Tariffs by Hand: How Trump Writes the Economy with Commas and Capital Letters

Letter with a Crest and a Warning

 

“Did he really format it like that?” the author turns the screen toward the interlocutor with disbelief.

 

On the monitor—a photo of a letter with the U.S. seal, bold signature, and an opening that feels both archaic and threatening: “Dear Mr. President…” This address, as it turns out, was meant for a woman—Chairwoman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Zeljka Cvijanovic. No one in the White House bothered to verify the head of state’s gender before sending an official letter with an economic ultimatum.

 

But that blunder is just the tip of the iceberg. Because the letter was signed by Donald Trump. And that meant one thing: the trade war was back. Only now—in the form of a series of personalized messages with threats, tariffs, and the possibility of “reconsidering relationships.” No fanfare, no press conferences, no Senate hearings. Just: “We will raise tariffs. Or you will concede.”

 

On Monday, July 7, 2025, the U.S. President launched a new phase of global economic confrontation. His campaign was styled as an epistolary blitzkrieg—fourteen letters to fourteen countries. The Japanese got 25%, the Bosnians—30%, Cambodians—36%. Laos and Myanmar got a record 40%. And the signature at the bottom repeated: “These tariffs may be modified, upward or downward, depending on our relationship with your country.”

 

The letters were accompanied by posts on Truth Social—no major press office could have devised a better media hook. Financial markets reacted instantly: the S&P 500 fell by 0.8%, Russell 2000—by 1.6%. Asian exchanges, on the contrary, were restrained—as if already accustomed to American unpredictability.

 

But in fact, something more was happening. It wasn’t just an attack on imports or merely an act of pressure on foreign trade. It was the return of Trump’s trademark model—a world where international agreements are replaced by personal will, and economic levers become an extension of the election campaign.

 

“You will never be disappointed in the United States of America”

 

What was inside these letters?

 

Formally—a notification. Unofficially—a threat. In practice—trade blackmail, formatted on official U.S. letterhead.

 

The text of the letters hardly differed from country to country. Virtually a copy-paste with varying percentages. Comparing the letters published on Truth Social and leaked in the media allows us to reconstruct the template:

 

“If you open your still-closed markets and remove all barriers, we might consider softening this letter.”

 

“Tariffs may be adjusted—upward or downward—depending on how well we get along with you.”

 

“You will never be disappointed in the United States of America.”

 

Capital letters, ominously vague formulations, promises and conditions—everything reads like a well-crafted televangelist sermon: grim, ambivalent, personalized. In the letter to Japan, it is specifically emphasized that if the country imposes retaliatory tariffs, America “will simply add their percentage to our already appointed 25%.” Trump leaves no room for negotiation—only capitulation or “personal reconsideration.”

 

But this is not diplomacy. It is a performance for voters masquerading as state policy. That’s evident not even from the tone of the letters, but from their dissemination platform. They were not sent via the State Department. They were published on the president’s social network as a manifesto.

 

Analysts speak of a return to “Trumponomics”—a method where trade becomes a form of moral pressure and a tool of foreign policy bargaining. Unlike in 2018, the letters now arrive not within the framework of a general trade dispute with China, but as personalized dossiers: Japan—25%, Serbia—35%, Bangladesh—35%, Laos—40%.

 

The formula is simple: those who disagree—get more. Those who try to retaliate—get double. And those who obediently accept American goods and yield—may earn a “review of this letter.”

 

Whom Did Trump Choose—and Why Them?

 

The list of countries that received letters seems at first glance like a random assortment. Asia, the Balkans, Africa, the Muslim world, authoritarian and democratic regimes. Here is the list with the assigned tariffs:

 

• Laos, Myanmar — 40%

 

• Thailand, Cambodia — 36%

 

• Bangladesh, Serbia — 35%

 

• Indonesia — 32%

 

• Bosnia and Herzegovina, South Africa — 30%

 

• Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Tunisia, Kazakhstan — 25%

 

On the surface—a geographical and political eclecticism. But dig deeper—and a strange logic emerges. Almost all these countries:

 

• actively export to the U.S. but are not part of formal trade alliances with Washington;

 

• have a negative trade balance with the U.S. (i.e., they sell more than they buy);

 

• lack symmetric leverage—military or economic;

 

• previously did not agree to Trump’s proposed “trade condition review.”

