Import Tariffs in the US 2025
The United States trade policy landscape has undergone a dramatic transformation in 2025, establishing a comprehensive tariff system that fundamentally reshapes global economic relationships. This new framework abandons traditional multilateral trade principles in favor of a bilateral, relationship-based approach that directly correlates economic access with diplomatic alignment and strategic partnership. The system creates distinct tiers of nations, ranging from preferred partners enjoying 10% tariff rates alongside massive investment packages worth trillions of dollars, to penalized countries facing rates as high as 50% for various political, economic, and security-related concerns.
As of August 1, 2025, this tariff structure governs trade relationships with nearly every nation globally, representing the most significant overhaul of US trade policy in decades. The policy serves multiple objectives simultaneously: incentivizing bilateral negotiations, enforcing diplomatic priorities, protecting domestic industries, and generating substantial federal revenue. Recent developments include the unprecedented application of emergency powers against traditional North American partners Canada and Mexico over fentanyl-related concerns, the imposition of new 35% tariffs on Serbia, and the successful negotiation of major investment deals with Gulf states totaling over $3 trillion. This comprehensive analysis examines the current tariff structure, its strategic implications, and the evolving nature of America’s economic diplomacy. The 25% tariff on India has now dramatically increased to a comprehensive 50% tariff as of the latest executive order on August 6, 2025.
Key Facts & Stats about US Import Tariffs by Country 2025
| Metric | Value | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Highest Tariff Rate | 50% | Lesotho, Brazil, India |
| Lowest Tariff Rate | 10% | UK, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE |
| Largest Investment Package | $1.4 Trillion | UAE investment commitment (May 2025) |
| Total Gulf Investments | $3.2 Trillion | Combined UAE ($1.4T), Qatar ($1.2T), Saudi Arabia ($600B) |
| Most Dramatic Improvement | 46% → 20% | Vietnam – 26 percentage point reduction |
| Countries with Emergency Tariffs | 2 | Canada and Mexico under IEEPA powers |
| Recently Imposed Tariffs (Aug 6) | 1 Country | India (50%) |
| Countries with Completed Deals | 12 | Including EU, UK, Japan, South Korea, Gulf states |
| Default Rate for Unlisted Nations | 10% | Baseline for countries without specific agreements |
| Highest European Rate | 39% | Switzerland – No trade deal |
| China’s Complex Rate | 30% | 10% reciprocal + 20% additional penalty |
| Countries Under Threat | 8+ | Including Malaysia, Kazakhstan, South Africa |
| African Nations Above 30% | 6 | Lesotho (50%), Botswana (37%), Angola (32%), others |
| ASEAN Success Stories | 4 | Philippines (19%), Indonesia (19%), Vietnam (20%), Brunei (25%) |
| Countries with Negotiated Reductions | 2 | Sri Lanka (44%→30%), Vietnam (46%→20%) |
The statistics reveal a trade policy framework designed to maximize US leverage while rewarding strategic partnerships with unprecedented economic incentives. The $3.2 trillion in combined Gulf state investments represents the largest concentration of bilateral investment commitments in modern diplomatic history, fundamentally altering the economic relationship between the United States and the Middle East. Meanwhile, the 50% maximum tariff rate on Lesotho and the 46-percentage-point swing achieved by Vietnam demonstrate the extreme variability possible within this system, where nations can experience dramatic improvements or severe penalties based on their diplomatic engagement and strategic alignment with US priorities. With Trump’s latest executive order on 6 August 2025, imposing an additional 25% penalty tariff for India’s continued import of Russian crude oil, Indian exporters now face an unprecedented 50% total tariff rate – 20% higher than China’s tariffs and 31% higher than Pakistan’s newly reduced 19% rate.
Perhaps most striking is the application of emergency economic powers against Canada and Mexico, traditional NAFTA partners, highlighting how domestic security concerns now supersede regional trade agreements. The simultaneous imposition of 35% tariffs on Bangladesh and Serbia on August 1st, 2025, demonstrates the real-time enforcement capabilities of this new framework. This system effectively transforms trade policy into a dynamic diplomatic tool, where countries face immediate economic consequences for policy decisions while enjoying substantial rewards for strategic cooperation, creating an unprecedented level of economic diplomacy integration.
US Import Tariffs Rates by Country 2025 (as of 1st August)
✅ Countries with Completed Trade Deals
| Country | US Import Tariff | Deal Status | Additional Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| European Union | 15% | Deal Completed | – |
| United Kingdom | 10% | Deal Completed | – |
| Japan | 15% | Deal Completed | – |
| South Korea | 15% | Deal Completed | – |
| Philippines | 19% | Deal Completed | – |
| Taiwan | 20% | Deal Completed | – |
| Indonesia | 19% | Deal Completed | – |
| Vietnam | 20% | Deal Completed | Previously 46% |
| Israel | 15% | Deal Completed | – |
| Qatar | 10% | Deal Completed | $1.2T Investment (May 2025) |
| Saudi Arabia | 10% | Deal Completed | $600B Investment (May 2025) |
| UAE | 10% | Deal Completed | $1.4T Investment (May 2025) |
| China | 30% | Partial Deal (May 2025) | 10% reciprocal + 20% additional |
The nations with completed trade deals represent the United States’ most valued economic partners, enjoying preferential tariff rates that range from 10% to 20%. This tier demonstrates a strategic approach to trade policy that prioritizes bilateral relationships and mutual economic benefits over multilateral frameworks.
Gulf State Economic Integration: The most remarkable aspect of this category is the emergence of Gulf Cooperation Council nations as premier trading partners. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have all secured the lowest available 10% tariff rates, accompanied by unprecedented investment commitments. The UAE’s $1.4 trillion investment package represents the largest bilateral investment agreement in modern history, while Saudi Arabia’s $600 billion commitment and Qatar’s $1.2 trillion package signal a fundamental realignment of US-Middle East economic relations. These investments likely span critical infrastructure, renewable energy, technology sectors, and defense capabilities, reflecting the strategic importance of Gulf partnerships in America’s broader geopolitical strategy.
Traditional Allied Relationships: The European Union maintains its historically important position with a 15% tariff rate, though this is notably higher than some newer partnerships. The United Kingdom’s 10% rate demonstrates the benefits of bilateral negotiation flexibility outside the EU framework, suggesting that post-Brexit Britain has successfully leveraged its independence to secure more favorable terms than its European counterparts. This differential treatment may reflect the UK’s greater willingness to align with US regulatory standards and security priorities.
Asia-Pacific Strategic Framework: Japan and South Korea’s identical 15% rates reflect their roles as anchor allies in the Asia-Pacific region. Despite facing higher tariffs than Gulf partners, these rates represent preferential treatment that recognizes their strategic military partnerships and shared democratic values. The Philippines and Indonesia, both at 19%, represent America’s commitment to Southeast Asian engagement, with these rates acknowledging their growing importance as alternative manufacturing bases and strategic locations in maritime security.
Vietnam’s Transformation: Perhaps the most dramatic success story in this category is Vietnam’s evolution from a high-tariff nation (previously 46%) to a preferred partner at 20%. This transformation reflects Vietnam’s strategic importance as a manufacturing alternative to China, its growing integration into global supply chains, and its increasingly valuable role in US Indo-Pacific strategy. Vietnam’s inclusion demonstrates that significant improvements in trade relations are possible through sustained diplomatic engagement and economic reform.
Israel’s Strategic Partnership: Israel’s 15% rate reflects its unique position as both a strategic ally and an innovation hub. This rate acknowledges the deep security partnership between the nations while recognizing Israel’s contributions to technology sectors critical to US economic competitiveness.
China’s Complex Relationship: China’s 30% rate under a “partial deal” represents the most complex relationship in this category. The structure of 10% reciprocal tariffs plus an additional 20% reflects ongoing tensions while maintaining some level of economic engagement. The May 2025 timeframe suggests recent negotiations, though the partial nature of the deal indicates unresolved issues that prevent full normalization of trade relations.
❌ Countries Without Trade Deals (High Tariff Recipients) – UPDATED
| Country | US Import Tariff | Deal Status |
|---|---|---|
| Lesotho | 50% | No Deal |
| Syria | 41% | No Deal |
| Myanmar (Burma) | 40% | No Deal |
| Switzerland | 39% | No Deal |
| Serbia | 35% | 35% Tariff IMPOSED (Aug 1, 2025) |
| Algeria | 30% | No Deal |
| Bosnia & Herzegovina | 30% | No Deal |
| South Africa | 30% | No Deal |
| Brunei | 25% | No Deal |
| Tunisia | 25% | Tariff Letter Sent |
| Bangladesh | 20% | Tariff IMPOSED (Aug 1, 2025) |
| Sri Lanka | 20% | Reduced from 44% |
| Taiwan | 20% | No Deal |
| Vietnam | 20% | Now Reduced |
| Cambodia | 19% | No Deal |
| Pakistan | 19% | No Deal |
| Philippines | 19% | No Deal |
| Thailand | 19% | No Deal |
| Nicaragua | 18% | No Deal |
| Afghanistan | 15% | No Deal |
| Angola | 15% | No Deal |
| Bolivia | 15% | No Deal |
| Botswana | 15% | No Deal |
| Cameroon | 15% | No Deal |
| Chad | 15% | No Deal |
| Costa Rica | 15% | No Deal |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 15% | No Deal |
| D.R. Congo | 15% | No Deal |
| Ecuador | 15% | No Deal |
| Equatorial Guinea | 15% | No Deal |
| Madagascar | 15% | No Deal |
| Mozambique | 15% | No Deal |
| Namibia | 15% | No Deal |
| Nauru | 15% | No Deal |
| New Zealand | 15% | No Deal |
| Nigeria | 15% | No Deal |
| North Macedonia | 15% | No Deal |
| Norway | 15% | No Deal |
| Papua New Guinea | 15% | No Deal |
| South Korea | 15% | No Deal |
| Trinidad and Tobago | 15% | No Deal |
| Turkey | 15% | No Deal |
| Uganda | 15% | No Deal |
| Vanuatu | 15% | No Deal |
| Venezuela | 15% | No Deal |
| Zambia | 15% | No Deal |
| Zimbabwe | 15% | No Deal |
| Brazil | 50% | Default Rate |
| European Union | Variable | Column 1 Duty Rate formula |
| United Kingdom | 10% | Default Rate |
| Egypt | 10% | Default Rate |
| Morocco | 10% | Default Rate |
Complete Country-by-Country US Tariff Analysis (August 2025)
HIGHEST TARIFF TIER (40%+)
India – 50%
With Trump’s latest executive order on 6 August, 2025 imposing an additional 25% penalty tariff for India’s continued import of Russian crude oil, Indian exporters now face an unprecedented 50% total tariff rate, marking a significant deterioration in US-India trade relations. Despite being the world’s largest democracy and a key strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific, trade disputes have persisted over market access, intellectual property, and digital services taxes. India’s large trade surplus with the US and protective trade policies may have triggered this response. The additional penalty suggests particular frustration with Indian trade practices or compliance issues.
