
Trump's Vietnam pact takes aim at China — but it raises more questions than answers
Trump said Wednesday there would be a 20% tariff on goods from Vietnam and a 40% "transshipping" tariff on goods originating in another country and transferred to Vietnam for final shipment to the U.S.
Chinese manufacturers have used transshipping to sidestep the hefty tariffs on its direct shipments to the United States, using Vietnam as a major transshipment hub.
White House trade advisor Peter Navarro alleged that around one-third of Vietnam's exports are rerouted from China and described Vietnam as "essentially a colony of communist China" in a interview with Fox News in April.
The latest deal is an apparent strike against such rerouted shipments from China, said Yao Jin, an associate professor of supply chain management at Miami University.
But enforcing targeted levies on transshipments will be a tough task for Hanoi, as it will have to define the scope of what would qualify as "made in Vietnam" and what constitutes transshipment.
"If it only applies to pure transshipments — goods sent from China to the US via Vietnamese ports, without any local assembly — then there should hardly be any impact on Vietnam," Frederic Neumann, chief Asia economist at HSBC Bank told CNBC on Friday.
However, if the 40% tariff applies to "all Vietnamese goods with even a minimal share of Chinese components, the disruptions could be significant," Neumann said.
Similarly, Dan Wang, China director at Eurasia Group, said "it is unclear how this would work — presumably the burden falls to Hanoi on the issuance of rules of origin certificates — and what level of Chinese components, if that is the metric, will be deemed too much."
As more Chinese manufacturers moved their production to Vietnam since Trump's first term, Vietnam's trade surplus with the U.S. more than tripled to a record high of $123.5 billion last year from less than $40 billion in 2018, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
The agreement made Vietnam the latest country, after the U.K. and China, to secure some trade relief from Trump and will likely serve as an important reference for other Southeast Asian nations in their ongoing trade negotiations, analysts said.
Many countries are racing to reach trade deals with the U.S. before the 90-day pause expires on July 9, when Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs are poised to take effect.
Many Southeast Asian nations had benefited from the last U.S.-China trade war during Trump's first term by serving as alternative manufacturing and export hubs.
More trade deals will be determined by a country's own judgment of its exposure to the U.S. and China markets, the level of transshipment activity in that country, and the implications for local industries, said Lynn Song, chief China economist at ING.
Shipments from China to many Southeast Asian countries this year rose to a record high, Chinese customs data showed, as exporters diverted shipment to alternative markets to sell to the local markets or transship to the U.S.
If the Vietnam and U.K. trade deals are any indication, the United States' future deals with other countries will likely involve measures to rein in transshipment, increased purchase commitments of U.S. goods and "provisions aimed at pressuring China," Stephen Olson, former U.S. trade negotiator and current visiting senior fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, told CNBC.
The strict security requirements for steel and pharmaceuticals in the U.S.-U.K. deal are widely seen as an attempt to squeeze China out of the British supply chain.
China pushed back against the U.S.-Vietnam trade deal on Thursday over concerns that the Trump administration would use its ongoing tariff negotiations with third countries to curb its exports.
The country's commerce ministry said Thursday that it was "conducting an assessment" of the agreement, urging other countries not to seek a deal with Washington at the expense of China's interests.
China will likely see Washington as using "reciprocal tariff negotiations to get third countries to try to squeeze China out of supply chains," Olson added. He expects Beijing will pressure countries not to accede to U.S. demands and push back against that practice in negotiations with Washington.
That said, Beijing will likely hold off from taking any concrete action until details of the deal are clarified, experts said, while waiting to see how other countries' trade deals shape up.
"Flipping the table over a single Vietnam trade deal would be unwise," ING's Song said.
The U.S. and China have in recent days walked back a slew of restrictive measures against each other in honor of the trade consensus reached in Geneva, Switzerland, in May. Washington has since lifted export restrictions on ethane, chip-design software and jet engine parts, while Beijing is set to fast-track approvals for rare earths exports.
