Trump Says US and Vietnam Have Reached an Agreement on Tariffs
In a post on Truth social, Trump said that the deal would involve a 20 percent tariff 'on any and all goods' exported to the U.S., while transhipped goods – those that pass through Vietnam to circumvent steeper trade barriers – would be hit with a 40 percent tariff. This is considerably lower than the 46 percent rate levied on Vietnam by Trump during his announcement of the sweeping 'reciprocal tariffs' on April 2.
'It is my Great Honor to announce that I have just made a Trade Deal with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam after speaking with To Lam, the Highly Respected General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam,' Trump wrote.
He added that Vietnam had agreed to lower its tariffs on all U.S. imports to zero, something that Trump said would benefit the U.S. car industry in particular. 'It is my opinion that the SUV or, as it is sometimes referred to, Large Engine Vehicle, which does so well in the United States, will be a wonderful addition to the various product lines within Vietnam,' Trump said.
The deal was also confirmed by Vietnamese state media, which reported that on a call that Lam held with Trump yesterday, the two leaders 'welcomed the agreement reached by the two countries' negotiating teams on the Joint Vietnam-United States Statement on a Fair, Balanced, and Reciprocal Trade Agreement Framework.'
According to one report, Trump 'affirmed that the U.S. would significantly reduce reciprocal tariffs on many of Vietnam's export items and would continue to work with Vietnam to address obstacles affecting bilateral trade relations, particularly in areas prioritized by both sides.' Lam also proposed that the U.S. 'soon recognize Vietnam as a market economy and lift export restrictions on certain high-tech products,' and extended an invitation for Trump to visit Vietnam.
The announcement, which sent the shares of Nike and other Vietnam-based apparel makers climbing, comes just days before a July 9 deadline that Trump set to resolve negotiations before the imposition of the reciprocal tariffs, including the 46 percent tariff on Vietnamese goods.
The tariff threatened to throttle the trade between the U.S. and Vietnam, which has grown by leaps and bounds since the first Trump administration. Indeed, Vietnam was one of the great winners of Trump's first 'trade war' with China. As multinational firms set up factories in Vietnam to reduce their reliance on China as a manufacturing base, the country increased its export share to the U.S. in all categories of products. However, this has seen Vietnam's trade surplus grow rapidly, from $38.3 billion in 2017 to $123.5 billion last year.
This has attracted the attention of Trump's hawkish trade advisors, who say that the deficit has been pumped up by the use of Vietnam as a transshipment point for Chinese goods seeking to avoid previous U.S. tariffs. According to some reports, this represents both outright fraud – the slapping of 'Made in Vietnam' labels on Chinese-made products – and the establishment by Chinese companies of factories in Vietnam.
Exactly how prevalent the issue is remains a subject of dispute, but on Fox News in April, Trump's hawkish trade adviser Peter Navarro accused Vietnam of being 'essentially a colony of communist China.' During the recent tariff negotiations, Vietnam duly pledged to address the issue.
If confirmed, the terms of the agreement are set to significantly increase the price of the garments, electronics, and other goods that Vietnam exports to the U.S. However, Hanoi will likely be satisfied with this outcome, given the worst-case scenario. An earlier report by Reuters report suggested that Vietnam is hoping to get the 46 percent tariff 'reduced to a range of 22 percent to 28 percent, if not lower.'
This may depend on whether there are any other unpublicized elements to the deal. Last month, Reuters news agency reported that U.S. trade negotiators had sent a list of 'tough' requests to Vietnam that would force the country to 'cut its reliance on Chinese industrial goods imports,' which have spiked in line with the rise in Vietnamese exports to the U.S. According to the report, the Trump administration 'wants Vietnam-based factories to reduce their use of materials and components from China and is asking the country to control more carefully its production and supply chains.'
It also remains unclear whether the U.S. will agree to Lam's requests for the United States to recognize it as a market economy – a step that the Biden administration declined to take last year – and remove restrictions on the exports of high-tech products to the country.
