• Response to Tariffs: Zimbabwe removed all tariffs on U.S. imports to foster "amicable relations," despite lacking leverage in this trade relationship
  • Economic Risks: This unilateral tariff removal could exacerbate significant trade deficit with the U.S.,s lashing export revenues due to reduced demand
  • SADC Implications: Zimbabwe risks disrupting SADC’s trade unity, as it contrasts with existing tariff frameworks among member states

     Source: Zimstat,, Equity Axis

Harare- After U.S. President Donald Trump hit Zimbabwe with 18% tariffs on April 3, 2025, as part of his reciprocal tariffs war, Zimbabwe responded dayslater, on April 6, 2025, by removing all tariffs on U.S. imports. President Emmerson Mnangagwa framed this move as a gesture toward “amicable relations” and “equitable trade,” aiming to soften the impact of the U.S. tariffs and possibly coax Washington into reconsidering its stance or easing broader sanctions.

This unilateral decision seems designed to safeguard Zimbabwe’s modest $67.8 million in exports to the U.S. (2024, U.S. data, 48.15 million according to Zimstat data) primarily sugar, tobacco, and ferroalloys, while potentially reducing costs for American imports like machinery or pharmaceuticals.

However, the strategy’s logic is shaky: it offers economic concessions without a guaranteed U.S. response, leaving Zimbabwe vulnerable given its negligible leverage in a trade relationship that constitutes just 0.002% of total U.S. trade volume.

Economically, this could exacerbate Zimbabwe’s already significant trade deficit with the U.S. Since 2021, Zimstat data shows exports of $102.23 million against imports of $306.79 million, resulting in a $204.56 million deficit over three years and the new dynamics threaten to widen it again.

Dropping tariffs on U.S. goods might increase imports potentially from $43.8 million to $50-60 million annually by making American products cheaper, yet the 18% U.S. tariff could shrink Zimbabwe’s export earnings to $30-38 million if demand drops.

This growing deficit is perilous for an economy reliant on mineral exports (90% of foreign exchange) like gold and lithium, straining forex reserves already squeezed by a $2 billion debt to China and restricted multilateral financing under ZDERA. While cheaper U.S. imports might benefit sectors like agriculture, the net impact risks deepening Zimbabwe’s economic fragility without U.S. reciprocity.

The move also reverberates across the Southern African Development Community (SADC), where Mnangagwa chairs the bloc. SADC’s Free Trade Area, in place since 2008, fosters tariff-free trade among its 16 members (85% of goods by 2012) while upholding a common external tariff framework.

Zimbabwe’s average applied tariff is 15.8% (WTO, 2019), often with a 25% surtax, even on SADC partners. By granting the U.S. duty-free access unilaterally, Zimbabwe risks disrupting this system, possibly shifting imports from South Africa, 30% of its exports, $1.2 billion in 2023 to the U.S., whose total trade with Zimbabwe is a mere $111.6 million.

This misalignment could undermine SADC’s unity, especially as peers face higher U.S. tariffs (Lesotho 50%, Botswana 37%, South Africa 30%) and mull collective responses. Investigative  journalists like Hopewell Chin’ono argue it weakens Zimbabwe’s SADC leadership, potentially sparking demands for a bloc-wide strategy against Trump’s tariffs.

At home, Zimbabwe’s economy faces a precarious balance. Tariff-free U.S. imports could cut costs for capital goods perhaps $5-10 million annually in machinery bolstering mining or manufacturing in a nation grappling with power shortages and 80% informal employment.

Yet, with imports dominated by South Africa and China ($3.1 billion in 2023), U.S. goods are a minor fraction of Zimbabwe’s $8 billion import bill. A surge in U.S. inflows might swamp local producers, already hobbled by existing tariffs and surtaxes, while the 18% U.S. tariff could slash export revenues by $10-15 million, hitting tobacco and ferroalloy sectors hardest.

This economic wager, pitched as “open for business,” offers symbolic flair but sidesteps core issues, forex scarcity, inflation (ZiG devalued 43% in 2024), and corruption leaving Zimbabwe exposed without U.S. concessions.

Thawing trade relations with the U.S., however, demands far more than tariff cuts. It hinges on political reforms, property rights, and human rights progress, prerequisites Washington has enforced since ZIDERA in 2001 and sanctions in 2003.

The U.S. ties improved engagement to democratic governance, viewing Zimbabwe’s autocracy under Mugabe and allegedly under President Mnangagwa as a non-starter, barring AGOA eligibility (unlike South Africa’s $7 billion duty-free exports) and limiting DFC investment to $6 million since 2015.

These reforms are non-negotiable for U.S. trust, not economic handouts. President Mnangagwa’s tariff removal dodges this, preserving his regime’s grip while extending a low-stakes olive branch. Real openness to U.S. business, say, $500 million in lithium from Tesla requires political accountability, investor-safe property rights, and an end to human rights violations, none of which this addresses.

Will it attract U.S. investment? Unlikely. U.S. firms avoid Zimbabwe due to sanctions, corruption (rank 157/180, Transparency International), and instability, preferring AGOA-eligible nations like Kenya.

Tariff removal might lift U.S. exports by $5-10 million, but it doesn’t dismantle ZIDERA’s financing chokehold or reassure investors fearing expropriation. China’s $1 billion in lithium mines thrives on accepting Zimbabwe’s status quo. U.S. capital, constrained by law and ethics, won’t bite without substantive reform.

Zimbabwe’s play is a tactical misfire: it risks deficits, frays SADC ties, and fails to unlock U.S. potential, banking on goodwill where Washington insists on transformation. True gains demand processing capacity, regional clout, and political overhaul, not a tariff-free sop to an indifferent superpower.

Equity Axis News