You're going ot keep seeing more of this. The Japanese went through multiple rounds of the WH announcing they'd reached a deal and the Japanese saying politely but firmly that negotiations were still ongoing. The Japanese insisted on having everything in writing, and if you look at the executive order that was eventually published it's full of loopholes like 'best efforts' and 'aspirations' that articulate shared goals, but little the in the way of binding commitments.
The more times you can announce you "made a deal" , the better the TV ratings
And if you say "in two weeks", people - and the media - will forget and won't check up on it later.
They just remember you made something happen.
insisted on having everything in writing
Just curious, how would this help with anything, other than documentation purposes?
Paper trail stuff. But more importantly, when the first set of executive orders reducing tariffs rates went out, it conveniently mentioned Japanese investments but did not include tariff reductions for Japanese goods.
So the Japanese government pointed at the written agreement and told the trump admin to get their shit together. A few days later, the tariff reductions on Japanese goods was hastily added on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/business/japan-tariffs-us...
https://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articles/15953967
I went and got some articles mentioning this mess.
Paper trail, to be referenced later, so TFG can't be all "huh, never said that, never agreed to that" etc. etc.
I don’t understand why you think it would stop that, given how comprehensive a record of self-contradiction he already has.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/business/japan-tariffs-us...
https://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articles/15953967
Well, having the paper agreement certainly helped last time. (A month ago.)
There's also a Language barrier. So making sure there is a written agreement ensures that both sides understand what was agreed upon.
Maybe more in that it gives the Japanese an easy out to change terms when America inevitably breaks the deal.
True, but the Japanese government is accountable to Japanese voters and their business community. If they see Trump reneging on or twisting an agreement they'll be more likely to blame Trump than the LDP. He's not popular there nowadays except among Sanseito members.
and then what? Trump put specific numbers about trade balance on paper with China during previous trade war, which China just ignored.
1. "Specific numbers about trade balance' isn't a negotiation term. It might be a prior that feeds into your position in negotiation, but it's not an outcome.
2. He lies when his lips move. When you're dealing with a pathological liar, there's no reason to believe anything he says that paints him in a good light - until it's been independently confirmed.
>everything in writing
Agreements on paper doesn't mean anything to Trump.
Despite negotiating the USMCA with Canada and Mexico during his first term, Trump still threatened to impose tariffs on both countries.
What is the point of having an agreement like USMCA?
No but him and his crowd have been keen on denying reality on a daily basis, and it's scary how well it works. I have people around me who drink this BS, and will argue in support for it because the arguments against it requires nuance thinking. At least, with a paper, it's harder to do this. You have to admit he pretended the sky was red, when it's obviously blue. There is less nuances if you get something clear in writing.
It's not much, but it's better than the alternative.
Just remember all of the treaties that were signed (by you know who) before invading that very same country there after, leading up to WW2. A common strategy to give yourself the first move. the strategy is to cripple ongoing negotiating the east is succeeding in with other countries that no longer trust the US, this was going on way before ORang man election. Just remember not everything is public, that goes for other countries as well. Like really china is enemy all the sudden " Why exactly, oh wait you said " Because they're growing faster then US" What!!! oh i get it now" nooo I don't get it. Also the war torn countries tend to be under developed and are rich in natural reserves of what ever the world needs. The world is not as simple as even what the corrupt media tries to make it also. It does indeed go much deeper than that and without emotion but decisions that are occurring with opinions of many heads to influence any giving decision. Yet even the most sense you can make out of this whole mess well still leave you lost even more than before you calculated the "WHYS" and the "noes". Forget the problem, i tend to think that with each disastrous decision made how long will it take to fix THAT decision later. Something like telling Afghanistan to give back the ( Bagram base) back to US and simply receiving fuck off reply by the Taliban government is simply stupid. none other than Russia not that long ago met their government to spark relationship initiatives. Umm hello Afghanistan is literal the country of mountain men defeated the invasion of Russia in the past. Well this is good for two groups of the three, Russia and Afghanistan leaving US out. US you left Afghanistan, well because there was defeated in controlling the countries ( very strategic land being so central to everything in that land mass. Now leaving Israel is saying whats happening is bad like every human on this earth, is in no way possible for the US. This will be yet another HUGE might i add in capital letters LOST in the middle east. The massive mission of the US to achieve this in controlling the middle east. Sadly the people taking this blunt is the people in that small town taking the hit. Have you seen how many men they are detaining in each photo you see of the chaos happening. In the Blue and white flag there is no consideration for the children and men, They must stop reproduction of that ethnic group so their ability to take back that land from within is impossible. Why? because this same thing happened in Iraq, Syria Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia "kinda", Libya, Various other African countries, along with some eastern European countries.
