After Tariff Deals With Trump, Partner Nations Find Themselves Trapped

Lead: In February 2026, several U.S. trading partners rushed to cut deals with President Donald J. Trump to avoid sweeping punitive tariffs, only to confront a legal reversal that left those agreements in doubt. Japan pledged $36 billion in U.S. investment and Indonesia signed accords to open critical sectors after facing tariff threats of up to 35 percent and 32 percent respectively. The U.S. Supreme Court later undercut the legal basis for the administration’s tariff program, creating fresh uncertainty about which concessions will survive. Governments that made large political and economic commitments are now facing domestic blowback and difficult choices about whether to uphold, renegotiate or resist replacement measures.

Key Takeaways

• Japan announced a $36 billion investment package to secure lower tariffs after facing a threatened tariff rate as high as 35 percent on its exports to the United States.
• Indonesia agreed to open critical sectors to U.S. firms amid threats of tariffs up to 32 percent, committing to policy changes that have domestic political costs.
• Other economies — including South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Cambodia and India — made concessions on tariffs, sanctions alignment, or mineral sourcing to avoid punitive duties.
• The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the legal premise supporting the administration’s broad tariff authority, prompting questions about the enforceability of those bilateral deals.
• President Trump said many agreements “will stand,” and signaled that any voided deals could be replaced with alternative tariffs, adding unpredictability for exporters and investors.
• Domestic political backlash has grown in partner countries, where leaders face accusations of ceding policy space or favoring foreign firms in exchange for tariff relief.
• Export-dependent manufacturers in Asia now face a more complex risk landscape: some concessions may remain, others may evaporate, and new trade barriers could follow.

Background

Since taking office, the Trump administration used the threat of steep, targeted tariffs as leverage in bilateral negotiations, warning partners of duties that in some cases reached the mid-30s percentage range. Those threats were framed as a tool to secure concessions on investment, market access and supply-chain priorities — especially in sectors defined as critical or strategic. Faced with the prospect of suddenly diminished export markets, several governments moved quickly to strike deals that included investment pledges and regulatory changes favoring U.S. companies.

Those agreements were negotiated under the shadow of domestic politics in partner countries. Leaders who accepted visible concessions—opening sectors to foreign firms or aligning on sanctions and mineral sourcing—encountered resistance from opposition parties, industry groups, and civil society. In some cases, the deals touched on sensitive issues of national sovereignty and industrial policy, heightening the political cost of compliance.

Main Event

In a high-profile visit to Tokyo in October, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi signed a pact that included a $36 billion commitment to U.S. investment, part of a package explicitly aimed at defusing a threatened 35 percent tariff on Japanese goods. Days earlier in Washington, Indonesian leaders concluded an agreement pledging to open up key domestic sectors to American firms while facing a possible 32 percent duty on certain exports. Both governments described the deals as pragmatic responses to an unprecedented trade threat.

By the end of the same week, however, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a ruling that undercut the administration’s asserted authority to impose such sweeping tariffs, calling into question the legal foundations used to compel those concessions. In public remarks after the decision, the president insisted many of the bilateral agreements would remain intact but acknowledged that some might lapse and could be replaced by other tariff measures if necessary.

The immediate effect was political and legal confusion. Partner governments that had already enacted or announced changes found themselves parsing which commitments were legally binding and which were essentially voluntary or contingent on U.S. enforcement. Opposition leaders at home seized on the ruling to challenge executives who had brokered the deals, arguing that concessions had been made under duress and without sufficient oversight.

Analysis & Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision does not simply void a set of agreements; it reshapes the leverage dynamics of 21st-century trade diplomacy. Where tariffs had been an effective bargaining chip, the ruling diminishes their immediate credibility as a tool to extract broad structural concessions. That shift reduces short-term pressure on exporting countries but also leaves unresolved the underlying policy disputes that motivated the original threats.

For partner countries, the calculus is now fraught. Governments that already implemented reforms in law or regulation face domestic political risks if they reverse course; industries that relied on promised tariff relief may be exposed to renewed protectionism. Conversely, if Washington seeks to substitute new tariffs or other measures, those countries could be hit by fresh rounds of disruptions and retaliatory responses, complicating supply chains and investment plans across Asia.

Economically, uncertainty alone can chill investment. Firms contemplating multibillion-dollar projects will factor in the risk that agreements may be renegotiated or nullified, raising financing costs and delaying deployments. Politically, leaders who made concessions may suffer loss of credibility, strengthening domestic opponents and complicating future cooperation on issues like sanctions, technology controls, and critical-mineral sourcing.

Comparison & Data

The table summarizes the headline numbers reported publicly: Japan’s $36 billion pledge and the stated tariff ceilings driving urgency in Tokyo and Jakarta. While exact modalities differ by country, the common pattern is a rapid exchange of market access or investment commitments for tariff relief under acute political pressure.

Reactions & Quotes

Domestic and international actors responded quickly after the court ruling, reflecting divergent priorities and interpretations.

“We’re winning again — many of the deals will stand,”

President Donald J. Trump (public remarks)

Context: The president sought to reassure supporters and partners that the administration’s diplomatic wins would largely persist despite the court’s decision, while leaving open the possibility of new measures to secure similar outcomes.

“We made difficult but necessary choices to protect Japanese industry and jobs,”

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi (statement in Tokyo)

Context: Japan’s leadership framed its investment pledge as a strategic trade-off to stabilize exports and preserve industrial ties to the U.S. market, even as critics accused the government of conceding too much.

“Legal uncertainty now multiplies policy risk for investors and firms in both countries,”

Independent trade economist (commentary)

Context: Analysts warned that the combination of abrupt legal change and political backlash increases the chance of delayed projects, higher borrowing costs, and more cautious corporate strategies.

Unconfirmed

• Which specific bilateral commitments will be legally void as a direct result of the Supreme Court ruling remains unclear and is subject to subsequent legal analysis.
• Whether the White House will replace voided deals with alternative tariffs or other measures has been signaled but not formally detailed or scheduled.
• The extent to which private investors will delay or cancel announced projects tied to these agreements is unquantified and will depend on forthcoming policy clarifications.

Bottom Line

The episode highlights a modern tension in trade strategy: using the credible threat of punitive tariffs can produce quick concessions, but when that legal credibility falters, the political and economic aftershocks are wide. Partner governments that accepted visible policy shifts now face domestic pushback and an uncertain legal environment that complicates implementation.

For businesses and policymakers, the key takeaway is that deals made under duress carry elevated reversal risk. Watch for follow-on actions from the U.S. administration, response measures by affected governments, and court or legislative moves that will ultimately determine which elements of these deals survive and which become bargaining chips in the next round of trade diplomacy.

Sources

• The New York Times — news report summarizing the agreements and political context (news).
• The White House — official statements and administration remarks (official government).
• Supreme Court of the United States — text and docket information for the decision that affected tariff authority (official court).
• Reuters — international coverage and market reporting on trade and investment reactions (news).