Japan’s negotiators returned empty-handed once again.
For the seventh time in over two months, Japan’s Minister of Economic Revitalization, Taro Aso, was on a mission to meet with U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, extending his trip to ensure the meeting took place. However, he did not even see the person and the negotiations came to an abrupt end.
Aso had just returned from his visit when President Donald Trump launched a counterattack, accusing Japan of being “overly spoiled” and that the United States had accepted hundreds of millions of Japanese cars, which was unfair. Following this, there were reports that the U.S. would put off its discussions with Japan and prioritize talks with other countries like India instead.
With less than a week left until the suspension period set by the United States for “countervailing tariffs,” the UK and the U.S. had signed what was called a “framework agreement.” However, this did not resolve the core issue of steel and aluminum tariffs, considered symbolic at best; the EU was caught between deciding whether to sign or not, needing to balance internal concerns while also guarding against any potential U.S. reneging; Canada and the U.S. had reached a consensus, but Trump threatened to terminate negotiations under the pretext of “digital taxes,” ultimately leading to Canada’s concession.
Talks breaking down, failing to proceed, or even potentially being reversed, have become the reality of trade negotiations between various parties and the U.S.
In a recent report by Bloomberg, it was described as follows: During the three-month period during which “countervailing tariffs” were temporarily suspended, the White House seemed unable to achieve its goal of comprehensively reshaping the global trade landscape.
Despite senior advisors to Trump stating that up to a dozen agreements are expected to be completed before July 9th, the general expectation is that these so-called “agreements” are mostly mere framework documents or hollow promises, with actual detailed negotiations yet to begin.
Tim Mel, a professor at Duke University, mentioned that the White House might announce some texts referred to as “trade agreements,” but they do not align with the common understanding of the term.
As July 9th approaches, market unease has begun to spread, and internal contradictions within the U.S. government further exacerbate market sentiment.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Loutnik claims “plans are soon to be reached with 10 major trading partners,” Treasury Secretary Besenter hints at a possible delay until September, while President Trump states, “We can do whatever we want, I’d like to send everyone a letter directly, ‘Congratulations! You have to pay 25%.'”
Currently, it is difficult for the public to determine whether the U.S. government will adhere to the deadline or extend it to allow more time for negotiations.
Wang Youxin, head of the Bank of China Research Institute, expressed to Sanlihe that the differing statements by U.S. government officials on the negotiation deadline are a composite product of internal policy maneuvering and external negotiating pressure.
He believes that some officials are signaling a “delay” due to considerations of reality—the ongoing differences in negotiations and an intensified economic pressure; Trump is attempting to create urgency by forcing negotiating counterparts to concede, while also stabilizing domestic support among blue-collar workers and other groups.
However, the uncertainty surrounding the negotiations has already had a substantial impact on the market. Since April, U.S. stock markets have experienced increased volatility, bond markets have been under pressure, and the dollar has weakened.
Deloitte’s latest report predicts that even if multiple trade agreements are ultimately reached, significantly reducing average tariffs to around 7.5%, the U.S. economy will still grow slower than in the previous two years. If the negotiation results are unfavorable, with average tariff rates rising to around 25%, the U.S. could fall into recession by the end of the year, leading to a new round of bond market turmoil.
The so-called “equal tariffs” under the guise of “fair trade” are actually acts of protectionism and unilateral bullying by the U.S. Government. From setting rules to negotiation pace, the U.S. government is trying to dominate and control the situation, but this approach is becoming increasingly ineffective.
True trade negotiations are not about who shouts loudest, but about who is more rule-abiding and trustworthy. When the rules change overnight and the rules are repeatedly adjusted, when uncertainty becomes the only certainty, the chips on the negotiation table are quietly being reversed.
The more the United States resorts to coercion, the less effective its so-called trade “rebalancing” policy tools become. Instead, they amplify trust erosion and market fragmentation, diminishing its status as a major player and its influence in the international arena.