Lesotho – 50% (Highest Rate)
Lesotho, a small landlocked kingdom entirely surrounded by South Africa, faces the highest tariff rate at 50%. With a population of just 2.1 million, Lesotho’s economy relies heavily on textile manufacturing under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), diamond mining, and remittances from migrant workers in South Africa. The country exports primarily clothing and textiles to the US market. This extreme tariff rate appears punitive and may relate to trade imbalances or failure to negotiate reciprocal trade terms. Notably, this rate does not appear in the official White House document, suggesting it may stem from earlier policies or different trade measures.
Brazil – 50% (NEW)
Brazil’s inclusion at 50% tariff is significant given its status as Latin America’s largest economy and historically important US trade partner. Brazil is a major agricultural exporter and emerging market economy with sophisticated manufacturing and services sectors. The country exports soybeans, coffee, sugar, iron ore, and manufactured goods. Under President Lula’s return to power, Brazil has pursued more independent foreign policy including closer ties with China and neutral positions on global conflicts. The relatively low tariff suggests efforts to maintain important trade relationships despite political differences.
Syria – 41%
Syria receives a 41% tariff as part of the official White House rates, reflecting the complete breakdown in US-Syria relations since the civil war began in 2011. Syria’s economy has been devastated by over a decade of conflict, with GDP shrinking by more than 60% since 2010. The country faces comprehensive US sanctions under the Caesar Act, severely limiting bilateral trade. Syria’s pre-war exports included petroleum, textiles, and agricultural products, but current trade volumes with the US are minimal. The high tariff reinforces the broader sanctions regime and US policy of isolating the Assad government.
Myanmar (Burma) – 40%
Myanmar faces a 40% tariff following the military coup in February 2021 that overthrew the democratically elected government. The country’s economy, which had been growing under civilian rule, collapsed after the coup, with foreign investment fleeing and international sanctions imposed. Myanmar traditionally exported garments, jade, gems, and agricultural products to the US. The high tariff is part of broader US efforts to pressure the military junta and support the pro-democracy movement. The rate reflects US disapproval of human rights violations and the suppression of democratic institutions.
Switzerland – 39%
Switzerland’s inclusion at 39% tariff is particularly surprising given its status as a wealthy, stable democracy with traditionally strong US ties. Switzerland is known for high-value exports including luxury watches, pharmaceuticals, precision machinery, and banking services. The country maintains strict neutrality and has not joined NATO or the EU. The high tariff may reflect trade imbalances, Switzerland’s banking secrecy laws, or disputes over tax avoidance by multinational corporations. Switzerland’s high-value, low-volume exports make it less sensitive to tariff impacts than manufacturing-dependent economies.
EMERGENCY POWERS TIER (35% Special)
Serbia – 35%
Serbia faces a 35% tariff imposed on August 1, 2025, likely reflecting its refusal to align with Western sanctions against Russia following the Ukraine conflict. As an EU candidate country, Serbia has been under pressure to harmonize its foreign policy with European positions, but has maintained close ties with Russia, including energy dependence and political support. Serbia’s economy includes manufacturing, mining, and agriculture, with significant trade relationships across both East and West. The tariff appears designed to pressure Serbia toward greater Western alignment on security and foreign policy issues.
Canada – 35% (IEEPA Emergency Powers)
Canada faces emergency tariffs of 35% specifically related to the fentanyl crisis, not general trade disputes. This represents a dramatic escalation in the US-Canada relationship, traditionally the world’s longest peaceful border and largest trading partnership. Canada-US trade exceeds $700 billion annually, with deeply integrated supply chains across industries. The fentanyl-related tariff suggests US frustration with Canadian efforts to combat precursor chemical trafficking or cross-border drug smuggling. This measure could severely disrupt North American economic integration and the USMCA trade agreement.
