
'Liberation Day' 2.0: What's coming and who will feel it the most
The Liberation Day tariffs were announced on 2 April, after President Trump branded the US trade deficit a national emergency. Far more goods were flowing into the country than American products were being sold abroad.
By invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Trump proceeded to sign executive orders that imposed what the government branded as "reciprocal tariffs". Namely, they were meant to counteract or reciprocate damaging trade practices and trade barriers. This is despite the fact that many analysts have attributed the US trade deficit to the strength of the dollar and consumer demand for foreign products.
Countries like Myanmar and Lesotho had some of the highest tariff rates threatened on 2 April, at 44% and 50% respectively. In terms of trade volume affected and product reliance, countries like China at 34% or the EU bloc at 20% were — however — the biggest shocks to global markets and trade flows.
For countries that weren't given a specific rate, a blanket tariff of 10% came into force on 5 April. On 9 April, the reciprocal tariffs were supposed to go into effect.
First suspension
After the initial announcement sent markets tumbling, Trump signed a 90-day suspension of the higher, country-specific reciprocal tariffs, which was set to expire on 9 July. The 10% baseline tariff based on IEEPA powers stayed in force.
China, which had introduced a matching retaliatory tariff of 34% on the US, then got slapped with an additional 50% US tariff on April 9 — one they also then imposed back on the US. At this point, the US rate on Chinese goods came to 84%, not including an extra 20% fentanyl levy.
In a tit-for-tat between the two biggest economies in the world, the US then raised the Chinese tariff rate to 145% (including the fentanyl levy). China responded with a total tariff rate of 125%, but said they would ignore future tariff increases.
'Even if the US continues to impose higher tariffs, it will no longer make economic sense and will become a joke in the history of world economy,' the Chinese Foreign Ministry said at the time.
On 12 May, an agreement was reached to reduce the tariff rates, bring the US levy on Chinese goods to 30% and the Chinese levy on American goods to 10%. Both sides said they would re-assess the situation after 90 days. Negotiations for a comprehensive agreement are currently underway.
Peter Navarro, Trump's counsellor on trade issues, told Time magazine that the US was open to negotiating individual deals with countries and that '90 deals in 90 days' — referring to the 90-day delay windows everyone received — was possible. The country has fallen far short of that, although a number of deals were sealed last-minute.
Deals struck so far
The UK was the first to secure a trade framework with the US on 16 June that kept the 10% baseline in place, with exceptions for some industries.
Vietnam reached a deal on 2 July after facing a rate of 46% in the original "Liberation Day" package. It now faces a 20% tariff, excluding goods that travel through Vietnam from third countries and are destined for the US.
Thailand and Cambodia, who struck deals shortly before the deadline, both received a 19% duty, from 36% and 49% respectively.
Second suspension
A second tariff delay was announced on 9 July, postponing the return of the Liberation Day tariffs until 1 August.
Deals were subsequently struck with Indonesia, lowering the tariff rate to 19% from the original 32% rate, and the Philippines struck a preliminary agreement that would lower its rate to 19% as well.
Japan and South Korea both announced that trade deals had been reached toward the end of July, both securing rates of 15%. That's a reduction from 24% for Japan and 25% for South Korea.
An agreement was reached with Pakistan that would see the US develop its oil reserves in return for lowering the tariff rates to 19%. Previously, Pakistan was subject to a 29% rate.
The EU reached an agreement with Trump on 27 July, lowering the rate to 15%.
What about pre-Trump trade agreements?
The United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) was signed by Trump in his first mandate to replace NAFTA, the previous trade agreement between the three countries.
On the 1 August, Canada is set to see tariffs on its US exports rise to 35%, although White House officials have suggested the new rate will only apply to goods not covered under the USMCA. Nearly 90% of Canadian goods imported into the US are exempted under the free trade deal.
Mexico, meanwhile, was expecting to face a 30% tariff until Trump proposed a 90-day negotiating period on Thursday.
Trump, posting on his Truth Social platform, said a phone conversation he had with Mexican leader Claudia Sheinbaum was 'very successful in that, more and more, we are getting to know and understand each other".
The Republican president said that goods from Mexico imported into the US would continue to face a 25% tariff that he has ostensibly linked to fentanyl trafficking. He said that autos would face a 25% tariff, while copper, aluminium and steel would be taxed at 50%.
He said that Mexico would end its 'Non Tariff Trade Barriers', but he didn't provide specifics.
Some goods will continue to be protected from the tariffs by the USMCA.
