along a passageway, no wider than three metres, from the back of the station into the court building.
Above her, and to her right, was the patio outside court, where feverish coverage whirred on: witnesses and lawyers and the detective in charge of the investigation, Stephen Eppingstall, ran a gauntlet of photographers and camera operators to get into court every day; reporters completed live crosses; court watchers, having saved a seat upstairs, ducked out for a final smoke before the hearing started.
Patterson walked in open-toed rubber sandals, a seemingly curious choice for late autumn and winter in the Latrobe Valley, until you considered how rare it was for her to be outside.
On Fridays, she was taken by prison van from Morwell to the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre, a prison on the dusty and flat western outskirts of Melbourne.
As she left Morwell, and when she returned on Mondays, photographers reached high to firmly press their lenses against the van’s tiny compartment windows, not knowing which of these compartments Patterson was in.
After the jury retired to consider its verdict, temporary fencing wrapped in black plastic appeared around Patterson’s house, where the lunch was held.
It seemed an odd thing to have preoccupied Patterson when she was awaiting a verdict on charges of triple murder, to take steps to preserve a sliver of privacy should she walk from court, but the case is nothing if not odd.
On Monday, she again made that walk from the police station into court along the concrete passageway, took the lift to the first floor, and, flanked by two corrections officers, stepped through a door into the dock.
She would not have to wait long to learn if the jury would send her back the way she came, or whether she would be free to walk into court, to head back to her dream home, to tend her three acres behind her rudimentary fence.
Ian Wilkinson, the only guest who sat for lunch at Patterson’s dining table on 29 July 2023 and lived, the Baptist Church pastor who stared death in the face, did not come to court to see it.
The social media embargo for James Gunn‘s “Superman” has been lifted, bringing with it the first reactions from members of the film press. The Warner Bros. tentpole is the latest superhero movie from “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Suicide Squad” writer-director Gunn, who is now overseeing DC Studios with Peter Safran. “Superman” marks the launch of a rebooted DC Universe on the big screen. Film press are calling it a “thrilling start” to Gunn’s DC Studios.
Film critic Bryan Sudfield praised “Superman” as a “bold yet faithful” feature adaptation of the DC icon. He added that Gunn’s take felt unique while still staying true to the character’s roots.
“‘Superman’ soars with heart, humor, and style—a bold yet faithful take on the iconic hero,” he wrote on X. “James Gunn sets a fresh tone while honoring the character’s legacy, and David Corenswet shines with sincerity and strength. A promising, thrilling start to DC’s new era.”
Entertainment journalist Brandon Davis took to X to praise David Corenswet’s performance as the titular Man of Steel, adding that his chemistry with Rachel Brosnahan was “an excellent driver” of the story.
“David Corenswet portrays an exceptional iteration of [Superman] with sincerity, heroism, purity, and inspirational traits,” he wrote. “Corenswet & Rachel Brosnahan’s chemistry for Clark and Lois is off the charts.”
However, not everyone was a fan of the DC Studio debut. Movie critic Peter Howell said “Superman” was “not the super start to the DC Universe everybody had been hoping for,” and that it prioritized style over substance.
“James Gunn is brilliant at conjuring spectacle and creating alien realms, not so great at storytelling,” he wrote on X. “David Corenswet plays a boyishly sweet Superman, constantly getting his ass kicked; he’d be better as the lead in a Dudley Do-Right movie. Rachel Brosnahan makes a spiky Lois Lane, Nicholas Hoult’s Lex Luthor is more obnoxious than villainous. The real star of the show is superdog Krypto, who steals every scene he’s in — I’d rather see a movie about him.”
“Superman” stars Corenswet in the title role, plus Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor and Brosnahan as Lois Lane. The supporting cast includes Skyler Gisondo (Jimmy Olsen), Anthony Carrigan (Metamorpho), Edi Gathegi (Mister Terrific), Nathan Fillon (Guy Gardner), Isabela Mercad (Hawkgirl) and more. While plot specifics for the movie have remained under wraps, Gunn has said his superhero epic encompasses “the story of America.”
“I mean, ‘Superman’ is the story of America,” Gunn explained to The Sunday Times. “An immigrant that came from other places and populated the country, but for me it is mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and is something we have lost… Yes, it’s about politics. But on another level it’s about morality. Do you never kill no matter what — which is what Superman believes — or do you have some balance, as Lois believes? It’s really about their relationship and the way different opinions on basic moral beliefs can tear two people apart.”
