Policy Backgrounder: US Tariff Shift: Key Implications and Considerations
Our Cookie Policy has been updated! The Conference Board uses cookies to improve our website, enhance your experience, and deliver relevant messages and offers about our products. Detailed information on the use of cookies on this site is provided in our cookie policy. For more information on how The Conference Board collects and uses personal data, please visit our privacy policy. By continuing to use this Site or by clicking "OK", you acknowledge our privacy policy and consent to the use of cookies.  Our Privacy Policy has been updated! Detailed information on the use of cookies on this site is provided in our cookie policy and our privacy policy. 
TCB Tourch
Loading...
  • logoImage
  •  
    • NORTH AMERICA
    • EUROPE
    • ASIA
  • 2

    Close
    • Insights
        • Insights
        • Explore by Center
          • Explore by Center
          • CED
            Committee for Economic Development

          • Economy, Strategy & Finance

          • Governance & Sustainability

          • Human Capital

          • Marketing & Communications

        • Explore by Content Type
          • Explore by Content Type
          • Reports

          • Upcoming Webcasts

          • On Demand Webcasts

          • Podcasts

          • Charts & Infographics

        • Trending Topics
          • Trending Topics
          • Artificial Intelligence (AI)

          • Navigating Washington

          • Geopolitics

          • US Economic Forecast

          • Sustainability

          • Future of Work

    • Events
        • Events
        • Upcoming Events
          • Upcoming Events
          • Future: People Asia

          • Executive Compensation in a Disruptive World

          • CED Distinguished Leadership Awards Celebration

          • The 2025 IBI/Conference Board Health and Productivity Forum

          • People First: Reimagining Talent and Rewards

          • The AI Leadership Summit

          • Explore all Upcoming Events

        • Member-Exclusive Programs
          • Member-Exclusive Programs
          • Center Briefings

          • Experts Live

          • Roundtables

          • Working Groups

          • Expert Briefings

    • Data
        • Data
        • Consumer Confidence Index

        • Data Central

        • TCB Benchmarking

        • Employment Trends Index

        • Global Economic Outlook

        • Leading Economic Indicators

        • Help Wanted OnLine

        • Labor Markets

        • Measure of CEO Confidence

        • Human Capital Benchmarking &
          Data Analytics

        • CMO+CCO Meter Dashboard

    • Centers
        • Centers
        • Our Centers
          • Our Centers
          • Committee for Economic Development

          • Economy, Strategy & Finance

          • Governance & Sustainability

          • Human Capital

          • Marketing & Communications

        • Center Membership
          • Center Membership
          • What Is a Center?

          • Benefits of Center Membership

          • Join a Center

    • Councils
        • Councils
        • Find a Council
          • Find a Council
          • Economy, Strategy & Finance

          • Governance & Sustainability

          • Human Capital

          • Marketing & Communications

        • Council Membership
          • Council Membership
          • What is a Council?

          • Benefits of Council Membership

          • Apply to a Council

    • Membership
        • Membership
        • Why Become a Member?
          • Why Become a Member?
          • Benefits of Membership

          • Check if Your Organization is a Member

          • Speak to a Membership Associate

        • Types of Membership
          • Types of Membership
          • Council

          • Committee for Economic Development

          • Economy, Strategy & Finance

          • Governance & Sustainability

          • Human Capital

          • Marketing & Communications

          • Insights

        • Already a Member?
          • Already a Member?
          • Sign In to myTCB®

          • Executive Communities

          • Member-Exclusive Programs

    • About Us
        • About Us
        • Who We Are
          • Who We Are
          • About Us

          • In the News

          • Press Releases

          • Our History

          • Support Our Work

          • Locations

          • Contact Us

        • Our Community
          • Our Community
          • Our Leadership

          • Our Experts

          • Trustees

          • Voting Members

          • Global Counsellors

          • Careers

          • This Week @ TCB

    • Careers
    • This Week @ TCB
    • Sign In to myTCB®
      • NORTH AMERICA
      • EUROPE
      • ASIA
    • Insights
      • Insights
      • Explore by Center
        • Explore by Center
        • CED
          Committee for Economic Development

        • Economy, Strategy & Finance

        • Governance & Sustainability

        • Human Capital

        • Marketing & Communications

      • Explore by Content Type
        • Explore by Content Type
        • Reports

        • Upcoming Webcasts

        • On Demand Webcasts

        • Podcasts

        • Charts & Infographics

      • Trending Topics
        • Trending Topics
        • Artificial Intelligence (AI)

        • Navigating Washington

        • Geopolitics

        • US Economic Forecast

        • Sustainability

        • Future of Work

    • Events
      • Events
      • Upcoming Events
        • Upcoming Events
        • Future: People Asia

        • Executive Compensation in a Disruptive World

        • CED Distinguished Leadership Awards Celebration

        • The 2025 IBI/Conference Board Health and Productivity Forum

        • People First: Reimagining Talent and Rewards

        • The AI Leadership Summit

        • Explore all Upcoming Events

      • Member-Exclusive Programs
        • Member-Exclusive Programs
        • Center Briefings

        • Experts Live

        • Roundtables

        • Working Groups

        • Expert Briefings

    • Data
      • Data
      • Consumer Confidence Index

      • Data Central

      • TCB Benchmarking

      • Employment Trends Index

      • Global Economic Outlook

      • Leading Economic Indicators

      • Help Wanted OnLine

      • Labor Markets

      • Measure of CEO Confidence

      • Human Capital Benchmarking & Data Analytics

      • CMO+CCO Meter Dashboard

    • Centers
      • Centers
      • Our Centers
        • Our Centers
        • Committee for Economic Development

        • Economy, Strategy & Finance

        • Governance & Sustainability

        • Human Capital

        • Marketing & Communications

      • Center Membership
        • Center Membership
        • What is a Center?

