
Trump's demand to trading partners: Pledge money or get higher tariffs
The tactic was on display last week as Trump and his team rolled out a blitz of new trade agreements before a self-imposed Aug. 1 deadline.
'South Korea is right now at a 25% Tariff, but they have an offer to buy down those Tariffs,' Trump wrote on social media Wednesday. 'I will be interested in hearing what that offer is.'
The next day, Trump agreed to impose a tariff of 15 percent on imports from South Korea. The lower rate came after South Korea agreed to make $350 billion in investments in the United States and purchase $100 billion of liquefied natural gas.
South Korea is not the only country to make such pledges. Japan said it would establish a $550 billion fund for investments in the United States. The European Union indicated that its companies were poised to invest at least $600 billion.
Advertisement
To trade experts, the commitments raise the question of whether Trump is negotiating with trading partners or trade hostages.
'This is no doubt a global shakedown of sorts,' said Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the right-leaning Cato Institute. 'The fact is that Trump is using US tariff policy to effectively force these terms upon less-than-willing participants.'
But the vague nature of these informal commitments suggests that other nations might also be looking for creative ways to escape Trump's tariffs.
Although tariffs are relatively straightforward to enforce, investment and purchase commitments are not as easily policed. The EU, for instance, does not have the authority to dictate the type of investments that it has promised, and much of Japan's pledged investments are coming in the form of loans.
The investment announcements have also spurred confusion and lacked the usual detail that would accompany such pacts to avoid future disputes.
A large majority of the $350 billion South Korean investment would take the form of loans and loan guarantees. South Korean officials expressed confusion over what US officials meant when they said 90 percent of the profits from the investments would go to the American people.
A fact sheet announcing the EU's plans allowed for some wiggle room when it said that 'E.U. companies have expressed interest in investing at least $600 billion' in 'various sectors in the U.S.'
'I think there remain a lot of questions, including by the countries who have announced commitments, as to what those commitments actually really mean,' said Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who served as the top trade negotiator in the Obama administration. 'Is it enforceable? If they don't deliver a certain amount of investment over a particular period of time, do tariffs go back into place?'
Advertisement
During Trump's first term, the trade deal he struck with China included extensive commitments for Chinese purchases of American farm products that were never met. The agreement did have an enforcement mechanism, but it proved toothless.
Some of the initial investment pledges appear to be too big to be true. New data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis showed that in 2024, foreign spending to acquire, start or expand US businesses totaled $151 billion — a small fraction of the new commitments being announced. The $600 billion EU investment commitment matches the total value of the goods that the United States imported from Europe last year.
Although the United States has long been a magnet for foreign investment, the longer-term effects of making countries invest under duress are not clear.
'This is the kind of deal you'd more expect to see from an emerging market that can't attract capital on its merits,' said Aaron Bartnick, who worked in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Biden administration. 'And we may find over time that if the United States insists on acting like an emerging market, our trade partners may start treating us accordingly, with more onerous terms and less favorable rates that American companies and consumers are not accustomed to dealing with.'
Regardless of the economic implications, Trump's tactics show no signs of abating, as he regularly claims more than $10 trillion — and climbing — in investments from foreign companies and countries.
Advertisement
Daniel Ames, a professor at Columbia Business School who teaches negotiation strategy, said that Trump's approach to trade deals appears to be drawn directly from his days as a developer and businessperson. Trump became notorious for destabilizing his negotiating counterparts with severely low bids, dazzling sales pitches and an ability to capitalize on weakness to gain leverage.
Ames noted, however, that the EU and countries like Japan and South Korea might also be playing into Trump's sense of vanity when they unveil whopping investment promises that might ultimately be hollow.
'Donald Trump is a gifted storyteller, and I think when his counterparts recognize this, they can play to it,' Ames said. 'If you're negotiating with a narcissist, you look for ways to make them feel like they've won.'
This article originally appeared in
.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Popular Bond ETF Might Be Marriage Material. Here's the Best Way to Say ‘I Do.'
