‘Extremely disappointing’: US trade partners respond to Trump’s new tariffs

What the report says

Al Jazeera reported that governments and trade groups reacted Friday to a new round of tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump’s administration, a day after Washington announced duties on goods from more than 80 countries. The rates range from 10 percent to 12.5 percent and were justified under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on the grounds that the targeted countries had not done enough to restrict imports made with forced labour.

Several US partners disputed that basis. Australia’s Trade Minister Don Farrell rejected any suggestion that Australia was linked to forced labour and said Canberra would keep pressing Washington to remove the duties. New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon described the move as extremely disappointing and said the US investigation had not shown meaningful evidence. Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara also objected, saying Japanese industry follows international norms, while noting Tokyo understood its overall tariff rate would stay within a previously agreed 15 percent ceiling.

Responses varied elsewhere. A UK government spokesperson said the announcement would not worsen export conditions for Britain, citing earlier US-UK arrangements and US recognition of British steps on supply-chain risks. The European Commission said the outcome appeared consistent with commitments in an earlier EU-US joint statement. China’s Foreign Ministry criticized the 12.5 percent levy and repeated Beijing’s opposition to unilateral tariff measures. In India, textile exporters warned that exemptions granted to some competitors, but not India, could shift sourcing orders away from Indian suppliers.

The latest action fits Trump’s broader tariff-focused trade policy, which he has framed as a way to strengthen US manufacturing and address perceived unfair trade relationships. Al Jazeera noted the measures arrived as a separate 10 percent global tariff reached its legal deadline, prompting renewed criticism over Washington’s use of trade law.