Debriefing This Month’s US Trade Policies

July 14th, 2025
Andrew Lu

In recent weeks, the United States has experienced a significant resurgence of tariff-based trade policies under the Trump administration. Tariffs—taxes imposed on imported goods—have long been used by governments as tools to protect domestic industries, address trade imbalances or pressure foreign nations into negotiation. While traditionally applied in more targeted or reciprocal ways, tariffs under the current administration have become the dominant instrument of US trade policy, often deployed across strategic, political, and economic lines.

According to Douglas Irwin, a trade historian at Dartmouth College, “Tariffs have historically served as a foundational element of US trade strategy, but what we are seeing now is an unprecedented scale and breadth of application.” In the past two weeks alone, the administration has announced or threatened tariffs on dozens of countries, with several major packages scheduled to take effect on August 1 if new agreements are not reached.

The most extensive of these announcements is the postponed “Liberation Day 2.0” initiative. Originally slated for July 9, the initiative involves reciprocal tariffs on a wide range of goods from numerous countries. Rates vary by sector, with up to 40% on copper and as high as 200% on certain pharmaceuticals, prompting widespread concern from multinational companies and trading partners. The delay—reportedly due to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s recommendation for further negotiation time—pushes implementation to August 1.

On July 9, President Trump announced a 35% tariff on Canadian imports, citing the alleged role of Canadian-origin goods and lax border controls in the ongoing fentanyl crisis. This marks an increase from the prior 25% tariff and has escalated tensions with one of the United States’ largest trading partners. While Canadian officials have pushed back on the linkage between trade and narcotics enforcement, the tariff is set to take effect unless alternative policy concessions are made.

That same day, the administration announced a 50% tariff on Brazilian imports in response to what it described as the “political persecution” of former president Jair Bolsonaro. While economic justifications were not emphasized, the scale of the tariff is substantial, with implications for US agriculture and commodity markets due to Brazil’s major role in global soy and meat exports.

On July 12, the US issued formal notices to both Mexico and the European Union, stating that unless new trade agreements are signed, a 30% tariff will be imposed starting August 1. These announcements have raised concerns within both governments and industries that have operated under long-standing free trade frameworks, such as the USMCA and various US–EU agreements.

The administration’s tariff expansion has not gone unnoticed by international institutions. The World Trade Organization has flagged potential compliance issues, while economic analysts warn of the possible ripple effects in commodity prices and supply chain costs. According to Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, he stated, “This round of tariffs departs significantly from standard trade retaliation frameworks and introduces considerable uncertainty into global commerce.”

In conclusion, tariffs have once again become the centerpiece of American trade policy. No longer are they merely a reaction to unfair practices, but a proactive tool to drive broader political and economic objectives. With August 1 fast approaching, the outcomes of these measures—and any diplomatic responses—will likely shape the direction of US global trade relations for years to come.

Extemp Analysis by: Ty Tan

The question is specific to marginalized communities, so be careful not to be too broad when answering this question.

Question: To what extent has Trump’s protectionist trade policies affected marginalized communities within the United States?

Background: I think the background is pretty straightforward since Trump’s trade policies are well understood. Your points will go into the nuance of these trade policies. Using the theory of the 3 sentences background, I think you should cover:

What are Trump’s protectionist trade policies
Marginalized communities fear of its effects
Warnings of these trade policies having an adverse impact of marginalized community

For an SOS - find stats on the amount of people threatened or something clear there. Or do something rhetorical.

Considering that marginalized communities were the ones that broke their back and died for this country, that Trump’s trade policies want to dig them a second grave, that we must ask… (not the best example, but just a rhetorical idea).

Answer: (Major or minor extent, and in this case I would say positive or negative to keep it simpler)

A: Major Extent, by destroying their livelihoods

Increasing Consumer Prices (obvious point)
Cutting Essential Services (Focus on here on the Indigenous communities - and proposed cuts to healthcare, tribal enterprises, etc that Trump has)
Generating Job Instability (Agriculture and Manufacturing layoffs)

Analysis + Concluding Thoughts

For a speech like this, it’s very easy to accidentally broaden toward all Americans, rather than focusing on just marginalized communities. To emphasize that focus, I’ll break down my second point.

P2: Generating Job Instability
A: Marginalized communities rely on careers in agriculture and manufacturing

B: Trump’s shotgun tariffs are kicking out illegal immigrant farmers + cutting manufacturing jobs in non-protected industries

C: Story of a marginalized person losing their job

The focus has to be clear, and possibly signposting the word marginalized or using clear examples of marginalized communities (Hispanics, Indigenous, or African-American) may be the most helpful.

Happy Extemping!