Overview of Tariff Policies under the Second Trump Administration

Measures	Legal Basis (Note 1)	Target Country	Target Products	Tariff Rate	Effective Date	Response by Target Country
Additional tariffs to address inflows of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and illegal immigration (Note 2)	IEEPA	China	All products	20％	February 4(Note 3)	Filed a complaint with the WTO (DS633); Implemented retaliatory measures
		Canada	All products(Note 4)	25％	March 4	Filed a complaint with the WTO (DS634); Implemented retaliatory measures
		Mexico	All products(Note 5)	25％	March4	Indicated retaliatory tariffs, but still under negotiation
Additional tariffs on steel and aluminum (Note 6)	Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act	Global	Steel, aluminum, derivative products	25%	March 12	EU (Note 7): Retaliatory measures (Implemented after 90-day postponement) Canada: Implemented retaliatory measures; Filed a complaint with the WTO (DS635)
Additional tariffs on automobiles and automobile parts  (Note 8)	Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act	Global	Automobiles (Note 9), Automobile parts  (Note 10)	25% (Note 11)	April 3 (Automobiles); May 3 (Automobile parts)	Canada: Filed a complaint with the WTO (DS637); Implemented retaliatory measures Brazil: Indicated retaliatory tariffs and requested WTO consultations
Reciprocal tariffs  (Note 12)	IEEPA	Global (Note 13)	All products (Note 14)	10-50% (Note 15)	April 5 (10%); April 9 (Country-specific rates)	Mexico: Expected to forego retaliatory tariffs; France: Indicated freeze on investment in the United States China: Implemented retaliatory measures;  Requested WTO consultations  (DS638)

Note 1: For details on the legal basis for tariff imposition under US law, please refer to “Series: Trends and Responses of Trump 2.0 - Part (2): Legal Basis of Tariff Imposition.”
Note 2: All measures are imposed as additional tariffs, levied on top of existing tariff rates. Please refer to the links for the respective Executive Orders concerning China, Canada, and Mexico.
Note 3: Initially set at 10% as of February 4; subsequently revised to 20% pursuant to an Executive Order issued on March 4.
Note 4: For energy and related resources, a 10% tariff applies. Furthermore, from March 7 onward, products satisfying the USMCA rules of origin (ROO) are exempted from tariffs, while an additional 10% tariff is imposed on potassium not satisfying the USMCA ROO, as provided in the Executive Order.
Note 5: From March 7 onward, products satisfying the USMCA ROO are exempted from tariffs, while an additional 10% tariff is imposed on potassium not satisfying the USMCA ROO, as provided in the Executive Order. 
Note 6: Please refer to the link on presidential proclamations issued for steel and aluminum, respectively. Japan, which had previously enjoyed exemptions up to a certain quota, is now subject to an additional 25% tariff on steel, with additional product categories newly designated. The tariff on aluminum, previously set at 10%, has been raised to 25%.
Note 7: The EU claimed that the measure constituted a safeguard, while the US countered that it did not, asserting that it fell under the national security exception (under Article 21 of the GATT). 
Note 8: Please refer to the link for the presidential proclamation. 
On April 29, an Executive Order was issued with the aim of adjusting imports of automobiles and automobile parts into the United States, and such order provided that, for automobiles finally assembled in the United States, automobile manufacturers will be eligible to apply for an import adjustment offset amount equal to 3.75% of the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of such automobiles from April 3, 2025 through April 30, 2026, and 2.5% from May 1, 2026 through April 30, 2027. The percentage rates of “3.75%” and “2.5%” respectively reflect the total tariff that will be owed when a 25% tariff is applied to automobile parts accounting for 15% of an automobile’s MSRP value in the former case, and when a 25% tariff is applied to automobile parts accounting for 10% of an automobile’s MSRP value in the latter case, each corresponding to the total tariff amounts payable. However, in the case of an automobile assembled in the United States where, for example, 50% of its parts are imported from abroad, manufacturers will not be entitled to receive the offset benefits with respect to all such imported parts.
Note 9: On April 29, an Executive Order was issued to prevent the accumulation of certain overlapping tariffs. For example, items subject to additional tariffs on automobiles and automobile parts are not simultaneously subject to additional tariffs on steel and aluminum.
Note 10: Automobiles satisfying the USMCA ROO are taxed based on the vehicle price excluding the value of US-produced components.
Note 11: Automobile parts satisfying the USMCA ROO are excluded from additional tariffs until a process is established to apply such tariffs solely to non-US value added parts.
Note 12: Please refer to the link for the presidential proclamation. On April 9, an Executive Order suspended country-specific tariffs for 90 days (except with respect to China); only a 10%  universal tariff was to be imposed on all other countries.
Note 13: With respect to Canada and Mexico, no tariffs are imposed, while the additional tariffs related to synthetic drugs, etc. remain in effect. Once repealed, products not satisfying the USMCA ROO will be subject to a 12% tariff.
Note 14: This excludes steel, aluminum, automobiles, automobile parts, and certain products specifically identified in Annex II, such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and critical minerals subject to additional tariffs.
Note 15: The country-specific tariff rates are set out in Annex I. For Japan, the rate is 24%. For China, additional tariffs are imposed, including a 20% levy under measures related to synthetic drugs and illegal immigration, as well as additional tariffs on certain items, including lithium-ion batteries, in addition to tariffs maintained from the Biden administration. Accordingly, the final reciprocal tariff rate on China has been set at 125%.