What do you get when you take the option collar, the options strategy I write about regularly for Barchart, and remove the covered call, arguably the least important yet most popular piece? The answer is a 'married put strategy.' And in this article, I'm going to explain why this is a good time to leave the covered call at home. In the current market environment, the exchange-traded fund (ETF) I'm focusing on might be better off without the covered call. Why? Sinking option volatility. That makes options cheaper. But since the put side of a collar is bought, cheap is good. More News from Barchart Options Traders Expected Palantir Stock's Tamest Earnings Reaction in a Year. Did They Get It Right? PayPal Maintains its Huge FCF Guidance Despite a Q2 Drop - Is PYPL Stock Too Cheap? Option Volatility And Earnings Report For Aug 4 - 8 Markets move fast. Keep up by reading our FREE midday Barchart Brief newsletter for exclusive charts, analysis, and headlines. Invest in Gold American Hartford Gold: #1 Precious Metals Dealer in the Nation Thor Metals Group: Best Overall Gold IRA Priority Gold: Up to $15k in Free Silver + Zero Account Fees on Qualifying Purchase However, the call side of the options collar involves selling a covered call option. The usual motivation for that extra step is to pay for the put option that guards a stock or ETF from diving too far down. That covered call option is also somewhat inexpensive these days. And when we're talking about selling away some of our potential upside profits, in exchange for some cash flow now to reduce the cost of the puts, it doesn't make as much sense. Because the amount received for the call-writing transaction is not very much, relative to recent history. TLT: The Case for a Married Put Strategy A case in point for why a married put strategy might make more sense now than an option collar strategy is the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT), which as shown below has an IV Rank of 15%. That means over the past 12 months, the volatility level of TLT has been higher than the current 14% level 85% of the time. This means we don't have to worry too much about volatility here. As a side note, fans of covered call ETFs should pay close attention. Given lower volatility levels, the risk management provided by covered call ETFs today is much less powerful than it has been throughout the rest of 2025. As with collars, there are many ways to approach the combination of marrying TLT shares and a TLT put option for every 100 shares owned. But the takeaway from this one example below is that I can go out to Nov. 21, and assuming I bought TLT around $88 a share, I can also buy a put struck at $88. This means that except for the cost to buy the puts, I can't end up with less than $88 a share of value… no matter what happens with interest rates or how much TLT falls. Plus, the cost to buy the puts is only $2.61 here, so about 3% of that $88 strike price. Bottom line: 3% is my worst-case loss. TLT's Upside Is Capped At…. It's Not! My upside? Unlimited through Nov. 21, with that protection in place. We have recently experienced a period in which the long end of the yield curve has been quiet and not very volatile. It is as if it is trying to make up its mind what to do. If the recent saber-rattling in Washington tips in the direction of lower rates, TLT could be a big winner. However, in an uncertain, politically charged situation like this, having relatively cheap put protection can be a valuable hedge. And as long as the covered call part of a collar is not especially attractive, this could be an opportunity to pursue unfettered upside. That's one key advantage of the married put strategy versus the collar. But if you profit from this trade… Please, no gifts for the happy couple. On the date of publication, Rob Isbitts did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Tariffs Might Be Impacting the U.S. Trade Deficit
Key Takeaways The U.S. trade deficit fell for the third month as President Donald Trump's tariff policies began taking hold. Census Bureau data showed that both imports and exports declined in June. Economists said that the recent decline mainly reflects normalization in international trade as businesses work through the imported inventory they stocked up on ahead of tariff announcements. While imports from China fell, trade from nearby countries picked up to fill the Donald Trump has said that one of the goals of higher tariffs was to close the U.S. trade deficit with other nations. So far, things appear to be moving in that direction, as the trade deficit in June declined to its lowest level in nearly two years. According to Census Bureau data released Tuesday, the U.S. trade deficit in goods and services was $60.2 billion in June, down more than 16% from May. It's the lowest trade deficit since September 2023. However, tariffs may not be affecting the trade deficit in the way some expected so far. Economists from Wells Fargo said some of the data indicate an 'unwinding of behavioral effects." After Trump unveiled his tariff plans earlier this year, businesses rushed to import products before higher import taxes could be applied, sending the trade deficit soaring. Now, with the tariffs largely set, the trade deficit is beginning to fall back to normal levels. 