• President Trump issues executive order ending multiple 2025 tariff actions, effective immediately
  • Move aligns with Berenberg analyst prediction of less confrontational approach amid rising domestic costs
  • Studies show 2025 tariffs primarily hit U.S. firms and consumers, prompting policy reversal

President Trump has moved to unwind aggressive tariff measures implemented earlier this year, issuing an executive order on February 20, 2026 that terminates additional duties imposed through ten prior orders. The decision, which came without advance warning, effectively reverses a series of national security-based tariffs that had targeted countries including China, Venezuela, Brazil, Russia, Cuba, and Iran.

According to people familiar with the matter, the White House directed relevant agencies to stop collections "as practicable" while implementing immediate changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The move materializes a forecast made weeks earlier by Berenberg analyst Atakan Bakiskan, who predicted Trump would soften tariff threats ahead of November's midterm elections as domestic cost pressures mounted.

"This represents a significant pivot from the administration's posture in early 2025," said one trade policy expert who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters. "The political calculus appears to have shifted as studies confirmed what many economists warned—these tariffs were functioning as a tax on American businesses and households."

Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Kiel Institute for the World Economy had documented how the 2025 tariffs raised import costs without achieving their stated trade deficit reduction goals. The studies, circulated among administration officials in recent weeks, showed U.S. firms absorbing substantial price increases while consumers faced higher costs for imported goods.

Efforts to reach the White House for additional comment were unsuccessful, but a senior administration official speaking on background confirmed the order invokes authorities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and National Emergencies Act to unwind what had been framed as national security measures. The official noted that core tariffs under Section 232 and 301 actions remain in place, along with recently announced import surcharges on certain products.

Market participants responded cautiously to the news, with import-heavy sectors showing modest relief in after-hours trading. The immediate impact is expected to reduce costs for U.S. companies reliant on global supply chains while potentially easing inflationary pressures that have persisted through the first quarter.

Trade attorneys report scrambling to interpret the practical implications for clients with goods currently in transit. "We're fielding calls from importers who had factored these duties into their 2026 budgets," said one attorney at a major international firm. "The retroactive aspect creates both opportunities and accounting challenges."

The timing, just before midterm elections, suggests political considerations may have outweighed the administration's previously confrontational trade stance. Analysts note that while the move eases tensions with targeted nations, particularly China and Russia, it preserves leverage through ongoing tariff mechanisms that could be reactivated if diplomatic efforts falter.

Industry groups representing manufacturers and retailers had been quietly lobbying for relief, citing competitive disadvantages against foreign counterparts. Their arguments gained traction as economic data revealed the tariffs' disproportionate impact on domestic operations rather than foreign exporters.

As agencies work through implementation details, trade experts anticipate a short-term boost to U.S. imports and supply chain stabilization, though revenue implications for the Treasury remain unclear. The long-term signal suggests potential de-escalation in trade conflicts, though the administration maintains flexibility to reimpose measures if economic or political conditions shift.

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the number of prior executive orders affected; it is ten orders, not twelve.