HIGH TARIFF TIER (25-30%)
Algeria – 30%
Algeria, North Africa’s largest country by land area, faces a 30% tariff reflecting limited trade relationship development with the US. Algeria’s economy is heavily dependent on hydrocarbon exports (oil and natural gas), which account for over 95% of export earnings and 60% of government revenues. The country has struggled with economic diversification and faces challenges from declining oil revenues and youth unemployment. Algeria’s authoritarian government and limited market reforms may contribute to trade relationship difficulties. The tariff may pressure Algeria toward greater economic liberalization and diversification.
Bosnia & Herzegovina – 30%
Bosnia and Herzegovina faces a 30% tariff despite being a potential EU candidate country. The nation remains politically fragmented with a complex governmental structure established by the Dayton Agreement ending the 1992-1996 war. Economic progress has been slow, with high unemployment, limited foreign investment, and weak institutions. The country exports metals, machinery, and agricultural products. Political instability, corruption, and slow reform progress likely contribute to the inability to secure better trade terms with the US. The tariff may be designed to incentivize political and economic reforms.
South Africa – 30%
South Africa, the continent’s most industrialized economy, faces a 30% tariff despite being a key US partner in Africa. The country is experiencing significant economic challenges including high unemployment (over 30%), power shortages, and social inequality. South Africa’s government under the ANC has maintained non-aligned foreign policy positions, including refusing to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Trade disputes may involve agricultural products, steel, or aluminum exports. The tariff could reflect US frustration with South Africa’s foreign policy positions and efforts to pressure alignment with Western positions.
MODERATE-HIGH TARIFF TIER (20-25%)
Brunei – 25%
Brunei, a small oil-rich sultanate in Southeast Asia, faces a 25% tariff despite its wealth and stability. The country’s economy is almost entirely dependent on oil and natural gas exports, with limited diversification efforts. Brunei maintains an absolute monarchy with strict Islamic law (Sharia) implementation that has drawn international criticism, particularly regarding LGBTQ+ rights. The tariff may reflect human rights concerns or limited trade relationship development due to Brunei’s small market size and narrow export base.
Tunisia – 25%
Tunisia faces a 25% tariff with a “tariff letter sent” status, suggesting ongoing negotiations. Tunisia was the birthplace of the Arab Spring in 2011 and initially seen as the most successful democratic transition in the region. However, President Kais Saied’s 2021 power grab has raised concerns about democratic backsliding. Tunisia’s economy relies on tourism, agriculture, manufacturing, and mining. The country faces severe economic challenges including high unemployment and debt. The tariff may pressure democratic restoration and economic reforms.
Mexico – 25% (IEEPA Emergency Powers)
Mexico faces emergency tariffs of 25% related to the fentanyl crisis, representing a severe strain in the relationship with the US’s second-largest trading partner. Mexico-US trade exceeds $600 billion annually under the USMCA agreement. The fentanyl tariff reflects US concerns about Mexican cartels’ role in producing and trafficking fentanyl using Chinese precursor chemicals. This measure could devastate Mexican manufacturing exports and disrupt integrated North American supply chains, particularly in automotive and electronics sectors.
MODERATE TARIFF TIER (15-20%)
Bangladesh – 20%
Bangladesh faces a 20% tariff imposed on August 1, 2025, despite being a major textile supplier to US retailers. Bangladesh is the world’s second-largest garment exporter after China, with the ready-made garment industry accounting for over 80% of exports. The country has made significant economic progress but faces challenges with labor rights, workplace safety, and democratic governance under Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s increasingly authoritarian rule. The tariff may reflect concerns about labor standards, democratic backsliding, or failure to open markets to US exports.
Sri Lanka – 20%
Sri Lanka’s tariff was reduced from 44% to 20% through negotiations, indicating some progress in trade relations. The island nation faced severe economic crisis in 2022, leading to political upheaval and President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s resignation. Sri Lanka declared bankruptcy and sought IMF assistance. The country traditionally exports tea, garments, rubber, and spices. The tariff reduction suggests recognition of Sri Lanka’s economic difficulties and efforts toward reform, though the 20% rate still indicates unresolved trade issues.
Taiwan – 20% (NEW)
Taiwan’s inclusion at 20% tariff is diplomatically significant given its contested international status and crucial role in global semiconductor supply chains. Taiwan produces over 60% of the world’s semiconductors and over 90% of advanced chips. The island democracy faces constant pressure from China, which claims Taiwan as its territory. The tariff is surprising given Taiwan’s strategic importance to US technology supply chains and strong democratic institutions. This may reflect trade imbalances or pressure to reduce dependence on Taiwan for critical technologies.
Vietnam – 20%
Vietnam faces a 20% tariff, described as “now reduced” from previous higher rates, indicating some progress in trade negotiations. Vietnam has been one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies and a major beneficiary of supply chain diversification away from China. The country exports electronics, textiles, footwear, and agricultural products. However, Vietnam remains a single-party communist state with limited political freedoms. The tariff may reflect concerns about unfair trade practices, currency manipulation, or human rights issues while acknowledging Vietnam’s strategic importance as a China alternative.
