Trump tariffs: Full list of countries hit by US president's new trade war levies
Trump imposed higher import duty rates of between 10 per cent and 41 percent for multiple trading partners including the European Union, set to come into force on August 7.
Among the hardest hit nations is Switzerland on 39 percent, while Canada is facing 35 percent. Some of the countries affected had reached tariff-reducing deals with the U.S. but others had no opportunity to negotiate with the Trump administration.
Goods from all other countries not listed would be subject to a 10 per cent US import tax. Trump had previously threatened that rate might be higher.
The administration also teased that more trade deals were in the pipeline as it seeks to close trade deficits.
European stocks hit a three-week low on Friday as investors focused on the impact of the new tariffs, while Asian shares were headed for the worst week since April after the announcement Thursday night.
Trump's separate order for Canada raises the rate on Canadian goods subject to fentanyl-related tariffs to 35 per cent, from 25 per cent previously, saying the country had "failed to cooperate" in curbing illicit narcotics flows into the U.S.
The higher tariffs on Canadian goods contrasted sharply with Trump's decision to grant Mexico a 90-day reprieve from higher tariffs of 30 per cent on many goods to provide more time to negotiate a broader trade pact.
Canadian prime minister Mark Carney said he was disappointed by Trump's decision, and vowed to take action to protect Canadian jobs and diversify the country's export markets.
Meanwhile, China is facing an August 12 deadline to reach a tariff agreement with Trump's administration after Beijing and Washington reached preliminary agreements in May and June to end tit-for-tat levies. A U.S. official said they are making progress toward a deal.
US trading partners hit by new tariffs:
Syria 41%
Laos 40%
Myanmar (Burma) 40%
Switzerland 39%
Canada 35%
Iraq 35%
Serbia 35%
Algeria 30%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 30%
Libya 30%
South Africa 30%
Brunei 25%
India 25%
Kazakhstan 25%
Moldova 25%
Tunisia 25%
Bangladesh 20%
Sri Lanka20%
Taiwan 20%
Vietnam 20%
Cambodia 19%
Indonesia 19%
Malaysia 19%
Pakistan 19%
Philippines 19%
Thailand 19%
Nicaragua 18%
Afghanistan 15%
Angola 15%
Bolivia 15%
Botswana 15%
Cameroon 15%
Chad 15%
Costa Rica 15%
Côte d`Ivoire 15%
Democratic Republic of the Congo 15%
Ecuador 15%
Equatorial Guinea15%
European Union 15%
Fiji 15%
Ghana 15%
Guyana 15%
Iceland 15%
Israel 15%
Japan 15%
Jordan 15%
Lesotho 15%
Liechtenstein 15%
Madagascar 15%
Malawi 15%
Mauritius 15%
Mozambique 15%
Namibia 15%
Nauru 15%
New Zealand 15%
Nigeria 15%
North Macedonia 15%
Norway 15%
Papua New Guinea 15%
South Korea 15%
Trinidad and Tobago 15%
Turkey 15%
Uganda 15%
Vanuatu 15%
Venezuela 15%
Zambia 15%
Zimbabwe 15%
Brazil10%
Falkland Islands 10%
United Kingdom 10%
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Despite Trump, the US economy remains surprisingly resilient. But for how long?
Chaotic and unpredictable, keeping up with Donald Trump's volatile trade war – never mind his presidency – can be tough. Back in April after his 'Liberation Day' tariff announcement, the talk was of the president crashing the global economy. Then, after a Wall Street backlash, the world learned the acronym 'Taco', which stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out'. Now, things are heating up again. The president's decision to hit US trading partners with new tariffs – including Canada, Brazil, India and Taiwan – after his self-imposed 1 August deadline certainly reignites a threat to the world economy. Dozens of countries have been left reeling, and US consumers are expected to pay a heavy price. However, there is a sense that things could have been worse. Nowhere more clearly is this reflected than on Wall Street: despite the chaos of the president's trade war, the stock market remains close to record levels. After the latest escalation on Friday, and some worrying US jobs numbers, share prices took a hit, sliding by about 1%. But this is a setback, rather than a rout. A further slide could be ignited by this capricious president. Trump's decision to fire the official in charge of labour market data and his war on the independence of the US Federal Reserve will make matters worse. But despite the warnings of untold economic damage from the US tariff war earlier this year, the American economy has proven surprisingly resilient in recent months. Last week, the president seized on US growth figures showing the economy had expanded at an annualised rate of 3% in the second quarter – far in excess of the 2.4% rate predicted on Wall Street. Could the 'fake news' media have it wrong? Are tariff wars 'good, and easy to win,' as Trump claims? While inflation has ticked up, from 2.4% in May to 2.7% in June, it is well below the peak which followed the height of the pandemic disruption and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and is far from hitting the levels feared. Back in April, in a country wrought with division, Democrat voters reckoned inflation was on track to hit 7.9% within a year, while Republicans said it would collapse to 0.9%. Butthere is good reason why the US economy has so far defied the prophecies of Armageddon. For starters, the hot-cold nature of Trump's tariff war means investors still anticipate further deals will be done to avoid the worst threats from ever materialising. The toughest tariffs introduced on Friday are only just arriving, too, meaning any impact has yet to emerge. Most countries have not hit back with retaliatory measures, which would have dramatically worsened things by putting international trade into a deeper tailspin. Meanwhile, knowing full well the dangers of this erratic president, businesses have been planning for months to avoid the worst-case scenarios. US companies rushed to stockpile goods before the trade war, helping them to keep prices down for now. Some firms have taken a hit to profits, according to analysts at Deutsche Bank, reckoning this is better than testing struggling American consumers – worn out by years of high inflation – with further price increases. The tariff costs are also being spread by multinationals, by increasing prices across the markets they operate in. In one high-profile example, Sony has put up the price of its PlayStation 5 by as much as 25% in some markets; including the UK, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. But not in the US. Still, there are signs that consequences are coming. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion When US businesses exhaust their pre-tariff stockpiles, it is likely that prices will creep higher. Meanwhile, the uncertainty of an erratic president is hitting jobs and investment. Last week's US jobs market data has reignited fears over the resilience of the American economy. Tariffs are weighing on business confidence and steadily creeping into consumer prices. GDP growth of 3% might appear robust on the face of things, but this figure was heavily influenced by the 0.5% fall in output in the first quarter, when the surge in US firms rushing to beat Trump's tariffs distorted activity. Growth in the first half averaged 1.25%, markedly slower than the 2.8% rate for 2024 as a whole. Part of the reason Wall Street remains sanguine about this is the continued belief that things could have turned out worse. Deals are still expected, with the pause in tariffs for key US trade partners Mexico and China, suggesting this most clearly. The investor view is that, rather than tariffs, the president would prefer a string of box office moments in front of the TV cameras with trade partners paying tribute to the court of Trump. However, it would be wrong to underestimate the self-described 'tariff man's' love of border taxes. And even though his most extreme threats will be negotiated down, the final destination will still be much worse than before. An economic hurricane might be avoided, but a storm is still the last thing businesses and consumers need. Britain's US trade deal is a case in point. A 10% US tariff on British goods has been welcomed as a big victory for Keir Starmer given the alternative, but it is still far worse than before. British cars will face a tariff rate four times higher than previously; costing jobs and growth in Britain while hitting American consumers in the pocket. For the US consumer, the average tariff had been close to 2% before Trump's return to the White House. After his 1 August escalation, that figure leaps to about 15% – the highest level since the 1930s. Almost a century ago a similar wrong-headed protectionist approach in Washington made the Great Depression far worse: the Smoot-Hawley tariffs hit the US and triggered a domino effect among the main industrialised nations; ultimately leading to the second world war. In the unpredictability of Trump's trade war, hope remains that similar mistakes can be avoided. But significant damage is still being done.
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Melania has been shaping Trump's foreign policy for longer than we realise
As Donald Trump was flying back from Scotland, he revealed how he had discussed the horrific images of starving children in Gaza with his wife, the first lady. 'She thinks it's terrible,' he told The Telegraph aboard Air Force One. 'She sees the same pictures that you see and we all see. Everybody, unless they are pretty cold-hearted or worse than that, nuts … there's nothing you can say other than it's terrible when you see the kids.' Melania Trump has kept a low profile during her husband's second term. Her rare appearances at the White House have sparked 'Where's Melania?' headlines and questions about whether she is a part-time first lady. But her influence can be spotted in Mr Trump's policies, and she is credited by insiders for being the 'quiet force' behind the president's tougher stance on Russia. For Melania, it is not a new role. The Telegraph can reveal that she was a key factor in Mr Trump's decision to launch air strikes on Syria during his first term following a chemical weapons attack by the regime of Bashar al-Assad. A former White House official said she was horrified by videos of children dying in Khan Shaykun in 2017 and impressed upon her husband the need to act. Mr Trump abandoned his campaign promises not to intervene in Syria's civil war, and launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Mediterranean Sea at a government airbase in Syria. It was the first time that the US acknowledged striking Assad targets. The former official said Mrs Trump was highly influential in the decision. 'I think she reacts to human suffering as a mom, without a policy or political filter, and shares her gut reaction with her husband,' they said. Katherine Jellison, a history professor at Ohio University and an expert in the role of first ladies, said Mrs Trump was performing her role in a highly unconventional way, rejecting the traditional role of simply appearing beside her husband at public events. Her approach may mean she is underestimated by the media and public at times. 'It may be that she does have more influence on her husband's thinking about issues than the general public might initially recognise because they seem to have this very traditional marriage in terms of gender role: He's the boss. She's the helpmate,' she said. 