 

In simpler terms: either weak, dependent economies or allies without enough weight to respond symmetrically. For example, Laos and Cambodia are typical “silent” exporters unlikely to afford a trade confrontation. Indonesia is a major exporter to the U.S. (especially textiles and electronics) but lacks formal levers of pressure on Washington.

 

The Balkan pair—Bosnia and Serbia—stand out. Trade with them is minimal, but the symbolism matters. These letters, analysts believe, are not about economics but about demonstrating geopolitical reach: even on Europe’s fringes, the U.S. demands “balance,” and even nominal allies get slapped.

 

One Brussels interlocutor called it a “reconnaissance by fire”: Trump is testing who will fold and who will flip him off. And he’s doing it remotely, publicly, for maximum media impact.

 

“That’s the trump card for Trump,” the interlocutor quips with a dark smirk, clearly enjoying the pun.

 

Responses Without Emotion, Markets Without Illusions

 

Despite the harsh tone of the letters, most countries’ reactions were deliberately diplomatic. Anything else would be inappropriate: billions of dollars, jobs, and access to the largest consumer market on the planet are at stake.

 

Japan

 

Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba called Trump’s decision “truly regrettable”—a phrase that in Japanese diplomacy hits like a table slam. Still, Ishiba made clear: Tokyo will continue talks for a mutually beneficial deal.

 

South Korea

 

The Ministry of Trade stated it would intensify negotiations before August 1 to “reduce uncertainty.” In political language—that signals readiness to compromise, without a humiliating bow.

 

Malaysia

 

The Ministry of Investment confirmed its willingness for a “balanced and comprehensive agreement”—translation: we’re ready to negotiate, but not kneel.

 

What Are the Markets Doing?

 

The U.S. stock market reacted instantly: the Dow Jones fell by over 500 points, the Nasdaq—almost 1%. Not a crash, but a clear signal of alarm. Investors understood: this isn’t just campaign noise but a real move to disrupt supply chains and raise import prices.

 

In Asia, the reaction was different. The Nikkei rose by 0.2%, KOSPI—1.4%, Hang Seng—0.8%. Why? Because local players either don’t believe Trump’s toughness or have learned to price in his threats like a seasonal factor—like monsoon season.

 

On the Diplomatic Front

 

As of July 8, only three deals are confirmed: with the UK, China, and Vietnam. The rest are pending. Washington promises “several agreements within 48 hours,” but so far—just words.

 

Amid the threats and percentages, American media revived Trump’s old trade war nickname: TACO—Trump Always Chickens Out. And indeed, even before the big letters, only three countries had reached deals. Others remain on hold, markets are anxious, and Trump is already promising to sign “90 great trade deals in 90 days.”

 

Agreements with the UK were discussed in the article “The Washington Pendulum: From Markets to Peace Initiatives,” and with China—in this one: “Trade Truce in London: China Lifts Rare Earth Restrictions, US Eases Some Tech Sanctions.”

 

Meanwhile, the EU and UN are watching closely: could this be the start of a new era—not just of protectionism, but open economic domination through humiliation?

 

Notably, in Cambodia’s case, the rate was reduced from 49% to 36%—suggesting either negotiations had started before the letters went out, or Trump is showing “generosity” where he expects quick capitulation.

 

Letters as Ultimatums: Trump’s Prose and Its Diplomatic Cryptography

 

On the surface—typical diplomatic messages: official titles, date, signature, even “Her Excellency” where appropriate. But beneath that facade—a different tune. These letters resemble not state-to-state communication, but a textbook on trade aggression in polite wrapping.

 

1. Repetitive Structure

 

All the letters, as far as the author could reconstruct, follow the same template. It resembles a standard commercial ultimatum:

 

• opening with “recognition of partnership”;

 

• stating a “disbalance”;

 

• announcing tariffs;

 

• threatening “reciprocal” response;

 

• and a final passage about the possibility of “reconsideration” in case of concessions.

 

In the letter addressed to leaders of Japan and South Korea, Trump writes:

 

“If you want to open previously closed markets to the U.S., eliminate your tariff and non-tariff barriers, we may consider reviewing this letter.”

