• Over a hundred nations are engaging with the U.S. in talks to reduce tariffs reciprocally under the Reciprocal Trade Act. While allies like Japan and the EU are making progress, talks with China remain stalled, with U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods at 145%.
• The U.S. is pursuing a distinct approach — diplomatic engagement with partners but escalating pressure on China, citing concerns over tech dominance and economic sovereignty. A 90-day tariff pause has eased immediate tensions with some nations.
• U.S. industries face challenges due to unpredictable tariffs and shifting deadlines. The administration defends its aggressive tactics as necessary to reduce foreign dependency, though critics warn of market instability.
• Trump’s trade policy breaks from past multilateral frameworks (e.g., NAFTA), favoring unilateral action modeled after 1930s-era laws. The goal is to reshore supply chains and force compliance through reciprocal terms.
• The strategy risks fragmenting global trade, with success hinging on balancing alliances while isolating China. The administration frames the conflict as ideological—about sovereignty, not just commerce—but long-term impacts remain uncertain.

President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade strategy is accelerating with over a hundred nations now actively negotiating reciprocal tariff reductions with the United States, according to White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett.

In an interview with CNN on Sunday, Hassett confirmed that 130 countries have approached the administration, signaling a pivot from tariff threats to diplomatic engagement. The talks, driven by the Reciprocal Trade Act, aim to lower barriers for countries that reduce duties on U.S. exports—a policy shift that has drawn both praise and criticism as U.S. businesses grapple with heightened uncertainty.

The two-pronged approach: Separating China and global partners

Hassett emphasized a stark division in U.S. negotiations: While 130 countries have made progress toward lowering tariffs to 10%, talks with China remain “very, very nascent, if at all.” The administration has instead escalated tariffs on Chinese goods to 145%, citing Beijing’s challenges to U.S. economic hegemony and its dominance in high-tech industries. Meanwhile, nations like Japan, South Korea and India have advanced talks rapidly, with Hassett describing their offers as “great, great.” A 90-day tariff pause for most countries, announced April 9, has temporarily alleviated pressures, allowing the EU to suspend retaliatory measures.

The distinction underscores President Trump’s “America First” doctrine, which Hassett framed as a response to a “national emergency” of over-reliance on foreign goods. “This is a two-minute drill to restore America’s economic sovereignty,” he said, defending the White House’s rapid-fire economic policies. Critics, however, argue the bifurcated strategy risks fragmenting global trade systems, even as allies express cautious optimism about negotiated compromises.

Balancing chaos and clarity for businesses

Despite Hassett’s assurances of strategic intent, U.S. business leaders remain wary. Trade executives warn that tariff fluctuations and shifting deadlines complicate long-term planning, particularly in industries like manufacturing and agriculture. When pressed by CNN host Jake Tapper about these concerns, Hassett insisted the administration’s “decisive posture” protects domestic interests, not productivity. “We’re doing something about that dependency,” he said, echoing Trump’s frequent warnings of supply chain vulnerabilities exposed during the pandemic.

The White House’s Reciprocal Act has already yielded tangible results: as countries lower their tariffs, U.S. imports face reduced levies, while non-compliant nations face steeper costs. Hassett called this a “two-world system,” warning that the U.S. would no longer tolerate “lopsided” trade deals. However, the strategy’s sustainability hinges on resolving disputes before the September 8 deadline for current tariff pauses, with many stakes tied to China’s unwillingness to comply on equal terms.

Historical context: The evolution of “America First” trade policy

The current push builds on decades of U.S. trade strategy under Trump, whose 2017 tariffs on steel and aluminum set precedents for unilateral action. Previous administrations prioritized multilateral frameworks like NAFTA, but Trump’s “two-minute offense” abandons that patience in favor of abrupt, high-pressure negotiations. Hassett compared past “foot-dragging” to the current administration’s urgency, arguing, “We’ve had enough of waiting.”

The Reciprocal Trade Act itself revives 1934-era statutes, granting presidential authority to match foreign tariffs. However, its modern application targets a far more interconnected global economy, where supply chains span continents and demand for U.S. tech and agricultural exports is high. The 130-nation outreach mirrors campaigns to resettle supply chains domestically, a priority after pandemic bottlenecks revealed systemic weaknesses.

Looking ahead: The cost of tariff diplomacy

As negotiations advance, the administration faces a balancing act: maintaining pressure on China while preserving alliances. With the EU and India signaling flexibility, the conflict is increasingly framed as ideological — not just commercial. “This is about more than dollars,” Hassett said. “It’s about sovereignty in the Innovation Age.”

For businesses, the path remains rocky. The 90-day tariff pause buys time, but underpinning the strategy is a stark message: align reciprocally or risk being priced out of U.S. markets. The stakes, Hassett declared, are existential. “If we were at a time of conflict,” he warned, “we can’t afford to depend on adversaries.”

The world’s economic order now watches a redefined calibration of might and negotiation, where 130 countries — and one recalcitrant superpower — weigh influence against survival.

A new era of trade calculus

President Trump’s tariff diplomacy has propelled global commerce into uncharted territory. With 130 nations tentatively onboard and China isolated in a higher-cost bracket, the U.S. seeks to reshape trade on its terms. The move reflects a historic shift from multilateralism to transactionalism, where economic sovereignty reigns supreme. For now, the question isn’t whether countries will talk—many already are—but whether this hardball strategy can secure long-term gains without triggering a broader economic backlash. The answers, like the tariffs themselves, remain in flux.

Sources include:

YourNews.com

M.AKIpress.com

TheDailyWire.com