Both sides reached a trade framework last month following talks in London, which remains in effect until mid-August, with Chinese goods currently facing tariffs of around 55%.
The U.S.-Vietnam deal also implies that the ultimate tariffs on Chinese goods are unlikely to fall under that 40% threshold, according to Nick Marro, principal economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, as lower duties on direct shipment from China could encourage firms to shift production back there, undermining the Trump administration's broader objective of curbing China's industrial capacity.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
16 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
It's Déjà Vu for Option Traders as Markets Calm Into Tariffs Day
In the days leading up to President Donald Trump's July 9 tariffs deadline, equity investors having flashbacks of Liberation Day showed little concern. The MSCI All-Country World Index reached a peak last week, while gauges of volatility expectations from the US to Europe and Hong Kong have more than halved from their highs in April.


The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Ketanji Brown Jackson turns independent streak loose on fellow justices
To hear Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tell it, it's a 'perilous moment for our Constitution.' The Supreme Court's most junior justice had pointed exchanges with her colleagues on the bench this term, increasingly accusing them of unevenly applying the law — even if it meant standing on her own from the court's other liberal justices. Jackson has had an independent streak since President Biden nominated her to the bench in 2022. But the dynamic has intensified this term, especially as litigation over President Trump's sweeping agenda reached the court. It climaxed with her final dissent of decision season, when Jackson accused her fellow justices of helping Trump threaten the rule of law at a moment they should be 'hunkering down.' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' Her stark warning came as Trump's birthright citizenship order split the court on its 6-3 ideological lines, with all three Democratic appointed justices dissenting from the decision to limit nationwide injunctions. Jackson bounded farther than her two liberal colleagues, writing in a blistering solo critique that said the court was embracing Trump's apparent request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior.' The decision amounts to an 'existential threat to the rule of law,' she said. It wasn't the first time Jackson's fellow liberal justices left her out in the cold. She has been writing solo dissents since her first full term on the bench. Jackson did so again in another case last month when the court revived the energy industry's effort to axe California's stricter car emission standard. Jackson accused her peers of ruling inequitably. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' Jackson wrote. 'Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent.' Rather than join Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent that forewent such fiery language, Jackson chose to pen her own. The duo frequently agrees. They were on the same side in 94 percent of cases this term, according to data from SCOTUSblog, more than any other pair except for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the court's two leading conservatives. Sometimes Sotomayor signs on to Jackson's piercing dissents, including when she last month condemned the court's emergency order allowing the Department of Government Efficiency to access Americans' Social Security data. 'The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration, I would proceed without fear or favor,' Jackson wrote. But it appears there are rhetorical lines the most senior liberal justice won't cross. In another case, regarding disability claims, Sotomayor signed onto portions of Jackson's dissent but rejected a footnote in which Jackson slammed the majority's textualism as 'somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.' 'Pure textualism's refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences,' the most junior justice wrote, refusing to remove the footnote from her dissent. Jackson's colleagues don't see it that way. 'It's your job to do the legal analysis to the best you can,' Chief Justice John Roberts told a crowd of lawyers at a judicial conference last weekend, rejecting the notion that his decisions are driven by the real-world consequences. 'If it leads to some extraordinarily improbable result, then you want to go back and take another look at it,' Roberts continued. 'But I don't start from what the result looks like and go backwards.' Though Roberts wasn't referencing Jackson's recent dissents, her willingness to call out her peers hasn't gone unaddressed. Jackson's dissent in the birthright citizenship case earned a rare, merciless smackdown from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cosigned by the court's conservative majority. Replying to Jackson's remark that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' Barrett turned that script into her own punchline. 'That goes for judges too,' the most junior conservative justice clapped back. Deriding Jackson's argument as 'extreme,' Barrett said her dissenting opinion ran afoul of centuries of precedent and the Constitution itself. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. The piercing rebuke was a staunch departure from the usually restrained writing of the self-described 'one jalapeño gal.' That's compared to the five-jalapeño rhetoric of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett said, the late conservative icon for whom she clerked. On today's court, it is often Thomas who brings some of the most scathing critiques of Jackson, perhaps most notably when the two took diametrically opposite views of affirmative action two years ago. Page after page, Thomas ripped into Jackson's defense of race-conscious college admissions, accusing her of labeling 'all blacks as victims.' 'Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds,' Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. It isn't Thomas's practice to announce his separate opinions from the bench, but that day, he said he felt compelled to do so. As he read it aloud from the bench for 11 minutes, Jackson stared blankly ahead into the courtroom. Jackson's boldness comes across not only in the court's decision-making. At oral arguments this term, she spoke 50 percent more than any other justice. She embraces her openness. She told a crowd in May while accepting an award named after former President Truman that she liked to think it was because they both share the same trait: bravery. 'I am also told that some people think I am courageous for the ways in which I engage with litigants and my colleagues in the courtroom, or the manner in which I address thorny issues in my legal writings,' Jackson said. 'Some have even called me fearless.'


