US President Donald Trump expressed his satisfaction following a meeting with Japan’s trade envoy at the White House on Wednesday, noting progress in the discussions. However, the Japanese side requested that the President reconsider tariffs, stating that they would negatively impact Japanese companies’ efforts to invest in the US.

Trump posted on the Truth Social platform after trade talks with Minister of State for Economic and Fiscal Policy, Ryosei Akazawa: “Just met with the Japanese Delegation on Trade. Great Progress!”

Akazawa later told reporters that after a 50-minute meeting with Trump in the Oval Office, he attended a 75-minute meeting at the White House with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.

Akazawa said that Trump made it clear that discussions with Japan were a high priority for America and that he hoped the talks would progress well at the ministerial level.

Akazawa noted that during the cabinet-level discussions, he conveyed his regret regarding all newly implemented tariffs, including “reciprocal” tariffs, sector-specific tariffs on automobiles, steel, and aluminum, as well as across-the-board 10% tariffs. He added that he strongly urged the US to reconsider the measures.

The two sides agreed to hold another round of talks this month, aiming to reach an agreement that could be signed by Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba as soon as possible.

Akazawa declined to provide details about Wednesday’s discussions but clarified that currencies were not discussed.

A Japanese Foreign Ministry official told reporters that the parties would take away what they learned, analyze each other’s positions, and meet again within the month. It has not yet been decided whether the second meeting will be in person or virtual.

Earlier in the day, Trump signaled that discussions on lowering reciprocal tariffs imposed on Japan, currently set at 24%, would depend on Tokyo’s willingness to further share the burden of maintaining US military bases in the country.

“Japan is coming in today to talk Tariffs, the Cost of Military Support, & ‘TRADE JUSTICE.’ I will be meeting, along with the Secretary of the Treasury & Commerce. Hopefully, something that will be good (GREAT!) for both Japan and the US can be worked out!” he wrote on Truth Social.

In the trade negotiations, Japan was represented by Akazawa, a close ally of Ishiba. He was accompanied by senior officials from the finance, economy, trade and industry, and foreign affairs ministries.

Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told reporters on Friday that Trump had made it clear he would be “deeply involved” in the discussions with his trade team.

“He wants to sign all of these deals himself,” Leavitt said.

Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, who told reporters in Tokyo that there was still a “gulf” between Japan and the US, said Akazawa’s meeting was constructive. “The negotiations will not be easy,” the Prime Minister said, adding, “but President Trump said he would give priority to Japan. I think it was a meeting that will lead to the next steps.”

Akazawa, a former transportation bureaucrat, faces a long task. Japan wants the 24% “reciprocal” tariff to be lowered and to be exempted from the 25% tariff imposed on foreign automobiles. However, the Trump administration has signaled that the automobile tariffs are “Section 232” tariffs based on national security concerns and are not negotiable.

Possible concessions from the Japanese side include a guarantee to purchase liquefied natural gas from Alaska on a long-term basis, more rice imports, and a commitment to buy more American cars.

One of the most contentious issues would be a demand from the US side for action on the currency front—for example, measures that would lead to a higher yen and a lower dollar.

Concessions on agriculture would be a sensitive issue ahead of upper house elections in Japan this summer, where the ruling Liberal Democratic Party cannot afford to lose agricultural votes.

Last week, Trump said at a cabinet meeting that he did not believe the security alliance with Japan was fair.

“We defend them, but they don’t have to defend us. That doesn’t sound too good,” Trump told reporters.

He expressed frustration that Japan does not pay for the protection it receives: “We spend hundreds of billions of dollars defending them… We pay for the whole thing, and they don’t pay anything. But if we are attacked, they don’t have to do anything to help us.”

According to the Congressional Research Service, Japan pays about $2 billion per year to offset the cost of stationing US military personnel in Japan. In addition, Japan pays compensation to local governments that host US troops, rent for bases, and costs for new facilities.

It is unclear what role China will play in the discussions.

According to Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, Bessent is asking trade partners to limit China’s interference in their economies in exchange for concessions on reciprocal tariffs. The plan, according to the newspaper, is to isolate China.

According to the newspaper, these measures include not allowing China to ship goods through their countries, preventing Chinese companies from locating in their territories to avoid US tariffs, and not incorporating cheap Chinese manufactured goods into their economies.

Cutting China off from the US economy with tariffs, and even potentially delisting Chinese stocks from US exchanges, are also being considered, according to the report.

Meanwhile, Ishiba has implied that he wants to work with other countries to deal with Trump’s tariffs, rather than just making an arrangement for Japan alone.

Ishiba told a parliamentary committee on Monday that he wanted to work with US allies such as Southeast Asian countries and Britain, which are currently facing tariff threats.

As of now, Trump’s reciprocal tariffs are under a 90-day pause to allow room for trade negotiations. A 10% across-the-board tariff and a 25% tariff on exports to the US of automobiles, auto parts, steel, and aluminum remain in effect.

According to a Reuters report citing unnamed EU officials, the European Union has postponed its plan to ban imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Russia due to objections from some member states and uncertainties regarding alternative sources.

