On April 2, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump officially announced the imposition of new "reciprocal tariffs" on global imports, with a baseline rate of 10%. However, depending on the country, the overall tariff rate will range from 10% to 49%. When announcing this policy, Trump adopted his typical political showmanship by gathering a large number of reporters. He personally took the stage with a chart to explain the trade policy, repeatedly declaring that the day the "reciprocal tariffs" were enacted would be America's "Liberation Day". This time, Trump was not launching a "surprise attack", as he had previously mentioned multiple times that he wanted to emulate the trade policies of President William McKinley and increase "reciprocal tariffs" to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.
Trump was referring to the Tariff Act of 1890, commonly known as the "McKinley Tariff", which was a U.S. Congressional act drafted by then-Congressman William McKinley and became law on October 1, 1890. The act raised the average tax on imports by nearly 50%, aiming to protect domestic industries from foreign competition. Ultimately, the bill underwent 450 revisions in Congress and was passed in 1890, increasing the average tariff rate on all imports from 38% to 49.5%. As a result, McKinley became known as the "Napoleon of Protectionism". However, the tariff was not widely accepted, as American citizens suffered from a sharp rise in prices. In the 1890 elections, the Republican Party lost its majority in the House of Representatives, with seats dropping by nearly half, from 171 to just 88.
After Trump's official announcement of the "reciprocal tariffs", it immediately triggered widespread attention and varied reactions from different countries. The United Kingdom and Ireland were among the first to respond. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer had previously engaged in "preventive communication" with Trump, so the UK was only subjected to the 10% baseline tariff. Upon hearing the news, Starmer immediately stated that he would conduct trade negotiations with the Trump administration to resolve the issue. In Parliament, Starmer mentioned that he would communicate with the business community to discuss the next steps in policy. Reports claiming that the UK would take countermeasures by imposing a 10% tariff on U.S. products were false. The Irish government's stance was largely the same as the UK's, hoping to resolve the issue through negotiations. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has already announced that he would immediately engage in negotiations with the U.S., making it clear that retaliatory tariffs will not be implemented immediately.
After Trump's announcement of the measures, the European Union faced a tariff rate of 20%, which is higher than the UK's. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reacted strongly, hitting back with a countermeasure package worth EUR 26 billion to match the impact of U.S. tariffs. However, amidst the European stock market's largest weekly drop in three years, EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič remained calm, stating that he would hold talks with his U.S. counterparts. Posting on X, he stated that "We'll act in a calm, carefully phased, unified way, as we calibrate our response, while allowing adequate time for talks. But we won't stand idly by, should we be unable to reach a fair deal". Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni explicitly stated, tariffs "are not the end of the world". She emphasized that the EU would not impose any retaliatory tariffs. Within the EU, Italy holds veto power, and overall, the EU's attitude has been cautious. Additionally, several EU countries, including Germany and France, have adopted a cautious and restrained stance, strongly urging to avoid escalation of the matter.
Under Trump's "reciprocal tariffs" measures, India was initially subjected to a 27% tariff, according to a White House document. However, following the latest revisions, the tariff was reduced to 26%. Earlier reports suggested that India had immediately implemented countermeasures, imposing a 10% to 15% tariff on U.S. goods, but this was false information. As of now, India has not announced any retaliatory measures. Indian officials have stated that these new tariffs are not specifically targeted at India and have limited impact. They expressed hope to seek a mutually beneficial solution through bilateral trade negotiations.
Meanwhile, Brazil has been hit with a 25% tariff. The Brazilian government expressed regret over this decision, calling it "unjustified" and "misguided". The Brazilian government has expressed a preference for negotiations rather than immediate retaliatory measures. The country's finance ministry stated that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has instructed to stay "calm" and to seek dialogue with the U.S. government to resolve the dispute. It is reported that Brazilian Vice President Geraldo Alckmin has already had an "active" phone conversation with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, and both sides agreed to continue the dialogue. Reports claiming that Brazil would impose a 10% tariff on U.S. goods under a "reciprocal act" and consider filing a complaint with the WTO are, as of now, false.
