Which industries in the USA and EU were most impacted by the average tariff rates in 2020?
Executive summary
Available reporting does not offer a single dataset that lists “which industries were most impacted by average tariff rates in 2020” for both the USA and the EU; instead, sources give average applied tariff levels and note sectoral hotspots such as autos, steel & aluminium and foodstuffs. The EU’s weighted mean applied tariff for 2020 was 1.48% (down from 1.84% in 2019) [1]; contemporary political disputes in 2020–2021 focused on steel & aluminium (up to 25% U.S. tariffs) and autos (noted sectoral differences, e.g., ~10% EU car tariffs vs ~2.5% U.S. for cars in some analyses) [2] [3].
1. What the headline numbers actually say — low average tariffs, but uneven effects
Macro-level averages show both blocs had low weighted mean applied tariffs: the European Union’s average applied tariff rate for 2020 was 1.48% (a 0.36 percentage-point decline from 2019), which reflects the weighted mean of effectively applied rates by product and partner [1]. Average rates hide large sectoral variation: political and policy attention in 2020 and nearby years concentrated on a handful of industries — most prominently steel & aluminium and automobiles — because those sectors carry much higher specific duties or were subject to exceptional measures [2] [3].
2. Steel and aluminium — the clearest, documented hotspot
The EU and the U.S. sparred over Section 232-style duties: the European Commission documented U.S. tariffs “of up to 25% on imports of steel, aluminium, and certain products containing steel and aluminium” — a clear, high-rate exception to low overall averages and a major source of industry-level impact [2]. Bruegel’s early assessments also singled out steel and aluminium as sectors where tariffs and retaliations could cause regional disruptions even if overall macro effects were moderate [4].
3. Automobiles — a politically charged, tariff-sensitive sector
Automotive tariffs emerged repeatedly in analyses and negotiations because small differences in applied rates produce large market effects: ING noted the EU’s tariffs on cars historically ran at about 10% versus roughly 2.5% in the U.S. for many car imports, making autos a focal point for complaints and bargaining [3]. Later trade politics and negotiations around 2024–2025 kept autos at the centre of talks and deals — for example, some agreements and headlines in 2025 make explicit carve-outs or negotiated percentages for cars [5] [6], indicating autos were among the most sensitive industries to tariff policy changes.
4. Agriculture, food and consumer goods — uneven, sometimes high tariffs
Several sources highlight food and beverages as another area of divergence: ING quantified an approximately 3.5 percentage-point difference in average tariffs on food & beverages between the blocs, and USTR statements about limited tariff-reduction packages in 2020 singled out products such as prepared meals, crystal glassware and tobacco-related items worth modest trade values [3] [7]. Political skirmishes and retaliatory lists regularly included agricultural items [8], underscoring agriculture and processed food as potentially heavily affected at the product-line level even if not dominant in the aggregate average.
5. Aerospace, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors — targeted disputes and later negotiations
Large civil aircraft disputes led to authorized countermeasures covering billions in trade, and the U.S. adjusted tariffs in that context in 2020 [9]. By 2025 negotiations referenced semiconductors and pharmaceuticals explicitly as covered categories in broader tariff frameworks, showing these capital- and technology-intensive sectors are strategically important and subject to bespoke treatments rather than uniform average rates [9] [5].
6. Why “average tariff in 2020” is a blunt instrument for industry impact
Multiple sources stress that overall averages (like the EU’s 1.48% figure) mask concentrated, high-impact measures: a small set of high tariff lines (steel, aluminium, autos, some agricultural products) and exceptional enforcement/retaliation decisions produce most of the political and economic pain. Bruegel and policy analyses therefore caution that modest average rates don’t mean no pain — localized, sectoral duties and WTO-authorized countermeasures drive real harm [4] [9].
7. What reporting does not provide and limits to this assessment
Available sources do not provide a single, comparable industry-by-industry ranking of tariff incidence and economic impact for both the U.S. and EU in calendar year 2020; instead they offer averages, case studies and later high-profile disputes [1] [2] [9]. For a definitive industry ranking you would need harmonized applied-tariff lines weighted by import values and direct estimates of trade/price elasticity or firm-level exposure — information not present in the current set of documents (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line: average tariffs in 2020 were low at the macro level (EU 1.48%), but the industries most visibly and materially affected were steel & aluminium, automobiles, selected agricultural/food products and a set of high-profile dispute sectors (aerospace, selected tech/pharma lines) because those lines carried much larger, targeted duties than the headline average suggests [1] [2] [3] [9].