The World is moving on to the future, It's what happens yet we are supposed to learn from our mistakes but, the only thing we really learn from what history has to tell us is that we get good at replicating that same mistake to others or ourselves. A 100 years ago we were trying to make car run on gasoline and go pas 20 mph, a 100 years ago we were trying to figure out how we can expand the use of electricity, a 100 years ago Photographs have to be mobile, but how. The point is humans are animals and have the ignorance as a tribute because it's helped us survive. Its natural. whats not natural is for a planet to sustain an orbit for lengthy time period for life to to be sustained so evolution can exist. evolution./
People are confused about what these published agreements (like with the EU as well) are. They're not legal agreements, treaties, or even executive orders, although the corresponding orders to reduce the tariffs are of course executive orders.
But the agreements themselves are completely informal and an overview of what the US expects to see happen in order to maintain the tariff reductions. The interpretation of whether the other country or group of countries is abiding the agreement is entirely at the discretion of Trump.
So there's no such thing as a loop hole. If Trump isn't satisfied with e.g. the EU's progress towards implementing said agreement, he can increase tariffs back to where they were at his discretion, with or without reason given. So there's no such thing as a loop hole in this sort of agreement.
The loop hole is every nation just agrees to stop dealing with the US and isolate them. Sure, we’d all suffer horribly but at least the west would have a future, vs we all suffer horribly anyways and fall along with the US.
I don't think agreement is necessary. I think each will, in turn, come to their own conclusions.
In boardrooms around the world there is of course concern to protecting the existing US market. And in the short term there are lots of noises to placate the US.
At the same time there's a recognition that the US is not a stable long-term partner. The bigger conversation is around new markets, building diversity of markets, diversity of investment and so on.
"Global Trade" is mostly not an organised thing. It's a zillion small transactions between individuals, small companies and so on. Ultimately my (US) customers will pay the tarifs to their govt, or not (shrug). In the meantime I'm looking for non-US customers for my business growth. I'm investing anywhere except the US, because the current uncertainty is bad for making investment decisions.
Ultimately this process is a wake up call to suppliers who have focused on the US market. And to those future businesses to come. Diversify markets, because then you aren't beholden to them.
In 10 years time, regardless of who is in power, or the conditions then, the lesson will remain.
I think your take is correct. Governments around the world are going to say whatever they need to to get the lowest tariffs possible but trade will slowly reorient itself. I said before the election, if Trump works with Western allies then he'd probably get consensus to take on China with combined tariffs. We know what happened instead.
This is the ideal outcome. Just produce the trade blockade that the US is trying to achieve through policy.
And like other blockaded nations, North Korea and Palestine, the US will reach its intended levels of greatness within minutes.
It doesn’t need to be dramatic or announced or even a major policy. Every country is finding out that dealing with Trump’s US is an expensive pain in the ass of unknowns, constant flux and mafia-like pay to play bribes.
Many countries will just deal with other countries because it’s cheaper, easier and less of a headache.
Tourism from foreigners in the US has taken a severe and extremely expensive nose dive. Everything else will too.
That's unlikely. Sovereign nations generally act in their own best interest. For a quite visual example, for most of the Ukrainian war, Ukraine worked as a key transit hub for a huge chunk of all Russian gas heading to the EU. Why? Because they assessed the billions of dollars they gained in transit fees as being more beneficial to themselves, and their war effort, than interrupting the flow would be.
Doing something self destructive to spite another country is often a sign of either incompetent leadership or of a country that's not truly sovereign - countries that end up with some major dependency (economic, military, or political) on another country can be compelled to act against their rational self interest.
So back to here, the effect of what Trump's doing is not particularly unique. The US has few, if any, allies and lots of countries that are simply nominally independent vassals. We say jump, and they only ask how high. But what he is doing that's particularly unique is making this entire charade 100% transparent and giving them absolutely 0 chance at saving face. I think he simply enjoys humiliating them, very possibly as a result of things that happened during the previous administration.
It will probably accelerate the shift to a multipolar world. I'm very much not a believer in the 5d chess stuff, but I would at least tease the possibility that this outcome might have been considered and not be seen as undesirable. If one considers the goal of solely advancing American interests, it's not clear that hegemony is beneficial. Hegemony entails endless wars and endless interventions around the world funded by endless debt. And as allies and enemies alike reach technological parity, it's becoming ever more dangerous.
And for what? How does this all positively affect the average American? In a purely transactional world, it's hard to see how America, in terms of the affects on Americans, would be worse off than in the current one where we expend just unimaginably massive amounts of resources trying to maintain hegemony.
Countries are already doing what is in their best interest, which is why all these "agreements" are essentially fake. Countries are simply saying nice things hoping to get keep tariffs low for as long as possible. But the actual plan, not even hidden, leaders from wester nations all over are saying it out loud, is to diversify trade.
Once trade is diversified, the US will be isolated naturally as it represents the least beneficial trade arrangement. Now, if MAGA is dethrowned somehow, sure, trade with the US will increase again, but the diversification you see happing now will be permanent. Things aren't going to go back to the way they were, the US has already given up it's spot as the economic leader of the west, and it's given up all its foreign soft-power, it's just a slow process to see it all play out.
