Just hours before the United States’ so-called “reciprocal tariffs” were set to take effect on August 1, the U.S. government released a new tariff schedule on the evening of July 31 local time, imposing tariffs ranging from 10% to 41% on approximately 70 countries and regions worldwide, which would take effect on August 7. Japan, South Korea, and the European Union, which have already reached trade agreements with the U.S., will be subject to a 15% tariff; India, which has not reached an agreement with the U.S., will face a 25% tariff; and Syria, which has been plagued by frequent wars, will be hit with a 41% tariff. The New York Times reported that few countries have been spared from Trump’s high tariffs, and the U.S. is determined to escalate the global trade war. In a separate executive order, Trump raised tariffs on Canadian exports to the U.S. from 25% to 35%, effective from August 1. The Canadian Prime Minister expressed “disappointment” over this, and Canadian officials called for a boycott of U.S. goods. Singapore’s Lianhe Zaobao published an editorial on August 1, stating that the U.S. has formulated a new trade arrangement centered on tariffs with a self-centered approach, abandoning existing WTO principles. Other countries will inevitably face more arduous challenges in maintaining free trade. Relevant experts noted that the U.S.’s new tariff rates are becoming clearer and more targeted, which may exacerbate the fragmentation of global supply chains. Whether the U.S.’s new tariff policy can be sustained in the medium to long term depends on the U.S. economy’s endurance, the intensity of international countermeasures, and the outcome of political games. However, the global trade system may accelerate its evolution toward regionalization.
On the evening of July 31 local time, the White House released a new tariff schedule that will take effect in 7 days. Cable News Network (CNN) reported that the lowest rate in the new schedule is 10%, applicable only to countries with which the U.S. has a trade deficit (i.e., the U.S. exports more to these countries than it imports). Approximately 40 countries with a small trade surplus with the U.S. will be subject to the new 15% tariff, and more than a dozen other countries and regions will face rates higher than 15%.
The three countries with the highest tariffs are Syria (41%), Myanmar, and Laos (both 40%). Bloomberg commented that these three countries have minimal trade volume with the U.S., and the White House did not explain why such high tariffs are imposed on them. The report quoted experts as saying that the U.S. government may not be deliberately targeting these three countries but simply “has no time to deal with small fish.” Switzerland also faces high tariffs, with a 39% rate, higher than the 31% announced in early April. The Swiss government expressed “great regret.” Britain’s Financial Times stated that Switzerland was “shocked” by the 39% tariff from the U.S., and analysts believe that “the most likely reason for the U.S. decision is the surge in Switzerland’s trade surplus with the U.S. in 2024.”
CNN reported that South Africa, Africa’s largest economy, will be subject to a 30% tariff by the U.S., joining Algeria and Libya as the African countries with the highest tariff rates. The report noted that it is worth mentioning that the U.S. did not reach a trade agreement with any African country before August 1, indicating how low African countries are on the White House’s priority list.
India is dissatisfied with the 25% tariff rate imposed by the U.S. The Indian Express reported that more than 50 countries, including Pakistan (19%), Bangladesh (20%), and Vietnam (20%), face lower rates than India. The report argued that Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, and others are competitors of India in exporting to the U.S., and “their lower tariffs may harm India’s exports, especially in labor-intensive and high-value electronics industries.”
The Associated Press stated that countries not listed, such as Australia and Singapore, will be uniformly subject to the 10% “base tariff.” China, which is in a “tariff truce” with the U.S. and continuing negotiations, is not included in the newly announced list. It is reported that the executive order also stipulates that products transshipped through third countries to evade tariffs will be subject to an additional 40% tariff.
On the evening of July 31, the U.S. government raised tariffs on Canadian exports to the U.S. from 25% to 35% on the grounds that Canada “has failed to take action to address the public health crisis caused by fentanyl and illegal drugs flowing into the U.S. across the northern border.” Canadian government officials called it “unfounded and unnecessarily exacerbating trade disputes.” The Canadian Prime Minister said: “Canada accounts for only 1% of fentanyl flowing into the U.S., and we have been actively working to further reduce this amount.”
The Washington Post reported that an unnamed senior government official briefed reporters on the tariff situation on July 31, saying: “This is historic; this is a new trade system. We are moving from a system centered on maximizing efficiency at all costs to one centered on fair and balanced trade.” The report noted that according to data from the Yale University Budget Lab, the average tariff rate on U.S. imports was approximately 2.5% at the beginning of this year, and once the new tariffs take effect, this figure will rise to 18.4%. U.S. consumers will pay the price for this.
