In a move that signals a potential shake-up in global trade dynamics, former President Donald Trump announced that the United States will soon set its tariff rates for other nations, without waiting for international negotiations or multilateral agreements. “Trump says US to set tariff rates for other nations in weeks.” With that statement, a familiar yet fiercely debated trade philosophy is once again taking centre stage in American politics.
Speaking during a campaign rally in Ohio earlier this week, Trump laid out his intention to implement a new tariff regime, one that would “protect American jobs, punish cheaters, and finally put our country first.” The statement is closely aligned with the strategies of trade war that he used during the president’s first term, especially the infamous confrontation with China. But this time, Trump appears to be seeking a more comprehensive solution than a fundamental overhaul of how you in the U.S. determine tariffs across all sectors.
Unlike the traditional method of trade negotiations through organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) or bilateral talks with trade partners, Trump’s approach suggests a unilateral system where the U.S. would define tariff levels independently. “We will be deciding what’s fair,” he said. “Not some bureaucrats in Geneva or Beijing. The American worker will come first.”
The announcement comes at a time when global supply chains remain fragile following the COVID-19 pandemic, inflationary pressures continue to impact consumers worldwide, and geopolitical tensions are reshaping trade flows. If implemented, such a policy could mark one of the most significant departures from global trade norms in decades. Economists and trade experts are divided in their reactions. Many argue that the capacity to quickly adjust tariffs provides the U.S. greater leverage to defend key industries and to respond to unfair policies. Some warn that this decision could trigger retaliatory action, escalate trade wars, and even deter American exporters.
The fact is, this announcement could have the capacity to change not just U.S. trade policy but the entire global economy. “Trump says US to set tariff rates for other nations in weeks”,—but the implications of that promise are still being unravelled. Historically, U.S. trade policy has been shaped through extensive diplomacy and adherence to a rules-based international system. Agreements like NAFTA (now USMCA), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and countless bilateral treaties reflect this. Trump’s proposed shift toward a “unilateral tariff doctrine,” as some trade analysts are now calling it, would depart from these norms and place executive power at the centre of trade decisions.
In 2018, the Trump administration imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods, citing intellectual property theft and trade imbalances. The move ignited a trade war that lasted for years and caused ripples in global markets. While it led to a phase-one deal with China and some manufacturing reshoring, it also resulted in higher costs for American consumers and retaliatory tariffs on American farmers and manufacturers.
Fast forward to 2025, and Trump is now proposing a broader framework. According to advisors close to the campaign, the idea is to implement a “universal baseline tariff” on all imported goods—possibly in the range of 10%—which could then be adjusted higher or lower depending on the trading partner’s behaviour, such as currency manipulation, labour practices, or environmental standards.
The pitch is being sold as a win for American sovereignty. “We won’t beg for fair trade anymore,” Trump told supporters. “We’ll just enforce it ourselves.” But critics argue that this approach could backfire, leading to inflation, broken supply chains, and economic uncertainty, particularly for U.S. companies reliant on imported materials or components.
As anticipated, both local and foreign parties have responded quickly to the news. In a statement, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged prudence, pointing out that tariffs are levies that American consumers and companies pay. The statement stated that “any broad-based tariff policy must be carefully weighed against its economic costs and strategic benefits.”
Meanwhile, officials in the European Union and Asia are reportedly preparing contingency plans. A senior EU trade diplomat, speaking anonymously, told reporters, “We’ve seen this movie before. If the U.S. acts unilaterally, we will have to respond proportionally.” Some political analysts see this move as part of Trump’s broader campaign strategy to energize his base by reviving nationalist economic themes. The promise to control tariffs directly appeals to blue-collar workers and manufacturing-heavy states that have felt left behind by globalization. But will it work? That’s a more complex question.
While tariffs can provide short-term protection to domestic industries, they also risk long-term consequences like reduced competitiveness, trade retaliation, and decreased investor confidence. Even among conservatives, the proposal has sparked debate. Free-market advocates within the Republican Party worry that a sweeping tariff plan could veer too close to government intervention and distort market dynamics. Others believe it’s a necessary countermeasure to decades of unfair trade practices, particularly by countries with state-supported industries.
“Trump says US to set tariff rates for other nations in weeks”—and whether that materializes into policy depends largely on the political landscape in Washington. If Trump returns to the White House and Republicans regain control of Congress, the groundwork is being laid for an aggressive reshaping of trade policy.
At the same time, this announcement raises significant legal questions. Under current law, the executive branch does have some authority to impose tariffs, especially under national security provisions. However, sweeping changes to how tariffs are determined may require new legislation—something that could face pushback even from within Trump’s party, depending on how it’s framed.
For everyday Americans, the impact could be mixed. Consumers might see higher prices on imported goods ranging from electronics to clothing. On the other hand, domestic producers could benefit from reduced foreign competition, at least in the short term. The ripple effects on job creation, inflation, and economic growth will depend heavily on the scope and execution of the policy.
As with many Trump-era economic initiatives, the announcement is bold, polarizing, and disruptive by design. It’s a statement of intent that draws clear lines in the sand between economic nationalism and global cooperation. Whether it becomes a cornerstone of future U.S. trade policy or fades into campaign rhetoric will depend on the months ahead. One thing is certain: Trump’s trade policy is back in the headlines. And once again, the world is watching closely.