The United States’ global tariff campaign began when President Donald Trump issued Executive Order No. 14257 on April 2, 2025, imposing broad reciprocal tariffs on imported goods with the objectives of reducing the persistent trade deficit, safeguarding economic security, and promoting domestic industrial recovery. This policy set a baseline tariff rate of 10% on most imports, while applying higher rates (11%–50%) to countries with large trade deficits or significant trade barriers. Following the issuance of this policy, from April to August 2025, roughly 90 countries and territories engaged in negotiations with the United States to adjust tariff levels and protect their trade interests, producing mixed outcomes. The U.S. reciprocal tariff policy has generated substantial budget revenue and is regarded as an effective tool for exerting pressure in trade negotiations, but it also carries potential negative impacts, posing risks of supply chain disruptions, heightened trade tensions, and increased global inflationary pressures.

On April 2, 2025 (Washington time, April 3, Vietnam time), U.S. President Donald Trump signed Executive Order No. 14257, formally announcing the imposition of reciprocal tariffs on imports from approximately 180 economies worldwide. The objectives of this policy are to reduce the United States’ longstanding trade deficit (in place since the 1970s), safeguard national economic security, and promote the revitalization of domestic industries (by counteracting unfair trade practices by partner countries, such as higher tariffs, subsidies, or non-tariff barriers).

According to the Order:

• As of April 5, 2025, most goods imported into the United States are subject to a baseline tariff of 10%.
• As of April 9, 2025, countries with large trade deficits with the United States face higher reciprocal tariffs ranging from 11% to 50%, depending on the deficit level and other factors such as subsidies or trade barriers. For example: major seafood exporters such as Thailand face 36%, India 26%, Indonesia 32%, and Ecuador 10%.
• These tariffs are applied in addition to existing sector-specific duties, such as 25% on automobiles, 50% on steel, and 50% on aluminum under Sections 232 and 301 of the U.S. Trade Act.
• Exemptions include certain products such as energy, pharmaceuticals, minerals not available domestically, copper, semiconductors, timber, and gold bullion. Imports valued below USD 800 were temporarily exempt until August 29, 2025, though this exemption was terminated earlier for goods originating from China and Hong Kong.

The order authorizes President Trump to adjust tariffs flexibly based on the progress of negotiations and partner responses. While the measures were initially set to take effect on April 9, 2025, they were postponed for 90 days (until July 8, 2025) to allow negotiations, under the expectation of achieving “90 deals in 90 days.” China, however, was excluded from this deferral. A 30% reciprocal tariff (including a 20% fentanyl-related duty imposed on February 4, 2025) was implemented immediately on April 9, 2025, after Beijing threatened to raise tariffs to 84% and restrict rare-earth exports. President Trump accused China of being the principal source of the United States’ massive trade deficit (hundreds of billions of dollars annually) and of unfair trade practices such as subsidies and technology theft, leading to heightened tensions from the outset.

In early July 2025, the U.S. Administration issued successive notifications of new reciprocal tariffs to countries that had not reached trade agreements, increasing diplomatic pressure and accelerating negotiations. On July 7, President Trump announced via Truth Social that letters had been sent to 14 countries, including major allies Japan and the Republic of Korea, imposing tariffs ranging from 25% to 40% on their exports (25% for Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Tunisia; 30% for South Africa, Bosnia; 32% for Indonesia; 35% for Bangladesh, Serbia; 36% for Cambodia, Thailand; and 40% for Laos, Myanmar). These rates were scheduled to take effect on August 1, 2025 (later formally adjusted on August 7).

On July 9, Trump sent additional notices to eight more countries (Brazil, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Iraq, Libya, Brunei, Moldova), imposing tariffs ranging from 20% to 50% (20% for the Philippines; 25% for Brunei, Moldova; 30% for Sri Lanka, Algeria, Iraq, Libya; and 50% for Brazil), also effective August 1, 2025. On July 10, he announced an increase in tariffs on Canadian imports to 35% starting August 1, citing border security concerns, particularly fentanyl flows. On July 12, he further threatened to impose a 30% tariff on European Union and Mexican exports if no agreement was reached by August 1. By late July, after intensive negotiations with several key partners, the U.S. Government secured preliminary agreements, formally confirmed under an Executive Order dated July 31, 2025).

Negotiations between the United States and partner countries on reciprocal tariffs

Since the Executive Order was announced, approximately 90 countries have engaged in negotiations with the United States to lower trade barriers, boost U.S. investment inflows, increase purchases of U.S. goods (energy, agricultural products, aircraft), and cooperate on security issues (e.g., reducing oil imports from Russia or curbing fentanyl trafficking). President Trump has used tariff measures as diplomatic leverage, frequently threatening tariff hikes to secure concessions. By August 12, 2025, around 18 agreements had been reached, while other countries failed to reach terms and faced higher duties. Below is a summary of the negotiation process, key agreements, and current tariff rates for major trading partners, based on executive orders, presidential correspondence, and official reports:

European Union (EU): Negotiations began immediately after the reciprocal tariff order was issued, focusing on reducing the initial tariff levels (around 20–30%) and preventing EU retaliatory measures (estimated at up to EUR 26 billion). The two sides reached a framework agreement under which most EU exports to the United States are now subject to a 15% tariff (instead of the initially announced 30%), in exchange for EU commitments to purchase USD 750 billion from the U.S. and invest an additional USD 600 billion in the U.S. economy during President Trump’s term. This tariff rate has been in effect since August 7, 2025, helping reduce the U.S.–EU trade deficit by around 10%, though it has also increased the price of European goods in the U.S. market.

