Trump’s Early Trade Agreements in Southeast Asia Fade into Obscurity – POLITICO

Global Economic Realignment: Nations Prioritize Domestic Investments

October 26, 2025

A notable trend is emerging in the international arena as countries increasingly focus on strengthening their own economies and carefully regulating inbound investments.This strategic move signals a potential departure from previous norms of unrestricted global capital flows and greater emphasis on national economic security.

Multiple governments are implementing policies designed to attract investment that aligns with their strategic objectives while simultaneously restricting or scrutinizing investments from particular sources. This approach is driven by concerns ranging from national security to maintaining control over critical infrastructure and key industries.

The Shifting Sands of Global Investment

The drive to secure greater economic independence is particularly evident in sectors deemed vital to national interests. Governments are actively encouraging domestic investment in areas such as technology, renewable energy, and advanced manufacturing.This is ofen achieved through tax incentives, subsidies, and streamlined regulatory processes.

Conversely, increased scrutiny is being applied to foreign investments, especially those originating from countries perceived as geopolitical rivals. This can manifest in stricter review processes, outright prohibitions, or requirements for joint ventures with domestic partners. According to a recent report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Growth (UNCTAD), global Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows decreased by 12% in 2024, partially attributed to these restrictive measures. UNCTAD

Impact on International Trade

These developments have far-reaching implications for international trade. The erection of investment barriers could lead to retaliatory measures from other countries, possibly escalating into trade wars. moreover, the fragmentation of the global investment landscape could hinder economic growth and innovation. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has warned of the risks associated with growing protectionism. WTO

Did You Know? The value of global cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A) fell by 23% in the first half of 2025,signaling a slowdown in international investment activity.

A New Era of Economic Nationalism?

Some analysts suggest that the current trend reflects a broader shift towards economic nationalism, where countries prioritize their own economic interests over global cooperation. However, others argue that these measures are simply a pragmatic response to evolving geopolitical realities and a desire to ensure long-term economic resilience.

Pro Tip: Businesses operating internationally should carefully monitor changes in investment regulations and proactively assess the potential impact on their operations.Diversifying investment locations and building strong relationships with local partners can help mitigate risks.

Region	Investment Trend (2024-2025)	Key Policies
North America	Moderate Growth	Focus on reshoring and nearshoring; increased scrutiny of investments from state-owned enterprises.
Europe	Slower growth	Strengthened investment screening mechanisms; support for strategic autonomy in key sectors.
Asia-Pacific	Mixed Results	Increased competition for FDI; selective investment promotion targeting high-tech industries.

The long-term consequences of this evolving economic landscape remain to be seen. It is indeed crucial for policymakers to strike a balance between protecting national interests and fostering a stable and open global economic order. What strategies can nations employ to maximize domestic investment while remaining open to beneficial foreign capital? How will these changes affect smaller economies reliant on foreign investment for growth?

understanding Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) represents an investment made by a firm or individual in one country into business interests located in another country. It differs from portfolio investment, which involves passive holdings of securities. FDI typically involves establishing business operations or acquiring considerable ownership stakes in foreign companies.

The benefits of FDI include job creation, technology transfer, increased productivity, and economic growth.Though, FDI can also raise concerns about national security, environmental impact, and the potential for exploitation of labor.

Frequently Asked Questions about Global Economic Shifts

• What is the primary driver of the current trend in restricting foreign investment? The primary driver is a growing focus on national economic security and a desire to protect strategic industries.
• How does this impact global economic growth? Increased investment barriers can hinder economic growth and innovation by reducing capital flows and limiting competition.
• What is “reshoring” and “nearshoring”? Reshoring refers to bringing production back to the home country, while nearshoring involves relocating production to nearby countries.
• What role does the World Trade Organization (WTO) play in addressing these issues? The WTO monitors trade policies and provides a forum for resolving trade disputes, but its effectiveness is limited by the willingness of member states to cooperate.
• What can businesses do to navigate this changing landscape? Businesses should diversify investment locations, build strong relationships with local partners, and carefully monitor changes in regulations.
• How does this affect smaller economies? Smaller economies dependent on FDI may face challenges in attracting investment and maintaining economic growth.
• Is this trend temporary, or does it represent a basic shift in the global economic order? Whether it is temporary or a longer-term shift is still being debated, but it signals a significant adjustment in how countries view international economic engagement.

Share this article and let us know yoru thoughts in the comments below!

How did the US-China trade war unintentionally benefit Vietnam while concurrently creating challenges for thailand and Malaysia?

