The tariff calculations used by the Trump administration to justify retaliatory tariffs on multiple countries, including Bangladesh, have come under scrutiny for their questionable methodology and lack of transparency.
According to reports, the administration’s “Tariffs Charged to the U.S.A.” calculation includes not just direct import duties on American goods but also factors in currency manipulation and trade barriers. However, critics argue that no clear explanation has been provided for how these elements have been incorporated into the figures.
One of the most controversial claims from the administration is that China imposes a 67% tariff on U.S. goods, while Vietnam imposes an even more staggering 90%. Experts and analysts find these figures highly dubious, pointing out that if such exorbitant tariffs were indeed in place, the U.S. would have strongly protested long ago.
Investigations reveal that these so-called tariff rates were derived using a misleading formula. The administration calculated the tariffs by dividing the U.S. trade deficit with a country by that country’s total exports to the U.S. and then converting it into a percentage.
For example, in 2024, Vietnam exported $136.6 billion worth of goods to the U.S. while importing only $13.1 billion, leading to a trade deficit of $123.5 billion. Instead of calculating actual tariff rates, the administration divided the trade deficit by Vietnam’s total exports and presented the result as a percentage:
(123.5/136.6) × 100 = 90.41% ≈ 90%
Similarly, for Bangladesh, where exports to the U.S. totaled $8.4 billion and imports stood at $2.2 billion, the trade deficit was $6.2 billion. The administration applied the same flawed calculation:
(6.2/8.4) × 100 = 73.81% ≈ 74%
Experts argue that this approach fundamentally misrepresents the nature of tariffs, as a trade deficit does not equate to an actual duty imposed on goods. Critics suggest that the real motive behind these inflated tariff figures is to justify retaliatory measures against exporting nations and exert pressure for trade concessions.
The controversy raises serious questions about the administration’s trade policies and whether they are genuinely aimed at reducing barriers for American goods or merely a strategic maneuver to extract more favorable trade terms from foreign partners. As global trade discussions continue, further scrutiny is expected regarding these unorthodox tariff calculations and their potential impact on international commerce.
