ABSTRACT
This paper analyzes recent shifts in U.S. tariff policy toward strategic protectionism and their implications for Japanese agriculture. Japan’s heavy reliance on imported agricultural products and fertilizers, coupled with an aging farming population, exposes structural vulnerabilities. The paper emphasizes the need to understand the continuity of U.S. strategic objectives, rather than focusing excessively on policy changes such as large-scale investments or tariff policy shifts made by successive U.S. administrations. It also argues that Japan must diversify its import sources, strengthen domestic supply chains, and implement agricultural and industrial policies that integrate security considerations. Aligning strategically with long-term U.S. objectives while preserving domestic autonomy is essential for sustaining resilience, competitiveness, and food security in a volatile global trade environment.
Keywords: U.S. tariff policy, Japanese agriculture, supply chain, strategic protectionism, food security
INTRODUCTION
This paper provides an overview of changes in U.S. tariff policy and their impact on Japanese agriculture. U.S. tariff policy is seen as having entered a new phase of “strategic protectionism.” The Trump administration’s rapid introduction of reciprocal tariffs and additional taxes, along with the recent disruption in global soybean trade caused by U.S.-China tensions, has forced many countries to recognize the need to rethink their trade policy fundamentally.
In particular, Japan, heavily dependent on imported agricultural products, is highly exposed to global trade and environmental changes. Looking at the current situation from a bird’s-eye view, the vast Chinese import demand, mainly soybeans from South America, is now increasingly linked to Brazil. This shift will further narrow Japan’s strategic procurement options beyond the United States.
Changes in U.S. tariff policy could also impact Japanese agricultural exports that have been rapidly gaining attention in recent years, potentially driving up export prices. The Japanese agriculture and food industry will also need to adopt new approaches to respond to changes in market rules and business practices.
An additional risk is that the United States, as an ally, may demand, in negotiations based on the Japan-U.S. Agreement, further expansion of U.S. agricultural exports into the Japanese market, where aging is progressing. Succession issues in agriculture are also severe.
Based on these situations, this paper examines the following:
- What has changed in U.S. tariff policy?
- Why these changes matter long-term strategically?
- How impacts are transmitted to Japan?
- Implications specifically for Japanese agriculture.
As an analytical lens, this paper considers geopolitics, global supply chain security, and the structural vulnerability of Japanese agriculture.
U.S. TARIFF POLICY: TRANSFORMATION OR INEVITABLE COURSE
U.S. tariff policy is part of a long-term strategy to strengthen industries and secure international competitiveness. Recent protectionist tendencies can also be understood from this strategic perspective. In fact, U.S. tariff policy has undergone several significant changes from the 19th century to the present day.
The first era saw tariffs as a primary source of national revenue, during which Congress determined tariff rates. The U.S. Constitution initially granted Congress this authority. In reality, the Tariff Act of 1930 was the last tariff act in which Congress set tariff rates. This was the era of the Great Depression, and it was the first time Congress granted the president authority “to negotiate reciprocal trade agreements and proclaim tariff reductions up to a pre-set level” (Congressional Research Service [CRS], 2025). The key point is that this enabled the president to act independently regarding reciprocal trade agreements.
Following decades of international negotiations and procedural adjustments regarding non-tariff barriers, tariffs in the United States today are consistently used as a tool for U.S. foreign policy and trade promotion, regardless of the administration in power. According to CRS (2025), over the past 70-plus years, U.S. tariff revenue has never exceeded 2% of federal revenue. In FY2024, tariff revenue totaled $77 billion, representing only about 1.57% of total revenue.
The Trump administration appears to have actively utilized tariffs as a strategic tool for foreign policy and trade promotion. However, looking at these long-term numerical trends, it is possible to get the impression that tariff policies are not particularly effective at securing long-term tax revenue. Rather, they were likely measures to strengthen U.S. industries over a medium- to long-term period through subsidies, such as grants, tax credits, and loans. A prime example is the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, a massive five-year industrial policy totaling $52.7 billion. Its primary purpose is to strengthen U.S. domestic semiconductor production and improve supply chains, with an eye toward national and technological security.
While some citizens understand its long-term purpose, others express considerable dissatisfaction, seeking tangible solutions to their immediate hardships. Faced with these political constraints and public frustration, the Trump administration aimed to increase tax revenue using tariffs—a direct, immediate measure. Therefore, even with changes in administrations, it may be more accurate to view the broader U.S. economic system as having pursued a consistent policy: advancing large-scale investments and initiating early-stage capital recovery to bridge the period until those investments yield returns. Subsidies and tariffs are simply different tools used to enhance U.S. industrial competitiveness.
It is undeniable that U.S. trade policy has shifted somewhat toward protectionism from complete free trade. This shift stems from a greater emphasis on national strategy, industrial competitiveness, and reconstruction and reinforcement of supply chains that have overextended across the globe. From a systemic viewpoint, the current policy process appears as follows: the President sets the policy direction, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) establishes the legal and negotiation framework, and the Department of Commerce and other agencies justify it from the perspectives of national security and national interest. If current developments are indeed part of such a long-term institutional effort, the ongoing structural changes could extend beyond the current president’s term.
POTENTIAL AND DESIRABLE STRATEGIC BIG PICTURE
What vision is the United States pursuing behind this series of moves? Five important points emerge:
- Geopolitical restructuring of supply chains;
- Securing hegemony in cutting-edge technologies;
- Integration of national security and industrial security;
- Bloc formation with trusted partners; and
- Domestic demand for rebuilding the middle class.
The United States is advancing supply chain restructuring and dominance in cutting-edge technologies with strategic competition from regional and global economic rivals in mind. Tariff policy is part of this broader strategy and not merely a financial measure. The strategic scope is wide-ranging, but the objective is clear: restoring U.S. manufacturing competitiveness.
The United States appears intent on minimizing dependence on countries with differing values, especially for key technologies and critical raw materials. To achieve this, it is necessary to strategically downsize globally expanded supply chains for raw material procurement while securing reliable trade partners who will confidently and continuously purchase U.S. products. Current U.S. actions thus represent carefully considered strategic protectionism rather than emotional protectionism.
Countries meeting these conditions likely include the EU, Canada, Japan, and strategically reliable partners in the Asia-Pacific region. Tariffs were tools used to secure geopolitical competitive advantage over these countries and territories. Since the establishment of the WTO in 1995 and through multiple rounds of GATT negotiations, the goal has been to maintain a rule-based global trading system. However, many countries have increasingly concluded bilateral and regional agreements. According to Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA, 2025), as of January 2025, Japan has 21 Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs/FTAs) in force or signed with 24 countries and regions. Additionally, while negotiations on two agreements are currently suspended, six agreements are under negotiation.
From the U.S. perspective, reshoring, revitalizing domestic manufacturing, and strategic measures to mitigate external geopolitical and economic risks are straightforward moves. Taking a broader view reveals a bigger picture:
- National procurement policy shift: buying from more reliable sources rather than solely the cheapest ones, establishing an economic security sphere.
- Securing leadership in cutting-edge technologies: semiconductors, AI, quantum technologies, next-generation communication, clean energy and advanced biotechnology.
- Integration of national security and industrial policy: modern warfare requires advanced technology, making economic and military security inseparable.
- Envisioning a broad economic bloc: coordinating with trusted partner countries to enhance strategic and financial resilience.
- Domestic policy for middle-class revival: strategic regional approaches, especially in historically manufacturing-heavy states.
In summary, these actions amount to creating a new U.S.-led world order to address regional and global strategic challenges, consistent across administrations.
HOW U.S. POLICY CHANGES AFFECT JAPAN
Changes in U.S. policy will affect Japan’s industries, including food and agriculture, through multiple transmission channels in the short, medium, and long term. The most visible short-term impact is the rise in prices for production materials, including feed ingredients, fertilizers, energy, and agricultural machinery. This poses a significant burden for Japan, which relies heavily on imports for feed grains and oilseeds.
During the COVID-19 crisis, vegetable imports from China were stopped, directly impacting Japanese food industries and consumers. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Japan’s procurement costs, including ocean freight, were indirectly affected as countries previously relying on Ukraine shifted sourcing elsewhere. Rising freight rates for fertilizer raw materials, such as ammonium phosphate, directly impacted procurement costs.
Globalization has dispersed the impact of regional events worldwide; however, recent realities suggest that even previously unaffected regions must anticipate global crises. Exchange rates and inflation further complicate this. For example, the undervalued yen contributed to a rise in inbound tourism to Japan (Bank of Japan, 2025).
In the medium term, a critical factor is whether U.S. products become more competitive due to government policy as part of a national security strategy. Japan, as a reliable partner, may be expected to prioritize purchasing from allies rather than solely from cheaper sources. For Japanese industry and consumers accustomed to free-market pricing, this may entail adjustment or pain.
Additionally, modern Japan faces internal challenges. Key issues in the food and agriculture sector include:
- High import dependency on key commodities (MAFF, n.d.):
- Rice: 100% domestic production (~8 million tons), occasional temporary shortages;
- Wheat: ~1 million tons domestic production; 5.5 million tons imported;
- Corn: negligible domestic production; ~15 million tons imported; and
- Soybeans: 250,000 tons domestic production; 4 million tons imported.
- Dependence on imported fertilizer ingredients (MAFF, 2025, p. 340):
- Urea: 2020 — 57% Malaysia, 27% China → 2023 — 75% Malaysia, 8% China, domestic 5%
- Ammonium phosphate: 2020 — 90% China → 2023 — 73% China, 15% Morocco, 4% U.S.
- Potassium chloride: 2020 — Canada 44%, Russia 23%, Belarus 14% → 2023 — Canada 68%, Israel 5%, Laos 4%, others 23%
In the long term, Japan’s agricultural workforce is rapidly aging. As of 2024, the average age of agricultural workers is 69.2 years, with 70% of core farmers aged 65 or older (MAFF, n.d.). Approximately 70% of Japan’s land is mountainous; the remaining 30% is flat. Large-scale production is feasible mainly on flatlands, whereas mid-mountain regions account for ~40% of agricultural output by value.
Impacts on Japanese Agriculture and Strategic Challenges
Japanese agriculture faces three structural vulnerabilities:
- Heavy dependence on imported ingredients for feed and fertilizer;
- Geopolitical exposure to global economic and strategic dynamics; and
- Demographic and geographic constraints on domestic production.
Strategically, Japan requires diversification of import sources, strengthening domestic supply chains, and industrial/market policies aligned with security, including technology investment and human resource development.
Rising global volatility in agricultural material prices affects fertilizer, feed, and export competitiveness of products such as Wagyu beef. The aging agricultural population necessitates a rethink of food procurement methods. Cooperation with the U.S. from a security perspective increases dependence on U.S. price structures.
Immediate strategic directions include:
- Diversifying import sources;
- Building resilient domestic supply chains; and
- Shifting from price-oriented to security-integrated agricultural policy.
Modern “security” encompasses both food and economic security. Japan must balance strategic dependence and autonomy within a free-market framework.
CONCLUSION
U.S. tariff policy is part of a long-term strategy to respond to structural changes in global trade. Japan occupies a strategically important position adjacent to the Chinese market. With this understanding, Japan must pursue a long-term, holistic strategy to preserve agriculture, build resilient domestic food systems, and ensure food and economic security.
Key strategic objectives include:
- Ensuring strategic autonomy while aligning with long-term U.S. policy;
- Rebuilding domestic food, feed, fertilizer, and broader supply-chain infrastructure;
- Securing a diversified and resilient supply chain; and
- Shifting from a price-oriented to a security-integrated agricultural policy.
REFERENCES
Bank of Japan. (2025). Effective and real exchange rate data. https://www.boj.or.jp/statistics/index.htm
Congressional Research Service. (2025, January 31). U.S. tariff policy: Overview. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46770
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan. (n.d.). Food supply and demand table. https://www.maff.go.jp/j/zyukyu/fbs/#r
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan. (n.d.). Statistics on agricultural labor force. https://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/sihyo/data/08.html
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan. (2025). White paper on food, agriculture and rural areas. https://www.maff.go.jp/j/press/2025/03/press.html
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2025). Economic diplomacy. https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/index.html
The White House. (2025, July 31). Further modifying the reciprocal tariff rates. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/further-modifying-the-reciprocal-tariff-rates/
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2024). Population prospects of countries in special situations. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2024/Jan/undesa_pd_2024_report-countries-special-situations_web.pd
U.S. Tariff Policy and Its Impacts on Japanese Agriculture
ABSTRACT
This paper analyzes recent shifts in U.S. tariff policy toward strategic protectionism and their implications for Japanese agriculture. Japan’s heavy reliance on imported agricultural products and fertilizers, coupled with an aging farming population, exposes structural vulnerabilities. The paper emphasizes the need to understand the continuity of U.S. strategic objectives, rather than focusing excessively on policy changes such as large-scale investments or tariff policy shifts made by successive U.S. administrations. It also argues that Japan must diversify its import sources, strengthen domestic supply chains, and implement agricultural and industrial policies that integrate security considerations. Aligning strategically with long-term U.S. objectives while preserving domestic autonomy is essential for sustaining resilience, competitiveness, and food security in a volatile global trade environment.
Keywords: U.S. tariff policy, Japanese agriculture, supply chain, strategic protectionism, food security
INTRODUCTION
This paper provides an overview of changes in U.S. tariff policy and their impact on Japanese agriculture. U.S. tariff policy is seen as having entered a new phase of “strategic protectionism.” The Trump administration’s rapid introduction of reciprocal tariffs and additional taxes, along with the recent disruption in global soybean trade caused by U.S.-China tensions, has forced many countries to recognize the need to rethink their trade policy fundamentally.
