Updates: Two major developments in early May—a limited trade agreement with the United Kingdom and a tentative de-escalation framework with China—signal a potential softening of U.S. trade policy, particularly on tariff rates. While the administration’s broader strategy remains nominally unchanged, these moves could ease pressure on key industries and global supply chains in the near term.
The Trump administration announced on April 9 that it would pause many of its reciprocal tariff hikes for 90 days. The pause applies only to those countries that have not retaliated to U.S. tariffs with levies of their own. The 10% universal tariff on goods coming in to the U.S. remains in effect. The administration clarified on April 10 that tariffs on Chinese goods have been raised by a total of 145% since Trump took office.
From early in his campaign for a second term as president, Donald Trump made clear his intent to address what he views as long-standing trade imbalances by imposing tariffs on imports. A trade policy that began in February with new tariffs on select goods from Canada and Mexico entered a new phase last week with the announcement of a sweeping 10% global baseline tariff on imports and the introduction of reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries.
The goal, according to the administration, is to level the playing field by imposing the same tariffs on countries that levy high duties on U.S. goods. This week, the stakes climbed further when China announced retaliatory tariffs of 34% on a wide range of U.S. exports, triggering renewed fears of a prolonged trade war between the world’s two largest economies. As of Tuesday, China had not backed down—and in response, the Trump administration raised tariffs on Chinese imports to 104%, a record escalation in the ongoing standoff.
Tariffs have been a part of the U.S. economic landscape since the country’s founding, with early revenue for the federal government relying heavily on duties imposed on imported goods. Constitutionally, the authority to regulate trade and set tariffs belongs to Congress. However, over time, Congress has delegated broad authority to the executive branch through laws such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, allowing presidents to act unilaterally in the name of national security or economic interest. Trump relied on these authorities in his first term to impose tariffs on steel, aluminum and a range of Chinese products. The administration of President Joe Biden retained many of those tariffs while attempting to stabilize relations with key trading partners. Now, Trump’s second-term policies appear to double down on tariffs as a primary tool of U.S. trade strategy.
The effects of these escalating fees are already rippling across the country. For many states—especially those with large export-driven economies—the stakes are high. Midwestern and Southern agricultural states including Iowa, Nebraska and Georgia are bracing for the possibility of reduced foreign demand for soybeans, pork, poultry and other staples. Manufacturing-heavy states like Michigan, Indiana and South Carolina are also watching closely as imported components grow more expensive and foreign markets become harder to access. While supporters see the tariffs as a tool to bolster domestic industries and promote fairer trade, some businesses have raised concerns about rising input costs and increased uncertainty in globally integrated supply chains.
California and Illinois have both responded by taking steps to strengthen their own trade networks. California has reiterated its commitment to expanding trade ties with foreign partners, even as federal policy shifts. Illinois recently led a trade mission to Mexico to bolster cooperation on manufacturing and logistics. While not widespread, these efforts highlight how individual states are beginning to assert a more active role in international economic engagement.
John Mahoney is the associate director of NCSL’s Leaders and International Program.
Trade and Tariff Resources