The EU–US Trade Deal: A $750 billion commitment caught between supply security and climate strategy

On 27 July 2025, the European Union (EU) announced a trade deal with the United States (US), averting a potential 30% tariff escalation.[1] Failure to conclude negotiations risked a transatlantic economic relationship valued at $2 trillion annually, which is nearly 6% of global trade in goods and services.[2]  In addition to tariffs, there is also agreement on EU purchases of energy products, and to work together on economic security, access to critical energy and investment facilitation.  This blog examines some of the implications of this announcement, reflecting how it could shift the EU's key trade relationships in energy and influence its progress toward achieving climate goals. The terms of the deal The deal sets a 15% base tariff on most EU exports to the US, effectively halving the previously threatened tariff rate. The agreed 15% baseline tariff is understood to be applied on an inclusive basis and not as an additive layer to pre-existing rates. Both sides appear to have agreed on zero-for-zero tariffs for a number of strategic products. This includes all aircraft and component parts, certain chemicals, certain generics, semiconductor equipment, certain agricultural products, natural resources, and critical raw materials. Officials also confirmed that work will continue to [...]

By , |2025-08-12T15:52:38+01:0012 August 2025|Blog, International Trade|0 Comments
Read More

Chasing Windmills: Trump’s Brazil tariffs and the Latin American ‘backyard illusion’

On 30 July, President Trump issued an executive order raising tariffs on Brazilian goods by 40%, totalling 50% when added to the 10% baseline announced in April. Invoking emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act (NEA), the justification wasn’t an economic threat, but Brazil’s domestic legal actions, particularly Supreme Court measures against the spread of misinformation in social media platforms and the trial of former president Jair Bolsonaro, accused of undermining Brazilian democracy. This represents economic coercion, violating the principle of non-intervention, which prohibits interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states, and WTO rules. The blog focuses on how these trade tariffs are a tool to achieve geopolitical goals in the pursuit of hegemonic leadership. The executive order targeting Brazil breaches US obligations in the GATT: Article II:1(b), which binds it to agreed maximum tariff rates, and Article I:1 (most-favoured-nation treatment), which requires equal treatment of all WTO members. It doesn’t meet the requirements of a national security exception under Article XXI as interpreted by WTO jurisprudence. The measure also breaches Article 23 of the DSU, which prohibits unilateral trade retaliation. More than violating such commitments, the US administration is subverting [...]

By |2025-08-01T14:19:54+01:001 August 2025|Blog, UK - Non EU|0 Comments
Read More

The Long Game beyond tariffs

The global economy faces a roller-coaster ride every time Mr. Trump is in the White House. Last time, a focus on controlling China’s growing economic power meant that the rest of the world narrowly escaped the wrath of the United States executive, with some tariffs on some sectors. This time around, things are quite starkly different: it is difficult to even know who constitutes a friend or a foe. All trading partners are now threatened with high horizontal tariffs in the name of “reciprocity”. Adding to this list of unknowns is the uncertainty around non-tariff policies, the uncertain implementation of non-binding deals, and the nature of an elusive collective response. First, tariff and non-tariff policies. Trump appears focused on tariffs, using import tariff threats to secure various trade concessions and other commitments. Unsurprisingly, the prevailing vexation of the rest of the world is regarding the higher tariffs on their exports to the US. There will certainly be losers both in the US and its trading partners, due to the shocks of tariff hikes. The hope is for a predictable and stable trading environment to be restored soon. However, while we worry about tariff hikes and policy uncertainty, we should not [...]

By |2025-08-01T13:02:51+01:001 August 2025|Blog, International Trade, UK - Non EU|0 Comments
Read More

Trump’s trade deals: It’s not 1931, yet.

  The overall impact of Trump's actions may only represent a modest shock to the rest of the world, primarily because the US budget and trade balances are likely to widen due to the fiscal stance, which will boost US demand relative to output. However, there could be significantly different relative impacts on other countries. Ultimately, the final outcome will depend on whether the rest of the world magnifies or dampens these effects. The spate of recent “trade deals” done by the US does not stabilise the world trade system; rather, it creates ongoing uncertainty. It’s not like 1931 when the Smoot-Hawley tariffs dramatically increased tariffs on all suppliers across the board simultaneously as US aggregate demand was collapsing, sending a huge macro-economic shock across the world. The US was the world’s biggest importer, and other countries worsened the situation by raising protectionist barriers against one another, e.g. the UK Tariff Act of 1932. Even though the new Trump tariffs are nearly as high as those of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, the US accounts for only about 15% of world imports. At the same time, Trump is cutting taxes (on the rich) in a manner that is very likely to [...]

By |2025-08-01T13:03:23+01:0030 July 2025|Blog, International Trade, UK- EU|0 Comments
Read More

Stroking a bear to get half a sandwich

The UK and the US announced the first bilateral post-Reciprocal Tariffs deal on 8 May, named the 'U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal' (henceforth the US-UK EPD). The document published yesterday draws out the contours of this EPD, alongside some concrete initial proposals for reciprocal preferential market access for selected goods. Notwithstanding the negotiations starting immediately, this arrangement can be called off at any time, simply by the two parties giving each other written notice. Besides its symbolic and diplomatic relevance, what is the value of this emerging deal for the UK? This is not a Free Trade Agreement. At first glance, it looks like a quid-pro-quo “mini-deal” of limited economic relevance that the US strong-armed the UK into accepting under the threat of tariffs. The UK is getting some respite from Trump’s tariffs in the (important) car and the (strategic) steel and aluminium sectors, in exchange for lowering tariffs on some agricultural products such as ethanol and beef, the latter on a reciprocal basis. But a closer reading of the ‘General Terms document’ suggests that it is more than this, and a lot worse. First, as stated on page 1 of the text, the arrangement that the US and the UK [...]

