What does the Trump administration want from the rest of the world?

Buy more natural gas from American companies; reduce tariffs on American exports; reduce taxes on Silicon Valley tech giants... These are just a few of the demands the Trump administration is expected to make in talks with dozens of countries trying to avoid high import tariffs that the US imposed last week and then unexpectedly postponed.

While there is still much uncertainty about exactly what the White House will want, a clearer picture of what these bilateral agreements might look like is beginning to emerge, according to more than a dozen sources involved in or briefed on the negotiations, some of whom requested anonymity because the details are private.

Looking for deals

On April 9, President Trump abruptly suspended large-scale tariffs that were scheduled to take effect on more than 70 countries. He said the move was partly due to worrying fluctuations in the bond market. The US president announced that the tariffs would be postponed for 90 days to give his team of advisers and foreign partners time to reach separate agreements - a process he said had already begun with some countries. It should be noted that Mr. Trump still kept the 10% tariff on nearly all imports into the US, at the same time, increased tariffs on Chinese goods to more than 100% while holding off on imposing tariffs on other countries.

“The biggest problem they have is they don’t have enough hours in the day,” Mr. Trump said of his aides on April 9. “Everybody wants to come and negotiate.”

However, the Post noted that there is still a lot of ambiguity about the specific form of these agreements, in part because of the lack of clarity in the US President's goals. According to two related sources, even some of Mr. Trump's advisers admit that they are unclear about the goals.

For example, Mr. Trump has repeatedly emphasized his desire to narrow America’s trade deficits with other countries, an idea that has been dismissed by many economists, both liberal and conservative—because it is unrealistic for the United States to export as much as it imports from poorer countries, and even trying to do so would be economically damaging.

It’s possible Trump would accept deals that narrow the deficit by forcing other countries to buy more American goods. But that still leaves unclear how to negotiate with developed economies that have trade surpluses with the US, like Australia and the UK. And deals in which countries agree to buy some more American goods are unlikely to achieve Trump’s goal of balancing global trade — which is largely driven by the trade practices of a few commodity-exporting countries.

Adding to the confusion for both US and foreign officials was a recent statement by White House adviser Peter Navarro, who said that the German carmaker BMW’s multibillion-dollar investment in a South Carolina factory was “bad for America,” even though the factory appeared to represent the kind of domestic manufacturing that Mr. Trump has long demanded.

“We don’t know what they want from other countries, and what’s worse is other countries don’t know what Trump wants from them,” said Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank that has been skeptical of Trump’s tax policies. “I don’t understand how you can negotiate under those circumstances.”

In the absence of information, ambassadors, trade representatives and other senior officials have resorted to calling and texting each other to share information, discussing whether Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent or Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick should be designated as the lead partner, and trying to figure out what might interest Mr. Trump’s team.

But progress has been slow. A senior diplomat from a major US trading partner said that in the days following the Rose Garden announcement, the White House had not responded to what it might propose to reduce the tariffs. Now that the highest tariffs have been postponed, Mr. Trump’s officials appear finally willing to negotiate “normally” rather than just making demands without offering anything in return—but the diplomat said it was unclear how the White House wanted to proceed.

“The Indian side is having a hard time finding a clear interlocutor. Japan also doesn’t know who to talk to on the US side. There is a lot of confusion,” said a source familiar with the matter, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.

However, the basic contents of the US side's request are gradually becoming clear in initial conversations, according to officials and experts.

The agreements are likely to be specific to the issues U.S. officials see in each country. Senior Trump advisers like Navarro and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer have said they want other countries to reduce both tariffs and “non-tariff” barriers, such as intellectual property theft and import quotas. Officials at the White House Council of Economic Advisers and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative have spent weeks studying the policies they say are responsible for the large trade deficit with China and looking for opportunities to boost U.S. exports. Those studies will shape the administration’s specific demands.

One of the top demands is that countries no longer act as transshipment points for Chinese goods and businesses to avoid US tariffs, said Daniel Kishi, a policy adviser at American Compass, a center-right think tank. He said Mr. Trump’s team would likely push other countries to impose similar tariffs on China and coordinate the use of other tools to prevent China from controlling supply chains in key sectors.

Gas, beef and technology

The proposed deals are expected to include a range of commitments to support domestic industries, two sources familiar with the administration’s thinking said. Japan, for example, could be asked to commit to buying large amounts of natural gas from the United States. Europe has taxes and regulations targeting tech giants and restrictions on imports of American beef — all of which could be on the table. Since Europe and the United States have essentially eliminated most tariffs between them, trade deals must address non-tariff barriers.

American farmers — a group that has been hit hard by the trade war — could also benefit from country-by-country deals, particularly if European countries are willing to ease restrictions on some US agricultural products.

Some trade experts are skeptical that such sector-specific agreements will help restore the luster of American manufacturing. But with bond markets still volatile even after the tariff delay, President Trump may feel compelled to reach narrower agreements rather than let trade-disrupting tariffs go back into effect against dozens of countries.

Countries could also retaliate with their own measures, especially if they are willing to sell off their holdings of US government bonds. And Trump has shown a willingness to make concessions when financial markets are volatile — something that could weaken America’s negotiating position.

“The key question is whether they will continue to make token deals to help specific companies, or whether they will focus on substantive commitments to rebalance trade and create space for domestic production,” said Lori Wallach, director of the left-leaning Rethink Trade group at the Project for American Economic Liberties. “If the plan is just to get Europe to drop its tech data privacy policies and let us export beef, that has nothing to do with reducing America’s chronic trade deficit with the world.”