        • Benefits of Center Membership

        • Join a Center

    • Councils
      • Councils
      • Find a Council
        • Find a Council
        • Economy, Strategy & Finance

        • Governance & Sustainability

        • Human Capital

        • Marketing & Communications

      • Council Membership
        • Council Membership
        • What is a Council?

        • Benefits of Council Membership

        • Apply to a Council

    • Membership
      • Membership
      • Why Become a Member?
        • Why Become a Member?
        • Benefits of Membership

        • Check if Your Organization is a Member

        • Speak to a Membership Associate

      • Types of Membership
        • Types of Membership
        • Council

        • Committee for Economic Development

        • Economy, Strategy & Finance

        • Governance & Sustainability

        • Human Capital

        • Marketing & Communications

        • Insights

      • Already a Member?
        • Already a Member?
        • Sign In to myTCB®

        • Executive Communities

        • Member-Exclusive Programs

    • About Us
      • About Us
      • Who We Are
        • Who We Are
        • About Us

        • In the News

        • Press Releases

        • This Week @ TCB

        • Our History

        • Support Our Work

        • Locations

        • Contact Us

      • Our Community
        • Our Community
        • Our Leadership

        • Our Experts

        • Trustees

        • Voting Members

        • Global Counsellors

        • Careers

        • This Week @ TCB

    • Careers
    • Sign In to myTCB®
    • Download TCB Insights App
  • Insights
    Insights

    Our research and analysis have helped the world's leading companies navigate challenges and seize opportunities for over 100 years.

    Explore All Research

    Economic Indicators

    • Explore by Center
    • CED
      Committee for Economic Development
    • Economy, Strategy & Finance
    • Governance & Sustainability
    • Human Capital
    • Marketing & Communications
    • Explore by Content Type
    • Reports
    • Upcoming Webcasts
    • On Demand Webcasts
    • Podcasts
    • Charts & Infographics
    • Trending Topics
    • Artificial Intelligence (AI)
    • Navigating Washington
    • Geopolitics
    • US Economic Forecast
    • Sustainability
    • Future of Work
  • Events
    Events

    Our in-person and virtual events offer unmatched opportunities for professional development, featuring top experts and practitioners.

    See Everything Happening This Week

    Sponsor a Program

    • Upcoming Events
    • Future: People Asia

      September 04 - 05, 2025

      Executive Compensation in a Disruptive World

      September 16 - 17, 2025

      CED Distinguished Leadership Awards Celebration

      October 08, 2025

    •  
    • The 2025 IBI/Conference Board Health and Productivity Forum

      October 16 - 17, 2025

      People First: Reimagining Talent and Rewards

      October 16 - 17, 2025

      The AI Leadership Summit

      November 18 - 19, 2025

    • Member-Exclusive Programs
    • Center Briefings
    • Experts Live
    • Roundtables
    • Working Groups
    • Expert Briefings
    • Explore by Type
    • Events
    • Webcasts
    • Podcasts
    • Member-Exclusive Programs
    • Center Briefings
    • Experts Live
    • Roundtables
    • Working Groups
    • Expert Briefings
  • Data
    Corporate Disclosure Data

    TCB Benchmarking

    Real-time data & analytical tools to benchmark your governance, compensation, environmental, human capital management (HCM) and social practices against US public companies.

    Economic Data

    All Data

    See current direction and trends across key indicators

    Consumer Confidence Index

    US consumers' thoughts on the economy, jobs, finances and more

    Data Central

    One-stop, member-exclusive portal for the entire suite of indicators

    Labor Markets

    Covering all aspects of labor markets, from monthly development to long-term trends

    Measure of CEO Confidence

    Examines the health of the US economy from the perspective of CEOs

     

    Recession & Growth Trackers

    See the current and future state of 16 economies.

    Global Economic Outlook

    Track the latest short-, medium-, and long-term growth outlooks for 77 economies

    Leading Economic Indicators

    Track the state of the business cycle for 12 global economies across Asia and Europe

    Help Wanted OnLine

    Track the status of job markets across the US through online job listings

    Other Featured Data

    Human Capital Analytics Tools

    Tools to understand human capital management and corporate performance

    CMO+CCO Meter Dashboard

    Tracks the impact, resources, and satisfaction of CMOs and CCOs

  • Centers
    Centers

    Centers offer access to world-class experts, research, Events, and senior executive Communities.

    Our Centers
    • Committee for Economic Development
    • Economy, Strategy & Finance
    • Governance & Sustainability
    • Human Capital
    • Marketing & Communications
    Center Membership
    • What Is a Center?
    • Benefits of Center Membership
    • Join a Center
  • Councils
    Councils

    Councils are invitation-only, peer-led communities of senior executives that come together to exchange knowledge, accelerate career development, and advance their function.

    Find a Council
    • Economy, Strategy & Finance
    • Governance & Sustainability
    • Human Capital
    • Marketing & Communications
    Council Membership
    • What Is a Council?
    • Benefits of Council Membership
    • Apply to a Council
  • Membership
    Membership

    Membership in The Conference Board arms your team with an arsenal of knowledge, networks, and expertise that's unmatched in scope and depth.

