Why Donald Trump’s tariffs are failing to break global trade

In parts of America’s economy, the pain is real. Prices of durable goods, a category that includes appliances and cars, rose by over 3% at an annual rate in the second quarter of 2025, the fastest since the early 1990s (excluding the covid-19 pandemic). The price of toys, mostly from China, is growing at nearly 5%, a similarly unusual pace. All told, our estimates suggest that tariffs are adding around 0.3 percentage points to inflation. Employment has weakened, too, in tariff-exposed sectors such as manufacturing and retail; bosses blame higher costs and uncertainty. Consumer sentiment in September was a fifth below its level a year ago. Relative to a world without tariffs, America is worse off.

Yet six months on the full reckoning has not arrived. There is no runaway inflation. America’s economy grew by 3.8% at an annualised rate in the second quarter; the Atlanta branch of the Federal Reserve expects similar in the third. Consumers are spending, firms investing and the stockmarket booming. The outlook has also improved elsewhere. In September the OECD lifted its forecast for global growth to 3.2%, up from 2.9% three months earlier.

Why the good news? One reason is that tariffs have been gentler than advertised. In April America’s average rate was estimated to be near 30%; today the same models put it closer to 18%. Mr Trump threatened China with tariffs of 145% but by September was imposing levies at barely a third of that. South Korea’s fell from a promised 25% to 15%. Even Lesotho—a poor, landlocked country that sells mostly clothes to America—was somehow assigned a tariff of 50%, which was never applied. Lags in implementation have softened the blow. A Supreme Court ruling may block lots of Mr Trump’s tariffs: companies are awaiting more certainty before passing on higher costs to consumers.

Carve-outs have blunted the impact further still. Nearly half of America’s imports have been exempted from Mr Trump’s tariffs. Electronics such as smartphones and computers were spared entirely. Brazil’s rate of 50% includes nearly 700 exemptions, trimming it to 30% or so. Canada’s headline tariff of 35% is nearer 6% in practice, according to Scotiabank, a local lender, largely because goods qualifying under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) are exempt. Even sectoral levies are riddled with loopholes. Mr Trump’s new pharmaceutical tariffs, announced at 100% and due to take effect on October 1st, excluded generics (which make up 90% of drugs sold in America) and branded firms with investment plans in the country. That day he paused the measures altogether as talks began.

Even after carve-outs, the gap between tariffs on paper and tariffs in practice is striking. The Budget Lab at Yale estimates that America’s implied tariff rate, derived from customs data, is roughly half what it should be given current policy. Some of the gap reflects import “front-running”. Since duties rarely apply to goods in transit, firms rushed to stockpile over the summer, pushing imports to near-record highs.

Another part comes from rule-dodging. Economists assume “non-compliance” of 10-15%; Mr Trump’s complex rules seem to have increased it. The gap between what China reports exporting to America and what America records importing from China has risen, despite the end of the de minimis exemption for small parcels. Some firms may be under-invoicing. Whirlpool, an American appliance-maker, has alleged to regulators that its rivals cut declared customs values after the new duties took effect. Reclassification may also play a role. The share of Canadian exports deemed compliant under the USMCA has jumped, suggesting lots of relabelling.

Giving peace a chance

Most consequential has been what has not happened: retaliation. Economic models assumed tit-for-tat tariffs; instead, America’s trade partners have largely held fire. Few are big enough to inflict real pain on America by themselves, and there has been little co-ordination. That might be because America matters less than it once did. At the turn of the century, it accounted for a fifth of global imports; today, closer to an eighth. Brazil sends only 13% of its exports to America, down from 26% in the early 2000s. Even where dependence remains significant, as in South-East Asia, countries have little incentive to retaliate. Many face duties of around 20%, ensuring that few lose out relative to their neighbours.

Rather than retaliate, many countries are diversifying their trade. China, the main target of Mr Trump’s tariffs, has seen exports to America plunge—but overall trade has held up. From June to August the value of its shipments grew by 6% year on year, with sales to South-East Asia up by a fifth and to Europe by nearly a tenth. Textiles have flooded European markets, where imports of Chinese clothing and fabrics rose by about 20% in the first half of 2025 against a year earlier. Electronics are pouring into South-East Asia.

Mr Trump’s tariffs are also pushing others together. Canada has deepened ties with Mexico as the two prepare to renegotiate the USMCA with America next year. On September 23rd the EU signed a long-delayed deal with Indonesia, scrapping high duties on industrial goods; it is also nearing a pact with India. Many countries are edging closer to China. The Association of South-East Asian Nations has upgraded its agreement with the superpower. Chinese investment in Brazil surged by over 60% in the first half of the year, compared with the same period last year.

All of which raises a question: what has America gained? Tariff revenues have risen by $19bn a month from last year. Although that offsets the cost of Mr Trump’s recent tax cuts, America still has a large budget deficit. And Mr Trump plans to use much of the extra revenue to compensate losers, such as farmers, turning tariffs into a regressive tax. The trade deficit is widening, investment has yet to materialise and the manufacturing revival remains a mirage.

So far, American firms have absorbed most of the tariffs’ cost. Fat profit margins and inventories imported before the levies took effect have made a difference. But as these buffers diminish, prices will rise. The Budget Lab at Yale estimates that tariffs will reduce household incomes by about $2,400 a year. Since Mr Trump’s staggered roll-out spreads the increases over several quarters, what might have been a one-off shock risks becoming persistently higher inflation. With short-term inflation expectations already edging up, that could lead the Fed to keep interest rates higher than otherwise and, in time, hurt demand.

How other countries navigate America’s tariffs—and China’s industrial glut—will shape the next phase of global trade. Some are starting to erect barriers of their own. Mexico plans a duty of 50% on Chinese cars. The EU is preparing to join America and Canada in curbing cheap Chinese steel, by cutting import quotas and raising tariffs. In South-East Asia a flood of Chinese goods is prompting governments to weigh new safeguards.

Yet the logic of openness still exerts a pull. Small economies are banding together to keep trade flowing. New Zealand, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates have established the Future of Investment and Trade Partnership, a coalition of 14 countries. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a sprawling Asian pact that includes China, is exploring new members and deeper integration. The EU and members of the CPTPP, a Pacific trade pact including like-minded countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan and Mexico, may try to align their standards and expand co-operation. Even governments sceptical of globalisation, from India to Indonesia, speak of the need to defend trade. The liberal order may lack a leader, but it has not lost its disciples.

For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, finance and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.