stockmarket

Global cost of Trump trade war ‘could reach $1.4tn’; tariff fears hurt UK factories – business live


Global cost of 2025 tariff war could reach $1.4tn, report finds

A full-blown trade war between the US and its trading partners could cost $1.4tn, a new report shows.

Economists at Aston Business School have modelled a range of potential scenarios, including the possibility that America it hit by full global retaliation after it announces new tariffs against other countries.

That full-scale trade conflict could result in a $1.4 trillion global welfare loss, Aston has calculated.

The report explains that tariff escalation leads to higher prices, reduced competitiveness, and fragmented supply chains, as we saw in 2018 in the US-China trade war.

It says:

Donald Trump’s 2025 return to power has unleashed a gale of protectionism, reshaping global trade within weeks.

They outline six scenarios, from the first wave of tariffs already announced against Canada, Mexico and China to a full-blown trade war.

Here are the key findings:

  1. US initial tariffs: US prices rise 2.7% and real GPD per capita declines 0.9%. Welfare declines in Canada by 3.2% and Mexico by 5%.

  2. Retaliation by Canada, Mexico and China: US loss deepens to 1.1%, welfare declines in Canada by 5.1% and Mexico by 7.1%.

  3. US imposes 25% tariffs on EU goods: Sharp transatlantic trade contraction, EU production disruptions, US welfare declines 1.5%.

  4. EU retaliates with 25% tariff on US goods: Prices rise across US and EU, mutual welfare losses and intensified negative outcomes for the US. UK experiences modest trade diversion benefits.

  5. US global tariff: Severe global trade contraction and substantial price hikes substantially affect North American welfare and UK trade volumes.

  6. Full global retaliation with reciprocal tariffs: Extensive global disruption and reduced trade flows, severe US welfare losses, $1.4 trillion global welfare loss projected.

The full-blown trade war (scenario 6) would have “profound implications” for interconnected economies like the UK.

The report says:

As a trade-dependent nation navigating post-Brexit realities, the UK stands at a crossroads. Trump’s tariffs disrupt supply chains and exports, yet might open doors for rerouting, with high potential for exporting much more to the U.S.

The dual-edged impacts are stark: fleeting export gains collide with vulnerabilities in critical sectors like automotive and tech, while EU divergence risks, amplified by regulatory misalignment and political distrust, threaten its efforts in resetting the UK-EU relationship.

So while the UK can use its post-Brexit flexibility to mitigate risks and leverage new trade routes, sustained gains depend on rebuilding EU ties and supporting a rules-based international trade order, they add.

Share

Updated at 

Key events

OBR chief Hughes would like to serve second term

Heather Stewart

Heather Stewart

Over at parliament, Richard Hughes has told MPs that he has let the chancellor know that he would like to serve a second five year term as chair of the Office of Budget Responsibility.

Appearing before MPs on the cross-party Treasury select committee to discuss last week’s spring statement, Hughes was asked whether he would like to stay in the post, after his first term ends on 3 October.

He replied:

“I have written to the chancellor, to the effect that I would be interested in serving a second and final term, earlier this year.”

Asked whether he had heard back from Rachel Reeves, he said he hadn’t, but added:

“I appreciate that the chancellor has a lot on her plate at the moment”.

The OBR’s role in economic policymaking has come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks, as Reeves implemented spending cuts to ensure she is on course to meet her fiscal rules – including £500m of last minute welfare reforms, after the OBR rejected the government’s costing of its plans.

Read More   Top US auto safety official will leave agency

Hughes also sought to reassure committee chair Meg Hillier that he did not believe leaks of aspects of the forecast before the spring statement had come from within the OBR. “I am satisfied that the OBR is not the source,” he said, adding that the Treasury had commenced its own leak inquiry.

Share

Updated at 





READ SOURCE

This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you accept our use of cookies.