The clock is ticking down to zero, and Trump needs a trade deal -- badly

[nitpicked]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/05/business/trade-war-deal-trump

President Donald Trump, the dealmaker-in-chief, has said for weeks that at least one trade deal is imminent with one of the dozens of countries in active negotiations with the United States to avoid punishing tariffs. So where is it?
(snip)

But as the weeks roll on with no deal in sight, the Trump administration risks inflicting serious economic damage that could quickly turn into a US and global recession. America’s aggressive trade war has already sent the US economy into reverse. Last week’s quarterly report on gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the US economy, showed America’s first contraction since early 2022, as an otherwise-healthy economy was dragged down by companies stockpiling goods to get ahead of tariffs.
(snip)

Despite the administration’s rhetoric that it is in advanced trade negotiations with more than a dozen countries, actual trade deals take significant time — often years — to hash out. They typically involve incredibly complex agreements, delving into the minutiae of various goods and non-tariff barriers. They often involve significant political considerations, as various parties seek to protect voters with special interests.
(snip)

That’s because Trump set a tight deadline to get this all done: The “reciprocal” tariffs that went into effect April 7 and were paused for 90 days on April 9 affect dozens of countries. So the clock runs out on July 8 — when punishing tariffs as high as 50% on dozens of nations are set to go back into effect.
(snip)

[Walleye]

1. I don't like "deal makers". I especially don't want them in the White House.

The deal is we protect human rights and American values. That’s the only deal we should make. The rest were just talking price

[IA8IT]

2. The rest of the world is saying "Die Screaming Asshole"

[delisen]

3. If life was a realty tv show, these deals would be completed in a week.

No wonder Trump is confused.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. Maddow Blog-Trump's 'trade deal' with the United Kingdom isn't yet an actual trade deal

Last edited Fri May 9, 2025, 02:22 PM - Edit history (1)

The president said he’s reached a “conclusive” and “comprehensive” trade deal with the U.K. Reality suggests otherwise.
https://bsky.app/profile/stevebenen.com/post/3lootbo4hfc2k

Whether Navarro understands this or not, Trump's "conclusive trade deal" with the UK is neither conclusive nor a trade deal:

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-trade-deal-united-kingdom-isnt-yet-actual-trade-deal-rcna205623

It’s easy to understand why Donald Trump might be embarrassed by his lack of second-term trade deals. About a month ago, Peter Navarro, the White House’s top trade adviser, boasted in March, “We’re going to run 90 deals in 90 days.” Navarro added that such a plan “is possible” in part because “the boss is going to be the chief negotiator.”....

On Wednesday night, the president used his social media platform to announce that the White House had struck a “MAJOR TRADE DEAL.” The following morning, he added that a “full and comprehensive” trade agreement is in place with the United Kingdom, which was soon followed by another online item in which Trump claimed, “Together with our strong Ally, the United Kingdom, we have reached the first, historic Trade Deal since Liberation Day.”

It all sounded rather exciting — right up until the public learned that the “trade deal” isn’t an actual trade deal, at least not yet. NBC News reported:

The U.S. is working toward finalizing a narrow trade deal with the United Kingdom, President Donald Trump said Thursday, a small step as the White House pursues an aggressive tariff agenda across the globe. According to a document furnished by the U.K., the agreement will see duties on U.K. car imports reduced from 27.5% to 10%, while tariffs on U.K. steel imports will be dropped. In return, the U.K. is lowering trade barriers on U.S. beef imports and ethanol.

The emerging picture is one in which the White House has settled on a non-binding framework for a possible future deal with the United States’ 11th largest trading partner. This sets the stage for a series of additional talks — negotiations that will likely last months — that may or may not lead to an agreement......

The problem, of course, is that the first part of the claim is plainly at odds with the second: If an agreement is still taking shape and is likely to undergo a series of changes, then the new framework obviously is neither “conclusive” nor “comprehensive.”

In his first term, Trump had an unfortunate habit of wildly exaggerating the scope and scale of his narrow trade agreements. In his second term, the Republican is apparently picking up where he left off.