Who is the winner of Trump's 15% tariffs? FT: China unexpectedly benefits, while European and Japanese allies are hit hard

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that President Trump’s multiple tariff measures implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded his authority. Trump then quickly resorted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to introduce a 15% global uniform tariff for 150 days, seen as a strong counterattack in response to judicial challenges. However, analysis shows that China and Brazil may actually become relatively beneficiaries, while long-term U.S. allies such as the European Union, Japan, and others face greater pressure.

U.S. Court Overturns Tariff Policy, Trump Reverts to the Trade Act of 1974 to Restart the Battle

A few days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, found that Trump’s large-scale tariff measures pushed forward under IEEPA lacked legal authorization, severely undermining the legitimacy of his economic policies during his second term.

In response to the ruling, Trump swiftly shifted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, announcing a temporary 15% tariff on nearly all imported goods as a 150-day measure. This section allows the executive branch to make short-term adjustments to tariffs under specific circumstances, but any extension still requires congressional approval. The new measure is expected to be implemented soon, adding another wave of uncertainty to global financial and capital markets.

(Did the court overturn Trump’s tariffs, and did the family of Commerce Secretary family secretly profit hundreds of millions of dollars through “tax rebate trading”?)

Unexpected Winners Under the One-Size-Fits-All Tariff Policy: China and Brazil Experience Reduced Pressure

The Financial Times (FT), citing independent trade monitoring organization Global Trade Alert (GTA), analyzed that after the implementation of the new system, some countries that previously faced higher punitive tariffs actually saw an average decrease in their tariff burdens. Among them, Brazil’s average tariff reduction was 13.6 percentage points, and China’s was about 7.1 percentage points, making them among the countries with the largest decreases.

Changes in Weighted Average Tariffs on Exports to the U.S.: The larger the number, the more overall tariff reduction

Analysis suggests that the uniform 15% tariff will formally expand the scope of taxation but will also weaken the previous benefits of targeted tariffs against specific countries. For China, the previously heavy tariffs have been “spread out” across all trading partners. Additionally, resource-exporting countries like Brazil may further benefit from restructuring global supply chains and changing trade flows, potentially expanding their exports of agricultural products and minerals.

Taiwan Slightly Benefits, While the EU, Japan, and the UK Face Impact

In contrast, traditional allies such as the EU, Japan, and the UK may face greater impacts. Some countries had previously negotiated lower tariffs or specific exemptions with the U.S., but under the uniform global tariff system, their rates will be forced upward.

GTA notes that Taiwan will be slightly advantaged by this policy; meanwhile, countries like the UK, Italy, Singapore, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea are experiencing an overall increase in tariff burdens. FT states that because these economies mainly export automobiles, machinery, precision manufacturing, and high-value-added products to the U.S., the uniform increase in import costs could substantially affect their corporate competitiveness.

Risks of Global Supply Chain Restructuring Rise, Trade Patterns Become More Complex

The report points out that comprehensive tariffs often lead to “trade diversion effects.” When U.S. market costs rise, exporting countries may shift to other markets or strengthen regional cooperation. China has actively expanded its trade networks in Asia and emerging markets in recent years; Brazil, on the other hand, has flexibility in adjusting its agricultural and bulk commodity exports.

Meanwhile, U.S. companies and consumers may bear the pressure of rising import costs. Industry groups such as the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) and the National Retail Federation (NRF) have called on the government to clarify whether to refund previously invalidated tariff revenues. Legal and political disputes continue to unfold.

In summary, Trump’s policy aims to demonstrate a tough stance politically, but economically, it triggers a new round of global supply chain reorganization and trade relationship rebalancing, potentially damaging alliances.

This article, “Who Are the Winners of Trump’s 15% Tariff? FT: China Unexpectedly Benefits, EU and Japan Allies Are Hit Hardest,” first appeared on Chain News ABMedia.