The United States (US) has once again increased pressure on its key trading partners by threatening to impose punitive tariffs on imports from 14 countries. In addition, the Washington administration has granted a temporary extension for customs tariff negotiations based on the principle of “reciprocity.” US President Donald Trump announced on social media, particularly after the BRICS Summit on July 7, 2025, that a 25% customs tariff would be imposed on imports from Japan and South Korea, and that these measures would come into effect on August 1.[1]
Trump announced that he had sent letters to the leaders of Malaysia, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Myanmar, Laos, Tunisia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, and Thailand, informing them that tariffs ranging from 25% to 40% would be imposed on imports from these countries starting next month. The planned tariffs are as follows:[2]
- Japan, South Korea, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Tunisia: 25%
- Bosnia and Herzegovina and South Africa: 30%
- Indonesia: 32%
- Bangladesh and Serbia: 35%
- Cambodia and Thailand: 36%
- Laos and Myanmar: 40%
The US, which defends the tariffs in question on the grounds of economic interests and national security, describes these measures as necessary steps to correct long-standing structural trade imbalances. President Trump has emphasized that the measures are independent of sector-specific tariffs and has issued a stern warning that much heavier sanctions will be imposed if imports are found to be diverted through third countries.
Some of the countries that will be directly affected by the tariffs have shared their reactions to the process with the public. The Republic of South Africa has stated that it is determined to establish a more balanced and mutually beneficial trade relationship through diplomatic channels. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, on the other hand, has emphasized that the European Union is open to an agreement in principle, but will take decisive retaliatory measures if the negotiations fail.[3]
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba stated that Tokyo will resolutely defend its national interests and is prepared for any possibility of tariffs. South Korean President Lee Jae-myung said that the negotiations were quite difficult and that the parties were not entirely sure what they wanted. India has notified the World Trade Organization (WTO) that it has prepared retaliatory tariffs on certain American products in response to the “unfair” tariffs imposed by the US on automobile exports. Meanwhile, Vietnam has once again requested that the US recognize its market economy status and lift export restrictions on high-tech products.[4]
The US decision to impose punitive tariffs on 14 countries signals a period of instability in the global trade order, intensified geo-economic tensions, and erosion of the principle of institutional multilateralism. President Trump does not view his economic moves as merely a simple economic tool aimed at closing the trade deficit. At the same time, Trump is engaging in a hegemonic intervention aimed at reestablishing American supremacy in the international system.
The US’s justification of tariffs on the grounds of “economic and national security” contradicts the traditional Washington Consensus line of trade liberalization. This approach undermines WTO norms and causes uncertainty in the international economic legal order. The tariff policy implemented by the Trump administration under the name of “reciprocity” actually means the reconstruction of structural power asymmetry. The targeting of a wide range of countries, from South Africa to Japan, Vietnam to Bosnia and Herzegovina, shows that the American foreign trade strategy is now shaped not only by economic interests but also by geopolitical intentions.
Just a few days after Trump’s initiative, Chinese Premier Li Qiang’s remarks at the 17th BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro confirmed the emergence of a rising counter-hegemonic line in the global order. Li’s emphasis on calls for reform of the New Development Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank reflects the demand of developing countries for greater representation and decision-making power in the international financial system.[5] This discourse represents the search for a “new institutional architecture” in the Global South, while offering a peaceful form of resistance to the US-dominated structure.
The US’s punitive tariffs on 14 countries should not be seen as merely an economic measure. These tariffs are also an indication of the structural transformation of the international system. At a time of increasing global uncertainty, renewed regional conflict dynamics, and deepening systemic competition among major powers, Washington’s move can be interpreted not merely as a foreign trade instrument, but as an attempt to rebuild its established hegemony.
From a geo-economic perspective, the US tariffs function as part of its efforts to maintain global control over energy routes, supply chains, the digital economy, and strategic raw material flows. The BRICS platform’s increasing production of normative and institutional alternatives signals a structural quest that challenges the current unipolar economic architecture. In this regard, the pressure policy developed by the US through tariffs has the capacity to directly affect bilateral relations and the future of multilateral institutions.
Today’s international environment points to a phase in which the geopolitical fault lines revealed by the Russia-Ukraine War are also deepening in the Middle East. The Iran-Israel tension, instability in Lebanon, and the chain of regional alliances being reshaped through Gaza show that the problems are not only economic but also force energy and trade corridors to be reconfigured. In today’s international relations environment, the US’s use of economic tools as a means of political pressure in both Asia and the Middle East is opening up a new front in the geo-economic war.
The fragility of the global economy is not limited to tariffs. The rise of non-Western actors in new competitive fields such as artificial intelligence, green transformation, and digitalization is calling into question the legitimacy of the post-Bretton Woods institutional order. In this context, the US’s attempt to regain control over the established international system through tariffs is a sign of a new normative system struggle.
In conclusion, US punitive tariffs may generate short-term protectionist gains, but they carry the risk of causing permanent disruptions in global supply chains, strategic distrust, and normative polarization in the long term. States are redesigning their foreign policies by integrating classical security concepts with economic tools.
[1] “U.S. new tariff threats spark global tensions as negotiations stall”, CGTN, https://news.cgtn.com/news/2025-07-08/U-S-new-tariff-threats-spark-global-tensions-as-negotiations-stall-1EPNXXKTrby/p.html, (Date of Access: 08.07.2025).
[2] Ibid.
[3] “EU’s von der Leyen has ‘good exchange’ on trade with Trump, as US threatens Brics group with extra 10% tariff – as it happened”, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2025/jul/07/donald-trump-threatens-10-tariff-brics-trade-war-deadline-deals-letters-business-live-news-updates, (Date of Access: 08.07.2025).
[4] “Japan, South Korea face 25% tariffs as Trump ramps up trade war in letters to leaders”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/eus-von-der-leyen-had-good-exchange-with-trump-over-phone-commission-says-2025-07-07/, (Date of Access: 08.07.2025).
[5] “Chinese premier calls for commitment to building open world economy”, CGTN, https://news.cgtn.com/news/2025-07-08/Chinese-premier-calls-for-commitment-to-building-open-world-economy-1EPJiKRfw5O/p.html, (Date of Access: 08.07.2025).
