By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On Tuesday, former President Trump announced a significant trade agreement with Japan, highlighting a 15% tariff rate and $550 billion in investments, as detailed on his Truth Social platform. However, discrepancies arose when comparing his statements to a photo of a card detailing the agreement, which showed a 10% tariff with an added 15% on specific industries and an initial investment figure of $400 billion that was later altered. The White House has not clarified these inconsistencies, although the Treasury Secretary stated Japan received a 15% rate due to its offering of guarantees for U.S. projects. Meanwhile, experts suggest the investment plan might be viewed differently by Japanese officials, raising concerns about the implementation of the deal.
Read the original article here
Japan trade deal info on Trump’s desk was altered by hand with a marker, and the immediate reaction seems to be a mix of disbelief and a sense of “here we go again.” It’s the sharpie, or as some have playfully called it, “Magic Sharpie,” that seems to be the real star of this story. The revelation that figures on the trade deal documents were apparently changed by hand, with a marker, has triggered a strong wave of commentary, and it’s easy to understand why. It just feels amateurish.
The perception is that this sort of behavior undermines the credibility of the negotiations and potentially the deal itself. It’s viewed as a symptom of broader issues, a kind of micro-management, and a sign of someone who can’t resist the urge to inflate numbers, regardless of the facts. Some people believe this is how the former president operates, by making up numbers and taking credit, even if the reality is much less impressive. The suggestion that the Japanese might view the “investment” differently, perhaps seeing it as more of a cap, or including loan guarantees instead of a straight investment, only adds another layer to the potential discrepancies.
This situation highlights the perception that tariffs, or at least these tariffs, might not be doing what they are supposed to. One of the ideas being thrown around is that the US consumer will ultimately foot the bill through increased prices. The details of the deal paint a picture of a complicated arrangement, where Japan provides investment and the US still puts on tariffs, creating a lot of friction. There’s a sentiment that it’s not a fair deal, with America supposedly getting all the profits.
The commentary doesn’t paint a very flattering picture of the process. The suggestion that the former president just writes down whatever he wants and expects everyone to accept it isn’t exactly the way to build confidence in international trade agreements. The claim that a deal was “made up” and that there are no metrics to back up the numbers really gives it an air of unprofessionalism. There is talk of the former president “babbling whatever bullshit he wants” and that the Japanese figured they could just say what he wanted to hear and deliver nothing.
The situation also brings in the idea of deception and misrepresentation. The use of a marker to alter the deal, with some suggesting it was the same one used to allegedly alter other documents, has raised eyebrows. The fact that it was even published hints at a degree of audacity. The implication is that someone, the former president, can’t be trusted. It also seems to be dividing people, with some apparently seeing this as proof that he is looking out for them and others seeing it as a betrayal of values and trust.
Of course, the specifics of the deal and the motivations behind the changes are less important than the optics of the situation. The appearance of making things up and altering documents undermines trust in the process. It feeds into a narrative of incompetence or, at the very least, a disregard for the rules and conventions of international trade. The use of a marker isn’t just a detail, it’s a symbol of a perceived carelessness, and a willingness to change reality to fit a desired outcome.
There is also a feeling that the former president will do whatever he wants, whether it’s changing the path of a hurricane, or signing the deal with the same marker. Many people don’t believe the numbers, or that the agreement is a real one, or that it will bring any benefits. They seem to believe that no matter what, the US is going to lose. Ultimately, the use of a marker to alter the details of a trade deal is just a symptom of a larger problem. The real story, is about how people in this country can’t seem to reach a consensus.
This situation highlights the broader concerns about transparency, accountability, and the integrity of the former president’s actions. It raises questions about the value of the agreements themselves, and the people involved in making them. The constant feeling of deception is one of the biggest factors in how the deal is perceived. It’s a reflection of a world where, as some say, you can just make things up and it might just work out, at least temporarily.