Business

How Hard It Is to Make Trade Deals

Published

8 months ago

June 5, 2025

President Trump has announced wave after wave of tariffs since taking office in January, part of a sweeping effort that he has argued would secure better trade terms with other countries. “It’s called negotiation,” he recently said.

In April, administration officials vowed to sign trade deals with as many as 90 countries in 90 days. The ambitious target came after Mr. Trump announced, and then rolled back a portion of, steep tariffs that in some cases meant import taxes cost more than the wholesale price of a good itself.

The 90-day goal, however, is a tenth of the time it usually takes to reach a trade deal, according to a New York Times analysis of major agreements with the United States currently in effect, raising questions about how realistic the administration’s target may be. It typically takes 917 days, or roughly two and a half years, for a trade deal to go from initial talks to the president’s desk for signature, the analysis shows.

Roughly 60 days into the current process, Mr. Trump has so far announced only one deal: a pact with Britain, which is not one of America’s biggest trading partners.

He has also suggested that negotiations with China have been rocky. “I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social on Wednesday. China and the United States agreed last month to temporarily slash tariffs on each other’s imports in a gesture of good will to continue talks.

Part of what the president can accomplish boils down to what you can call a deal.

The pact with Britain is less of a deal than it is a framework for talking about a deal, said Wendy Cutler, the vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute and a former U.S. trade negotiator. What was officially released by the two nations more closely resembled talking points for “what you were going to negotiate versus the actual commitment,” she said.

During his first term, Mr. Trump secured two major trade agreements, both signed in January 2020. One was the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which was a reworking of the North American free trade treaty from the 1990s that had helped transform the economies of the three nations.

U.S.M.C.A. is an all-encompassing, legally binding agreement that resulted from a lengthy and formal process, according to trade analysts.

Such deals are supposed to cover all aspects of trade between the respective nations and are negotiated under specific guidelines for congressional consultation. Closing the deal involves both negotiation and ratification — modifying or making laws in each partner country. The deals are signed by trade negotiators before the president signs the legislation that puts it into effect for the United States.

Mr. Trump’s other major agreement in his first term was with China, in an echo of the current trade war. The pact, unlike previous deals, came about after Mr. Trump threatened tariffs on certain Chinese imports. This “tariff first, talk later” approach, said Inu Manak, a trade policy fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is part of the same playbook the administration is currently using.

The result was a nonbinding agreement between the two countries, known as “Phase One,” that did not require approval from Congress and that could be ended by either party at any time. Still, it took almost one year and nine months to complete. China ultimately fell far short of the commitments it made to purchase American goods under the agreement.

A comparison of the two first-term Trump deals shows the drawn-out and sometimes winding paths each took to completion. Fragile truces (including ones made for 90 days) were formed, only for talks to break down later, all while rounds of tariffs injected uncertainty into the diplomatic relations between countries.

The Times analysis used the date from the start of negotiations to the date when the president signed to determine the length of deal making for each major agreement dating back to 1985 that’s currently in effect. The median time it took to get to the president’s signature was just over 900 days. (A separate analysis published in 2016 by the Peterson Institute for International Economics used the date of signature by country representatives as the completion moment and found that the median deal took more than 570 days.)

With roughly one month before the administration’s self-imposed deadline, Mr. Trump’s ability to forge deals has been thrust into sudden doubt. Last week, a U.S. trade court ruled he had overstepped his authority in imposing the April tariffs.

For now, the tariffs remain in place, following a temporary stay from a federal appeals court. But in arguing its case, the federal government initially said that the ruling could upset negotiations with other nations and undercut the president’s leverage.

In a statement on Wednesday, Kush Desai, a White House spokesman, said that trade negotiators were working to secure “custom-made trade deals at lightning speed that level the playing field for American industries and workers.”

But in other recent public statements, White House officials have significantly pared back their ambitions for the deals.

In April, Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, hedged the number of agreements they might reach, suggesting that the United States would talk to somewhere between 50 and 70 countries. Last month he said the United States was negotiating with 17 “very important trading relationships,” not including China.

“I think when the administration first started, they thought they could actually do these binding and enforceable deals within 90 days and then quickly realized that they bit off more than they could chew,” Ms. Cutler said.

The administration told its negotiating partners to submit offers of trade concessions they were willing to make by Wednesday, in an effort to strike trade deals in the coming weeks. The deadline was earlier reported by Reuters.

The current approach to deal making may be strategic, Ms. Manak said. One of the benefits of not doing a comprehensive deal like U.S.M.C.A. is that the administration can declare small “victories” on a much faster timeline, she said.

“It means that trade agreements simply are just not what they used to be,” she added. “And you can’t really guarantee that whatever the U.S. promises is actually going to be upheld in the long run.”

Data and graphics are based on a New York Times analysis of information from the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Organization of American States’ Foreign Trade Information System and public White House communications.

Related Topics:Customs (Tariff)Featured International Trade and World Market United States International Relations

Click to comment

Business

Waymo under scrutiny after hitting child near Santa Monica elementary school

Published

10 hours ago

January 30, 2026

Press Room

Waymo under scrutiny after hitting child near Santa Monica elementary school

A Waymo self-driving taxi recently struck a child near a Santa Monica elementary school during drop-off hours, triggering an investigation into the incident by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The child sustained minor injuries, Waymo said. After being struck, the child stood up and walked to the sidewalk, where witnesses called 911.

Santa Monica Police said officers responded to the Jan. 23 incident near 24th and Pearl streets, close to Grant Elementary School. After being evaluated by responders from the fire department, the child was released.

The investigation said the child was running across the street toward the school when they were hit. Waymo said the child appeared from behind a large SUV.