Malaysia has been subjected to a 24% tariff under the U.S. "reciprocal tariffs" measures. Malaysia's Minister of International Trade and Industry stated that these tariffs are expected to have a "limited impact" on Malaysia. However, the Malaysian Iron and Steel Industry Federation warned that the U.S. tariffs could increase competitive pressure in the Malaysian market.
Among ASEAN countries, Vietnam faced the highest tariff under Trump's tariffs, with a 46% tariff imposed. In response, Vietnam's General Secretary of the Communist Party, Tô Lâm, immediately spoke with Trump on the phone. Lâm emphasized that Vietnam was willing to implement zero tariffs on U.S. imports and would continue to import more U.S. products as long as there was demand in Vietnam. It is reported that Trump was very satisfied with the conversation and stated that Vietnam had met the U.S. requirements. Cambodia's situation in ASEAN is similar to Vietnam's, facing similar concerns and responses.
Trump's "reciprocal tariffs" measures are aimed at countries worldwide, and reactions have varied. Countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Argentina, Israel, and India have announced the removal of all their tariffs on the U.S. and are seeking cooperation. On the other hand, nations such as Mexico, Japan, Australia, and the United Kingdom have not implemented retaliatory tariffs or other measures but are seeking negotiations. The European Union and Canada have expressed readiness to impose retaliatory tariffs, though the EU remains uncertain about actually executing them.
China's situation is quite unique. It was the first country in the world to announce "reciprocal countermeasures" and swiftly implemented a series of concrete policies, including the imposition of additional tariffs. China declared that it would impose a 34% tariff on all U.S. imports, in addition to the existing applicable tariff rates. Clearly, China intends to express its dissatisfaction and resistance to the U.S. tariff war under Trump. As of now, China is the only country to respond so quickly and decisively. Meanwhile, Russia is not on the list of countries targeted by Trump, so the U.S. has not imposed any tariffs on Russian goods.
From the current information landscape, there is a significant amount of misinformation circulating, often exaggerated and misleading. In such an environment, it is crucial for policymakers to be cautious and avoid being influenced by false information. Analyzing the first 100 days of the Trump administration, it becomes clear that trade wars are not a primary focus for Trump. In the "priorities" outlined by the White House, only a brief mention of "trade priority" exists, which is easily overshadowed by other major Trump policy goals such as government efficiency, opposition to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), and anti-immigration measures. Trade issues hardly feature and certainly do not appear to be a priority. From this perspective, one could argue that Trump's "reciprocal tariffs" are likely more of a political maneuver, designed to cater to his performance-driven personality, aiming to create a scenario where everyone is compelled to come to the table for negotiations. This could be seen as a way to engage his audience in a larger political theater, rather than a genuine long-term trade policy shift.
In reality, the impact of Trump's "reciprocal tariffs" policy on the U.S. economy has not been positive. Beyond the stock market crash, it gives off a sense of being somewhat naive or counterproductive. This is because, aside from high-tech products, traditional manufacturing in the U.S. does not have much to offer in terms of large-scale exportable goods that could create a significant market impact. No wonder the Financial Times described it as an "astonishing act of self-harm". Thus, the best geopolitical response at this point might be to let Trump continue with his performance, watching from the sidelines without getting involved too deeply.
Final analysis conclusion:
After Trump's official announcement of the "reciprocal tariffs" policy, it immediately sparked widespread attention and varied reactions from various countries. In reality, this policy seems to be more of a political maneuver. Based on the first 100 days of the Trump administration, it's clear that trade wars were never a primary focus for Trump. Moreover, the policy's impact on the U.S. economy has not been positive. Given this, the best geopolitical response might be to let Trump continue his political performance, watching from the sidelines without rushing to engage.
