The Federal Government has formally acknowledged the recent 14% tariff imposed by the United States on Nigerian exports, describing the development as a challenge with serious implications for non-oil sectors, while also positioning it as a call to accelerate economic diversification and deepen trade resilience.

In a statement issued on Sunday and signed by the Honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment, Dr. Jumoke Oduwole, the government said that although crude oil has historically dominated Nigeria’s exports to the U.S., the new tariffs could deal a significant blow to non-oil exports—many of which had enjoyed exemptions under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).

The new U.S. tariff regime includes a 10% levy on key non-oil categories, a move the Nigerian government says could undermine the price competitiveness of its goods in the American market, particularly in the value-added and agro-processing sectors.

“For businesses in the non-oil sector, these measures present destabilizing challenges to price competitiveness and market access, especially in emerging and value-added sectors vital to our diversification agenda. SMEs building their business models around AGOA exemptions will face the pressures of rising costs and uncertain buyer commitments,” the statement read.

According to government figures, Nigeria’s total exports to the United States have averaged between $5 and $6 billion annually over the last two years, with over 90% of that made up by crude oil and other mineral fuels. Non-oil products such as fertilizers, urea, lead, and a limited range of agricultural goods—account for less than 5% of the total.

Although the current tariff structure spares oil exports from the full brunt of the hike, Nigeria’s heavy dependence on crude means the indirect effects could still have severe consequences, especially if prices falter amid global uncertainty. More immediately, sectors that had been carving out space in niche, value-driven markets in the U.S. now face setbacks that may be difficult to absorb.

For Nigerian exporters, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, the situation echoes the challenges echoed by businesses in other countries affected by the tariffs. Nigeria’s SME exporters, who’ve invested in meeting AGOA standards, now find themselves shut out of the benefits, facing the consequences of global decisions made without their input or negotiation.

Dr. Oduwole noted that the Tinubu administration is treating the development with pragmatism, not alarm. She said the government is focused on turning the disruption into an opportunity to rethink Nigeria’s place in global trade, strengthen its economic fundamentals, and expand market access beyond traditional Western partners.

She explained that the government is ramping up investments in policy frameworks, trade financing, and infrastructure support to help businesses adapt. Among the measures being intensified are efforts to identify and expand alternative export destinations outside the United States, improve quality control and traceability for Nigerian goods, and advance strategic trade diplomacy to secure more favorable terms in emerging markets.

The government emphasized that the United States remains a “valued trade and investment partner” and noted that Nigeria is already in consultations with U.S. trade representatives and the World Trade Organization (TO) to address the implications of the new tariffs. The statement referenced a March 26 meeting between the U.S. Ambassador and Minister Oduwole, during which both parties reaffirmed their commitment to a strong bilateral trade relationship.

Nigeria is also reemphasizing its commitment to regional trade initiatives, especially the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which it believes can offer a long-term buffer against volatility in Western markets. The government said it is pushing for accelerated implementation of the AfCFTA and leveraging platforms like the Pan-African Payment and Settlement System (PAPSS) to boost intra-African commerce.

While the immediate impact of the tariffs may not drastically reduce Nigeria’s trade volumes with the United States, especially in oil, the broader implications are hard to ignore. The concern is less about figures and more about positioning—how Nigeria and other African countries find themselves at the mercy of unilateral global economic decisions that can unravel years of policy planning and export strategy.

The current situation was triggered by a sweeping trade directive from U.S. President Donald Trump, who declared what he called a “Liberation Day” by slapping tariffs on all of America’s trading partners. The move, intended to correct what Trump called “chronic trade imbalances,” sent global markets into a panic. Investors pulled back amid fears of retaliatory measures, which came swiftly from countries like China, which responded with a 34% tariff on U.S. imports.

Nigeria’s 14% tariff—relatively modest compared to the potential 28% penalty calculated based on its trade surplus with the U.S.—was described by Trump as a “concessionary” gesture. But whether that gesture translates into any real cushion for Nigerian businesses remains to be seen.

For now, the federal government is choosing to focus on adaptation and reform. Dr. Oduwole said the administration’s response is rooted in long-term strategy, not short-term panic.

“We are approaching this moment with pragmatism and purpose—turning global trade challenges into opportunities to grow our non-oil export footprint and build a more resilient economy,” she said.

Still, for exporters, the road ahead will be anything but smooth. Many had tailored their operations to exploit AGOA’s preferential access to the U.S. market. Now, with that safety net suddenly weakened, they must either absorb the cost or pass it on to consumers—both unattractive options in a fiercely competitive environment.

British carmaker Jaguar Land Rover has announced a pause in its vehicle shipments to the United States for the month of April, as it begins reassessing the impact of sweeping new tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump on imported cars.

