Letters, Tariffs, BRICS: How America Is Making Trade Great (and Unpredictable) Again

U.S. President Donald Trump announced that on Monday, July 7, 2025, at noon Eastern Time, his administration would begin sending out a new series of so-called “tariff letters” — official notifications to trading partners about the introduction of additional duties on goods imported into the United States. According to Trump, these letters will include specific rates — starting at 10% and possibly rising to 50–70% — as well as the effective dates of the tariffs.

Originally, it was announced that the tariffs would take effect as early as July 9. However, as clarified by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, the actual implementation of the measures is postponed until August 1. This was reported by The Guardian, citing official statements from the president’s administration.

Thus, a situation of deliberate uncertainty is being created. The recipients of the letters — from the European Union to BRICS countries — receive warnings about upcoming tariffs, but the specific parameters of the new trade conditions remain vague until the end of July. Experts refer to this as “uncertainty management” as a method of foreign economic pressure, and the letters themselves as part of a personalized rather than institutional U.S. trade strategy.

Markets Under Pressure

The announcement of “tariff letters” immediately impacted global markets. Even before the exact rates and recipients of the new duties were known, investors began reducing risks: futures on major U.S. indexes fell, the dollar strengthened, and demand for commodities declined.

As The Wall Street Journal noted on Monday morning:

“Futures for the S&P 500 fell 0.4%, while Nasdaq futures declined 0.5%… The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note edged higher to 4.32% as investors braced for more hawkish trade moves.”

On Asian trading floors, Japan’s Nikkei closed down 0.3%, with similar declines recorded in South Korean and Chinese markets. European markets showed mixed dynamics: the FTSE 100 fell by 0.3%, while the DAX rose by the same amount. The broader Stoxx Europe 600 index remained virtually unchanged.

Particular attention was paid to commodities. Copper and aluminum prices dropped, reflecting industrial concerns about disruptions in supply chains and a potential increase in production costs. Analysts noted that pressure on industrial metals could intensify if tariffs affect components used in high-tech and heavy industry.

Currency markets also reacted. The most volatility was seen in the South African rand, which lost 1% following Trump’s remarks about the possibility of additional sanctions against countries cooperating with BRICS. As Reuters reported:

“The South African rand weakened 1% after Trump warned that nations aligning with BRICS could face additional tariffs.”

Negotiating Under Pressure: The EU Seeks Exemptions

One of the first blocks to come under potential threat was the European Union. According to The Washington Post, the Trump administration notified Brussels of possible tariffs of up to 50% on key European goods — from automobiles to mechanical equipment. In response, representatives of the European Commission initiated emergency talks with their American counterparts to conclude a “limited trade agreement” that could delay or mitigate the measures.

“Officials from the European Commission are in talks with their U.S. counterparts about a limited trade agreement to avoid harsh tariffs on EU goods,” writes The Washington Post.

In these negotiations, sources say, the EU is trying to minimize the damage without stepping outside the framework of the WTO. However, the United States is effectively acting outside institutional mechanisms. The new tariff letters are not rules agreed upon multilaterally, but unilateral acts of pressure directed at specific countries at specific moments. This approach changes the very nature of global trade — from a rules-based system to one of temporary arrangements made under threat and with unequal negotiating power.

Experts warn that this may lead to further fragmentation of global supply chains: companies will seek to localize production or redirect logistics to minimize the risk of sudden sanctions. Small and medium-sized exporters, lacking the resources to quickly adapt, are particularly vulnerable.

BRICS Responds: No Exceptions, No Consent

The tariff situation escalated further during the BRICS summit, held in early July in Rio de Janeiro. In his speech, President Trump declared that any country supporting so-called “anti-American BRICS policies” would automatically face additional sanctions — in the form of an extra 10% tariff, on top of the already announced measures.

“Countries supporting anti-American policies promoted by BRICS will face an additional 10% tariff. There will be no exceptions,” he stated in a comment published by Business Insider.

The phrase “anti-American policies” was left undefined, which allowed analysts to interpret it as a signal of potential pressure on a broad range of countries — from South Africa and Brazil to India and the UAE. Moreover, the very principle of tying tariffs to political statements was perceived as a departure from international norms.

In response, BRICS member states issued a joint statement condemning the U.S. actions as violating WTO principles and posing risks to the stability of global trade. This was reported by Reuters following the summit:

“Leaders of the BRICS group said the U.S. approach violates the principles of fair trade and risks global economic stability.”

Tensions grew even further as the scope of “anti-American actions” was seen to potentially include not only official rhetoric but also any moves toward using non-dollar settlements, strengthening BRICS economic cooperation, or participating in Chinese infrastructure initiatives. In this way, Washington’s policy is aimed not only at protecting its own markets, but also at constraining alternative centers of economic integration.

When a Tariff Becomes Diplomacy

The new wave of tariff activity from Washington signals a shift in the nature of economic policy: tariffs are no longer just a tool for protecting the domestic market, but a mechanism of geopolitical coercion. Sending a “tariff letter” becomes a way to express discontent, issue demands, or punish deviations from the expected line — even without the need for approval from international organizations.

This approach is drawing criticism from both U.S. trading partners and international observers. According to analysts, Trump’s tariff diplomacy represents a deliberate departure from the universalist logic of the World Trade Organization in favor of a transactional model in which each country must negotiate individually with Washington under pressure. This creates legal instability, deepens global economic fragmentation, and limits the ability to plan sustainably.

At a meeting with business leaders in Atlanta, as reported by The Guardian, Trump said bluntly:

“These are not just economic tools. These are power tools.”

That definition proved to be strikingly accurate: tariffs are no longer about rates, rules, and balances — they have become instruments of power, flexible, unilateral, and immediate. In such conditions, even America’s economic partners are forced to act as temporary allies rather than full participants in a stable trade system.

Thus, a tariff is no longer just a number on a document — it has become the political portrait of an era.