As the election season winds down, some foreign governments are coming to the unsettling realization that a Trump reelection offers their greatest opportunity for a trade deal, no matter how difficult it may be.
Despite Trump’s tariffs and other anti-free trade policies, his administration frequently utilized them to negotiate favorable terms with foreign nations. For example, they reformed NAFTA into the current U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, reworked agreements with South Korea and Japan, and even struck a brief agreement with China. In a separate development, Trump has re-established free trade discussions with Kenya and the West.
In contrast, Biden publicly pledged not to pursue traditional free trade agreements due to concerns about potential electoral reaction and the consensus among his staff, especially his trade chief, that reducing tariffs would have little positive impact on the U.S. economy. That strategy is likely to be maintained to a great extent by Democratic contender and Vice President Kamala Harris, who is thought to prioritize larger economic programs that contribute to improving labor and environmental standards. As a result, other countries’ governments are getting ready for either a flurry of disruption, tariffs, and dealmaking with the United States government, or four more years of calm on the trade front. According to conversations with over a dozen foreign officials whose work revolves around trade and economic policy, it appears that some governments lean towards the latter. They were able to speak freely about the candidates before the election because they were given anonymity.
Trump “is the deal man,” according to one Filipino official. “In a prior strategic dialogue, Trump had already committed to beginning Free Trade Agreement discussions with the Philippines. Therefore, we are extremely hopeful that under Trump’s presidency, the emphasis will be on bilateral talks rather than multilateral ones.”
“Harris has just been simply toeing the line, in terms of the policies of the Biden administration,” the official said, in contrast to McCain. “No signs of her intending to make any changes have been found.”
Throughout her political career, Harris has shown less enthusiasm for trade and industrial policy than Biden. Another indication that trade will not be a major emphasis under her presidency is that her campaign has not yet included a trade agenda in its economic proposals. In her time as a presidential candidate, Harris has mostly avoided talking about trade, instead choosing to criticize Trump’s plan for a universal tariff on imported goods, which she has characterized as a burden on American consumers.
Allies were hoping the Biden-Harris administration would be more receptive to new tariff-lowering treaties, which are crucial for their domestic economies, but instead they have been met with the unofficial “ban” on fresh free trade discussions. Foreign diplomats also do not think Trump would be as adamantly against reducing tariffs under the appropriate conditions, even though he is far from a free trader.
Many Latin American and Southeast Asian countries are looking forward to a trade war between the United States and China, or at least to playing off each other, should Trump become president.
Malaysian minister Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Abdul Aziz stated, “this region, especially Malaysia, Vietnam, and Singapore, has benefited this U.S. trade war with China.” This is due to the fact that Malaysia is neutral and is a party to numerous multilateral agreements.
This goes against the grain of Washington consensus, which holds that Democrats are eager to curry favor with foreign friends on a diplomatic rather than an economic level, and that Trump is a protectionist and anti-trade figure.
One Ecuadorian official in charge of economic affairs, however, predicted that “If President Biden continues, and Democrats continue, very little will change.” Change is possible under Trump, but “things need to happen very quickly.”
To counteract China’s growing influence in the area, some Latin American governments have voiced their desire for the Trump administration to explore broadening the scope of the 2020 USMCA to include additional Latin American nations. Costa Rica is one of several countries that sees the agreement’s scheduled review in 2026 as a chance to grow.
An official from Costa Rica made the comment, “that’s what happened with NAFTA,” and offered the hope that trade accords may be improved under Trump.
Upon being approached for comment, RNC national press secretary Anna Kelly did not dismiss the possibility of new free trade agreements with emerging economies under a second Trump presidency.
Historically, no two trade negotiators have been as inept as Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. According to Kelly, “they have entirely failed” in their mission to create international markets for American producers and manufacturers. According to Donald Trump, “good trade deals” and “bad trade deals” exist. When it came to trade, neither Biden nor Harris did anything to aid American workers, farmers, or ranchers. According to Kelly, “the best trade deals in history” were obtained by President Trump.
Despite repeated requests for comment, the Harris campaign has been silent on the matter of her stance on trade deals in the event that she is elected in November.
New arrangements are being pushed by those in Trump’s inner circle. In a July piece for Americas Quarterly, Mauricio Claver-Carone—a former Trump National Security Council official and former president of the Inter-American Development Bank—wrote that the next Trump administration should “focus on the comparative advantage and opportunities that each country in Central America presents” and that the current U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement should be “reimagined” along similar lines.
Investors turned to China and Vietnam for cheaper labor and production, and CAFTA’s tightly defined manufacturing thread-lines failed to safeguard market access, he argued.
Regarding the previous inability to come to an agreement, Robert Greenway, who served as the president’s deputy assistant on the National Security Council under Trump, stated to AWN in April that obtaining a trade deal between the United Kingdom and the United States would be “a priority” under a second Trump administration.
Members of Trump’s first term who were there through the implementation of anti-trade measures, such as tariff increases and the dismantling of the World Trade Organization, claim that these measures were effective in negotiating and finalizing new or amended trade agreements. There is widespread speculation among Trump’s trading partners that Robert Lighthizer, the president’s former trade chief, would have a pivotal position in a Trump administration two, amplifying this policy.
