According to the US Trade Representative, in 2024 the trade turnover with the EU amounted to 975 billion USD. At the same time, the US share in world trade is about 10%, and the EU's slightly less than 15%.
At the same time, everything regarding the conclusion of the trade agreement happened according to Trump's scenario, implemented in his direction., writes in an analytical material ag. TASS.
It is clear that America turned out to be the beneficiary. The dry numbers leave no doubt. Formally, tariffs on European goods were reduced from 30% to a moderate 15%. It seems to be a concession from the US, TASS commented. But this is a well-known Trump technique - to shock, then soften the demands and catch a calm partner in the negotiations. Most likely, Trump did not rely on the previously announced rate, but used it as a psychological trick.
Since he agreed, it means that he meant 15%.
This is how much of the amount of goods imported into the United States, American importers will pay into the budget (they pay the import duty). The volume of goods purchased in the European Union in 2024 amounted to $ 605 billion, which means that at a rate of 15%, the budget can theoretically count on $ 90 billion. But this is theoretical. For example, not all goods are subject to tariffs.
In addition, higher rates could increase revenues, but under such conditions, the volume of imports may decrease, and with it the inflow of funds to the budget. Businessmen engaged in purchases may also suffer, which is not good. They are, among other things, voters. The American consumer may lose European goods - and he is also a voter. It turns out that Trump did not give up, but calculated everything in advance.
And of course, he exempted from tariffs goods that are of strategic importance to the United States - without which the economy cannot fully develop. And this is the main point of the whole tariff mess. Aircraft parts, some agricultural products, semiconductor devices and some chemicals will be freely imported, the European Commission website says. Trump also took care of the investments that are the engine of economic development — according to him, the EU will invest 600 billion USD in the American economy.
And a real gift for oil and gas producers. Europeans are obliged to purchase black gold and liquefied natural gas worth 750 billion USD over 3 years. It is clear that oil is easy to sell, but additional guarantees are never superfluous.
The central unit of American industry, the military-industrial complex, was not left without attention. The amount of the upcoming expenses is not disclosed. However, according to the head of the White House, Europe will have to purchase “a huge amount“ of military equipment from Washington. Such purchases are consistent with stimulating the economy. After all, arms corporations will receive orders and expand production to meet them - not only their own, but also numerous related companies and suppliers.
However, the plot is overshadowed by the assessments of analysts and the testimony of practitioners - increased customs tariffs will be included in consumer prices, which will increase inflation. The phenomenon itself is unpleasant. But the Federal Reserve will not stand idly by and watch.
For the American regulator, inflation is a signal to raise or freeze the key interest rate, which in turn will slow down the development of production and investment. In other words, it will prevent the implementation of Trump's plan to make America great again.
If the United States gets everything and still loses only a little, then only Europe loses. Everything that was positive for Washington acquired a negative sign in Brussels.
The main thing that was the subject of debate was tariffs, and they do not directly affect European manufacturers. After all, import duties are paid by American buyers (importers). Although, of course, tariffs will play a negative role indirectly. Since duties will be transferred to domestic American prices, which means that products will become more expensive, they will be less willing to buy and the incentives to import them will weaken.
European automakers are already sounding the alarm. For example, the German Mercedes-Benz Group reported that according to the results of the first quarter, net profit fell by 43%, amounting to EUR 1.73 billion compared to EUR 3.03 billion for the same period in 2024.
The requirement to purchase oil and liquefied natural gas from the US will be a heavy burden on the economies of EU member states. After the unilateral refusal to use Russian energy resources, European countries are already barely able to pay their energy bills, and supplies from the United States will be even more difficult, since American products are more expensive.
Washington declares that tariffs can be avoided by moving production to American territory. For individual companies, this may be a way out. However, “Relocation“ is easy on paper. In reality, it means financial and organizational costs (which, of course, can still be overcome in the name of profit).
For the national economy, the relocation of production means net losses. Factories will close, GDP will receive less production, the budget will lose income, and workers will find themselves on the streets. And this is despite the fact that the current growth rate of the European Union economies is 1.6% - that is, it is equivalent to a depression. At the same time, almost all budgets are reduced to deficit.
Meanwhile, the head of the European Parliament's Trade Committee, German Social Democrat Bernd Lange, in a conversation with Reuters, said that the promised investments would be paid for by the EU's own industry.
