It was quite a show: U.S. President Donald Trump announced his sweeping tariff policy flanked by whiteboards filled with figures and names. The first reactions varied: Mexico and most Latin American countries felt the blow wasn’t as bad as expected, while Europeans expressed astonishment at the “punishment” coming from a supposed ally. Analysts agree on one thing: this is just the beginning.
Reciprocal Tariffs, Universal Tariffs: Making Sense of It All
From the televised charts to actual figures, there’s a long road—and analysts are trying to gauge the scope of this shift in the foundations of global trade.
For Mexico and Canada, the worst-case scenarios didn’t materialize: the list of so-called “reciprocal” tariffs did not include the U.S.’s trade partners under the USMCA. In Mexico’s case, this means that products complying with the agreement will continue to face 0% tariffs, while non-compliant products will now be hit with a 25% tariff.
However, measures under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), targeting fentanyl and migration, remain in force, according to the White House. This leaves both Mexico and Canada exposed to further Trump sanctions. On top of that, sector-specific tariffs—on steel or automobiles, for instance—are still on the table.
So what does a “universal tariff” actually mean? For now, institutions like Barclays have made average estimates and suggest the new scheme amounts to a global 20% tariff—“the most extreme scenario the market had contemplated so far,” according to a report by Argentine firm Adcap.
Beyond Mexico, most Latin American countries have been hit with a reciprocal tariff of 10%. To put that in perspective, a country like Argentina had a 2.5% tariff rate before April 2. That’s now quadrupled.
Leonardo Chialva, portfolio manager and partner at Delphos Investment, breaks it down: “We can split this into two parts: a general 10% tariff for all countries, and extra tariffs for 60 so-called ‘abusive’ nations. The first seems to be a foundational move aimed at implementing a fiscal adjustment plan financed through a massive tax on all imports (with some exceptions). The second appears to be a negotiation tactic to ‘level the playing field’ in international trade.”
“Some analysts have suggested that the ‘extra’ tariffs were calculated using a simplistic formula: applying the ratio between the U.S. trade deficit with a given country and its total imports from that country. In other words, those exaggerated rates might not be based on any real analysis of tariffs or trade imbalances,” Chialva adds.
Waiting for a Reaction in Samarkand
Even geopolitics can have poetic moments. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was attending the EU–Central Asia summit in the fabled city of Samarkand, Uzbekistan—an event she referred to as “Liberation Day.” From there, she noted the EU would assess the impact of the new 20% tariffs and explore negotiation channels.
China, which faces a 34% “reciprocal” tariff on top of sector-specific ones, initially responded with restraint. As of press time, it had not announced any retaliatory measures.
Brazil, on the other hand, issued an official protest—despite some financial analysts seeing opportunities in the reshuffling of global trade.
In a joint statement, Brazil’s Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of Development, Industry, Trade and Services said the move “violates the United States’ commitments to the World Trade Organization and will impact all Brazilian goods exported to the U.S.”
The statement also questioned the U.S. justification of seeking “trade reciprocity.” According to U.S. government data cited in the same statement, the U.S. had a trade surplus of $28.6 billion with Brazil in 2024, when including both goods and services.
Liberation Day or Recession Day?
In the U.S., Trump’s policy is far from receiving unanimous support. Democrats went for an easy rhyme and dubbed the day “Recession Day.”
A special report by Argentine firm Adcap highlighted a key point: tariffs are taxes on imports. While historically a major source of U.S. government revenue, they now account for less than 3% of federal income. With his new package, Trump aims to raise up to $700 billion annually—almost nine times more than current tariffs generate.
Fernando Marengo, chief economist at BlackToro (a Miami-based RIA of Argentine origin), argued: “The notion that tariffs have significant revenue-generating power is misleading. U.S. imports represent less than 15% of GDP. Applying a 10% tariff across the board would yield only 1.5% of GDP. Some countries have higher tariff rates, but even so, the impact on the deficit would be minimal, because taxing imports affects both volume and prices, further reducing the real impact. Tariffs are a one-time adjustment—they change relative prices. They make imported goods more expensive compared to local goods, which discourages consumption and encourages domestic production. But the capacity to ramp up production in the short term is limited.”
Marengo concluded: “The U.S. is destined to run external deficits as long as the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency. Whenever the world needs liquidity, the only one who can provide it is the Fed. In return, the U.S. demands goods. That imbalance—between global demand for dollars and U.S. demand for goods—automatically creates a trade deficit.”
Opportunities in a Global Realignment
Some Mexican analysts view the tariff shock as a potential opportunity: reduced trade with the U.S. may open market space for others.
Latin American countries are turning their gaze to Asia. Brazilian equity chief Rodrigo Moliterno, of Veedha Investimentos, believes Brazil could benefit indirectly from the new U.S. measures. “Asian economies will likely look to Brazil as an alternative for trade or sourcing, instead of dealing with the U.S. under this new tariff regime,” he said.
