A brewing storm in global markets is unfolding—not because of what’s being said about tariff negotiations, but because of how it’s being misunderstood. There’s a growing risk that a major market misstep could occur, and the root of it lies in a fundamental miscommunication between the U.S. administration and its counterparts around the world.

At first glance, it seems like there’s room for optimism. Senior voices within the Trump circle—people like Bessent, Miran, Lutnick, and Hassett—have all echoed sentiments of flexibility. Markets responded enthusiastically, with equities rallying on the back of Bessent’s comments about a willingness to negotiate. On the surface, it looked like diplomacy might carry the day.

But peel back the layers, and a very different picture emerges.

Foreign governments, taking their cues from these signals, have begun proposing what they believe are rational and constructive solutions. The European Union, for example, quickly floated a “zero for zero” strategy—essentially, if the U.S. drops tariffs, so will they. Vietnam offered to slash its tariffs altogether. In traditional trade negotiations, these might be seen as serious gestures toward compromise.

But therein lies the problem. These nations are negotiating a playbook Trump isn’t using.

The President’s stance isn’t about reciprocal tariff reductions. It’s not even really about tariffs at all in the conventional sense. It’s about reducing the U.S. trade deficit—full stop. Trump’s mantra of “Buy American” underpins his entire approach. He’s not seeking deals that merely shift tariff rates; he wants tangible, measurable changes in trade flows that benefit U.S. businesses and workers.

Take Vietnam’s offer. On paper, zero tariffs look like a win. But Trump dismissed it outright. Why? Because the trade deficit isn’t about Vietnam’s tariff rates—it’s about American companies offshoring production to Vietnam in pursuit of lower costs. That’s the real issue in his eyes: the hollowing out of U.S. manufacturing, not the structure of Vietnamese trade policy.

The EU ran into the same wall. Their offer to remove barriers didn’t sway Trump either. Instead, he suggested Europe could fix the imbalance simply by purchasing $350 billion worth of U.S. energy. That’s not a negotiation—that’s a transaction, and it reflects the simplicity of the President’s underlying demand: close the gap.

If foreign governments walk into these talks believing they’re part of a standard tariff negotiation, they’re going to be blindsided. Trump isn’t looking for tweaks or halfway solutions. He wants an outright shift in the numbers—a new trade reality where the U.S. comes out ahead.

This disconnect is where the danger lies. Markets are pricing in the idea that deals are possible. But if the assumptions behind those deals are off the mark, the disappointment could be sharp—and costly. The risk of a “market accident” isn’t just hypothetical; it’s increasingly probable.

This isn’t about barriers to entry. It’s about backing American business at home. The sooner that message is received and understood, the better off everyone will be.