The company, which described the U.S. as “an important market,” said the move is part of its short-term adjustment strategy as it determines how to navigate what it called the “new trading terms.” In an email to CNBC on Sunday, a Jaguar Land Rover spokesperson confirmed the suspension of shipments, saying, “As we work to address the new trading terms with our business partners, we are enacting our planned short-term actions including a shipment pause in April, as we develop our mid- to longer-term plans.”

The decision comes days after the Trump administration’s 25% tariff on all imported vehicles took effect, triggering a wave of uncertainty and backlash across the global auto industry. The tariffs are a centerpiece of what Trump believes is a protectionist economic strategy to reduce the United States’ trade deficit and encourage domestic manufacturing.

But the ripple effects have been felt across economies. While Jaguar Land Rover is the first high-profile automaker to halt shipments, several others are already weighing their options, signaling a broader shift in the industry’s approach to the American market.

Volkswagen Group, which owns brands like Audi, Porsche, and Bentley, has said it is “actively reviewing” its U.S. supply strategy and pricing models in light of the tariffs. The German automaker, which relies heavily on U.S. imports for luxury and performance models, has warned of potential cost increases and slower deliveries in the months ahead.

Toyota, which imports a wide range of models from Japan, is also assessing its supply chain exposure. While the company operates several plants in the U.S., a large share of its vehicles, including the Land Cruiser, Prius, and many Lexus models, are imported. A company executive told Nikkei Asia that the tariffs “will force a reassessment of pricing, production, and import volume.”

Hyundai and Kia, both of South Korea, have remained cautious but are understood to be reviewing U.S. market strategies. Hyundai in particular may lean more heavily on its Alabama plant for production, though key models like the Palisade and Genesis G80 are still imported and now subject to tariff costs.

BMW, which builds some of its SUVs in South Carolina, also imports several performance sedans and electric models from Germany. The company warned last week that it could be forced to raise prices or shift production if the trade war intensifies.

Tesla, while largely insulated due to its U.S.-based operations, may face cost increases for parts sourced from abroad. The company has said it is “monitoring the situation closely” but declined to comment on specific impacts.

The common thread among all these companies is hesitation — a careful weighing of the pros and cons before reacting. Most are still calculating how much of the tariff burden can be absorbed internally and how much will have to be passed on to consumers through higher prices.

Meanwhile, Trump has touted the tariffs as a bold step toward economic self-sufficiency. “President Trump refuses to let the United States be taken advantage of and believes that tariffs are necessary to ensure fair trade, protect American workers, and reduce the trade deficit—this is an emergency,” the White House said in a statement earlier this week.

However, his actions have sparked a backlash across the globe, including among longtime U.S. allies. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said London would respond with “cool and calm heads,” but emphasized that the tariffs were a “disappointing escalation” at a time when the two nations were working toward a new bilateral trade agreement.

In Europe, the European Commission has threatened to retaliate with tariffs of its own if the U.S. does not back down. Germany’s Economic Affairs Minister Robert Habeck called Trump’s move “economically harmful and diplomatically irresponsible,” while France’s finance ministry said it would “not hesitate to act in the interest of European industries.”

Canada and Mexico, both significant players in the U.S. auto supply chain, have also expressed concern, with Canada’s Trade Minister Mary Ng warning that “the tariffs risk undermining the very economic integration that has benefited North American workers and consumers.”

The tension is already affecting financial markets. Shares of major automakers fell sharply in the wake of the tariff announcement, with investors fearing production slowdowns and declining U.S. sales. The S&P Global Auto Index dropped nearly 5% over the past week, while shares of Tata Motors, Jaguar Land Rover’s parent company, slipped over 6%.

Industry experts say Jaguar Land Rover’s decision to pause shipments may just be the beginning.

The 25% vehicle tariff is just one part of Trump’s broader protectionist push. Additional tariffs on auto parts are set to go into effect by May 3, which could further disrupt global supply chains and raise production costs for American-based automakers, many of whom depend on foreign parts.

The U.K. was also among the countries hit with a 10% baseline import duty on a wide range of goods, including aluminum and steel — materials that are critical to auto manufacturing. Jaguar Land Rover, with its heavy use of aluminum in vehicle frames, could be particularly exposed to these added costs.

While some companies may shift production to North America to mitigate tariff exposure, such moves require years of planning and billions in investment. In the short term, consumers are likely to bear the brunt, with vehicle prices expected to rise by thousands of dollars on average.

On Friday, President Donald Trump announced a 75-day extension of the deadline for TikTok’s forced divestment or ban, throwing a lifeline to the app just hours before it was set to go dark in the United States.

