When President Trump talks about making trade deals, the situation with tariffs becomes more unclear. His team seems okay with this, saying Trump is using "strategic uncertainty" to help himself.

Trump asserts that the United States is not obligated to enter into any agreements and possesses the capacity to finalize numerous accords expeditiously. He maintains his pursuit of equitable arrangements for all parties involved, expressing indifference towards the market dynamics of other nations. He indicates that his team is prepared to engage in negotiations regarding the specifics of a potential agreement, yet he reserves the prerogative to unilaterally implement tariffs.

Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, conveyed in an email that he was having difficulty comprehending the situation.

Even though Trump's team uses his book "The Art of the Deal" to show he has a plan, many people around the world are very 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 aims to retain some tariffs, viewing these import duties as a source of significant revenue for a heavily indebted federal government, even as other nations prioritize the abolition of such tariffs in reaching a deal.

Trump recently said that tariffs are very good for the country. He claimed that if they are used wisely, they will make the country much richer. He argued that this extra money could help pay off debt and lead to big tax cuts, perhaps even more than the tax cut that is already planned.

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 lowering income taxes, his tariffs would need to bring in at least $2 trillion each year. This would also need to happen without the economy failing in a way that reduces the total amount of tax money collected. Doing this would be almost impossible based on the numbers.

The Republican government has said that 17 of its 18 main trading partners have basically given them lists of possible agreements they are willing to make. Reaching a shared understanding of these terms would just be the first step in any trade talks.

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

During his meeting with Trump on Tuesday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney 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 adjustments," Carney stated.

The high tariffs, 145% on China and 125% on the U.S., are causing problems for the talks. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent agrees that these tariffs cannot continue.

Initial discussions between the United States and China are scheduled for this weekend in Switzerland, though they will probably concentrate on 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. China keeps its own people from buying too much and focuses on making things, so 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 friends in protecting their car and technology industries from China.

Clearly, China is the most important part of this complex trade situation," Bessent said recently. "What will our final position be regarding China?

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian has proposed that a constructive approach for the Trump administration to revive negotiations would involve moderating its language and reducing punitive import tariffs.

Lin stated on Tuesday that for the U.S. to genuinely address the issue through discussion and negotiation, it must cease its intimidatory and coercive actions and engage in dialogue with China grounded in equality, mutual respect, and reciprocal benefit.

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

The president also contested the Chinese government's claims that his administration had requested the negotiations in Geneva, remarking, "Perhaps they should review their records."

Would Congress need to agree to any potential agreements?

That isn't invariably the case.

Trump put his universal tariffs in place on his own, without Congress, by 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 tariff rates would not need Congress to agree.

According to an updated Congressional Research Service report from April, past presidents, including Trump during his initial term with the “Phase One” China deal, were only able to negotiate “more limited agreements concentrating on specific bilateral trade and tariff matters.” Further instances of restricted agreements encompass a 2023 deal concerning vital minerals and a 2020 digital trade accord with Japan.

The problem is that Trump has also included non-tariff barriers, like safety rules for cars and the sales taxes in Europe, in his talks. He wants other countries to change these non-tariff rules if the U.S. lowers the new tariffs he started. In response, other countries might complain about the money the U.S. gives to its companies.

According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, a potential agreement addressing "non-tariff barriers and requiring alterations to U.S. legislation" would theoretically necessitate approval from both the House and the Senate for its finalisation.

Can it truly be considered an agreement if Trump unilaterally enforces it?

Trump has hinted that if other nations do not appease him, he will simply forge domestic agreements and impose a tariff, a move he technically executed with his April 2nd "Liberation Day" tariffs. The tariffs Trump announced subsequently triggered a stock market downturn, prompting him to postpone some of his new tariffs for 90 days and apply the reduced 10% base rate during ongoing negotiations.

It looks like Trump will agree not to put the tariffs he threatened into place if he believes other countries are giving enough in return. This basically means the U.S. isn't giving up anything because these tariffs are new. However, Trump might also remove his tariffs without necessarily getting much back.

“Trump is well-known for initiating negotiations with extreme demands and subsequently scaling them back, so it remains to be seen how consistently he adheres to this approach,” stated William Reinsch, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based research institution. “However, it is currently quite apparent that nations expecting conventional trade discussions featuring significant mutual concessions are being turned away.