President Donald Trump’s recent series of extensive tariffs is disrupting the core of global trade and causing economic distress in both affluent and impoverished nations.
Countries like Laos, Algeria, Canada, and Switzerland are now confronted with significant levies as Trump escalates his protectionist policies. While allies seek exemptions and adversaries prepare for economic repercussions, analysts indicate that no party has emerged victorious, including the United States itself.
“In many respects, everybody’s a loser here,’’ stated Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at New York Law School, in an interview with AP.
Since resuming the presidency six months ago, Trump has dismantled established trade norms, substituting multilateral agreements with a unilateral strategy characterized by threats and economic influence.
“The biggest winner is Trump,” remarked Alan Wolff, former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization. “He wagered that he could compel other nations to negotiate through intimidation, and he achieved this dramatically.’’
Trump’s tariff policy commenced on April 2, referred to as “Liberation Day,” when he enacted “reciprocal” taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the U.S. has trade deficits, alongside a baseline tax of 10% on others. By declaring the trade imbalance a national emergency under a 1977 statute, Trump circumvented Congress to enforce these sweeping modifications, which are currently facing legal challenges.
Following an initial market downturn, Trump suspended the new tariffs for 90 days to facilitate negotiations. Some nations seized this chance to negotiate agreements, albeit often under significant pressure.
The United Kingdom consented to a 10% tariff, an increase from 1.3%, despite having sustained a trade surplus with the U.S. for nearly twenty years. The European Union and Japan agreed to 15%, which is lower than the initially threatened 30% and 25%, respectively.
Other nations that consented to increased tariffs include Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
Even those with lower levies compared to levels in April are still significantly worse off than the norms prior to Trump’s administration. Angola’s tariffs decreased from 32% to 15%, yet they were below 1.5% in 2022. Taiwan experienced a reduction in its April rate from 32% to 20%, but continues to bear a financial strain.
“20% has never been our target; we anticipate that through further negotiations, we will achieve a more advantageous and reasonable tax rate,” stated Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te on Friday.
Trump also reduced Lesotho’s tariff from 50% to 15%, but the economic damage there may have already been inflicted.
On the more severe side, countries that refused to comply or displeased Trump in other manners faced significant penalties. Laos and Algeria, whose GDPs per capita are a small fraction of that of the United States, now endure tariffs of 40% and 30%, respectively.
Brazil was subjected to a 50% tax, reportedly as retaliation for its treatment of former President Jair Bolsonaro. Despite a consistent trade surplus with Brazil, the tariff was implemented.
Canada was imposed a 35% import tax, a decision that some analysts link to Ottawa’s intention to recognize Palestinian statehood, a stance that contradicts Trump’s strong backing of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Switzerland, which failed to secure a deal, was hit with a 39% tariff, exceeding the initially proposed 31%.
“The Swiss likely regret not having camped in Washington to negotiate a deal,” commented Wolff. “They are evidently quite dissatisfied.”
Trump’s actions are currently under legal examination. A coalition of American companies and a dozen states are filing a lawsuit, contending that he exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. A New York court recently halted the tariffs but permitted collection to proceed pending appeal, which may ultimately reach the US Supreme Court.
Judges on the US Court of Appeals have shown doubt regarding the rationale behind Trump’s policies.
“If (the tariffs) are invalidated, then perhaps Brazil emerges as a winner rather than a loser,” Appleton remarked.
While Trump presents tariffs as a means to impose taxes on foreign nations, in reality, U.S. importers incur the expenses and subsequently transfer them to American consumers.
Goldman Sachs projects that foreign exporters have only taken on one-fifth of the tariff burden, leaving U.S. businesses and households to bear the remaining costs. Prominent retailers and manufacturers such as Walmart, Nike, and Ford have increased their prices in response.
“This acts as a consumption tax, thus it disproportionately impacts individuals with lower incomes,” Appleton stated. “Sneakers, backpacks… your appliances will see price increases. Your televisions and electronics will rise in cost. Your video game devices and consoles will also become more expensive since none of these products are manufactured in America.”
With average U.S. tariffs escalating from 2.5% at the beginning of 2025 to 18.3% — the highest level since 1934 — Yale’s Budget Lab estimates that this policy will cost the average American household $2,400 this year.
“The U.S. consumer is a significant loser,” Wolff concluded.
