Trade negotiations have become front-page news more than ever, largely due to Donald Trump’s approach of threatening steep tariffs to pressure countries into signing new agreements with the United States. But how are these trade deals typically negotiated—and has the former president’s aggressive strategy altered the process?
According to Jason Langrish, a former Canadian trade negotiator, the tone of international trade talks has notably deteriorated under Trump’s influence.
“Trade discussions have taken on a much more hostile and defensive character during this rise in nationalism and protectionism,” Langrish says.
Langrish, who played a role in Canada’s trade deals with both India and the European Union, contrasts this with earlier trade negotiations. “In the past, these talks were seen as mutually beneficial upgrades to existing arrangements, not confrontational demands.”
The ongoing discussions between Canada and the U.S. highlight this shift. With a looming August 1 deadline, Canada is participating in talks it didn’t initiate but feels compelled to engage in. “It’s what we call a defensive negotiation,” Langrish explains.
Karl Falkenberg, a seasoned EU negotiator, argues that Trump has disregarded established international norms in trade diplomacy. While Trump might see that as bold leadership, Falkenberg views it as disruptive.
Behind the scenes, trade negotiations involve highly structured processes. Langrish describes how each country appoints a chief negotiator and sets up multiple specialized teams, focusing on areas like tariffs, regulatory alignment, and government procurement. Each issue gets its own “table,” complete with dedicated negotiators.
Once talks begin, they can stretch on for years. Falkenberg recalls long days turning into nights, sometimes lasting more than 24 hours straight, especially as deadlines near. “When progress seems possible, everyone pushes through the exhaustion,” he says.
Despite dramatic portrayals in media, real trade negotiations rely on patience and subtle diplomacy rather than theatrics. Building trust is essential. “To reach an agreement, you have to establish a working relationship,” Falkenberg emphasizes.
Wendy Cutler, a veteran of the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office with 27 years of experience, echoes this. Asked whether she ever played the role of “good cop or bad cop” during negotiations, she laughs, saying she’s tried both—but always found trust to be the most valuable asset.
“You’re never going to have complete trust, because both sides have their own national priorities. But informal, off-the-record sharing makes it easier to move forward,” she notes.
However, internal dynamics are just one piece of the puzzle. External political and economic pressures also influence outcomes. Langrish warns that domestic resistance—especially from industries that stand to lose—can derail progress. “It’s not just supporters of a deal that shape the process. Powerful groups that oppose it can slow things down significantly.”
Cutler also points out that unrealistic timelines have strained U.S. negotiating teams. She references a bold claim made by White House adviser Peter Navarro in April: that the U.S. would finalize “90 deals in 90 days.” Cutler calls that goal “completely unrealistic.”
Since that declaration, the U.S. has only secured agreements with a handful of countries including the UK, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, and the Philippines—along with a partial deal with China.
“I don’t think the administration ever had the capacity to manage that many talks at once,” she says.
Cutler’s advice to Trump and his advisers: ease up on the public pressure. “Going too public with negotiations can backfire. It raises the stakes and limits flexibility, making it harder for either side to compromise.”
Meanwhile, with U.S. tariffs constantly changing, global companies are scrambling for clarity. Trade lawyers are busier than ever. Mollie Sitkowski, a partner at Faegre Drinker, a U.S. law firm, puts it simply: “This is the busiest I’ve ever been.”
ALSO READ : Starlink Donation to Local Councils Marks Step Toward Modern, Efficient Governance
