Trump's tariff table misrepresents Japan and Taiwan rates

Trump's tariff table misrepresents Japan and Taiwan rates

Where do the percentages attributed by the White House come from? Not from actual tariffs. Japan applies an average rate of 3.2% to the US, according to available data; Trump’s table assigns it 46%. Taiwan, with a 6.5% average for most-favored nations, appears as 64%. The European Union, with a weighted 10.89%, is also depicted with figures that do not withstand comparison. The conclusion is uncomfortable: the table does not measure tariffs, but something else.

The trick of turning trade deficits into tariffs

The formula reconstructed from trade data has nothing to do with the rates each country applies to US products. What was done was to take the bilateral trade deficit, divide it by imports, and apply the result as if it were a reciprocal tariff. When the figure was negative or below 10%, a minimum 10% was added. A simple rule, almost spreadsheet-like, that turns a trade balance into a tax.

The result is a table that mixes apples and oranges. In some cases, the maximum rate applied to specific products—tobacco, whiskey, vehicles—has been included as if it were the country’s general rate. Hence Japan appears with 46% when its real average is around 3.2%, or Taiwan jumps to 64% with a 6.5% average. The difference between one figure and the other is not a technical nuance: it is the difference between a trade policy and a narrative.

What hides behind the universal 10% floor

The 10% floor for all countries, even those with which the US has a surplus or minimal deficit, makes the measure look more like a general tax increase than a selective retaliation. Calculations shared in the analysis indicate that the US trade deficit, around $2 trillion and growing, is nowhere near covered by tariff revenue. The gross value of imports does not support such claims.

Some argue the real goal is not revenue, but forcing reindustrialization through import substitution. The problem is that this scheme is contradictory: if imports are substituted, fewer are imported, and if fewer are imported, less revenue is collected from tariffs. The equation does not close anywhere. The argument that the economy will grow enough to compensate clashes with basic federal budget arithmetic.

Market response and recession risk

Estimates circulating among major analysis firms have moved the global recession risk in the US from 40% to 60% in a matter of days. This is not a catastrophic prediction: it is an adjustment to a scenario recently considered unlikely. Tariffs raise input costs, pressure margins, and pass costs on to final consumers. Inflation, already high, has new fuel.

The effect on affected countries is asymmetric. For some, like Vietnam or India, the blow hits labor-intensive export sectors directly. For the EU, the impact is more diffuse but real, especially in automotive, machinery, and agri-food. And for the US, the cost is shared between companies seeing supply chains become more expensive and consumers paying more for the same goods.

The political pulse: protectionism, sects, and double standards

Defense of the measure relies on an old argument: protectionism as a negotiation tool. It is said that tariffs force others to lower theirs, and that temporary pain is worth it. The problem is that this argument requires ignoring that the EU already applies average rates much lower than those attributed to it, and that the published table does not distinguish between a real tariff and a trade deficit.

The discussion often drifts into labels: some accuse others of defending Trump out of ideological affinity, while the accused respond that critics are the same ones who applauded other interventionist policies. The result is an exchange where data matters less than trench warfare. Meanwhile, the fundamental question remains unanswered: if the goal was to pressure for lower tariffs, why does the table include figures that are not tariffs?

---

The table rests on a formula that converts deficits into taxes. Affected countries have already begun calculating their response. And in the US, supporters of the measure will have to explain why they call a trade balance a tariff.