“The core characteristics of the U.S.’s latest tariff policy are first reflected in the implementation of significantly different rates for various countries, with ‘bilateral negotiation results’ and ‘degree of trade imbalance’ as the measurement criteria,” said the Institute of World Economics and Development, China Institute of International Studies. Among them, high tariffs are mainly targeted at countries that have not reached agreements with the U.S. and are deemed by the U.S. to “have security issues or trade surplus problems with the U.S.” The new tariff policy has the dynamic adjustability of “being dominated by negotiation results,” aiming to force other countries to accept U.S.-led trade rules.
Some countries have emphasized that the tariffs imposed on them are lower than those in April. According to Reuters, the U.S. imposed a 19% tariff on Cambodian exports instead of the previously announced 36%, allowing the garment and footwear industries, which are crucial to Cambodia’s economy, to avoid a wave of closures. Tariffs on Thailand, Pakistan, and other countries have also dropped significantly compared to before.
“Lower tariffs are still tariffs,” the BBC stated. Products from relevant countries entering the U.S. will have to pay higher taxes than at the beginning of this year, which may have a significant impact on their economies. Reuters quoted figures from the Western investment community as saying that there are no winners in a trade war. Although some countries have obtained lower tariffs, the overall impact is still negative. “We have entered an era of high trade barriers, which will hinder economic growth.”
Channel News Asia stated that although the form of the U.S.’s new tariff announcement is clear, its actual effect is still unclear. The logic behind the tariff figures for various countries and regions is not transparent. “There are no real winners here. The U.S. government can claim a political victory, but the economic impact will be reflected in rising prices, supply chain disruptions, and slowing economic growth.”
Agence France-Presse reported that the world economy has been hit by the U.S.’s tariff measures. Major stock markets in Asian and European countries all fell on August 1, and market sell-offs pushed European stocks to a one-month low, while U.S. stocks fell after opening on August 1. The latest data showed that U.S. job growth in July fell short of expectations, and the unemployment rate rose from 4.1% to 4.2%.
Singapore’s media published an editorial stating that South Korea reached an agreement with the U.S. one day before the U.S. tariffs took effect, and the content of the agreement further strengthened Trump’s negotiating leverage, putting greater pressure on other U.S. trading partners that have not yet reached an agreement. Trump’s announcement of high tariffs on India and Brazil highlights the role of tariffs as a diplomatic tool: on the one hand, forcing international capital to flow back to the U.S. to revive key manufacturing industries; on the other hand, pressuring opponents to cooperate with U.S. strategies. Beyond reshaping the trade system, tariffs have become Trump’s geopolitical tool to implement U.S. diplomatic will. The article stated that as the world’s second-largest economy and an important trading partner of the U.S., China is clearly the only country with remaining bargaining power. China’s “special treatment” reflects the essence of the law of the jungle in the tariff war.
The Center for American Studies, Fudan University, believes that this new policy is generally a continuation of the so-called “reciprocal tariff” policy initiated by the U.S. in early April, further implementing the “America First” concept. Its negative impact on global trade has become more significant, impacting the global free trade system, undermining WTO rules, reducing global trade volume, and seriously affecting the stability of global production and supply chains. However, it will also promote further strengthening of trade cooperation among other global economies, and the process of trade liberalization outside the U.S. may accelerate.
There is also a risk of further collapse of the multilateral trading system. Currently, the WTO dispute settlement mechanism has been paralyzed due to U.S. obstruction, and the U.S.’s unilateral tariff measures will further weaken the authority of the WTO, forcing countries to turn to regional agreements such as RCEP and CPTPP or bilateral negotiations. The U.S. attempts to dominate new rules through “tariff pressure + standard output”; however, regional organizations or countries such as the EU can build parallel systems through countermeasures such as local currency settlement and technological independence. In short, the U.S. tariff policy will have a severe short-term impact on global trade, but whether it can be sustained in the medium to long term depends on the U.S. economy’s endurance, the intensity of international countermeasures, and the outcome of political games. The global trade system may accelerate its evolution toward regionalization and fragmentation.
Post time: Aug-02-2025