The market has set its sights on how President Donald Trump’s administration meets the figures behind the comprehensive tariffs on U.S. import taxes announced on Wednesday, Causing global financial markets And it has attracted global attention.

Trump and the White House posted a series of charts on social media detailing the tariff rates they said other countries imposed on the U.S., listing so-called exchange rates, including “currency manipulation and trade barriers” in these countries.

Adjacent columns show new U.S. tariff rates for each country and the EU.

In most cases, these rates are about half as much as the Trump administration claims each country “accuses” of the United States. CNBC cannot independently verify data on the U.S. government for these responsibilities.

Market observers are quick to try to reverse the formula – Confusing results. Many people, including journalist and writer James Surowiecki, say that the United States seems to have Divide the trade deficit by imports Obtain tariff rates for each country from a given country.

This approach does not necessarily align with the conventional method of calculating tariffs, which means that the United States will only study the trade deficit of goods and ignore trade in services.

For example, the United States said China charges 67% tariffs. The US deficit US$295.4 million in 2024, while imported goods are worth US$438.9 billionaccording to official data. When $295.4 million is divided by $438.9 billion, the result is 67%. The same mathematical examination for Vietnam.

“The formula is about trade imbalances with the United States, rather than reciprocal tariffs in terms of distortions in terms of tariff levels or non-tariff levels,” said Trinh Nguyen, a senior economist at Natixis. “This makes it difficult for Asians, especially poor Asian countries to meet the U.S. demand for tariff reductions in the short term, as benchmarks buy more U.S. goods than exports to the U.S.,” said Trinh Nguyen, a senior economist at Natixis.

“Given that U.S. goods are much more expensive and the purchasing power of countries targeting the highest tariffs, this option is not the best option,” Nguyen said. “For example, Vietnam stood out in its fourth largest trade surplus with the United States and had lowered tariffs to the United States before the tariff announcement without any probation.”

The U.S. also appears to be levied a 10% levied on areas running a trade surplus.

The Office of the United States Trade Representative elaborates on its approach On its websitewhich seems to be somewhat similar to what the cyber detective has figured out without some difference.

“Although it is complex, if not impossible, to calculate the trade deficit effects of tens of thousands of tariffs, regulatory, taxes and other policies in each country alone, that are complex, if not impossible, the combined effect can be replaced by calculating the tariff levels that drive bilateral trade inadequacy to zero-driven zero,” the USTR website said. “If a trade deficit persists due to tariff and non-tariff policies and fundamentals, then tariff rates consistent with offsetting these policies and fundamentals are mutually and fair.”

The USTR also includes estimates of import price elasticity – in other words, how sensitive demand for foreign goods – and higher tariffs convert to higher prices for imported goods.

This screenshot of the USTR web page shows the methods and formulas used in more detail:

Some analysts acknowledge that the U.S. government’s approach could provide it with more room to swing to reach a deal.

“I can only say that opacity around tariff numbers may increase transaction flexibility, but that may cause us a loss of credibility,” said Rob Subbaraman, head of global macro research at Nomura.

– Kevin Breuninger of CNBC contributed to this article.