US President Donald Trump announced a 30% tariff on South African goods, saying his country’s relationship with Pretoria has been, “unfortunately, far from reciprocal”. (X)
On 2 April, the world witnessed a trademark move from US President Donald Trump, who declared the day “Liberation Day” as he introduced country-specific reciprocal tariffs. This marked a significant shift in US trade strategy; he imposed tariffs on imports from 180 countries in direct proportion to what the US claims are barriers those countries impose on American goods.
Using an unprecedented and unconventional methodology, the US calculated these tariffs by taking its trade deficit with each country, dividing it by the value of that country’s exports to the US, and then halving the result. The outcome was a sweeping set of tariffs ranging from 10% to 50%, with countries such as Lesotho at the upper end of the scale.
This one-size-fits-all approach blatantly disregards unique country-specific realities, especially for least developed countries. Take Lesotho: years of support from successive US governments under the African Growth Opportunity Act helped it develop an export-oriented apparel industry employing about 40 000 people. In 2024, Lesotho’s exported goods to the US were worth $146 million. Yet, because of its landlocked status and reliance on the Southern African Customs Union, it imported only about $9 million from the US. This imbalance triggered one of the highest reciprocal tariffs, a rate that now threatens to collapse a key national industry.
More broadly, the reciprocal tariff regime is not only punitive, it undermines US commitments under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. It poses a direct challenge to the multilateral trade system, and Africa is directly in the crosshairs.
The tariffs will be felt across African countries. South Africa’s vehicle sector faces the risk of steep export declines and job losses. Textile producers in Mauritius and Madagascar could see their industries unravel. Agricultural exporters such as Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Kenya are vulnerable to high tariffs that could derail trade in cocoa, coffee and other key goods.
Although the US announced a pause in implementing full reciprocal tariffs until August, providing a window for bilateral trade negotiations, the damage to multilateralism has already been done. Shortly after the announcement of a pause on the reciprocal tariffs, a reported 75 countries had approached the US to negotiate on trade deals. This shows a growing global shift toward ad hoc bilateralism that further erodes the rules-based trade order.
One noteworthy example of this is the UK-US “Economic Prosperity Deal”. The two parties seem to have agreed on a limited tariff-quota deal. This deal falls outside WTO norms, as it fails to liberalise “substantially all” trade, a key requirement under Article XXIV of the legal General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It also violates the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle.
Other countries — including Vietnam, Philippines and Japan — have signed bilateral deals involving adjusted tariff rates (20%, 19% and 15% respectively). These are accompanied by supplementary conditions such as penalties on transhipped goods or sector-specific investment clauses.
Notably, there is no trade deal, yet, with any African country. Zimbabwe was the first African country to respond in April 2025, prematurely, by suspending all tariffs on US imports in a bid to signal goodwill. Meanwhile, major African economies such as South Africa and Kenya are deep in negotiations, attempting to secure favourable terms in the face of mounting pressure.
While another extension to the tariff pause seems likely, it’s clear that the US is pursuing a transactional, bilateral trade strategy, offering selective relief in exchange for sectoral concessions or access to strategic resources like critical minerals. This approach is deeply concerning. It reduces complex trade relationships to blunt negotiations, with developing countries expected to simply “take it or leave it”.
Such a strategy fragments global trade into a patchwork of uneven bargains, privileging those with greater economic or strategic clout. For African countries, the risk is clear: without a united response, they risk being sidelined.
The danger is that African nations may be pressured into accepting inequitable deals without the protection of multilateral institutions like the WTO. These deals could extend to critical sectors such as raw materials, where African leverage is significant but often underused.
In response, African countries must pursue smart sector-specific bilateral deals and push for tariff exemptions on key exports like apparel, coffee and minerals. Leveraging the continents’ strategic assets (minerals such as cobalt, lithium, for example) is critical to securing favourable terms.
At the same time, it is crucial to diversify trade partnerships with emerging economies like China, and enhancing South-South cooperation for new export markets will be key. Long-term resilience will also require African governments to invest in industrial competitiveness and deepen regional integration under the African Continental Free Trade Area.
In this new trade playbook, Africa must not be a passive player. With coordinated strategy and assertive diplomacy, the continent can protect its interests and shape a more equitable global trading order.
Shimukunku Manchishi is a senior policy officer: trade at African Future Policies Hub.
Discussion about this post