Check out more “Superman” first reactions below. The film opens in theaters July 11 from Warner Bros. and DC Studios.
“SUPERMAN reminds us that Clark Kent has always been a beacon of hope and the goodness that can exist in this world. James Gunn’s vision is a comic book brought to life and it bought a lightness and a happiness to one of the most beloved heroes around.” – Rachel Leishman (@RachelLeishman)
“This is the BEST #Superman movie to date. When James Gunn gets out of the way & lets his work speak for itself, it’s incredible. 💙💛❤️ It’s not perfect, but darn close & made me a believer in Gunn’s #DC.” – Grace Randolph (@GraceRandolph)
“There’s glimmers of a heartfelt, hopeful & optimistic #Superman akin to classic Action Comics, but the film sadly buckles under a convoluted & often silly plot. However, there are terrific performances from Corenswet, Brosnahan, Hoult & Gathegi – plus Krypto really is the best!” – Nicola Austin@nicola_aus
“James Gunn’s #Superman is the hero’s most vibrant, optimistic, and character-driven big screen outing since Richard Donner was as running the show. It lays a solid groundwork for a larger universe, but this is Superman’s story and a damn good one. Marvel let a big fish get away.” – Nick Spake (@NSpake)
“James Gunn absolutely nailed it with #Superman. From the music and VFX to the camerawork and humor, he crafted the ideal light-hearted, kid-friendly family film for the summer. Every character had standout moments—especially Krypto.” – Jeremy Kazieva (@jeremy_kazieva)
“Superman is filled with hope, love, and deeply powerful themes of what it means to be human. Corenswet completely embodies the strength and honor of the character, and his chemistry with Brosnahan is electric. Loved the action, and ambitious story. Gunn pulled it off!” – Ben Meter (@metersreviews)
US stocks fell Monday as President Donald Trump announced a flurry of tariffs on countries including Japan, South Korea and South Africa.
The Dow closed lower by 422 points, or 0.94%. The S&P 500 fell 0.79% and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite fell 0.92%. The three major indexes posted their worst day in about three weeks. Meanwhile, the early opening Asian stocks started Tuesday flat.
Stocks dropped lower midday after Trump announced 25% tariffs on Japan and South Korea, set to go into effect August 1. Stocks continued to fall in the afternoon as Trump announced tariffs of varying rates from 25% to 40% on countries including Myanmar, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Laos and South Africa.
Trump posted letters on Truth Social outlining the tariffs, which are separate from sectoral tariffs. The tariff rates “may be modified, upward or downward,” according to the letters.
Stocks had opened lower as Wall Street mulled the Trump administration’s plan to announce new trade deals — or notify countries of new tariff rates. Trump on Sunday said the White House would send “tariff letters” to countries on Monday at noon. Trump had told reporters on Friday the letters would disclose new tariff rates set for August 1.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday said the president would sign an executive order to move the July 9 tariff deadline to August 1, creating a timeline for negotiations.
US-listed shares in major Japanese automakers Toyota, Nissan and Honda dropped by 4%, 7.16% and 3.86%, respectively.
US-listed shares in major South Korean technology companies LG Display and SK Telecom dropped by 8.3% and 7.76%, respectively.
Exchange-traded funds managed by BlackRock that track Japanese, South Korean, South African and Malaysian stocks were down 2.4%, 3.56%, 1.73% and 1.97%, respectively.
The Japan-focused, South Korea-focused and Malaysia-focused ETFs posted their worst day since early April.
Ross Mayfield, an investment strategist at Baird, told CNN that the proposed tariff rates were higher than the market was expecting, leading to a sell-off in stocks.
US government bonds also slid as investors digested the tariff developments. The 10-year Treasury yield rose to 4.39% and the 30-year yield rose to 4.92%. Yields and prices trade in opposite directions.
The US dollar index, which measures the dollar’s strength against six major foreign currencies, gained 0.3%. The Japanese yen, South Korean won and South African rand all weakened against the dollar.
On Tuesday, Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 Index rose 0.5% in early hours of trading, while South Korea’s Kospi gained 1.5%. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index rose 0.3%, and Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 was up less than 0.1%.
