On July 7, U.S. President Trump announced that starting August 1, the United States will impose tariffs on imports from 14 countries.
What are the specified tariff rates this time?
Japan (24%), South Korea (25%), Kazakhstan (27%), Malaysia (24%), Tunisia (28%), Bosnia and Herzegovina (35%), South Africa (30%), Indonesia (32%), Bangladesh (37%), Serbia (37%), Cambodia (49%), Thailand (36%), Laos (48%), and Myanmar (44%).
On the July 6 broadcast of CNN’s State of the Union, U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent had already indicated: “For countries that failed to reach an agreement with the United States in time, the Trump administration will impose reciprocal tariffs from August 1, in accordance with the policy announced in April.” Judging from the newly specified rates, they do not differ significantly from the reciprocal tariff rates announced on April 2.
Therefore, following the passage of the Big Beautiful Act, Trump’s policy focus may temporarily shift back to tariffs and negotiations. The newly specified tariffs appear to be a pressure tactic aimed at countries that have not yet reached an agreement with the U.S., and still serve as a bargaining tool—effectively extending the negotiation window to August 1. The countries announced this time are likely the main focus of the negotiations. The letters stated: “We may adjust the content of this letter; the relevant tariff rates may be raised or lowered, depending on the relationship between our countries.”
The market reaction has also been relatively measured. U.S. equities declined, but the drop was milder than in April and did not indicate a full risk-off sentiment or broad-based sell-off—rather, the decline was more focused on stocks with significant tariff exposure. The Japanese yen and Korean won weakened but have partially recovered. Japan and South Korea’s stock markets both surged at the opening on July 8 and remained higher through the close, with local markets interpreting the move as an extension of negotiations.
As for the EU, no specific tariff rates have been announced yet, likely due to the current status of negotiations. According to Bloomberg earlier this month, the U.S. has proposed a deal with the EU to impose a 10% tariff, but with attached conditions; the EU has indicated it is willing to accept a general 10% tariff on various exports but is seeking exemptions for certain industries.
Therefore, Alaric, an author for the Vancisco website, believes the U.S. and the EU may soon reach a preliminary trade agreement to lock in a general 10% tariff rate while further negotiating attached conditions and sector-specific exemptions.
Relatively speaking, the earlier trade agreements concluded with the UK and Vietnam offer more instructive reference points. A credible tariff range appears to be roughly: around 10% for allied countries, around 20% for friendly countries, and around 40% for competitor countries. Recent developments in the EU negotiations align with this expectation. If the market prices tariffs outside this range, it could even create opportunities for reversal trades.
Regarding China, the negotiation deadline is August 12, and it may not be the main target of this round of tariffs. Based on the trajectory of tariff developments so far, the additional 40% tariff on products re-exported from Vietnam is broadly in line with the current average rate. This suggests that the future outlook for tariffs remains uncertain: there may be room to negotiate fentanyl-related tariffs, but parts of the reciprocal deferral may still face adjustments. The likelihood of downward revisions is relatively low, while upward adjustments remain possible. However, considering Trump’s broader constraints—judicial challenges, shelf price/inflation pressures, approval ratings, intraparty disagreements, pressure from multinational companies, and rare earth restrictions—there has been little change. As a result, any future tariff updates may still cause minor disturbances in the domestic market but are likely to be significantly less pronounced than in April.
Comparatively, expectations for a slowdown in actual export data persist, though there is debate about the degree, so further data confirmation is needed. High-frequency signals may become triggers for bond market and policy-related moves.
Key tariff-related points to watch next:
(1) Watch for the possible conclusion of a preliminary trade agreement between the U.S. and the EU in the near term;
(2) August 1 marks the extended negotiation deadline—continue to track updates on talks with major countries;
(3) There remains uncertainty about whether there will be another extension after August 1. If negotiations fall short of expectations, it is possible that tariffs will first be implemented to maintain pressure;
(4) The deadline for the suspension of tariffs on China is August 12—monitor related developments, including a new round of high-level economic and trade talks between China and the U.S. during this period;
(5) Between February and April, Trump restarted multiple Section 232 investigations. According to the normal process, results are expected in Q4, but remarks from Bessent and others suggest this round of measures could be announced earlier, in July–August. Section 232 tariffs targeting specific industries—including semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and critical minerals—could have substantial impact and should be closely monitored;
(6) Litigation over Trump’s IEEPA tariffs is still ongoing in appellate courts—follow related updates.