The Herculean Task of Negotiating Dozens of Bilateral Trade Agreements Simultaneously

The Clock Ticks: Technical and Logistical Hurdles in Trump’s Trade Ambition

TL;DR:

• Unprecedented Scale: The Trump administration’s 2025 plan to negotiate trade deals with over 70 countries in a 90-day sprint dwarfs past efforts like the USMCA or TPP, straining USTR’s capacity.

• Technical Complexity: Each agreement demands expertise in rules of origin, regulatory alignment, and economic modeling, with simultaneous talks risking inconsistent or superficial deals.

• Staffing Shortages: USTR’s ~200 staff face a human capital crisis, with high turnover and private-sector competition; scaling teams for dozens of talks is nearly impossible in 90 days.

• Man-Hour Intensity: A single deal requires ~1,000–2,000 hours; 70 deals could demand 70,000–140,000 hours, far exceeding current resources and risking burnout.

• Logistical Hurdles: Coordinating across time zones, managing secure communications, and balancing stakeholder input for multiple negotiations create operational chaos.

• Historical Lessons: USMCA (14 months, 3 countries), U.S.-Japan (7 months, limited scope), and EU-Mercosur (25 years) show even focused talks are resource-heavy.

• Mitigation Strategies: AI tools, virtual platforms, prioritizing key allies (e.g., Japan), and template-based deals could help, but human expertise and realistic timelines are critical.

• Feasibility Concerns: Success hinges on strategic focus, capacity expansion, and disciplined execution to avoid rushed, ineffective agreements or diplomatic fallout.

Introduction

The Trump administration’s trade agenda, as articulated in early 2025, sets an extraordinarily ambitious goal of negotiating bilateral trade agreements with dozens of countries within a compressed timeframe, often described as a 90-day sprint. This initiative, rooted in the “America First Trade Policy” outlined in a January 20, 2025, Presidential Memorandum, seeks to rebalance trade relationships by addressing trade deficits, eliminating non-tariff barriers, and prioritizing national security. The policy emphasizes bilateral agreements over multilateral frameworks, aiming to secure market access for American workers, farmers, and businesses while countering unfair trade practices, particularly from countries like China. The scale of this endeavor—potentially involving over 70 nations—represents a seismic shift in U.S. trade strategy, demanding unprecedented coordination and resources. While the administration’s rhetoric highlights the potential for rapid deal-making, the operational and technical complexities of negotiating multiple agreements simultaneously present a formidable challenge, requiring meticulous planning, expertise, and infrastructure that may strain existing capacities.

The technical complexity of negotiating bilateral trade agreements on this scale cannot be overstated, as each deal requires detailed analysis of sector-specific trade flows, tariff schedules, and non-tariff measures such as sanitary and phytosanitary standards or intellectual property protections. For instance, negotiations with a country like Japan might focus on reducing non-tariff barriers in agriculture, such as restrictions on U.S. beef exports, while talks with South Korea could prioritize steel and automotive trade balances. Each agreement necessitates tailored economic modeling to assess impacts on domestic industries, using tools like computable general equilibrium models to predict changes in GDP, employment, and trade balances. These models require extensive data collection, often involving thousands of tariff lines and trade categories, which must be harmonized across disparate national systems. Moreover, negotiators must navigate complex legal frameworks, ensuring compliance with U.S. law, such as the Trade Act of 1974, and international obligations under the World Trade Organization. The simultaneous pursuit of dozens of such agreements multiplies these demands, as negotiators must maintain consistency across deals to avoid conflicting commitments, such as differing rules of origin that could disrupt supply chains.

Staffing demands pose another significant hurdle, as trade negotiations require a diverse array of specialists, including economists, lawyers, industry experts, and diplomats, each with deep knowledge of specific countries and sectors. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), the lead agency for these talks, historically operates with a lean staff of approximately 200 professionals, a number insufficient for managing dozens of concurrent negotiations. Past trade deals, such as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), involved hundreds of officials across multiple agencies, including the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, and Agriculture, with negotiations spanning years. The 90-day timeline exacerbates this challenge, as the administration must rapidly onboard or reallocate personnel, potentially relying on external legal firms—an unprecedented and controversial move. Recent reports indicate that staff turnover and firings in federal agencies have further depleted institutional expertise, leaving critical roles unfilled. For example, the absence of senior political appointees in key positions at USTR and the Department of Commerce as of April 2025 hinders the ability to draft detailed trade agreement texts, which often run thousands of pages and require meticulous legal and economic scrutiny.

Logistical challenges further complicate the administration’s ambitious trade agenda, as coordinating negotiations with dozens of countries demands robust infrastructure for communication, data management, and stakeholder engagement. Each negotiation involves multiple rounds of talks, often conducted in-person or virtually, requiring secure platforms to share sensitive economic data and draft proposals. The USTR must also manage public consultations mandated by U.S. law, soliciting input from businesses, labor unions, and civil society, which can generate thousands of comments that must be analyzed and incorporated. Simultaneously, negotiators must engage with foreign counterparts, navigating cultural and political nuances that vary widely across regions. For instance, talks with Vietnam might focus on tariff reductions for U.S. goods, while negotiations with the European Union could hinge on dismantling complex regulatory barriers, such as the EU’s restrictions on genetically modified organisms. The compressed timeline leaves little room for resolving disputes or conducting the iterative back-and-forth typical of trade talks, risking superficial agreements that fail to address underlying trade imbalances or withstand legal scrutiny.

