Trump's New Trade Deal Has a Clear Winner: Vietnam
Americans will continue to pay higher tariffs, while Vietnamese businesses won't pay anything. Whatever happened to reciprocity?

In the lead-up to the "Liberation Day" tariff announcement in April, President Donald Trump often stressed the importance of reciprocity. He claimed that raising tariffs on imports from foreign countries was about fairness—and that America would drop tariffs if other countries agreed to do the same.
After the announcement of a new trade deal with Vietnam, we can safely conclude that Trump was not telling the truth about that.
Under the terms of that deal, announced Wednesday, American exports to Vietnam will face no tariffs while Vietnamese goods imported into the United States will face tariffs of between 20 percent and 40 percent. The higher rate is reserved for goods that are shipped through Vietnam from other origins. (The exact details of the deal are reportedly still being hammered out.)
Vietnam is giving the United States "TOTAL ACCESS to their Markets for Trade," Trump wrote on Truth Social as he announced the deal. "We will be able to sell our product into Vietnam at ZERO Tariff."
That's great, but what happened to reciprocity and fairness?
Most of the trade between America and Vietnam is flowing in one direction. In 2024, America exported just $13 billion worth of goods to Vietnam but imported more than $136 billion worth of stuff from there. The U.S. was the top export market for Vietnamese goods, which include a wide range of products like electronics, industrial machinery, household goods, clothing, shoes, and toys.
All of that, under Trump's trade deal, will face a 20 percent tax when it enters the country. The Penn Wharton Budget Model's tariff simulator estimates that a 20 percent tariff on all imports from Vietnam would generate between $18 billion and $29 billion in federal taxes, depending on how consumers respond.
Yes, 20 percent is better than the astonishing 46 percent tariff that Trump threatened to slap on Vietnamese imports in April, but it's still a huge amount of taxes that will be paid by American consumers and businesses.
In that regard, this deal looks a lot like the other preliminary deals Trump has struck with China and the United Kingdom. In each, foreign businesses and consumers got lower tariffs and Americans got hit with higher ones.
Yes, in fairness, tariff-free trade into Vietnam is good news for American farmers and manufacturers that export goods to that country, as Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has argued. And the reduction in tariffs may marginally increase our exports to Vietnam.
For the vast majority of Americans, however, trade with Vietnam matters on the buying side, not the selling side. For them, this deal accomplishes very little.
The deal also sends a clear signal to other countries that Trump's promise of reciprocity was bullshit.
"Vietnam's trade deal with the US is a wake-up call for Asian governments grappling with the reality that higher tariffs are here to stay," reports Bloomberg. "What we learned from the Vietnam deal is, if anything, the tariffs are going to go up from here, not down," Sebastian Raedler, head of European equity strategy at Bank of America, told CNBC.
Free trade between the U.S. and Vietnam would be a win-win for both countries. That's not what Trump has delivered with this deal. Vietnamese businesses and consumers got free trade. Americans got more taxes.
There was a clear winner in this negotiation, and it wasn't Trump.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Not certain you understand the goal.
I’m absolutely certain you don’t. What, exactly, do you think the goal is?
To laugh at retards on the internet.
Hahaha!
Well than Jesse is perfect.
Youre so retarded you don't realize you were the subject of his post. Wow.
Okay, I’ll explain this slowly so that you can understand, given your limited brainpower.
I took his shot, aimed at me, and redirected it to you. If you weren’t such an angry person, you would have figured out a way to do the same thing, redirecting a mild, substance-free insult onto someone else.
However, because your hatred and anger consume you and your brain is suboptimal, you couldn’t just play “pass the insult” like a beach ball at a concert.
Is that simple enough for you to understand? It’s hard to know how much to dumb things down for you.
Nelson, you’re an idiot. Just admit that, and go fuck off forever.
I'm pretty sure DLAM gets it, but I'm absolutely sure that you don’t, Mike.
