Evelyn Reynolds

President Trump’s imposition of tariffs on a scale unseen in nearly a century is more than a shot across the bow at U.S. trading partners. If kept in place, the import taxes will also launch an economic project of defiant nostalgia: an attempt to reclaim America’s place as a dominant manufacturing power.In the postwar heyday of American manufacturing, which endured into the 1970s, nearly 20 million people once made their living from manufacturing. The United States was a leading producer of motor vehicles, aircraft and steel, and manufacturing accounted for more than a quarter of total employment.By the end of last year, after a fundamental reordering of the world economy, manufacturing employed about 8 percent of the nation’s workers.Now, the country is wealthier than ever. Yet the economy looks, and feels, quite different — dominated by service work of all types, both lucrative and low-wage. Industrial hubs in the American interior have often withered, leaving many strongholds of Mr. Trump’s base on the economic fringes.Protectionist industrial policies, of varying methods and attitudes, have been on the rise for a decade — from the time Mr. Trump began his first campaign for president in 2015 through the presidency of Joseph R. Biden Jr. and now with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office again.But the president’s announcement, at a flag-draped Rose Garden ceremony on Wednesday, represented a tectonic shift in U.S. economic policy, the fullest repudiation of an embrace of global free trade that began on a bipartisan basis in the 1980s.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The White House Wednesday listed tariff rates for different countries. It didn’t take long for market observers to try and reverse engineer the formula.
Many observers said the U.S. appeared to have divided the trade deficit by imports from a given country to arrive at tariff rates for individual countries.
Such methodology doesn’t necessarily align with the conventional approach to calculate tariffs and would imply the U.S. would have only looked at the trade deficit in goods and ignored trade in services.
The U.S. also appeared to have applied a 10% levy for regions where it is running a trade surplus.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a “Make America Wealthy Again” trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Chip Somodevilla | Getty Images

Markets have turned their sights on how U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration arrived at the figures behind the sweeping tariffs on U.S. imports declared Wednesday, which sent global financial markets tumbling and sparked concerns worldwide.
Trump and the White House shared a series of charts on social media detailing the tariff rates they say other countries impose on the U.S. Those purported rates include the countries’ “Currency Manipulation and Trade Barriers.”

An adjacent column shows the new U.S. tariff rates on each country, as well as the European Union.

Arrows pointing outwards

Chart of reciprocal tariffs.
Courtesy: Donald Trump via Truth Social

Those rates are, in most cases, roughly half of what the Trump administration claims each country has “charged” the U.S. CNBC could not independently verify the U.S. administration’s data on these duties.
It didn’t take long for market observers to try and reverse engineer the formula — to confusing results. Many, including journalist and author James Surowiecki, said the U.S. appeared to have divided the trade deficit by imports from a given country to arrive at tariff rates for individual countries.
Such methodology doesn’t necessarily align with the conventional approach to calculate tariffs and would imply the U.S. would have only looked at the trade deficit in goods and ignored trade in services.
For instance, the U.S. claims that China charges a tariff of 67%. The U.S. ran a deficit of $295.4 billion with China in 2024, while imported goods were worth $438.9 billion, according to official data. When you divide $295.4 billion by $438.9 billion, the result is 67%! The same math checks out for Vietnam.

“The formula is about trade imbalances with the U.S. rather than reciprocal tariffs in the sense of tariff level or non-tariff level distortions. This makes it very difficult for Asian, particularly the poorer Asian countries, to meet US demand to reduce tariffs in the short-term as the benchmark is buying more American goods than they export to the U.S., ” according to Trinh Nguyen, senior economist of emerging Asia at Natixis.
“Given that U.S. goods are much more expensive, and the purchasing power is lower for countries targeted with the highest levels of tariffs, such option is not optimal. Vietnam, for example, stands out in having the 4th largest trade surplus with the U.S., and has already lowered tariffs versus the U.S. ahead of tariff announcement without any reprieve,” Nguyen said.
The U.S. also appeared to have applied a 10% levy for regions where it is running a trade surplus.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative laid out its approach on its website, which appeared somewhat similar to what cyber sleuths had already figured out, barring a few differences.
“While individually computing the trade deficit effects of tens of thousands of tariff, regulatory, tax and other policies in each country is complex, if not impossible, their combined effects can be proxied by computing the tariff level consistent with driving bilateral trade deficits to zero. If trade deficits are persistent because of tariff and non-tariff policies and fundamentals, then the tariff rate consistent with offsetting these policies and fundamentals is reciprocal and fair,” the website reads.
The U.S.T.R. also included estimates for the elasticity of imports to import prices—in other words, how sensitive demand for foreign goods is to prices—and the passthrough of higher tariffs into higher prices of imported goods.
This screenshot of the U.S.T.R. webpage shows the methodology and formula that was used in greater detail:

A screenshot from the website of the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

Some analysts acknowledged that the U.S. government’s methodology could give it more wiggle room to reach an agreement.
“All I can say is that the opaqueness surrounding the tariff numbers may add some flexibility in making deals, but it could come at a cost to US credibility,” according to Rob Subbaraman, head of global macro research at Nomura.
 — CNBC’s Kevin Breuninger contributed to this piece. More

After being smacked with double-digit percentage tariffs by a key ally, Japan finds itself with few retaliatory options.Since President Trump began threatening broad tariffs in January, Japan has pursued a conciliatory strategy, with Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba pledging in February to boost U.S. investment to $1 trillion.Up until the day before Mr. Trump’s tariff announcements on Wednesday, prominent business executives in Tokyo said they were hopeful Japan would be spared. Those hopes were dashed when Mr. Trump said U.S. imports from Japan would face a 24 percent tariff. Last week, he said that cars, Japan’s top export to the United States, would be subject to a 25 percent tax.While other places affected by the U.S. tariffs — including the European Union, Canada and China — have declared their intentions to retaliate with their own taxes on American goods, Japanese officials have refrained from talking about a similar move.That is in part because the state of Japan’s economy and the importance of its trade with the United States would make it difficult to do so, analysts say.Over the past few years, inflation, largely driven by rising energy and food costs, has surged in Japan and strained its economy. Japan’s imports from the United States are largely commodities, including natural gas and agricultural products.That is why imposing retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports would be “self-defeating” and “simply not a viable option,” said Stefan Angrick, a senior economist at Moody’s Analytics in Tokyo. “The only remaining strategy is to shift the narrative and emphasize Japan’s willingness to import more commodities,” he said.American officials, including Mr. Trump, have repeatedly raised concerns about Japan’s non-tariff trade barriers, specifically citing import restrictions on agricultural products like rice and automotive standards that they contend put American manufacturers at a disadvantage.At a news conference on Thursday, Japan’s chief cabinet secretary, Yoshimasa Hayashi, declined to comment on what Japan would be willing to consider conceding in trade negotiations with the United States. Other officials, including the prime minister, refrained from talk of retaliation.Japan’s standards for certifying automobiles for use in the country are based on those established by the United Nations, Mr. Hayashi said. He also said that he has explained to his counterparts in Washington the details and logic behind Japan’s rice-import policies.“Despite this, it is extremely regrettable that the U.S. government has announced the recent reciprocal tariff measures mentioning rice,” Mr. Hayashi said. “In any case, Japan will continue to strongly urge the United States to review its measures.” More

Analysts generally had a pessimistic take on the announcement, with some even predicting an increased risk of a recession for the U.S.
Most note that the tariff will raise rates to levels not seen since the early 20th century, when the U.S. enacted the Smoot/Hawley Act.

Charts that show the “reciprocal tariffs” the U.S. is charging other countries are on display at the James Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House on April 2, 2025 in Washington, DC. 
Alex Wong | Getty Images

U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday laid out the “reciprocal tariff” rates that more than 180 countries and territories will face under his sweeping new trade policy.
The announcement sent stocks tumbling and prompted investors to seek refuge in assets perceived to be safe.

Analysts generally had a pessimistic take on the announcement, with some even predicting an increased risk of a recession for the U.S.
Here is a compilation of reactions from experts and analysts:
Tai Hui, APAC Chief Market Strategist, J.P. Morgan Asset Management
“Today’s announcement could potentially raise U.S. average tariff rates to levels not seen since the early 20th century. If these tariffs persist, they could materially impact inflation, as U.S. manufacturing struggles to ramp up capacity and supply chains pass on costs to consumers. For instance, advanced semiconductor manufacturers in Taiwan may not absorb tariff costs without viable substitutes.
“The scale of these tariffs raises concerns about growth risks. U.S. consumers may cut back on spending due to pricier imports, and businesses might delay capital expenditures amid uncertainty about the tariffs’ full impact and potential retaliation from trade partners.”

