US-Philippines: Strategic Assurance at Manila's Expense
Asymmetric pact: Philippines bullied into free access to its markets in exchange for Uncle Sam's shield
By: Khanh Vu Duc
The July 6 White House summit between Presidents Donald Trump of the US and Ferdinand Marcos Jr of the Philippines was billed as a pivotal moment in US-Philippines relations. What American and Philippine officials called a “big trade deal” turned out to deliver far more to Washington than to Manila. Yet the summit also underscored how security interests can overshadow economic equities in high‑stakes diplomacy.
Trump emerged from the Oval Office not with a celebrated “balanced” trade accord, but announcing a still‑punitive 19 percent tariff on Philippine exports to the US, down just one point from the threatened 20 percent – while Philippine tariffs on U.S. goods vanish entirely. In the midst of diplomatic fanfare, with Trump calling Marcos a “very good, and tough, negotiator,” Manila accepted an asymmetrical pact: free access to Filipino markets in exchange for enduring a heavier burden on its own exports.
It is a stark illustration of Trump’s economic playbook: wielding unilateral tariffs as negotiation tools, reinforcing his “America‑first” frames. As Reuters reminds us, the new rate places the Philippines above Vietnam (20 percent) and Indonesia (19 percent), yet it remains slightly softened, and only because of the impending deadline.
Security Gains and Strategic Leverage
In return, the Philippines earns a substantial, albeit less visible, benefit: renewed American military assurances. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reaffirmed that the Mutual Defense Treaty now explicitly applies to “armed attacks on…public vessels…anywhere in the Pacific, including the South China Sea.” Marcos capitalizes on the promise of deeper US military cooperation and modernization assistance, an explicit hedge against Beijing’s maritime assertiveness.
That message strikes at the heart of Manila’s strategic dilemma. As sovereignty pressures mount near Scarborough Shoal, 472 nautical miles from China’s Hainan Island and 120-125 nautical miles west of Luzon, and Chinese coast guard pressure intensifies, Filipino leaders are seeking more robust deterrence. Trump’s summit ensures just that, even if it exposes the Philippines to heavier economic pressure.
Trump the Tough Negotiator? Or Coercive
Trump called Marcos a “very good and tough negotiator” on Truth Social. But Marcos’s concession-heavy outcome belies that label. In a classic Trump trade‑deal template, threats came first (20 percent tariffs), deadlines loomed (August 1), and Manila folded—albeit securing a token reprieve of 1 percentage point.
Such tactics echo Trump’s broader tariff strategy: high-profile threats, tight timelines and pressure-first diplomacy. In The Wall Street Journal, his tariff agenda is described as a series of unilateral “deals”—a “TACO” model (Threat‑And‑Coerce‑Only)—meant to force outcomes that bolster America’s economic posture, even at the expense of alliances. This calcified approach may produce headlines, but it erodes trust. Partners are wary of hasty deadlines and limited transparency, which feed unpredictability and complicate deeper integration efforts.
Philippine Trade Left Overboard
From an economic standpoint, the deal is punishing. US tariffs on Filipino exports – electronics, machinery, agricultural goods – will remain high. Even at 19 percent, the rate is crippling. Filipino officials had hoped security assurances could be translated into tariff relief, but that relief is mostly absent.
Proponents may argue that zero tariffs on US goods foster American investments and supply‑chain diversification for the Philippines, benefiting sectors like infrastructure and defense manufacturing. But these gains are speculative, long-term, and overshadowed by immediate export constraints.
Moreover, US consumers now face the real prospect of higher prices – a hidden tax – raising questions about trade‑off calculations from American elites. Trump justifies the move as necessary to trim a US$4.9 billion trade deficit. Yet with so few details, it is unclear who takes the economic hit and whether new trade‑off mechanisms are in place.
From a broader vantage, this deal reflects how security imperatives can outweigh economic fairness. For Manila, siding more closely with Washington serves as both deterrent and diplomatic insurance against China’s coercive tactics. Marcos’s declaration of an “independent foreign policy” is now paired with a clear tilt toward US security frameworks. Trump, meanwhile, frames this not as part of a multilateral order but as a sovereignty-driven alliance: “Make Philippines great again,” he quipped, a riff where strategic reassurance sells better than shared values.
What remains uncertain is sustainability. Will Manila temper its economic autonomy to maintain US protection? Can Washington offer predictable, reciprocal economic frameworks? If not, resentment may fester, particularly if external pressures from China rise or global economic trends shift. The upcoming August tariff deadline offers a window. Marcos’s team could use this to push back, conditional on further security concessions or deeper military cooperation. That would require balancing outperforming Vietnam and Indonesia, who already secured similar deals, but without undermining ASEAN norms.
Trump Tough, But Toward the Weak
Yes, Trump is a tough negotiator. But his toughness is best understood as a one‑sided hammer – effective, perhaps, in coercing smaller partners like the Philippines. He secures headline victories while sowing the seeds for future distrust.
For Manila, the choice was clear: economic pain in exchange for military protection. But whether this asymmetric bargain yields long‑term strategic dividends or boomerangs amid domestic backlash or regional rivals is a fraught question. Ultimately, the summit showcased a raw version of American statecraft—security first, trade second, and only on American terms.