Trump's tariff war will spare none, from advanced economies to Asia's developing countries

The world has witnessed a resurgence of protectionism since Donald Trump returned to the White House. So-called 'reciprocal' tariffs, imposed on all US trading partners at varying degrees based on the tax they charge on American goods, have been one of the hallmark features of Trump's economic policy. They aim to correct what he perceives as 'unfair' trade practices.
In early April, Trump said many countries had 'ripped us off left and right' and declared 'now it's our turn to do the ripping'. His administration swiftly imposed sweeping tariff increases, with some of the highest rates falling on poorer countries like Laos and Lesotho.
A 90-day suspension was eventually made for most of these tariffs, and Trump has now softened duties on imported cars and car parts. But the danger remains high. No one can be certain that the initial reciprocal tariffs will not be reinstated.
Developing countries, many of which rely heavily on the export of manufactured goods to the US, will be keeping a keen eye on what happens next.
We employed the Global Trade Analysis Project model to analyse the possible effects of US tariffs on trade and economic growth. The model captures interactions and feedback among economic agents (households, firms and governments), markets, sectors and regions in the world economy.
It can be used to forecast the effect of trade reforms on various indicators such as production, welfare, income, prices and trade flows. Based on certain assumptions, the changes are likely to be seen in between two and three years.
We used simulations to compute the effects of Trump's tariff regime under two alternative scenarios. In the first, which reflects the global trade situation at the time of writing, baseline tariffs are levied on all countries at 10%. The duties are 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico, and 145% on China. Retaliatory duties by China on US goods are set at 125%.
In the second, across-the-board reciprocal tariffs are imposed on countries at the levels Trump declared in his initial plan on April 2. This is in addition to the 145% tariff on Chinese goods, 25% on those from Canada and Mexico and a 125% duty by China on imports from the US.
Winners and losers
As shown by the graph below, our simulations suggest the US tariff regime will distort export patterns worldwide. The most painful effects will fall on China and the US itself.
Chinese exports would shrink by 10.8% in the first scenario and 10.9% in the second. The US would suffer an even larger loss of 11.7% and 14.9%, respectively.
The model suggests that other major US trading partners such as Canada and Mexico would also experience deep export declines of over 5% in both scenarios. Roughly 75% of Canada's exports head south towards the US.
Among the developing Asian economies, Nepal, Pakistan and the Philippines would experience substantial export declines. This is particularly the case in the second scenario, with losses ranging from 2% to 4.4%. These countries are particularly vulnerable to reciprocal tariffs because they rely heavily on exports and are deeply tied to global supply and production chains
Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Vietnam may benefit in the first scenario due to a possible diversion of trade. These countries, which are known for having some of the lowest labour costs in the world, offer cheap alternatives for goods that US importers would previously have sourced from China.
But they are expected to lose the majority of these benefits in the second scenario under a full reciprocal tariff regime. The exceptions are Cambodia and Indonesia, which our simulations suggest will retain positive export growth – albeit reduced to 1.6% from 4% for Cambodia and unchanged at 0.7% for Indonesia.
This may be because Cambodia and Indonesia have slightly more diversified export baskets than countries like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, and trade with more partners. However, these gains are likely to be short lived if global uncertainties continue.
Major advanced economies such as Japan, the UK and EU will lose exports by a moderate amount. And the Middle East, north Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America (excluding Brazil) will see similar declines.
The second graph presents a concerning picture of how trade disruption could affect GDP, which economists use to measure the size of a country's economy. The US and China are again set to suffer the steepest GDP losses, of 0.3% in the US and 1.9% in China under the second scenario. This confirms the well-established economic consensus that trade wars are mutually destructive.
Under the second scenario, most emerging and developing economies would suffer modest GDP declines between 0.3% and 1%. Thailand (1%), Malaysia (0.9%), Brazil (0.9%) and Vietnam (0.9%) are the worst hit countries in this category.
Like most of the developing countries in Asia, which are not directly involved in the trade war, many countries in Latin America, the Middle East, north Africa and sub-Saharan Africa would still face hits to their GDP. This underscores the global interconnectedness of trade and investment flows.
The simulations confirm what economists have been asserting for years: trade wars do not have winners. While some countries do benefit in the short term by way of trade diversion, the total losses are high and developing countries are not immune from the damage.
However, there are strategies developing countries can employ to improve their resilience to global trade disruptions. This includes diversifying their export markets by, for example, establishing stronger trade ties in regional blocs.
One example is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a free trade agreement between the Asia-Pacific nations of Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Such ties can be strengthened further.
Developing countries should also use this turbulent period to streamline customs, upgrade port infrastructure and improve logistics. This can reduce costs, enhance competitiveness and help developing economies engage more deeply in international trade.
No country is exempt from disruptions to global trade. But those with diversified economies, strong regional linkages and resilient trade infrastructure will weather the turbulence more successfully.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Mint

