After a chaotic summer punctuated by tariff threats via Truth Social posts, foreign delegations making their cases directly and through the press, and stakeholders, businesses, and investors closely tracking the President’s every move, the White House finally published a series of “final” tariff actions on July 31. 

Since April 2 Trump’s “Liberation Day”, most imports to the United States have been subject to a 10 percent tariff based on unprecedented use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Countries have been operating under the threat of much higher tariffs if they were not able to reach agreement with the United States within the President’s self-imposed deadline (first July 9, then August 1). Now that the dust has settled on the fast and furious summer of negotiations, some key themes have emerged. 

‍

1. Being first to the negotiating table did not necessarily result in the best outcome. For instance, India was one of the first countries to be at the negotiating table, having finalized a Terms of Reference with the U.S. back in April. Secretary Lutnick cited further progress in June and teased that a deal was close. But an outcome never materialized, and by late July, President Trump was publicly expressing his dissatisfaction with India’s relationship with Russia, and they were subsequently hit with a 25 percent tariff rate. 

‍

2. Combating transshipment remains a top priority for the White House. The July 31 executive order dictates a 40 percent tariff rate for goods found to be transshipped, and the White House’ fact sheet on the US-EU agreement notes that the two countries have agreed to establish “strong rules of origin” to combat “free riders.” Undoubtedly, the Administration is focused on moving supply chains away from China and other non-market economies, which explains the 40 percent transshipment rates originally previewed by the President when announcing the bilateral outcomes with Indonesia and Vietnam. But now that a 40 percent transshipment tariff is expected to be applied to goods worldwide, and divergent underlying tariff rates for countries, strong enforcement will be critical to ensuring that they are able to make good on their promise to combat transshipment globally. 

‍

3. Finally, negotiations aren’t over yet. The bilateral tariff rates do not go into effect until August 7, and the executive order notes that many countries are still negotiating. Furthermore, even if countries are able to negotiate additional outcomes with the administration, if these negotiations are intended to lead to true trade agreements, then any outcome announced should be considered more akin to ‘negotiating objectives’ than final text. For example, the US-UK Economic Prosperity Deal (EPD) is often touted as the first bilateral agreement after Liberation Day. But so far, the EPD seems to be an agreed-to tariff rate, with a series of negotiations to follow. True trade agreements typically take months or years to finalize, and we will be watching closely to see how and when final text develops. 

‍

Looming over all of this is the ongoing litigation challenging President Trump’s use of IEEPA. The case is likely to reach the Supreme Court later this fall, and a ruling against the Trump administration could significantly disrupt the current tariff framework. But court-tested authorities remain in grasp, suggesting that tariffs will continue to be a core instrument of an America First trade agenda.  

‍

Reach out to Lot Sixteen’s trade experts Allison Smith, former USTR official who served during Trump’s second term, and Mary Kate Carter, former U.S. Senate Committee on Finance Professional Staff Member, to learn more.