As for the responses of individual countries, China immediately imposed retaliatory measures, adopting a hardline stance. Canada likewise implemented retaliatory measures and, with respect to (i) the additional tariffs triggered by synthetic drugs and related issues, (ii) the tariffs on steel and aluminum, and (iii) the tariffs on automobiles and automobile parts, submitted requests for consultations under the WTO dispute settlement procedure. (China also submitted requests for consultations concerning (i) the additional tariffs triggered by synthetic drugs and related issues, and (ii) the reciprocal tariffs.) Although the EU, France, and Mexico have indicated possible retaliatory measures, none have been implemented at this time. Most other countries, including Japan, are currently pressing for bilateral negotiations with the United States.

[Under Investigation]

Target Item	Legal Basis	Start Date	Remarks
Copper  (Note 15)	Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act	March 10	Report to be submitted within 270 days from February 25
Lumber  (Note 16)	Same as above	March 10	Report to be submitted within 270 days from March 1
Semiconductors (Note 17)	Same as above	April 1	Public comment deadline: May 7
Pharmaceuticals (Note 18)	Same as above	April 1	Public comment deadline: May 7
Critical minerals (Note 19)	Same as above	April 22	Public comment deadline: 21 days from notice
Trucks (Note 20)	Same as above	April 22	Public comment deadline: 21 days from notice

Note 15: An Executive Order directing the initiation of an investigation was issued, and the commencement of the investigation was published in the Federal Register.
Note 16: An Executive Order directing the initiation of an investigation was issued, and the commencement of the investigation was published in the Federal Register.
Note 17: The commencement of the investigation was published in the Federal Register.
Note 18: The commencement of the investigation was published in the Federal Register.
Note 19: An Executive Order directing the initiation of an investigation was issued, and the commencement of the investigation was published in the Federal Register.
Note 20: The commencement of the investigation was published in the Federal Register.

Ordinarily, investigations under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act require the Secretary of Commerce to report the investigation results and recommendations to the President within 270 days of initiation. However, with respect to critical minerals, an Executive Order mandates submission of the report within 180 days. In addition, regarding semiconductors, the Secretary of Commerce has suggested that tariffs could be imposed within one to two months, indicating that the investigation is expected to proceed on an expedited timetable.

 

Future Outlook

Compared with the EU and Canada, which have been subject to vehement criticism from President Trump, Japan had faced relatively few direct denunciations. Accordingly, the imposition of a 24% reciprocal tariff on Japan came as a profound shock. Although the application of country-specific reciprocal tariffs has been suspended for 90 days, tariffs have already been imposed on automobiles and steel, with tariffs on automobile parts scheduled to take effect on May 3, and a high likelihood remains that semiconductors will also be subjected to tariffs in the near future. Under these circumstances, it has become imperative to closely monitor the Trump administration’s future tariff policies, to assess their impact on Japan, and for affected companies to consider what countermeasures they can adopt. Moreover, with respect to whether the Japanese government will request WTO consultations against the United States, companies must also clarify their own position, including whether any valid grounds exist for refraining from such action.

