What the flurry of new trade deals could mean

By [ Sung Chang ]
10/30/2025

President Trump’s recent trip to Asia has set off a wave of trade activity, characterized by a mixture of tariff concessions, economic and national security considerations, purchase commitments, and advanced technology diffusion. While the deals and progress on other bilateral trade negotiations may provide relative calm, it remains to be seen how the agreements will be implemented and whether they — and the administration’s broader trade agenda — bring enough certainty for retailers in the long term.

For instance, although the agreements with Cambodia and Malaysia set reciprocal tariff rates at 19 % and address longstanding non-tariff barriers in both markets, neither include enforcement mechanisms. This means non-compliance would be self-judging and compliance will be driven by threat of the snapback of IEEPA-based tariffs. With the U.S. Supreme Court reviewing the legality of much of the IEEPA tariffs, this could explain why both agreements are vague on Section 232 tariff exemptions, another tool the administration could use to try to impose tariffs if it loses before the Supreme Court. It is becoming clear that the broad application of Section 232 sectoral tariffs will remain an important component of the administration’s trade agenda, including as negotiating and enforcement leverage. As long as Section 232 actions remain on the table, especially with their increasingly broad derivative inclusions, uncertainty will remain.

Another example is the U.S. – China economic relationship. The White House has not yet released official documents following the “truly great” meeting between President Trump and President Xi in Gyeongju, but there are reports of an agreement tied to China’s purchase of U.S. soybeans as well as easing of export controls on both sides. President Trump also agreed to reduce tariffs on goods from China by 10% in exchange for China’s commitment to stop the flow of fentanyl. This is better than the other option of a complete trade embargo , but it simply takes us back to where we were at the start of the spooky shopping season. Trump was clear this is a one-year deal, one that will need to be revisited and renewed. Robert Lighthizer, who served as Trump’s trade representative in his first term, agrees that this pause will last for a period, “and then we’re going to be back there, and have to look at it again.”

That type of annual review does not give retailers optimal time to plan, especially since supply chains and imports need long runways.

Even if this truce with China will be “very routinely extended” as Trump says, it does not address the core underlying issues in the bilateral relationship, including China’s overcapacity and non-market policies and practices. Bigger questions remain on what the administration’s long-term strategy is: and whether it is one that looks further ahead than the next back-to-school shopping sale. Without a clear roadmap, retailers will need to be prepared for whiplash as they continue to examine their sourcing and supply chain activities in the region.

Staying in our own hemisphere is no safe bet, either. The White House is weighing tariffs on Colombia after the country’s leader protested U.S. military strikes on boats in nearby waters. Tensions remain high with Brazil, though talks appear to be getting back on track. Canada is having a Ronald Reagan moment, with the joint review of the United States – Mexico – Canada Agreement practically underway.

All is not lost, however. These and other recent announcements reveal a trajectory for U.S. trade policy. The Cambodia and Malaysia deals include provisions that are typically included in more traditional U.S. trade agreements, albeit very briefly, including on intellectual property, labor and environment, technical barriers to trade, and others.

But as I mentioned at the outset, this also means a comingling of issues traditionally outside the scope of trade agreements.

For example, the extent of Malaysia’s commitments to align with U.S. economic security objectives is noteworthy. Tariffs, export controls, investment screening, you name it—the aim is to hug Malaysia and other regional partners closer using market access as the primary leverage – which is a direct nod at countering China. The United States has also announced four critical minerals deals in recent weeks, with Australia, Japan, Malaysia, and Thailand. Beijing’s threat of sweeping export restrictions in this sector has been a catalyst for like-minded countries to accelerate cooperation and investment in this space. The administration is also using trade negotiations to wield more control of the diffusion of key technologies, evidenced by the inclusion of semiconductor manufacturing equipment and data center material exports as part of Malaysia’s purchase commitments in that deal.

The hugging will continue as U.S. negotiators wrap things up with Korea and Japan and aim to conclude deals with Brazil and India, among others. We will see whether this activity signals a lasting turning point in U.S. trade policy and the global trading system, or if we are in a perpetual “Groundhog Day” rerun. In the meantime, one thing is certain. Don’t loosen your seatbelts yet.