In particular, Japan, heavily dependent on imported agricultural products, is highly exposed to global trade and environmental changes. Looking at the current situation from a bird’s-eye view, the vast Chinese import demand, mainly soybeans from South America, is now increasingly linked to Brazil. This shift will further narrow Japan’s strategic procurement options beyond the United States.
Changes in U.S. tariff policy could also impact Japanese agricultural exports that have been rapidly gaining attention in recent years, potentially driving up export prices. The Japanese agriculture and food industry will also need to adopt new approaches to respond to changes in market rules and business practices.
An additional risk is that the United States, as an ally, may demand, in negotiations based on the Japan-U.S. Agreement, further expansion of U.S. agricultural exports into the Japanese market, where aging is progressing. Succession issues in agriculture are also severe.
Based on these situations, this paper examines the following:
As an analytical lens, this paper considers geopolitics, global supply chain security, and the structural vulnerability of Japanese agriculture.
U.S. TARIFF POLICY: TRANSFORMATION OR INEVITABLE COURSE
U.S. tariff policy is part of a long-term strategy to strengthen industries and secure international competitiveness. Recent protectionist tendencies can also be understood from this strategic perspective. In fact, U.S. tariff policy has undergone several significant changes from the 19th century to the present day.
The first era saw tariffs as a primary source of national revenue, during which Congress determined tariff rates. The U.S. Constitution initially granted Congress this authority. In reality, the Tariff Act of 1930 was the last tariff act in which Congress set tariff rates. This was the era of the Great Depression, and it was the first time Congress granted the president authority “to negotiate reciprocal trade agreements and proclaim tariff reductions up to a pre-set level” (Congressional Research Service [CRS], 2025). The key point is that this enabled the president to act independently regarding reciprocal trade agreements.
Following decades of international negotiations and procedural adjustments regarding non-tariff barriers, tariffs in the United States today are consistently used as a tool for U.S. foreign policy and trade promotion, regardless of the administration in power. According to CRS (2025), over the past 70-plus years, U.S. tariff revenue has never exceeded 2% of federal revenue. In FY2024, tariff revenue totaled $77 billion, representing only about 1.57% of total revenue.
The Trump administration appears to have actively utilized tariffs as a strategic tool for foreign policy and trade promotion. However, looking at these long-term numerical trends, it is possible to get the impression that tariff policies are not particularly effective at securing long-term tax revenue. Rather, they were likely measures to strengthen U.S. industries over a medium- to long-term period through subsidies, such as grants, tax credits, and loans. A prime example is the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, a massive five-year industrial policy totaling $52.7 billion. Its primary purpose is to strengthen U.S. domestic semiconductor production and improve supply chains, with an eye toward national and technological security.
While some citizens understand its long-term purpose, others express considerable dissatisfaction, seeking tangible solutions to their immediate hardships. Faced with these political constraints and public frustration, the Trump administration aimed to increase tax revenue using tariffs—a direct, immediate measure. Therefore, even with changes in administrations, it may be more accurate to view the broader U.S. economic system as having pursued a consistent policy: advancing large-scale investments and initiating early-stage capital recovery to bridge the period until those investments yield returns. Subsidies and tariffs are simply different tools used to enhance U.S. industrial competitiveness.
It is undeniable that U.S. trade policy has shifted somewhat toward protectionism from complete free trade. This shift stems from a greater emphasis on national strategy, industrial competitiveness, and reconstruction and reinforcement of supply chains that have overextended across the globe. From a systemic viewpoint, the current policy process appears as follows: the President sets the policy direction, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) establishes the legal and negotiation framework, and the Department of Commerce and other agencies justify it from the perspectives of national security and national interest. If current developments are indeed part of such a long-term institutional effort, the ongoing structural changes could extend beyond the current president’s term.
POTENTIAL AND DESIRABLE STRATEGIC BIG PICTURE
What vision is the United States pursuing behind this series of moves? Five important points emerge:
The United States is advancing supply chain restructuring and dominance in cutting-edge technologies with strategic competition from regional and global economic rivals in mind. Tariff policy is part of this broader strategy and not merely a financial measure. The strategic scope is wide-ranging, but the objective is clear: restoring U.S. manufacturing competitiveness.
The United States appears intent on minimizing dependence on countries with differing values, especially for key technologies and critical raw materials. To achieve this, it is necessary to strategically downsize globally expanded supply chains for raw material procurement while securing reliable trade partners who will confidently and continuously purchase U.S. products. Current U.S. actions thus represent carefully considered strategic protectionism rather than emotional protectionism.
