By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The speaker indicated that extensive discussions have taken place with numerous countries regarding trade agreements. While deals have been secured with the United Kingdom and China, and one is close with India, most nations will receive a letter outlining tariff obligations. These letters will invite countries to participate in the U.S. economic system, with some potential adjustments based on individual circumstances, though the speaker asserted the U.S. could demand significantly more.
Read the original article here
The situation surrounding the “90 deals in 90 days” promise is a classic example of a disconnect between rhetoric and reality. Trump’s initial boast was clear: his administration would swiftly secure numerous trade deals. The expectation was that these deals would be negotiated and finalized within a specific timeframe, signaling a decisive and successful approach to international trade.
However, when questioned about the progress of this initiative, the response was… well, let’s just say it was far from a straightforward explanation. The reporter’s simple question, “What happened to the 90 deals in 90 days?” triggered a verbal avalanche. Instead of outlining specific agreements, timelines, or even providing an update on ongoing negotiations, the response veered into a confusing collection of generalities and, quite frankly, evasions.
The core of the response seemed to revolve around a strategy of sending letters to other countries. The idea was that these letters would inform them of the tariffs they would be subject to. The whole concept feels… underwhelming. It’s a far cry from the image of vigorous deal-making that was initially painted. The shift from “deals” to “letters” suggests a retreat from the original promise, a watering down of the initial ambition.
It’s important to note that tariffs are essentially taxes. They are paid by importers, but ultimately, the cost is often passed on to consumers. So, the idea of simply “telling them how much tariffs they have to pay” sounds like a directive that is not only out of touch with the complexities of global trade but could also be perceived as a burden being placed on American consumers.
The language used was also noteworthy. There was a lot of vagueness, repeated phrases, and a general sense of not answering the question directly. The answer lacked the concrete details that one would expect from someone leading a major economic initiative. Instead, there was a sort of stream-of-consciousness style, jumping between topics and repeating the same points.
One of the concerning aspects of the whole situation is the apparent lack of self-awareness. The statement, “We should be. We could be asking for much more,” coupled with the idea of sending letters, highlights a disconnect. This suggests a lack of understanding of the very economic principles being discussed.
This isn’t just about one instance of unclear communication. This incident reinforces a pattern of Trump’s public appearances. The phrase “pure gibberish” is a pretty accurate summary, sadly. There’s a growing perception of incoherence, of an inability to articulate clear thoughts or provide concise answers. This could lead to further erosion of trust in his leadership abilities.
It’s interesting how this incident also prompts questions about the media’s role. The reaction to this type of speech sometimes can be a bit strange. We often question why there isn’t as much attention placed on this topic as on other instances of questionable statements.
The core issue boils down to transparency and accountability. When a leader makes a clear promise, they should be prepared to provide a clear accounting of the progress, successes, and challenges. When that accounting is replaced by a rambling, disjointed response, it raises serious questions about the substance of the policies, their potential effectiveness, and the administration’s ability to deliver on its word. It’s as if the specifics of the initial promise were simply forgotten, and the approach had to be re-imagined on the spot.
In the end, what was promised and what was delivered are two different things. The reaction to this specific instance of what has been characterized as “pure gibberish” serves as another instance of this disconnect.