The European Commission reportedly aims to prepare a new roadmap for a complete exit from Russian energy sources by 2027 instead.

The plan is expected to be announced in early May, but the details are still unclear.

Sources say that the Commission plans to present the 17th sanctions package against Russia by June, but progress is slow.

One source speaking to Reuters stated that the European Commission does not want to risk losing the possibility of purchasing LNG from Russia due to sanctions, as this would weaken its position in ongoing tariff negotiations with the US.

It is known that US President Donald Trump has repeatedly emphasized that he wants the EU to buy more LNG from his country.

However, the report noted that both the European Commission and some EU member states are concerned about becoming dependent on the US, which is the EU’s third-largest gas supplier after Russia and Norway.

On the other hand, according to data published by the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel on April 16, the volume of LNG imports from the US to the EU surpassed Russia’s shipments in the first quarter of 2025.

Thus, the US has risen to become the second-largest exporter of this fuel type to Europe.

According to data published by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) on February 18, LNG imports from Russia to EU countries increased by 18% year-on-year in 2024.

The report stated that Moscow earned at least 6.3 billion euros from these sales in the January-November period of that year.

According to analysts, France, Spain, and Belgium are the largest buyers of Russian LNG in Europe, accounting for 85% of the total fuel imports from the Russian Federation.

The LNG terminal in Dunkirk, France, alone accounted for 27% of the total LNG shipments from Russia to Europe last year.

The issue of a possible ban on LNG purchases from Russia was heavily debated during negotiations for the 16th EU sanctions package, which coincided with the third anniversary of Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine.

However, some experts warn that completely cutting off gas supplies from Russia to the EU could lead to a sharp increase in fuel prices in Europe, as a full alternative to Russian LNG has not yet been found.

Following the start of the war in Ukraine, the EU quickly abandoned Russian coal. The embargo on crude oil imports was implemented in December 2022, and the embargo on petroleum products in February 2023.

According to Bruegel’s report, natural gas shipments from Russia to European Union countries fell to their lowest level since the start of the war in Ukraine in the January-March period of 2025.

Sanctions are a part of international diplomacy in today’s world, applied by sanctioning countries as a non-military tool to force the target countries to respond in a desired manner. In fact, sanctions are an economic weapon in the field of non-military struggle that takes diplomacy beyond the level of negotiation and into the realm of action.

Sanctions are usually designed in terms of three objectives: offensive, defensive, and communicative.

In the offensive dimension, the goal of the sanctioning country is to change a specific behavior of the target country. In other words, the sanctioning country tries to change the behavior and actions of the sanctioned state by applying pressure. In the defensive dimension, the goal of the sanction is to slow down the development process and reduce the strategic capabilities of the target country.

In the communication dimension, sanctions can be used as a tool to convey the message of the sanctioning country’s dissatisfaction with the policies or actions of the sanctioned country. Sanctions are imposed on countries in both political and economic areas. In the political dimension, the goal of sanctions is to force the target country to comply with the policies of the sanctioning countries. These types of sanctions can be imposed with goals such as overthrowing the political system of the target country or demonstrating the power of the sanctioning country.

In the economic dimension, sanctions may be imposed to pressure a country to change its political behavior or to destabilize the economy and domestic politics of the target country. Sanctions can be imposed unilaterally, multilaterally, or comprehensively. Unilateral sanctions are imposed by one country against another without regard to UN Security Council resolutions.

Comprehensive or global sanctions are adopted by international bodies such as the United Nations or the Security Council and are intended to change the policy or behavior of the targeted country. Multilateral sanctions are imposed by several countries or international organizations with different motives and often have a greater impact on the sanctioned country.

Economic sanctions

One of the most common types of sanctions globally is economic sanctions, which are implemented with the aim of weakening the economic power of the target country. In this type of sanction, the sanctioning country attempts to expose the target government’s inefficiency and make it appear incapable of responding to the needs of its citizens.

Economic sanctions inflict a heavy blow on the country’s economy; they cause a decrease in national output, a depreciation of the currency, an increase in unemployment, a rise in prices, and a budget deficit. These sanctions also lead to a significant decrease in gross domestic product, a decrease in exports and imports, an outflow of foreign capital, and a contraction in international investment.

A country that is subject to severe economic sanctions will, over time, face economic fragility and disrupt the balance between supply and demand, which will ultimately lead to economic stagnation.

Economic sanctions as a political tool

Hegemonic powers such as the United States, due to their political, economic, ideological, and military superiority, have always tried to shape the international system based on their interests and institutionalize the acceptance of their hegemony among other countries. Economic sanctions are an alternative to military power and reflect the anger and dissatisfaction of the sanctioning country with the policies of the target country.

United States uses economic sanctions as an effective political tool to impose its demands and national interests

These sanctions are usually imposed against developing countries or political regimes opposed to the United States.

Economic sanctions can have profound negative consequences in the political, social, economic, and legal spheres. These types of sanctions can also be called “international sanctions” because they are implemented with the aim of imposing trade restrictions, investment bans, increasing customs tariffs, restricting financial relations, and preventing the transfer of technology.