    • Why Become a Member?
    • Benefits of Membership
    • Check if Your Organization is a Member
    • Speak to a Membership Associate
    • Types of Membership
    • Council
    • Committee for Economic Development
    • Economy, Strategy & Finance
    • Governance & Sustainability
    • Human Capital
    • Marketing & Communications
    • Insights
    • Already a Member?
    • Sign in to myTCB®
    • Executive Communities
    • Member-Exclusive Programs
  • About Us
    About Us

    The Conference Board is the global, nonprofit think tank and business membership organization that delivers Trusted Insights for What's Ahead®. For over 100 years, our cutting-edge research, data, events and executive networks have helped the world's leading companies understand the present and shape the future.

    Learn more about Membership

    • Who We Are
    • About Us
    • In the News
    • Press Releases
    • Our History
    • Support Our Work
    • Locations
    • Contact Us
    • Our Community
    • Our Leadership
    • Our Experts
    • Trustees
    • Voting Members
    • Careers
    • This Week @ TCB
Check if You're a Member
Create Account
Forgot Your Password?

Members of The Conference Board get exclusive access to the full range of products and services that deliver Trusted Insights for What's Ahead ® including webcasts, publications, data and analysis, plus discounts to conferences and events.

Policy Backgrounders

CED’s Policy Backgrounders provide timely insights on prominent business and economic policy issues facing the nation.

  • Email
  • Linkedin
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Copy Link

On April 2, the President announced sweeping tariffs on US imports to address bilateral trade imbalances in goods that the Administration believes stem from unfair trade practices. The announcement triggered widespread market disruptions, concerns about economic growth, and threatened retaliation by some countries. In response, the Administration paused the implementation of many of the most severe tariffs for 90 days, though the situation continues to evolve quickly. 

Key Insights

  • The Administration’s trade and tariff policies upend almost 80 years of US policy, which pursued reductions in trade barriers through bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, and reflect a shift toward protectionism and mercantilism.
  • The tariffs also upend the recent US strategy of “friendshoring” and risk driving some nations, particularly those in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America toward closer relations with China.
  • China announced significant retaliatory measures targeting key US exports and raised tariffs to 125%; the EU did as well but later suspended retaliation. Other nations, particularly those in ASEAN, have taken more conciliatory approaches, reflecting different domestic and geoeconomic considerations.
  • Many economists and business leaders have criticized the Administration’s actions, challenging both the underlying economic rationale and methodology used to determine the tariff levels.

Background on Announced Tariffs and Current Status

On April 2, the President signed an Executive Order implementing broad new tariffs, including a 10% duty on all imported goods, with some exceptions, and increased rates between 11-50% on goods from 57 countries. Some items are exempt, including those covered under the United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) agreement, copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber, certain critical minerals, and energy and energy products. Others are subject to different tariff rates pursuant to other policies (e.g., steel and aluminum, automobiles and automobile parts, and de minimis items from China). Notably, the President later threatened “major” tariffs on pharmaceuticals, which have been exempt from tariffs for decades. The new tariffs are the latest steps taken by the Administration to respond to what it views as unfair treatment of US exports in foreign markets through both tariff and what it claims are non-tariff trade barriers, including value added taxes (VATs) and alleged currency manipulation.

The baseline tariffs took effect on April 5 and the country-specific tariffs were scheduled to take effect on April 9. On April 9, however, the President paused implementation of the new tariffs – other than the 10% baseline tariff – for 90 days to give countries an opportunity to negotiate. He did, however, raise tariffs on China to a total of 145% (a 20% baseline tariff and 125% “reciprocal” tariffs) in response to China’s imposition of 34% tariffs on US goods to match the 34% additional tariff imposed by the US. China then raised tariffs on US goods first to 84% and then to 125% and restricted imports of US films (a move with greater cultural and economic impact), while noting that the respective rates “no longer have economic significance” because most US exports to China are no longer financially viable. Despite the pause on the country-specific reciprocal tariffs, goods from Mexico and Canada not covered by the USMCA and steel, aluminum, automobiles, and auto parts of any origin continue to be subject to a 25% tariff.

Before the announcement, the Administration had largely targeted the US’ major trading partners – Canada, Mexico, China, and the European Union (EU). It had also imposed sector-specific tariffs on imported steel, aluminum, automobiles, and certain auto parts. Additionally, tariffs of up to 25% were threatened against any country importing oil from Venezuela. However, the new tariffs are significant not only in their broad application but also in their magnitude, marking the highest levels of tariff rates imposed in nearly a century. This shift signals a marked departure from decades of US trade policy that emphasized liberalization and multilateral and bilateral agreements, reflecting a growing turn toward protectionism aimed, in the Administration’s view, at reshoring supply chains, addressing perceived trade imbalances, asserting economic leverage in global affairs, protecting national security, and generating revenue to reduce the Federal deficit.

Methodology for Reciprocal Tariffs

The Administration calculated the “reciprocal” tariffs in an unusual way. They are not true reciprocal tariffs on goods nor do they reflect a weighted average. Instead, the Administration claimed that the tariffs announced April 2 reflect half of what the Administration determined were the penalties other jurisdictions imposed on US exports, including tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and alleged currency manipulation. However, information later shared by the Administration instead stated that the rates reflect “the tariff rate necessary to balance bilateral trade deficits between the US and each of our trading partners.” The Administration calculated this rate using the following formula where xi is total exports from the US to that country, mi is total US imports from that country, ε is the price elasticity of demand (PED), and φ is the elasticity of import prices to tariffs. The Administration assumed ε equal to negative 4 and φ equal to 0.25.

