With the re-inauguration of Donald Trump as the President of the United States of America (USA) in 2025, significant changes are taking place in the global trade order. On April 2, 2025, with the new tariffs signed at the White House, the US imposed a 10% floor tariff on all imports and higher tariffs on some countries.[1] This decision not only has economic repercussions, but also creates uncertainties in global financial markets and draws varying levels of reaction from the US’s traditional allies.
In Japan, this is defined as a “national crisis”, while the European Union (EU), China and Canada have developed various countermeasures.[2] This US approach to imports directly affects not only large economies like China but also Latin American countries. Countries such as Guyana, Venezuela and Nicaragua are subject to higher tariffs, while countries such as Brazil, Argentina and Chile face relatively lower rates.
Following criticism of the new tariffs in the first week of April, the US administration announced a 90-day suspension of these measures.[3] This temporary pause is seen as a step aimed at keeping negotiation channels open with some countries. However, it remains unclear whether the suspension applies equally to all countries. In particular, it is not clear whether there is an exception for tariffs on countries such as Venezuela, Guyana and Nicaragua. If the Trump administration fails to reach a new compromise after the deadline expires, it is possible that the tariffs will be directly imposed.
Guyana faces an additional 38% tariff.[4] This ratio cannot be explained solely by economic reciprocity, but rather stands out as a preference that should be evaluated within the framework of regional and geopolitical concerns. In recent years, Guyana has attracted attention with the discovery of new oil reserves on the Atlantic coast, attracting the growing interest of some major powers, particularly China. The Washington administration reads this trend as a balancing factor and creates a space for indirect intervention through its trade policy.
The additional tariff of 15% for Venezuela is considered as a commercial reflection of the long-standing diplomatic tension.[5] The Maduro administration’s managerial choices in domestic politics and its anti-US foreign policy have been met with direct economic sanctions and now trade tariffs. This practice has made the Venezuelan economy even more fragile and accelerated outward migration. Humanitarian mobilization, especially along the borders with Colombia and Brazil, shows that these decisions have not only economic, but also social and political consequences.
Nicaragua is subject to an 18% tariff.[6] Recently, there have been some controversies regarding democratic functioning in this country. The narrowing of the space for expression of the opposition and the developments in the framework of freedom of the press have attracted international attention. Washington is trying to address these internal dynamics not only through diplomatic means, but also through trade policies. The tariff imposed on Nicaragua is considered as a symbolic economic approach shaped by these developments.
On the other hand, countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Chile have limited tariffs of around 10%. These countries have stronger diplomatic relations with the US and are traditionally considered as trading partners. Mexico, in particular, is part of the production chain in the US automotive sector, which creates a special position for the country. Major South American economies such as Brazil and Argentina have developed interdependencies with the US on key exports such as agricultural products and minerals. This makes the imposition of high tariffs difficult and increases the risk of mutual damage.
Chile has long been integrated into the global economy through free trade agreements. Trade relations with the United States are based on a balance of mutual interests, and there is no harsh tariff policy against this country. Moreover, Chile’s political stability and institutional structure make it a predictable and cooperative partner in Washington’s eyes..
In addition to the direct economic consequences of tariff policies, they can also have regional and structural consequences. Countries exposed to high tariffs are in the process of reassessing their economic ties with the United States. This leads to rapprochement with alternative global actors such as China and Russia. Latin American countries, especially those seeking investments in energy, infrastructure and technology, see these new relations as an economic necessity. At the same time, trade difficulties and the acceleration of economic contraction deepen domestic problems such as unemployment and inflation, triggering migration flows from the region to the United States.
The Trump administration’s tariff-based foreign policy approach emphasizes the principle of “reciprocity”.[7] However, this approach is considered by many countries as an exercise of asymmetric power. The principle of reciprocity requires not only the imposition of taxes at similar rates, but also a functioning that is mutually beneficial and open to dialogue.
It would be beneficial for the US to apply this principle in a fair manner, especially in its relations with more economically fragile countries such as Latin America, in order to ensure mutual economic benefit. The imposition of tariffs in this way is interpreted as a kind of “new generation Monroe Doctrine”. As Washington seeks to reassert its influence in the region, it aims to increase its political leverage through economic pressure. In the long run, however, this approach could undermine the trust that countries in the region place in the United States. Trade is the basis not only for the movement of goods, but also for diplomatic cooperation. The use of reciprocal tariffs as a tool of threats can undermine this foundation.
Trade relations between Latin America and the US are multidimensional and not limited to the economy. New tariff regulations risk disconnecting countries in the region from global supply chains. In this context, it is important for Latin American countries to strengthen regional solidarity mechanisms, increase trade diversification, and look for new markets.
Developing cooperation opportunities with alternatives such as China, the EU and regional economic blocs can be effective in reducing external dependency. On the other hand, a more balanced approach between migration, security and economic policies would be a useful step for the US. A long-term regional strategy, taking into account the social and humanitarian consequences of tariff policies, could be a useful approach.
[1] Mason, Jeff, et al. “Trump Tariffs Sow Fears of Trade Wars, Recession and a $2,300 iPhone”, Reuters, www.reuters.com/world/trump-stokes-trade-war-world-reels-tariff-shock-2025-04-03/, (Accessed Date: 04.13.2025).
[2] Ibid.
[3] “Trump’s Tariff Guide: Which Ones Are Still In Effect After 90-Day Pause?” Newsweek, www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tariffs-reverse-pause-90-day-china-2057699, (Accessed Date: 04.13.2025).
[4] “Annex I.” The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Annex-I.pdf, (Accessed Date: 04.13.2025).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Mason, op.cit., (Accessed Date: 04.13.2025).