Trump's goal is decoupling from China, increasing leverage over foreign markets, boosting U.S. exports, and presenting a politically powerful "tough on trade" image.
Vietnam’s become a major hub for transshipped Chinese goods, stuff that’s just getting rerouted to dodge existing tariffs. By slapping a 40% tariff on those, he's trying to close that loophole. At the same time, he's opening Vietnam's markets to American exports with zero tariffs. That might not mean much to average idiot here, but it’s a big win for U.S. producers, especially ag and manufacturing.
And, here's the part you a Boehm are both trying to pretend doesn't matter: "Yes, in fairness, tariff-free trade into Vietnam is good news for American farmers and manufacturers that export goods to that country, as Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has argued. And the reduction in tariffs may marginally increase our exports to Vietnam."
"Marginally" and "in fairness" are doing a fuck of a lot of heavy lifting for you two there.
“ Vietnam’s become a major hub for transshipped Chinese goods, stuff that’s just getting rerouted to dodge existing tariffs. By slapping a 40% tariff on those, he's trying to close that loophole.”
And he thinks that if he cuts off one country, companies that transship will just stop doing it, rather than find another low-tariff country to ship through? I mean, there are only about 190 choices in the world.
“ the same time, he's opening Vietnam's markets to American exports with zero tariffs”
Those markets were already open. He’s not Nixon and China. So in your world it’s worth raising prices on Americans to allow American companies a slightly more profitable trade relationship with a minor trade partner?
The most charitable way to view this is Trump needing to feel like he won something, regardless of how much of a not-win this is. The more reasonable view is that Trump doesn’t realize his obsession with trade deficits is causing pain to Americans (and American companies) for very little gain.
“ it’s a big win for U.S. producers, especially ag and manufacturing.”
Ag, yes. I believe that is the majority of our rather small exports to Vietnam.
Manufacturing? What? Vietnam is one of the primary countries that companies have moved their manufacturing to over the past decade or two as Chinese labor became too costly. American companies manufacture their products in Vietnam, they don’t send their manufactured products (except IP goods that are vulnerable to theft there) to Vietnam.
“ And, here's the part you a Boehm are both trying to pretend doesn't matter”
I’m not ignoring anything. The best scenario would be no tariffs either way (which is one of the demonstrably untrue “goals” that you Trumpkins have said he has). No tariffs into. Vietnam is great, but you have to ask what the tradeoff is. Because there’s always a tradeoff.
In this case we are buying a slightly lower tariff rate into a minor trading partner with higher prices for American consumers. Perhaps you think that’s acceptable, but I don’t think screwing American companies who manufacture there and American citizens who will have to pay more for the same goods is a good deal. Higher tariffs increase the cost of goods for Americans. There is no way around that.
I thought nobody wins a trade war and diversity and international trade are an inherent good(s) (WTF did the FF know anyway?). The primary overt reason to poo poo a trade deal with Vietnam as the winner is if you think Vietnam is an oppressive shithole unworthy of trade and not trading with them fixes that.
Unless, of course, virtually every free trade deal in history has actually been managed trade by a different name all along.
Trump wants to maximize exports and minimize imports. So it’s no surprise that they don’t pay import taxes on our exports while we pay exorbitant import taxes on their exports. It’s the mercantilist way.
The American peons WIN by paying HIGHER TAXES!
The Vietnamese peons LOSE by paying ZERO taxes of this kind!
THIS (PLUS Spermy Daniels!) is twat makes Trump a WINNER!
At least Sqrlsy is playing along with Sarckles.
Marxist Necrophiliac Moose-Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer sides with Trump, whose Big Beautiful Tariff-Taxes-Tantrums will make us ALL rich! Except for the Bitches from Inner Islamic Canuckistanistanistanistanistan, who will get Canschlus before they ever get rich from tariff-tax-tantrums, and Marxist Necrophiliac Moose-Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer lusts after Canschluss, in the hopes that Trump will then grab Her PervFected Canuck Pussy!