Many economists, including some cited by the Administration, have criticized this methodology for lacking a basis in economic principles and for flawed assumptions. A trade imbalance between two countries is not necessarily caused by trade barriers but reflects underlying capital flows and is shaped by factors such as national savings and investment rates, exchange rate movements, growth patterns, comparative advantages, and consumer preferences. In fact, research indicates that tariffs are ineffective at reducing trade imbalances. In addition, the Administration’s approach focuses exclusively on trade in goods, overlooking services (e.g., software, movies and music, financial services, and tourism), which represent approximately one-third of total U.S. exports. In many cases, this creates a misleading impression of a bilateral trade deficit when the US holds a trade surplus with that country (as well as an overall surplus in trade in services). The methodology also lacks a foundation in established trade theory and ignores international, business, and consumer responses to the imposition of tariffs.  

Beyond questions about the economic reasoning underlying the policy, the assumptions underlying the key parameters of the formula used to calculate the reciprocal tariffs raise additional concerns. PED reflects how sensitive demand is to changes in a product’s price – an elasticity of negative four implies that a 1% increase in import prices would reduce imports by 4%. However, this may be an unrealistic assumption – PED varies across types of goods, but research indicates that PED for most consumer goods typically ranges between 0.5 and 1.5. The Administration also assumed a pass-through rate of 0.25, implying that only 25% of the tariff cost would be reflected in the prices paid by U.S. buyers. However, empirical research consistently shows that the vast majority – if not all – of tariff burden is passed on to consumers, suggesting that a pass-through rate much closer to 1 would be more appropriate. While the effects of adjusting these assumptions may partially offset one another, their individual flaws raise substantive concerns about the rigor and credibility of the overall approach.

Legal Considerations

The Constitution grants Congress the authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign nations” and “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.” However, Congress has delegated this authority to the President through several statutes – the Tariff Act of 1930 (also known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act), the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. Under certain provisions (Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act), a Federal agency must conduct an investigation before the President may impose tariffs. However, under IEEPA, the President may “regulate” or “prohibit” imports to respond to an emergency declared under the National Emergencies Act. Traditionally, IEEPA has been used to impose sanctions or freeze assets of foreign countries – until 2025, no President had invoked IEEPA for tariffs.   

At the President’s direction, Federal agencies issued a report on the causes of US trade deficits and unfair trade practices by other countries. It is not clear that the report would have satisfied the statutory requirements under the Trade Expansion Act or Trade Act for investigations. Section 301 of the Trade Act also requires consultations with foreign governments before tariffs can be imposed. However, the Administration presumably wanted to keep its proposed rates private in advance to encourage countries to negotiate without knowing the US’ full position. Instead, therefore, the President invoked his authorities under IEEPA, which offers broader flexibility but is legally vulnerable and has already been challenged in at least one lawsuit.

Geoeconomic and Geopolitical Considerations

The April 2 Order had uneven impacts across countries and regions, reflecting both differences in trade exposure and discretionary decisions by the Administration. No new tariffs were applied to Canada or Mexico, for example, though previously announced tariffs remain in place. On the other hand, because of the methodology used to calculate the tariffs, Asian countries, which export a significant amount of goods to the US, were among the hardest hit. The tariffs also disproportionately affect some African countries, though these impacts may be muted somewhat by the fact that large percentages of their exports to the US are energy products (i.e., oil and gas) as well as critical minerals that are currently exempt. However, some countries could be significantly impacted – diamonds account for about 25% of Botswana’s GDP and 80% of exports, and exports of denim and diamonds account for about 10% of GDP in Lesotho. The tariffs also signal that the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a 2000 law which provides duty-free treatment to certain goods from about 30 African countries, is unlikely to be renewed when it expires in September – the new tariffs effectively take away favorable treatment under AGOA.  

Taken together, the Administration’s tariff policies represent a significant shift in US strategy, which in recent years had emphasized “friendshoring” – derisking supply chains away from China, a geopolitical adversary, to still lower-cost, but friendly Southeast Asian nations (e.g., Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia) as well as Mexico and others in Latin America. However, the Administration has placed some of the highest tariffs on these nations, a move that some analysts warn could push them closer to China and deepen economic integration (in Asia) through the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.  

Retaliatory Actions

Even before the April 2 announcement, several jurisdictions had announced retaliatory actions in response to earlier tariffs. For example, China threatened tariffs of 10-15% on a variety of US agricultural goods and placed restrictions on 15 US companies doing business in China. China stated said that it “is willing to resolve differences through consultation and negotiation, but if the US insists on its own way, China will fight to the end.” China is seeking to work with the EU, ASEAN, and others to form collective opposition to the tariffs.

The new tariffs significantly expanded the countries impacted by US tariffs and drew sharper responses from those already affected. Canada also imposed 25% tariffs on about $20 billion in US goods, including meat and dairy products, beverages, clothing, and other items. The EU also planned 25% tariffs on about $28 billion in US goods targeting beef, poultry, motorcycles, and other goods, but paused these measures on April 10 to allow time for negotiations. Mexico had also threatened tariffs, though President Claudia Sheinbaum delayed announcing details while she negotiated with President Trump. China also responded with high retaliatory tariffs (84%) on all US goods, prompting the Administration to respond by increasing tariffs on Chinese goods by 50 percentage points. China later raised its tariffs to 125% on US goods.

Other nations have chosen not to retaliate immediately, instead taking a more conciliatory approach. Indonesia, for example, offered to increase purchases of certain US goods (e.g., cotton, wheat, oil, and gas) while also considering reforming local content laws that the US sees as non-tariff barriers. Vietnam and Taiwan both offered to eliminate tariffs on all US goods, Vietnam also planned to restrict certain exports to China and crack down on Chinese goods being shipped to the US through Vietnam. Japan quickly initiated negotiations with the US.