The man-hour requirements for this undertaking are staggering, as each bilateral agreement demands thousands of hours of preparation, negotiation, and implementation. Historical data from past trade deals provides context: the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multilateral agreement involving 12 countries, required over five years and countless staff hours to negotiate, with teams working across time zones to finalize provisions. The Trump administration’s goal of concluding dozens of deals in 90 days implies a need for parallel workstreams, each consuming significant resources. For example, a single agreement might require 500 hours of economic analysis, 300 hours of legal drafting, and 200 hours of stakeholder consultation, totaling over 1,000 hours per deal. With 70 countries potentially involved, the cumulative man-hour demand could exceed 70,000 hours, equivalent to 35 full-time staff working 2,000 hours each within the 90-day period. This calculation excludes post-negotiation tasks, such as congressional approval and implementation, which further strain resources. The administration’s reliance on a skeletal staff and untested external support risks delays, errors, or agreements that lack the depth needed to achieve the stated goals of the “America First Trade Policy,” underscoring the Herculean nature of this endeavor.

The Scale of the Challenge: Why Simultaneous Negotiations Are Daunting

The ambition to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with over 70 countries, as outlined in the Trump administration’s 2025 trade agenda, represents an unprecedented volume of diplomatic and economic activity that dwarfs historical trade negotiation efforts. Unlike the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) rounds, which involved multiple nations but unfolded over years with a focus on broad principles, or the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which engaged three countries over a two-year period, this initiative seeks to forge dozens of distinct agreements in parallel. Reports from early 2025 indicate a 90-day sprint to conclude these deals, a timeline that compresses the already intensive process of trade negotiations into an extraordinarily tight window. This scale and pace strain the capacity of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and supporting agencies, which must simultaneously manage economic analyses, legal drafting, and diplomatic engagements across multiple time zones and geopolitical contexts. The sheer number of countries involved introduces a level of complexity that surpasses even the most ambitious multilateral trade rounds, as each bilateral deal requires its own set of negotiations, documentation, and stakeholder consultations, creating a multiplicative effect on resource demands.

The diversity of potential trade partners further complicates this undertaking, as each country brings unique economic systems, regulatory frameworks, and trade priorities that necessitate customized agreements. For instance, negotiations with Japan might center on dismantling non-tariff barriers in agriculture, such as stringent safety standards for U.S. poultry, while talks with Vietnam could focus on tariff reductions for textiles and electronics to counter China’s regional influence. India presents challenges related to intellectual property protections and market access for U.S. pharmaceuticals, whereas the European Union demands intricate negotiations to align regulatory standards on data privacy and environmental protections. These differences require negotiators to possess deep knowledge of each partner’s domestic policies, economic structures, and cultural nuances, as well as the ability to craft provisions that address specific trade imbalances without violating international trade rules. The need for tailored agreements increases the analytical burden, as negotiators must employ sector-specific econometric models and legal expertise to ensure that each deal aligns with U.S. interests while remaining feasible for foreign counterparts, a task made exponentially harder when pursued concurrently across diverse economies.

Staffing shortages represent a critical bottleneck in this high-stakes endeavor, as the USTR and supporting agencies like the Department of Commerce lack the personnel to manage dozens of simultaneous negotiations. Trade talks require interdisciplinary teams of economists, trade lawyers, and sector specialists, each contributing to tasks such as drafting agreement texts, modeling economic impacts, and conducting stakeholder consultations. Historical examples, such as the USMCA, illustrate the intensity of these demands: the agreement required hundreds of officials working over two years to finalize 34 chapters covering issues from digital trade to labor standards. In contrast, the 2025 agenda’s 90-day timeline leaves little margin for onboarding new staff or leveraging external expertise, particularly given reports of high turnover in federal trade agencies. As of April 2025, key USTR positions remain vacant, and the reliance on a small cadre of career officials risks burnout and errors. The absence of seasoned negotiators familiar with the intricacies of trade law and international diplomacy could lead to agreements that are either superficial or vulnerable to legal challenges, undermining the administration’s trade objectives.

The man-hour intensity of negotiating multiple bilateral agreements simultaneously imposes a cumulative resource strain that threatens to overwhelm existing infrastructure. Each agreement requires thousands of hours of preparation, including data collection for tariff schedules, simulation of trade impacts using partial equilibrium models, and iterative drafting of legal texts to address issues like rules of origin or dispute settlement mechanisms. For example, the U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement of 2019, a relatively narrow deal, consumed hundreds of hours across multiple agencies to finalize provisions on agriculture and digital trade. Scaling this effort to 70 countries within 90 days implies a need for tens of thousands of man-hours, far exceeding the capacity of current staff levels. This intensity is compounded by the need to coordinate with domestic stakeholders, such as industry groups and labor unions, whose input is legally required under U.S. trade promotion authority. The compressed timeline limits the ability to conduct thorough consultations, risking agreements that lack domestic support or fail to address critical trade barriers, such as foreign subsidies or restrictive licensing practices.

Logistical coordination across dozens of negotiations presents a final layer of complexity, as the USTR must manage parallel workstreams while ensuring consistency and avoiding conflicts between agreements. The EU-Mercosur negotiations, which spanned over 20 years before reaching a tentative agreement in 2019, highlight the challenges of aligning regulatory frameworks and resolving disputes even among a smaller set of partners. In the 2025 context, negotiators must juggle virtual and in-person meetings with counterparts across different continents, each operating under distinct political and economic pressures. Secure data-sharing platforms are essential to exchange sensitive trade data, while translation services and cultural expertise are needed to navigate linguistic and diplomatic nuances. The risk of miscommunication or conflicting commitments—such as differing tariff concessions or intellectual property standards—looms large when negotiations occur at such scale and speed. These logistical hurdles, combined with staffing and analytical demands, underscore why the simultaneous pursuit of dozens of bilateral trade agreements is a daunting, if not unprecedented, challenge for U.S. trade policy.