Steel, aluminium, copper, Brazil and India
Meanwhile, a 50% universal tariff was imposed on steel and aluminium products on 4 June. The UK faces only a 25% steel and aluminium tariff, and negotiations are underway for that to be possibly lowered further.
On 30 July, Trump announced semi-finished copper products such as rods and sheets and copper-intensive products such as cables and electrical components will face a 50% tariff starting on Friday.
Ahead of Friday's tariff package, Trump announced that a 25% tariff would be imposed on India along with another unspecified penalty for importing Russian oil and weapons despite US sanctions.
President Donald Trump also signed an executive order on Wednesday to place a 50% tariff on Brazil, setting a legal rationale that Brazil's policies and criminal prosecution of former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro constitute an economic emergency under a 1977 law.
Trump had threatened the tariffs on 9 July in a letter to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. But the legal basis of that threat was an earlier executive order premised on trade imbalances being a threat to the US economy.
The US nonetheless ran a $6.8 billion (€5.8bn) trade surplus last year with Brazil, according to the US Census Bureau, undermining the original basis for the Liberation Day tariffs.
Russia, anyone?
Russia was not part of the initial Liberation Day tariffs, a move some saw as an indicator of Trump's alleged soft spot for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Yet due to sanctions that carried over from the administration of President Joe Biden, the trade volume with Russia had dropped significantly following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
On 14 July, Trump gave Putin a 50-day deadline to broker a ceasefire with Ukraine or else it would face a 100% tariff targeting nations that purchase oil and gas from Russia. During his recent trip to Scotland, he said he was "probably" shortening the deadline to 10-12 days, stating: "Because I think I already know the answer what's going to happen."
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham introduced a bill in Congress that, if passed, would see countries that import Russian gas, such as India, face a whopping 500% tariff.
So what happens on 1 August?
Legally, because the previous tariff suspensions were temporary, all countries that have not negotiated a separate trade deal will see their Liberation Day rates re-imposed.
For nations not given a country-specific rate, the minimum tariff for imports has been set at 10%, a relief for those who feared that the baseline may double. Trump has also included a 40% penalty for transshipped goods intended to avoid duties.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
Donald Trump weighs in on Sydney Sweeney / American Eagle controversy
Another day, another chapter in the American Eagle / Sydney Sweeney controversy, which won't seem to die down. Following the polarising campaign that led many to call out racist undertones and label the fashion ads as 'Nazi', the viral backlash that ensued, the comments from The White House and other US Conversatives regarding cancel culture, the response from American Eagle and the revelation that actress Sydney Sweeney is a registered Republican voter, now comes – somewhat predictably – Donald Trump's take. The US president has run to the defence of the 27-year-old Euphoria and White Lotus actress at the heart of the controversy by declaring on Truth Social: 'Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the 'HOTTEST' ad out there. It's for American Eagle, and the jeans are 'flying off the shelves'. Go get 'em Sydney!' He continued: 'On the other side of the ledger, Jaguar did a stupid, and seriously WOKE advertisement, THAT IS A TOTAL DISASTER! The CEO just resigned in disgrace, and the company is in absolute turmoil.' He went on to mention other companies that he considers to be 'woke'. Trump reposted his comments three times to fix various typos and then decided to hit out at Taylor Swift, bashing the pop star by saying that she is 'no longer hot.' 'Just look at Woke singer Taylor Swift. Ever since I alerted the world as to what she was by saying on TRUTH that I can't stand her (HATE!). She was booed out of the Super Bowl and became, NO LONGER HOT.' He presidentially added: 'The tide has seriously turned – Being WOKE is for losers, being Republican is what you want to be.' This is not the first time that Trump has beefed with Swift, with some exchanges online during last year's election making headlines. Trump even falsely claimed Swift's endorsement with AI-generated posts and went on to write 'I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT' on his social accounts. In case you missed it, the American Eagle ad campaign, which declares 'Sydney Sweeney has great jeans', came under fire last month for the play on words 'jeans' and 'genes' - which many perceived as celebrating white supremacy and invoking eugenics. One of the campaign's most polarising clips features the 27-year-old actress saying: 'Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair colour, personality and even eye colour. My jeans are blue.' Check out our explainer on the Sydney Sweeney controversy. The US fashion retailer responded to the backlash over the weekend, stating: 'Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story,' they posted on Instagram. 'We'll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone.' On the same day that statement was issued, vice president JD Vance defended the campaign, saying: 'My political advice to the Democrats is continue to tell everybody who thinks Sydney Sweeney is attractive is a Nazi. That appears to be their actual strategy.' He continued: 'I mean, it actually reveals something pretty interesting about the Dems though, which is that you have a normal all-American beautiful girl doing like a normal jeans ad. They're trying to sell jeans to kids in America and they have managed to so unhinge themselves over this thing. And it's like, did you learn nothing from the November 2024 election?' Sydney Sweeney has yet to address the controversy – something which some of her fans find troubling. Not helping things is the fact that Sweeney's Republican voter registration was recently revealed. According to publicly available records, the actress is registered as a Republican voter in Florida. She registered to vote on 14 June 2024 - weeks after Donald Trump was convicted in New York City of criminal falsification of business records and a few months before he won a second US presidency. While the Florida Department of State records confirm that the actress has an 'Active' voting status, meaning she was eligible to vote, this does not mean that she actually voted from Trump. Still, this has galvanised those who were already slamming Sweeney in 2022 for posting a series of photos from her mother's surprise birthday party, in which guests wore MAGA hats. Faced with growing criticism, Sweeney issued a statement on social media at the time, pleading with the public to 'stop making assumptions'. 'An innocent celebration… has turned into an absurd political statement, which was not the intention,' added Sweeney.