These varying approaches reflect different domestic and geopolitical considerations across jurisdictions. For example, China has reduced its reliance on trade with the US in recent years, giving it greater flexibility to respond forcefully to what it views as US efforts to hinder its economic development, a “red line” it had communicated during bilateral meetings in 2024.

The EU’s more targeted approach reflects its dependence on a stable relationship with the US and preference for resolving disputes through multilateral negotiations. However, by not yet targeting US exports of services, the EU has retained options for escalatory measures. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) bloc pledged “frank and constructive dialogue . . . to ensure a balanced and sustainable relationship” rather that imposing “any retaliatory measures.” But reflecting concerns over the consequences of US policies, ASEAN also pledged to deepen regional trade integration and seek “economic cooperation with new partners.”

It remains unclear under what conditions the Administration would consider reducing the proposed tariffs. The Administration reportedly initially rejected offers from Vietnam and the EU to eliminate all tariffs citing persistent trade imbalances as evidence of “non-tariff cheating.” It is also unclear whether these countries could realistically purchase enough US goods to close the trade imbalances, or whether the US goods and resources (e.g., oil and gas) are sufficiently price competitive to alternative sources of supply.

Potential Economic Impacts

Since the tariffs were announced, financial markets have declined sharply, economic growth forecasts have been revised downward, and concerns about rising inflation have intensified. 

The S&P 500, for example, fell about 10 percent in the two days following the announcement, extending losses that began as earlier rounds of tariffs were announced in February. The Conference Board also forecast sizable shocks to growth, inflation, and employment even if other countries do not retaliate. This includes a 1.2 percentage point drop in US GDP growth, a 1 percentage point increase inflation, and the potential loss of 1.1 million jobs by the end of the year. Consumer sentiment also plunged and concerns about a recession rose. Trade conflicts with China threaten to increase prices US consumers pay for many electronic goods (e.g., smartphones and televisions) as well as machinery and appliances, toys, furniture, and plastics, including components of automobiles. US farmers may also be impacted as 47% of US exports of soybeans and related agriculture products exported by the US went to China.

It is unclear whether the 90-day pause on implementation will assuage those fears. While markets rose sharply on the news and some analysts lowered expectations for a recession, others noted that uncertainty is itself damaging to economic growth. The economic outlook remains highly dependent on changes in the Administration’s policies and the evolving international response.

Congressional Action?

The economic and market volatility triggered by the tariff announcements has prompted some Congressional actions. For example, bipartisan groups of legislators in both the House and Senate have introduced bills that would require the President to notify Congress of any new tariffs and obtain Congressional approval for them to remain in effect beyond 60 days. The Senate also voted to end the emergency declaration the President used to impose tariffs against Canada, though the House is unlikely to pass the measure.

Conclusion

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong of Singapore, a country strongly dependent on global trade, recently addressed the dangers of the current situation. He noted that “[p]rotectionism is already bad, unstable protectionism is even worse.” He highlighted the threat of a full-blown trade war and noted that “[o]nce trade barriers go up, they tend to stay up. Rolling them back is much harder, even after the original rationale no longer applies. Even if some partial accommodations are eventually worked out, the uncertainty generated by such a drastic move will dampen global confidence. It will be very hard to restore the previous status quo.” Further, the bilateral, nation-specific tariffs undermine the whole principal of Most Favored Nation status which underpins the global trading system and the World Trade Organization, raising the risks of a “rising ‘me first’, win-lose mindset – where it’s every country for itself.”

Beyond the immediate impact on trade from the tariffs, there remains the broader risk of increasing decoupling of world trade, particularly between the US and China, and the increasing division of the world into geoeconomics blocs – with the new complication that the US has imposed tariffs on many of the countries that count among its closest friends and economic partners, which if it continues, may push the US further in the direction of autarky. China, too, is increasingly reliant on domestic demand for its own growth. Diversion of trade – and deliberate attempts to avoid the US market – become a greater possibility; a new Lego factory in Vietnam is only one symbol of a worrying trend.

Despite the current pause on the most severe tariffs, this remains a dynamic and unpredictable policy area that warrants continued close attention. The Conference Board will continue to follow these developments closely in our Navigating Washington hub.

US Tariff Shift: Key Implications and Considerations

April 11, 2025

On April 2, the President announced sweeping tariffs on US imports to address bilateral trade imbalances in goods that the Administration believes stem from unfair trade practices. The announcement triggered widespread market disruptions, concerns about economic growth, and threatened retaliation by some countries. In response, the Administration paused the implementation of many of the most severe tariffs for 90 days, though the situation continues to evolve quickly. 

Key Insights

  • The Administration’s trade and tariff policies upend almost 80 years of US policy, which pursued reductions in trade barriers through bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, and reflect a shift toward protectionism and mercantilism.
  • The tariffs also upend the recent US strategy of “friendshoring” and risk driving some nations, particularly those in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America toward closer relations with China.
  • China announced significant retaliatory measures targeting key US exports and raised tariffs to 125%; the EU did as well but later suspended retaliation. Other nations, particularly those in ASEAN, have taken more conciliatory approaches, reflecting different domestic and geoeconomic considerations.
  • Many economists and business leaders have criticized the Administration’s actions, challenging both the underlying economic rationale and methodology used to determine the tariff levels.

