Which countries have imposed sanctions on the United States and why?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Several countries have retaliated against U.S. measures or imposed trade restrictions on the United States at various times — most visibly Canada and the EU during the 2018 U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs, and some states have taken reciprocal trade actions in response to U.S. sanctions or tariffs [1]. Historical patterns of reciprocal sanctions go back centuries and continue today: economic retaliation is a common reaction when Washington uses tariffs, embargoes or secondary sanctions [1].
1. A long tradition of retaliation: trade measures as diplomacy
Economic measures against the United States are not new; they fit into a long history of reciprocal trade barriers and embargoes dating from the 19th century through modern tariff wars. Wikipedia’s survey of “economic sanctions against the United States” notes that retaliation for U.S. tariffs and embargoes has occurred repeatedly — for example, Canada responded to U.S. steel/aluminum tariffs in 2018 with tariffs on U.S. goods [1].
2. Recent, concrete examples: Canada’s 2018 counter-tariffs
When the Trump administration imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum in 2018, Canada (then led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau) retaliated with targeted tariffs on U.S. products including steel, aluminum, paper, plywood and whiskey — a classic tit-for-tat trade response that Wikipedia records as a modern instance of sanctions-like measures against the U.S. [1].
3. Retaliation as response to U.S. secondary or unilateral measures
Sources describe how other states sometimes react when the U.S. applies unilateral tools — like secondary sanctions or high tariffs — that affect third parties. Analysts quoted in the U.S. sanctions literature argue that aggressive U.S. financial measures can push countries to develop alternatives to U.S.-centric systems (dedollarization) and provoke countermeasures or non-cooperation with U.S. policy [2].
4. Not the same as comprehensive sanctions lists — scope matters
U.S. sanctions are managed centrally by OFAC and target foreign countries, entities and individuals for policy reasons (terrorism, proliferation, human rights) [3]. “Sanctions against the United States” reported in the sources generally refers to retaliatory trade measures (tariffs, import restrictions) or political counters, not formal OFAC‑style blocking sanctions imposed by other countries; the sources do not provide a unified list of countries that currently or formally “sanction” the U.S. government in the legal sense (available sources do not mention a comprehensive foreign equivalent to OFAC lists targeting the United States).
5. Motives cited for retaliation: commercial pain, politics, and reciprocity
The sources show three consistent motives when countries act against U.S. measures: to protect domestic industries hurt by U.S. tariffs or sanctions (economic self‑defense), to signal political displeasure with U.S. policy, and to preserve negotiating leverage by imposing costs on U.S. interests [1] [2].
6. Limits of the available reporting and definitional clarity
Existing reporting conflates distinct phenomena: (a) countries imposing formal sanctions on the U.S. government, (b) trading partners using retaliatory tariffs or quotas, and (c) strategic moves to circumvent U.S. secondary sanctions [1] [2]. The provided sources document examples of (b) and the broader phenomenon in (c) but do not list a set of nations that have issued legal “sanctions” on the U.S. comparable to OFAC programs (available sources do not mention a list of countries that have imposed formal, legal sanctions on the United States comparable to OFAC-designated programs).
7. Why this matters now: consequences for global finance and diplomacy
Scholars and reporting cited in the sources argue that aggressive U.S. sanctions and tariffs fuel efforts by other states to reduce reliance on U.S. financial systems and prompt reciprocal measures that complicate diplomacy and trade [2]. That dynamic can produce sustained commercial friction and institutional responses — alternative payment systems and trade realignments — which the sources highlight as an important effect of U.S. sanctioning practice [2].
8. What to watch next — indicators of escalation or accommodation
Monitor further instances of tariff retaliation (like the 2018 Canada case) and policy moves aimed at avoiding U.S. secondary sanctions; both signal reciprocal economic measures. Also watch official statements and legal instruments from foreign governments for any formal designation regimes that would amount to “sanctions” on the United States — the current sources document historical and recent trade retaliation but do not list new formal foreign sanction regimes targeting the U.S. government (available sources do not mention such a formal list) [1] [2].
Sources: Historical and recent examples and analysis are drawn from a survey of retaliatory measures and sanctions history summarized in Wikipedia [1] and policy analysis on the effects of U.S. sanctions and tariffs on other states’ behavior [2].