Unread
So, sneeringly, says the uncivil, unsnivilized, and unsnivilizable sniveler-snob!
Who LOVES Marxist Necrophiliac Moose-Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer!!!
(Sad to say, Marxist Necrophiliac Moose-Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer will NEVER fuck the uncivil, unsnivilized, and unsnivilizable sniveler-snob!
He must have offered the gibbering idiot a few buckets of shit for his compliance.
Says the 50-center who is paid 50 cents per post to support Trumpist Government-Almighty Marxism!
All is For The Centralized Spermy-Daniels Queen-Hive, Cumrades!!! Onwards, Upwards, and Hive-Wards!
And now I see the shit eating grey box has attempted to respond to me. It should focus it’s efforts on suicide.
we can safely conclude that Trump was not telling the truth about that.
Moving on.
The higher rate is reserved for goods that are shipped through Vietnam from
other originsChina.FTFY. The higher rate is to keep China from gaming the system.
it's still a huge amount of taxes that will be paid by American consumers and businesses.
And Eric still does not understand what tariffs are. After what, he's 70th article hurling himself at the fainting couch with one eye open?
There was a clear winner in this negotiation, and it wasn't Trump.
Communist VN is now giving us open access to their markets and VN now pays us for the privilege of having access to ours. And we stick a thumb in China's eye along the way.
That's a win, Eric. The only reason you hate it is because of the guy who delivered it. Grow up.
Tariffs are taxes. You’re cheering high taxes. If Democrats were hiking taxes you’d rightly be angry. But when Trump hikes taxes you celebrate. The only reason you like these taxes is because of who is hiking them. Tax lover.
Yet you're demanding 2x the cost in income taxes. Literally even today. Make it make sense.
He doesn’t really care, Sarc is a welfare queen, and benefits cheat. So he loves more government and more taxes.
And Eric still does not understand what tariffs are....VN now pays us for the privilege of having access to our [markets]
No comment necessary.
Beat me to it. And yep, it's not Eric who doesn't understand what tariffs are...
“We can safely assume that Trump was not telling the truth about that”
Gee, what a shock.
“ FTFY. The higher rate is to keep China from gaming the system.”
And how does that prevent China from doing anything? It just means they’ll transship through another country with lower tariffs, which they would have done anyway since 20% is pretty high. It literally changes nothing for China. Pro-tariff people seem to forget that there are 190+ countries in the world, most of which don’t have formal trade agreements with us. When one door closes, 190 windows open.
“ And Eric still does not understand what tariffs are.”
If you don’t think this will drive up prices, one of the two of you doesn’t understand and it isn’t Eric.
“ Communist VN is now giving us open access to their markets and VN now pays us for the privilege of having access to ours. And we stick a thumb in China's eye along the way.”
It’s cute that you think that Vietnam will pay for anything and that this impacts China in any way. This will hurt US companies who produce their goods in Vietnam and won’t do squat to China.
You’re one of those naive who think that tariffs don’t hurt American companies, aren’t you?
“ That's a win, Eric.”
Even if what you wrote was true, which it isn’t, it would still be a loss for American consumers. And while relatively high, 20% isn’t anywhere near enough to cause companies to reshore production in America.
It would be much easier for China to transship though Vietnam than South Korea.
As long as Trump is in office, pulling that kind of stunt will won’t go unnoticed.
“ It would be much easier for China to transship though Vietnam than South Korea.”
No, it isn’t. It’s not hard to do either. Or to transship through any one of dozens of other countries.
Here’s a way to understand. Put a trip into your GPS. Add a stop along the way. Does it add a little time? Absolutely. Does it make any substantial difference in the length of the entire trip? No.
Now imagine that you get a 20% discount for using that stop. See how that works? So do the companies who transship to avoid tariffs.
They don’t even need to have it be a nearby country, just one with established trade routes from China and to the US, which is most of them.
“ As long as Trump is in office, pulling that kind of stunt will won’t go unnoticed.”