Kai Wang, Asia equity market strategist at Morningstar, interpreted the relatively muted Asian stock response as investors looking beyond the tariffs, and focusing instead on the new August 1 deadline as a sign of progress.
“(Asian) markets are treating the latest tariff move more as posturing than policy, with room still seen for dialogue,” he said.
US stocks rallied in recent weeks as investors bet the worst of the tariff confusion was in the past. As Trump’s self-imposed July 9 deadline for trade deals — the conclusion of a 90-day pause that began April 9 — approached, Wall Street was cautiously optimistic.
Mohit Kumar, chief strategist and economist for Europe at Jefferies, said in a note he does not think the original July 9 deadline will have a “material impact” on markets.
“It will create near-term uncertainty and prompt some profit taking given current valuations and positioning. But the letters are meant as an incentive for other countries to agree to come to a deal quickly and we see more trade deals being signed in the coming weeks,” Kumar said.
A dip in stocks should be seen as a buying opportunity, Kumar said.
The S&P 500 has notched four record highs since June 27. Stocks have pushed higher as economic data has been stronger than expected, helping assuage concerns about the impact of the early stages of Trump’s tariff campaign.
“The renewed optimism appears to have been buoyed by a series of data points that have seemingly quelled some of the worst investor fears,” Brian Belski, chief investment strategist at BMO Capital Markets, said in a July 3 note. “For instance, cooler-than-anticipated CPI numbers continue to suggest a muted tariff impact, for now at least.”
Belski said he thinks trade deals will be announced in the coming weeks, providing “more clarity for both investors and businesses and likely keep[ing] the uptrend in stocks intact.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC on Monday he expects “several announcements in the next 48 hours.” Bessent had told CNN’s Dana Bash on Sunday that tariff rates would “boomerang” higher on August 1 if trade deals were not completed.
“If we’ve learned anything over the last three months, it’s that the situation is very fluid and can change with very little notice,” Jim Baird, chief investment officer at Plante Moran Financial Advisors, said.
While many investors expect stocks to grind higher, others warn that there is complacency in markets.
Scott Wren, global market strategist at Wells Fargo Investment Institute, said in a note he thinks the Wall Street consensus is “overly optimistic on the tariff outlook.”
Wren said there is concern that as tariff rates settle, the economy will begin to slow and consumer spending might pull back.
“Our feeling is that stocks are ahead of themselves, and as a result, we are looking to trim positions in markets and sectors we find to be overvalued,” he said, mentioning US small cap stocks and consumer discretionary sectors in the S&P 500 that have performed well in recent months.
Trump on Sunday also announced an additional 10% tariff on any countries aligning with BRICS — an economic bloc including founding members Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
While the S&P 500 and Nasdaq hit record highs in recent weeks, the Dow is still about 608 points away from hitting an all-time high.
Wall Street this week will be fixated on any signs of more proposed tariff rates. Lukman Otunuga, senior market analyst at FXTM, said if tariff rates jump higher than expected and revive “recession fears and trade uncertainty,” then stocks “could be slammed while safe havens rally.”
President Donald Trump cranked up the pressure Monday on America’s trading partners, firing off letters to heads of several countries, informing them of their new tariff rate. But at the same time, Trump took some of the edge off by signing an executive action Monday to extend the date for all “reciprocal” tariffs, with the exception of China, to August 1.
Those “reciprocal” tariffs were expected to go into effect Wednesday. In some cases, the letters Trump sent specify new “reciprocal” tariff rates that are higher or lower compared to April levels.
Trump was not definitive when asked if the new August 1 deadline was “firm” ahead of a dinner at the White House on Monday night. “I would say firm, but not 100% firm. If they call up and they say would like to do something a different way, we’re going to be open to that.”
Japan’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and South Korea’s President Lee Jae-myung were the first recipients of Trump’s letters.
Both countries will face a 25% tariff come August 1, according to the letters, but both nations said on Tuesday they plan to engage in further talks with the US, with Japan saying it was working towards a trade deal.
Trump announced similar letters were sent to Malaysia, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Myanmar and Laos, informing their leaders of new tariff rates as high as 40%.
Then later in the day, he posted seven new letters sent to leaders of Tunisia, Bosnia and Herzegovina (which is set to reach a 30% tariff), Indonesia, Bangladesh, Serbia, Cambodia and Thailand, putting the running total at 14 letters delivered on Monday.
