Trump has 90 days to do 150 trade deals. Financial markets aren’t buying it

CNN - Apr 11th, 2025

President Donald Trump's strategy to impose high tariffs as a negotiating tactic has led to widespread market volatility. The administration plans to renegotiate trade agreements globally, excluding China, within a 90-day window. This pause in tariffs, which were never reciprocal, aims to foster new trade agreements. However, financial markets remain unconvinced of the administration's ability to secure comprehensive deals quickly. Stocks have experienced significant fluctuations, with the Dow Jones suffering multiple 1,000-point swings, indicating deep skepticism among investors. Bond yields have surged as trust in US trade policy wanes, and oil prices have dropped, signaling fears of a recession.

The broader implications of Trump's tariff strategy highlight potential risks to the US economy and its international relationships. Despite Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's claims of interest from over 70 countries to negotiate new deals, the complexity of trade agreements typically demands years, not months, to conclude. The ongoing trade war with China, marked by steep tariffs on both sides, further complicates matters. Economists caution that while new agreements may positively impact the economy, existing damage from current tariffs persists. Major financial institutions like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs suggest a looming recession is as likely as not, given the current economic uncertainties.

Donald Trump China Tariffs Us Economy Stock Market Volatility Trade Agreements Financial Markets

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The news story provides a timely and relevant analysis of the Trump administration's trade policies and their impact on global markets. It highlights key issues such as market volatility and economic uncertainty, which are of significant public interest. However, the article could benefit from more balanced reporting, as it primarily focuses on the challenges without equally exploring potential benefits or alternative perspectives.

The accuracy of the article is generally strong, but some claims require further verification, particularly regarding specific tariff rates and their economic implications. The lack of detailed source attribution and transparency reduces the credibility of the reporting, and the article would benefit from clearer citations and explanations of its methodology.

Overall, the article is informative and engaging, but improvements in source quality, transparency, and balance would enhance its reliability and impact. The topic's controversy and public interest potential make it a valuable contribution to ongoing economic and political discussions.

Accuracy

The article presents several factual claims regarding the Trump administration's trade policies and their impact on global markets. For instance, it claims that Trump announced a 90-day pause on tariffs, which aligns with available reports. However, the exact details of these tariffs, particularly the rates imposed on China, require further verification. The article mentions a 145% tariff on China, which needs cross-referencing with official announcements for precision. Additionally, the reported market reactions, such as stock volatility and bond yield changes, are plausible but need actual market data for confirmation.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the negative implications of Trump's trade policies, highlighting market skepticism and potential economic downturns. While it mentions the administration's optimism about negotiating trade deals, it lacks a detailed exploration of potential benefits or alternative perspectives. This creates an imbalance, as the narrative is skewed towards the challenges without equally addressing the administration's rationale or supportive viewpoints from other stakeholders.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its presentation of information, using straightforward language to describe complex trade and economic concepts. However, the structure could be improved for better logical flow, as the narrative jumps between different market reactions and policy details without clear transitions. The tone is neutral, but the lack of clarity in some sections, such as the specific details of the tariffs, affects overall comprehension.

Source quality

The article does not clearly attribute its information to specific sources, which raises questions about the reliability of the claims. While it references financial market reactions and statements from figures like JPMorgan's CEO, the lack of direct citations or links to primary sources diminishes the credibility. The inclusion of a contribution from CNN's Kyle Atwood adds some authority, but more diverse and authoritative sources would enhance the overall source quality.

Transparency

The article provides limited transparency regarding its sources and the basis for its claims. There is no clear explanation of the methodology used to gather information or assess market reactions. The absence of detailed citations or references to official documents or statements reduces the transparency of the reporting. Greater disclosure of the sources and methods behind the claims would improve the reader's understanding of the article's foundation.