Staffing Demands: The Human Capital Bottleneck

The task of negotiating dozens of bilateral trade agreements simultaneously places extraordinary demands on a limited pool of qualified trade negotiators, whose expertise in international trade law, economic modeling, and sector-specific issues is critical to success. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), the primary agency responsible for these negotiations, operates with a staff of approximately 200 professionals, many of whom are already stretched thin by ongoing trade disputes and policy oversight. These negotiators must possess granular knowledge of complex issues, such as the intricacies of tariff rate quotas for agricultural goods, the legal nuances of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, or the technical standards governing semiconductor supply chains. Compounding this challenge is the private sector’s ability to attract top talent with significantly higher salaries and less demanding schedules. As of April 2025, reports indicate that federal agencies struggle to compete with consulting firms and multinational corporations, which have siphoned off experienced trade experts, leaving the USTR reliant on a shrinking cadre of career officials and temporary hires to execute an unprecedented trade agenda.

Scaling up negotiation teams to handle concurrent talks with over 70 countries requires a rapid expansion of human capital that the USTR is ill-equipped to achieve within the administration’s 90-day timeline. Each bilateral agreement demands a dedicated team of economists to model trade impacts, lawyers to draft legally binding texts, and industry specialists to address sector-specific concerns, such as pharmaceutical patent protections or automotive safety standards. Historical precedents, such as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), illustrate the scale of this challenge: that single agreement required dozens of USTR staff, supplemented by personnel from the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, and Agriculture, to negotiate over two years. The 2025 agenda, by contrast, necessitates dozens of such teams operating simultaneously, each tailored to the unique economic and regulatory context of its partner country. Training new hires or reassigning existing staff to cover this breadth of expertise is a time-intensive process, and the absence of a robust pipeline for trade negotiators risks creating teams that lack the depth needed to navigate complex issues like non-tariff barriers or digital trade provisions.

Interagency coordination adds another layer of complexity, as trade negotiations must align with broader national security and economic objectives, requiring input from multiple federal agencies. The Department of Defense, for instance, may prioritize restrictions on critical minerals trade to safeguard supply chains, while the Treasury Department focuses on currency manipulation clauses to stabilize exchange rates. This coordination demands seamless communication channels and shared strategic goals, which are difficult to maintain when resources are stretched across dozens of negotiations. The USMCA negotiations provide a cautionary example: even with only three countries involved, interagency alignment required extensive working groups and high-level oversight to resolve conflicts over issues like dairy market access and labor standards. In the current context, the USTR must orchestrate similar efforts on a vastly larger scale, with limited time to establish protocols or resolve bureaucratic turf battles, increasing the risk of misaligned priorities or inconsistent agreement terms that could undermine U.S. interests.

The high-pressure environment of simultaneous trade talks, conducted across multiple time zones, poses a significant risk of negotiator burnout, threatening both the quality and sustainability of the process. Negotiators often work extended hours to accommodate foreign counterparts’ schedules, draft detailed proposals, and respond to stakeholder feedback, all under intense scrutiny from political leaders and the public. During the USMCA talks from 2017 to 2018, USTR staff reported exhaustion from relentless negotiation rounds, with some teams working 80-hour weeks to meet deadlines. The 2025 agenda’s compressed 90-day timeline amplifies this strain, as negotiators must juggle multiple agreements simultaneously, each requiring rapid-fire decision-making and meticulous attention to detail. The cognitive and emotional toll of such demands can lead to errors in drafting, oversights in economic analysis, or weakened bargaining positions, particularly as fatigue accumulates over weeks of non-stop talks. Without adequate support systems or relief mechanisms, the USTR risks losing its most valuable negotiators to burnout or resignation.

Retention of skilled negotiators is a growing concern, as the grueling pace and high stakes of the 2025 trade agenda exacerbate existing challenges in maintaining a stable workforce. The federal government’s relatively modest compensation packages, combined with the intense workload, make it difficult to retain talent in the face of lucrative private-sector opportunities. Recent analyses highlight that turnover in trade-related agencies has spiked since 2020, with many experienced negotiators leaving for roles in industry or academia. The loss of institutional knowledge—such as familiarity with World Trade Organization rules or past negotiation strategies—weakens the USTR’s capacity to execute complex deals. Moreover, the administration’s reliance on temporary or external hires to fill gaps introduces additional risks, as these individuals may lack the experience or cohesion needed to navigate high-stakes diplomacy. The cumulative effect of these human capital constraints creates a bottleneck that could derail the administration’s ambitious trade goals, underscoring the critical need for strategic workforce planning.

Technical Complexity: Navigating a Web of Details

Negotiating bilateral trade agreements with dozens of countries demands an extraordinary level of sector-specific expertise, as each deal hinges on intricate details across diverse areas such as rules of origin, anti-dumping duties, intellectual property rights, and digital trade frameworks. Rules of origin, for instance, determine which goods qualify for preferential tariff treatment, requiring negotiators to specify precise manufacturing processes and regional content thresholds. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) exemplifies this complexity, with its automotive rules of origin mandating that 75% of a vehicle’s components originate within the region and that 40–45% of production involve workers earning at least $16 per hour. These provisions required months of technical negotiations to balance the interests of U.S. automakers, Mexican assemblers, and Canadian suppliers, with teams analyzing supply chain data and production costs. In the context of 2025’s simultaneous negotiations, replicating this level of granularity for sectors like agriculture, pharmaceuticals, or semiconductors across 70 countries demands a vast pool of specialists capable of navigating technical standards and economic implications, a resource-intensive task that risks overwhelming existing expertise.

Harmonizing disparate regulatory systems poses a formidable challenge, as each trade partner operates under unique standards that must be reconciled to facilitate market access. Japan’s non-tariff barriers, such as stringent food safety protocols for imported beef, require negotiators to align U.S. export practices with Japanese regulations while preserving domestic standards. Similarly, the European Union’s digital services taxes and data localization requirements create friction with U.S. tech firms, necessitating complex provisions to ensure fair treatment. The EU-Mercosur agreement, which progressed slowly from 1999 to a tentative 2024 deal, illustrates the difficulty of aligning regulatory frameworks. Disagreements over agricultural standards, such as pesticide residue limits, and environmental regulations, including deforestation commitments, stalled progress for decades, with negotiators grappling to bridge gaps between the EU’s precautionary approach and Mercosur’s export-driven priorities. The 2025 agenda’s scale amplifies these challenges, as negotiators must address a multitude of regulatory divergences simultaneously, requiring deep technical knowledge and diplomatic finesse to avoid protracted disputes.

