# Trump's Tariffs Near a Historic Peak, America Holds Its Breath > In early July 2026, a tracker maintained by American trade lawyers confirms what many had feared for months: the effective tariff rate - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Reportage - Published: 2026-07-06 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/les-tarifs-de-trump-frolent-un-sommet-historique-l-amerique-retient-son-souffle ## Introduction: an economic summer under high tension ### A number that unsettles In early **July 2026**, a **tracker** maintained by American trade lawyers confirms what many had feared for months: the **effective tariff rate** imposed by the **Trump** administration remains stuck near its historic highs. According to tracking published by **Baker Botts**, the average rate applied to American imports hovers around **11%**, a level not seen since **1943**. This is not a statistical footnote. It is the price paid by every American family, every business, every supply chain that depends on global trade. I look at these numbers and think about what they mean in practice: pricier grocery bills, costlier auto parts, longer delays. The **2026** version of the **trade war** is anything but abstract. It hits household budgets at the exact moment the **labor market** is showing signs of fatigue. ### Black Friday for jobs The same day the tariff tracker was released, another number sent a chill through Washington: only **57,000 jobs** created in **June 2026** in the United States, far below economists' expectations. The **unemployment rate** came in at **4.2%**, according to figures carried by **CNBC**. Two headlines, one story: an **American economy** starting to pay the bill for the **White House's** tariff choices. The coincidence is not trivial. When **tariffs** drive up input costs and hiring slows down at the same time, it becomes hard to claim everything is fine. **Reuters** noted that this hiring slowdown, combined with a drop in the labor-force participation rate, could reignite an internal **Federal Reserve** debate over the true state of the **labor market**. *I'll say it plainly: you can't applaud Trump's trade toughness one day and close your eyes to its collateral damage the next. Real political courage would mean admitting this strategy is costing ordinary workers dearly.* ## The mechanism behind the increase ### From economic emergency to fallback tariffs To understand where things stand, we need to go back to a pivotal court ruling: on **February 20, 2026**, the **Supreme Court** found Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (**IEEPA**) to justify his broadest tariffs to be illegal. Rather than backing down, the administration activated a fallback provision: **Section 122**, which allows for a temporary tariff floor to correct a trade imbalance. That floor, set at **10%** after briefly climbing to **15%**, applies to most imports. This measure has a precise expiration date: **July 24, 2026**, unless renewed by **Congress**. It is a political countdown as much as an economic one. If Congress doesn't act, part of the tariff structure legally collapses, forcing the administration to improvise all over again. ### China, a constant target The Chinese case perfectly illustrates the instability of this policy. The effective rate applied to Chinese imports currently hovers around **34%**, a blend of **Section 301** duties, **fentanyl**-related surtaxes, and reciprocal tariffs. That's far below the **145%** once brandished as a threat earlier in the year, a gap achieved after a deal struck in **November 2025** that brought the reciprocal tariff down to **10%**. But 34% remains enormous for any American importer dependent on **China**. This tariff yo-yo — threatening an astronomical number, then negotiating it down — has become this administration's signature move. The problem is that **businesses** cannot plan their investments on a political roller coaster. *This constant instability is not a brilliant negotiating strategy, it's a lack of vision. A company cannot build a supply chain on threats that change from month to month.* ## The European deal, a fragile lull ### What Brussels secured On **July 1, 2026**, a **trade agreement** between the **United States** and the **European Union** took effect. According to **Baker Botts's** tracker, most European goods exported to the United States will now face a **15%** tariff, while the EU removes its tariffs on American industrial products and offers preferential access for American seafood and agricultural products. It's a compromise, not a clean win for anyone. For European manufacturers, that 15% remains a heavy burden compared to the pre-2025 era. But in the current climate, where some trading partners face far higher tariffs, **Brussels** views this deal as the lesser evil, one that at least stabilizes transatlantic relations in the short term. ### The threat still looming Trump has not put away his arsenal, though. He recently threatened to impose a **100%** tariff on countries that maintain digital services taxes affecting American tech **companies**, a measure that, if carried out, could "crush" some existing trade agreements, in the very terms used in tracking analyses. This sword of Damocles hangs over several European and Asian countries that apply this kind of taxation. It's the perfect illustration of this administration's economic governance style: every signed agreement remains conditional, every diplomatic win can be put back in play by a tweet or an impulsive statement. *A trade agreement that can be scrapped on a whim isn't an agreement, it's a reprieve. America's partners deserve better than diplomacy with shifting rules.