Background on Announced Tariffs and Current Status

On April 2, the President signed an Executive Order implementing broad new tariffs, including a 10% duty on all imported goods, with some exceptions, and increased rates between 11-50% on goods from 57 countries. Some items are exempt, including those covered under the United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) agreement, copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber, certain critical minerals, and energy and energy products. Others are subject to different tariff rates pursuant to other policies (e.g., steel and aluminum, automobiles and automobile parts, and de minimis items from China). Notably, the President later threatened “major” tariffs on pharmaceuticals, which have been exempt from tariffs for decades. The new tariffs are the latest steps taken by the Administration to respond to what it views as unfair treatment of US exports in foreign markets through both tariff and what it claims are non-tariff trade barriers, including value added taxes (VATs) and alleged currency manipulation.

The baseline tariffs took effect on April 5 and the country-specific tariffs were scheduled to take effect on April 9. On April 9, however, the President paused implementation of the new tariffs – other than the 10% baseline tariff – for 90 days to give countries an opportunity to negotiate. He did, however, raise tariffs on China to a total of 145% (a 20% baseline tariff and 125% “reciprocal” tariffs) in response to China’s imposition of 34% tariffs on US goods to match the 34% additional tariff imposed by the US. China then raised tariffs on US goods first to 84% and then to 125% and restricted imports of US films (a move with greater cultural and economic impact), while noting that the respective rates “no longer have economic significance” because most US exports to China are no longer financially viable. Despite the pause on the country-specific reciprocal tariffs, goods from Mexico and Canada not covered by the USMCA and steel, aluminum, automobiles, and auto parts of any origin continue to be subject to a 25% tariff.

Before the announcement, the Administration had largely targeted the US’ major trading partners – Canada, Mexico, China, and the European Union (EU). It had also imposed sector-specific tariffs on imported steel, aluminum, automobiles, and certain auto parts. Additionally, tariffs of up to 25% were threatened against any country importing oil from Venezuela. However, the new tariffs are significant not only in their broad application but also in their magnitude, marking the highest levels of tariff rates imposed in nearly a century. This shift signals a marked departure from decades of US trade policy that emphasized liberalization and multilateral and bilateral agreements, reflecting a growing turn toward protectionism aimed, in the Administration’s view, at reshoring supply chains, addressing perceived trade imbalances, asserting economic leverage in global affairs, protecting national security, and generating revenue to reduce the Federal deficit.

Methodology for Reciprocal Tariffs

The Administration calculated the “reciprocal” tariffs in an unusual way. They are not true reciprocal tariffs on goods nor do they reflect a weighted average. Instead, the Administration claimed that the tariffs announced April 2 reflect half of what the Administration determined were the penalties other jurisdictions imposed on US exports, including tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and alleged currency manipulation. However, information later shared by the Administration instead stated that the rates reflect “the tariff rate necessary to balance bilateral trade deficits between the US and each of our trading partners.” The Administration calculated this rate using the following formula where xi is total exports from the US to that country, mi is total US imports from that country, ε is the price elasticity of demand (PED), and φ is the elasticity of import prices to tariffs. The Administration assumed ε equal to negative 4 and φ equal to 0.25.

Many economists, including some cited by the Administration, have criticized this methodology for lacking a basis in economic principles and for flawed assumptions. A trade imbalance between two countries is not necessarily caused by trade barriers but reflects underlying capital flows and is shaped by factors such as national savings and investment rates, exchange rate movements, growth patterns, comparative advantages, and consumer preferences. In fact, research indicates that tariffs are ineffective at reducing trade imbalances. In addition, the Administration’s approach focuses exclusively on trade in goods, overlooking services (e.g., software, movies and music, financial services, and tourism), which represent approximately one-third of total U.S. exports. In many cases, this creates a misleading impression of a bilateral trade deficit when the US holds a trade surplus with that country (as well as an overall surplus in trade in services). The methodology also lacks a foundation in established trade theory and ignores international, business, and consumer responses to the imposition of tariffs.  

Beyond questions about the economic reasoning underlying the policy, the assumptions underlying the key parameters of the formula used to calculate the reciprocal tariffs raise additional concerns. PED reflects how sensitive demand is to changes in a product’s price – an elasticity of negative four implies that a 1% increase in import prices would reduce imports by 4%. However, this may be an unrealistic assumption – PED varies across types of goods, but research indicates that PED for most consumer goods typically ranges between 0.5 and 1.5. The Administration also assumed a pass-through rate of 0.25, implying that only 25% of the tariff cost would be reflected in the prices paid by U.S. buyers. However, empirical research consistently shows that the vast majority – if not all – of tariff burden is passed on to consumers, suggesting that a pass-through rate much closer to 1 would be more appropriate. While the effects of adjusting these assumptions may partially offset one another, their individual flaws raise substantive concerns about the rigor and credibility of the overall approach.

Legal Considerations

The Constitution grants Congress the authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign nations” and “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.” However, Congress has delegated this authority to the President through several statutes – the Tariff Act of 1930 (also known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act), the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. Under certain provisions (Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act), a Federal agency must conduct an investigation before the President may impose tariffs. However, under IEEPA, the President may “regulate” or “prohibit” imports to respond to an emergency declared under the National Emergencies Act. Traditionally, IEEPA has been used to impose sanctions or freeze assets of foreign countries – until 2025, no President had invoked IEEPA for tariffs.   

At the President’s direction, Federal agencies issued a report on the causes of US trade deficits and unfair trade practices by other countries. It is not clear that the report would have satisfied the statutory requirements under the Trade Expansion Act or Trade Act for investigations. Section 301 of the Trade Act also requires consultations with foreign governments before tariffs can be imposed. However, the Administration presumably wanted to keep its proposed rates private in advance to encourage countries to negotiate without knowing the US’ full position. Instead, therefore, the President invoked his authorities under IEEPA, which offers broader flexibility but is legally vulnerable and has already been challenged in at least one lawsuit.