'But I think there has to be more to her than that, in that she has gone her own way a number of times.' Mrs Trump, 55, was born Melanija Knavs in the part of Yugoslavia that is now Slovenia. She launched her career as a fashion model at the age of 16, and met her future husband in 1998, when she was 28. Mr Trump was recently separated from Marla Maples, his second wife. They married seven years later and their son, Barron, was born in 2006. She was an unconventional first lady from the start, being only the second foreign-born woman to hold the position (after England-born Louisa Adams) and the first to have once appeared naked on the front cover of a magazine. She did things her own way during Mr Trumps' first term, waiting for five months to move down to Washington DC from New York so Barron could finish his school year, and broke with her husband over family separations at detention facilities at the southern border. She made headlines in 2018 with a jacket she wore during a visit to see migrant children separated from their families. 'I really don't care,' read a statement on the back, 'do u?' It caused an uproar on social media as commentators pondered its meaning. Mrs Trump later said it was a message to reporters who used anonymous sources to undermine her. 'In fact, I decided to let them know that their criticism would never stop me from doing what I feel is right,' she said in her 2024 memoir, entitled Melania. She also used her book, published a month before the election, to speak up for abortion access. It marked a clear break with much of the Republican Party and her husband, who had taken a more conservative stance. 'Some people, they see me as just the wife of the president, but I'm standing on my own two feet, independent. I have my own thoughts,' she told Fox News ahead of Mr Trump's second inauguration. 'I don't always agree [with] what my husband is saying or doing, and that's OK.' Mr Trump recently described his wife's influence when it came to the conflict in Ukraine, describing her sceptical take on Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader, and his warm words. 'I go home, I tell the first lady: 'I spoke with Vladimir today. We had a wonderful conversation,'' Mr Trump said. 'She said: 'Oh really? Another city was just hit.'' That turned her into an immediate heroine in Ukraine. She was nicknamed 'Agent Melania Trumpenko' and memes quickly spread showing Ukrainian iconography on her clothing. Agent Melania Trumpenko — Kate from Kharkiv (@BohuslavskaKate) July 14, 2025 Prof Jellison added that Melania was often underestimated in public because of her heavily accented English. 'It wouldn't surprise me that she does have some differing opinions, and might assert those to her husband behind closed doors and might have an influence on his thinking,' she said. The first lady's office did not respond to a request for comment. For her part, Mrs Trump told GQ in 2016 that she had plenty of opinions and shared them with her husband. 'Nobody knows and nobody will ever know,' she said about the advice she gives him... 'Because that's between me and my husband.'
The National
35 minutes ago
- The National
What 'top lawyers' got wrong on Palestinian recognition
These warnings came from what was described as 'top lawyers' – 40 members of the House of Lords, including several high-profile barristers with enough letters before and after their name to populate a small alphabet. Lawyers, as you may have noticed, are one of those professions where any lawyer deemed worth quoting on any topic is automatically classified as 'top'. Try and think of the last time you ever saw a barrister or advocate described as one of the 'bottom KCs' in the stable, and you'll ponder in vain. Journalistic cliché has its catechism, and the cub reporter can only follow its rules. This approach sometimes produces absurd results. READ MORE: Donald Trump – peacemaker-in-chief or a global agitator? I remember, as a callow PhD student in the 2000s, one arch-Unionist newspaper picked up on a blog post I'd written, critical of some aspect of Scottish Government policy of the day. In their write-up, I was described as a leading 'boffin' – like 'revellers', a curious species which only exists inside the pages of tabloid newspapers – who'd 'blasted' the hapless Holyrood regime. On any objective analysis, what I'd written was a fairly well-informed reflection as a minnow swimming in the shallow end of legal academia – but because the paper liked the critical line I was advancing, I was polished up, puffed up, and field promoted in my mid-twenties to the status of 'top lawyer'. In this case, however, many of those reported to have added their signatures to this menacing message to Keir Starmer are lawyers of significant eminence, including established academics in the field of international law, leading silks coming down with experience of advocating in the highest courts in the land, and even one former Supreme Court judge. And given all this legal eminence, it is sad to see them putting their names to hokum like this, which most of the signatories must know is a transparent distortion of the true position, pitched in a way which is not only guaranteed but apparently designed to be misunderstood. I can't think of a clearer example in recent years of the cynical exploitation of real expertise to push a feeble argument for nakedly ideological reasons. Politically, Starmer's intervention has prompted a range of reactions. First, why the conditionality? Why should recognition of Palestinian statehood be contingent on what the occupying power does or ceases to do to its civilian population? The International Court of Justice recently recognised 'the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including its right to an independent and sovereign state'. This includes its territorial integrity. If the Palestinian people already have these rights as a matter of international law, why should the UK wait for an Israeli ceasefire before recognising them, or delay full recognition if the killing stops and basic necessities begin to flow back into the region? In law and in politics, neither stance is logical. You might also ask yourself where precisely the line is being drawn on 