Trade Effects of US Tariffs Under Trump 2.0

The purpose of this research is to investigate the EU’s responses to Trump’s America first trade policy and to provide its implications. Since the Trump administration determined to impose 25% and 10% of additional tariffs on steel and aluminum products respectively based on threats of national security from imported products, the US tried to have bilateral negotiations with each country. Several countries such as the EU, Canada and Mexico initially announced their strong responses, but most of them chose the negotiations with the US as the way of the resolution. The EU, however, decided to adopt rebalancing measures in reaction to the US steel and aluminium tariffs, which imposed additional tariffs on imported products from the US. Under the situation that trade disputes between the EU and the US could be intensified after Trump’s threat of imposing additional tariffs on imported cars from the EU, both sides reached a deal on July 2018 to work towards ‘zero tariffs, non-tariff barriers and subsidies on non-auto industrial goods including the reform of the WTO’. The EU’s responses against the US protectionism have two-fold characteristics of hard and moderate policies. The EU as a representative of 28 member states of the EU which has competence in the trade policy as well as its trade volume beyond that of the US has its capability to respond strongly to the US policy. The EU triggered the first phase of retaliation against Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs in line with WTO rules according to the EU’s principle of trade policy on the basis of the multilateral trade system under the WTO. Along with this hard policy, the EU has tried to negotiate with the US in order to avoid deepening trade war with the US. This is mainly because both sides recognise the importance of their economic and political relations and the risk of damages from trade war between them. Although the US and the EU started the negotiations, it does not seem to be easy to reach an agreement between them. Regardless of the result of the negotiations between the EU and the US, it is clear that the global trading system could be restructured, and the transformation of global supply chain is inevitable due to the trade war between China and the US as well as the result of negotiation between the EU and US. It is time for the Korean government to establish policy reponses from the mid and long term perspective.

This paper studies the US-China trade war currently being initiated by the US in early 2018 from a US standpoint. This paper starts by introducing the chronology of the trade war. With the findings, we attributed the causes of the US-China trade war to three main reasons: US intentions to reduce the trade deficit, block China’s access to core technologies, and close the government deficit gap. In contrast to President Trump’s optimistic expectation that the US would benefit, the trade war became a lose-lose game. The trade war's escalation, which included both additional tariffs and restrictions on the transfer of high-tech products, had a negative impact on domestic consumers, businesses, and employment, further slowing down the US economic growth.

Issues in Australian Foreign Policy

The article focuses on the discussing the role of the United States in world merchandise imports amid the transformation of geopolitical and economic relations. Despite its vast variety of products, U.S. imports exceed three trillion U.S. dollars, including consumer goods, industrial supplies, equipment, as well as raw materials. The article contributes to the analysis of U.S. trade policy, highlighting the prospects of additional tariffs under President Donald Trump, elected in November 2024.

On 1 March 2018, President Trump declared a 25% tariff on certain steel imports by invoking Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. The tariff pitted two of America’s most storied and interconnected industries, steel and auto producers, against one another and made allies out of longtime bitter political opponents on Capitol Hill. Later that same year, President Trump doubled down on the steel tariff when he initiated a Section 232 investigation on auto and auto parts imports. The auto industry blasted the proposal, while steel offered its strong support. This paper examines the congressional response to President Trump’s proposed auto tariff. Specifically, we explain why 159 MCs signed a letter opposing the tariff. After controlling for other factors, such as district interests and campaign contributions, we find that ideology matters more than party affiliation on whether legislators signed the auto letter. We also find the second dimension of the DW-NOMINATE score to matter, suggesting the strong presence of intra-party cleavages. Our findings highlight the complex nature of trade policy as a domain of bipartisan agreement amidst broader political polarization and at a time when traditional party platforms on the issue are rapidly changing.

This research paper discusses the impacts on the global economy and international market affected by the US and China trade war, which started in 2018-19. Led by the previous president of the US, Donald Trump, succeeded by the current president Joe Biden, trade protectionism was brought out to restrict Chinese exports to the US. Due to political, social, economic, and many other factors, both US and China ended up imposing additional tariffs on each other’s imports and setting up more and more restrictions on the international market. These imposed trade barriers between the two major economies in the world significantly influenced the two countries themselves, other bystander economies, and the international market balance. The paper discusses and reveals how the economic conflict affects US and China, both consequences and benefits, and how some countries found opportunities from this conflict, and some resulted in losses. Suggestions for possible solutions which each government can take are also being explained.