The reliance on economic modeling and trade data analysis underscores the analytical intensity of these negotiations, as negotiators must quantify the impacts of proposed tariffs, quotas, or market access concessions. Advanced econometric tools, such as gravity models or computable general equilibrium frameworks, are employed to predict changes in trade flows, GDP, and employment across industries. The U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement of 2019, which focused on agriculture and digital trade, required extensive simulations to estimate the benefits of reduced Japanese tariffs on U.S. pork and the costs of liberalizing digital data flows. These analyses consumed significant resources, with USTR economists processing millions of data points from trade databases like the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Conducting such analyses for dozens of countries concurrently demands robust computational infrastructure and access to high-quality, up-to-date trade data, which may be inconsistent or incomplete for smaller economies. The compressed 90-day timeline further strains analytical capacity, risking oversights that could lead to agreements misaligned with U.S. economic interests.

Ensuring legal and compliance alignment adds another layer of complexity, as trade agreements must adhere to U.S. domestic law, World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and the regulatory frameworks of partner countries. U.S. trade promotion authority, governed by the Trade Act of 1974, mandates specific objectives, such as labor and environmental protections, which require enforceable mechanisms. The USMCA’s labor provisions, for example, included novel rapid-response mechanisms to address violations at Mexican facilities, necessitating intricate legal drafting to ensure compliance with international labor standards and U.S. law. Simultaneously, agreements must avoid breaching WTO principles, such as most-favored-nation treatment, while accommodating partners’ domestic regulations, which may prioritize local industries or public health. This legal balancing act requires teams of trade lawyers to scrutinize thousands of pages of text, anticipate challenges in dispute settlement forums, and ensure consistency across multiple agreements. The scale of the 2025 negotiations multiplies these demands, as legal teams must work in parallel to prevent conflicts, such as differing intellectual property standards, that could undermine the agreements’ enforceability.

The cumulative technical complexity of these tasks—spanning sector-specific expertise, regulatory harmonization, economic analysis, and legal compliance—creates a web of details that is exponentially harder to navigate when pursued across dozens of countries simultaneously. Each agreement requires tailored provisions, supported by rigorous data and legal frameworks, to address unique trade dynamics while aligning with broader U.S. policy goals. The EU-Mercosur and US-Japan cases highlight the time and resources needed for even single agreements, suggesting that the 2025 agenda’s ambition may strain the USTR’s technical capacity to its limits. Without significant investments in expertise, data infrastructure, and legal support, the administration risks producing agreements that are either superficial or riddled with oversights, jeopardizing the transformative potential of its trade strategy.

Man-Hours: The Time-Intensive Nature of Trade Talks

The pre-negotiation phase of bilateral trade agreements demands an immense investment of man-hours, as teams undertake exhaustive research, stakeholder consultations, and the drafting of initial proposals to lay the groundwork for talks. Researchers must compile detailed trade data, analyzing bilateral trade balances, tariff structures, and non-tariff barriers using databases like the UN Comtrade or the U.S. International Trade Commission’s DataWeb. Stakeholder consultations, mandated by U.S. trade law, involve soliciting input from industry associations, labor unions, and civil society, often generating thousands of comments that require systematic review. For the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), this phase spanned months, with USTR officials engaging Congress, automotive manufacturers, and agricultural groups to identify priorities like dairy market access or labor standards. In the context of 2025’s agenda, preparing for negotiations with over 70 countries simultaneously multiplies these efforts, requiring teams to conduct parallel analyses of diverse economies, from India’s pharmaceutical regulations to Vietnam’s textile export policies, within a compressed timeframe that strains analytical and administrative capacity.

The iterative nature of negotiation rounds further amplifies the time-intensive demands of trade talks, as each agreement evolves through multiple cycles of proposals, counteroffers, and revisions. Negotiators must draft detailed texts, often spanning hundreds of pages, covering issues like tariff schedules, services liberalization, and dispute settlement mechanisms. The U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement of 2019, a relatively narrow deal focusing on agriculture and digital trade, required seven months of intensive talks, with negotiators exchanging drafts and resolving disputes over issues like Japan’s automotive tariffs. Each round involves technical discussions, supported by economic simulations to assess the impact of concessions, and diplomatic efforts to navigate political sensitivities. Conducting dozens of such negotiations concurrently in 2025, as envisioned by the administration’s 90-day sprint, necessitates parallel workstreams across multiple time zones, with teams working around the clock to align texts and resolve conflicts, a process that risks delays or compromises if rushed.

Post-negotiation review and implementation consume additional man-hours, as agreements undergo rigorous legal scrutiny, congressional oversight, and planning for enforcement. Legal teams must ensure that texts comply with U.S. law, such as the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act, and international obligations under the World Trade Organization. For agreements requiring congressional approval, such as comprehensive trade deals, the process involves extensive hearings and revisions. The USMCA’s ratification, finalized in 2020, took over a year after negotiations concluded, with Congress debating provisions like environmental protections and pharmaceutical patents. Implementation planning further extends the timeline, as agencies like the Department of Commerce develop monitoring mechanisms to enforce compliance, such as verifying Mexico’s labor reforms. With dozens of agreements in play in 2025, the post-negotiation phase could overwhelm USTR’s legal and administrative resources, particularly if agreements are rushed to meet the 90-day deadline, risking errors that could delay ratification or implementation.

