Trump's trade war wins so far: More talk, uncertainty and deadlines

More than a month after President Donald Trump’s tariff-focused “Liberation Day,” just about all America has won is more deadlines and assurances of ongoing talks. 

With China, the U.S. has secured no major changes other than offsetting step-downs of recent import duties and import restrictions.  

And an accord with the U.K., announced last Wednesday, offered little beyond improved access for U.S. meats and ethanol. 

The White House has said both agreements are starting points. While it’s been enough to soothe international markets and restore U.S. stock gains, the Trump administration has little to show in the way of concessions gained from the agreements.  

The U.K. agreement saw British businesses win clear concessions from the Trump administration, including lower U.S. trade barriers for its vehicles, steel and aluminum products. 

Less clear were the immediate gains for America.  

Though the pact touted improved access to U.K. markets for American meat producers, methods of meat preparation common in the U.S. are banned in the U.K. — a stance it is not expected to change.  

Meanwhile, representatives for American auto firms — which have already struggled to navigate Trump’s tariffs — issued a rare statement blasting the deal.  

“We are disappointed that the administration prioritized the U.K. ahead of our North American partners,” Matt Blunt, president of the American Automotive Policy Council, said in a statement. 

But the deal announcements kept coming. Days later, representatives from the U.S. and China said they had agreed to temporarily lower reciprocal tariffs, which had reached more than 120%.  

Again, the announcement was met with questions about its success. Capital Economics, a Wall Street consultancy, called it “another substantial retreat from the Trump administration’s aggressive stance.”  

The firm said in a note to clients that the deal does not include “any commitments by China on exchange rate policy or the bilateral trade imbalance.” 

“They stood their ground,” Marcus Noland, an economist and senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said of China. “They faced the bully and the United States backed down without any major concession.”   

China has hailed the outcome of its negotiations, saying its resistance to Trump’s tariffs had been “very effective.”   

“The retaliatory measures have indeed had a significant impact on the U.S. side, which is why the U.S. government lowered the tariffs to the baseline level after the talks,” a social media account linked to China’s national broadcaster CCTV said Monday. 

In a statement, a White House representative continued to hail the agreements while hinting that more progress was forthcoming. White House officials have also noted that recent economic data, like jobs and inflation, has continued to be solid.  

“Thanks to President Trump’s tariffs and dealmaking, the U.K. has opened up billions in export opportunities for American ranchers and farmers while China has agreed to expand market access for American companies,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said. “And this is just the beginning, with many more deals and opportunities for American workers and farmers ahead.”   

Trump has also touted the ability of tariffs to raise revenues. In April, the first full month that most of Trump’s tariffs would have gone into effect, tariff income topped $16 billion, CNBC reported.  

While that is a record, it hardly dents the federal deficit, which totaled $1.05 trillion, 13% higher than a year ago. Net interest alone cost $38 billion on the month and is now $579 billion for the current fiscal year. 

At the same time, the tariffs that Trump has argued would generate significant revenues and encourage U.S. companies to bring production back to the U.S. are now being scaled back. 

Analysts warn that even as markets have responded positively to the overall set of developments, they risk being lulled into complacency given ongoing tensions and stumbling blocks. As part of the U.K. agreement, the U.S. insisted that it reduce its reliance on Chinese supply chains — something China denounced in a Tuesday Financial Times report.  

“I think we’re in for a lot more turbulence and a lot more back-and-forth than the markets seem to grasp,” Noland said.