Since Donald Trump’s arrival in the White House, there has been talk of “trade deals.” Trade deals are needed, although the term is not clearly defined.
According to conventional wisdom, a trade agreement is a process of negotiations between two countries or regions to define the areas for trade development. It’s a lengthy process because it’s very detailed. The associated document is very voluminous, and the overall process is very complex.

At the beginning of Trump’s term, there were expectations of compensation that would facilitate the financing of the American economy, given both the size of its public debt and the comments of the White House chief economist, Stephen Miran, on the need to make the rest of the world pay for America’s contribution to global prosperity.

This wasn’t the right answer because the trade agreement with Great Britain doesn’t correspond and doesn’t have this type of counterpart. Moreover, it’s not an agreement in the usual sense. It was negotiated very quickly and without the details that would allow for the fine-tuning of trade between the two countries. It’s simply an agreement in principle, favorable to the United States. The same goes for the agreement with Vietnam. A protocol of a few pages, the details of which will be negotiated later.

But the trade deal isn’t limited to this type of agreement. The truce concluded with China is also a trade agreement, even though nothing has been settled between the two countries and tensions are maintained, as it represents a return to the status quo ante. However, to illustrate this point of tension, we can look at the agreement with Vietnam. Tariffs will be much higher when Vietnamese products exported to the US contain Chinese components. In other words, a trade deal doesn’t mean a definitive trade agreement.

A trade deal also includes unilateral announcements regarding tariffs against Japan, South Korea, and a dozen other countries. But all of them will be able to negotiate a trade deal with Washington before August 1st for an agreement similar to that reached with Great Britain or Vietnam. All of this is inevitably a bit confusing.
In the negotiations with the European Union, a form of framework agreement seems sufficient to resolve the situation.

A trade deal could thus be defined as a situation recognizing the power of the United States either by announcing a customs duty binding on the counterparty or through a trade agreement favorable to the USA like the two already signed.

The words used are misleading because there is nothing balanced in the announcements made, far from what is usually defined as a trade agreement. This will inevitably result in a redirection of global trade flows by reducing the United States’ share. Canada and China have already reduced the weight of their exports to Uncle Sam’s country.