When President Trump talks more about his trade deals, the situation with tariffs becomes less clear. His team seems okay with this, saying Trump uses 'strategic uncertainty' to help him.

Trump says the United States doesn't need to sign any agreements and could sign many right now. He says he wants fair deals for everyone and doesn't care about other countries' markets. He says his team can discuss the details of a deal, or he might just put tariffs in place by himself.

"I am finding it difficult to comprehend," Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, stated in an email.

Even though Trump's team uses his popular book "The Art of the Deal" to show he has a clever plan, many people around the world are very worried. This has caused the stock market to go up and down a lot, companies to stop hiring, and a lot of doubt, even while Trump keeps saying that 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 make a lot of money for a federal government that owes a lot, even though other countries believe the main goal of making a deal is to remove tariffs.

Trump recently articulated his perspective on tariffs, characterizing them as highly advantageous for the nation. He posited that their effective implementation would significantly enhance national wealth, generating substantial revenue. This surplus capital, he contended, would be instrumental in debt reduction and would facilitate a considerable reduction in taxation, potentially exceeding the benefits of the anticipated tax cut.

According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the U.S. government's tariff revenue this year has reached $45.9 billion, an increase of around $14.5 billion compared to the previous year. This income could rise considerably due to the initial 10% tariffs, the 145% tariff on Chinese imports, and tariffs up to 25% on goods from steel, aluminum, auto, Mexican, and Canadian sectors.

For Trump to achieve his stated goals of paying off the $36 trillion debt and lowering income taxes, his tariffs would need to bring in at least $2 trillion each year. This would only work if it didn't cause the economy to fail in a way that reduces the total amount of tax money collected. Mathematically, this would be almost impossible.

The Republican government said that 17 out of its 18 main trading partners have given them ideas about possible agreements they are ready to make. Reaching an agreement on these ideas would just be the first step in any trade discussions.

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

During a meeting with Trump on Tuesday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said the new agreement should be made stronger to stop the fentanyl tariffs Trump put in place this year, which Canada thought were unfair.

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

The high taxes on goods from China, and the high taxes on goods from the U.S. that China put in place as a response, are causing problems for the negotiations. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent agrees that these taxes cannot continue.

Initial discussions between the United States and China are scheduled to commence this weekend in Switzerland, but their scope will probably be confined to identifying methods for sufficiently reducing tensions to allow substantive negotiations to occur.

The main problem is that China is the world's biggest manufacturer and exporter, which can replace local industries. China focuses on making things rather than selling them at home, so other countries buy what it produces because there isn't enough demand inside China. The U.S. wants to change this trade balance, but it has also used taxes on imports from countries that could be allies in protecting their car and technology industries from China.

"Plainly, China constitutes the most significant element in this complex trade scenario," Bessent remarked this week. "What will be the ultimate outcome of our relationship with China?"

A spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, Lin Jian, indicated that a constructive approach for the Trump administration to initiate discussions would involve toning down its language and withdrawing its tariffs on imports.

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

When queried on Wednesday about the prospect of decreasing tariffs on Chinese goods in exchange for negotiations, Trump gave a definitive negative response.

The president also contested claims from the Chinese government that his administration had initiated the discussions in Geneva, suggesting they review their records.

Would the Congress be required to endorse any agreements?

That is not necessarily the case; it depends on various factors.

Trump put universal tariffs in place on his own, without Congress, using a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This has caused many lawsuits. The government also says that any changes to these tariffs would not need Congress to agree.

In the past, presidents, like Trump in his first term with his “Phase One” China deal, could only negotiate “smaller agreements that focused on specific trade and tariff issues between two countries,” according to a Congressional Research Service report updated this April. Other examples of these smaller deals include a 2023 agreement on important minerals and a 2020 deal on digital trade with Japan.

The challenge lies in the fact that Trump has incorporated non-tariff barriers, such as automotive safety regulations and European value-added taxes, into his negotiations. He seeks reciprocal adjustments from other nations regarding their non-tariff policies in exchange for a reduction in the recently imposed U.S. tariffs. Conversely, other countries may raise objections concerning U.S. subsidies provided to its corporations.

According to the Congressional Research Service report, completing a deal to address "non-tariff barriers and require changes to U.S. law" would theoretically necessitate approval from both the House and Senate.

Can an agreement genuinely be considered valid if it is unilaterally enforced by Trump?

Should other countries not meet his demands, Trump has indicated he would pursue domestic agreements and establish a tariff, although he essentially enacted this already with his "Liberation Day" tariffs on April 2. The import duties Trump then revealed triggered a financial market decline, prompting him to postpone some of his new tariffs for 90 days and apply the lower 10% base rate during negotiations.

It looks like Trump might not put the tariffs he first threatened into place if he believes other countries are giving enough. This basically means the U.S. isn't giving up anything because the tariffs are new. But Trump could also take back his tariffs without necessarily getting much back.

According to William Reinsch, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Trump is known for initiating negotiations with extreme demands and then moderating them over time, so it remains to be seen how steadfast he will be in this approach. However, it is currently evident that countries seeking conventional trade negotiations, where both parties make significant concessions, are being rejected.