Trump's Trade Deals Amid Tariff Delays: China’s Role in the Balance

In a landscape of heightened global trade tensions, U.S. President Donald Trump has managed to negotiate two trade deals during a 90-day tariff pause, although experts suggest that these agreements reflect a broader strategy to counter China's influence in international markets. The deals, with Vietnam and the United Kingdom, have generated significant discussion regarding their implications for the global economy and U.S. trade relationships.

The 90-day tariff pause, which was set against a backdrop of escalating tariff rates initially announced in April 2025, culminated in the announcement of deals that aim to reshape trade dynamics. Trump originally aimed for 90 deals within this timeframe, but the administration secured only two, leading analysts to assert that the strategy may have backfired. According to Steve Okun, founder of APAC Advisors, “the ire of the United States is because South-East Asia is seen as a trans-shipment point, legally and illegally,” indicating that U.S. tariffs are largely driven by an effort to mitigate Chinese goods entering the U.S. market through other countries.

The deal with Vietnam, announced in early July, allows American goods to enter Vietnam duty-free while imposing a 20% tariff on imports from Vietnam, significantly reduced from the original 46%. However, the details surrounding trans-shipment—a practice where goods made in China are shipped through Vietnam to evade tariffs—remain contentious. William Matthews, a China expert at Chatham House, remarked that the trans-shipment clause “does seem to be directed at China,” yet the enforcement and impact of such measures are unclear, especially given Vietnam’s reliance on Chinese components.

Similarly, the trade deal with the United Kingdom has garnered attention for slashing tariffs on British cars and steel exports to the U.S. from 25% to zero. This agreement has been described as more significant for its existence than its content, as it provides a sense of predictability for U.K. exporters amid the uncertainty of the global trade environment. David Henig from the European Centre for International Political Economy emphasized that while the deal is not economically transformational, it is crucial for establishing ongoing trade relationships during a tumultuous period.

Despite these developments, the looming deadline for the implementation of increased tariffs on various countries remains a point of contention. The Trump administration has indicated that no extensions will be granted, with tariffs set to take effect on August 1, 2025. This has left many countries, including those in the BRICS bloc, scrambling to negotiate favorable terms to avoid the impending levies.

Economists have raised concerns that Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy may ultimately undermine U.S. economic interests. Ben Bland, director of the Asia Pacific program at Chatham House, pointed out that the lack of successful deals so far might lead countries to reassess the value of their economic relationships with the U.S. in light of China’s larger trading presence. Furthermore, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has reported a significant increase in tariff revenue, projecting it could reach $300 billion by the end of 2025. However, experts warn that without stable trade policies, long-term investments in U.S. manufacturing may falter, as businesses hesitate to commit amid continual shifts in tariff structures.

As the deadline approaches and negotiations proceed, the ultimate efficacy of Trump’s tariff policies and trade deal strategies remains uncertain. The ongoing situation underscores the complex interplay of global trade relations, where the stakes extend beyond immediate economic benefits to long-term geopolitical ramifications, particularly regarding U.S.-China relations and the broader Asia-Pacific trade landscape.