US Tariffs: the political use of misleading numbers

In essence, this method of calculation is profoundly misleading:

It is not, as is claimed, an analysis of the actual customs tariffs (nor of the non-tariff barriers), but rather a crude arithmetical operation with no economic sense whatsoever.

The reported procedure is as follows:

The United States’ bilateral trade deficit with country X is divided by the value of country X’s exports to the USA. The resulting figure is then presented as if it were the level of tariffs applied by that country to American products.

However, this approach is entirely arbitrary. A trade deficit is by no means synonymous with a trade barrier. It can result from numerous factors: economic structure, consumer preferences, exchange rates, relative productivity, etc. Attributing it directly to the existence of tariffs or trade obstacles is a brutal and misleading oversimplification. 

• South Korea does not impose a 50% tariff on U.S. exports; on the contrary, there is a trade agreement (KORUS FTA) that eliminates most barriers.
• The European Union, which according to the table imposes an improbable 39% tariff, actually has much lower average tariffs and maintains highly integrated trade with the USA.

The central point, implicit but evident, is the political use of these numbers: inflating the idea of “unfair” treatment to justify protectionist measures or nationalist rhetoric in trade policy. It is a classic rhetorical strategy that transforms a meaningless number into a powerful narrative lever (“they exploit us, so we must react”).

Analyzing the implications of this type of misinformation within the context of international trade law reveals a shift from a mere issue of misinformation or political rhetoric to a significant institutional malfunction in the utilization of economic data.

In detail:

1. Profoundly flawed calculation method Utilizing the ratio between the bilateral trade deficit and exports to the U.S. to derive an “effective tariff” is methodologically unacceptable. This approach:
   • Does not measure tariffs, which are explicitly public and notified to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
   • Nor does it assess non-tariff barriers, which require complex qualitative and quantitative analyses.
   It is a crude surrogate that ignores fundamental principles of international economics.
2. Data manipulation for political ends If official bodies have indeed produced or approved these tables, it could be considered an institutionalized form of distorted narrative, possibly intended to justify:
3. Legal implications Within the WTO framework:
   • Such arguments would not be acceptable in dispute settlement proceedings.
   • Each country has the right to defend its measures, but based on transparent and verifiable data, not numbers constructed ad hoc.
   • It could even pose an issue concerning Article X of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (transparency and publication of trade regulations) if a country begins to use such distorted numbers in its official reports.
4. Systemic consequences Such a casual and misleading use of data:
   • Undermines trust in official analytical tools.
   • Provides fertile ground for populist narratives (“everyone is exploiting us”).
   • Delegitimizes the rules-based multilateral system, precisely at a time when it is already in crisis.

Follow