In the immediate term, the deal seems set to stabilize the relationship between Vietnam and the U.S., which has grown in recent years in large part due to a shared concern for China's rising power. The longer-term impacts are harder to guess. It is clear that Hanoi was stung by the announcement of the 46 percent tariff, one of the highest rates in the world, and Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh said that it 'did not reflect the strong bilateral relations between the two nations.' Despite this compromise, Vietnamese leaders will likely continue their efforts, telegraphed shortly after the April 2 tariff announcement, to diversify the country's export markets. Given the unpredictability of U.S. policy over the past few administrations, it is wise to cushion themselves against a future spasm of protectionism.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Mainichi
an hour ago
- The Mainichi
Japan seeks 8th round of tariffs talks in U.S. amid Trump impasse
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The Japanese government has informed the United States that its chief negotiator intends to conduct an eighth round of ministerial-level talks in Washington early next week, a source close to the matter said Thursday. With President Donald Trump appearing to harden his stance ahead of next Wednesday's deadline for his administration's 90-day pause on country-specific tariffs, Japan's last-ditch effort will hinge on whether Ryosei Akazawa can secure a deal that includes a reduced tariff rate on cars, the source said. In rounds of talks since April, the United States has been reluctant to accept Tokyo's request to withdraw or reduce the additional 25 percent tariff on cars. Amid the stalemate, Japan is seeking an extension of the tariff suspension deadline to allow talks to continue. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba on Thursday expressed confidence that bilateral tariff negotiations with the United States are making steady progress. "We need to cover a wide range of areas, including nontariff barriers. But we are steadily and certainly making progress on each of them," Ishiba told a program on public broadcaster NHK. "Japan is the largest investor in the United States and the biggest contributor in terms of creating jobs. Our hope is that this will be taken into consideration," he said, underscoring the need for Washington to focus on investment rather than tariffs. His remarks came as Trump on Tuesday floated the idea of raising tariffs on imports from Japan to as high as 30 percent or 35 percent, while complaining about Japan's purchases of American rice and cars. "I'm not sure we're going to make a deal. I doubt it," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, calling Japan "very tough" and "very spoiled." The dispute over auto tariffs has been a key obstacle to a deal, with Washington also pressuring its Asian security ally to boost imports of U.S. farm products, including rice, cars and oil, to help reduce its large trade deficit. In return, Japan has highlighted its contributions to the U.S. economy and proposed a package deal that includes increased investment in the United States and cooperation on economic security, the source said. Without an extension to the 90-day pause on part of the so-called reciprocal tariffs, Japan will face an additional 14 percent country-specific tariff on top of the 10 percent baseline duty the United States has imposed on imports from all countries. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that the United States warned Japanese officials during talks in late May that it might demand a cap on the number of vehicles Japan could export to the United States -- a policy known as a voluntary export restriction, citing people familiar with the matter. But Japanese officials held firm, telling their U.S. counterparts they would not accept any deal that preserves Trump's 25 percent automotive tariff, resulting in a deadlock in the negotiations, the U.S. newspaper said.
Nikkei Asia
an hour ago
- Nikkei Asia
Uniqlo hopes for breathing room under US-Vietnam tariff deal
Uniqlo parent Fast Retailing had predicted a 2%-to-3% hit to operating profits due to Trump's tariffs. (Photo by Hiroki Endo) TAKESHI SHIRAISHI TOKYO -- The tariff reductions announced by the U.S. and Vietnam are expected to provide relief for companies like casualwear retailer Uniqlo, which depends on the Southeast Asian nation for a large portion of its supply chain. U.S. President Donald Trump said Wednesday that U.S. imports from Vietnam will face a 20% tariff, down from the 46% originally proposed. The Vietnamese side did not say what level of tariffs had been agreed on.
The Diplomat
2 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Are India-US Relations at a Crossroads?