By , , , , |2025-05-09T18:57:18+01:009 May 2025|Blog, International Trade|0 Comments
Read More

Bridge over the River Kwai or Road to Nowhere?

It is not often that there’s a genuinely new idea around in trade policy, but lo and behold, here’s one: a tariff on a service.  US President Trump is considering a 100% charge on films made abroad. Spielberg would call it a close encounter of the third kind. Although the charge would apply in principle to any foreign-made film, it could hit the UK film sector, part of its successful creative industries, particularly hard, turning it into the English Patient if the idea gained traction. But how could it even work? Since services are intangible and non-storable, suppliers and consumers of services somehow need to come together for a service to ‘change hands.’  Internationally, this can happen in a variety of ways. For instance, the service may be delivered digitally via the Internet, as indeed it would be the case for a movie or an architectural blueprint.  The consumer could travel abroad to enjoy a service (e.g. tourism), or firms could set up affiliates abroad to sell their services to local consumers (anyone who hasn’t done their groceries at Lidl or Aldi?).  Lastly, a service supplier who is a natural person, such as a movie director, could travel to another [...]

By |2025-05-07T15:58:32+01:007 May 2025|Blog, International Trade|0 Comments
Read More

A beginner’s guide to tariffs: Why are they harmful?

Trump is using tariffs as his main international economic policy tool and is providing two conflicting narratives on why he is using them. On the one hand, he suggests that raising tariffs is the key to making America wealthy again: the US government will supposedly raise trillions in tariff revenue, manufacturing production and jobs will move back to the US, and the US trade deficit will finally shrink. On the other hand, tariffs are an instrument to bring countries to the table and negotiate a deal.[1] Yet, of the two narratives, only one can stand. To bring back jobs and reduce the deficit, tariffs must be permanent. If they are a negotiating tool, they must be temporary. Leaving behind the motivations for the tariff increases, economists tend to disagree that raising tariffs will make America wealthier. Ever since the first round of tariffs on Canada and Mexico was announced, experts have warned about the negative consequences: prices for US consumers will increase, fewer products will be available, exports will fall, and economic activity (GDP) will contract. And this is just for the US. Since the US is a large market with the power to affect world demand and prices, the [...]

By , |2025-04-25T17:55:06+01:0025 April 2025|Blog, International Trade|0 Comments
Read More

The real Donald Trump: A free trader in protectionist clothing or vice versa?

This blog was originally published in 2018. We are republishing now because it is striking how much of its analysis and assessment of President Trump’s approach to trade and tariffs resonates today. Importantly, looking back in this way helps to give a longer run historical perspective on the Trump approach to trade policy, which may also help to shape thinking about the future, and responses to that future. Note from the author: In 2018, I described the tug-of-war between the mercantilist and Reaganite factions of the Republican party as the key to understanding the trade policy fluctuations of Trump's first term. This time around, the mercantilists have clearly won. The explicit tying of Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs to U.S. bilateral trade deficits, along with a baseline ten percent tariff, indicates that trade deals alone are not the goal. Trump wants to end trade deficits, pursue import substitution in manufacturing and bring back a 19th century tax system based on customs revenue. These are disastrous goals in themselves; moreover, nothing America's trading partners can do with their own trade policies can satisfy them. This is why the markets have melted down. Perhaps as the effects take hold in the real economy, Trump [...]

By |2025-04-09T14:53:12+01:009 April 2025|Blog, International Trade, UK - Non EU|0 Comments
Read More

Blinded by the light: The trouble with today’s trade policy

Trade policy is more difficult today that it was three months ago, and significantly more so than five years ago. The former is due to the actions of the new US administration, but the latter is a more complicated story that has dramatically changed trade policy across the world. Over the last 30 years or so trade policymakers have largely focused on efficiency gains - more open markets leading to better productivity and economic growth. This was more or less taken for granted, backed by considerable evidence. The distributional implications and broader concerns beyond economic growth have been seen as beyond the purview of trade policy, perhaps too easily. Once again, trade policy makers and analysts either took for granted that these issues were not so important in the trade context, or if they were, they would be dealt with by other areas of government policy. However, in today’s world even efficiency and equity considerations fail to adequately capture the concerns of trade policy. Unforeseen events – Covid-19, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, extreme weather, and semi foreseen events such as Trump tariffs – have underpinned increasing concerns about economic security, supply chain resilience and national security, and the threats [...]

By |2025-05-02T11:25:34+01:004 April 2025|Blog, International Trade|0 Comments
Read More

What’s wrong with the USTR analysis of worldwide protection?

The analysis by the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) that accompanies President Trump’s tariff announcement on 2 April is so profoundly wrong that one might (almost) feel sorry for the USTR staffers tasked with putting academic lipstick on a wayward pig. Their central argument is that one can measure how protectionist a country’s trade policies are by the size of its trade surplus in goods with the United States. Vietnam is judged to be highly protectionist because it exports to the USA much more than it imports. It is a relatively poor developing country with a competitive advantage in low-paying manufactures (such as clothing) which the US largely abandoned decades ago. It also has little appetite for the kinds of goods and services that the US exports. Vietnam’s trade with the US is not the result of protectionism. The EU, which retains a strong manufacturing sector in Germany, and has a significant surplus with the US, is judged to be more protectionist than the UK, whose competitive advantage is stronger in services. The reality is that despite Brexit, there is little difference between the trade policies of the UK and the EU. The USA runs a trade deficit [...]

By |2025-04-04T11:01:30+01:004 April 2025|Blog, International Trade|0 Comments
Read More

Our home

University of Sussex Logo

© 2024 UK Trade Policy Observatory

Site by: Phipps Design

Go to Top