Trump’s deals are weakening the rule of law

European Union trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic described the recent US-EU trade agreement in unvarnished terms.

- Richard K. Sherwin

Agreeing to a 15% tariff on most exports to the United States and promising to purchase $750 billion (24 trillion baht) worth of American energy over three years and to invest another $600 billion in the US (not including an unspecified amount in additional orders of US-made military hardware) was “clearly the best deal we could get.”

But was it? Since Donald Trump's return to the White House, not only America’s trade partners, but also its universities, law firms, and major media have had to ask: Does it pay to play in the theatre of naked power, or does transacting with Mr Trump simply normalise pervasive lawlessness?

Reliable dealmaking depends on two essential conditions: good faith and a stable set of rules, backed by reliable enforcement mechanisms, that protect against capricious interpretation or unilateral revision of the pact’s terms. Motivation is easily disguised.

In Mr Trump's case, we need only recall his record of bad-faith dealing, going as far back as the construction of his Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City, where his failure to pay $69.5 million owed to 253 subcontractors bankrupted many small businesses.