'Businesses pulled forward demand in Q1, resulting in a massive import surge. With a surplus of product and inventory on hand, imports fell in all three months of the second quarter, ' wrote Wells Fargo economists Shannon Grein and Tim Quinlan. Imports From China Decline, as Do U.S. Exports Still, imports of Chinese products declined by nearly 7% in June despite a trade truce that lowered tariffs. Since the start of the year, the share of imports from China has been more than cut in half, though trading with countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Taiwan has increased, the data showed. 'Other trading partners in Asia have mostly filled the void, increasing their share by roughly the same amount,' said Matthew Martin, senior economist at Oxford Economics. While overall imports were lower by 3.7% in June, U.S. exports also took a step back. 'Exports are not poised to record strong growth going forward, but stronger foreign currencies and an opening up of foreign markets may bolster U.S. exports—though admittedly this will take time to play out,' wrote Nationwide Financial Markets Economist Oren Klachkin. Read the original article on Investopedia
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says major US banks 'discriminated against me' as White House preps debanking executive order
Debanking is back in the spotlight this week after President Trump said Tuesday that the country's two largest US banks, JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Bank of America (BAC), denied him as a customer. "The banks discriminated against me very badly, and I was very good to the banks," Trump said on CNBC's "Squawk Box," adding that "they discriminate against many conservatives." For years, Republicans have claimed that US banks have denied accounts to certain customers for political reasons. Crypto companies have warned more recently that they weren't permitted to get banking services during the Biden era. "I had hundreds of millions. I had many, many accounts loaded up with cash. I was loaded up with cash, and they told me, 'I'm sorry, sir, we can't have you. You have 20 days to get out,'" Trump said of his experience losing bank accounts with JPMorgan Chase. The president said he then went to Bank of America "to deposit a billion dollars plus" and was similarly denied. "He said, 'We can't do it,'" Trump told "Squawk Box" while also referencing pressure on banks from Washington, D.C., regulators as a key reason for why he and others have been denied banking services. "I ended up going to small banks all over the place," Trump added. The president's comments came in response to a Wall Street Journal report late Monday stating that the White House is preparing to draft a related executive order around debanking that would fine banks found discriminating against customers on political grounds. Bank of America did not immediately offer a response to Trump's comments. "We don't close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed. We commend the White House for addressing this issue and look forward to working with them to get this right," a JPMorgan spokesperson said in emailed comments. Both of these giant lenders and their CEOs have denied debanking customers on political grounds. Learn more about high-yield savings accounts, money market accounts, and CD accounts. Trump first brought visibility to the debanking issue back in January when he confronted Bank of America's Brian Moynihan about it during a live Q&A at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. "I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives," Trump told Moynihan. The president also appeared to include JPMorgan Chase CEO Jame Dimon in his confrontation. "I don't know if the regulators mandated that because of Biden or what, but you and Jamie and everybody else, I hope you open your banks to conservatives, because what you're doing is wrong," Trump added. Two months later, the Trump Organization sued major credit card lender Capital One (COF) for allegedly debanking hundreds of its accounts following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol in Washington, D.C. Bank regulators have already eliminated one element in supervision that has been pointed to as a culprit of debunking, known as reputational risk. Critics said this element of supervision was previously too subjective, allowing regulators additional room to penalize lenders for taking on customers they deemed risky. "The heart of the problem is regulatory overreach and supervisory discretion," a spokesperson for the Bank Policy Institute, a D.C. banking industry advocacy group, said in an emailed statement. "The banking agencies have already taken steps to address issues like reputational risk, and we're hopeful that any forthcoming executive order will reinforce this progress by directing regulators to confront the flawed regulatory framework that gave rise to these concerns in the first place," BPI added. Each of the bosses for these big banks has addressed the issue by also pointing a finger at regulators. "We have not debanked anyone because of political or religious relationships, period," JPMorgan's Dimon said during a podcast interview earlier this year, in which he acknowledged that debanking happens. "The reality is that if they gave us clarity from the regulatory thing and avoid the second-guessing, that would be helpful," Bank of America's Moynihan said in a CBS interview on Sunday. David Hollerith is a senior reporter for Yahoo Finance covering banking, crypto, and other areas in finance. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Sign in to access your portfolio