When President Donald Trump talks about making deals with other countries, it makes the situation with tariffs more confusing. His team seems okay with this, saying that Trump uses 'strategic uncertainty' to help him.

Trump states that the United States is not obliged to enter into any agreements, suggesting the possibility of entering into numerous accords imminently. He asserts his pursuit of equitable arrangements for all involved parties, while expressing indifference towards the market conditions of other nations. He indicates that his team is prepared to engage in negotiations regarding the terms of an agreement, yet he retains the option of unilaterally imposing tariffs.

“I find it difficult to comprehend,” Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, conveyed in an email.

Even though Trump's team says his book "The Art of the Deal" shows he has a big plan, many people around the world are very worried. This has caused the stock market to change a lot, companies to stop hiring, and a lot of uncertainty, even while Trump keeps saying new factories and jobs will appear soon.

As part of any agreement, Trump wants to keep some of his tariffs. He thinks these import taxes can bring in a lot of money for the government, which has a lot of debt. However, other countries want to make a deal mainly to get rid of these tariffs.

Trump recently said that tariffs are very good for the country. He believes that using them wisely will make the country much richer. He also claimed that the extra money earned would help pay off debt and allow for a large decrease in taxes for people, even more than the tax cut that is expected.

According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the U.S. government has collected $45.9 billion from tariffs this year, which is about $14.5 billion more than last year. These revenues could increase a lot because of the basic 10% tariffs, the 145% rate on Chinese goods, and rates up to 25% on steel, aluminum, cars, and imports from Mexico and Canada.

For Trump to achieve his goals of paying back the $36 trillion debt and cutting income taxes, his tariffs would have to bring in at least $2 trillion each year. This would need to happen without the economy failing in a way that reduces the total amount of money from taxes. Mathematically, this would be almost impossible.

The Republican government has said that 17 out of its 18 main trading partners have given them documents, called term sheets, that show the possible agreements they are ready to make. Agreeing on these terms would just be the first step in any trade talks.

However, foreign leaders are not sure exactly what Trump wants or how agreements could become lasting deals. They also know that Trump approved the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement in 2020, but then put new taxes on goods from those same two countries this year.

When Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney met with Trump on Tuesday, he said the next agreement should be stronger to stop the fentanyl tariffs Trump put in place this year, which Canada thought were unfair.

“Certain aspects of it will necessitate alteration,” Carney stated.

The very high tariffs, 145% on China and 125% on the U.S. from Beijing in return, are a big problem for the talks. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent agrees that these tariffs cannot continue.

Initial discussions between the United States and China are scheduled to commence this weekend in Switzerland, although they are anticipated to primarily focus on identifying strategies to sufficiently reduce tensions to facilitate substantive negotiations.

The main problem is that China is the world's biggest manufacturer and exporter, which can replace local industries. Because China limits what its own people buy and focuses on making things, other countries buy what it produces as there isn't enough demand inside China. The U.S. wants to make trade fairer, but it has also used taxes on goods from countries that could be its partners in protecting their car and technology industries from China.

"Clearly in this trade conundrum, China represents the most significant element," Bessent remarked this week. "What is the eventual resolution with China?"

A spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Lin Jian, proposed that the Trump administration could effectively initiate negotiations by softening its language and reducing punitive import tariffs.

Lin said on Tuesday that if the U.S. really wants to solve the problem through talking and discussion, it should stop threatening and pressuring. Instead, it should talk with China based on being equal, respecting each other, and benefiting each other.

When questioned on Wednesday about whether he would lower tariffs on China as a prerequisite for negotiations, Trump responded with a simple “No.”

The president additionally contested the Chinese government's assertions that his administration initiated the Geneva discussions, suggesting they review their records.

Would Congress be required to ratify any agreements?

That is not necessarily the prevailing sentiment.

Trump put his tariffs in place by himself, without Congress, using a law from 1977 called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This has caused many lawsuits. Also, the government says that any changes to the tariffs would not need Congress to agree.

According to a Congressional Research Service report updated in April, former presidents, including Trump with his initial “Phase One” China agreement, were restricted to negotiating more limited deals addressing specific bilateral trade and tariff matters. Further instances of these circumscribed accords include a 2023 critical minerals agreement and a 2020 digital trade deal with Japan.

The difficulty lies in the fact that Trump has incorporated non-tariff barriers, including vehicle safety regulations and European value-added taxes, into negotiations, seeking reciprocal changes in their non-tariff policies for a reduction in the new U.S. tariffs, which other nations may counter by raising concerns about U.S. corporate subsidies.

According to the Congressional Research Service report, the agreement, which would tackle non-tariff obstacles and necessitate modifications to U.S. legislation, would theoretically require endorsement from both the House and the Senate to be finalised.

Does it truly constitute an agreement if Trump merely imposes it?

Trump has indicated that if other nations do not meet his demands, he may pursue domestic arrangements and impose tariffs, a measure he ostensibly implemented in April with his "Liberation Day" tariffs. The import duties Trump subsequently announced triggered a market decline, prompting him to temporarily suspend certain tariffs for 90 days and apply the lower 10% rate during negotiations.

It looks like Trump might agree not to put the tariffs he first talked about in place if he feels other countries are giving enough. This basically means the U.S. doesn't give up anything because the tariffs are new. But Trump could also remove his tariffs without necessarily getting much back.

"Trump has a well-known tendency to initially present extreme demands and subsequently moderate them as negotiations advance, so it remains to be seen how consistently he will adhere to this approach," commented William Reinsch, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a prominent think tank in Washington. "However, at this juncture, it appears evident that nations anticipating a conventional trade negotiation involving significant mutual concessions are encountering resistance."