President Trump’s tariff strategy has produced trade agreements with Japan, South Korea, the European Union, Indonesia, the Philippines, Pakistan, and a imposed a punitive tariff on India. While these deals are framed as economic victories, they carry risks for American consumers and global trade.
On July 22nd, Trump finalized a deal reducing tariffs on Japanese goods from 25% to 15%, effective August 7th. Japan committed to $550 billion in U.S. investments in semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, steel, and energy, and opened markets for U.S. autos and agricultural products, including a 100,000-ton increase in duty-free rice quotas. A US-Japan LNG venture in Alaska was also announced. However, the $550 billion investment lacks a clear timeline, raising doubts about enforceability. Japanese automakers like Toyota benefit, but US consumers face higher prices due to the 15% tariff. Japan’s automotive exports, 20% of its U.S. trade, face additional 25% sector-specific tariffs, potentially disrupting supply chains for U.S. automakers reliant on Japanese parts.
The July 22nd Indonesia deal reduces tariffs from 32% to 19%, with Indonesia eliminating 99% of tariffs on US goods, adopting US standards, and committing to $15 billion in energy, $4.5 billion in agriculture, and 50 Boeing jets. However, the 19% tariff could still price Indonesian textiles and agricultural exports out of the US market, critical for its economy. Adopting US standards may burden Indonesian producers with compliance costs, and the deal’s ban on forced labor and illegal logging, while ethical, could disrupt supply chains, raising prices for US consumers of Indonesian goods.
Announced July 22nd, the Philippines deal sets a 19% tariff, down from 20%, with US goods gaining zero-tariff access. It aims to address the $4.9 billion US trade deficit but risks higher US consumer prices for Philippine exports like electronics.
The EU deal, signed July 27th, sets a 15% tariff on 70% of goods, down from 30%, with the EU committing to $750 billion in US energy purchases, $600 billion in investments, and $40 billion in AI chips by 2028. It includes zero-for-zero tariffs on strategic goods and eliminates industrial tariffs. However, the 50% tariff on EU steel and aluminum persists, raising costs for US manufacturers. The deal’s non-binding nature and need for approval by 27 EU states create uncertainty, and the EU’s $236 billion trade surplus may prompt retaliatory tariffs, threatening US exports.
Announced July 31st, the South Korea deal lowers tariffs from 25% to 15%, with South Korea pledging $350 billion in investments in shipbuilding, semiconductors, and biotech, plus $100 billion in US purchases of LNG. US goods gain zero-tariff access, and South Korea avoids harsher semiconductor tariffs. Yet the 15% tariff could raise costs for US consumers, with a $1,000 ton of POSCO steel now costing $1,500.
The Pakistan deal, vaguely tied to oil reserve development, lacks clear tariff rates or commitments. The 19% tariff could disrupt Pakistan’s textile exports, a key economic driver, while the deal’s opacity raises doubts about enforceability. Geopolitical motivations, including Pakistan’s ties to China, may complicate US relations, with little economic gain for either side.
August 6th, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on India, escalating to 50% in 21 days due to its Russian oil and weapons trade, effective August 27th. India offered zero tariffs on US industrial goods and $25 billion in energy purchases, but talks stalled over agriculture and dairy. The 50% tariff could halt India’s $40 billion in exports like textiles and pharmaceuticals. Negotiations have broken down and the tariff strains US-India strategic ties, potentially pushing India closer to Russia or China.
Since July, deadlines have shifted. August 1st became August 7th, then expired without mention, Mexico’s talks extended to October 30th, and China’s truce to November 11th. These extensions reflect ongoing trade negotiations and strategic pauses to avoid immediate economic disruptions, despite Trump’s earlier insistence on “no extensions” for the August 1st deadline.
Tariff revenue hit $150B since October 2024, but US consumers face an estimated $3K per household in added costs. Thus far, these agreements, far from Trump’s 90-deals in 90 days goal, may benefit the federal government’s bottom line but have hit consumers in the wallet.