Trump’s tariff strategy has kept uncertainty high for governments and businessesFrom India and Canada to Iran and Venezuela, the countries may be thousands of miles apart and have little in common economically. Yet they have found themselves facing the same problem: an unpredictable US trade policy under President Donald Trump, in which tariffs and sanctions are being deployed for reasons that go beyond conventional trade disputes.Trade deficits remain a key justification for many measures, but Trump has increasingly tied economic pressure to wars, Russian oil, fentanyl, immigration, deportations, drug trafficking, nuclear programmes and even the domestic policies of US allies.That sequence of threaten, negotiate, delay, collapse talks, retaliate and threaten further escalation has become a defining feature of Trump's approach, making the tariff regime difficult for governments and businesses to predict.10 countries under lensHere are 10 countries that have been squeezed under Trump's tariff and sanctions net for reasons beyond just trade1. Canada: Fentanyl, migration charge alienates key allyCanada has emerged as one of the clearest and most recently escalated examples of how Trump's trade policy has expanded beyond trade. In the latest, Ottawa announced 15 per cent, 25 per cent and 50 per cent retaliatory tariffs on C$27.6 billion of US goods, effective September 8, matching Washington's measures “dollar for dollar, rate for rate.”The tariffs cover steel, dairy, seafood, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, electronics and other goods. Canada also announced a C$7.5 billion support package for affected workers and businesses.Here's how US-Canada tariff dispute escalatedThe move followed Trump's 50 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods after trade talks collapsed. But the dispute has long involved more than trade. In 2025, Trump repeatedly cited fentanyl trafficking and illegal immigration, accusing Ottawa of failing to secure the northern border, while also alleging discriminatory treatment of US products.The negotiations brought in another non-trade issue. Carney said US negotiators had also raised Quebec's French-language rules as an “irritant”. Talks eventually collapsed after Washington's demands were described by Carney as “uneconomic” and “unfair”, with Canada saying the US had “asked too much and offered too little.”The confrontation has now moved to retaliation. Trump has threatened 50 per cent tariffs on Canadian cars, trucks and auto parts from January 1, 2027, putting the integrated North American auto supply chain at risk. He also said he was giving “serious consideration” to renaming Lake Ontario “Lake America” and accused Canada of imposing “400 per cent” tariffs on US farmers.2. India: Russian oil, and immigration form the equationIndia's experience is another striking example of tariffs being used to influence foreign-policy choices.In 2025, India faced a 25 per cent reciprocal US tariff. Washington subsequently imposed an additional 25 per cent levy linked specifically to India's purchases of Russian oil, taking the headline tariff burden to 50 per cent.India is said to be in talks with US over finalising a dealThe pressure over Russian oil has not disappeared either. A US Senate bill has proposed secondary tariffs of up to 100 per cent on countries buying Russian energy, potentially exposing major buyers such as India and China to another round of punitive duties.Meanwhile, the two sides had moved towards a trade deal. In February 2026, India and the US announced an interim framework under which Washington would lower its reciprocal tariff on Indian goods to 18 per cent, while New Delhi agreed to reduce or eliminate tariffs on a range of US industrial and agricultural products. The countries also set a broader ambition of taking bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030.But the broader pact failed to materialise immediately. The US Supreme Court's late-February ruling against Trump's sweeping IEEPA tariffs changed the calculations around the negotiations, as the legal basis of a major part of Washington's tariff regime came under question. Talks subsequently remain under way but no clarity or details have been given on a pact.The pressure then shifted again. In July, the US imposed a new 10 per cent Section 301 tariff on Indian exports,over investigation into countries' failure to prohibit imports of goods produced using forced labour. India had initially faced a proposed 12.5 per cent rate, but Washington lowered it after saying New Delhi had changed its own import policy to prohibit such goods.Economic pressure has coincided with a separate tightening of immigration policy that disproportionately affects Indian workers. Washington has now proposed a $103,265 fee for new H-1B petitions, after the earlier $100,000 fee. The move is particularly significant for India because Indian nationals accounted for about 71 per cent of approved H-1B beneficiaries in FY2024, or nearly 2.84 lakh people.For Indian exporters, the repeated tariff changes have affected sectors including textiles and apparel, leather and footwear, seafood, gems and jewellery, chemicals and engineering goods. “Indian