Trump's law of the jungle means U.S. trade deals aren't worth the paper they're printed on, trade expert warns
When President Trump threatened Brazil with punishing tariffs on Wednesday, there was no fancy mathematical equation trotted out this time as justification.
The 50% levy on goods was retribution for a perceived 'witch hunt' against his political ally, Jair Bolsanaro, whose supporters attempted a coup two years ago.
This administration is bringing back the law of the jungle to international trade, according to trade expert Kristen Hopewell, and time is running out to salvage the remains of a post-war system of commerce that promoted stability and prosperity across the world.
'Trump is a totally unreliable negotiating partner,' she tells Fortune. 'Any deal you strike with the administration is not worth the paper it's written on.'
As if to hammer home that point, news began to emerge on Thursday that Vietnam had been caught off guard when Trump prematurely announced a 20% duty on all goods entering the U.S. from the southeast Asian country. Vietnamese officials were reportedly still hoping for a number closer to half that.
Nor is there any apparent rhyme or reason to his tariffs. Brazil, for example, doesn't even run a trade surplus with the United States—it imported $28.6 billion more goods and services from the U.S. last year than it exported. On Wednesday, when asked how he calculated his various import duties, the president answered that he uses 'a formula based on common sense,' one that reflects 'how we've been treated.'
Hopewell, a professor at the University of British Columbia, argues this erratic and fickle approach to international negotiations is symptomatic of a Trump deal: 'He can simply come back later demanding more. There's no guarantee it will actually be upheld.'
That's because the president already removed a cornerstone underpinning global commerce during his first administration six years ago when he blocked all appointments to what is essentially the supreme court of the World Trade Organization (WTO) — its Appellate Body.
'The WTO is unique amongst international organizations in that its rules are actually legally binding on states. It has teeth,' Hopewell said. Or rather it had teeth.
Since the Biden administration continued its policy of blocking appointments to fill its vacancies, there is now no quorum to adjudicate trade disputes, leaving countries little incentive to abide by the rules anymore. Quite the contrary, they can break them with near impunity.
The United States didn't always favor dismantling these guardrails.
Over a decade ago, the country led a number of key partners, including Japan and the European Union, to press their rights against China when it attempted to restrict the export of critical minerals, including rare earths.
In 2015, they later won in front of the Appellate Body, forcing Beijing to relent.
Thanks to Trump, this enforcement mechanism no longer works.
In January 2020, just weeks after the WTO's Appellate Body was decommissioned, Indonesia moved to impose a ban on the export of raw nickel.
Since it has one of the largest remaining deposits of this element vital for electric vehicle batteries and stainless steel, it reckoned it could compel the creation of a domestic downstream industry for processing and refining the ore.
Other countries argued in front of the WTO that it violated the rules and won—or at least they thought they had.
Indonesia exercised its right to lodge a formal appeal to the Appellate Body, knowing full well that a ruling that settles the dispute was impossible.
'By appealing into the void, it could continue these WTO illegal export restrictions of nickel and is actually expanding them to other commodities,' Hopewell says. 'Other countries are now mimicking Indonesia and introducing similar bans on mineral exports.'
Hopewell believes the moment for bold action has arrived. In a column for Politico this week, she argued the international community should consider expelling the United States from the World Trade Organization in order to revive its paralyzed Appellate Body.
'The stakes are really high, so it's worth considering more radical solutions,' she told Fortune.
That attitude, Hopewell says, is no accident. Trump has long sought to undermine the WTO in favor of bilateral deals, where the U.S. holds more leverage.
'Trump is pursuing a divide-and-conquer strategy,' she said. 'He knows the U.S. is strongest when it negotiates one-on-one.'
By agreeing to bilateral talks, she argues, foreign governments hoping to protect domestic industries are undermining themselves. 'They're playing right into Trump's hands.'
Contacted by Fortune, the WTO Secretariat said it does not comment on the conduct of member states. The White House declined to respond.
To many Americans, Trump's aggressive trade stance may appear cost-free. But the fallout has yet to reach consumers, in part because industries like autos stockpiled inventory ahead of new duties.
