When President Donald Trump talks a lot about making deals with other countries, the situation with tariffs becomes more unclear. His team seems okay with this, saying that Trump is using 'strategic uncertainty' to help him.

Trump asserts that the United States is not obligated to enter into any agreements, and claims it could immediately sign numerous such accords. He states his preference for equitable arrangements beneficial to all parties, while expressing indifference regarding other nations' markets. Furthermore, he suggests his team is prepared to negotiate the specifics of a pact, but also reserves the right to unilaterally implement tariffs.

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

Even though Trump's team uses his popular book "The Art of the Deal" to show he has a great plan, many people around the world are worried. This has caused the stock market to be unstable, companies to stop hiring, and a lot of uncertainty, even while Trump keeps saying new factories and jobs are coming 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 tariffs.

Recently, Trump said that tariffs are good for the country. He claimed that if used wisely, they would make the country much richer. He argued that this would help pay off a lot of debt and lower taxes significantly, maybe even more than the planned tax cut, because of all the money they would bring in.

According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the U.S. government's tariff revenue has reached $45.9 billion this year, an increase of roughly $14.5 billion compared to the previous year, and these receipts could rise significantly due to baseline tariffs of 10%, a 145% rate applied to Chinese imports, and rates up to 25% on steel, aluminum, automotive goods, and products from Mexico and Canada.

To meet Trump's goals of paying back the $36 trillion debt and cutting income taxes, his tariffs would need to bring in at least $2 trillion each year. This would have to happen without the economy failing in a way that lowers the total amount of tax money collected. This seems almost impossible based on the numbers.

The Republican government has stated that 17 out of their 18 main trading partners have basically given them lists of possible agreements they are ready to make. Reaching an agreement on these terms would just be the first step in any trade discussions.

However, foreign leaders are not sure exactly what Trump wants or how agreements could become lasting deals. They also know that after he approved the USMCA in 2020, he later put new taxes on goods from Canada and Mexico this year.

When Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney met with Trump on Tuesday, he suggested that the next version of their agreement should be made stronger. This is to stop the fentanyl-related taxes that Trump put in place this year from happening again, which Canada thought were unfair.

“Certain aspects of it will require alteration,” Carney asserted.

The high taxes on goods from China (145%) and the U.S. (125%) are making the talks difficult. The U.S. Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, said these taxes cannot continue.

Initial discussions between the United States and China are scheduled to commence this weekend in Switzerland, though they will probably focus on identifying methods to alleviate tensions sufficiently to facilitate substantive negotiations.

The main problem is that China is the world's biggest manufacturer, making it a major exporter that can replace local industries. Because China limits what its own people buy and focuses on making things, other countries buy what it produces because 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 intricate trade puzzle, China represents the most significant component,” Bessent commented this week. “What is the likely trajectory of our relationship with China?”

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian has indicated that a constructive approach for the Trump administration to initiate discussions would involve moderating 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 negotiating, it should stop threatening and pressuring and talk with China based on equality, respect, and mutual benefit.

When questioned on Wednesday about whether he would lower tariffs on China as a prerequisite for discussions, Trump responded with a definitive "No."

The president also contested the Chinese government's assertions that his administration had requested the talks in Geneva, suggesting they review their records.

Would the Congress be required to ratify any agreements?

That is not necessarily the case, as there can be exceptions or alternative perspectives to consider.

Trump put in place tariffs on all goods without getting approval from Congress. He used a law from 1977 called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to do this, which has caused several lawsuits. The government also says that they would not need Congress to agree if they wanted to change the tariff rates.

According to a report from the Congressional Research Service updated in April, past presidents, like Trump with his "Phase One" China deal, could only make "smaller agreements that focused on specific trade and tax issues between two countries." Other examples of these smaller deals are a 2023 agreement about important minerals and a 2020 deal with Japan about online trade.

The challenge is that Trump has also incorporated non-tariff barriers, like safety regulations for automobiles and the value-added taxes levied in Europe, into his negotiations. He seeks modifications to these non-tariff policies from other nations in exchange for a reduction in the new tariffs he has imposed. Conversely, other countries might raise objections regarding U.S. subsidies provided to domestic corporations.

According to the Congressional Research Service report, finalising a deal to tackle "non-tariff barriers and mandate alterations to U.S. law" would ostensibly necessitate endorsement from both the House and Senate.

Can a unilaterally imposed measure by Trump genuinely be considered a negotiated agreement?

Trump has said that if other countries don't agree with him, he will make his own deals and set a tariff rate, even though he technically did this already with his April 2 "Liberation Day" tariffs. The import taxes Trump announced then caused a drop in the financial market, which made him stop some of his new tariffs for 90 days and use the lower 10% rate while talks are happening.

It looks like Trump might agree not to put the tariffs he threatened before into effect if he believes other countries are giving enough. This means the U.S. isn't really giving anything up because the tariffs are new. But Trump might also take back his tariffs without necessarily getting much in return.

According to William Reinsch, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Trump is known for initiating negotiations with extreme positions and subsequently moderating his demands, so the longevity of this strategy remains to be seen. However, he notes that countries anticipating conventional trade discussions involving significant mutual concessions are currently facing rejection.