These two days, the second phase of Trump's trade war has begun.

The second phase of Trump’s trade war has kicked off. This is no small matter. Let’s take a look at what’s happening. This morning, Trump sent letters to 14 countries, all about tariffs. These countries can be divided into four main groups:

First, there are the two developed East Asian allies of the United States: Japan and South Korea. Second, there are the BRICS countries and BRICS partners, including Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa, and Thailand. Third, there are the peripheral European countries: Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Finally, there are the ordinary developing countries: Bangladesh, Cambodia, Tunisia, Myanmar, and Laos.

Why did Trump send these letters to 14 countries in one day? These letters are far from friendly—they are filled with threats and inducements.

First, he informed these countries that the United States will impose tariffs on them starting August 1. The specific tariff rates vary from country to country.

Second, he threatened that if any country dares to retaliate with tariffs, the United States will add even more tariffs on top of the initial ones.

Third, he dangled a carrot: if these countries are willing to open their markets and eliminate tariffs, non-tariff policies, and trade barriers, the United States might consider reducing the proposed tariffs.

Some might wonder: isn’t this just Trump sending 14 letters about tariffs? How can it be linked to the second phase of the trade war? As the saying goes, amateurs see the excitement, while professionals see the underlying issues. Let’s delve into the background of these letters.

The first thing to note is that the first letter was sent to Japan, specifically to Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba.

Why Japan? Because Japan has been quite vocal in opposing Trump’s tariffs, especially Ishiba himself, who has made many statements that likely irritated Trump. On April 2, Trump announced “reciprocal tariffs” and hinted that Japan should be the first to comply. How did Japan react? In three words: “delay,” “demand,” and “defy.”

First, Japan has been “delaying.” Ishiba publicly stated that Japan is not in a hurry to negotiate trade deals with the United States. Even the Japanese negotiator sent to the talks, Economic Revitalization Minister Akira Amari, is not a high-ranking official. In Japan, the real power in economic matters lies with the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry. The position of Economic Revitalization Minister was created by Abe to appease certain factions and mainly focuses on economic research. To understand the hierarchy of Japanese ministers: the highest level is the State Ministers, also known as cabinet members, who hold real power, such as the Ministers of Finance, Foreign Affairs, Justice, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and Defense. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister also fall into this category. There are about a dozen of them in total.

The second level is the Special Envoy Ministers, whose titles can be quite diverse. For example, when Abe wanted to promote cultural exports and enhance “soft power,” he introduced the “Cool Japan” strategy and created the position of “Cool Japan” Strategy Minister. There have also been ministers for personal identification systems, gender equality, and space policy, among others.

The third level is the Task Ministers, who have even more varied titles, such as the Minister for Overcoming Deflation, the Minister for Abduction Issues, the Minister for Japan-Russia Economic Cooperation, and the Minister for One Hundred Million Active People. So, in Japan, having the title of “minister” does not necessarily mean much; only the State Ministers are truly powerful.

The Japanese negotiator, Akira Amari, is a Task Minister, the lowest level.

Second, Japan has been “demanding.” Trump wants to increase tariffs on Japan and force Japan to open its markets, essentially saying, “I want to eat your meat, but you can’t touch mine.” However, Ishiba countered by saying that the goal of Japan-U.S. tariff negotiations should be zero tariffs for both sides. In other words, not only does he refuse to let the U.S. “eat his meat,” but he also wants to “eat America’s meat” in return. This stance has certainly angered Trump.

Third, Japan has been “defying.” For example, on July 6, Ishiba said in a TV interview that Japan has made significant investments in the United States and should be treated differently. Essentially, he was saying, “You have your cards, but I have mine too.” This remark further infuriated Trump, who decided to target Japan first with his letter, even threatening to raise tariffs on Japan to 25%. Why “raise”? Because when Trump announced the “reciprocal tariffs” on April 2, he proposed a 24% tariff on Japan. This 1% increase is a way to give Japan a taste of its medicine.

However, despite this, the tariffs Trump set for Japan are still the lowest, at 25%. South Korea is in the same category, also facing a 25% tariff.

