In the backdrop of an impending August 1 tariff deadline, President Trump has taken a broad approach to what constitutes a "trade deal." This has led to confusion among international trade partners and observers, as the president frequently groups different types of trade arrangements under the same term.
Traditionally, trade deals require extensive negotiations that result in detailed agreements amounting to hundreds of pages. However, Trump’s administration seems to be equating various limited arrangements with the term "deal." The framework deal reached with Britain this past May, for instance, is only a few pages long and leaves many terms to be negotiated further.
Additionally, Trump's recent engagement with Vietnam has drawn attention. He described a "handshake agreement" on social media, which suggests a reduction of tariffs on Vietnamese products to 20 percent. Yet, there have been no official documents or press releases clarifying these arrangements.
Trump's administration has also referred to the declared truce with China as a “trade deal,” even though it merely reverted their trade relations to previous conditions without implementing any new trade rules.
During a cabinet meeting at the White House, Trump indicated he considers even one-sided notifications about tariff changes—sent to other countries without their consent—as “deals.” These communications about new tariff rates illustrate that the administration’s interpretation of trade agreements has transformed considerably, raising questions about the clarity and impact of such arrangements in global markets.
With the international community watching, President Trump’s fluid definition of trade deals poses challenges for traditional diplomacy, impacting long-standing trade relationships as nations navigate the evolving landscape of trade relations.
