Countries like Japan and the EU are unlikely to abandon their trade deals with the U.S. The deals address other tariff types (like Section 232 steel tariffs) that are still in place. Furthermore, no nation wants to risk provoking an unpredictable President Trump, who could retaliate in non-tariff ways.
Related Insights
The tariff war was not primarily about revenue but a strategic move to create an "artificial negotiating point." By imposing tariffs, the U.S. could then offer reductions in exchange for European countries committing to American technology and supply chains over China's growing, low-cost alternatives.
Even if the Supreme Court rules against the administration, it may not change U.S. tariff levels. The executive branch has alternative legal authorities, like Section 301, that it can use to maintain the same tariffs, making a court defeat less of a market-moving event than it appears.
Stocks most affected by tariffs showed a muted reaction to a pending Supreme Court decision. This suggests investors believe the executive branch could use other authorities to maintain tariffs and that any potential refunds from an overturn would take years to materialize, diminishing the news's immediate market impact.
Trump's 'hokey pokey' with tariffs and threats isn't indecisiveness but a consistent strategy: make an agreement, threaten a severe and immediate penalty for breaking it, and actually follow through. This makes his threats credible and functions as a powerful deterrent that administrations lacking his perceived volatility cannot replicate.
While the base case is that the President would replace tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court, there's a growing possibility he won't. The administration could use the ruling as a politically convenient way to reduce tariffs and address voter concerns about affordability without appearing to back down on trade policy.
Despite fears from announced tariffs, the actual implemented tariff rate on U.S. imports is only 10.1%, not the computed 17-18%. This is due to exemptions, trade deals, and behavioral changes by companies. This gap between rhetoric and reality explains the unexpectedly strong 2025 performance of emerging markets.
The negative economic impact of tariffs was weaker than forecast because key transmission channels failed to materialize. A lack of foreign retaliation, a depreciating dollar that boosted exports, and a surprisingly strong stock market prevented the anticipated tightening of financial conditions.
Unlike previous administrations that used trade policy for domestic economic goals, Trump's approach is distinguished by his willingness to wield tariffs as a broad geopolitical weapon against allies and adversaries alike, from Canada to India.
Contrary to typical pessimism, European financial and government officials are relatively optimistic about their economic outlook. They believe they successfully navigated the Trump tariffs with minimal damage, though concerns about future trade disputes and unmet investment commitments remain.
Contrary to popular belief, Trump's trade strategy isn't protectionism. He uses reciprocity, leverage, and executive flexibility to force other countries to lower their own trade barriers, ultimately aiming for a world with freer trade for the U.S.
