In early April 2025, Trump announced a sweeping reciprocal tariff policy affecting over 180 countries. A baseline 10% tariff was applied universally, with substantially higher rates (20–60%) for nations with larger U.S. trade surpluses or higher tariffs on American exports.
Major Rates:
| Country / Region | Tariff Rate |
| China | 34% |
| European Union | 20% |
| Vietnam | 46% |
| Cambodia | 49% |
| Thailand | 37–36% |
| Sri Lanka | 44% |
| India | 26–27% |
| South Korea | 25% |
| Japan | 24% |
| Taiwan, Indonesia | 32% each |
| Switzerland | 31% |
| Bangladesh | 37% |
| Many others (e.g. Brazil, UK, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Singapore) faced the 10% baseline . |
Sector-Specific & Country-Specific Tariffs
Canada and Mexico (Feb–Mar 2025)
On February 1, Trump invoked the IEEPA to impose 25% tariffs on all goods from Canada and Mexico—plus 10% on energy—citing fentanyl/illegal drug concerns.
Mexico and Canada retaliated with 25% tariffs on U.S. exports. On March 6, most USMCA-qualifying products regained exemption; energy/potash faced 10%, others at 25%.
Metals (Steel, Aluminum, Copper)
A 50% tariff on steel, aluminum, and copper imports was set, triggering immediate retaliation from the EU and Canada.
Automobiles, Pharmaceuticals, Tech
On March 26, tariffs expanded to 25% on auto imports and parts.
Sector threats included 50% copper, 200% on pharmaceuticals, and possible tariffs on semiconductors and iPhones.
Venezuela‑Oil Importers
Executive Order 14245 (March 24): 25% tariffs on any country importing Venezuelan oil.
July 2025 Escalation & Deadlines
In July, Trump issued letters to 22 countries, warning of 20–50% tariffs effective August 1 unless trade improvements were enacted.
Additional countries facing threats included Brazil (50%), Philippines (20%), Brunei, Moldova (25%), Algeria, Iraq, Libya, Sri Lanka (30%).
Prime examples: EU, Canada, Mexico faced 30–35% metals tariffs; Japan, South Korea, Thailand slated for 30–40%.
Legal Pushback
In late May 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs exceeded executive authority under IEEPA, issuing a permanent injunction.
Why It Mattered
Motivation: Trump framed tariffs as leverage against trade imbalances, foreign barriers, drug trafficking, and geopolitical pressure points (e.g., Venezuelan oil, Brazilian legal affairs).
Global Reaction: Allies countered with retaliatory duties (e.g., EU, Canada on metals); emerging economies expressed concern over disrupted supply chains .
Economic Impact: Markets braced for inflation and volatility, but some analysts predicted limited overall effect due to negotiated exemptions .
Trump’s tariff strategy
Trump’s tariff strategy during his second term (2025) included:
Universal 10% tariffs, with higher reciprocal rates (20–60%) for 180+ nations
High sectoral tariffs (metals, autos, pharma)
Targeted sanctions (Canada, Mexico, Venezuelan oil importers)
Escalating threats tied to trade deadlines
Legal roadblocks, notably a court injunction in May
The effort aimed to force renegotiations and reshape global trade. However, strong pushback from courts, foreign governments, and markets tempered its effectiveness and fueled broader uncertainty.
International Response: Retaliation, Legal Challenges, and Strategic Adjustments
European Union
The European Union denounced the tariffs as “absolutely unacceptable.” EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič warned the tariffs could “effectively eliminate EU‑US trade,” which amounts to over €4.4 billion daily. EU trade ministers convened to draft countermeasures worth €72 billion but have delayed implementation until August 1 to allow for negotiations.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz described the tariffs as an “attack on the international trade order,” warning of long-term economic damage if they are not reversed.
China
China’s Ministry of Commerce condemned the U.S. tariffs and announced counter-tariffs of equal magnitude on U.S. goods. China has also implemented non-tariff measures including restrictions on U.S. lumber and rare-earth exports, while exploring complaints before the World Trade Organization.
Canada and Mexico
Canada imposed retaliatory tariffs of 25% on $30 billion worth of U.S. goods, calling Trump’s move “economically irrational.” Mexican officials have indicated they will match the tariffs in scale and duration, although they are preserving exemptions for USMCA-qualified goods.
India
India expressed disappointment but avoided direct retaliation. Instead, it is pursuing a bilateral trade arrangement with the U.S., hoping to reduce the impact through a multi-sector deal in the coming months.
Japan and South Korea
Japanese trade officials called the new tariffs “extremely regrettable” and established a ministerial review panel to decide on reciprocal measures. South Korea has convened an emergency economic committee to evaluate proportional responses and to weigh filing a WTO complaint.
Australia
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese criticized the tariffs as a breach of mutual trust, yet Australia has not imposed counter-tariffs. Instead, it has requested high-level consultations with Washington.
Brazil
Brazil authorized retaliatory tariffs under its “reciprocity law” but has so far taken a diplomatic approach, with the foreign ministry pursuing resolution through international trade forums.
Other Economies
Countries including Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia have indicated that they will seek negotiated exemptions. Vietnam has already lowered its tariffs on key U.S. imports in an effort to de-escalate tensions. Taiwan and Israel have opened diplomatic channels with Washington, while Ireland and Italy are coordinating responses within the EU framework.
Economic Impact and Legal Challenges
Global markets reacted sharply. Major stock indexes dipped, gold prices rose, and German and Japanese bond yields spiked. Economists warn that prolonged tariffs could exacerbate inflation, disrupt supply chains, and suppress global growth.
On the legal front, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that portions of the tariffs exceed executive authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). A permanent injunction has been issued, though enforcement and compliance remain unclear.
Conclusion
The Trump tariffs mark a fundamental shift in U.S. trade policy, moving toward unilateralism and aggressive reciprocity. While designed to level the playing field, the measures have provoked widespread backlash and may trigger long-term geopolitical and economic fallout. With an August 1 deadline looming for additional tariffs, global stakeholders face a race against time to either strike deals or escalate a trade war that could reshape the global economy.
- Fake Tax Claims Can Backfire: Income Tax Dept. Launches Crackdown on Bogus Deductions - July 15, 2025
- CBDT Notifies Income Tax Exemption To District Legal Service Authorities in Haryana - July 15, 2025
- India, US Set to Seal Interim Trade Deal: Agriculture, Processed Foods, and Industrial Tariffs in Focus - July 15, 2025
