In a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, President Trump elaborated on his administration's approach to international trade, revealing a strategy that classifies a wide range of agreements under the term “trade deal.” As the deadline for implementing new tariffs on August 1 approaches, his administration is aggressively reaching out to countries worldwide, emphasizing a willingness to negotiate.
However, this raises critical questions about what constitutes a "trade deal" in the current political climate. Traditionally, trade agreements are exhaustive documents that require extensive negotiation, yet under Trump's administration, the meaning appears to be considerably diluted. For example, the recent framework agreement with Britain, which spanned only a few pages, exemplifies this broadened definition, featuring several elements that remain to be settled.
Moreover, Trump’s characterizations of a recent handshake agreement with Vietnam illustrate the ambiguity. He heralded this as a “Great Deal of Cooperation”, claiming it would lower tariffs on Vietnamese goods to 20 percent, yet concrete documents outlining this agreement have yet to be published by either nation.
Additionally, the truce established with China in June is also referred to as a "trade deal," despite its essence being merely a rollback of previously enacted tariffs, rather than a formal alteration to trade regulations. This marks a notable departure from the conventional expectations of what a trade deal entails.
Recently, Trump has begun to label unilateral tariffs, communicated through social media without prior consent from affected countries, as trade deals. This unconventional usage of terminology presents a challenging landscape for international relations, leaving many trading partners scrambling to define their positions amid a rapidly changing framework.
As the deadline for new tariffs looms, the international community watches closely to see how this expansive definition of trade deals will be navigated in upcoming negotiations.
However, this raises critical questions about what constitutes a "trade deal" in the current political climate. Traditionally, trade agreements are exhaustive documents that require extensive negotiation, yet under Trump's administration, the meaning appears to be considerably diluted. For example, the recent framework agreement with Britain, which spanned only a few pages, exemplifies this broadened definition, featuring several elements that remain to be settled.
Moreover, Trump’s characterizations of a recent handshake agreement with Vietnam illustrate the ambiguity. He heralded this as a “Great Deal of Cooperation”, claiming it would lower tariffs on Vietnamese goods to 20 percent, yet concrete documents outlining this agreement have yet to be published by either nation.
Additionally, the truce established with China in June is also referred to as a "trade deal," despite its essence being merely a rollback of previously enacted tariffs, rather than a formal alteration to trade regulations. This marks a notable departure from the conventional expectations of what a trade deal entails.
Recently, Trump has begun to label unilateral tariffs, communicated through social media without prior consent from affected countries, as trade deals. This unconventional usage of terminology presents a challenging landscape for international relations, leaving many trading partners scrambling to define their positions amid a rapidly changing framework.
As the deadline for new tariffs looms, the international community watches closely to see how this expansive definition of trade deals will be navigated in upcoming negotiations.