This study uses a qualitative research method, This study is descriptive, and the methods used in this study use various methods, starting from collecting data related to the object of research, data analysis, and the data obtained is analyzed and interpreted into written form. So in this study, the qualitative method will be the basis for explaining Donald Trump's policy in raising import tariffs. Donald Trump is the 45th president of the United States who won over his rival Hillary Clinton from the Democrats in the United States presidential election. The economic policy of the United States during the Trump era is Protectionism, President Trump has made tariffs the mainstay of his economic strategy. He restored America's trade balance, reducing the gap between how much the US buys from other countries and how much the US sells to other countries. Trump has announced a series of new tariffs that include base tariffs for all countries as well as additional tariffs of varying amounts for each country. the impact of US tariffs on international trade: geopolitical changes and business opportunities, the impact of US tariffs on the global economy, geopolitics and the formation of new alliances, geopolitics and the formation of new alliances.

President Donald Trump promised universal tariffs as a presidential pledge, and now that he has taken office, the imposition of both universal and targeted tariffs on specific countries is having a wide range of effects on the U.S. and global economies. This study used the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model to quantitatively analyze the economic impact of Trump's universal tariff policy and additional tariff strategies in certain countries. The study suggests the need for political analysis and explores the ripple effect of the tariffs on major trading partners. The analysis shows that the U.S. GDP has suffered the greatest decline due to the imposition of tariffs on certain countries, but the impact on inflation “is lower than that caused by universal tariffs. Accordingly, considering the inflation problem emphasized by President Trump, it is likely that a specific country's tariff strategy will be adopted. This study systematically evaluates the economic impact of U.S. tariff policies and offers policy insights regarding distortions in global supply chains and changes in trade patterns. It also contributes to providing practical information to policymakers and businesses by predicting the impact of tariff policies on the global economy and presenting response strategies.

During the Trump administration, the United States invoked Section 301 of the Trade Act and imposed significant tariffs on Chinese imports. As a result, a large portion of Chinese goods were subject to additional tariffs. Concurrently, the U.S. administration introduced a trade remedy system called exclusion requests to minimize the damage inflicted on American companies that import goods from China. In this paper, we analyze the exclusion requests to shed light on the impact of the 301 tariffs. A thorough analysis on the exclusion requests would provide better understanding of the impact of Section 301 tariffs and Trump trade policy. The analysis revealed that when an exclusion request was made for products falling under HTS 84 or 85 that are also closely associated with “Made in China 2025”, the likelihood of approval significantly decreased.

The US' withdrawal from the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) marked the beginning of a new era in the Japan-US trade relationship, which might have turned into a bilateral trade war if the two countries couldn't have reached agreement. While the US preferred a bilateral deal, Japan preferred for the return of the US to the TPP. The two governments 'fought' during several stages of trade negotiations, from the Japan-US Economic Dialogue in April 2017 to the Japan-US Free, Fair and Reciprocal Trade Talks in April 2018, and to the negotiation of the Japan-US Trade Agreement from April to September 2019. US mobilized the bluff of applying additional tariffs on automobiles and auto parts under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. Japan countered this with the CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership), as its market access commitments on beef and pork, etc. under the CPTPP would lead the US ranchers/farmers at a competitive disadvantage. The result was a victory for the US in the short term, as it gained market access commitments on beef and pork. But Japan was a close loser as it could keep the TPP alive.

In the final year of Trump’s tenure, China and the US put the trade war on hold by signing their phase-one economic and trade agreement, but the COVID-19 pandemic has brought new challenges to the China–US economic and trade relations. The US trade and economic policies toward China advocated by Trump had to be suspended due to his failure to win the re-election, demonstrating that his economic and trade strategy for China has ended in failure. However, the succeeding Biden administration has not totally abandoned the overall design of Trump’s economic and trade policies toward China, and has continued the core policies of imposing additional tariffs on China and maintaining the US economic competitive advantage. After the collision during the Trump administration, the China–US economic and trade relations still show the fundamental characteristics of complementarity and mutual benefit. Under the Biden administration, the renewal of the phase-one economic and trade agreement, the transformation of the economic alliance, the security of the supply chain, the coordination of global economic issues in the post-pandemic era, etc. will become the new focuses of China–US economic and trade relations.