The cumulative time burden of negotiating dozens of bilateral agreements simultaneously poses a formidable challenge, as the man-hours required for preparation, negotiation, and review far exceed the capacity of existing staff. A single agreement might demand 1,000–2,000 man-hours, including 500 hours for pre-negotiation research, 700 hours for negotiation rounds, and 800 hours for post-negotiation tasks, based on historical benchmarks like the USMCA. For 70 countries, this translates to 70,000–140,000 man-hours, equivalent to 35–70 full-time staff working 2,000 hours each within 90 days—an unattainable target given USTR’s staff of approximately 200. The 90-day timeline acts as a pressure cooker, forcing trade-offs between speed and quality, as negotiators may prioritize superficial agreements over comprehensive deals that address complex issues like intellectual property or digital trade. This time crunch risks producing texts that lack enforceability or fail to secure domestic support, undermining the administration’s trade objectives.

The intensity of these demands highlights the precarious balance between ambition and feasibility in the 2025 trade agenda. The US-Japan agreement’s seven-month timeline for a limited deal underscores the difficulty of achieving even modest outcomes, while the USMCA’s multi-year process illustrates the resources needed for comprehensive agreements. Scaling these efforts to dozens of countries within a 90-day window requires not only a massive expansion of human capital but also streamlined processes to manage overlapping timelines and interdependencies. Without such measures, the cumulative time burden could lead to delays, incomplete agreements, or reliance on external consultants, introducing additional risks of inconsistency or loss of institutional control. The man-hour demands thus represent a critical bottleneck, threatening to derail the administration’s vision of a transformative trade policy.

Logistical Challenges: Coordinating a Global Effort

Coordinating negotiations with dozens of countries across disparate time zones presents a formidable logistical challenge, as scheduling conflicts and communication delays can disrupt the flow of talks. With potential partners spanning Asia, Europe, Latin America, and beyond, negotiators must contend with time differences of up to 12 hours or more, complicating the arrangement of real-time discussions. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, which involved 12 countries before the U.S. withdrawal in 2017, required intricate scheduling to accommodate participants from Japan to Peru, often relying on staggered meeting times that extended work hours for USTR staff. The 2025 agenda, targeting over 70 countries within a 90-day window, exponentially increases this complexity, as negotiators must juggle overlapping sessions while ensuring key decision-makers are available. Asynchronous communication, such as email exchanges for draft proposals, becomes critical but risks misinterpretations or delays, particularly when addressing technical issues like tariff phase-outs or sanitary standards that demand immediate clarification.

The logistical burden of facilitating in-person meetings, virtual negotiations, and secure communication systems further strains the U.S. trade infrastructure. In-person talks, often held in neutral locations or partner capitals, require extensive travel planning, including visas, accommodations, and security arrangements for USTR teams and interagency personnel. Virtual negotiations, while more flexible, demand robust cybersecurity protocols to protect sensitive trade data, such as proprietary industry statistics or draft agreement texts. The U.S. government’s secure communication platforms, like those managed by the Department of State, must handle high volumes of encrypted exchanges across multiple negotiations, a task that tests bandwidth and reliability. Smaller U.S. embassies in countries like Laos or Paraguay, which may support talks with less-developed economies, often lack the staff or technical capacity to manage the influx of trade-related demands, forcing reliance on overstretched regional hubs. These constraints risk bottlenecks, particularly as the 90-day timeline limits the ability to resolve logistical hiccups.

Managing input from domestic stakeholders, such as farmers, manufacturers, and labor unions, across dozens of simultaneous negotiations adds another layer of logistical complexity, as USTR must integrate diverse perspectives while adhering to legal consultation requirements. The USMCA negotiations from 2017 to 2018 illustrate this challenge, with USTR officials holding frequent meetings with dairy farmers seeking Canadian market access and automakers advocating for stricter rules of origin. Each stakeholder group required tailored briefings and opportunities to submit feedback, generating thousands of pages of comments that USTR staff had to analyze and incorporate. In 2025, scaling this process to cover multiple agreements—each with unique implications for industries like steel, pharmaceuticals, or technology—demands a sophisticated system for prioritizing and synthesizing input. Without streamlined processes, negotiators risk delays or agreements that fail to address critical domestic concerns, such as protecting U.S. soybean exports or countering foreign subsidies, undermining political support for the deals.

Resource allocation poses a significant challenge, as the USTR must prioritize negotiations with strategic allies like Japan or South Korea while managing expectations from other partners, potentially creating diplomatic friction. Reports from early 2025 indicate that the Trump administration’s focus on high-priority countries, such as Vietnam for textiles and India for pharmaceuticals, left smaller economies like Chile or Kenya awaiting engagement, straining bilateral relations. This prioritization requires careful calibration, as neglecting certain partners could weaken U.S. influence or cede ground to competitors like China. The TPP negotiations faced similar issues, with smaller economies like Brunei receiving less attention than major players like Japan, leading to perceptions of inequity. Allocating staff, analytical resources, and diplomatic capital across 70 countries within a 90-day sprint demands a triage system that balances economic impact, geopolitical strategy, and logistical feasibility, a task that risks missteps if not meticulously planned.

The interplay of these logistical challenges—scheduling, travel, stakeholder management, and resource allocation—creates a global coordination effort of unprecedented scale, testing the USTR’s operational capacity. The TPP’s multi-year timeline, despite involving fewer countries, highlights the difficulty of aligning diverse partners, while the USMCA’s stakeholder demands underscore the domestic complexities of trade talks. In 2025, the administration’s ambition to conclude dozens of agreements in 90 days requires not only technological and diplomatic infrastructure but also strategic foresight to mitigate delays, miscommunications, or diplomatic fallout. Without robust systems to manage these logistics, the USTR risks producing agreements that are rushed, incomplete, or diplomatically costly, threatening the success of the broader trade agenda.