Cambodia – 19%
Cambodia faces a 19% tariff reflecting concerns about its increasingly authoritarian government under Prime Minister Hun Sen, who ruled for nearly four decades before transferring power to his son in 2023. Cambodia’s economy relies heavily on garments, tourism, and agriculture. The country has faced EU trade preference suspensions due to human rights concerns. Cambodia’s close ties to China and restrictions on political opposition likely contribute to trade relationship difficulties with the US.
Pakistan – 19%
Pakistan faces a 19% tariff despite being a non-NATO ally, reflecting the complex and often strained US-Pakistan relationship. Pakistan’s economy faces severe challenges including high inflation, energy shortages, and debt distress requiring IMF assistance. The country exports textiles, rice, leather goods, and surgical instruments. Persistent concerns about terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and Pakistan’s relationship with China may contribute to trade difficulties. The US has also been frustrated with Pakistan’s alleged support for Taliban elements in Afghanistan.
Philippines – 19% (NEW)
The Philippines’ inclusion at 19% tariff is notable given its status as a US treaty ally and longtime partner. Under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the Philippines has strengthened ties with the US while managing its relationship with China. The country exports electronics, machinery, and agricultural products. Historical trade disputes have involved agricultural market access and intellectual property protections. The tariff may reflect ongoing trade imbalances or pressure for greater market opening despite the strong security relationship.
Thailand – 19%
Thailand faces a 19% tariff despite being a US treaty ally and major non-NATO ally. Thailand has Asia’s second-largest economy and is a major automotive and electronics manufacturing hub. The country experienced political instability for years but has achieved greater stability recently. Thailand’s military coup in 2014 and slow return to democracy may have affected trade relations. The tariff likely reflects trade imbalances and pressure for greater market access for US products and services.
Nicaragua – 18%
Nicaragua faces an 18% tariff reflecting the complete breakdown in US-Nicaragua relations under President Daniel Ortega’s increasingly authoritarian rule. Ortega has systematically dismantled democratic institutions, imprisoned opposition leaders, and restricted civil society. Nicaragua’s economy relies on agriculture, manufacturing, and remittances. The US has imposed comprehensive sanctions on Nicaraguan officials and entities. The tariff reinforces broader efforts to isolate the Ortega government and pressure democratic restoration.
STANDARD HIGH TARIFF TIER (15%)
Afghanistan – 15% (NEW)
Afghanistan faces a 15% tariff following the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021. The Taliban government remains unrecognized by the international community and faces comprehensive sanctions. Afghanistan’s economy has collapsed since the Taliban takeover, with humanitarian crisis and severe restrictions on women’s rights. Traditional exports include carpets, dried fruits, and nuts, but trade volumes are minimal due to sanctions and economic collapse. The tariff reflects US non-recognition of Taliban rule and human rights concerns.
Angola – 15%
Angola faces a 15% tariff despite efforts to diversify its oil-dependent economy. Angola is Africa’s second-largest oil producer and has been working to improve governance and reduce corruption under President João Lourenço. The country traditionally exports oil, diamonds, and coffee. Angola has sought to strengthen ties with the US and reduce dependence on China. The tariff may reflect ongoing concerns about governance, market access, or trade imbalances despite improvement efforts.
Bolivia – 15% (NEW)
Bolivia faces a 15% tariff reflecting strained relations since the return of the Movement for Socialism (MAS) party to power. Bolivia under Evo Morales and now Luis Arce has maintained leftist policies and close ties with Cuba and Venezuela. The country is rich in lithium, crucial for battery production, but has struggled to develop this resource effectively. Bolivia’s nationalization policies and anti-American rhetoric have complicated trade relations. The tariff may pressure greater foreign investment protection and market opening.
Botswana – 15%
Botswana faces a 15% tariff despite being one of Africa’s most stable democracies and successful economies. Botswana has transformed from one of the world’s poorest countries at independence to upper-middle-income status, primarily through diamond mining and good governance. The country exports diamonds, beef, and textiles. Botswana has generally maintained good relations with the US. The tariff may reflect limited trade relationship development or pressure for greater economic diversification beyond diamonds.
Cameroon – 15%
Cameroon faces a 15% tariff amid ongoing internal conflicts and governance challenges. The country faces separatist insurgency in its English-speaking regions and Boko Haram terrorism in the north. President Paul Biya has ruled since 1982, making him among the world’s longest-serving leaders. Cameroon exports oil, cocoa, coffee, and timber. Concerns about human rights, democratic governance, and conflict resolution likely contribute to trade relationship difficulties.
Chad – 15%
Chad faces a 15% tariff reflecting its challenging political and economic situation. The country has faced political instability, with military leader Mahamat Idriss Déby taking power after his father’s death in 2021. Chad is among the world’s least developed countries, heavily dependent on oil exports and foreign aid. The landlocked Sahel nation faces security threats from various armed groups. Limited economic development, governance issues, and instability contribute to minimal trade relationship development with the US.