exporters are seeking new markets across Europe, Africa, and parts of Asia, while companies are rethinking supply chains and seeking to reduce concentration risk,” said Vidhu Shekhar, assistant professor of finance and accounting at SP Jain Institute of Management and Research.3. Iran: From nuclear programme and oil to 'economic D-Day'Iran is the most dramatic example of sanctions being used as a foreign-policy weapon.On August 25, the Trump administration announced a fresh sanctions campaign targeting nearly 60 individuals, entities and vessels linked to Iran's oil sales, nuclear and missile programmes, cyber activity and military procurement. The measures also extend pressure to sectors including shipping, aviation, technology, gold and cryptocurrency, while Washington has warned that countries and companies continuing economic ties with Tehran could face secondary sanctions.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has described the campaign as an “economic D-Day”, under Operation Economic Outcast, signalling a much broader attempt to isolate Iran financially. The idea is not simply to sanction Iranian entities directly, but to cut off the economic lifelines that allow Tehran to earn revenue, move money and continue trading with the outside world. Washington is particularly focused on Iran's oil trade and the foreign companies, banks and commercial networks that facilitate it. Bessent said the objective was to “sever every economic lifeline” sustaining the Iranian regime until Tehran “stands alone”.The immediate trigger is broader than trade: the US-Iran war, Tehran's nuclear programme, military capabilities and oil exports are all intertwined. Washington is seeking to use economic pressure to weaken Iran without relying solely on further military action, with Bessent warning that countries that continue doing business with Tehran could also face consequences.The secondary-sanctions threat is particularly significant. It means Washington can potentially target companies or countries that continue buying Iranian oil, processing its payments, supporting its shipping networks or providing other commercial services, even if those entities are not Iranian. That puts countries such as China, Iran's biggest oil customer, in a difficult position and creates another potential flashpoint in US-China relations.4. European Union: Security, Russia and immigration meet tradeThe European Union has faced a somewhat different version of the same pressure. Under the 2025 US-EU framework, Washington committed to a 15 per cent tariff ceiling for most EU exports, providing some predictability to the relationship.But the relationship remains vulnerable to issues outside trade. Trump has repeatedly pushed European countries to spend more on defence and take a harder line against Russia amid the prolonged Ukraine war, while migration has also been a major issue in his broader dealings with Europe.In July 2026, the EU was also among 60 economies targeted under a new Section 301 investigation over insufficient restrictions on goods produced with forced labour. The resulting tariff structure generally brings EU goods to a 10 per cent level where the MFN rate is below that threshold.5. Colombia: Drugs, deportations and tariffsColombia shows perhaps the clearest link between tariffs and the politics of drugs and migration.Trump threatened higher tariffs after a dispute over Colombia's handling of deportation flights and later escalated his rhetoric over drug trafficking. He accused former President Gustavo Petro of being an “illegal drug leader” and threatened economic measures amid wider disagreements over US military operations and Colombia's drug policy.Under the latest Section 301 action, Colombian goods also face an additional 12.5 per cent tariff, officially linked to forced-labour import restrictions. But the wider US-Colombia relationship has repeatedly been shaped by drugs, migration and deportations.6. China: Fentanyl becomes a trade weaponChina's tariff relationship with Washington has also been shaped by an issue far removed from conventional trade: fentanyl.Trump initially imposed an additional 10 per cent tariff on Chinese imports in February 2025, explicitly citing China's alleged role in the flow of fentanyl precursor chemicals into the US. The levy was raised to 20 per cent next month, with Washington accusing Beijing of failing to do enough to stop the trade.Beijing retaliated with tariffs on US goods and later deployed non-tariff measures including export controls on critical minerals and restrictions against American companies.The fentanyl dispute eventually became a bargaining tool. China agreed to tighten controls on 13 fentanyl precursor chemicals, after which Washington cut the fentanyl-related tariff back to 10 per cent. Beijing has continued to reject the US accusation that it is responsible for America's fentanyl crisis.Now, another issue has entered the relationship: Iran. China is Iran's biggest oil customer, leaving Chinese refiners exposed to Washington's expanding threat of secondary sanctions against businesses that continue dealing with Tehran. Beijing has rejected the sanctions as unilateral and warned it will take measures to protect its