* ## The toll on public finances ### An unexpected fiscal windfall Paradoxically, this tariff policy is filling federal coffers. According to the **Congressional Budget Office** (**CBO**), **customs revenue** rose from **0.6%** of **GDP** in **2025** to a projected **1.3%** of GDP in **2026**. That's a dramatic jump that turns **tariffs** into a genuine fiscal tool, almost a disguised consumption tax. The catch is that this tax isn't paid by foreign governments, as Trump often claims, but largely by American **importers**, who pass the cost on to **consumers**. This is basic economics that the administration keeps dodging in its public messaging. ### Economists' diverging forecasts Major banks and forecasting firms remain split on where things go from here. **Deloitte** lays out two scenarios: either the average **tariff rate** drifts back down toward **5%** over the coming year, as **exemptions** multiply and courts strike down more measures, or it holds around **10%** through **2031** under a more pessimistic base case. This uncertainty itself is a drag on business investment. Meanwhile, the memory of the peak reached in **August 2025**, when the **OECD** estimated the effective American rate at **19.5%** — the highest level since **1933** — still looms large. Rates have come down since then, but we remain far from a return to trade normalcy. *Calling this a budget win ignores who's really signing the check: the average American consumer, every time they fill a grocery cart or buy a car.* ## The Federal Reserve caught in a bind ### Weak jobs, persistent inflation The **Fed** finds itself in an uncomfortable spot. On one hand, the hiring slowdown would argue for rate cuts to support the economy. On the other, **tariffs** keep fueling inflationary pressures that would instead call for a cautious monetary policy. The **Wall Street Journal** summed up the situation by noting that, for the Fed, jobs data is nearly taking a back seat to **inflation** concerns. It's a classic mini-stagflation dilemma: an economy slowing down while facing price pressures. Trump's tariffs bear direct responsibility for part of this inflationary pressure, by driving up the cost of imported goods. ### A labor market quietly eroding Beyond the 57,000 jobs figure, it's the underlying trend that worries. A drop in the labor-force participation rate suggests discouraged **workers** are simply leaving the **labor market** rather than continuing to look for a job. It's a silent alarm bell, less dramatic than a rising unemployment rate, but just as revealing of an underlying economic malaise. **Wall Street** analysts are starting to revise down their **growth** forecasts for the second half of **2026**, explicitly citing the cumulative effect of **tariffs** on business costs and consumer confidence. *A labor market fraying while we celebrate record customs revenue is exactly the kind of contradiction this administration refuses to face head-on.* ## Businesses caught in the crossfire ### The logistics of chaos For American **companies** importing components or finished goods, 2026 looks like a permanent exercise in crisis management. Every new tariff announcement forces a recalculation of margins, renegotiation with suppliers, sometimes a complete overhaul of a supply chain built over decades. **JPMorgan's** tracking of American tariffs points out just how much multinational companies now must build a factor of political uncertainty into their standard financial projections. Some major **companies** have started relocating part of their production to the United States to avoid tariffs, but that process takes years and costs enormous sums. Others, smaller ones, simply don't have the means to adapt that fast and absorb the costs by cutting margins or laying off workers. ### The consumer, the last link in the chain In the end, it is always the consumer who foots the bill. Prices for electronics, clothing, auto parts, and many everyday consumer goods have climbed through successive waves of tariffs. For an average American family, this pressure adds to already stubborn **inflation** in the housing and healthcare sectors. It's this lived reality, far from the trackers and triumphant **White House** press releases, that should be driving the public debate over American trade policy. *No one at the White House seems willing to say out loud what every serious economist knows: tariffs are a tax, and that tax is paid by Americans themselves.* ## The domestic political dimension ### A Congress under pressure The date of **July 24, 2026** is approaching, and with it the question of whether **Congress** will renew the **Section 122** provision that maintains the 10% tariff floor. This vote, or lack of one, will be a major political test for **Republican** lawmakers, torn between loyalty to Trump's agenda and growing constituent anxiety over the rising cost of living. Some **Republican** senators from agricultural states, hit particularly hard by trade retaliation from partners like **China**, are starting to voice their reservations publicly. It's a sign that the pro-tariff coalition could crack if the negative economic effects keep piling up before the **midterm elections**. ### Conflicts of interest in the background This erratic trade policy fits into a broader pattern of governance where economic decisions sometimes seem to reflect personal or political calculations rather than a coherent strategy. Tariff **exemptions** granted to certain **companies**, often after intense lobbying, fuel suspicions of favoritism within the administration itself. This kind of gray area, where the executive branch alone decides who gets an exemption and who doesn't, deserves far more rigorous scrutiny from **Congress** and the media. *A system where tariff exemptions get negotiated case by case behind closed doors is a wide-open door to conflicts of interest. That should alarm far more people than it currently does.