'It will take some time before the effects of the tariffs are felt in higher prices,' Hopewell said. 'But when that hits, it's going to be a profound economic shock for the U.S.'
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's what Warren Buffett says will be the ultimate growth industry!
Artificial intelligence (AI) has a lot of investors excited right now, yet billionaire investor Warren Buffett isn't one of them. Despite owning shares in companies such as Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) and Amazon, none of these investments were made solely based on their AI potential. In fact, Buffett seems to be quite cautious of the technology. Instead, he's warned investors that AI will give rise to an enormous amount of fraud, making scamming the biggest 'growth industry of all time'. Sticking to his principles Despite his hesitant stance, Buffett isn't blind to the benefits of this emerging technology. In the right hands, AI can be a remarkable tool with countless applications in finance, cybersecurity, automation, and work productivity among others. However, with so many businesses claiming to be the next big thing, Buffett and his team are remaining disciplined. They're focusing on the industries they understand the most, zooming in on the businesses with the widest competitive moats. That means rather than chasing speculative AI stocks, he's looking at the established players across the sectors that can leverage AI to improve their existing operations, using the proceeds to run phenomenal capital-return programmes. And right now, Apple seems to fit that bill. Exploring Apple's potential While Buffett's investment vehicle Berkshire Hathaway has trimmed its position in Apple throughout last year, it remains one of its largest holdings, representing 24% of the portfolio. As one of the largest consumer technology companies in the world, Apple produces an enormous amount of free cash flow driven by a loyal customer ecosystem. Since 2013, the company's been busy consistently buying back its own shares, with around $775bn spent over the last 12 years. To put this into perspective, that's enough money to buy the entirety of Visa with another $100bn to spare. And with management approving yet another $100bn in buybacks during 2025, the rewards for shareholders look set to continue, especially if the firm can deliver on its AI ambitions. So far, Apple has lagged when it comes to AI implementation. The rollout of Apple Intelligence has actually been quite slow and riddled with delays, which have seemingly continued into 2025. And the ongoing trade disruptions from newly-announced US tariffs aren't exactly helping matters, which have led to around a quarter of Apple's market-cap being lost in 2025. However, that might soon change. The company has a record number of revamped product launches in the second half of 2025. That includes four new iPhone models, and updates for its AirPods, Apple Watches, iPads, and MacBooks. And with plans to hire another 20,000 people over the next four years to expand its R&D capabilities, the firm might soon be catching up on the AI front, generating even more cash flow over the long run. Perhaps that's why Buffett continues to hold a significant chunk of shares. And it's why I think investors may want to take a closer look at this business. The post Here's what Warren Buffett says will be the ultimate growth industry! appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool Zaven Boyrazian has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Apple. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Better Energy Stock: Diamondback Energy vs. Chevron
Key Points Chevron's integrated business and its rock-solid balance sheet help secure its dividend. Diamondback Energy is a well-run oil and gas company that offers good upside due to the potential for higher oil prices. Ultimately, the decision comes down to each individual's risk profile, but one stock stands out as a clear winner for passive income-seeking investors. 10 stocks we like better than Diamondback Energy › Comparing a pure-play exploration and production in the Permian Basin, Diamondback Energy (NASDAQ: FANG), with an integrated energy major, Chevron (NYSE: CVX), sheds light on many of the questions that oil and gas-focused investors face in the coming years. Let's take a look at which company might suit which type of investor better. The role of oil prices There's no getting around this question when investing in energy stocks, but the answers to it may not be immediately apparent. It's important to note that both these companies are very well run and pride themselves on a relatively low operating "break-even" oil price. This price represents the lowest price of oil needed to cover the cost of the company's operating expenses, existing wells (maintenance capital spending), and base dividend. Chevron's break-even price for oil is in the $30 per barrel range accoring to a Wood Mackenzie survey. Diamondback's management estimates its equivalent break-even price is $37 per barrel. That would appear to give Chevron the upper hand. However, consider that Chevron is an integrated major with substantial