Trump’s Early Trade Agreements in Southeast Asia Fade into Obscurity

The Initial Push for Bilateral Deals

Donald trump’s presidency marked a significant shift in U.S. trade policy, notably within Southeast Asia. Departing from decades of multilateral agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the management aggressively pursued bilateral trade deals. The core strategy revolved around what was perceived as fairer, more direct negotiations, aiming to reduce trade deficits and protect American jobs. Key countries initially targeted included Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines. These early efforts focused on reducing tariffs, increasing market access for U.S. agricultural products and manufactured goods, and addressing intellectual property concerns.

however, the implementation of these agreements proved challenging. Several factors contributed to the slow pace of progress, including political instability within some Southeast Asian nations, differing priorities, and the sheer complexity of negotiating complete trade arrangements. The initial enthusiasm quickly waned as negotiations stalled and concrete results remained elusive.

The Impact of the US-China Trade War

The escalating US-china trade war, beginning in 2018, inadvertently complex the situation. While intended to pressure China, the tariffs imposed by the U.S. created economic uncertainty across the region. southeast Asian economies, heavily integrated into global supply chains, felt the ripple effects.

* Vietnam: Benefited initially from companies relocating production to avoid tariffs, experiencing a surge in foreign direct investment (FDI).

* Thailand & Malaysia: saw disruptions to their export-oriented manufacturing sectors.

* Philippines: Faced challenges in maintaining economic growth amidst global volatility.

This dynamic shifted the focus of Southeast Asian nations. Rather than prioritizing deals with the U.S., many countries sought to diversify their trade relationships and strengthen regional partnerships, notably through the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) – a China-led trade agreement.

RCEP’s Rise and the Diminishing U.S. Influence

The signing of RCEP in November 2020, encompassing 15 Asia-Pacific countries (including all ten ASEAN members plus China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and new Zealand), represented a significant blow to U.S. influence in the region. RCEP offers reduced tariffs, streamlined customs procedures, and increased investment opportunities, creating a massive free trade zone.

The absence of the United States from RCEP underscored the strategic shift occurring in Southeast Asia. Countries increasingly viewed China as a more reliable and proactive economic partner. The U.S., under Trump, had largely ceded ground in shaping the region’s trade landscape.

Key Provisions of RCEP

1. Tariff Reduction: Eliminates tariffs on 92% of goods traded among member countries over a 20-year period.
2. Rules of Origin: Simplifies rules of origin,making it easier for companies to integrate supply chains across the region.
3. Investment Protection: Provides greater certainty and protection for investors.
4. E-commerce: Includes provisions to facilitate cross-border e-commerce.

Biden Administration’s Approach: A course Correction?

The Biden administration has signaled a desire to re-engage with Southeast Asia, but a return to the TPP is unlikely. Instead, the focus has shifted towards the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), launched in 2022. IPEF aims to address issues like supply chain resilience, clean energy, and fair trade, but it lacks the traditional tariff-cutting elements of conventional free trade agreements.

The IPEF faces several hurdles:

* Limited Scope: its focus on non-tariff barriers and regulatory cooperation may not be enough to address the immediate economic needs of Southeast Asian nations.

* Political Opposition: Concerns remain about the potential impact on domestic industries and labor standards.

* China’s Counter-Influence: China continues to strengthen its economic ties with the region, presenting a formidable challenge to U.S. efforts.

Case Study: The U.S.-Thailand Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA)

The TIFA with Thailand, initially intended as a stepping stone towards a more comprehensive free trade agreement, exemplifies the stalled progress. Negotiations have been ongoing for years, with limited breakthroughs. Issues such as agricultural market access, intellectual property protection, and labor rights continue to be sticking points. The TIFA, once touted as a model for future agreements, now serves as a reminder of the difficulties in forging closer economic ties.

The Future of U.S. Trade in Southeast Asia

The legacy of Trump’s early trade agreements in Southeast Asia is one of missed opportunities and diminished influence. While the Biden administration is attempting to recalibrate U.S. policy, the region has moved on. The rise of RCEP and China’s growing economic clout have fundamentally altered the dynamics.

To regain relevance, the U.S. needs to:

* Offer tangible economic benefits: Beyond IPEF, explore targeted trade initiatives that address the specific needs of Southeast Asian economies.

* Invest in regional infrastructure: Support infrastructure projects that enhance connectivity and facilitate trade.

* Strengthen diplomatic engagement: foster closer political and security ties with Southeast Asian nations.

* Address concerns about protectionism: Demonstrate a commitment to free and fair trade,avoiding policies that disrupt regional supply chains.

Keywords: Trump trade agreements, Southeast Asia trade, US-China trade war, RCEP, IPE