Arms purchases will have a similar effect on the economy. While domestic investments in the military-industrial complex can be tolerated with many reservations, spending on foreign weapons is impossible to justify. In addition, it is worth considering that weapons are fundamentally different from imports of other products, because they are completely useless from a consumer point of view. Shells, cannons, machine guns are not consumed by ordinary people. In addition, they require additional costs associated with special maintenance and storage.
At the same time, the US demanded zero tariffs on its goods. For Europeans, this means an influx of foreign products that will compete with local production. And it is not a fact that local products will win.
Since everything is so bad, the question naturally arises: why did the Europeans not fight back? The words of the head of the EC, Ursula von der Leyen, that this is “the best possible option for the EU in the current situation“, are hardly suitable as an explanation. It is closer to the truth that the EU member states failed to develop a unified position. The union looks strong in good times, but as soon as the situation darkens, individual (national) interests come to the fore. Therefore, the countries could not even agree on a list of goods on which they could introduce retaliatory duties. Each participant in the negotiations was careful to ensure that the list did not include goods that were critical to their exports (this could anger the United States).
The Financial Times shares the same opinion: instead of following the example of Canada and China and taking retaliatory measures, the EU, hampered by disagreements between the participating countries, decided to compromise. The leader of the parliamentary faction of the French party “National Rally“ Marine Le Pen called the trade deal between the EU and the US a triple failure: “It is a political, economic and moral fiasco.“
Trump's tariff war, according to the forecasts of authoritative analysts and organizations, negatively affects the prospects for global development. The European-American agreement adds gloomy colors. American tariffs will rise after the agreement with the EU to a record level in a century - 16%. Thus, the increased US import duties pose risks to the global economy - its losses by 2027 could reach $2 trillion, Bloomberg estimated the prospects.
With their trade policy, Trump and his administration have effectively launched a global economic experiment that could lead to devastating results. “While the president's plan for global trade now looks like a political victory, the question of whether it will translate into an economic success remains much more controversial“, writes “The New York Times“.
The experiment is global, but its consequences are projected onto individual countries. And the United States is no exception. “The Guardian“ reports that the consequences of Trump's tariff policy are beginning to affect the country's manufacturing sector. According to the analysis, companies' production costs could increase by about 2-4.5% with all the negative consequences. Chris Bangert-Downs, a researcher at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, said that these seemingly insignificant changes in factories with small profit margins “could lead to wage stagnation, if not to layoffs and plant closures“.
Naturally, under such conditions Europe will not avoid difficulties. According to forecasts by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the decline in production across the European Union could reach 11%, with Germany bearing the greatest losses. Its production could fall by 15%. According to Wolfgang Niedermark, a member of the board of the Confederation of German Industry, “even a 15% tariff would have colossal negative consequences“.
The deal is also viewed negatively in France. There, the main concern is the future of producers of alcoholic beverages and cosmetics. Alcohol is not an insignificant thing for Paris: the country annually sells cognac and champagne to the United States for almost $11 billion (for comparison, in 2024 aircraft were sold for $14.6 billion, and organic and chemical compounds for $34.5 billion). In general, alcohol supplies to the United States account for a third of all French sales of these products abroad. Italy also supports Paris's initiative to exclude these drinks from Washington's 15% tariff.
„We want to completely abandon Russian fossil fuels, and therefore it would be very appropriate to purchase more affordable and high-quality liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States“, said von der Leyen, commenting on the agreement. Much to the disappointment of the head of the European Commission, hopes that with the help of American energy supplies it will be possible to completely abandon Russian oil and gas have practically no chance of being realized.
Only Ursula von der Leyen knows why overseas liquefied natural gas (LNG) is more affordable than a nearby and ready-to-ship product, but she does not share her knowledge.
It is known that overseas supplies will face infrastructure constraints. Most European countries depend on pipeline gas and have restrictions on receiving and processing liquefied natural gas. In addition, American gas is on average more expensive than Russian gas due to the high costs of liquefaction and transportation across the Atlantic. For example, in 2023, the average price of American liquefied natural gas (LNG) on the European market was 15-20% higher.
Finally: “Even if Europe wanted to increase imports, I don't see a mechanism by which the EU could force companies to buy more American energy“, said Matt Smith of the consulting company Kpler. According to him, this idea is “pure utopia“. “Companies are responsible to shareholders and are obliged to buy the cheapest raw materials“, he recalled in an article in the Financial Times. An argument from business practice that gives an unambiguous answer.