The decision follows the unraveling of a planned deal that would have shifted TikTok’s U.S. operations into American hands — a breakdown many are blaming on Trump’s sudden imposition of a 34% tariff on Chinese goods, including digital services.

But while the White House has attributed the missed April 5 deadline to China’s abrupt withdrawal from the deal talks in protest of the tariffs, others close to the negotiations say the entire schedule was overly ambitious to begin with. Even without the trade shock, few believed that any of the potential American investors were close enough to finalize a takeover by the deadline, raising questions about whether the delay was always inevitable.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said his administration had been “working very hard” to secure a deal to “SAVE TIKTOK” and emphasized that “tremendous progress” had been made. Still, he conceded that more time was needed to finalize all necessary approvals. A source familiar with the matter confirmed that Trump signed an executive order formalizing the delay.

The ban had been scheduled to take effect on Saturday. It stemmed from a law passed during the Biden administration, which required TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest the app or face an outright ban in the U.S. over national security concerns. The law was to be enforced beginning in January, but Trump delayed implementation when he took office, first by 75 days, and now by an additional 75, while pursuing a deal that would keep the app available to its 170 million U.S. users under new ownership.

According to a source familiar with the negotiations, a framework agreement had been reached earlier this week. The deal would have transferred ownership of TikTok’s U.S. operations to a new entity backed by American private equity firms, venture capital groups, and tech companies. ByteDance was expected to retain a minority stake, capped at 20%, in compliance with the divestment law. The arrangement would also prohibit TikTok’s U.S. entity from sharing data or algorithm development with ByteDance.

However, after Trump unveiled the sweeping tariff hike on China, raising import duties to 34%, Beijing balked. ByteDance representatives informed the White House on Thursday that China would no longer approve the deal under the current conditions. That left the administration scrambling to reassess its options.

While the collapse is being pinned largely on the tariff move, insiders involved in the deal say the timeline was already under severe strain. Multiple investors had expressed interest in acquiring TikTok’s U.S. assets, but none had reached the final stages of due diligence or secured the financing needed to close such a large and complex deal. Some had barely progressed beyond exploratory talks, sources said, and several were waiting for clearer regulatory guidance, particularly regarding Chinese law governing the export of tech-related intellectual property.

In Washington, the political calculus continues to shift. Although Trump and Vice President JD Vance, who is overseeing the TikTok deal, were both confident earlier this week that a deal would be in place by April 5, the latest setback has left the White House in a holding pattern.

“We hope to continue working in Good Faith with China, who I understand are not very happy about our Reciprocal Tariffs,” Trump said in his post, adding, “We do not want TikTok to ‘go dark.’”

“We look forward to working with TikTok and China to close the Deal,” he said.

With the Chinese government now insisting that no deal will move forward without renewed negotiations on the tariffs, the administration had little choice but to delay enforcement again.

TikTok, for its part, remained silent in the hours after the announcement. ByteDance issued a brief statement acknowledging that it was in talks with the U.S. government but stressed that “key matters remain unresolved” and that any agreement would require Beijing’s approval. “An agreement has not been executed,” a spokesperson said, noting that everything is still subject to Chinese law.

In the days leading up to the deadline, TikTok CEO Shou Chew attended Trump’s inauguration ceremony, seated alongside cabinet officials and major tech CEOs — an appearance many interpreted as a signal of how seriously the company was treating the negotiations.

The app also briefly went offline in the U.S. a day before Inauguration Day, displaying a thank-you message when it came back online that read: “We will work with President Trump on a long-term solution that keeps TikTok in the United States.”

Still, the extended limbo continues to provoke concern on Capitol Hill. While Congress overwhelmingly backed the TikTok law last year, citing fears over data privacy, surveillance, and Chinese influence, the latest delay pushes the enforcement window far beyond what lawmakers originally envisioned. The law allows for only one 90-day extension, which can be granted if the president certifies to Congress that “significant progress” is being made toward a sale.

Some lawmakers and legal scholars quoted by CNN argue that Trump is testing the limits of that provision. “The first extension was already shaky, and this second one just compounds the legal and constitutional issues,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. “If Congress doesn’t push back, then what was the point of passing the law in the first place?”

Jeremy Goldman, principal analyst at Emarketer, said Trump’s delay follows a familiar playbook: stall the process, increase leverage, and use the ongoing uncertainty as a geopolitical bargaining chip.

“Drag out the clock, extract leverage, keep the drama simmering, and above all, make sure TikTok stays just visible enough to keep the dealmaking sharks circling,” Goldman said in a note Friday. “As long as TikTok is in limbo, Trump can keep using it as a pressure point in his broader trade war strategy with China.”