As related developments, on April 21, the Korea Customs Service announced that it would strengthen enforcement against products falsely labeled as originating in South Korea being exported to the United States, and on April 22, the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Vietnam issued a directive aimed at tightening controls on transshipment to the United States and other destinations (i.e., circumvention through roundabout export). These measures reflect responses to the United States requests and serve to reinforce restrictions on transshipment of Chinese products.

The reason for this is that the basis for the imposition of tariffs is, in principle, the country of origin. Accordingly, in the case where Chinese products, which have been subjected to extraordinarily high tariff rates under a series of Executive Orders, are exported to the United States under falsified country-of-origin designations, the tariff rate applicable to the falsified country will be imposed. As a consequence, direct exports from China to the United States will decrease, and the “trade deficit” with China, which the Trump administration has deemed problematic, will correspondingly be reduced.

Amid these developments, reports have indicated that the Trump administration is closely scrutinizing the transshipment of Chinese products, while the Chinese government has declared that it “resolutely opposes any deal that sacrifices China’s interests.” Given that such sharp exchanges over transshipment are intensifying, it remains necessary to continue monitoring these developments on an ongoing basis.

*Disclaimer: The information above is current as of May 7, 2025. The content of this blog is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. Please note that the content may not reflect the most current legal or regulatory developments. Readers should not act or rely on any information in this blog without consulting qualified legal counsel. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. TMI Associates disclaims all liability for actions taken or not taken based on any content on this site.

Introduction of TMI’s Customs and Duties Team and International Trade Practice Group

At TMI, our team includes attorneys who have experienced secondments at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, as well as advisors formerly from the Ministry of Finance and other governmental agencies. These team members handle customs issues and other international trade matters. 

International trade law, which is grounded in intergovernmental agreements such as World Trade Organization (“WTO”) agreements, the Fair Trade Agreement (“FTA”), and the Economic Partnership Agreement (“EPA”), etc., directly affects the activities of private enterprises. In recent years, regulatory actions by the competent authorities have intensified not only in the United States but also across Asia, South America, and other regions, further heightening risks for globally active companies. 
Drawing on extensive experience across both domestic and international trade issues, TMI handles international trade matters both at the phase of using existing systems and of taking preventive measures.

(1) Cross-Border Practice

To minimize the adverse impacts of tariffs imposed by foreign authorities, there is a growing need to reassess production processes, tariff classifications, and countries of origin. This practice, known as “tariff engineering,” is an area in which our professionals - including former customs officials - work closely with our clients to develop tailored solutions.

In addition, if our clients become involved in investigations into anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties, safeguard measures, or involved in investigations under Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act, initiated by overseas authorities, or face other regulatory issues affecting trade or investment abroad, we leverage the resources of our own overseas offices as well as cooperation with foreign law firms to deliver the best advice possible. Where appropriate, we also support our clients in preparing and submitting opinions to the Japanese government in view of filing complaints against the WTO, thereby enabling our clients to raise challenges against foreign governments through the Japanese government.

(2) Domestic Practice

TMI also has extensive experience in the latest domestic practices, including advising the Japanese government in connection with international trade disputes, as well as conducting research on the application of Japanese trade laws and regulations. Our expertise further encompasses advising and representing domestic and international corporations, industry associations, and other entities, including providing filing application services for anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties, and safeguard measures on imports from foreign countries, as well as customs related services (tariff classifications, country-of-origin labeling, etc.). When necessary, our team works seamlessly with professionals across TMI in related areas such as antitrust and competition law, tax, and information and communications law to deliver integrated and comprehensive solutions.

For inquiries, please contact our team at: trade-customs(at)tmi.gr.jp (when entering the address, please replace “(at)” with “@”).

TMI Associates
Attorneys
Kazuhide Ueno, Ryoko Kondo, Shinichiro Ishihara, Shinya Sakuragi, Yu Tomii, Leo Yamada, Kotaro Kunii