“The event occurred when the pedestrian suddenly entered the roadway from behind a tall SUV, moving directly into our vehicle’s path,” Waymo said in a statement. “The Waymo Driver braked hard, reducing speed from approximately 17 mph to under 6 mph before contact was made.”

There were other children, a crossing guard and several double-parked vehicles in the vicinity when the accident occurred, according to NHTSA.

Waymo reported the incident to the NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation and said it would fully cooperate. The Waymo involved was operating on the company’s fifth-generation automated driving system without a safety driver.

The company said the incident demonstrated the safety benefits of Waymo.

“Our peer-reviewed model shows that a fully attentive human driver in this same situation would have made contact with the pedestrian at approximately 14 mph,” the statement said. “This significant reduction in impact speed and severity is a demonstration of the material safety benefit of the Waymo Driver.”

A spokesperson for the city of Santa Monica referred questions to police.

Santa Monica sued Waymo in December after it ordered the company to cease overnight operations of two charging stations for the autonomous vehicles. Waymo in turn sued the city, alleging that city officials were aware the charging facilities would be operating 24 hours a day and maintain a commercial electric vehicle fleet.

The Alphabet-owned company also came under fire late last year for running over and killing KitKat, a beloved neighborhood cat in San Francisco. Weeks later another Waymo hit an unleashed dog in the city.

Video evidence shows that KitKat lingered under the vehicle for several seconds before it pulled away, crushing him. A woman was crouched beside the car, trying to lure KitKat to safety. A human driver easily would have noticed something wasn’t right, critics said.

Waymo has been the subject of several NHTSA investigations and recalls, including a recall of more than 1,200 vehicles last year because of a software defect that led to a series of minor crashes.

Waymo launched its services in Los Angeles in 2024 and covers more than 120 square miles of the county, not including Los Angeles International Airport. The company got its start as the Google Self-Driving Car Project, which began in 2009 and put its first autonomous car on the road in 2015. The project rebranded as Waymo in 2016 under Google’s parent company and launched its driverless ride-hailing service known as Waymo One in 2020.

Business

L.A. parent of Johnny Rockets, Fatburger and Round Table files for bankruptcy

Published

22 hours ago

January 29, 2026

Press Room

L.A. parent of Johnny Rockets, Fatburger and Round Table files for bankruptcy

The parent company of Johnny Rockets, Fatburger and Round Table Pizza filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Beverly Hills-based Fat Brands Inc. said in a statement that it filed for bankruptcy on Monday to restructure the debt it accumulated while expanding its company portfolio, citing “difficult and largely unforeseen” market conditions.

The company’s portfolio includes several brands with roots in the Southland. It owns retro diner chain Johnny Rockets, founded in 1986 on Los Angeles’ Melrose Avenue; shopping mall staple Hot Dog on a Stick, founded in 1964 in Santa Monica; and hamburger chain Fatburger, founded in 1947 in Los Angeles’ Exposition Park neighborhood.

Fat Brands also has investments in two brands that got their start in the Bay Area: pizza chain Round Table Pizza, founded in 1959 in Menlo Park, and fast-casual chain Yalla Mediterranean, founded in 2014 in Pleasant Hill.

The company has accumulated more than $1 billion in debt, according to its Securities and Exchange Commission filing. The company filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.

“Our dynamic portfolio of brands has demonstrated tremendous resilience in a challenging restaurant operating environment over the last few years,” Fat Brands Chief Executive Andy Wiederhorn said in a statement.

Chapter 11 protection will give the company an opportunity to “strengthen our capital structure to support our concepts,” he said.

Fat Brands has a portfolio of 18 restaurant concepts with more than 2,200 locations worldwide, according to the company’s November SEC filing. More than 90% of its locations are franchised.

Its shares have fallen more than 85% over the last three months. It received a delisting notice from Nasdaq market earlier this month.

Company spokesperson Erin Mandzik said in an email that the company’s restaurants are expected to remain operating as usual throughout the reorganization process.

The Times reported in 2022 that Wiederhorn, Fat Brands’ founder, was investigated for alleged tax fraud. Charges were dismissed in July, but a federal judge ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to explain its decision, as reported by the Los Angeles Business Journal.

Business

A24 acquires Olivia Wilde’s ‘The Invite’ in a major deal out of Sundance

Published

1 day ago

January 29, 2026

Press Room

A24 acquires Olivia Wilde’s ‘The Invite’ in a major deal out of Sundance

After a competitive bidding process, indie studio A24 has acquired the U.S. rights to Olivia Wilde’s comedy “The Invite” in a major deal out of the Sundance Film Festival.

The film, which stars Wilde, Seth Rogen, Penélope Cruz and Edward Norton, was purchased for around $10 million, according to a person familiar with the deal who requested anonymity due to the sensitive matter. One factor for Wilde was a preference for a traditional theatrical release.

“The Invite” focuses on a dinner party among neighbors and was billed as a must-see after it premiered over the weekend at Sundance. So far, the film has notched a 91% rating on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

The market at Sundance has traditionally been viewed as a bellwether for the indie film business. In the last few years, deals have been slower to emerge from the festival, particularly as streamers stopped offering massive sums for films to stock their platforms and as studios cut back on spending.

The deal for “The Invite” is one of a handful that have already been announced. On Tuesday, Neon said it acquired the worldwide rights to horror film “Leviticus,” which premiered at Sundance. Neon also bought the worldwide rights over the weekend for another horror flick, “4 X 4: The Event” from filmmaker Alex Ullom. That deal was the first to be made in Park City, though the film was not shown at Sundance and will begin production later this year. The value for both of Neon’s deals was not disclosed.