U.S. Agricultural Market Access through Reciprocal Tariff Negotiations

By Ming Wang and Shawn Arita

The United States has rolled out a series of new trade deals in recent months, spanning Latin America, Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Europe. Most are still framework agreements, but together they signal a move toward more reciprocal tariff reductions and more targeted market access. For U.S. agriculture, these deals could shift both opportunities and competition in the year ahead. In this blog, we summarize how these deals may improve U.S. agricultural market access.

Figure 1: U.S. Agricultural Market Access Commitments through Recent Deal in 2025

Note: This map presents total U.S. agricultural exports to each country in 2024, the top two U.S. agricultural export products, and the key measures contained in each agreement.

The figure summarizes where these reciprocal tariff discussions currently stand and the top agricultural exports to these markets. As shown, only the agreements with Cambodia and Malaysia have been fully completed, while many other countries are now engaged in framework deals that involve different combinations of tariff reductions, non-tariff barriers (NTB) reforms, and purchase commitments. These negotiations span a wide range of U.S. exports, from soybeans and soybean meal to corn, wheat, almonds, and cotton, underscoring both the diversity of markets involved and the potential for shifts in U.S. agricultural market access as these deals move forward.

Why NTBs Matter for U.S. Agriculture:

NTBs are trade measures other than tariffs that restrict or delay the movement of goods across borders. These include import licensing rules, quotas, product standards, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) requirements, labeling and packaging regulations, and inspection or certification procedures that add cost or uncertainty to exporting. Recent research shows that non-tariff measures can meaningfully restrict U.S. agricultural exports. Using data on SPS requirements and technical barriers to trade (TBTs) reported in the USTR’s National Trade Estimate from 2007–2021, Karagulle, Emlinger, and Grant (2025) estimate that NTBs reduce U.S. agricultural exports by about 35%, equivalent to a 16% ad valorem tariff.

In the context of the recent market-access agreements, Figure 2 provides a direct comparison between each partner country’s average agricultural MFN tariff and the estimated ad-valorem equivalent (AVE) of its NTBs. In most markets, such as Argentina, Cambodia, the EU, Indonesia, and Malaysia, the estimated agricultural NTB AVE is more than double the corresponding MFN tariff rate. A few countries, including Japan, Thailand, and El Salvador, show a more moderate gap, while Ecuador is the only case where tariffs exceed estimated NTB costs. Therefore, NTBs play an important role in determining actual market-access conditions for U.S. agricultural exports.

Figure 2. Comparison of Average Agricultural MFN Tariffs and Non-Tariff Barrier (NTB) Cost Equivalents Across Recent Trade-Deal Partners

Data: WTO and World Bank.

Key Provisions of the Trade Deals for the Agricultural Sector:

Recent deals surrounding reciprocal-tariff discussions have the potential to offer meaningful new opportunities for U.S. agriculture. Across the 13 partner economies, agricultural MFN tariffs remain elevated, generally between 8% and 30%, and NTBs impose additional ad-valorem equivalent costs of 10% to 35%. The new frameworks substantially reduce tariff exposure, expand duty-free quotas, and streamline border procedures for U.S. exporters. Countries such as Ecuador, Switzerland/Liechtenstein, Thailand, and Vietnam, which apply some of the highest MFN agricultural tariffs (with several exceeding 15% and a few above 28%), represent especially significant gains. The negotiated tariff cuts in these markets would improve U.S. access and reduce effective trade barriers.

Equally important, many of the deals offer commitments to address long-standing non-tariff barriers, including dairy and meat certification requirements, import licensing rules, recognition of U.S. standards, and other regulatory bottlenecks. The commitments being discussed in the trade frameworks would significantly lower effective trade barriers. For example, Argentina has committed to simplifying meat and dairy registration requirements, Cambodia would accept U.S. SPS certificates, the EU offers to streamline sanitary documentation for pork and dairy, Indonesia has offered commitments to eliminate import licensing for U.S. food and agricultural products. These reforms, if followed through upon, would lower compliance costs, create more predictable market access, and directly benefit U.S. exporters of beef, pork, poultry, dairy, soybeans, wheat, and high-value specialty crops.

In addition to tariff cuts and NTB reforms, several agreements include sizable purchase commitments that would further expand commercial opportunities for U.S. agriculture. Indonesia has outlined roughly $4.5 billion in annual purchases of U.S. soybeans, soybean meal, wheat, and cotton; Thailand’s commitments would amount to $2.6 billion per year in feed corn, soybean meal, and DDGS; and Vietnam has signed over $2.9 billion in agricultural MOUs. Japan’s commitments, totaling $8 billion annually across corn, soybeans, fertilizer, and bioethanol, add further momentum. These commitments provide immediate demand for U.S. bulk commodities and strengthen longer-term export prospects for soy, feed grains, cotton, and related value-chain products.

Table 1: Summary of Selected Commitments in U.S. Reciprocal Tariff and Market-Access Agreements

Source: The White House fact sheets and joint statements.

What This Means for the Agricultural Sector

The recent reciprocal tariff deals represent significant potential market access gains for U.S. agriculture. Although many partner economies entered the negotiations with relatively high MFN tariffs and sizable non-tariff barriers, the new frameworks substantially may reduce these constraints through tariff elimination and meaningful NTB reforms. Across both completed and framework agreements, partners commit to streamlined licensing, recognition of U.S. certificates, science-based SPS systems, and clearer rules for dairy, meat, and horticultural imports. These changes are particularly consequential for bulk commodities, animal proteins, dairy, and high-value specialty crops, which account for most U.S. agricultural exports to the deal countries. As implementation proceeds, the realization of these gains will hinge on sustained follow-through on NTB reforms, which have historically posed the most binding constraints on U.S. exporters. Effective monitoring, enforcement, and continued regulatory cooperation will be essential to ensure that commitments translate into operational improvements at the border.

Reference:

Karagulle, Y. E., Emlinger, C., & Grant, J. H. (2025). Non-Tariff Measures and U.S. Agricultural Exports. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.70007

Contact:

Ming Wang – ming.wang@ndsu.edu

Shawn Arita – shawn.arita@ndsu.edu