21 minutes ago

• Mint

Israel-Iran conflict effect? India ramps up crude oil imports from Russia, US in June 2025

India has increased its crude oil purchases from Russia and the United States in June 2025, as the import volumes from the two nations exceed the combined volumes from Middle Eastern suppliers amid the market volatility due to the Israel-Iran conflict, reported the news agency PTI. India's primary suppliers for crude oil in the Middle East are nations like Saudi Arabia and Iraq. This comes amid US President Donald Trump's announcement that America had carried out coordinated airstrikes targeting three nuclear facilities in Iran. Indian refiners are expected to import 2 million to 2.2 million barrels of crude oil per day in June 2025, marking the highest level of russian oil imports in the last two years, according to the agency report citing Kpler data. The crude oil imports from Russia were at 1.96 million barrels per day in May 2025. This expected hike in volumes is also set to beat the total volumes bought from Gulf nations like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait, as per the report. On the crude imports on the US front, Indian refiners' crude oil imports from the United States' also jumped to 4,39,000 barrels per day in June 2025, compared to their 2,80,000 barrels per day levels in the previous month. The data report also showed how the full-month projects from crude oil imports from the Middle East into India stood at 2 million barrels per day, lower than the May 2025 levels, according to the agency report. India started importing cheaper oil from Russia soon after the Russia-Ukraine war in February 2022 due to the higher discounted rates post the economic sanctions from the United States. India buys nearly 5.1 million barrels of crude oil, which is then refined to be converted into fossil fuels like petrol and diesel However, so far in the Israel-Iran conflict, there have been no crude oil supply cuts or disruptions in the oil trade, which can potentially drive up oil prices around the world. 'While supplies remain unaffected so far, vessel activity suggests a decline in crude loadings from the Middle East in the coming days,' Sumit Ritolia, Lead Research Analyst, Refining & Modeling at Kpler, told the news agency. 'Shipowners are hesitant to send empty tankers (ballasters) into the Gulf, with the number of such vessels dropping from 69 to just 40, and (Middle East and Gulf) MEG-bound signals from the Gulf of Oman halving,' he said. The global situation of uncertainty caused by the raging Israel-Iran war now risks Tehran retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz is a strategically important trade passage for global crude oil as the strait links the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea, and the Persian Gulf. According to multiple media reports, the Strait of Hormuz handles nearly a quarter of the world's oil trade. Hence, any potential move to close the passage will result in the escalation of the already raging war. Experts cited in media reports indicate that if there is an oil supply disruption, crude prices can jump to $400 per barrel. 'Yet, Kpler analysis assigns a very low probability to a full blockade, citing strong disincentives for Iran,' Ritolia told the news agency. The route serves as a major route for world oil and LNG export transit, and agency reports show that India imports nearly 40 per cent of all its crude oil and nearly 50 per cent of its gas imports from the Strait of Hormuz, which links to many Gulf nations. The Kpler data cited in the agency report also estimates that in case any disruption happens, it will result in 24 to 48 hours of isolation before major nations like the US step in to counter the retaliation. Meanwhile, the agency also highlighted that Russian oil imports are detached from Hormuz and are imported via the Suez Canal, Cape of Good Hope, or the Pacific Ocean. 'If conflict deepens or there is any short-term disruption in Hormuz, Russian barrels will rise in share, offering both physical availability and pricing relief. India may pivot harder toward the US, Nigeria, Angola, and Brazil, albeit at higher freight costs,' said the expert cited in the agency report. As of 19 June 2025, Russian crude oil accounted for 35 per cent of India's total crude imports. The Indian refiners are watching the geopolitical landscape and are likely to adjust procurement strategies to prioritise energy security, supply stability, and commercial viability if risks in the Middle East escalate, according to the agency report.