David Rosenberg, President and founder of Rosenberg Research
“There are no winners in a global trade war. And when people have to realize, when you hear this clap trap about how consumers in United States are not going to bear any brunt. It’s all going to be the foreign producer. I roll my eyes whenever I hear that, because it shows a zero understanding of how trade works, because it is the importing business that pays the tariff, not the exporting country.
And a lot of that will get transmitted into the consumer, so we’re in for several months of a very significant price shock for the American household sector.”
Anthony Raza, Head of Multi-Asset Strategy, UOB Asset Management
“They’ve come up with the most extreme numbers that we can’t even comprehend. How they’re coming up with these? And then in terms of timing, I think we were hopeful that maybe this would be something that was rolled out over the course of a year, that would allow like time for negotiations or whatever. But it does seem like the timing is much more immediate and is, again, worse than our worst-case type scenario in terms of flexibility.”
David Roche, Strategist, Quantum Strategy”These tariffs are not transitional. They are core to President Trump’s beliefs. They mark the shift from globalisation to isolationist, nationalist policies – and not just for economics. The process will last several years and be felt for decades. There will be spillovers into multiple policy domains such as geopolitics.Right now, expect retaliation, not negotiation by the EU (targeting U.S. services) and China (focusing on U.S. strategic and business interests). The Rose Garden tariffs will cement the bear market. They will cause global stagflation as well as U.S. and EU recession.”
Shane Oliver, Head of Investment Strategy and Chief Economist, AMP
“Our rough calculation is that the 2nd April announcement will take the U.S. average tariff rate to above levels seen in the 1930s after the Smoot/Hawley tariffs which will in turn add to the risk of a U.S. recession – via a further blow to confidence and supply chain disruptions – and a bigger hit to global growth.
“The risk of a US recession is probably now around 40% and global growth could be pushed towards 2% (from around 3% currently) depending on how significant retaliation is and how countries like China respond with policy stimulus.”
Tom Kenny, Senior International Economist, ANZ
“Today’s announced US reciprocal tariffs are worse than expected. The effective tariff rate on U.S. merchandise imports is likely to climb to the 20-25% range, the highest since the early 1900s.Yields on inflation-indexed bonds were higher and equities sold off after the announcement, suggesting the market thinks these tariffs will hurt growth and add to inflation. Market pricing of the federal funds rate points to cuts from the Federal Reserve coming sooner.” More

With the new tariffs announced on Wednesday in Washington, President Trump has now imposed additional tariffs on Chinese goods of 54 percent — an extremely heavy burden that will cause companies to look elsewhere for suppliers.Mr. Trump added a 34 percent tariff on imports from China, to take effect on April 9, on top of two earlier rounds of 10 percent tariffs he had already imposed.Those are just the new tariffs on China since Mr. Trump started his second term in office. During his first term, he put tariffs of 25 percent on a wide range of Chinese industrial goods and 7.5 percent on some consumer goods, which former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. left in place.Mr. Trump’s latest action, on what he described as “Liberation Day,” has provoked considerable anger in China. On Thursday, China’s commerce ministry vowed to take countermeasures to “safeguard its own rights and interests.”Many government officials and experts had been hoping that Mr. Trump might follow the World Trade Organization’s free trade rules.He Weiwen, a retired Ministry of Commerce official who is now a senior fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing research group, said that Mr. Trump’s actions were the biggest violation ever of the rules of the W.T.O. or its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.The latest tariffs “will not liberate America, but will only cause new suffering to the American economy and American families,” Mr. He said.China’s official news agency, Xinhua, published an editorial describing the Trump administration’s tariffs as “self-defeating bullying,” and said Washington was “turning trade into an over-simplistic tit-for-tat game.” More

