On April 9, the United States gave its dozens of trading partners 90 days to reach agreements that would be satisfactory to President Donald Trump’s ambitions of imposing a protectionist regime based on tariffs and unseen in decades. Eighty-eight days have elapsed, and Washington has only signed two agreements (or tentative agreements), with the United Kingdom and Vietnam, and a truce with China.
The deadline expires on Wednesday, and there is nothing to suggest that this latest milestone in Trump’s trade war threats will be dominated by anything other than the uncertainty and chaos that have defined the other phases of the dispute. This time, there is also a need to fast-track agreements with key partners such as the European Union, for whom Washington’s tariffs are a severe blow to a close relationship. These negotiations appear to have made more progress in recent weeks than in the first two months.
It’s unclear what the U.S. president will do after the deadline that he himself announced just seven days after unilaterally imposing onerous tariffs on dozens of countries on April 2, which he mistakenly called “reciprocal.” That start of hostilities was met with sensational market declines, which, coupled with pressure from both within and outside the United States, forced Trump to reconsider and set a new date.
At this point nothing can be ruled out, not even a further postponement, a possibility that some members of the Trump administration have expressed sympathy for in recent weeks, while taking care to underscore that the president will have the last word. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent added a new variable this past Sunday in an interview with CNN, declaring that countries that have not finalized their agreements by August 1 will “boomerang” back to the tariffs announced on “Liberation Day,” April 2, with the exception of Mexico and Canada which were left out of the barrage.
“We are saying this is when it’s happening. If you want to speed things up, have at it. If you want to go back to the old rate, that’s your choice,” said Bessent, promising that “we’re going to be very busy over the next 72 hours.”
The August 1st date is not new. Trump invoked it last Friday, when he went back on the offensive and announced the delivery of an initial batch of letters to “10 or 12 countries” with his administration’s decision on which tariffs will be imposed on them starting that day. The Republican did not provide details about the countries that will receive these letters first, nor what tariffs they will carry. He did provide a double, albeit vague, range: between “10 and 20%” and “up to 60 and 70%.”
It always did seem like a difficult task that the president assigned to his strongmen on the economic front: not just Bessent but also, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, and Jamieson Greer, the U.S. Trade Representative. After all, trade agreements between countries are slow-burning affairs that can take months or years. The results obtained so far seem clearly insufficient to meet the ambitious goal of “fixing trade,” a phrase Trump often uses.
The last week in Washington has been intense, not only for EU negotiators: there have also been visits and contacts with South Korea, whose trade minister, Yeo Han-koo, met with Greer this Saturday, and with Thailand, which is under the threat of a 36% tariff. Japan, for its part, has come under fire after Trump criticized Tokyo for its “tough” negotiating style last week, pressured it to increase its rice imports from the United States, and criticized the bilateral relationship regarding the sale of cars. The Republican president also threatened Japan with a tariff of “30%, 35%, or whatever amount we determine.”
As for trade relations with the European Union, they are the most intense in the world. Every day, data from 2024 show, products worth €2.4 billion cross the Atlantic in one direction or the other. Trade represented €870 billion last year, with a deficit on the U.S. side of nearly €200 billion.
Disappointment in Brussels
Attempts to preserve the health of that relationship have intensified in recent weeks, but they have not been enough, European negotiators told diplomatic representatives to the EU on Friday. There was a certain “disappointment” in the room among those who received the news about how the talks in Washington had unfolded, according to a source with knowledge of the meeting.
On the table are the 17% tariffs the United States is contemplating on agricultural products imported from the EU, as reported by EL PAÍS. This figure would, in the event of an agreement, be added to the other tariffs announced since Trump opened hostilities with the rest of the world: 25% for automobiles and their components, 50% for steel and aluminum, and a general 10% tariff on a large number of products, with a few exceptions, from which the aeronautics and spirits sectors benefit.
If these calculations are confirmed, the relationship would be defined as “asymmetrical,” a euphemism beginning to be heard in Brussels to circumvent another adjective, “unbalanced,” which is even more humiliating for Europe. The Member States’ haste is also being felt in Brussels: everyone wants a quick agreement to end the uncertainty plaguing the international economy.
No one doubts that a fast agreement means an incomplete agreement, as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen herself admitted this Thursday in Denmark. She said that a “principle of agreement” could now be reached, along with some basic guidelines, and that further discussions would then be necessary to finalize all the details.
From a European perspective, the question of what price the Twenty-Seven are willing to pay for a deal must be resolved. Virtually all governments have assumed that the situation will not return to where it was at the beginning of the year. Diplomatic sources believe that Germany, Belgium, and Hungary, countries where the interests of car manufacturers are very strong, could be willing to accept a more unbalanced deal to end the uncertainty and avoid an escalation that would further harm trade.
Others, like Spain, simply say they will support the Commission’s decision. But it is true that the 17% tariff on agricultural products would weigh more heavily on those countries most dependent on these exports: apart from Spain, also France, Italy and the Netherlands.
For all countries, the case of Vietnam can serve as an inspiration: in exchange for not imposing tariffs on U.S. imports, Hanoi received a 20% tariff on all its products, which is double the universal rate Trump announced in April, but also less than half of the 46% he initially threatened Vietnam with.
On Sunday, Bessent promised a cascade of agreements with smaller countries and a frenzy of activity with the rest in the days leading up to the new brink where Trump is pushing global trade.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition