Ease of doing business
theboardiQ Tariffs Dashboard:
Powering Mutually Beneficial Global Trade.
Understand the complexities of international tariffs and ease of doing business across nations to cultivate balanced trade relationships, streamline operations, and deliver cost savings to end consumers.
Revised Tariff % | Original Tariff % | Country Tariff Rate % |
|---|---|---|
24 | 10 | 10 |
Exports (in USD M) 2025 | Imports (in USD M) 2025 | Balance (in USD M) 2025 |
|---|---|---|
106308.4 | 308379.7 | -202071.3 |
Implications
The baseline landscape of US-China tariff policy operates under a mix of Section 301 (targeted enforcement, including a major new June 2026 enforcement action regarding forced labor), Section 232 (national security tariffs on metals and semiconductors), and Section 122 (global balance-of-payments surcharges, which were heavily reshaped by a landmark Court of International Trade ruling).
US-China Tariff Matrix: Core Metrics & Economic Impact
The following data outlines active tariff dynamics specifically for China, alongside macroeconomic, household, and trade balance impacts mapped by national economic modeling groups such as the Yale Budget Lab.
Metric | Details & Data Point Impact |
Effective Tariff Rate (China) | • 23.5% to 23.9% (Average post-substitution effective rate across all import categories). • Specific targeted goods face compounding Section 232 and Section 301 rates ranging from 25% to 50% (e.g., steel, aluminum, copper-containing derivatives, and logic integrated circuits). |
Major Companies Impacted | • Consumer Electronics / Tech: Apple, Dell, HP, Microsoft (heavy exposure to Chinese assembly and semiconductor fabrication components). • Retail & Consumer Goods: Walmart, Target, Home Depot (exposure to furniture, cabinetry, and consumer goods). • Industrial / Auto Components: Caterpillar, Tesla (supply chain reliance on Chinese lithium batteries and raw inputs). |
GDP & Output Impact | • Sector-specific drags create an estimated 0.11% to 0.18% permanent reduction in long-run US GDP. • Contributes roughly a 0.4 percentage point drag on immediate quarterly growth while putting upward pressure on structural unemployment (+0.14 to +0.18 percentage points). |
Balance of Trade Impact | • Driven by steep volume compression, federal customs duty revenue has surged to a $331 billion annualized rate. • While the overall global trade deficit has narrowed significantly, bilateral trade data shows a structural shift where supply chains have partially redirected to Mexico and Vietnam, widening deficits in those regions. |
Here is the SWOT analysis structured in a clear, scannable table for easier evaluation of the US tariff policy on China.
SWOT Analysis: US Tariff Policy on China
Strengths | Weaknesses |
• Massive Federal Revenue Generator: Annualized duty collections provide critical leverage and offset federal deficits. • Strong Supply Chain Onshoring Incentives: Forces structural shifts out of sensitive Chinese sectors, such as advanced logic integrated circuits and clean energy inputs. | • 100% Pass-Through Cost to Consumers: Importers pass duties down the supply chain, triggering immediate inflationary bumps on retail and consumer tech goods. • Regressive Economic Burden: Disproportionately impacts lower-income households who spend a higher percentage of income on affected everyday goods. |
Opportunities | Threats |
• Targeted Forced-Labor Protections: Leveraging newly expanded Section 301 rules to aggressively penalize bad actors and secure global supply chains. • Advanced Technological Isolation: Accelerates Western semiconductor and AI compute dominance over Beijing by heavily penalizing technology transfers. | • Severe Retaliatory Volatility: China maintains mirror-image retaliatory tariffs on US goods, squeezing domestic agricultural exporters and component manufacturers. • Legal & Enforcement Chaos: Recent Court of International Trade (CIT) rulings striking down broad executive actions create massive structural uncertainty for customs planning. |
Key Takeaway: The strategic challenge for corporate compliance teams lies in balancing the heavy, immediate Weaknesses (cost pass-throughs) against shifting supply chains to capture the long-term structural Opportunities (onshoring incentives) before upcoming regulatory enforcement deadlines hit.
Critical Compliance & Regulatory Deadlines
Supply chain compliance officers, trade lawyers, and logistics executives must navigate three primary regulatory windows over the next 30 days:
1. Section 301 Forced-Labor Tariffs (60 Economies)
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) issued formal determinations finding that 60 world economies (including China) fail to adequately enforce forced labor import bans. The USTR has proposed additional retaliatory duties of 10% to 12.5% on covered goods.
June 22, 2026: Final deadline to file a formal request to appear and submit a summary of testimony for the upcoming federal public hearings.
July 6, 2026: Final deadline to submit formal written comments regarding product scope, exemptions, and exclusion requests.
July 7, 2026: Public hearings officially commence before the Section 301 Committee at the USITC in Washington, DC.
2. Section 232 Pharmaceutical Tariffs Onshoring Window
Deadline: June 12, 2026
Context: A 100% headline tariff goes into effect on September 29, 2026, for patented pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) imported from unapproved sources.
Action Required: Companies must submit detailed applications mapping out domestic R&D footprints and capital expenditure plans to secure a reduction to a 20% tariff (or 0% via reciprocal pricing agreements).
3. Section 122 Court of International Trade (CIT) Refund Filings
Timeline: Active Now
Context: On May 8, 2026, the US Court of International Trade ruled that the 10% broad global import surcharges under Section 122 exceeded executive authority. However, because the court restricted immediate injunctive relief specifically to the litigating plaintiffs, an estimated $165 billion in collected duties requires proactive administrative action to reclaim.
