What were the average USA EU tariff rates in 2020?

1. Headline numbers: what the major summaries report

The quick answer most readers will see is the CRS figure: a simple average MFN applied tariff of 3.4% for the U.S. and 5.1% for the EU in 2020 ^[1]. Those figures are clear, directly comparable MFN averages and are suitable when the question is “what were the average MFN applied rates in 2020?” ^[1].

2. Why different sources give different averages

Different methods produce different “average” tariff rates. Macrotrends reports a weighted mean applied tariff for the EU of 1.48% in 2020, which uses import-share weights so big trade lines count more than small ones ^[2]. The CRS number (5.1% for the EU) is a simple average MFN applied rate and is not necessarily trade‑weighted the same way ^[1]. Both are valid but answer slightly different questions about tariff exposure ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Trade-weighting matters: the economic meaning of the averages

A simple average treats each tariff line equally; a trade‑weighted (or “effectively applied”) average reflects how much trade actually faces each rate. For example, the EU’s weighted mean applied tariff of 1.48% ^[2] suggests that products facing high statutory rates represent a small share of EU imports. The Congressional Research Service also notes that over 60% of bilateral merchandise flows and 40–45% of agricultural trade are duty free, which helps explain why trade-weighted averages are often lower than simple averages ^[1].

4. Sectoral variation: averages hide big gaps

Averages obscure large sectoral differences. The CRS highlights much higher EU tariffs in certain lines: up to 26% for fish and seafood, 22% for trucks, 14% for bicycles, 10% for passenger vehicles and processed wood products — and a USDA-calculated average EU agricultural tariff reported around 30% for some measures ^[1]. Those sectoral peaks explain why political debate focuses on a handful of industries despite low overall averages ^[1].

5. Political framing and disputed arithmetic

Tariff numbers are often weaponized in political claims. Later debates and fact-checking show divergent headline claims — e.g., political proposals and later US administration framing produced much higher “reciprocal” rates and contested calculations; fact-checkers note the EU’s own position that its average is close to 1% “considering actual trade,” while WTO estimates differ again ^[3]. Available sources do not give a single authoritative “political” average for 2020 beyond the data-based CRS and weightings cited above ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Short caveat on data vintage and what’s not in these sources

The numbers above come from the supplied documents: CRS simple MFN averages (3.4% U.S., 5.1% EU) and Macrotrends’ weighted EU figure (1.48%) ^{[1] [2]}. Available sources do not mention a single consolidated WTO-verified 2020 trade-weighted average that supersedes these two approaches, nor do they provide the EU Commission’s “considering actual trade” 2020 number in these search results ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

7. Bottom line for readers and analysts

If you need a standard MFN simple average for policy comparison cite CRS: U.S. 3.4%, EU 5.1% in 2020 ^[1]. If you need an import‑weighted, economic exposure measure, use the weighted mean applied tariff (EU 1.48% reported by Macrotrends for 2020) and note that sectoral peaks (e.g., agriculture, vehicles, seafood) can be far higher than the average ^{[2] [1]}. Political claims about “very high” or “reciprocal” tariff rates rely on alternative arithmetic and framing; check which averaging method a source uses before accepting headline percentages ^[3].

If you want, I can compile the underlying WTO/UNCTAD/WB data lines used to create the weighted and simple averages so you can see which products drive the differences.