Newsweek
21 minutes ago
- Newsweek
NATO Chief Weighs In on Military Conscription Across Europe
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Each European country will decide independently on whether to introduce military conscription, NATO's secretary-general has said, as the continent forges ahead with its rapid defense ramp up. Why It Matters NATO's European members, plus Canada, are in the middle of a massive defense push, reinvesting in their military after years of leaning heavily on the United States. America has tens of thousands of troops and a host of major bases in Europe, but President Donald Trump—a vociferous NATO skeptic—has demanded that alliance members commit to spending 5 percent of GDP on defense. Many had struggled to hit the 2 percent NATO target as Trump took office. But the alliance inked a pledge in June to reach Trump's figure of 5 percent, a huge leap in military spending for most NATO countries. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte gestures during a meeting with President Donald Trump at the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte gestures during a meeting with President Donald Trump at the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025. AP Photo/Alex Brandon What To Know It is "up to individual countries to decide" whether to put conscription in place, NATO chief Mark Rutte told The New York Times. "Some countries will do it," Rutte said, speaking shortly after the NATO summit in The Hague in late June. "Others will not do it, but it will mean, in general, paying good salaries for our men and women in uniform." Several NATO countries in Europe already have different models of conscription, the need felt much more keenly on the alliance's eastern flank, staring down Russia. The nations with conscription typically also emphasize making sure their societies are ready for war, including by issuing public guides on how to cope during conflict. The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which have stormed ahead in raising defense spending, all have conscription, as do several of the Nordic countries. Turkey and Greece also have conscription. Other countries, like the U.K., have militaries solely made up of volunteer professional soldiers. In Finland, which joined NATO shortly after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, men must complete mandatory military service before heading into the reserve force. Finland shares hundreds of miles of border with Russia. Sweden, which also became a NATO member after Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, reinstituted conscription in 2017. Conscripts train with the Swedish military, and are put into a wartime unit to join if the government activates mobilization or high alerts. In Norway, conscription is obligatory yet very selective, applying to men and women. Denmark recently changed its laws on conscription, meaning women must also present themselves to be assessed for military service as they turn 18. Women previously joined the military purely on a volunteer basis. Rutte said he was "particularly worried" about Europe's ability to roll out large amounts of military equipment. Russia is "on a war footing in every sense," Rutte said, adding: "The size of the military, what they're investing in, in their tanks, in air defense systems, in their artillery, in ammunition—it is amazing." Rutte said during the NATO summit that the alliance will invest in a "five-fold increase" in air defense capabilities, as well as "thousands more tanks and armored vehicles" and millions of artillery rounds. What People Are Saying NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said: "We simply lack the defense industrial base to produce the weapons we need to make sure that we can deter the Russians or the North Koreans or whoever to attack us."