Published on May 23, 2025.

Nations and White House Scramble as Trade Talks Stall.

 

President Donald Trump had pledged that his administration would swiftly secure trade agreements with over 50 countries within a 90-day window following the suspension of elevated tariffs in early April. However, nearly halfway through that self-imposed timeline, progress remains sluggish.


While a preliminary agreement was reached with the United Kingdom to reduce tariffs, significant challenges persist in negotiations with more than a dozen other key trading partners. Despite the administration’s optimistic public stance, sources including foreign officials and U.S. business leaders describe growing disagreements and hardened positions, even from countries previously eager to strike deals. This highlights the complex and time-consuming nature of international trade discussions.


During a recent visit to the United Arab Emirates, Trump stated that as many as 150 countries are interested in reaching trade agreements, but acknowledged the logistical difficulty of engaging with them all. Nonetheless, the administration has offered limited detail about its plans should negotiations fail. Trump has indicated new tariff rates will be announced, while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has suggested that region-specific tariffs or a reversion to the high April 2 tariff levels could be implemented against countries not deemed to be negotiating in good faith.
This uncertainty is contributing to economic volatility, affecting consumer confidence, business investment, and overall growth. “Momentum has clearly slowed in the push for trade deals,” said Scott Lincicome, vice president of economics at the Cato Institute. “No one expected 90 deals in 90 days, but there was certainly an expectation of more early wins.”


The White House has not responded to media inquiries, although National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett recently expressed confidence that several new agreements would be finalized in the coming weeks.


Vietnam and India appear to be among the most likely candidates to reach agreements. These countries are facing the prospect of steep tariffs if reciprocal tariff rates take effect due to their trade surpluses with the U.S. Still, despite initial optimism, deals have yet to materialize. Talks with India, once touted as nearing completion, are now described as ongoing and unlikely to result in a finalized agreement before mid-June. Negotiators expect only a preliminary framework to emerge in the coming weeks.


Vietnam is similarly under pressure, facing a potential 46 percent tariff that could severely impact its economy, which depends heavily on U.S. exports. While a Vietnamese trade delegation is currently in Washington attempting to secure a preliminary deal, a final agreement is not expected until closer to the July deadline. Sources familiar with the discussions have characterized the U.S. proposal terms as particularly difficult for Vietnam to accept.


Negotiations with Japan are proving even more complicated. Japanese officials arriving in Washington for a third round of talks continue to demand the removal of all tariffs, including a global 10 percent import tariff. The administration has been firm on keeping this baseline tariff intact, which was also maintained in the recent U.K. agreement. Political dynamics in Japan, particularly upcoming elections, are also affecting the country’s negotiating posture.


South Korea's political situation has also slowed progress. The country is currently led by a transitional government following the removal of former President Yoon Suk Yeol. With presidential elections set for early June, significant decisions are expected to be postponed until a new administration is in place. Working-level discussions are underway, with the goal of scheduling higher-level meetings next month, though no substantial agreement is expected in the immediate term.


According to Lincicome, the administration’s initial aggressive approach and subsequent retreat following market backlash has shown Asian negotiators that patience may yield more favorable outcomes. Patrick Childress, a former assistant general counsel at the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, noted that as the deadline looms, agreements may become increasingly vague, prioritizing quantity over detail.
Other nations are still waiting for active U.S. engagement. Thailand has presented a proposal including tariff reductions on agricultural products, but geopolitical tensions have delayed serious negotiations.


Talks with the U.S.’s largest trading partners—Canada, Mexico, China, and the European Union—remain in early stages. Although a temporary agreement with China recently reduced tensions, friction resurfaced following U.S. Commerce Department guidance concerning Huawei, which China has interpreted as a breach of export control rules. In response, Chinese officials have promised strong retaliatory measures. Although a mechanism for ongoing trade discussions has been established, no further high-level meetings have been announced, and the U.S. continues to impose a 30 percent tariff on Chinese imports.


Canada and Mexico were exempt from the reciprocal tariffs due to existing border-related duties, but neither country is expected to resume negotiations until the broader tariff landscape becomes clearer. Discussions with both nations are expected to overlap with a 2026 review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).


The European Union also remains a low priority for the administration, despite facing a 20 percent reciprocal tariff. Although the EU recently submitted negotiating terms, progress has been limited and mutual dissatisfaction is apparent. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick criticized the negotiations as particularly difficult, calling the EU “impossible” to work with.


Earlier this month, the EU approved retaliatory tariffs targeting $100 billion in U.S. goods if talks collapse. One EU official remarked that the limited scope of the U.K. agreement, which left key issues unresolved and retained the 10 percent tariff, has led other nations to question the value of engaging with the U.S. under the current terms.


From a policy perspective, the Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff strategy marks a departure from traditional multilateral trade practices in favor of bilateral, leverage-based deal-making. This approach aims to reduce trade deficits and punish what the administration sees as unfair practices by trading partners. However, critics argue that the lack of transparency, abrupt shifts in tariff rates, and an overemphasis on short-term political wins undermine long-term economic stability and global trust in U.S. trade policy. The administration's prioritization of tariff threats over institutional trade mechanisms like the WTO has further raised concerns among allies and investors about the predictability and coherence of American economic diplomacy.

Not a Member

     Worth Watching

What's New

European Digital Forensic Lab (EDFL)

EURO NEWS