What’s Happening with U.S. Reciprocal Tariffs?
In response to continued trade imbalances and long-standing discrepancies in foreign tariff treatment, the United States has expanded its reciprocal tariff strategy once again.
As of August 7, 2025, a revised Annex I under the Executive Order Further Modifying the Reciprocal Tariff Rates went into effect. This update significantly changes the duty landscape for importers, adjusting rates for dozens of countries and increasing the default reciprocal tariff rate from 10% to 15% for many.
The intention behind these measures is to encourage fairer access for U.S. goods abroad by matching or exceeding the tariffs those same countries impose on American exports.
Key Reciprocal Tariff Developments: Updated October 2025
-
Annex I Updated: The latest list of countries and their reciprocal tariff rates was formalized in late July and went into effect August 7.
-
Higher Rates for Over 60 Countries: Many countries previously at 10% are now at 15%, with others seeing larger increases.
-
China Tariff Delayed, Not Cancelled: The 34% tariff rate on goods from China, including Hong Kong and Macau, is set to take effect on November 10, 2025.
-
EU & Japan Trade Deals Reached: Agreements with both Japan and the European Union cap their effective reciprocal tariff rates at 15%, retroactive to August 7.
-
Exemptions Still Apply: Certain HTS codes remain exempt under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, specifically under U.S. note 2(v)(iii), Section XXII, Subchapter III.
Updated 2025 Reciprocal Tariff Tracker
We’ve compiled a comprehensive tracker showing:
-
Original April 2 baseline rates
-
Proposed increases (via White House communications)
-
Final confirmed Annex I rates (as of August 7)
-
Any negotiated or trade deal rates (e.g., EU, Japan)
| Country | Annex I Rate (April 2 List) | Proposed Rate (White House Letters) | Negotiated Rate (Trade Deal Announced) | Confirmed New Annex I Rate (Aug 7) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Afghanistan | — | — | — | 15% |
| Algeria | 30% | — | 30% | |
| Angola | 32% | — | — | 15% |
| Bangladesh | 37% | 35% | — | 20% |
| Bolivia | — | — | — | 15% |
| Bosnia & Herzegovina | 35% | 30% | — | 30% |
| Botswana | 37% | — | — | 15% |
| Brazil | — | 50% | — | 10% |
| Brunei | 24% | 25% | — | 25% |
| Cambodia | 49% | 36% | — | 19% |
| Cameroon | 11% | — | — | 15% |
| Canada | — | 35% | — | No (confirmed) |
| Chad | 13% | — | — | 15% |
| China* (incl. Hong Kong & Macau) | 34% | — | — | No (change yet) |
| Costa Rica | — | — | — | 15% |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 21% | — | — | 15% |
| Democratic Republic of the Congo | 11% | — | — | 15% |
| Ecuador | — | — | — | 15% |
| Equatorial Guinea | 13% | — | — | 15% |
| European Union** | 20% | 30% | 15% | 15%*** |
| Falkland Islands | 41% | — | — | 10% |
| Fiji | 32% | — | — | 15% |
| Ghana | — | — | — | 15% |
| Guyana | 38% | — | — | 15% |
| Iceland | — | — | — | 15% |
| India | 26% | 25% plus a penalty | — | 25% |
| Indonesia | 32% | 32% | 19% | 19% |
| Iraq | 39% | 30% | — | 35% |
| Israel | 17% | — | — | 15% |
| Japan | 24% | 25% | 15% | 15%*** |
| Jordan | 20% | — | — | 15% |
| Kazakhstan | 27% | 25% | — | 25% |
| Laos | 48% | 40% | — | 40% |
| Lesotho | 50% | — | — | 15% |
| Libya | 31% | 30% | — | 30% |
| Liechtenstein | 37% | — | — | 15% |
| Madagascar | 47% | — | — | 15% |
| Malawi | 17% | — | — | 15% |
| Malaysia | 24% | 25% | — | 19% |
| Mauritius | 40% | — | — | 15% |
| Mexico | — | 30% | — | No (change yet) |
| Moldova | 31% | 25% | — | 25% |
| Mozambique | 16% | — | — | 15% |
| Myanmar (Burma) | 44% | 40% | — | 40% |
| Namibia | 21% | — | — | 15% |
| Nauru | 30% | — | — | 15% |
| New Zealand | — | — | — | 15% |
| Nicaragua | 18% | — | — | 18% |
| Nigeria | 14% | — | — | 15% |
| North Macedonia | 33% | — | — | 15% |
| Norway | 15% | — | — | 15% |
| Pakistan | 29% | — | 19% | 19% |
| Papua New Guinea | — | — | — | 15% |
| Philippines | 17% | 20% | 19% | 19% |
| Serbia | 37% | 35% | — | 35% |
| South Africa | 30% | 30% | — | 30% |
| South Korea | 25% | 25% | 15% | 15% |
| Sri Lanka | 44% | 30% | — | 20% |
| Switzerland | 31% | — | — | 39% |
| Syria | 41% | — | — | 41% |
| Taiwan | 32% | — | 20% | 20% |
| Thailand | 36% | 36% | — | 19% |
| Trinidad and Tobago | — | — | — | 15% |
| Tunisia | 28% | 25% | — | 25% |
| Turkey | — | — | — | 15% |
| Uganda | — | — | — | 15% |
| United Kingdom | — | — | — | 10% |
| Vanuatu | 22% | — | — | 15% |
| Venezuela | 15% | — | — | 15% |
| Vietnam | 46% | — | 20% | 20% |
| Zambia | 17% | — | — | 15% |
| Zimbabwe | 18% | — | — | 15% |
* The higher rate for China (including HK & Macau) is scheduled to go into effect on November 10, 2025.
** European Union countries include Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta & Gozo, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden.
*** For the EU and Japan a negotiated rate of 15% applies, subject to the structure of duty + reciprocal tariff (for the EU: if the general duty is ≥ 15% then reciprocal is zero; else combined total = 15%).
Usage note: Importers sourcing goods from any of the listed countries should review their landed cost models, re‑evaluate their contracts, and check whether their HTSUS classifications may have specific exclusions or exemptions under the new structure. The baseline reciprocal rate for any country not listed in Annex I remains 10%.
Industry Reactions to Reciprocal Tariff & What to Watch
1. Supply Chain Diversification on the Rise
Many companies are reassessing sourcing strategies, especially in apparel, electronics, and industrial goods, where input costs are more sensitive. ASEAN countries are increasingly viewed as alternatives to China—but some of them are also facing tariff increases.
2. Pressure on Trade Negotiations
Some countries are seeking fast-tracked deals with the U.S. to avoid higher reciprocal rates. As seen with Japan and the EU, these agreements can mitigate the impact—but they’re often delayed and require complex negotiations.
3. Compliance & HTS Classification is Crucial
Given the nuances of product-level exemptions, having accurate HTS codes is more important than ever. Importers should review classification logic and consult brokers or trade attorneys where needed.
