Video not playing? Watch here.
📢 Liberation Day 3.0? With the 1 August deadline looming, Trump has granted Mexico a 90-day reprieve, after a last-minute call with President Sheinbaum.
But don’t mistake this for a shift in policy. Only 8 countries out of 60+ have secured deals. Our Editor-in-Chief Deepesh Patel spoke to MARIA RAMOS at TRT World about the looming 1 August Trump tariff deadline, the geopolitical winners and losers in this new era of pressure-based trade policy, and what it all means for global supply chains, investment flows, and access to trade finance.
From FDI pledges and strategic exclusions to the end of de minimis and the risk of a liquidity squeeze, Deepesh discussed the uncertainty shaping global trade and why markets should pay closer attention.
Key Topics
- Global tariff tensions and shifting trade dynamics
- United States trade strategy and investment expectations
- Supply chain risk and economic interdependence
- The real cost of tariffs for businesses and households
- Changing global trade routes and market access
Key Insights
Tariff pressure is changing how countries negotiate
With tight deadlines and limited room to manoeuvre, many countries are agreeing to deals simply to keep trade flowing, even where long term commitments remain unclear.
Flexibility in trade policy is not applied evenly
Mexico’s extension reflects its deep integration with the US economy. Most other countries are unlikely to receive similar treatment, pointing to a more selective and strategic approach.
The true cost of tariffs is still uncertain
For now, manufacturers appear to be absorbing much of the cost. Over time, this is unlikely to hold, raising the question of when consumers will begin to feel the impact.
Businesses are being forced to rethink their markets
As access to the US becomes more difficult, companies are looking elsewhere. This is increasing competition in alternative markets and putting pressure on smaller firms in particular.
Expert Analysis
Deepesh Patel, Editor of Trade and Treasury Payments Magazine, describes the current US approach to trade as firmly pressure led. Tariffs and investment expectations are being used to bring countries to the negotiating table, often under significant time pressure. He points out that while a small number of countries have secured extensions or agreements, these are the exception rather than the rule. Decisions appear to be shaped as much by political and economic relationships as by formal policy. Many agreements, he suggests, are being made for practical rather than strategic reasons. Some countries are acting simply to avoid immediate disruption, while others rely on broadly worded commitments that allow room for interpretation later. There is also a strong sense that demonstrating willingness matters as much as delivering on specific targets. Patel also raises questions about foreign direct investment pledges. While the United States has a strong record of attracting commitments, these do not always translate into actual spending or new projects on the ground. On the economic side, the impact of tariffs remains difficult to pin down. Manufacturers may be carrying the burden for now, but that position is unlikely to be sustainable. If costs begin to pass through to consumers, the wider economic effect could become more visible. Finally, he highlights the growing strain on smaller businesses, particularly those reliant on e commerce. Changes such as the removal of de minimis thresholds are likely to limit access to the US market and reduce opportunities for smaller exporters.— Deepesh Patel
Key Findings
- Only a limited number of countries have reached agreements ahead of the tariff deadline
- Policy flexibility has been applied selectively rather than consistently
- Manufacturers are currently absorbing much of the tariff burden
- Tariffs are already having a measurable impact on household income
- Changes to trade rules are likely to disrupt smaller businesses and e commerce activity
Implications
- Global trade is likely to become more fragmented as businesses reduce reliance on the US market
- Cost pressures from tariffs may increasingly be passed on to consumers
- Smaller exporters and online retailers face growing barriers to entry
- Investment pledges may fall short of delivering meaningful economic impact
- Trade outcomes will be shaped as much by relationships as by formal agreements
Key Takeaways
- Tariffs are being used as a negotiating tool rather than purely for economic protection
- Many trade agreements are being made under pressure and uncertainty
- Close economic ties can influence whether countries receive flexibility
- The long term impact of tariffs depends on who ultimately absorbs the cost
- Businesses are adapting quickly as global trade patterns begin to shift