Countries meeting these conditions likely include the EU, Canada, Japan, and strategically reliable partners in the Asia-Pacific region. Tariffs were tools used to secure geopolitical competitive advantage over these countries and territories. Since the establishment of the WTO in 1995 and through multiple rounds of GATT negotiations, the goal has been to maintain a rule-based global trading system. However, many countries have increasingly concluded bilateral and regional agreements. According to Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA, 2025), as of January 2025, Japan has 21 Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs/FTAs) in force or signed with 24 countries and regions. Additionally, while negotiations on two agreements are currently suspended, six agreements are under negotiation.
From the U.S. perspective, reshoring, revitalizing domestic manufacturing, and strategic measures to mitigate external geopolitical and economic risks are straightforward moves. Taking a broader view reveals a bigger picture:
In summary, these actions amount to creating a new U.S.-led world order to address regional and global strategic challenges, consistent across administrations.
HOW U.S. POLICY CHANGES AFFECT JAPAN
Changes in U.S. policy will affect Japan’s industries, including food and agriculture, through multiple transmission channels in the short, medium, and long term. The most visible short-term impact is the rise in prices for production materials, including feed ingredients, fertilizers, energy, and agricultural machinery. This poses a significant burden for Japan, which relies heavily on imports for feed grains and oilseeds.
During the COVID-19 crisis, vegetable imports from China were stopped, directly impacting Japanese food industries and consumers. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Japan’s procurement costs, including ocean freight, were indirectly affected as countries previously relying on Ukraine shifted sourcing elsewhere. Rising freight rates for fertilizer raw materials, such as ammonium phosphate, directly impacted procurement costs.
Globalization has dispersed the impact of regional events worldwide; however, recent realities suggest that even previously unaffected regions must anticipate global crises. Exchange rates and inflation further complicate this. For example, the undervalued yen contributed to a rise in inbound tourism to Japan (Bank of Japan, 2025).
In the medium term, a critical factor is whether U.S. products become more competitive due to government policy as part of a national security strategy. Japan, as a reliable partner, may be expected to prioritize purchasing from allies rather than solely from cheaper sources. For Japanese industry and consumers accustomed to free-market pricing, this may entail adjustment or pain.
Additionally, modern Japan faces internal challenges. Key issues in the food and agriculture sector include:
In the long term, Japan’s agricultural workforce is rapidly aging. As of 2024, the average age of agricultural workers is 69.2 years, with 70% of core farmers aged 65 or older (MAFF, n.d.). Approximately 70% of Japan’s land is mountainous; the remaining 30% is flat. Large-scale production is feasible mainly on flatlands, whereas mid-mountain regions account for ~40% of agricultural output by value.
Impacts on Japanese Agriculture and Strategic Challenges
Japanese agriculture faces three structural vulnerabilities:
Strategically, Japan requires diversification of import sources, strengthening domestic supply chains, and industrial/market policies aligned with security, including technology investment and human resource development.
Rising global volatility in agricultural material prices affects fertilizer, feed, and export competitiveness of products such as Wagyu beef. The aging agricultural population necessitates a rethink of food procurement methods. Cooperation with the U.S. from a security perspective increases dependence on U.S. price structures.
Immediate strategic directions include:
Modern “security” encompasses both food and economic security. Japan must balance strategic dependence and autonomy within a free-market framework.
CONCLUSION
U.S. tariff policy is part of a long-term strategy to respond to structural changes in global trade. Japan occupies a strategically important position adjacent to the Chinese market. With this understanding, Japan must pursue a long-term, holistic strategy to preserve agriculture, build resilient domestic food systems, and ensure food and economic security.
Key strategic objectives include:
REFERENCES
Bank of Japan. (2025). Effective and real exchange rate data. https://www.boj.or.jp/statistics/index.htm
Congressional Research Service. (2025, January 31). U.S. tariff policy: Overview. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46770
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan. (n.d.). Food supply and demand table. https://www.maff.go.jp/j/zyukyu/fbs/#r
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan. (n.d.). Statistics on agricultural labor force. https://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/sihyo/data/08.html
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan. (2025). White paper on food, agriculture and rural areas. https://www.maff.go.jp/j/press/2025/03/press.html
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2025). Economic diplomacy. https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/index.html
The White House. (2025, July 31). Further modifying the reciprocal tariff rates. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/further-modifying-the-reciprocal-tariff-rates/
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2024). Population prospects of countries in special situations. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2024/Jan/undesa_pd_2024_report-countries-special-situations_web.pd