Economic sanctions can be imposed for a variety of reasons, but one of the most important is to change the political system of the target country. Sanctions are sometimes not only intended to isolate a country, but can also serve to overthrow its political system. A historical example of this type of sanctions is the economic and political pressure on Iran during the prime ministership of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh.

After the nationalization of the oil industry in 1950, Britain and the United States imposed an oil embargo and imposed severe financial restrictions to suppress this anti-colonial movement. These sanctions, aimed at weakening the Iranian economy, led to internal crises and ultimately the coup of 1953 that overthrew the Mossadegh government.

Sanctions are often designed to create internal unrest by pressuring the public and creating public discontent, in the hope that this discontent will lead to regime change. Another reason for imposing sanctions is to change the policy and policy of the target country.

Sanctions are powerful tools in international relations and are sometimes designed to force target countries to change their policies.

The purpose of sanctions, or so-called restrictions and pressure, is to force the target country to accept the demands of the international community or the sanctioning country. This pressure is usually applied in the form of economic, trade, financial or even diplomatic barriers.

The sanctioning country attempts to force the policymakers of the target country to change course and accept its demands by increasing costs and reducing benefits. Sanctions create indirect pressure on policymakers and decision-makers by affecting the country’s economic and social structure.

These sanctions restrict trade by reducing access to financial resources, technology, and technology, and cause welfare problems for citizens. The combination of factors that sanctions impose on the social and economic structure of society leads to the formation of public dissatisfaction and internal pressure on the government.

Prominent examples of sanctions aimed at changing the domestic policy of the target country were the sanctions imposed by the United Nations and Western countries on South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s. These sanctions were imposed due to apartheid and racial discrimination policies and included trade restrictions, sports embargoes, and blocking access to international financial markets.

Economic pressures, trade restrictions, and diplomatic isolation forced the South African government to move toward a more democratic and open system. Another important example is the sanctions imposed on Iran by the UN Security Council, the European Union, and the United States over its nuclear program.

These sanctions, which intensified in the early 2000s, imposed restrictions on oil exports, imports of sensitive technologies, and access to the global banking system. The aim of these sanctions was to force Iran to halt sensitive nuclear activities.

Sanctions are also imposed to weaken the economic structure of the target country

This effective tool limits the executive power of the target country to advance policies by reducing its financial and economic strength. This is done by creating barriers to access to global markets, advanced technologies, exports and imports, and freezing foreign assets.

Such restrictions can disrupt supply chains, reduce foreign exchange earnings, and halt the target country’s development or military programs. A prime example of these effects is the sanctions imposed on Iran, which have had particularly devastating effects on the oil and gas sector.

Declining oil revenues have led to a decline in domestic investment, high inflation, and a devaluation of the national currency. Banking sanctions have also restricted international trade, making it difficult to import essential goods and increasing economic and social pressure.

Sanctions accelerate the process of policy change by targeting the economic structure of the target country. In this type of sanctions, international financial resources are blocked and the bank accounts and foreign exchange reserves of the target country are frozen. This blockage increases the costs of production and imports and ultimately leads to the inability of the target country to pay its debts.

When exports and imports are restricted, key industries such as oil and gas are affected. Economic restrictions prevent access to advanced technologies and hinder economic development. This leads to higher inflation rates, economic stagnation, devaluation of the national currency, reduced foreign investment, and increased unemployment, ultimately putting more domestic pressure on the government.

Sanctions are often imposed in response to specific actions by countries.

These actions may include human rights violations, support for terrorism, or military aggression. Examples of this type of sanctions include sanctions imposed on Russia for its annexation of Crimea and its military aggression against Ukraine.

In response to the invasion of Ukraine, the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and the Security Council imposed sweeping sanctions that have dealt a heavy blow to the Russian economy. These sanctions have included the removal of Russian banks from the SWIFT financial system, the freezing of central bank assets, and restrictions on dollar and euro transactions. Exports of advanced technology, military equipment, and sensitive industries such as oil and gas to Russia have also been banned. These measures have led to a depreciation of the ruble, rising inflation, and stagnation in key sectors of the Russian economy. Restrictions on access to foreign currency and advanced technologies have posed serious challenges to Russian industries.

In fact, economic sanctions are political tools that powerful and hegemonic countries use to implement national interests, exert power, and control the international order. Economic sanctions can cause a decrease in production, a collapse in the value of the national currency, an increase in unemployment, a decrease in investment, and inflation.

These sanctions are designed with various motives and goals and are usually imposed by developed countries against developing countries. These pressures are applied with the aim of forcing countries to accept the policies of the sanctioning country and have both positive and negative consequences. Economic pressure and sanctions cause inflation and public discontent, which can lead to political and social instability in the target country.

On the positive side, sanctions may lead to greater self-sufficiency, de-dependence, and independence for the sanctioned country. Sanctions force governments to increase their focus on domestic production and take measures to counter the pressures.