Time of India

22 minutes ago

• Time of India

Middle-East conflict: Chinese state media slams US strikes on Iran; says American bombs may not have been enough to destroy Iran's nukes

China's state media has condemned the United States' airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites, calling them a reckless escalation that pushes the region 'further toward the abyss'. The experts also said that America's bunker-buster bombs used in the strikes may not be sufficient to destroy Iran's deep hidden nuclear secrets. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The US military launched attacks on Iran's Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear facilities, early Sunday morning. US President Donald Trump said the military had carried out a 'very successful' attack on three nuclear sites. Media reports stated that B-2 stealth bombers were involved in the operation. While Beijing has not officially responded to the airstrikes, a flash editorial published in the state-run China Daily described the US action as a flagrant violation of international law. It warned that such unilateralism undermines the rules-based international order and sets a dangerous 'might-makes-right' precedent, PTI quoted. The editorial added that 'the strikes have only served to push the situation further toward the abyss'. Chinese experts also expressed doubts over the effectiveness of the operation, especially in fully destroying Iran's underground facilities. Fordo's nuclear facility is buried nearly 100 metres underground, making it hard to destroy with just one or two strikes, even with bunker-buster bombs, said Li Zixin, assistant research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, in an interview with the state-run Global Times. Military affairs expert Zhang Junshe shared a similar opinion. He said the first wave of US strikes may not have been sufficient to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities. For instance, the Fordo site sits 90 metres beneath solid rock, making it extremely hard to penetrate. Although Israel views it as a key target, it lacks the capability to carry out an effective strike. Zhang explained that the US uses B-2 bombers armed with 30,000-pound GBU-57 bunker busters, which are believed to be able to penetrate only about 65 metres. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He said that, in theory, two bombs used one after the other might be required—but this approach has never been publicly tested, so it's unclear how effective the first strike would actually be. Referring to the Iranian official's assertion to the BBC that Iran 'didn't suffer a major blow because the materials had already been taken out,' Zhang said, 'This further demonstrates the difficulty for the US military to completely destroy Iran's nuclear materials.' 'B-2 strategic bombers, armed with bunker-busting weapons, are far more powerful than the bombs and missiles carried by Israel's F-15, F-16, and F-35 fighter jets,' he added. 'Therefore, the damage inflicted by the US is undoubtedly far greater than what Israel could achieve. Against this backdrop, whether Iran's nuclear facilities can be preserved remains uncertain.' Li Zixin noted that this may not be the end of US action. 'In the coming days, the US may further escalate its attacks on key Iranian facilities,' he said. At the same time, he added, neither side wants the situation to spiral out of control. Therefore, US strikes are likely to remain limited in scope, focusing primarily on specific nuclear sites rather than launching large-scale attacks on Iran's other infrastructure.

Business Standard

22 minutes ago

• Business Standard

Putin has no plans to talk to Trump after US strikes on Iran: Kremlin

Russian President Vladimir Putin has no immediate plans to dial his US counterpart Donald Trump after the US bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities, the Kremlin said on Sunday. There are no such plans, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. However, he added that a call can be quickly arranged in case of need. His remarks came when asked about the possibility of a phone call between Trump and Putin after US strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities on Sunday. The US attacked Iran's Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites, aiming to destroy the country's nuclear programme. US President Donald Trump warned of additional strikes if Iran retaliates. Chair of Duma, Committee of Foreign Affairs, lawmaker Leonid Slutsky believes that from a military point, Trump's strike on Iran had no ground or justification. Trump has been dragged into the regime change scenario in Tehran just like in Iraq, Slutsky told reporters. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said that Iran will continue its nuclear programme because he believes the US strikes have not crippled its critical structure. What the Americans have achieved by hitting three sites in Iran? It seems the critical infrastructure of the nuclear cycle has not suffered at all or slightly, Medvedev, currently deputy chair of the National Security Council, wrote on his Telegram channel.