This brings us to the second point: interestingly, the tariffs Trump proposed for BRICS countries or BRICS partners are in the second tier. For example, Kazakhstan faces a 25% tariff, Indonesia 32%, Malaysia 25%, South Africa 30%, and Thailand 36%. You might notice that the tariffs on Kazakhstan and Malaysia are the same as those on Japan and South Korea. Why is that? It’s a strategy to divide and weaken. Trump is actually quite wary of the BRICS countries. On July 6, just a few hours after the BRICS summit opened in Brazil, Trump quickly posted a threat, saying that any country that aligns with the BRICS countries’ anti-American stance will face an additional 10% tariff. He added that there would be no exceptions. By labeling BRICS countries as “anti-American,” he is trying to isolate them.

The third point is that Trump has been very cautious this time, targeting peripheral countries rather than core ones. For example, he did not dare to target China, Russia, Brazil, or India among the BRICS countries. South Africa, although part of BRICS, has a relatively small economy with a GDP of just over $400 billion, which is not comparable to the other four. In Europe, he also targeted peripheral countries, specifically Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, which are EU partner countries but not yet EU members. Bosnia faces a 30% tariff, while Serbia faces a 35% tariff. Tunisia, a member of the Arab League, is also subject to a 30% tariff.

The fourth point is that Trump has been particularly harsh on countries without “backing.” For example, Bangladesh faces a 35% tariff, Cambodia 36%, Myanmar 40%, and Laos 40%. These countries happen to be among the poorest in the world. Developed countries usually offer support policies to such countries, such as zero tariffs on certain products. However, under Trump, these countries are now facing the highest tariffs.

From these numbers, we can see two things: first, “bullying the weak and fearing the strong”; second, “divide and weaken.” Japan and South Korea, as allies and “younger brothers,” are given a 25% tariff, which is considered lenient. BRICS and EU-related countries, which have “backing,” are given the second tier of tariffs. As for the countries without “backing,” they are immediately hit with 35% or 40% tariffs.

However, Trump still wants to divide and weaken the second tier. For example, BRICS partner countries like Kazakhstan and Malaysia are treated like Japan and South Korea. Trump might be trying to take advantage of recent changes in Thailand to impose a 36% tariff. Serbia, which has good relations with China and Russia, is given a 36% tariff. Its neighbor, Bosnia, is only given a 30% tariff.

From all these actions, we can see what Trump and his team are trying to do. If we consider Trump’s announcement of “reciprocal tariffs” in the White House Rose Garden on April 2 as the first phase of a frontal attack on the world, this current move is the second phase. The frontal attack has not been very effective. After three months, they have only managed to reach some preliminary agreements, and not a single country has formally agreed. Instead, the United States has been left looking rather disheveled.

On April 2nd this year, Trump announced "reciprocal tariffs" in the Rose Garden of the White House.

So why did Trump target these 14 countries with specific letters? It’s because he realized that the frontal attack failed, and he wanted to change tactics. He decided to adopt a “flanking strategy,” targeting peripheral countries to achieve breakthroughs one by one. No wonder on July 6, U.S. Treasury Secretary Benson told reporters that the United States would release multiple announcements within the next 48 hours. He confidently stated that many negotiating parties had changed their attitudes and that his inbox was filled with new offers and proposals. So he would be very busy in the coming days. It turns out that these “multiple announcements” were actually the 14 letters.

How should we view the future development of this situation? In fact, we only need to look at two things to understand the final outcome. Technically, who should be in charge of U.S. trade policies and negotiations? It should be Commerce Secretary Lutnick or the U.S. Trade Representative. This is not the responsibility of the Treasury Secretary. However, now it is mainly Benson who is handling this matter. There is something even more absurd: Trump boasted that he would mediate the Ukraine-Russia conflict and assigned this task to U.S. Middle East envoy Whitcomb. He also appointed a Ukraine envoy named Kellogg, a retired general, who can only stand by and watch. So now, the Middle East envoy is handling the Ukraine issue, while the Ukraine envoy is left twiddling his thumbs! The Treasury Secretary is meddling in trade issues, sidelining the Commerce Secretary and the Trade Representative. This shows how disorganized this administration is. With such a disorganized team, it’s clear what the outcome of Trump’s second phase of the tariff war will be.