Action Required: Importers currently paying these surcharges must immediately review their entry liquidations and file formal customs protests via CBP’s electronic ACE portal to preserve their legal rights to future duty refunds.
US Revised Tariffs
Country Tariffs
Balance of Trade
Commercial Guide
Learn about the market conditions, opportunities, regulations, and business conditions in countries, prepared by U.S. Embassies worldwide, Commerce Department, State Department and other U.S. agencies’ professionals
Tariff Rate for US
World Bank staff estimates using the World Integrated Trade Solution system, based on tariff data from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development's Trade Analysis and Information System ( TRAINS ) database and global imports data from the United Nations Statistics Division's Comtrade database.
US Imports Guide
United States Imports from Countries during 2025, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade. United States Imports from Countries- data, historical chart and statistics - was last updated on April of 2026.
Investing in USA
theboardiQ Economic Relevance Score, ranks States of USA based on 11 parameters
Sources : Forbes | USDA Economic Research | TCGen Total Innovation Rank Index | Best States for Manufacturing | World Population Review | Tax Foundation | US News | BEA Data | Wikipedia | International Trade Administration
theboardiQ's Economic Relevance Score provides a comprehensive, data-driven assessment of a nation's economic vitality and global significance. This score is meticulously calculated using 11 key parameters, each reflecting a critical facet of economic performance. It analyzes the representation of Fortune 500 companies within a nation, a strong indicator of its business environment and market size. The balance of trade surplus or deficit reveals the nation's international competitiveness and export strength. It incorporates Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a fundamental measure of overall economic output, and examine the health of key sectors like agriculture and manufacturing. The score also accounts for innovation, gauging a nation's ability to drive future growth through technological advancements. Crucial labor market indicators such as employment rates are considered, alongside fiscal policies reflected in tax rates. To capture the lived experience of citizens, it assesses cost of living and disposable income, providing insight into purchasing power and economic well-being. Finally, education levels are integrated, recognizing their pivotal role in fostering a skilled workforce and driving long-term economic development. By synthesizing these 11 parameters, theboardiQ's Economic Relevance Score delivers a nuanced and holistic view of a nation's economic standing, enabling informed strategic decisions. The Top 5 States in the assessment are Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Washington. Texas does consistently well across most of the 11 variables especially in the areas of GDP, F500 representation in the State, Balance of Trade where it ranks 2nd nationally. North Carolina scores as the highest-ranking state nationally in manufacturing and performs consistently across the other variables. Virginia does well in disposable income where it ranks 3rd nationally. It also scores high in the variables of manufacturing and employment Florida holds the 4th ranking nationally for GDP and Tax Washington State scores the top spot for disposable income nationally, 2nd for education and 3rd for innovation. Colorado, with an overall rank of 7 scores the top spot for Education (schools and higher education). Nebraska, that ranked 10th overall, did well in Agriculture where it is ranked 3rd nationally as well as Trade Balance where it ranked 5th. Illinois, though ranked 20th overall did well nationally in F500 representation, GDP, Agriculture, and Disposable Income. Pennsylvania comes in at 21 overall doing well nationally in GDP (6th); Manufacturing (8th) and F500 representation (8th) New York scores 23rd overall with a 2 ranking in Disposable Income nationally, as well as 3rd in both F500 representation and GDP. California comes in at 29th overall and has the top spot ranking in a whopping 4 variables nationally – GDP, Innovation, Agriculture and F500 representation. However, performance in the areas of Trade Balance, Cost of Living, Tax, Manufacturing and Employment resulted in the overall ranking dipping. Wyoming at 30th overall scores the top spot nationally in the area of Tax Massachusetts at 31 overall does well in innovation where it is ranked 2nd nationally Arkansas at 36 and Alabama at 39, do well in overall Cost of Living where they are ranked 2nd and 3rd nationally, respectively. Louisiana ranked 44th overall is ranked 1st in Trade Balance nationally.
Economic
Relevance
Ranking
State | Info | Overall Rank | Agri | Innov | Mfg | Employ | Tax | Edu | GDP | F500 Rep | Trade Balance | Cost of Living | Disp Income |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Texas | 1 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 10 | 7 | 42 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 24 | 13 | |
North Carolina | 2 | 9 | 21 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 28 | 11 | 16 | 41 | 17 | 17 | |
Virginia | 3 | 32 | 24 | 6 | 2 | 28 | 7 | 13 | 6 | 34 | 35 | 3 | |
Florida | 4 | 21 | 11 | 15 | 1 | 4 | 35 | 4 | 7 | 40 | 30 | 37 | |
Washington | 5 | 16 | 3 | 36 | 28 | 45 | 9 | 9 | 15 | 9 | 43 | 1 | |
Missouri | 6 | 11 | 25 | 22 | 20 | 13 | 32 | 21 | 22 | 20 | 10 | 20 | |
Georgia | 7 | 15 | 26 | 9 | 3 | 26 | 34 | 8 | 9 | 43 | 26 | 19 | |
Minnesota | 8 | 6 | 10 | 47 | 6 | 44 | 8 | 20 | 10 | 33 | 33 | 9 | |
Ohio | 9 | 12 | 32 | 7 | 30 | 35 | 36 | 7 | 5 | 38 | 15 | 11 | |
Illinois | 10 | 5 | 23 | 31 | 23 | 37 | 16 | 5 | 4 | 47 | 32 | 7 |