* ## The contrast with the military posture ### When Trump knows how to be usefully firm To be fair: on the military front and within **NATO**, Trump's toughness has at times produced positive results for the Western posture, notably by pushing European allies to raise their defense spending in the face of the Russian threat. That is no small thing, at a time when **Russia** continues its offensive in **Ukraine** and **China** watches closely to see how solid the transatlantic alliance really is. But this useful toughness on the military front should not serve as an excuse to ignore the economic damage caused by an erratic domestic tariff policy. These are two separate issues, and intellectual honesty demands judging them independently. ### The price of incoherence The real problem is the overall incoherence of economic governance: an administration that knows how to be strategic and disciplined on international security matters, but manages its domestic trade policy like a series of improvised poker bluffs. This dichotomy ends up costing the presidency's overall credibility dearly. Financial markets, for their part, show no sentimentality: they react to every tariff announcement with volatility that betrays a structural lack of confidence in the predictability of American economic policy. *You can recognize a good military decision without closing your eyes to poor economic management. The two judgments aren't mutually exclusive, they complement each other.* ## The voices rising in protest ### Economists sound the alarm More and more economists, including some close to the business world traditionally friendly to **Republicans**, are starting to publicly question the long-term sustainability of this tariff strategy. Downward revisions to **growth** forecasts for the second half of 2026, cited by several major financial institutions, are not a minor detail in this context. This kind of growing consensus among experts, cutting across the usual partisan lines, should normally weigh far more heavily in public debate than the optimistic statements repeated by the **White House**. ### Workers, the great forgotten of the official narrative While policymakers debate percentages and tax revenue, American **workers** experience the consequences firsthand: scarcer jobs, a higher cost of living, widespread economic uncertainty. The figure of 57,000 jobs created in June, well below expectations, is not just an abstract statistic for families struggling to find stable work. It is this human reality, often absent from triumphant press releases, that should remain at the center of any honest assessment of this trade policy. *Behind every tariff percentage point, there's a family having to rebalance its budget. That gets forgotten far too often in these expert-driven debates.* ## What this sequence reveals about the Trump presidency ### Governing through calculated instability This July 2026 sequence perfectly illustrates this administration's mode of economic governance: announce dramatic measures, negotiate partial retreats presented as victories, then maintain enough tension to keep a permanent negotiating lever. It's a strategy that can work short-term in certain bilateral negotiations, but wears down the patience of markets and trading partners over the long run. Whether or not **Section 122** gets renewed on July 24 will be a pivotal moment determining whether this instability becomes permanent or whether a minimum of predictability returns to American trade policy. ### The verdict of economic history It's still too early to say whether this tariff policy will leave a positive or negative legacy in the economic history books. But current signals — a hiring slowdown, persistent inflationary pressure, chronic uncertainty for **businesses** — do not argue for a flattering short-term assessment. What is certain is that ordinary Americans are already paying the price of this economic experiment, long before historians render their verdict. *History may judge this policy with more nuance than I do today. But while we wait for that verdict, it's today's workers absorbing the shock.* ## The scenarios ahead ### Toward a gradual easing? The most optimistic scenario, championed by some **Deloitte** analysts, envisions a gradual decline of the average **tariff rate** toward 5% within a year, as more sectoral **exemptions** are granted and legal challenges continue to restrict the presidency's unilateral tariff powers. This scenario assumes a combination of legal pressure, political fatigue, and negative economic results visible enough to force a course correction. In that case, the deal with the **European Union** could serve as a template for other bilateral negotiations, gradually lowering the temperature of the global **trade war**. ### Or toward a prolonged stalemate? The alternative, more pessimistic scenario predicts the **tariff rate** holding around 10% through 2031, with regular flare-ups every time a new trade dispute erupts. In that context, the **American economy** would have to learn to live durably with this level of trade friction, which could weigh on long-term **growth** and on the international competitiveness of American **companies**. Whichever scenario plays out, one thing is certain: Trump's tariff policy will have profoundly and lastingly reshaped the rules of international trade for at least a generation of **companies** and policymakers. *Whatever the scenario, one thing won't change: the bill for this trade uncertainty will keep landing on consumers and small businesses, not on the large fortunes that know how to navigate the exemptions.