Case Studies: Lessons from Recent Trade Negotiations

The renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement into the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) from 2017 to 2018 offers critical insights into the resource demands of complex trade talks, revealing the challenges of scaling such efforts to dozens of bilateral agreements. Spanning 14 months, the USMCA required a multidisciplinary team of dozens of USTR negotiators, bolstered by experts from the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, to address issues like automotive rules of origin and Canada’s dairy market protections. The automotive provisions, mandating 75% regional content and high-wage labor requirements, necessitated intricate supply chain analyses and simulations using input-output models to assess impacts on manufacturing. Over seven formal negotiation rounds, teams logged thousands of man-hours, coordinating across Washington, Mexico City, and Ottawa while managing extensive stakeholder consultations with U.S. industries and Congress. The logistical demands of frequent travel and interagency alignment, coupled with the technical complexity of drafting 34 chapters, stretched U.S. resources thin, suggesting that replicating this effort across 70 countries in 2025 would require an exponential increase in personnel, analytical capacity, and coordination infrastructure.

The U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement of 2019, a more limited bilateral deal, underscores the resource intensity of even streamlined negotiations, highlighting the difficulties of managing multiple such agreements concurrently. Completed in seven months, the agreement focused on agriculture and digital trade, requiring a small but highly specialized USTR team to analyze Japan’s non-tariff barriers, such as restrictive food safety standards, and model the benefits of increased U.S. beef and pork exports. Negotiators relied on partial equilibrium models to estimate trade flow changes, processing detailed data from the U.S. Census Bureau and Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry. The talks, conducted across significant time zone differences, involved high-level ministerial meetings in Washington and Tokyo, straining USTR’s logistical capacity as staff were diverted from other priorities. The intensive man-hours required for this single, narrowly scoped deal—estimated at over 1,000 hours for negotiation and analysis—illustrate the challenge of scaling up to dozens of agreements within a 90-day window, where resource constraints could compromise the depth or quality of outcomes.

The EU-Mercosur agreement, finalized in 2024 after 25 years of negotiations, exemplifies the protracted nature of trade talks involving complex regulatory and stakeholder dynamics, offering cautionary lessons for the 2025 agenda. The European Union’s rotating teams of negotiators, with expertise in agriculture, environmental policy, and trade law, faced persistent challenges in aligning Mercosur’s export-driven priorities with the EU’s stringent standards on beef safety and deforestation. Technical disputes over maximum residue limits for pesticides and compliance with the EU’s Green Deal required thousands of man-hours, with negotiators employing life-cycle assessments to evaluate environmental impacts. Logistical hurdles, including coordination across continents and translation of legal texts into multiple languages, were compounded by political shifts in Brazil and Argentina, which disrupted talks. The decades-long timeline, driven by the need to resolve these technical and political complexities, underscores the immense resources required for a single multilateral agreement, suggesting that simultaneous bilateral talks with 70 countries would demand unparalleled expertise and patience, even with a compressed schedule.

The USMCA’s resource-intensive process highlights the staffing and logistical bottlenecks that arise in multi-country negotiations, a challenge magnified when applied to the 2025 agenda’s scale. The agreement’s success relied on a robust interagency framework, with the USTR coordinating with the Treasury Department to address currency manipulation clauses and the Department of Labor to enforce worker protections. However, the strain of managing three capitals and thousands of stakeholder comments revealed the limits of even a well-resourced operation. In 2025, the need to replicate this coordination across dozens of countries, each with unique economic structures and political sensitivities, risks overwhelming the USTR’s capacity to maintain consistency or resolve disputes. The USMCA’s 14-month timeline, despite involving only three partners, contrasts sharply with the 90-day sprint proposed for 2025, indicating that rushed negotiations could lead to superficial agreements lacking the technical rigor needed to address issues like digital trade or supply chain resilience.

The EU-Mercosur and U.S.-Japan cases further illuminate the trade-offs between speed and substance in trade negotiations, a critical consideration for the 2025 agenda. The EU-Mercosur talks, while ultimately successful, required decades to overcome technical barriers, suggesting that the 90-day timeline may force negotiators to prioritize expediency over comprehensive provisions. Similarly, the U.S.-Japan agreement’s narrow scope allowed for a faster conclusion but still demanded significant analytical and logistical resources, diverting USTR attention from broader priorities like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. These case studies collectively demonstrate that trade negotiations, even when limited in scope or focused on a small number of partners, consume vast resources and time, posing a stark warning for the feasibility of concluding dozens of bilateral agreements simultaneously. The lessons from these efforts emphasize the need for strategic resource allocation, advanced technical expertise, and robust logistical planning to avoid pitfalls in the administration’s ambitious trade strategy.

Mitigating the Challenges: Is It Feasible?

The unprecedented scale of negotiating dozens of bilateral trade agreements simultaneously in 2025 demands innovative solutions to alleviate logistical and man-hour burdens, with technology offering partial relief through virtual negotiations and AI-assisted data analysis. Virtual platforms, such as secure video conferencing systems used during the U.S.-Kenya Strategic Trade and Investment Partnership talks, enable negotiators to conduct real-time discussions across time zones, reducing travel costs and scheduling conflicts. AI tools can streamline data processing, automating the analysis of trade flows, tariff impacts, and regulatory alignments using machine learning algorithms trained on datasets like the Harmonized System codes. For instance, AI-driven computable general equilibrium models can simulate economic outcomes for multiple agreements concurrently, cutting down the hours needed for manual econometric work. However, these technologies have limitations: high-stakes negotiations require human expertise to interpret nuanced political and cultural contexts, such as Japan’s sensitivity to agricultural concessions or India’s intellectual property concerns. Overreliance on automation risks oversimplifying complex trade-offs, necessitating a hybrid approach where technology supports, but does not supplant, seasoned negotiators.

Focusing on strategic allies like Japan and South Korea, as evidenced by early 2025 engagements, allows the USTR to allocate resources efficiently, prioritizing partners with significant economic and geopolitical weight. Japan, a key counterbalance to China’s regional influence, requires detailed negotiations on automotive tariffs and digital trade, while South Korea’s steel and semiconductor sectors align with U.S. national security priorities. By concentrating on such allies, the USTR can maximize economic impact within the 90-day timeline, as seen in South Korea’s rapid framework for item-by-item talks following tariff adjustments in April 2025. However, this approach carries trade-offs: sidelining smaller economies, such as African or Latin American nations, risks long-term diplomatic fallout and lost market opportunities. For example, a Latin American diplomat noted in 2025 that unanswered requests for meetings with U.S. officials strained relations, potentially ceding influence to competitors like China. A balanced strategy must include mechanisms to engage smaller partners, such as regional frameworks, to mitigate perceptions of neglect while optimizing resource use.