Costa Rica – 15% (NEW)
Costa Rica’s inclusion at 15% tariff is surprising given its strong democratic institutions and historically good US relations. Costa Rica abolished its military in 1948 and has been a stable democracy and US ally. The country has diversified from coffee and bananas to high-tech manufacturing and services. Costa Rica-US relations have generally been positive, with the country participating in CAFTA-DR. The tariff may reflect specific trade disputes or pressure for greater market opening in certain sectors.
Côte d’Ivoire – 15%
Côte d’Ivoire faces a 15% tariff despite being West Africa’s largest economy and the world’s top cocoa producer. The country experienced civil war and political crisis but has achieved greater stability under President Alassane Ouattara. Côte d’Ivoire exports cocoa, coffee, palm oil, and gold. The country has pursued economic reforms and infrastructure development. The tariff may reflect concerns about market access, governance issues, or pressure for greater value-added processing of agricultural exports.
D.R. Congo – 15%
The Democratic Republic of Congo faces a 15% tariff despite possessing vast mineral wealth crucial for global supply chains. The DRC holds significant reserves of cobalt, copper, coltan, and other minerals essential for electronics and batteries. However, the country faces ongoing conflict, particularly in eastern regions, weak governance, and extreme poverty despite mineral wealth. Concerns about conflict minerals, human rights violations, and limited infrastructure development contribute to trade relationship challenges.
Ecuador – 15% (NEW)
Ecuador faces a 15% tariff amid political and economic instability. The country has experienced significant political turmoil with frequent changes in government and ongoing security challenges from drug trafficking organizations. Ecuador traditionally exports oil, bananas, shrimp, and flowers. The country uses the US dollar as its currency, which facilitates trade but limits monetary policy flexibility. Political instability and security concerns may contribute to trade relationship difficulties.
Equatorial Guinea – 15%
Equatorial Guinea faces a 15% tariff reflecting concerns about governance and human rights under President Teodoro Obiang, Africa’s longest-serving leader since 1979. Despite significant oil wealth, the country has extreme inequality and limited democratic institutions. Equatorial Guinea exports primarily oil and natural gas. Concerns about corruption, human rights violations, and lack of democratic governance contribute to limited trade relationship development beyond energy sectors.
Madagascar – 15%
Madagascar faces a 15% tariff despite not appearing in the official White House document, suggesting this rate may come from other trade policies. The large Indian Ocean island nation is among the world’s poorest countries despite rich biodiversity and natural resources. Madagascar exports vanilla, cloves, seafood, and textiles. The country has faced political instability and economic challenges. Limited economic development and governance issues contribute to minimal trade relationship development.
Mozambique – 15%
Mozambique faces a 15% tariff despite not being in the official White House list. The country is recovering from decades of civil war and has significant natural gas reserves that could transform its economy. Mozambique faces insurgency in northern Cabo Delgado province that has disrupted gas development projects. The country exports aluminum, prawns, cashews, and coal. Security challenges, governance issues, and limited infrastructure development affect trade relationships.
Namibia – 15%
Namibia faces a 15% tariff despite being one of Africa’s most stable democracies since independence in 1990. The country has good governance indicators and maintains generally positive international relations. Namibia exports diamonds, uranium, zinc, and beef. The country has pursued economic development and infrastructure projects. The tariff may reflect limited trade relationship development or specific sectoral disputes rather than broader political concerns.
Nauru – 15%
Nauru, one of the world’s smallest countries with just 10,000 people, faces a 15% tariff. The Pacific island nation’s economy has been devastated by phosphate mining that destroyed most of the island. Nauru has few exports and relies heavily on foreign aid and hosting Australian immigration detention facilities. The country faces severe environmental and economic challenges. Limited economic base and small market size result in minimal trade relationships.
New Zealand – 15% (NEW)
New Zealand’s inclusion at 15% tariff is surprising given its status as a close US ally and member of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. New Zealand has strong democratic institutions and generally positive US relations, though it maintains an independent foreign policy including a nuclear-free stance. The country exports dairy products, meat, wool, and wine. Trade disputes may involve agricultural market access or digital services taxes, though the tariff level seems high given the close bilateral relationship.
Nigeria – 15%
Nigeria faces a 15% tariff despite being Africa’s largest economy and most populous country. Nigeria is a major oil producer but has struggled with economic diversification, security challenges including Boko Haram terrorism, and governance issues. The country exports oil, cocoa, rubber, and increasingly, services. Nigeria has pursued economic reforms and anti-corruption efforts under recent governments. The tariff may reflect concerns about market access, governance issues, or pressure for greater economic diversification.
North Macedonia – 15%
North Macedonia faces a 15% tariff despite being a NATO member since 2020 and EU candidate country. The country resolved its naming dispute with Greece and has pursued Western integration. North Macedonia has a small economy focused on manufacturing, agriculture, and services. The country has generally maintained positive relations with the US and pursued democratic and economic reforms. The tariff may reflect limited trade relationship development due to the small market size.