Geoeconomic and Geopolitical Considerations

The April 2 Order had uneven impacts across countries and regions, reflecting both differences in trade exposure and discretionary decisions by the Administration. No new tariffs were applied to Canada or Mexico, for example, though previously announced tariffs remain in place. On the other hand, because of the methodology used to calculate the tariffs, Asian countries, which export a significant amount of goods to the US, were among the hardest hit. The tariffs also disproportionately affect some African countries, though these impacts may be muted somewhat by the fact that large percentages of their exports to the US are energy products (i.e., oil and gas) as well as critical minerals that are currently exempt. However, some countries could be significantly impacted – diamonds account for about 25% of Botswana’s GDP and 80% of exports, and exports of denim and diamonds account for about 10% of GDP in Lesotho. The tariffs also signal that the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a 2000 law which provides duty-free treatment to certain goods from about 30 African countries, is unlikely to be renewed when it expires in September – the new tariffs effectively take away favorable treatment under AGOA.  

Taken together, the Administration’s tariff policies represent a significant shift in US strategy, which in recent years had emphasized “friendshoring” – derisking supply chains away from China, a geopolitical adversary, to still lower-cost, but friendly Southeast Asian nations (e.g., Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia) as well as Mexico and others in Latin America. However, the Administration has placed some of the highest tariffs on these nations, a move that some analysts warn could push them closer to China and deepen economic integration (in Asia) through the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.  

Retaliatory Actions

Even before the April 2 announcement, several jurisdictions had announced retaliatory actions in response to earlier tariffs. For example, China threatened tariffs of 10-15% on a variety of US agricultural goods and placed restrictions on 15 US companies doing business in China. China stated said that it “is willing to resolve differences through consultation and negotiation, but if the US insists on its own way, China will fight to the end.” China is seeking to work with the EU, ASEAN, and others to form collective opposition to the tariffs.

The new tariffs significantly expanded the countries impacted by US tariffs and drew sharper responses from those already affected. Canada also imposed 25% tariffs on about $20 billion in US goods, including meat and dairy products, beverages, clothing, and other items. The EU also planned 25% tariffs on about $28 billion in US goods targeting beef, poultry, motorcycles, and other goods, but paused these measures on April 10 to allow time for negotiations. Mexico had also threatened tariffs, though President Claudia Sheinbaum delayed announcing details while she negotiated with President Trump. China also responded with high retaliatory tariffs (84%) on all US goods, prompting the Administration to respond by increasing tariffs on Chinese goods by 50 percentage points. China later raised its tariffs to 125% on US goods.

Other nations have chosen not to retaliate immediately, instead taking a more conciliatory approach. Indonesia, for example, offered to increase purchases of certain US goods (e.g., cotton, wheat, oil, and gas) while also considering reforming local content laws that the US sees as non-tariff barriers. Vietnam and Taiwan both offered to eliminate tariffs on all US goods, Vietnam also planned to restrict certain exports to China and crack down on Chinese goods being shipped to the US through Vietnam. Japan quickly initiated negotiations with the US.

These varying approaches reflect different domestic and geopolitical considerations across jurisdictions. For example, China has reduced its reliance on trade with the US in recent years, giving it greater flexibility to respond forcefully to what it views as US efforts to hinder its economic development, a “red line” it had communicated during bilateral meetings in 2024.

The EU’s more targeted approach reflects its dependence on a stable relationship with the US and preference for resolving disputes through multilateral negotiations. However, by not yet targeting US exports of services, the EU has retained options for escalatory measures. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) bloc pledged “frank and constructive dialogue . . . to ensure a balanced and sustainable relationship” rather that imposing “any retaliatory measures.” But reflecting concerns over the consequences of US policies, ASEAN also pledged to deepen regional trade integration and seek “economic cooperation with new partners.”

It remains unclear under what conditions the Administration would consider reducing the proposed tariffs. The Administration reportedly initially rejected offers from Vietnam and the EU to eliminate all tariffs citing persistent trade imbalances as evidence of “non-tariff cheating.” It is also unclear whether these countries could realistically purchase enough US goods to close the trade imbalances, or whether the US goods and resources (e.g., oil and gas) are sufficiently price competitive to alternative sources of supply.

Potential Economic Impacts

Since the tariffs were announced, financial markets have declined sharply, economic growth forecasts have been revised downward, and concerns about rising inflation have intensified. 

The S&P 500, for example, fell about 10 percent in the two days following the announcement, extending losses that began as earlier rounds of tariffs were announced in February. The Conference Board also forecast sizable shocks to growth, inflation, and employment even if other countries do not retaliate. This includes a 1.2 percentage point drop in US GDP growth, a 1 percentage point increase inflation, and the potential loss of 1.1 million jobs by the end of the year. Consumer sentiment also plunged and concerns about a recession rose. Trade conflicts with China threaten to increase prices US consumers pay for many electronic goods (e.g., smartphones and televisions) as well as machinery and appliances, toys, furniture, and plastics, including components of automobiles. US farmers may also be impacted as 47% of US exports of soybeans and related agriculture products exported by the US went to China.

It is unclear whether the 90-day pause on implementation will assuage those fears. While markets rose sharply on the news and some analysts lowered expectations for a recession, others noted that uncertainty is itself damaging to economic growth. The economic outlook remains highly dependent on changes in the Administration’s policies and the evolving international response.

Congressional Action?