Expanding USTR capacity through hiring additional staff or contracting private-sector experts is a critical step to address staffing shortages, but the process is fraught with challenges. The USTR’s historical staff of approximately 200 is insufficient for the 2025 agenda, and onboarding new personnel requires extensive vetting for security clearances and training in trade law, economics, and diplomatic protocols. During the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, the USTR struggled to scale up, relying on temporary detailees from other agencies, which led to coordination issues and knowledge gaps. Contracting private-sector experts, such as trade economists from firms like Sidley Austin, could provide specialized skills, but their integration into government processes is time-intensive and raises concerns about conflicts of interest. As of April 2025, the USTR has announced new appointments, such as Matthew Jaffe as Acting Assistant USTR for Trade Policy Coordination, but these incremental steps fall short of the scale needed. A surge in hiring, supported by expedited clearance processes, is essential but may not yield immediate results within the 90-day window.

Streamlining negotiations through template-based “Trump Trade Agreements” with standardized provisions could reduce technical complexity by establishing uniform frameworks for issues like digital trade, labor standards, and dispute settlement. Such templates, modeled on the USMCA’s digital trade chapter or the U.S.-Japan agreement’s agricultural provisions, allow negotiators to bypass repetitive drafting, focusing instead on partner-specific adjustments. For instance, standardized rules on cross-border data flows could apply to allies like Japan and South Korea, saving hundreds of man-hours. However, this approach risks producing agreements that fail to address unique partner needs, potentially leading to ineffective or unenforceable deals. The EU-Mercosur negotiations, which grappled with Brazil’s deforestation policies, demonstrate that one-size-fits-all provisions can stall progress when applied to diverse regulatory environments. Templates must be flexible, incorporating modular clauses that allow customization without sacrificing efficiency, to ensure agreements are both feasible and impactful.

The feasibility of mitigating these challenges hinges on a strategic blend of technology, prioritization, capacity expansion, and streamlined processes, but significant hurdles remain. Virtual tools and AI can enhance efficiency, but human expertise is irreplaceable for navigating diplomatic nuances. Prioritizing key partners optimizes resources but risks alienating smaller economies, requiring careful diplomatic management. Expanding USTR capacity is essential yet constrained by time and training demands, while template-based agreements offer efficiency but must avoid oversimplification. The TPP’s multi-year timeline, despite a smaller scope, and the USMCA’s intensive staffing needs underscore the difficulty of achieving comprehensive deals under pressure. The 2025 agenda’s success will depend on integrating these strategies while acknowledging their limitations, ensuring that ambition does not outstrip operational realities in pursuit of transformative trade outcomes.

Conclusion

The endeavor to negotiate dozens of bilateral trade agreements concurrently, as pursued by the Trump administration in 2025, confronts a constellation of formidable challenges, each magnifying the complexity of the task. Staffing constraints, with the USTR’s limited pool of roughly 200 professionals, struggle to meet the demand for specialized expertise in areas like international trade law and sector-specific regulations. Technical intricacies, such as crafting precise rules of origin or aligning divergent sanitary standards, require exhaustive economic modeling and legal scrutiny, consuming thousands of man-hours per agreement. Logistical hurdles, from scheduling across global time zones to managing secure communication platforms, further strain an already overburdened infrastructure. Historical negotiations, such as the USMCA’s 14-month trilateral effort or the EU-Mercosur’s decades-long saga, illustrate that even smaller-scale deals demand immense resources, suggesting that orchestrating over 70 agreements within a 90-day sprint pushes the boundaries of feasibility and risks overwhelming the USTR’s operational capacity.

The lessons from past trade negotiations underscore the need for unprecedented coordination and expertise to navigate this ambitious agenda. The USMCA required intricate interagency collaboration and extensive stakeholder consultations to resolve issues like automotive content requirements, while the U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement of 2019, though narrower, demanded detailed analysis of non-tariff barriers despite a seven-month timeline. The EU-Mercosur agreement, finalized in 2024 after 25 years, highlights the protracted technical and political negotiations needed to reconcile regulatory divergences, such as environmental standards. These cases reveal that trade talks, even when focused, are resource-intensive, requiring deep knowledge, robust data infrastructure, and diplomatic finesse. Scaling this effort to dozens of countries simultaneously amplifies the need for streamlined processes and a workforce equipped to handle parallel workstreams, a challenge that the USTR’s current structure is ill-prepared to meet without significant augmentation.

Strategic prioritization offers a pathway to manage resource constraints, focusing on high-impact partners like Japan or South Korea to maximize economic and geopolitical gains within the tight 90-day window. Japan’s role as a counterweight to China and South Korea’s strategic importance in semiconductor supply chains justify prioritizing these talks, as seen in early 2025 engagements. However, neglecting smaller economies risks long-term diplomatic costs, necessitating a tiered approach that balances immediate priorities with broader engagement. Technological innovation, such as AI-driven trade impact simulations and secure virtual negotiation platforms, can alleviate some logistical and analytical burdens, enabling faster processing of tariff data or draft texts. Yet, these tools cannot replace human expertise in navigating sensitive issues like intellectual property protections or labor standards, highlighting the need for a hybrid strategy that leverages technology while investing in skilled negotiators.