downstream and chemicals operations, which tend to perform well with a lower oil price; these factors are included in the break-even calculation. On the other hand, Diamondback is purely an exploration and production company. Moreover, Diamondback utilizes hedging to mitigate downside exposure to oil prices. Its hedges currently apply down to a price of oil of about $55 per barrel, meaning it has upside exposure to a price of oil above $55 per barrel. As such, you can think of Chevron's dividend (currently yielding 4.8%) as safe down to $30 per barrel, and Diamondback's base dividend (currently yielding 2.9%) as safe down to $37 per barrel. Consequently, if you are the type of investor primarily looking for yield and wanting to sleep safely at night, Chevron is the better investment for you. Don't forget the upside The flip side of the argument is that Diamondback has more exposure to a higher oil price, which is what one might expect, given that it's an exploration and production company. To provide some context for how this works, here's a look at Diamondback's management's estimated adjusted 2025 free cash flow (FCF) across a range of oil prices. For reference, Diamondback aims to return 50% of FCF to shareholders in the form of dividends (base and variable) and share buybacks. It has $1.845 billion remaining as part of a $6 billion share buyback authorization program. As of its first quarter, Diamondback made $829 million in share buybacks, equivalent to about $2.80 per share. Therefore, if management decided not to make any more buybacks and pay the remaining 50% in full-year FCF in dividends (base of $4, plus a variable dividend), then it could offer $5.20 in dividends, yielding 3.8%, assuming a price of oil of $60 a barrel. That theoretical figure rises $8.70 in dividends, yielding 6.4%, assuming a price of $80 a barrel. See what I mean by Diamondback having more upside exposure to the price of oil? Price of Oil per Barrel Free Cash Flow Free Cash Flow Per Share Free Cash Flow Yield (based on the current market price of Diamondback Energy of $136.5 a share) $50 per barrel $4.15 billion $14 10.3% $60 per barrel $4.85 billion $16 11.7% $70 per barrel $5.85 billion $20 14.7% $80 per barrel $6.85 billion $23 16.8% Data source: Diamondback Energy presentations. Table by author. In case you are wondering, based on these assumptions, the price of oil would have to be approximately $67 per barrel to get Diamondback's dividend yield to be equivalent to Chevron's current yield -- curiously enough, that's roughly the current price of oil now. Diamondback or Chevron? Ultimately, dividend-focused investors and those concerned about being overly exposed to oil prices will favor Chevron. In addition, Chevron's diversified operations (its production in the Permian is comparable to Diamondback's, but it has substantial other global assets, plus midstream and downstream operations) give it a place to focus its investment, even in the event of a sustained fall in oil prices. In contrast, other than reducing capital investment in response to lower prices (something Diamondback has already done this year), it's hard to think of what significant move a company like Diamondback can make. That said, many investors buy oil stocks precisely because they want exposure to the upside of oil, and Diamondback is a high-quality operator that has taken measures to limit its downside exposure. As such, nothing is stopping you from buying both stocks, as they are both attractive for passive income-seeking investors. Should you buy stock in Diamondback Energy right now? Before you buy stock in Diamondback Energy, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Diamondback Energy wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $652,133!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,056,790!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,048% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 180% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 15, 2025 Lee Samaha has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Chevron. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Better Energy Stock: Diamondback Energy vs. Chevron was originally published by The Motley Fool 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


Bloomberg
27 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Why the World Is Haunted by This White House
Donald Trump is the 14th US president of my lifetime, and he claims a unique distinction. Through all the previous White House incumbencies, months went by when even educated, informed British, German, Indian, Brazilian, French or Australian people did not give a moment's thought to America's leader. Sure, we noticed when a president visited our country or started a war or got impeached or had an incredibly beautiful wife who dressed wonderfully. We knew that the US was the richest and most influential nation on earth, and that on the big things we needed to play follow-my-leader. But even somebody like me, who lived in the US for a couple of years, and visited regularly until January 2025, did not lie awake nights wondering what our neighborhood superpower might do next.