 

And then—a direct threat:

 

“If you suddenly raise your tariffs—no matter by how much—we’ll simply add that figure to our 25%.”

 

This wording is like the rules of a card game where one side has already appointed itself rule-maker and winner.

 

However, for countries with 25% tariffs, there’s an added message: “These tariffs are already lower than warranted by the real magnitude of the trade imbalance.”

 

Thus, even 25% is presented not as goodwill but as generosity that can quickly be withdrawn. That heightens the blackmail effect—the recipient must not only concede but also be grateful that they’re “only” charged less—for now.

 

2. Political Style: Capital Letters, Appeals to “Fairness”

 

Trump uses his signature tricks in these letters:

 

• Capitalized words like “TRADE,” “TARIFFS,” “RELATIONSHIP”—highlighting what he sees as important.

 

• Constant appeals to fairness, as if the U.S. is the wronged party rather than an economic giant:

 

“These Tariffs may be modified, upward or downward, depending on our relationship with your Country.”

 

The phrase “depending on our relationship” is almost blackmail translated into bureaucratic language.

 

The word “depending” sounds soft. But it holds the essence of control: the decision is made unilaterally, regardless of objective circumstances. It’s reminiscent of classic mafia rhetoric:

 

“Good relations with us—are in your best interest.”

 

3. Individual Errors and Symbolic Details

 

In the letter to the Chairwoman of the Bosnian Presidency, Zeljka Cvijanovic, Trump made a mistake, addressing her as “Dear Mr. President”—although the line above correctly stated “Her Excellency.” The letter was later corrected.

 

Such blunders suggest the letters were written hastily, possibly with automated insertion of names and titles. But their publication on Truth Social with Trump’s personal signature turns them into a symbol of sloppy but deliberate diplomacy: it’s not tone that matters—it’s the message.

 

4. Signature and Ending: Almost Like a Slogan

 

The letters end pathetically:

 

“You will never be disappointed with The United States of America.”

 

It’s not just a closing phrase. It’s a marketing slogan, crafted for effect. Diplomats will see narcissism and aggressive confidence. Trump voters—a recognizable brand.

 

These letters have heavy handwriting and light content. They have everything—except diplomacy. The addresses are mixed up, the wording shouts, the threats are wrapped in “maybe.” These are not documents. These are flyers.

 

There’s no nuance, no shame, no doubt. Only the belief that if you bang with tariffs loudly enough—they’ll open the door.

 

And if no one replies to your letter—no problem. What matters is that voters saw it.

 

Sources and Publications Used

 

This article was prepared based on the analysis of official letters published on the Truth Social platform, as well as reports and leaks recorded in the following English-language (and other) outlets:

 

• Reuters, July 8, 2025 (full text of the letters and government responses);

 

• Time, July 7, 2025: As Tariff Deadline Looms, What to Know About Trump’s Trade Deals — an overview of the pause, 90-day deal targets, and the status of agreements with various countries;

 

• Al Jazeera, July 7, 2025 (confirmation of tariff rates and format of the dispatch);

 

• NDTV, July 8, 2025 (details on the countries, deadlines, and Asian reactions);

 

• Politico, July 8, 2025 (overview of campaign strategy and “personalized diplomacy”);

 

• Radio Free Europe / Radio Slobodna Evropa, July 7, 2025 (full text of the letter to Bosnia and Cvijanović);

 

• Axios, July 7, 2025: description of Trump’s letters and formulations, including “These tariffs may be modified…”;

 

• Wall Street Journal , July 7, 2025: postponement of the tariff deadline to August 1 and details on the threats;

 

• The Daily Beast , July 8, 2025: typo “Dear Mr. President” in Trump’s letter to the Chairwoman of the Bosnian Presidency;

 

• The Guardian, July 7, 2025 (live blog): detailed list of countries and tariff rates, including the maximum 40%, and postponement of the deadline to August 1;

 

• The Guardian, July 6–7, 2025: clarification on the tariff deadline shift and geopolitical context of the threats;

 

• The Guardian, July 8, 2025: analytical article on why Asian countries were specifically targeted and a full review of the effects.

 

Quotes and formulations in this article are direct reconstructions based on the above-mentioned publications.