As he unfurled his list of tariffs targeting most of America’s trading partners, President Trump repeatedly stressed that each nation’s rate was reciprocal — reflecting the barriers they had long erected to U.S. goods.He said little about the methodology behind those calculations, but a possible answer emerged later on Wednesday. Each country’s new tariff rate appeared to be derived by:Taking the trade deficit that America runs with that nation and dividing it by the exports that country sent into the United States.Then, because Mr. Trump said he was being “kind,” the final tariff number was cut in half.James Surowiecki, a financial writer and book author, first pointed out the trend in a post on X. His comment set off widespread speculation, given that Mr. Trump previously said each nation’s tariff rate would be “the combined rate of all their tariffs, non-monetary barriers and other forms of cheating.”Those non-monetary barriers include a host of hard-to-quantify laws and other policies that Mr. Trump sees as the primary reason that the U.S. experiences such trade imbalances in the first place. (There are exceptions: Some nations face only a standard 10 percent minimum tariff starting this month.)In an earlier briefing with reporters, White House officials said the figures were calculated by the Council of Economic Advisers using well-established methodologies. The official added the model was based on the concept that the trade deficit that we have with any given country is the sum of all the unfair trade practices and “cheating” that country has done.The White House later clarified its methodology in this post. Though it uses some mathematical symbols that might be hard to parse, it confirms that the formula is essentially based on the U.S. trade deficit with a foreign country, divided by the country’s exports.“It was always going to be a really difficult exercise to come up with a very precise reciprocal tariff rate,” said Emily Kilcrease, the director of the Energy, Economics and Security Program at the Center for a New American Security and a former deputy assistant U.S. trade representative.“Given what seems to be their desire to get something out quickly, it appears what they’ve done is come up with an approximation that is consistent with their policy goals,” she said. More

The Senate on Wednesday approved a measure that would block some of the tariffs President Trump has imposed on Canada, with a handful of Republicans joining Democrats to pass a resolution that would halt levies set to take effect this week.The measure is all but certain to stall in the House, where G.O.P. leaders have moved preemptively to shut down any move to end Mr. Trump’s tariffs. But Senate passage of the measure on a vote of 51 to 48 — just hours after Mr. Trump unveiled sweeping tariffs on more than 100 trading partners, including the European Union, China, Britain and India — sent a signal of bipartisan congressional opposition to the president’s trade war.The resolution targets the emergency powers Mr. Trump invoked in February to impose sweeping tariffs on Canada, a move that has rattled markets and drawn bipartisan criticism from lawmakers concerned about the economic impact on their states and districts.Mr. Trump imposed the tariffs in an executive order that cited the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, a Cold War-era law that has most often been used to impose sanctions on rogue states and human rights violators. His administration argued that unchecked drug trafficking from Canada constituted a dire threat to American national security and used it as justification to unilaterally impose 25 percent tariffs on America’s closest trading partner.“The president has justified the imposition of these tariffs on, in my view, a made-up emergency,” said Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia and the lead sponsor of the resolution. “The fentanyl emergency is from Mexico and China. It’s not from Canada.”The resolution, cosponsored by two fellow Democrats, Senators Mark Warner of Virginia and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, seeks to revoke the emergency declaration and, with it, Mr. Trump’s ability to enforce the tariffs set to go into effect on Wednesday.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

President Trump’s announcement of sweeping universal and so-called reciprocal tariffs on countries around the world drew a swift rebuke on Wednesday from business groups, trade experts, Democratic lawmakers and many economists who warned that they would raise prices for American consumers and slow economic growth.“This is catastrophic for American families,” said Matt Priest, president and chief executive of the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America. “We had hoped the president would take a more targeted approach, but these broad tariffs will only drive-up costs, reduce product quality and weaken consumer confidence.”Other reactions were more muted, and some positive, saying the move was long overdue.“Today is arguably the single greatest trade and economic policy action in the history of the country, and it absolutely cements President Trump’s legacy that he is trying to usher in a new golden age of economy production and prosperity,” said Nick Iacovella, executive vice president at the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group that supports tariffs. He said the tariffs would contribute to “broadly re-industrializing the United States and creating working class jobs.”Mr. Trump insisted on Wednesday that experts had been wrong all along about his tariffs and that the anxiety about them now were misplaced. But those who will be forced to pay the tariffs were quick to raise concerns about the move, which will increase import taxes on products from some of America’s biggest trading partners including China, the European Union, Japan and India.The National Retail Federation said in a statement that the tariffs would “equal more anxiety and uncertainty for American businesses and consumers.” Tariffs are not paid for by foreign countries or suppliers but by U.S. importers, they said. They also added that “the immediate implementation of these tariffs is a massive undertaking and requires both advance notice and substantial preparation by the millions of U.S. businesses that will be directly impacted.”The National Association of Manufacturers said it was still parsing the details and exact implications of the president’s tariffs. But the group’s president, Jay Timmons, said in a statement that the high costs of new tariffs threatened investment, jobs, supply chains and, in turn, America’s ability to outcompete other nations and lead as the pre-eminent manufacturing superpower.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More