Tinker, Tailor, Tariff, Trump (pt. 3)

Welcome back! We've returned from our August recess to discuss the trial against former President Joseph Kabila in the Congo, Israel's rapidly deteriorating public diplomacy strategies, and, yes, the reactions of European nations to the end of the U.S. de minimis tax benefit and the start of 15% tariffs. With some countries halting shipping to the U.S., how will the U.S. government respond? Has the Trump administration worked with global shipping companies to explain the changes? How will this impact U.S. consumers and small and medium-sized businesses in Europe? We're covering all of this in under 15 minutes. 

Be sure to follow us on Instagram @thefridaybrief and sign up for The Friday Brief newsletter on thefridaybrief.com. 

Transcript

Welcome to The Friday Brief, a news podcast by Girl Friday. I’m Phoenix Ricks, the CEO of Girl Friday and your host. This is your brief for August 27, 2025. 

PBS reported that Congo’s public prosecutor has requested the death penalty for former President Joseph Kabila, who led Congo from 2001 to 2019. He took office at 29 years old, after his father, the former president, Laurent Kabila, was assassinated. He extended his presidency by delaying elections for two years after his term ended in 2017. Kabila had been in exile since 2023, but his reappearance in the rebel-run city of Goma in April did little to improve his image or counter the allegations against him. He’s being tried in absentia for treason and war crimes, related to his ties to the M23 rebel group. The very group that took over Goma. In the Congo, remember that there are more than 100 armed groups, but several key players stand out. One is definitely the M23 rebel group, comprised mainly of Tutsis. Rwanda’s current regime allegedly supports them. 

This is a major case, and if it were happening in Western Europe or the United States, it would be front-page news every single day. Their court is asserting that their former president may have supported or engaged in war crimes perpetrated by an armed rebel group that is essentially representing the interests of a neighboring nation. Several days ago, PBS also reported that Rwanda-backed rebels, yes, them again, killed at least 140 people in farming communities in eastern Congo in July. That information came from a human rights group, which called the murders “summary executions.” The people killed and missing are predominantly Hutu civilians. This is important to note because again, we’re looking at violent remnants of the Rwandan genocide. Everyone cheered in 1994 when the genocide officially ended, but for the past 30 years, we’ve seen the violence spill over into Congo. 

These latest attacks took place near Virunga National Park in North Kivu Province. If that sounds familiar, you’ve probably been following The Friday Brief for a while - Virunga is why I’m an advocate for protecting park rangers around the world, but particularly in conflict zones. 

Looking at news from Israel, NPR reported that “Israeli forces killed 22 people, including five journalists, in two consecutive strikes on Gaza's largest functioning hospital, drawing global condemnation and prompting a rare admission of regret by the Israeli government.” The journalists were affiliated with international outlets, including The Associated Press, Reuters, and Al Jazeera's Arabic news channel. In a letter to Benjamin Netanyahu and his military's leadership, Reuters and the AP said, in part, "We are outraged that independent journalists were among the victims of this strike on the hospital, a location that is protected under international law. We have found the [Israeli military's] willingness and ability to investigate itself in past incidents to rarely result in clarity and action, raising serious questions, including whether Israel is deliberately targeting live feeds in order to suppress information.” 

Over the past several months, in addition to tracking the hostage negotiations and outrageous humanitarian situation in Gaza, I’ve been watching the swift deterioration of Israel’s once formidable public diplomacy apparatus. I worked in public diplomacy for the United States government, so I’m always hyperaware of the global image governments project and the measures they take to maintain optics, improve perceptions, or correct disinformation. Public diplomacy efforts include well-known initiatives, such as exchange programs, and quieter initiatives, like digital communications campaigns that you might see or even participate in, but you may not realize a government is leading them. Public diplomacy also includes how the government works with the press. At its best, public diplomacy helps portray a nation in a positive light to others. That actually includes openly discussing missteps and wrongdoings to encourage best practices based on real lessons learned. It also shows a willingness for transparency, atonement, and progress. 

For instance, when I worked at the State Department, we didn’t shy away from discussing the trauma of racial segregation when we talked about the highlights of the Civil Rights movement. The iconic “I Have a Dream” speech does not exist in a vacuum. Dr. King delivered that legendary speech because our country was in a battle over equality. 