Japan: Negotiations centered on the automotive and semiconductor sectors, seeking to lower the initial 25% tariff. The resulting major agreement reduced the tariff to 15% (from 25–27.5%), in exchange for a USD 550 billion investment package from Japan into the United States. This package includes the purchase of 100 Boeing aircraft, an increase in annual defense procurement from USD 14 billion to USD 17 billion, and expanded access for U.S. agricultural exports such as rice and automobiles. The current tariff rate is 15%, effective since August 7, 2025.

United Kingdom: In the post-Brexit context, negotiations focused on automobiles and steel, reducing the initial tariff level of 15–20%. The resulting bilateral agreement set the tariff at 10% in exchange for expanded U.K. market access for U.S. goods. The current tariff rate is 10%, effective since August 7, 2025.

Republic of Korea: Negotiations revolved around semiconductors and market liberalization, reducing the initial 25% tariff. The agreement lowered the tariff to 15% in exchange for commitments to expand market access for U.S. goods. The current tariff rate is 15%, effective since August 7, 2025.

Canada: Talks stalled due to border security issues related to fentanyl trafficking and migration, despite the initial tariff being only 12–25%. As negotiations failed, the tariff was raised to 35%, effective August 7, 2025, on goods not covered by the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA, which accounts for roughly 85% of duty-free trade). Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney criticized the measure as “unfair.”

Mexico: Negotiations focused on border control and combating fentanyl, with an initial tariff of 25%. A temporary arrangement postponed the increase to 30% for 90 days (until around October 31, 2025).

Brazil: Talks collapsed due to Brazil’s continued oil imports from Russia and internal political issues (including allegations that President Lula’s government is “repressing” former President Bolsonaro). The initial tariff of 10–25% was raised to 50% under the July 30, 2025 order, effective August 7, 2025. Brazil has threatened retaliation but has yet to act..

India: Negotiations failed as India maintained trade with Russia, resulting in a 50% tariff (with an additional 25% hike threatened starting August 27, 2025, unless changes are made). The current tariff rate is 50%, effective since August 7, 2025.

Vietnam: Talks aimed to reduce the initial 46% tariff, focusing on textiles and electronics. A preliminary agreement set the tariff at 20% (and 40% for transshipped goods) in exchange for commitments to purchase U.S. energy. The current tariff rate is 20%, effective since August 7, 2025 (based on press sources, pending official confirmation from both governments).

Indonesia: Negotiations focused on nickel and palm oil, seeking to reduce the initial 20% tariff. The resulting agreement set the tariff at 19%, in exchange for Indonesia’s commitments to purchase USD 15 billion in U.S. energy, USD 4.5 billion in agricultural products, and 50 Boeing aircraft. The current tariff rate is 19%, effective since August 7, 2025.

Thailand: Negotiations centered on electronics and rubber, reducing the initial 36% tariff. The agreement set the tariff between 15–20%. The current tariff rate is 15–20%, effective since August 7, 2025.

Philippines: Following President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s visit to the White House, negotiations led to an agreement lowering the initial 20–30% tariff to 19%, in exchange for opening the Philippine market to U.S. automobiles and granting a 0% tariff on U.S. exports to the Philippines. The current tariff rate is 19%, effective since August 7, 2025.

Fiji: Due to its small trade volume, negotiations concluded swiftly, focusing on bottled water, reducing the initial 32% tariff to 15%. The current tariff rate is 15%, effective since August 7, 2025.

Turkey: Negotiations failed due to Turkey’s oil imports from Russia, keeping the initial 30% tariff unchanged. The current tariff rate is 30%, effective since August 7, 2025.

Nam Phi: No agreement was reached, leaving the initial 30% tariff in place, effective since August 7, 2025. South Africa is considering retaliatory measures.

Argentina: Under President Javier Milei, negotiations succeeded in reducing the initial 20% tariff to 15%. The current tariff rate is 15%, effective since August 7, 2025.

Bangladesh: Successful negotiations in the textile sector lowered the initial 20% tariff to 15%. The current tariff rate is 15%, effective since August 7, 2025.

Sri Lanka: Negotiations failed, keeping the initial 20% tariff in place. The current tariff rate is 20%, effective since August 7, 2025.

Algeria: No substantive negotiations took place, leaving the initial 30% tariff unchanged. The current tariff rate is 30%, effective since August 7, 2025.

Angola: Oil-related negotiations failed, maintaining the initial 30% tariff. The current tariff rate is 30%, effective since August 7, 2025.