* ## What the West must take away ### Toughness without coherence isn't enough This tariff story is not just an isolated American affair. It has direct repercussions for Western allies, especially the **European Union**, which must deal with an unpredictable trading partner while maintaining a united front against the genuine strategic threats posed by **China**, **Russia**, Iran, and North Korea. Western economic cohesion should not be weakened by internal tariff squabbles while the real adversaries watch and exploit every division. A strong **West** needs economically stable allies, not trading partners perpetually on the defensive against shifting tariff threats. ### The balance to strike Recognizing the value of a firm military posture against **Russia** or **China** does not preclude criticizing a poorly calibrated domestic trade policy. It is precisely this ability to judge each issue on its own merits, without partisan indulgence or reflexive opposition, that allows for an honest assessment of this presidency. Genuine Western leadership demands both strategic firmness against geopolitical adversaries and responsible domestic economic management that protects **workers** rather than exposing them to perpetual instability. *You can support a militarily strong West while demanding better economic governance at home. That's not a contradiction, it's simply intellectual rigor.* ## The White House's uncomfortable silence ### Messaging that avoids the hard questions What stands out most in this sequence is the absence of any official acknowledgment of the negative effects of this tariff policy on employment and purchasing power. **White House** statements keep celebrating record **customs revenue** without ever candidly addressing the question of who, ultimately, pays that bill. This strategic silence is unsurprising from an administration that has built much of its economic messaging on the simplistic notion that tariffs are paid by foreign countries rather than by American **importers** and **consumers**. ### The urgency of an honest debate Given this situation, it becomes urgent for the American public debate to include an honest discussion of the real costs of this trade policy, beyond slogans and selectively presented figures. Citizens deserve a transparent assessment of the economic trade-offs being made in their name. That transparency, unfortunately, does not appear to be the current priority of an administration more inclined to celebrate symbolic wins than to confront the complex nuances of its own economic policy. *A government that refuses to admit the trade-offs of its own economic policy treats its citizens as spectators rather than as informed partners.* ## The historical precedent that should raise alarm ### The lesson of the 1930s Economic historians often point to the **Smoot-Hawley** tariff of **1930**, widely considered a factor that worsened the **Great Depression** by triggering a spiral of international trade retaliation. The parallel isn't perfect, but the echo is troubling: an American **tariff rate** approaching that era's peaks should, at minimum, call for caution rather than celebration. Defenders of the current policy counter that the global economic context of **2026** has nothing to do with that of **1930**, thanks in part to more robust international financial institutions. That's true, but it doesn't make the gamble risk-free. ### Allies watching with concern Beyond the raw numbers, it's the trust of traditional American trading partners that is slowly eroding. **Canada**, **Japan**, **South Korea**, and several **Latin American** countries are watching this chronic tariff instability with growing concern, which is sometimes pushing them to diversify their trade partnerships toward other economic blocs, including at times toward **China** itself, a strategic irony for a **West** supposedly presenting a united front against Beijing. This may be the most underrated cost of this policy: pushing America's natural allies to seek trade alternatives elsewhere, potentially weakening Western economic cohesion at the very moment it should be at its strongest against genuine strategic rivals. *Weakening the trust of your own allies for the sake of a short-sighted tariff power play is handing China a strategic gift without even realizing it.* ## Conclusion: a bill that keeps growing ### The interim tally of July 2026 At the end of this sequence, the picture that emerges is one of an **American economy** torn between fiscal revenue artificially inflated by **tariffs** and a **labor market** showing tangible signs of fatigue. The effective **tariff rate** near 11%, the 57,000 jobs created in June, and the July 24 deadline for **Section 122** together paint a picture of persistent uncertainty that neither one-off bilateral deals nor triumphant press releases manage to fully dispel. This story is far from over. Every deadline, every court ruling, every **Congress** vote will add a new chapter to this narrative of a trade policy that continues to redefine the rules of the global economic game, with very real consequences for millions of American families. ### What remains to be watched In the weeks ahead, three elements deserve particular attention: **Congress's** decision on renewing **Section 122**, the evolution of negotiations with trading partners still without a formal deal, and the **Federal Reserve's** response to a **labor market** that could keep deteriorating. These three narrative threads will determine whether the summer of 2026 is remembered as a turning point or simply as one more chapter in an already lengthy tariff saga. What is certain is that this story deserves to be followed rigorously, without indulgence toward either political camp, always keeping in mind those who concretely pay the price every day. *I will keep following this story with the same standard: credit toughness when it strengthens the West, call out incoherence when it impoverishes its own citizens.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - Baker Botts — Trump Tariff Tracker, effective rate and EU agreement — July 2, 2026 - Reuters — Weak jobs, declining labor force could renew Fed debate — July 2, 2026 - Congressional Budget Office — Customs revenue projections 2025-2026 ### Secondary sources - Atlantic Council — Trump Tariff Tracker - Financial Times — Coverage of Trump's tariffs - JPMorgan — Analysis of American tariffs - CNBC — June 2026 jobs report — July 2, 2026 - Deloitte — American economic forecasts and tariff scenarios --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/les-tarifs-de-trump-frolent-un-sommet-historique-l-amerique-retient-son-souffle