Here’s How Countries Are Retaliating Against Trump’s Tariffs
from RealEcon and Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies
from RealEcon and Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies

Here’s How Countries Are Retaliating Against Trump’s Tariffs

Trade retaliation looms from Canada, China, Mexico, and the European Union in response to U.S. tariffs. Four timelines lay out their responses, and the experience of American soybean farmers in 2018 shows how damaging this could be. 

March 21, 2025 11:48 am (EST)

Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

In response to the Donald Trump administration’s second-term tariffs, Canada, China, Mexico, and the European Union (EU)—the United States’ largest trade partners—have announced or threatened retaliatory tariffs.  

How do retaliatory tariffs work?

More From Our Experts

A tariff is a tax on foreign-made goods, which makes them more expensive to import. To get a better idea of how retaliatory tariffs could affect the United States, let’s look at what happened to American soybean farmers during Trump’s first term. Soybeans are the United States’ largest agricultural export to China.  

More on:

Trade

Trade War

Tariffs

China

RealEcon

In 2017, U.S. soybean exports to China totaled $12 billion, near an all-time high. Then in 2018, the United States placed tariffs on $34 billion worth of Chinese non-agricultural goods, and China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. soybeans and other products. Soybean exports to China plummeted, with U.S. farmers suffering substantial losses. 

U.S. farmers’ losses were Brazilian farmers’ gains. Brazil, the world’s leading soybean producer, increased soybean exports to China and has remained its top supplier. 

U.S. soybean exports to China recovered after the two countries signed a trade deal in 2020 but have declined somewhat in recent years as China has sought to become less reliant on imported soy. 

More From Our Experts

From 2018 to 2019, U.S. farmers suffered $26 billion in losses due to China’s retaliatory tariffs. In response, the Trump administration provided $28 billion in bailouts to farmers across the two years. 

How are countries retaliating against Trump’s 2025 tariffs?  

The second Trump administration has largely taken a blanket approach with tariffs, initially targeting all goods from Canada, China, and Mexico, as well as all aluminum and steel imports, and planning reciprocal tariffs on all trade partners. U.S. trade partners, meanwhile, have taken a more targeted approach aimed at specific U.S. products. 

More on:

Trade

Trade War

Tariffs

China

RealEcon

Canada 

On March 4, Canada imposed tariffs on U.S. imports including agricultural goods, appliances, motorcycles, apparel, certain paper products, and footwear. In response to Trump waiving tariffs for Canadian imports covered under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), Canada delayed a second round of tariffs on goods ranging from agricultural and aerospace products to electric vehicles until April 2

On March 10, the Canadian province of Ontario imposed a surcharge on electricity exported to Michigan, Minnesota, and New York, but later suspended this. However, in response to U.S. tariffs on aluminum and steel imports, Canada on March 12 announced additional tariffs on those two U.S. metals, as well as other goods.  

China

China has also imposed retaliatory tariffs on the United States. The first round went into effect on February 10, affecting coal, liquefied natural gas, crude oil, agricultural machinery, large vehicles, and pickup trucks. After Trump increased tariffs on China in early March, Beijing announced a second round of tariffs starting March 10; this included 10 percent tariffs on chicken, wheat, corn, and cotton products, as well as 15 percent tariffs on a range of agricultural products, including soybeans.  

In addition, China has enacted export controls on critical minerals, launched an antitrust investigation into Google, and added more than a dozen U.S. companies to their Export Control and Unreliable Entity lists. These measures will not only have the potential to disrupt U.S. supply chains but also harm the global economic competitiveness of U.S. businesses. 

European Union

Likewise, the EU has stated that “unjustified” U.S. tariffs on European aluminum and steel “will not go unanswered,” and announced retaliatory tariffs on March 11. Specifically, the bloc plans to reimpose 2018 and 2020 retaliatory tariffs against the United States but also put into place new tariffs following discussions among EU member states in March. 

Mexico

Mexico, meanwhile, planned on announcing retaliatory tariffs on March 9, but did not follow through after Trump exempted Mexican goods covered by the USMCA. On March 9, President Claudia Sheinbaum affirmed Mexico’s commitment to curb fentanyl trafficking and said she expects the United States to continue preventing arms trafficking into Mexican territory. If Mexico does choose to implement retaliatory tariffs—particularly after the exemption on USMCA goods expires on April 2—it is likely that they will target U.S. products such as vegetables, fruits, beer, and spirits. 

Many of these retaliatory tariffs are targeting industries in parts of the country that supported Trump in the 2024 election, a move that some experts say is designed to maximize leverage. Examples include Canadian tariffs on fruit from Florida and motorcycles and coffee from Pennsylvania, and Chinese tariffs that will affect farming and manufacturing communities in the Midwest and Rust Belt. Ultimately, however, the economic cost will be felt throughout the country.  

How could these retaliatory tariffs hurt the United States? 

U.S. exports, specifically from the agriculture and livestock sectors, will decline in the short term as trade partners reduce their imports. U.S. producers will suffer from decreased revenue—as U.S. soybean farmers did during the 2018–19 trade war—while other countries will seek to fill the gap left by the United States. Soybean farmers have still not fully regained their market share of soybean exports to China.  

Retaliatory tariffs could also result in an escalation of existing U.S. tariffs, hurting consumers as businesses pass on the costs of tariffs in the form of higher prices. The average U.S. household is already expected to face a cost increase of more than $1,200 per year as a result of existing U.S. tariffs. The imposition of retaliatory tariffs also raises other concerns, including the potential effects on the U.S. stock market and allies’ declining trust in U.S. economic leadership.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Trade

President Trump doubled almost all aluminum and steel import tariffs, seeking to curb China’s growing dominance in global trade. These six charts show the tariffs’ potential economic effects.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.