Following Trump’s announcement that he would pause the higher so-called reciprocal tariffs on trade partners that fell foul of his equation for 90 days in order to buy time for his buddies in USTR to negotiate trade deals with “75” countries, much of the media attention has shifted to asking whether striking 75 free trade agreements in this timeframe is even possible.
First point: Given that the 90 days is completely arbitrary, I’m not sure why people are assuming this is, in fact, a strict deadline.
Second point: Kinda depends on what you mean by free trade agreement. If you’re hoping for a traditional agreement with comprehensive coverage across tariffs, services, procurement, digital, etc., then 75 is probably a bit of a stretch.
However, here’s a treaty I have just written that could be replicated 74 times and could technically be emailed out to everyone on the list for signature and concluded within an hour or so [With thanks to Alan Beattie and Soumaya Keynes for additional suggestions]:
USA-Country X Free Trade Agreement
The parties agree as follows
Article 1: Addressing historic unfair trade practices
As penance for decades of treating the USA unfairly and undermining its economic competitiveness by selling its citizens trainers at affordable prices, Country X will remove all unfair trade practices and restrictions imposed on imports from the USA.
Examples of these unfair trade practices and restrictions include, but are not limited to:
Requiring products from the USA to include health warnings written in [language of Country X].
Building roads that are too narrow to allow the safe transit of a Monster Truck
Building offshore wind farms within eyeshot of any Trump property
Dropping bowling balls on all American cars
Etc.
Article 2: General and security exemptions
Nothing in this agreement should be construed to prevent the USA and its President, Donald Trump, from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its security interests, including but not limited to the invasion and occupation of Greenland and Canada.
Article 3: Dispute settlement
Lol, no. Whatever the President (see: President Donald Trump) says goes.
I’m kinda joking here, but also not really.
But it does lead me onto the main topic of this week’s newsletter: Given the context, what does a good deal look like?
In terms of what Trump wants, I think my FT Alphaville piece from last November holds up reasonably well:
On the country-specific exemptions, my working assumption is that the EU, UK, Japan, etc will face three categories of request:
—‘Buy more American stuff (or export less of your own stuff);
— ‘Support me in my global endeavours’ (see: trade restrictions on China); and
— ‘Miscellaneous, other’. [… “For example, you could invite him to meet the Royal Family, give him a big shiny Orb, stop trying to regulate his mate’s company, approve a golf course, etc.” …]
If interested, here is a USTR fact sheet setting out the terms of reference for the US-India negotiations.
But what does a country get in return?
The reciprocal removal of tariffs and trade barriers a la a normal free trade agreement? The removal or reduction of the higher reciprocal rate (if there is one)? The removal or reduction of the national security tariffs on steel, aluminium and cars? A commitment not to apply future national security tariffs on pharmaceuticals, copper, and semiconductors? Anything at all?
Of course, if you’re a third country negotiating with the US right now, the aim is to get as much tariff relief as possible while giving the US as little as possible in return. If you’re the US, the opposite.
In quadrant form:
And now, because it’s fun, the same quadrant with some guesses from me re: where select countries may land if they do a deal.
Please shout at me/correct me in the comments below or on Bluesky. If you would like to create your own quadrants and ping them at me, all the better!
Best wishes,
Sam