It wasn’t unnoticed before. It will continue to be noticed now. How do you think that clause came to be included, and how do you think they will be able to apply the increased tariff?
They’ve always known. But unless Trump pulls off 190 bilateral trade deals with increased tariffs for transshipping in all of them, companies that were already transshipping to avoid tariffs will just shift the midpoint of the journey to a different country with low tariffs.
It’s whack-a-mole. And anyone who thinks they can win whack-a-mole is an idiot. Trump thinks he can win whack-a-mole.
He thinks Vietnam will pay because Trump says tariffs are paid by foreigners, and his dumbass followers think economics is leftist because it says Trump is wrong.
Need the Atl Fed study for the 20th time? Ha. Who am I kidding. You prefer being ignorant like all the other leftist retards here.
what happened to reciprocity and fairness?
It was never really about 'reciprocity and fairness'. It was always about mercantilism. Using trade as leverage for the US to gain advantages over other nations.
In case you missed this…..
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/07/breaking-supreme-court-sides-trump-grants-request-lift/
FTA:
“The US Supreme Court 7-2 on Thursday granted the Trump Administration’s request to lift a Biden judge’s order blocking the deportation of the 8 illegals currently stuck in Djibouti.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan joined the conservative justices and issued a concurring opinion.”
Seethe harder Fatfuck.
Trump has drifted off into Trumpania, a strange country surrounded by border guards whose only purposes are to flatter the Leader and fend off any attempts by reality to enter. Performing like mirrors, they reflect Trumpian stupidity right back to Trump, feeding is ego and destroying his contact with reality.
This is classic cult behavior the "likes of which no one has ever seen before" to use Trump's favorite phrase. And just like when Trump uses it, it's wrong. We have seen it before, several times the worst of which was Franklyn Roosevelt, America's second worst president. FDR almost destroyed America. Trump might succeed where FDR failed.
Now do the jobs report; and the stock market; and inflation. And...
Sure the guy's a jerk, and he's duplicitous, and a raging egomaniac and a hundred other things I am sure you can call him. It doesn't forgive every sin but still beats the shit out of the alternative, and that is the reality we face, not in an imaginary world of perfect choices.
But "worst?" Not by a long shot.
Ripples man. Ripples.
Most "manufacturing" of electronics and textiles done in Vietnam is from sub-assemblies or parts carted across the border from China. And the Vietnamese entities doing this are often owned or controlled by the Chinese companies that previously made the same items in China. It's the same sort of stuff that China is doing in Mexico.
So what you're saying is, instead of paying Chinese-owned companies soup to nuts, now we're slicing off a portion for the assembly workers in Vietnam (and Mexico).
Are you saying we should go back to paying full chain/sole source to China or that we should stop cutting places like Vietnam and Mexico in on the deal?
Because either way, your retarded, shortsighted, TDS makes you look more stupid and racist than Trump.
No, he’s saying this won’t change things in the slightest for Chinese companies, but for American companies who manufacture in Vietnam and American consumers who will have to pay for the added cost it will.
“ Are you saying we should go back to paying full chain/sole source to China or that we should stop cutting places like Vietnam and Mexico in on the deal?”
Well, since production of mass produced goods have been shifting away from China for at least a decade as their prosperity causes their labor costs to rise,
American companies have already shifted to other countries like Vietnam. I know this not just theoretically, but in actuality because over a decade ago I was part of the team that studied our supply chain costs and then shifted our production to Vietnam from China.
And pardon me if I don’t find your concern for the workers of Mexico and Vietnam to be genuine.
People who don’t have any experience with international supply chains are willing to accept it when bloviating buffoons like Trump tell them international trade is simple and “all you have to do is …”.
It isn’t, and “deals” like this will have almost no impact on anything except American companies who manufacture in Vietnam and American consumers.
What happened?
The price of US [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] happened.