I agree the trade diversification would obviously be the perfectly logical and smart play. The EU seems to be doing the opposite. The EU has become critically dependent upon US natural gas, imported at a sharp premium, while constantly speaking of efforts to "de-risk" explicitly with regards to China, and implicitly with regards to Russia. On top of this both imports and exports with the US have skyrocketed since 2022.
---
2021: Imports = €232 billion, Exports = €399 billion
2022: €359, €508
2024: €335, €532
---
And 2021 is not some cherry picked COVID related oddity or something. It was a record high for exports and just under a record high (€235b in 2019) for imports. [1] So we're seeing an EU more dependent than ever upon the US while aiming to "de-risk" from the US' geopolitical adversaries. Annual results for 2025 are obviously not available yet, but so far this trend has not meaningfully changed. The EU continue to act like vassals.
I also am starting to doubt that these tariffs will be lifted, even if the DNC somehow wins 2028. They've been hesitant to make that a part of their platform, and the tariffs effectively amount to a very large tax revenue increase levied primarily at the largest corporations, which can be arbitrarily tweaked by the President - enabling him to, in effect, unilaterally raise or lower taxes by Executive Order. Government 'temporary emergency measures' are rarely temporary. That's where federal income taxes come from, and even the requirement of passports. We'll see, but I think we're looking at the new normal.
[1] - https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/isdb_results/factsheets/country...
People keep describing Trump as transactional. He doesn't appear to be anything of the sort. He's vain, impulsive, inconsistent, impetuous, mean, and never holds up his end of a bargain. Definitely not transactional.
> People keep describing Trump as transactional. He doesn't appear to be anything of the sort.
I think they are using the word transactional as a euphemism for something else.
I think it is fair to characterize him as transactional. And also as stupid and narcissistic.
It is the combination that makes the orange.
The loophole is real estate for Trump Towers or shinny golden trinkets or billion investment contracts for family. Not into old fashioned bribery? We‘ll the is a narrowly traded crypto coin to help you out.
The truth is Trump is a bad negotiator. He's easily played. He's also predictably dishonest. The only real move is to string him along, which he seems to be glad to do, particularly if someone flatters or threatens to punch him.
He negotiates in bad faith. No deal is final. He will change the terms to meet his whims.
The Chinese understand. Notice how there are no soybean purchases from China this year. They do not trust the US on important things like food.
I assumed the soybean thing was more about sending a message. Soybeans are the number one US export crop. Shutting down the market is a big financial blow, makes the trade deficit worse, and angers farmers who otherwise would have happily sold to the Chinese.
> He negotiates in bad faith
Plenty of great negotitors across history did, too. Trump gets played. Repeatedly. Predictably. His political instincts have been sharp enough that I'm increasingly chalking this up to age, but maybe he just had a better team around him the first time around.
He singlehandedly annihilated the US soybean market.
That's not a good thing. Lots of farmers going bankrupt now.
But his crony buddies stand to benefit from farmers going to bankrupt. Makes it difficult to understand if this is incompetence or intentional malice at play...
> He singlehandedly annihilated the US soybean market.
Again... He's done this twice now.
No. It's explicitly self-destructive. He gets off on setting things on fire, including himself.
> increasingly chalking this up to age
I've always had high regard for Trump as a talented scumbag grifter of note.
He's been noticeably and increasingly off game since it seemed he was only campaigning for re-election to avoid a mountain of looming bad legal outcomes.
Much of his early second term "wins" I've marked as momentum success from having a ready to go game plan care of the Project 2025 crowd. His carry through on tariffs, dodging Epstein complications, handling free speech issues, etc. have been more chaotic than cunning.
Do you even think he's sitting in on these negotiations? He can't remember Ishiba's name and just called him 'Mr Japan' when occasionally asked questions about him. My impression (and I've been watching these specific trade negotiations pretty closely) was that Scott Bessent was doing all the legwork and the Japanese seemed perfectly happy to talk to him instead of Trump. Whatever one might think of the policy arguments, Bessent seems coherent and professional whereas Trump comes off as shallow and erratic. I find it hard to imagine having hours-long focused and strategic conversation with him on a dry topic like trade policy.
It's an musing irony that Japan is a demographically much older society than the US and LDP in particular looks like a gerontocratic party, but between factionalism and parliamentary instability they actually cycle through leaders pretty efficiently
Funnily enough, according to some South Korean news, the Korean government deliberately postponed having a final written deal, or at least that's what some news articles claim, because it was such a horrible deal for Korea.
I think there's an implicit understanding that having a written deal would be worse for Korea because the deal will bind Korea and restrict its options, while Trump is a crazy guy and can and will do anything he wants, whether he signed something or not. I.e., any written deal with Trump has negative worth.
Such is the state of global trade negotiation these days.
Agreed. It was, initially, quite alarming (though no longer anymore) at how different the actual words in the Executive Orders differ from what was said about the policies they were, ostensibly, enforcing or creating.