Synthetic opioids are introduced as an addition to medicinal instruments for pain management. When misused, they present a unique burden of effective regulation and policing of cross-border flows, as illicitly synthesized opioids emerge as products purposefully designed to evade a government’s regulation and interdiction at the border. Since 2017, fentanyl has become a prominent issue in Sino–American relations, with the second Trump administration’s reference to fentanyl-related matters as a justification for levying additional tariffs on imports from China. The prevailing viewpoint appears to be that China does not have an illicit fentanyl challenge of its own. However, the current state of affairs in popular narratives may well have stemmed from a lack of presentation of China’s fentanyl/opioids governance. This article provides an overview of the evolution of fentanyl governance in China since its introduction for medical use in the early 1970s. Like the United States, China has been making efforts to police illicit production, trade, and consumption within its society, in addition to cooperation with the United States and other countries on narcotic control for over four decades. The article further discusses the structural issues that will continue to factor in dialogue and cooperation between the functional agencies of China and the United States on enhanced management of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids moving forward. Regardless of how the 2025 tariff discussions progress, there continues to be value in fostering exchange in scientific knowledge on opioids and evidence-based cooperation between China, the United States, and the rest of the world.

In April 2018 trade war leashed out between US and China when US announced that it will impose additional tariff on goods of Chinese origin. The move by the Trump administration was aimed at correcting the US China trade imbalance, where US has a huge trade deficit with China. This paper aims at analyzing the India’s trade with US and China to find out opportunities for India amid burgeoning trade differences between two economic giants.

This study investigates the resilience recovery mechanisms of Chinese manufacturing firms under the shock of the U.S. imposing additional tariffs of 104%–145% on Chinese goods amid the escalation of the China-U.S. trade war in 2025. Based on the "resilience threshold hypothesis" proposed by the Trump administration (Trump, 2025), which argues that economic suppression can stimulate structural upgrading, and combining it with economic resilience theory, this paper constructs a dynamic framework of "policy shock-firm response-resilience recovery." Using a Difference-in-Differences (DID) model, it compares data from 2018–2022 for technology-intensive firms (high-tariff group) and labor-intensive firms (low-tariff group), supplemented with case studies of firms such as coffee machine manufacturers and mobile food truck exporters. The findings show that technology-intensive firms significantly improved their survival rates through policy synergy (e.g., tax reductions and government R&D subsidies), while labor-intensive firms are more prone to path dependency and lock-in. This research provides a practical "survival toolbox" for manufacturing firms and critically discusses the conflict between Trump's "creative destruction" hypothesis and classic resilience theory.

Korean Abstract: 최근 미국 무역구제조치의 변화는 우리나라 기업의 대미 수출활동뿐만 아니라 정부의 산업정책에도 적지 않은 혼란을 야기하고 있다. 본 연구는 미국 무역구제제도의 주요 규정과 관행 변화의 영향을 구체적인 사례를 들어 분석하였다. 이를 통해, 미국 무역구제조치의 변화가 초래하는 위협의 원천을 식별하고 정부와 기업의 대응방안 수립에 도움이 될 시사점을 제시하였다. English Abstract: This study identifies potential threats to exporters to the U.S. caused by the recent changes in U.S. trade remedies. A close examination is conducted of U.S. trade remedy measures against Korean businesses. The second chapter reviews the political and economic background of the recent legislations for U.S. trade remedies. The third and fourth chapters analyze the institutional and implementational changes in antidumping and countervailing duties, and safeguard measures carried out under the Trump administration, respectively. Our results find that the series of amendments to U.S. trade remedy laws aim to grant the two investigation authorities, i.e. the U.S. International Trade Commission and Department of Commerce, greater discretion in making their decisions and in calculating the price advantage provided to foreign exporters. In antidumping and countervailing duty cases such amendments lead to more facile application of a higher dumping margin or subsidy rate to foreign producers through an increase in normal value, use of Particular Market Situation (PMS) or Adverse Facts Available (AFA) or both, and a failure to cooperate on the part of a respondent. In doing so they serve the purpose of strengthening the position of U.S. domestic industries with protectionist tendencies. The study shows that the U.S. laws on safeguards, general and security, have not changed much since the enactments, but there has been a significant change in their implementations. The Trump administration has consecutively triggered general safeguard measures against Korean residential washing machines and solar products for the first time in 16 years, and initiated investigations on a threat to national security posed by imported steel, aluminum, and automobile products. It has employed general safeguards to prevent foreign exporters from circumventing antidumping duties, which may not be in line with their original purpose, and has been applying security safeguards rarely used in the past to a breadth of imports, aggressively interpreting the definition of national security.