Funny how so many people with big mouths think that $36T debt is going to just pay for itself or that somehow domestic producers are going to pay for it all by themselves while trying to compete with tax-exempt foreign production.
Raising income taxes would have been a cleaner and more reliable way to raise revenue.
TJ doesn’t understand that we pay tariffs. He refuses to learn basic economics because it contradicts Trump.
You choose to pay them by relying on temu and other sites lol.
Then you demand everyone pay twice as much in taxes without said choice.
YOU do; not [WE] unlike income taxes.
YOU chose to depend on foreign nations .. not [WE].
Like I said; I refuse to learn your STUPID and it has nothing to do with Trump it has everything to do with you being STUPID and trying desperately to indoctrinate others.
At the cost of economic growth, sure.
And crush the economy. And revenue. What's so funny about the Laffer curve?
“ Raising income taxes would have been a cleaner and more reliable way to raise revenue.”
Without corresponding cuts (mostly from defense, where the vast majority of discretionary spending is) and reform of entitlement programs, that’s a terrible idea.
We need to hit the low-hanging fruit first. Eliminate the cap on FICA taxes so everyone pays the same. Eliminate the capital gains tax so earned and unearned income is taxed the same. Raise the age of Social Security by 5-10 years, one year every two. Allow Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate for all drugs, not just 10 new ones each year. Significantly cut subsidies to industries (especially agriculture and energy) and distribute it in small blocks across the entire sector, decreasing the amount that large, financially secure players get and increasing the chance that new competitors can survive and challenge the entrenched interests.
Ideally institute a flat tax with no deductions, a start point at around $25-30k and each individual paying their own taxes (single/married/head of household). Eliminate the estate tax and count any inheritance as income to the inheritors.
These would get much better and bigger results than mindlessly raising taxes on the wealthy, whose only “sin” is being rich. Many of them are also successful and benefit us all, although there will always be born-on-third-base trust fund babies who act like assholes and are a waste of space. That doesn’t mean we should attack those who got rich by being successful just because Donald Trump and his useless offspring are assholes.
Demonizing the rich is a mindless and simplistic type of hatred. If you actually want to solve the problem, rather than finding someone to blame, find the structural failures and fix them. It’s a LOT harder, but will get better results and bend us towards a more equitable society.
13% for a Constitutionally enumerated power (National Defense; Truly the very reason a Union of States government was ever even created) is hardly "vast majority of discretionary spending".
Roughly 25% of the Federal budget is discretionary. So yes, it is the majority.
48% ... "vast majority"! /s
Even your cherry-picked "discretionary only!" sub-category can't reach muster of being a majority let alone "vast majority" which in turn is but 13% of the budget.
UR selling snake oil.
Discretionary spending is the only thing that can be cut unless there are major reforms to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, which this Administration is obviously unwilling to do.
And you’re nitpicking with the adjective I used? OK, great. Defense is only 48% - almost half - of all discretionary spending. Discretionary spending is only around 25% of the total federal budget. If we cut EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR of discretionary spending, we would still have a budget of almost $5 billion.
So where do you think we can find savings through cutting? The 48% that is for only one thing (defense) or the 52% that is literally everything else the Federal government does?
Mandatory spending plus defense spending accounts for between 85% and 90% of the Federal budget. Tell me again how we can cut our way out of a deficit if you take that much off the table? The answer is you can’t.
Cut the illegal UN-Constitutional [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] / Empire disease out-of the USA instead of complaining about what the Union of States government was created for in the first place.
It really comes down to who believes this nation is a 'Democratic' [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire and who believes this nation is a *Constitutional* Republic defined by a US Constitution.
Vietnam: 2
USA: 0
Trade with honor?
So Vietnam (a net exporter) is the "winner" here, even though all of their imports are taxed while America exports to their country is not, and we get access to their market. All righty then.