'intolerability' by the UK Government. Why here? Why now? Experience over the past year suggests Starmer and those around him have remarkably strong stomachs for violations of conduct actually prohibited by international law, such as the use of lethal force on civilian populations and indiscriminate deployment of deadly munitions in urban areas occupied by men, women and children who cannot be classified as combatants. The problem for our 'top lawyers' is that they're making bricks without straw. Their main argument is that because Palestine might not meet the criteria for statehood identified in the Montevideo Convention – an international treaty the UK has not even signed – then it would be unlawful for the UK to press ahead and extend diplomatic recognition of the Palestinian regime. They argue that Palestine lacks a permanent population, clearly defined territory, a specific government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states – and therefore shouldn't be recognised as one. For the purposes of this intellectual exercise – and that's exactly what this intervention amounts to – we are apparently not to think about how all these population displacements and territorial encroachments on Palestinian territory might have happened and who might have been responsible for them. It isn't just the weakness of the underlying argument which rankles. It is the cynical framing. Describing recognition of the state of Palestine as 'breaking' international law might imply to the average reader that the UK might face some kind of criminal sanction or judicial challenge if the Government recognises Palestine. It won't. It can't. That isn't how it works. READ MORE: Rhoda Meek: The drive to go digital has real implications in rural and island areas [[UK Government]] ministers are quite right to push back hard, underscoring that this is a political judgement for states to exercise. To give you some kind of context on exactly how persuasive these 'top lawyers'' analysis is internationally, [[Palestine]] is already recognised as a sovereign state by almost 150 members of the United Nations. In total, there are only 193 member states of the UN. You work out the percentages. If these legal peers were right, that's a lot of breaches of international law nobody noticed before. The intervention is pure pettifoggery. The top lawyers must know this. It is the kind of basic legal fact which you must have tripped over in that long climb to the top, which won you your ermine macintosh and all those magic post-nominals. This story is a little microcosm of the uses and abuses of legal ambiguity in thinking and reporting on what has happened in Gaza over the past two years. A huge amount of energy has been expended online and on air asserting, denying and quibbling about whether or not what is being done by Israeli forces to the civilian population in Gaza meets the legal tests for genocide under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention defines the international crime of genocide as encompassing 'any of the following acts' committed with intent to destroy a 'national, ethnic, racial or religious group' in 'whole or in part'. Prohibited conduct includes killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to them, or 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part'. The definition also extends to 'imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group' and 'forcibly transferring children of the group to another group'. Language matters. What we call things matters. Allegations of genocidal violence are dire ones to make. But an extraordinary wattage of intellectual energy over the past two years has gone into disputes over whether this threshold has been reached – as if it is the only legally and morally significant issue at stake in Palestine. This illustrates what a powerful distraction legalistic reasoning can be. Imagine you're sitting in your office and a masked man kicks in the door. He's armed with a gun, and opens fire, killing one of your colleagues. If my first reaction to this terrifying event was 'that man just violated Kenny's right to life', you might well think my legalistic mindset had got the better of ordinary human reactions to witnessing violence like this, and finding the right words to describe what you saw. If I immediately started quibbling about whether the shooting was murder or culpable homicide, you might reasonably think I'd missed the enormity of what I'd just seen. This should be a moral caution. Legal analysis can sometimes have a powerful distancing effect, transforming living people into bloodless abstractions, and tales of human horror into fine conceptual disputes over nice points of law. It can do so in a way which doesn't recognise and capture an injustice, but actually obscures and distracts from the evidence of our own eyes and a full moral engagement with what you witness. If there is any consolation here, it is that it won't work. Throughout this conflict, ordinary people across the United Kingdom have demonstrated a much keener sense of the injustice being visited on the civilian population in Gaza by the IDF than the UK Government, the Conservative opposition and the tangled web of increasingly manic media opinion formers, who are still trying to persuade the public that their concern about dead, dying and amputated and malnourished civilians somehow represents support for an extremist cause, or amounts to an unjust and exaggerated critique of Israel, itself in some versions of the argument amounting to a form of antisemitism. 'Technically, we are not committing genocide but only systematic violations of international humanitarian law against the civilian population' may not be the persuasive defence argument some very online lawyers seem to think it is. This is one kind of stupidity that only very smart people fall into. Most people, mercifully, have more sense.