You must include truth and context because, at its worst, public diplomacy can drift into outright propaganda. I’ve found that this happens during civil and foreign conflicts when a party wants to write the victor’s history in real-time. Anxious to tell their winning side, while the situation is still unfolding, governments may become defensive, and their public diplomacy strategies reflect that defensive posture. This is where things can go wrong, leading to lasting consequences, such as severed trust. The U.S.-led storytelling during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a great example of this, and we see the same consequences, even across the political divide here. Whether you’re in MAGA or much further left, you’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone around you who would support entering a foreign war. 

The narrative explaining why the war was necessary initially resonated with people who were angry about 9/11 and wanted some form of justice. But once the press started reporting on U.S. and allied military casualties, constant civilian deaths, and even allegations of war crimes, Americans started asking questions. When we didn’t get answers, we joined the global chorus of vocal critics and made certain that pro-war politicians would be out of the highest levels of power during the next election cycles. This is not unusual or a uniquely American experience. Government storytelling loses its potency when people ask basic questions, and the government’s narrative provides murky answers. And we’re in an era where we have traditional press and social media. If the traditional press is still leaning toward language that the government prefers, we have everyday people reporting on their experiences. 

Some of those people sharing their experiences in Israel and Gaza have become household names. We’ve gotten to know families that regularly attend vigils for hostages, and we’ve seen images of absolute horrors in Gaza. We see Israelis, by the hundreds, consistently taking to the streets to protest, holding up pictures of maimed and murdered Palestinian children alongside posters of hostages. We see reputable aid organizations and credible advocates confirming everything that civilians and the press are reporting in Gaza, namely that people desperately need a ceasefire, food, and medical aid. And then, on the flip side, we see influencers, often Americans, on social media trying to convince us that these courageous aid workers, journalists, and civilians are simply not telling the truth. It all feels very familiar to me, just with the new, frankly bizarre, addition of a cadre of ill-equpped influencers in a government's public diplomacy war-time strategy. The influencer messaging is adrift from reality and eroding trust. 

Will Netanyahu’s administration and his political party survive this era? If so, how would they do that without the press, which is now openly questioning if they are targets?

Looking at news from Europe, The Guardian reported that postal services in Europe are suspending shipments to the U.S. because of tariffs. Trump’s haphazard deadlines left them with an “extremely limited timeframe to get prepared.” Last month, I told you more about Trump’s tariff negotiations with Europe. We are now approaching the deadlines he set. Starting in two days, the de minimis tax exemption will be abolished. This exemption allowed small packages worth less than $800 to enter the United States duty-free. The Guardian reports that last year, “a total of 1.36 billion packages were sent under the so-called 'de minimis' exemption, containing goods worth $64.6 billion.” Those packages will now be subject to a 15% tariff. And remember, who pays tariffs? It's often the consumer. 

When I worked for a large foreign retail corporation, I advocated against changing this specific tax exemption. Some of the lobbyists for abolishing de minimis often stated that it was a labor rights issue. They were concerned that fashion and textiles, especially made in China, could have cotton from Xinjiang or be produced in an unethical factory. Those are valid concerns. They believed that getting rid of de minimis would decimate direct-to-consumer retailers with supply chains in China. I never believed that would be the end result. In my opinion, they arbitrarily tied fixing global labor rights issues, which is extremely important, to a single tax benefit. 

I always feared their efforts could have unintended consequences, because the large corporations they were targeting could find a way to work around a tax hurdle, which is precisely what they have done by establishing local fulfillment models. They have the financial resources to absorb tariffs and implement new logistics strategies to prevent losing their customers. But small and medium businesses cannot afford to make those kinds of logistics changes in their shipping models. 

What, if anything, did the advocates against de minimis ultimately do to improve labor rights and supply chains within large corporations? And now, how is all of this going to work for small businesses? Even major shipping companies don’t know. DHL said, “Key questions remain, particularly regarding who will have to pay the tariffs and how, what additional data will be required, and how data will be transmitted to US Customs.” 

Thank you for listening to The Friday Brief. We had a short August break, but we’re back. Make sure you and your friends don’t miss an episode! Check out thefridaybrief.com, and follow The Friday Brief on Instagram and TikTok. Until next time, I’m Phoenix Ricks, signing off from Washington, DC. Let’s work together for a world of good.