You could credibly argue the Vietnamese consumers won, and American consumers lost. But why make that comparison in a vacuum? They're a piss poor country whose people could benefit from non taxed American goods. For most Americans the tariffs on Vietnamese products will amount to paying 5-10 bucks more for shoes and shirts. If the higher tariffs are reserved for products that are merely moved through Vietnam, then it's less of an issue.
A no tariff trade between countries is only one (and the most obvious) from reciprocal deal. If CA raised slapped a 65 cent per gallon gas tax in exchange for expanding school choice, would you consider that a loss? Yes it's a bit of a false choice, but in a trade deal that's the kind decisions you make.
This is how you make a deal. The republicans asked for the wall and E-verify in any amnesty deal. The harpies screeched about racism and did nothing, and the migrant crisis finally herded enough Americans to Trump's side. American politics is a perpetual state of stasis where people wax poetics and try real hard not to offend anyone and nothing gets done. Trump upended that just a LITTLE and everyone goes nuts.
2022: BIDENFLATION IS KILLING AMERICA!!!! EVERYTHING COSTS MORE!!!
2025: So what if stuff costs more? Trump made a deal!
Inflation is at the lowest rate since 2021.
Inflation is always transitory up or down. Or so I'm told.
Facts literally dont matter to retards like sarc or Nelson.
See below for facts. I always use them because I’m not a partisan rage machine like you.
But higher than the entire Obama administration, except for the inevitable spike that came from massive government spending to stop the Great Recession. And even that only lasted one year, dropping back down quickly. You’re trying to pretend Trump’s is good, but historically it isn’t. It’s not bad, but nothing to write home about. https://www.macrotrends.net/2497/historical-inflation-rate-by-year
Considering that Obama deported more people than Trump, had a much, much higher percentage of criminal deportees than Trump (91% vs. 41%), had a stronger economy than Trump, and had lower inflation than Trump, I’m a little confused why conservatives hated him so much.
Oh, right. Culture war. Sorry.
2025 sarc: increase income taxes!!!!
Keep going buddy. Youre doing great.
"So what if stuff costs more?"
...because only foreigners can make sh*t or what?
No, but low labor costs mean they are made more cost-effectively overseas.
Surely being Tax-Exempt and Subsidized Shipping wouldn't have anything to do with it. /s
But you are correct in that US Gov-Guns stamping OVER market value price-tags on everyone's forehead (i.e. 'minimum wage') is a big factor as to why the USA can't make anything anymore as well as the other $36T in 'entitle-me' un-earned benefits and corresponding debt. 'Guns' don't make sh8t and a production-less society doesn't prosper it goes bankrupt.
Summary Point being; US [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] is why there has to be Tariffs and Domestic Taxes that matter so much. If it wasn't for all the socialism in the US there wouldn't have to be so much THEFT and NO production happening.
“ (i.e. 'minimum wage')”
Tell me, genius, how many states have wages at the minimum wage? The fact that there’s a minimum wage in a state (most of them) whose wages surpass the minimum is irrelevant. It literally makes zero difference to the cost of production, because they’re already paying more than the minimum.
“ as well as the other $36T in 'entitle-me' un-earned benefits and corresponding debt”
What the Federal and state governments spend their money on also has zero impact on labor costs for companies.
The problem (which isn’t actually a problem) is that because America is a prosperous country, no one will work for the wages necessary to compete with places like India and Vietnam. Do you think you can find enough workers to fill a factory if you were offering $3 an hour? Or even minimum wage? There are other jobs that will pay better, so people would take those jobs and you would have an empty factory.
The average factory wage is over $30 an hour in America. The average in India is just under $3. Given how cheap shipping is (these days, probably around $15,000 per 40 foot container), why would anyone choose to produce in the US?
The landed cost of mass produced products isn’t just a percentage savings over US production, it’s multiples. And since I believe you are one of the ones who can’t fathom how producing elsewhere and shipping here could possibly cost less, you can learn bout landed cost here: https://www.credlix.com/blogs/what-is-landed-cost-how-to-calculate-it-its-formula-price