Donald Trump's intervention in a brief Indo-Pakistan conflict and his diplomatic theatrics have rekindled fears of a return to Washington's old habit of hyphenating India with Pakistan. In the wake of a terrorist attack in late April targeting tourists in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, a series of military skirmishes took place between India and Pakistan. These involved extensive artillery barrages along the Line of Control (the de facto international border in the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir), the use of drones and missiles to attack a range of targets, and the use of air power. Following this four-day conflict, Pakistan alleged that it had shot down as many as six Indian combat aircraft. General Anil Chauhan, India's chief of defense staff, confirmed that the Indian Air Force had lost some aircraft but did not specify the number. After the hostilities concluded, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that he had successfully persuaded both India and Pakistan to agree to a ceasefire. To that end, he asserted that he had threatened to impose significant trade sanctions on both countries, thereby inducing them to end the ongoing hostilities. Pakistan lauded his public remarks and even briefly nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. (After Trump's decision to attack three nuclear facilities in Iran, Pakistan's political opposition asked its government to rescind the nomination.) India, for its part, has repeatedly and categorically denied that the ceasefire was a product of Trump's intervention. It is both difficult and unnecessary to adjudicate the veracity of either claim. What matters is that Trump's attempt to insert himself into this latest India-Pakistan crisis has set off alarm bells in New Delhi about the state of India-U.S. relations. Before Trump proclaimed his role in ending the brief, intense conflict, Vice President J.D. Vance had stated that the India-Pakistan crisis was 'none of our business.' Trump subsequently claimed the U.S. acted as mediator in defusing India-Pakistan tensions. The latter statement raised hackles in New Delhi owing to its long-standing aversion to external efforts to resolve its differences with Pakistan. Finally, to New Delhi's dismay, Trump decided to host General Asim Munir, the Pakistan Army's chief of staff, for lunch at the White House. Although little of substance emerged from the meeting, the optics were a source of considerable misgiving in New Delhi. Several Indian political analysts and commentators have argued that Trump's statements and actions suggest a return to the much-disliked U.S. policy of hyphenation: linking India and Pakistan in its dealings with the two antagonistic neighbors. Indeed, this had characterized U.S. policy toward the subcontinent during much of the Cold War. It was only under the late U.S. Ambassador Frank Wisner in the mid-1990s that Washington decided to de-hyphenate its relations with the two countries. Wisner, who served as the ambassador to New Delhi between 1994 and 1997, was able to pursue this strategy because of India's growing economic clout in the wake of its fitful embrace of economic liberalization in 1991. Subsequent administrations, for the most part, adhered to this policy. Even after the renewal of a Pakistan-U.S. security relationship following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in the United States, Washington maintained a cordial and mostly robust relationship with India. The India-U.S. partnership even survived Secretary of State Colin Powell's maladroit designation of Pakistan as a 'major non-NATO ally' in 2004, despite causing its share of unease in New Delhi. What, in considerable part, redeemed the India-U.S. relationship was President George W. Bush's monumental decision in 2005 to pursue the India-U.S. civilian nuclear accord. This accord, for all practical purposes, exempted India from the strictures of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970 and allowed it to maintain its nuclear weapons program. All prior U.S. presidents had, to varying degrees, sought to cajole, persuade and even browbeat India to eschew its nuclear weapons program and accede to the NPT. Bush's decision to make an exception for India amounted to what scholars of international relations refer to as a 'costly signal' — namely, one that requires the expenditure of significant domestic and international political capital. In its wake, India-U.S. relations had been placed on a far more secure footing. Subsequent administrations, both Democratic and Republican, steadily built upon the solid foundations that Bush had constructed during his second term in office. The Barack Obama administration, for example, during its first year in office, neglected India. However, Obama visited India in 2010. During the visit, much to the surprise of his interlocutors in New Delhi, in a speech to the Indian Parliament he publicly stated that the United States, at some point, would look forward to including New Delhi as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Since this was a long-standing Indian goal, his announcement came as a very pleasant surprise to the Indian political leadership. Also, at the initiative of then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, the administration designated India as a 'Major Defense Partner,' thereby easing defense acquisitions from the United States. Even the advent of the first Trump administration did not lead to substantial policy changes. India, it appeared, had for all practical purposes become a mostly bipartisan issue. The Joe Biden administration, despite expressing some misgivings about democratic backsliding and human rights in India, continued to deepen and broaden the strategic partnership, especially because of its concerns about an increasingly assertive, if not downright revanchist, China in Asia. Trump's return to office in 2025, however, has seen some disturbing signs, largely because of his propensity to use trade as a weapon or at least a source of leverage. Unlike in the past, perhaps cognizant of Trump's inclination to exploit the trade deficit with India as a political blunderbuss, the Modi government indicated a willingness to make certain trade concessions. These trade negotiations, though initially promising, have yet to result in an accord. Meanwhile, Trump's maladroit remarks and his hosting of General Munir have cast a pall on the India-U.S. relationship. It is, of course, possible that New Delhi is needlessly tying itself in knots about these ill-advised statements from the White House. They may simply reflect Trump's proclivity for self-aggrandizement and a degree of policy incoherence. That said, given Trump's mercurial disposition, New Delhi's concerns about the future of the relationship may well be understandable. Much of the progress that has been achieved in India-U.S. relations could suffer a setback owing to Trump's ill-advised remarks. Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.