interests.At the same time, Washington is considering another 7.5 per cent tariff on Chinese goods over concerns about China's excess manufacturing capacity and cheap exports.Currently, China faces a 12.5 per cent US tariff imposed under the new Section 301 forced-labour measures. If the 7.5 per cent tariff also comes into effect, it would bring the second-term tariff burden to around 20 per cent. These duties come on top of older tariffs imposed during Trump's first term and retained under Biden.7. Russia: Ukraine war turns sanctions into economic warfareRussia represents another case where tariffs and sanctions have been used for economic pressure for reasons beyond direct trade deficits.Washington has maintained sweeping restrictions on Russian energy and other sectors because of Moscow's war against Ukraine. Trump has also backed legislation that could impose tariffs of up to 100 per cent on major buyers of Russian oil and gas. The latest Senate proposal has specifically targeted countries such as China and India that remain major purchasers of Russian energy.Top Russian oil buyers as of JulyIn other words, the tariff threat is being used not primarily to protect a US industry from Russian imports, but to force third countries to change their energy relationships with Moscow.8. Mexico: Fentanyl and migration at the borderMexico's tariff confrontation with Washington has been driven heavily by border politics. Trump invoked illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking when imposing a 25 per cent tariff on Mexican goods in February 2025.The structure has since changed. Under the current arrangement, goods qualifying under USMCA rules remain largely exempt, while a 10 per cent Section 301 tariff was imposed in July on goods covered by the forced-labour action. Although Mexico said roughly 85 per cent of its exports to the US would continue to enter tariff-free under USMCA.Mexico's experience nevertheless established the template: migration and narcotics policy could be used to justify economic penalties on a trading partner even when the products being taxed had no direct connection to either issue.9. Venezuela: Oil, drugs and migrationVenezuela sits at the intersection of three of Trump's favourite pressure points: oil, drugs and migration.In 2025, Trump announced a 25 per cent tariff on countries purchasing Venezuelan oil, arguing that Venezuela was sending criminals and other threats into the United States. The measure was designed to punish not only Caracas but also third countries continuing to buy Venezuelan crude.That is significant because it moves beyond the traditional idea of a tariff as a tax on imports from the country producing the goods.Venezuela has also remained subject to extensive US sanctions, making oil and migration part of a much wider campaign of economic pressure.10. Cuba: Oil and national securityCuba is facing one of the Trump administration's most aggressive economic-pressure campaigns, centred on oil and national security rather than conventional trade. In January, Trump declared a national emergency over Cuba and authorised tariffs on goods from countries that sell or provide oil to the island, effectively threatening third countries that help keep Cuba supplied with fuel. The administration has also tightened restrictions on oil shipments to Cuba as part of its “maximum pressure” campaign.The pressure has intensified this month. On August 20, Washington sanctioned nine additional Cuban state-owned entities in the mining, metals and construction sectors, along with three officials linked to the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples (ICAP). Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused ICAP of promoting anti-American influence, while the measures were framed as part of efforts to pressure Cuba's government and restrict its economic and political networks.This pressure is particularly significant because Cuba depends heavily on imported fuel for electricity and transport. The tightening of sanctions and fuel supplies has contributed to severe shortages and widespread blackouts, deepening an already serious economic crisis.The bigger pictureTaken together, these cases show how Trump’s tariff policy has blurred the line between trade and foreign policy. The common thread is leverage: tariffs can become geopolitical bargaining chips, while sanctions threats can pull third countries into disputes with Washington.As assistant professor Vidhu Shekhar said, “This marks a structural shift in the way trade policy is being used,” with tariffs increasingly deployed for broader foreign policy and geopolitical leverage.Although the fallout can also be costly for the US too. For instance, as the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, the government has had to refund about $100 billion to importers out of roughly $166 billion collected from more than 330,000 businesses. After which Trump keeps finding news reasons such as the Section 301 probe to keep his tariff agenda alive.Thus, the question is no longer simply what tariff will Trump impose on a country, but what issue could he use next to change it?Get the latest Business News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.