As the Trump administration gears up for negotiations with major trading partners before looming tariffs, the president's broad interpretation of "trade deals" has led to skepticism among experts, as traditional agreements are reduced to informal understandings.
Trump's Flexible Definition of Trade Deals Raises Eyebrows
Trump's Flexible Definition of Trade Deals Raises Eyebrows
The term "trade deal" is being stretched under the Trump administration, sparking confusion as limited arrangements are classified as comprehensive agreements.
In a recent cabinet meeting at the White House, President Trump defined “trade deals” in a way that has broad implications for international negotiations. As the administration prepares to implement higher tariffs on August 1, Trump indicated that the United States is open for talks with various nations. However, what qualifies as a trade deal appears increasingly ambiguous.
To Trump, a trade deal may encompass any arrangement that he finds advantageous, diverging from the more traditional and extensive agreements typically characteristic of international trade, which often span hundreds of pages and take years to formalize. For instance, the administration touted a framework deal with Britain announced in May; this document, however, is only a few pages long and still includes numerous unspecified negotiations.
The president's usage of "trade deal" surfaced with a recent handshake agreement from Vietnam, which he described on Truth Social as a “Great Deal of Cooperation between our two Countries.” This arrangement allegedly includes lowering tariffs on Vietnamese products to 20 percent, but to date, no official texts or summaries outlining the deal have been released by either government.
Moreover, Trump has also categorized a truce established with China in June as a “trade deal,” even though it merely entails rolling back previously instituted tariffs—an action that returns trade dynamics to a pre-tariff status rather than altering trade regulations.
In the cabinet meeting, he further referred to unilateral actions—such as his social media notifications regarding new tariff rates—as “deals,” despite those countries not having consented to any terms. The broad and somewhat unorthodox use of the term has generated skepticism and raises important questions about the future of U.S. trade policy under his administration.