Norway – 15%
Norway’s inclusion at 15% tariff is notable given its status as a NATO founding member and close US ally. Norway is one of the world’s wealthiest countries due to oil wealth managed through its sovereign wealth fund. The country maintains high environmental and labor standards but is not an EU member. Norway exports oil, gas, seafood, and metals. Trade disputes may involve fisheries, aluminum, or digital services taxes, though the tariff seems high for such a close ally.
Papua New Guinea – 15% (NEW)
Papua New Guinea faces a 15% tariff despite being a Pacific ally and partner in regional security arrangements. The country has significant natural resources including oil, gas, gold, and copper, but faces development challenges including limited infrastructure and governance issues. PNG exports energy, minerals, and agricultural products. The country has sought to balance relationships between the US, Australia, and China. Development challenges and governance issues may contribute to trade relationship difficulties.
South Korea – 15% (NEW)
South Korea’s inclusion at 15% tariff is highly significant given its status as a key US treaty ally and major trading partner. South Korea is a major advanced economy and technology powerhouse, home to companies like Samsung and Hyundai. The country has a sophisticated economy exporting electronics, automobiles, steel, and chemicals. The US-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) has governed trade relations. The tariff suggests serious disputes over trade practices, possibly involving steel, semiconductors, or digital services.
Trinidad and Tobago – 15% (NEW)
Trinidad and Tobago faces a 15% tariff despite being a Caribbean neighbor with generally positive US relations. The twin-island nation’s economy is heavily dependent on oil and natural gas exports, with efforts to diversify into petrochemicals and manufacturing. The country faces economic challenges from volatile energy prices and limited diversification. Security concerns related to drug trafficking and proximity to Venezuela may affect relationships, though trade volumes are relatively small.
Turkey – 15% (NEW)
Turkey’s inclusion at 15% tariff reflects the complex and often strained US-Turkey relationship despite Turkey’s NATO membership since 1952. Under President Erdoğan, Turkey has pursued increasingly independent foreign policy including closer ties with Russia and Iran, causing tensions with NATO allies. Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems led to sanctions and removal from the F-35 program. The country exports textiles, automotive parts, machinery, and agricultural products. Geopolitical tensions and democratic backsliding contribute to trade relationship challenges.
Uganda – 15% (NEW)
Uganda faces a 15% tariff amid concerns about democratic governance under President Yoweri Museveni, who has ruled since 1986. Uganda has pursued economic development and regional integration but faces criticism for restrictions on political opposition and civil society. The country exports coffee, tea, fish, and flowers. Uganda has been a partner in counter-terrorism efforts in Somalia but faces governance and human rights concerns that affect broader relationships including trade.
Vanuatu – 15% (NEW)
Vanuatu, a small Pacific island nation, faces a 15% tariff despite limited trade volumes with the US. The country’s economy relies on agriculture, tourism, and offshore financial services. Vanuatu faces climate change challenges as a low-lying island nation and has pursued international climate advocacy. The country has limited exports primarily consisting of agricultural products and seafood. Small market size and limited economic base result in minimal trade relationships.
Venezuela – 15% (NEW)
Venezuela faces a 15% tariff amid comprehensive US sanctions against the Maduro government. Venezuela’s economy has collapsed under authoritarian rule, hyperinflation, and mismanagement of oil resources. The US recognizes opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president and has imposed extensive sanctions on Venezuelan officials and entities. Venezuela traditionally exported oil but current trade volumes are minimal due to sanctions. The tariff reinforces broader efforts to pressure democratic transition.
Zambia – 15%
Zambia faces a 15% tariff despite generally positive governance indicators and democratic institutions. Zambia is Africa’s second-largest copper producer and has pursued economic diversification efforts. The country faced debt distress and sought debt restructuring under the G20 Common Framework. Zambia exports copper, cobalt, gold, and agricultural products. The tariff may reflect limited trade relationship development or concerns about debt sustainability and economic management.
Zimbabwe – 15%
Zimbabwe faces a 15% tariff reflecting ongoing concerns about governance and economic management under President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s government. Zimbabwe faces severe economic challenges including hyperinflation, currency instability, and limited foreign investment. The country has significant mineral wealth including platinum, gold, and diamonds but struggles with infrastructure and governance issues. US sanctions on Zimbabwean officials and entities reflect concerns about democratic governance and human rights.
LOWER TARIFF TIER (10%)
United Kingdom – 10% (NEW)
The UK’s inclusion at 10% tariff is notable given the “special relationship” between the two countries and close intelligence and security cooperation. Post-Brexit, the UK has sought to strengthen trade ties with the US while managing its relationship with the EU. The UK is a major services exporter and maintains sophisticated financial and professional services sectors. Disputes may involve digital services taxes, agricultural market access, or regulatory standards. The relatively low rate suggests efforts to maintain close relationships despite specific trade disagreements.
Egypt – 10%
Egypt faces a 10% default rate despite not appearing in the official White House document. Egypt is the Arab world’s most populous country and a key regional partner in security and counter-terrorism efforts. The country receives significant US military aid and maintains strategic cooperation despite concerns about human rights under President Sisi’s government. Egypt exports textiles, petroleum products, and agricultural goods. The default rate suggests basic trade relationship maintenance despite political concerns.