Euronews
3 hours ago
- Euronews
The two faces of Ursula: Reinvention or deception at the EU's helm?
In December 2019 Ursula von der Leyen returned to Brussels, the city where she spent her childhood, with the poise of a self-assured centrist and the promise of a visionary. The Green Deal stood at the centre of her first presidency, offering climate hope and a surprisingly collaborative touch, flanked by the liberal Danish Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager and Frans Timmermans, the socialist Dutchman - co-stars in her ensemble cast. That was Season 1. But as Season 2 gets underway, followers of her first term might be wondering if they're still watching the same show. Or at least asking if the lead character has been switched and a doppelganger has taken the helm. So what's happened - is Ursula von der Leyen suffering an identity crisis, or simply channelling her inner political shapeshifter? Different style, different priorities The new Ursula appears to be a pragmatic political realist, even Machiavellian. A significant part of this shift toward centralisation can be attributed to her powerful chief of staff, Bjoern Seibert, an adept puppet master skilfully pulling the strings of power within the Berlaymont building. During Season 1, maverick Commissioners such as France's Thierry Breton and Luxembourg's Nicolas Schmit developed as characters critical of von der Leyen's decisions. This has now disappeared from the script, and Ursula's gone from ensemble lead to solo act. Most importantly, they've been replaced with lower-profile allies who are kept in the dark on key decisions - most notably during the unveiling of the EU's long-term budget, when Commissioners reportedly saw the figures only moments before the official curtain raise on the proposal. Core priorities have seemingly vanished. There's an air of political amnesia, or perhaps strategic dissociation, where past commitments are forgotten or discarded. But what are Ursula von der Leyen's true colours? Is she still the 'Green Queen' of 2019, or has she transformed into the grey, power-consolidating 'VDL'? The curious case of the vanishing Green Deal Let's rewind to 2019, when von der Leyen made the Green Deal the crown jewel of her presidency. Back then, 'green' wasn't just a policy, it was a vibe. The Green Deal was supposed to transform Europe's economy, its agriculture and transport. Fast forward to today: the vibe's off. Her environmental mission seems increasingly distant, if not altogether abandoned. Today, the Green Deal is conspicuously absent, not just from rhetoric, but also from official documents. In the new long-term EU budget proposal, for instance, the term isn't mentioned once. Many of its pillars are being dismantled piece by piece. The most glaring example is the systematic rollback of Green Deal initiatives - such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism - through so-called "Omnibus" simplification proposals, with the latest retreat involving the proposed Green Claims Directive—meant to combat greenwashing. More symbolic is the disappearance of the "Farm to Fork" strategy, once the farming side of the Green Deal, which has all but vanished from speeches, policy documents, and public messaging. Its omission from the Commission's long-awaited 'Vision for Agriculture and Food' was effectively a quiet burial, making the document less of a vision and more a eulogy. Officially, the Commission remains in denial, but the signs of abandonment are impossible to ignore. Europe's Beating Cancer Plan - missing a beat? Green isn't the only colour fading from von der Leyen's palette, telling a story of a shifting focus. Over in the health file, there's a quiet code blue, with a key dossier on life support. In her first term, von der Leyen championed the European Health Union, with the Beating Cancer Plan as a cornerstone. With €4 billion on the table, the Commission pledged a full-frontal assault on tobacco, alcohol, asbestos, and other risk factors for cancer. But momentum has slowed dramatically. Measures targeting tobacco and alcohol reduction have stalled, and once-prioritised regulations (such as those governing sunbed usage) have been quietly dropped. The new EU4Health budget reflects this decline. In 2024, €115 million was allocated specifically for cancer. In 2025, this has been slashed to €60 million, now also covering not just cancer but also cardiovascular disease and other non-communicable illnesses. With attention diverted to pandemic preparedness and other priorities, it's unclear how much of the original vision will survive. And with more open files than open funding lines, Brussels insiders are asking: is health promotion and the fight against cancer being reassigned to sleepy interns and relegated to just a historical footnote? Back to her roots: Defence and military power And yet, amid the abandonment of green and health priorities, von der Leyen appears more energised than ever, but on a different front: defence. A year into her second term, the former German defence minister has returned to familiar territory. With the Green Deal receding, she