Afghanistan: Due to its small trade volume, the initial 15% tariff remains unchanged without significant adjustments. The current tariff rate is 15%, effective since August 7, 2025.

China: Negotiations between the United States and China took place under heightened tension, focusing on reducing the initial 30% reciprocal tariff. The two sides reached a temporary truce, deferring further tariff hikes to allow comprehensive discussions on trade and technology issues. This arrangement was extended by 90 days to November 10, 2025, helping avoid escalation to U.S. tariffs of 145% and Chinese tariffs of 125%. The current tariff rate is 30%, effective since August 7, 2025, but subject to adjustment depending on upcoming negotiation outcomes.

Amid ongoing bilateral talks with partner countries, the U.S. administration decided to grant a second extension for delaying the full implementation of reciprocal tariffs. Under the Executive Order of July 7, 2025, President Donald Trump extended the postponement period from July 8 to August 1, 2025, providing additional time for discussions and concrete agreements. However, as of August 7, 2025, the reciprocal tariff measures have been fully applied to roughly 90 countries, with an average global tariff rate of about 18.6%. As of August 21, 2025, several specific deferrals remain in place, including for Mexico (until October 31, 2025) and China (until November 10, 2025).

Table: Current tariff rates as of August 21, 2025

Some assessments and observations

A White House report states that the new reciprocal tariffs have generated significant revenue for the United States. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent estimated that approximately USD 100 billion has been collected to date, with projections reaching USD 300 billion by year-end. The Trump administration declared that these policies aim to establish “fairer and more reciprocal” trade relations and emphasized there would be no further extensions unless a sustainable agreement is reached. In reality, by the end of July, apart from the United Kingdom and Vietnam, the U.S. had only reached several framework deals, while no final agreements had been secured with China and India. Extending the 90-day deadline to August 1 increased negotiation pressure but also raised concerns among many partners (particularly smaller exporters) over the risk that high tariffs could take effect as scheduled.

The U.S. decision to impose reciprocal tariffs marks a sharp escalation in President Trump’s trade policy. In the short term, these measures bring substantial revenue to the U.S. budget and serve political interests by “targeting” major partners, fulfilling campaign promises to protect domestic manufacturing. However, experts warn that such measures may destabilize the global economy. The head of UNCTAD’s economic division described trade wars and high barriers as “poison” undermining investment confidence and growth. According to UN agencies, tariff disputes could reduce global trade by 3%–7% and global GDP by 0.7%, with developing economies suffering the most. Pamela Coke-Hamilton, Executive Director of the International Trade Centre (ITC), noted that losses for poorer countries could far exceed the value of reduced development aid, forcing smaller exporters such as Bangladesh and Myanmar to seek alternative markets to offset lost U.S. trade. The U.S. administration’s unilateral tariff adjustments also make it difficult for global businesses to predict input costs, potentially fueling inflation.

Nonetheless, certain positive outcomes for negotiations have been observed. The threat of tariffs pushed countries such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Indonesia to make concessions to secure access to the U.S. market. Some analysts view the U.S. decision to reduce initial proposed tariff rates (e.g., for Japan, the Philippines, and Indonesia) as a goodwill gesture to facilitate bilateral talks. In some cases, the U.S. also extended “zero-for-zero” tariff benefits on strategic goods (aircraft, pharmaceuticals, components) in deals with the EU and Japan to avoid full-scale confrontation. Domestically, President Trump may frame the tariff campaign as leverage forcing partners to “open” markets to U.S. goods (e.g., requiring Mexico to strengthen anti-narcotics efforts), resulting in several countries agreeing to purchase more U.S. agricultural products, gas, and technology.

However, the drawbacks and risks of this strategy remain clear. The imposition of broad unilateral measures heightens trade tensions even with allies and major partners, increasing the likelihood of retaliation (the EU has prepared countermeasures if negotiations fail). Global financial markets and businesses are closely watching the Trump administration’s every move, as “tariffs decided by a single individual” are a source of investor anxiety. Many observers believe extreme protectionism could damage long-standing trade institutions and disrupt supply chain stability. As ITC Deputy Secretary-General Pamela Coke-Hamilton warned, if tensions persist, they could trigger “an 80% collapse in trade” between the U.S. and China, with devastating domino effects worldwide. Within the U.S., while the tariff policy is touted as a revenue boost, many economists caution that American consumers will ultimately bear the burden of higher costs (as businesses pass on expenses), risking renewed inflationary pressure.

Overall, the U.S. global tariff policy since early April has significantly reshaped its bilateral trade relations with most major economies. It demonstrates the Trump administration’s determination to pressure partners into concessions under compressed timelines, though final results still depend on mutual compromise. Agreements with Vietnam, Japan, the Philippines, and Indonesia are only preliminary steps toward deeper negotiations. Securing a 15% rate with the EU and Mexico (below the threatened 30%) is seen as an important win for both sides, mitigating the risk of an all-out trade war. However, the uncertainty and “last-minute brinkmanship” approach have led many experts to question the consistency and sustainability of the current agreements.