The economic and market volatility triggered by the tariff announcements has prompted some Congressional actions. For example, bipartisan groups of legislators in both the House and Senate have introduced bills that would require the President to notify Congress of any new tariffs and obtain Congressional approval for them to remain in effect beyond 60 days. The Senate also voted to end the emergency declaration the President used to impose tariffs against Canada, though the House is unlikely to pass the measure.

Conclusion

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong of Singapore, a country strongly dependent on global trade, recently addressed the dangers of the current situation. He noted that “[p]rotectionism is already bad, unstable protectionism is even worse.” He highlighted the threat of a full-blown trade war and noted that “[o]nce trade barriers go up, they tend to stay up. Rolling them back is much harder, even after the original rationale no longer applies. Even if some partial accommodations are eventually worked out, the uncertainty generated by such a drastic move will dampen global confidence. It will be very hard to restore the previous status quo.” Further, the bilateral, nation-specific tariffs undermine the whole principal of Most Favored Nation status which underpins the global trading system and the World Trade Organization, raising the risks of a “rising ‘me first’, win-lose mindset – where it’s every country for itself.”

Beyond the immediate impact on trade from the tariffs, there remains the broader risk of increasing decoupling of world trade, particularly between the US and China, and the increasing division of the world into geoeconomics blocs – with the new complication that the US has imposed tariffs on many of the countries that count among its closest friends and economic partners, which if it continues, may push the US further in the direction of autarky. China, too, is increasingly reliant on domestic demand for its own growth. Diversion of trade – and deliberate attempts to avoid the US market – become a greater possibility; a new Lego factory in Vietnam is only one symbol of a worrying trend.

Despite the current pause on the most severe tariffs, this remains a dynamic and unpredictable policy area that warrants continued close attention. The Conference Board will continue to follow these developments closely in our Navigating Washington hub.

Download Article

Authors

David K. Young

David K. Young

President

Read BioDavid K. Young

John Gardner

John Gardner

Vice President, Public Policy

Read BioJohn Gardner

PJ Tabit

PJ Tabit

Principal Economic Policy Analyst

Read BioPJ Tabit

Great News!

You already have an account with The Conference Board.

Please try to login in with your email or click here if you have forgotten your password.

  • Download
  • Download Article
search Icon
Newest First
search Icon
search Icon
filterMobImage
Senate Passes Reconciliation Bill
Senate Passes Reconciliation Bill

July 02, 2025

National Emergencies: Presidential Authority and Trends in Usage
National Emergencies: Presidential Authority and Trends in Usage

June 16, 2025

Section 232 Tariff Investigations and Public Comments
Section 232 Tariff Investigations and Public Comments

June 16, 2025

Litigation Update: Future of 'Liberation Day' Tariffs
Litigation Update: Future of 'Liberation Day' Tariffs

June 12, 2025

US Policy in the Indo-Pacific: The 2025 Shangri-La Dialogue
US Policy in the Indo-Pacific: The 2025 Shangri-La Dialogue

June 05, 2025

Proposed Surcharge on Foreign Taxpayers (Section 899)
Proposed Surcharge on Foreign Taxpayers (Section 899)

June 05, 2025

The Tariff Rulings: Implications and Next Steps
The Tariff Rulings: Implications and Next Steps

May 29, 2025

Key Conclusions of the Make America Healthy Commission Report
Key Conclusions of the Make America Healthy Commission Report

May 29, 2025

House Passes Reconciliation Bill and Senate Next Steps
House Passes Reconciliation Bill and Senate Next Steps

May 29, 2025

View Less View More

Conference Board Sample Web Chat
chatbot-Icon TCB Logo
chatbot-Icon
Navigating Washington - Sign up to receive the latest business insights related to executive orders, new laws, and changing regulations.
ABOUT US
  • Who We Are
  • Annual Report
  • Our History
  • Our Experts
  • Our Leadership
  • In the News
  • Press Releases
MEMBERSHIP
  • Become a Member
  • Sign In to myTCB®
  • Access Experts
  • Member-Only Events
  • Data & Benchmarking
  • Manage Account
EXPLORE
  • Centers
  • Councils
  • Latest Research
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • Podcasts
  • This Week @ TCB
CONTACT US
  • North America
    +1 212 759 0900
    customer.service@tcb.org
  • Europe/Africa/Middle East
    +32 2 675 5405
    brussels@tcb.org
  • Asia
    Hong Kong | +852 2804 1000
    Singapore | +65 8298 3403
    service.ap@tcb.org
CAREERS
  • See Open Positions
Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Event Code of Conduct | Trademarks
© 2025 The Conference Board Inc. All rights reserved. The Conference Board and torch logo are registered trademarks of The Conference Board.
The use of all The Conference Board data and materials is subject to the Terms of Use. Reprint requests are reviewed individually and may be subject to additional fees.The Conference Board reserves the right to deny any request.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Event Code of Conduct | Trademarks
© 2025 The Conference Board Inc. All rights reserved. The Conference Board and torch logo are registered trademarks of The Conference Board.
The use of all data from The Conference Board data and materials is subject to the Terms of Use. Reprint requests are reviewed individually and may be subject to additional fees.The Conference Board reserves the right to deny any request.

Thank you for signing up. You will now receive CEO Insights for What's Ahead every Wednesday morning. You can unsubscribe at any time or manage your preferences to receive more content from The Conference Board.

Important: Your Membership subscription payment is past due. We have not yet received your Membership payment. Please click the button below to pay your invoice.

Pay Invoice

Announcing The Conference Board AI Virtual Conference Series

Explore the Impact of AI on Your Business

Members receive complimentary registration - Learn more >>

SORT BY

  • Newest First
  • Oldest First