has seized the geopolitical moment to promote a stronger European defence industry. With her former life as Germany's defence minister back in vogue (and with Frans Timmermans no longer breathing green fire down her neck), von der Leyen has pivoted hard to European defence. An example: the EU's upcoming budget cycle (starting in 2028) proposes a fivefold increase in defence and space funding. National budgets on defence are also rising, spurred by Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Her Commission has also recently proposed structural changes: redirecting cohesion funds to defence, relaxing fiscal rules to allow greater military spending, launching the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), and offering low-interest loans under the SAFE scheme. There's also an emphasis on simplifying defence procurement rules and boosting joint R&D initiatives. Still to come: a military mobility package aimed at streamlining troop and equipment movement, and the unveiling of plans for a true "European Defence Union". With the US increasingly focused on the Indo-Pacific, the EU faces a test: can it become a credible security actor within NATO? And will von der Leyen's defence push bear fruit in time to deter potential threats—particularly from Russia—by 2030? The verdict: the jury's still out... From Green Deal visionary to defence strategist, von der Leyen's transformation has raised eyebrows across Brussels and beyond, leaving many confused. The contrast between the two mandates could not be starker. So, who is the real Ursula von der Leyen? Is she the eco-champion who once promised to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent? Or the iron-fisted strategist consolidating power and refocusing on geopolitical muscle? Perhaps both. Perhaps only one of them ever truly existed. Or maybe neither. What's clear is that the second mandate is not just more of the same: It's a whole new season and a new cast. With the same protagonist wearing the same blazer but with different habits and a different mind. As Brussels braces for the next plot twist, especially with US tariffs and budget wrangling, one thing's for sure: Ursula von der Leyen is playing a different game. And the rest of Europe? Still trying to figure out if this is a character arc... or a complete reboot.


Euronews
3 hours ago
- Euronews
US backtracks on tying FEMA funds to stance on Israel boycott
The Trump administration has reversed course on Monday after it faced backlash for threatening to withhold at least $1.9 billion (€1.64 billion) in disaster funds from cities and states that support boycotts of Israel and Israeli companies. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appears to have removed an article from its website under its internal terms and conditions which stipulated that states 'must not support severing commercial relations, or otherwise limiting commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies or with companies doing business in or with Israel' to qualify for the funding. States rely on the emergency line of funding to finance search and rescue operations in cases of natural disasters or local emergencies, staff salaries, equipment and resources. The DHS oversees the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding operations. Spokesperson for the DHS Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement on Monday that 'FEMA grants remain governed by existing law and policy and not political litmus tests'. This marks a shift in the Trump administration's policy which has tried to penalise local governments, institutions, federal agencies and private companies for not aligning with its views on Israel or antisemitism. The now seemingly rebuked clause attempted to take aim at the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which is designed to place economic strain on Israel and force them to end their more than 20-month long offensive on Gaza. The old terms and conditions, which states must follow to be allowed access to funds, followed what the DHS called a 'discriminatory prohibited boycott', but the updated version, quietly published late on Monday no longer uses that language. 'There is NO FEMA requirement tied to Israel in any current NOFO. No states have lost funding, and no new conditions have been imposed,' wrote the Department of Homeland Security in a post on X. 'DHS will enforce all anti-discrimination laws and policies, including as it relates to the BDS movement, which is expressly grounded in antisemitism. Those who engage in racial discrimination should not receive a single dollar of federal funding.' The decision to quietly remove the clause from the terms and conditions comes after various US media outlets slammed the department for tying access to federal emergency funds to political agendas and ideologies. It also comes as global pressure and criticism mounts on Israel over its Gaza offensive. The Trump administration has routinely stated that it will continue to fight what it called a wave of left-wing induced antisemitism, stressing that it has no place in the Untied States and will not be tolerated.