Morocco – 10%
Morocco faces a 10% default rate despite not being in the official White House list. Morocco is a key US ally in North Africa and has maintained stability amid regional turmoil. The country has pursued economic reforms and modernization under King Mohammed VI. Morocco exports phosphates, textiles, and agricultural products. The US recognized Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara in exchange for Morocco’s normalization with Israel. The default rate reflects generally positive relationships despite limited trade volumes.
Countries with Emergency Powers Tariffs (IEEPA – Fentanyl-related)
| Country | US Import Tariff | Deal Status | Additional Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canada | 35% | IEEPA Tariffs (fentanyl-related) | Emergency powers |
| Mexico | 25% | IEEPA Tariffs (fentanyl-related) | Emergency powers |
| India | 50% | 50% Tariff IMPOSED (Aug 6, 2025) | Emergency powers |
CANADA – 35% Emergency Tariff
Canada faces the highest emergency tariff at 35% under IEEPA powers, targeting the world’s largest trading partnership worth $780 billion annually. The US blames Canada for inadequate controls over Chinese fentanyl precursor chemicals transiting through Canadian ports and the 5,525-mile undefended border used for drug smuggling. This unprecedented measure threatens integrated supply chains in energy, lumber, automotive, and agriculture sectors. The tariff violates the USMCA agreement and represents the worst US-Canada crisis in decades. Canada will likely retaliate with counter-tariffs while strengthening chemical import controls and border security to address US concerns about cross-border fentanyl trafficking.
MEXICO – 25% Emergency Tariff
Mexico faces a 25% emergency tariff due to its central role in the US fentanyl crisis, with Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels operating massive production labs using Chinese precursor chemicals. The tariff threatens $650 billion in annual trade and deeply integrated North American manufacturing supply chains. Mexican ports, especially Lázaro Cárdenas, serve as entry points for Chinese chemicals, while established trafficking networks smuggle finished fentanyl north. President López Obrador’s “hugs not bullets” approach conflicts with US demands for aggressive cartel confrontation. The economic pressure may force enhanced cooperation on chemical controls and anti-drug efforts, though cartels may escalate violence to maintain profit margins amid increased operational costs.
INDIA – 50%
India faces a 50% tariff, uniquely combining fentanyl concerns with broader trade disputes. As a major pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturer, India produces precursors that can be diverted to illicit fentanyl production, with insufficient export monitoring systems. The “additional penalty” reflects ongoing disputes over digital services taxes, market access barriers, and India’s neutral stance on Russia-Ukraine conflict. This threatens the $120 billion trade relationship and strategic Quad Alliance partnership crucial for Indo-Pacific strategy. India must enhance chemical export controls and regulatory monitoring while addressing broader trade practices to restore relations with its key democratic partner and technology cooperation ally.
Policy Assessment
These emergency tariffs represent unprecedented use of IEEPA powers for public health rather than traditional security threats. While the fentanyl crisis kills over 70,000 Americans annually, tariffs are unlikely to be effective given high drug profit margins and cartel adaptability. The policy risks damaging crucial alliances, disrupting integrated economies, and reducing international cooperation. Success requires balancing immediate pressure with long-term strategic relationships and addressing root causes of the crisis.
🌐 Default Countries (Not Listed) (as of 1st August)
| Category | US Import Tariff | Deal Status |
|---|---|---|
| All other nations not listed above | 10% | Default Rate |
The 10% default rate for unlisted countries represents the baseline US trade policy for nations that neither qualify for preferential treatment nor face specific penalties. This rate serves as both a floor and ceiling for countries that maintain neutral relationships with the United States or have insufficient trade volumes to warrant specific attention.
Policy Significance: The 10% default rate represents a significant departure from historical most-favored-nation principles, as it creates a higher baseline than many traditional trading partners enjoyed under previous frameworks. This rate essentially forces countries to actively engage in bilateral negotiations to achieve better terms, rather than relying on multilateral agreements or historical precedent.
Strategic Implications: By setting the default at 10%, the US creates an incentive structure that encourages active diplomatic and economic engagement. Countries can either accept this rate or invest in the diplomatic and economic reforms necessary to achieve preferential status. This approach maximizes US leverage in bilateral negotiations while maintaining some level of global economic integration.
Coverage and Scope: The default category likely includes numerous smaller economies, island nations, and countries with minimal US trade relationships. While individually insignificant, collectively these nations represent important markets for US exports and sources of specialized goods, making the 10% rate a balance between revenue generation and market access.
This tiered system reflects a fundamental shift toward transactional diplomacy where trade relationships directly correlate with broader strategic partnerships, security cooperation, and diplomatic alignment. The structure incentivizes countries to engage more deeply with US policy objectives across multiple domains to achieve economic benefits, while creating significant costs for those who choose alternative paths.
Disclaimer: The data research report we present here is based on information found from various sources. We are not liable for any financial loss, errors, or damages of any kind that may result from the use of the information herein. We acknowledge that though we try to report accurately, we cannot verify the absolute facts of everything that has been represented.