In the letters, Trump said he takes particular issue with the trade deficits the United States runs with them, meaning America buys more goods from there compared to the amount that American businesses export to those countries. Trump also said the tariffs would be set in response to other policies that he deems are impeding American goods from being sold abroad.
He encouraged country leaders to manufacture goods in the United States to avoid tariffs.
This comes ahead of his initial 12:01 a.m. ET July 9 deadline for countries to make deals or face the threat of higher tariffs. That date marks the end of the pause on “reciprocal” tariffs, which briefly went into place in April. Since then, impacted countries have faced a minimum 10% tariff.
In all 14 letters, Trump threatened to raise tariffs even higher than the specified rates if a country retaliated against the United States with tariffs of their own. Trump said these rates would be “separate from all Sectoral Tariffs,” meaning, for instance, the new tariff won’t be stacked on top of the current auto tariff of 25%, the White House confirmed. That would apply to any future sector-specific tariffs, too, a White House official said.
Despite the many trade qualms Trump has broadcast as having with the European Union, prompting him to threaten higher tariffs on several occasions, the trading bloc appears to have not received a letter from him.
“We’re not going to comment on letters that we haven’t received,” Olof Gill, a European Commission spokesperson, told reporters Monday afternoon.
“My understanding is that we can now expect an extension of the current status quo until August 1 to give further time for the EU and the US to reach an agreement in principle on a mutually beneficial agreement that works for both sides,” Simon Harris, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, said in a statement on Monday.
Collectively, the US bought $465 billion worth of goods last year from the 14 countries that received letters on Monday, according to US Commerce Department figures. Japan and South Korea, America’s sixth- and seventh-largest trading partners, accounted for 60% of that, shipping a total of $280 billion worth of goods to the US last year.
The prospect of higher tariffs on goods could translate into higher prices for American consumers. Among the top goods America imports from South Korea and Japan, for example, are cars, auto parts, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and machinery. Trump has placed or threatened to levy industry-specific tariffs on many of these goods.
In April, Japan was set to face a 24% tariff, while South Korea was set to face a 25% tariff. Now, both face the same 25% rate.
Japan’s Ishiba, convened a cabinet task force on Tuesday after receiving the letter and voiced Tokyo’s deep “regret that the U.S. government has imposed additional tariffs and announced plans to raise tariff rates.” He said the country would continue negotiations with the United States to seek a bilateral trade deal that benefits both countries.
South Korea’s Finance Ministry said in a statement that it would monitor developments closely, but warned that if market fluctuations become “excessive” the government would “take immediate and bold action in accordance with its contingency plans,” though it did not immediately detail what that action may entail.
While the other countries ship less to the US compared to Japan and South Korea, in many cases they are among the top foreign sources of goods.
For instance, South Africa, which is set to face 30% tariffs, accounted for roughly half of the platinum the US imported from other countries last year and was the top foreign supplier of it.
Malaysia, which is set to face a 24% tariff versus the 25% rate Trump announced in April, was the second-top source of semiconductors shipped to the US last year, with Americans purchasing $18 billion worth of them from there.
Meanwhile, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Cambodia are top manufacturing hubs for apparel and accessories.
Trump’s letter to Cambodia’s prime minister threatened a tariff rate of 36%, 13 percentage points lower than what had been in place in April, before it was paused.
Stocks dropped lower midday after Trump announced the first batch of letters and continued to fall as Trump announced tariffs of varying rates from 25% to 40% on countries including Myanmar, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Laos and South Africa.
Despite Trump saying country-specific tariffs won’t be stacked on top of sectorial ones, shares of auto companies that have a heavy manufacturing presence in Japan and South Korea declined sharply. US-listed shares in major Japanese automakers Toyota, Nissan and Honda dropped by 4%, 7.16% and 3.86%, respectively.
Those declines, however, may reflect the increased likelihood of Trump potentially raising tariffs on cars from the two countries should they retaliate against the general 25% tariffs, were they to go into effect, by slapping higher tariffs on American goods.
“These Tariffs may be modified, upward or downward, depending on our relationship,” Trump ended the letters before signing off.
The Dow closed lower by 422 points, or 0.94%. The S&P 500 fell 0.79% and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite fell 0.92%. The three major indexes posted their worst day in about three weeks. Meanwhile, stocks in Asia started Tuesday trading flat.