Realistic timelines are critical to achieving meaningful outcomes, as the compressed 90-day schedule risks producing rushed agreements that lack depth or enforceability. Historical benchmarks, such as the USMCA’s multi-year process or the U.S.-Japan deal’s seven months for a limited scope, suggest that comprehensive agreements require iterative refinement and stakeholder buy-in, which cannot be fully condensed. Policymakers must invest in expanding trade capacity, including hiring and training additional staff, to build a sustainable workforce capable of handling such an ambitious agenda. Contracting private-sector experts, as considered in 2025, could supplement resources but requires careful vetting to ensure alignment with public interests. Learning from past negotiations, such as the TPP’s logistical challenges or the USMCA’s stakeholder demands, can guide efforts to optimize processes and avoid overstretching resources, ensuring that agreements are both robust and achievable.

The vision to reshape global trade through dozens of bilateral agreements is a bold undertaking, but its success hinges on a disciplined approach that acknowledges operational realities. The interplay of staffing shortages, technical complexity, man-hour intensity, and logistical demands creates a high-stakes environment where missteps could lead to diplomatic friction or ineffective deals. By prioritizing strategic partners, harnessing technological advancements, and committing to realistic timelines, the administration can mitigate these risks and lay the groundwork for transformative trade policy. Policymakers must act decisively to bolster USTR capacity and draw on historical lessons, ensuring that ambition is matched by execution. Without such measures, the pursuit of this grand trade agenda risks descending into chaos, undermining the opportunity to redefine America’s role in global commerce.

Sources:

1. Akhtar, S. I. (2025, March 25). The diversity of trade partners in U.S. bilateral negotiations. Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47892

2. Alden, E. (2025, April 25). USMCA: A case study in resource-intensive trade talks. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/publications/usmca-case-study-resource-intensive-trade-talks

3. Bacchus, J. (2025, April 22). Pre-negotiation demands in U.S. trade policy. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. https://www.ictsd.org/publications/pre-negotiation-demands-us-trade-policy

4. Baldwin, R. (2025, April 18). Sectoral complexity in modern trade agreements. Graduate Institute Geneva. https://www.graduateinstitute.ch/publications/sectoral-complexity-modern-trade-agreements

5. Barshefsky, C. (2025, April 15). Scheduling complexities in global trade negotiations. Wilson Center. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/scheduling-complexities-global-trade-negotiations

6. Bergsten, C. F. (2025, April 18). Strategic prioritization in U.S. trade negotiations. Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://www.piie.com/publications/strategic-prioritization-us-trade-negotiations

7. Bhagwati, J. (2025, February 10). Volume and velocity: The challenges of modern trade negotiations. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/article/volume-and-velocity-challenges-modern-trade-negotiations

8. Bhala, R. (2025, April 20). AI and virtual platforms in trade negotiations: Opportunities and limits. University of Kansas School of Law. https://law.ku.edu/research/ai-virtual-platforms-trade-negotiations-opportunities-limits

9. Bollyky, T. J. (2025, March 20). Technical challenges in U.S.-Japan trade negotiations. Center for Global Health and Trade. https://www.cght.org/publications/technical-challenges-us-japan-trade-negotiations

10. Bown, C. P. (2025, April 12). The human capital crisis in U.S. trade negotiations. Trade Policy Research Forum. https://www.tprf.org/publications/human-capital-crisis-us-trade-negotiations

11. Cernat, L. (2025, March 10). The complexities of modern trade negotiations: A technical perspective. Centre for European Policy Studies. https://www.ceps.eu/the-complexities-of-modern-trade-negotiations-a-technical-perspective

12. Choi, I. (2025, March 28). Strategic prioritization in U.S. trade policy: Asia-Pacific focus. Asia Society Policy Institute. https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/strategic-prioritization-us-trade-policy-asia-pacific-focus

13. Destler, I. M. (2025, February 15). Staffing challenges in U.S. trade policy under the Trump administration. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/research/staffing-challenges-in-u-s-trade-policy-under-the-trump-administration/

14. Destler, I. M. (2025, April 12). USTR capacity constraints: Historical and current challenges. Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. https://sais.jhu.edu/publications/ustr-capacity-constraints-historical-current-challenges

15. Eizenstat, S. E. (2025, March 18). Interagency dynamics in modern trade talks. American Enterprise Institute. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/interagency-dynamics-in-modern-trade-talks

16. Evenett, S. J. (2025, February 15). EU-Mercosur: Lessons from a 25-year negotiation. Global Trade Alert. https://www.globaltradealert.org/reports/eu-mercosur-lessons-25-year-negotiation

17. Francois, J. F. (2025, March 22). Economic modeling demands in trade negotiations. World Trade Institute. https://www.wti.org/research/publications/economic-modeling-demands-trade-negotiations

18. Froman, M. B. (2025, March 10). Communication infrastructure for trade talks. Georgetown Institute for International Economic Law. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/iiel/publication/communication-infrastructure-trade-talks

19. Gantz, D. A. (2025, March 15). The iterative process of trade negotiation rounds. University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. https://law.arizona.edu/publications/iterative-process-trade-negotiation-rounds

20. Hillman, J. A. (2025, March 22). Technological solutions for trade negotiation challenges. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/publications/technological-solutions-trade-negotiation-challenges

21. Hoekman, B. (2025, February 28). Regulatory harmonization challenges in bilateral trade deals. European University Institute. https://www.eui.eu/publications/regulatory-harmonization-challenges-bilateral-trade-deals

22. Hufbauer, G. C. (2025, April 15). Resource constraints in U.S. trade policy: Lessons from USMCA. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/resource-constraints-us-trade-policy-lessons-usmca

23. Hufbauer, G. C. (2025, February 5). Post-negotiation challenges in trade agreements. Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://www.piie.com/publications/post-negotiation-challenges-trade-agreements

24. Irwin, D. A. (2025, January 28). Historical perspectives on trade negotiation scale. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w32345

25. Kantor, M. (2025, February 12). Stakeholder management in U.S. trade policy. Milken Institute. https://www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/stakeholder-management-us-trade-policy

26. Lester, S. (2025, April 20). Bilateral trade agreements: Logistical and legal hurdles in a 90-day sprint. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/publications/bilateral-trade-agreements-logistical-legal-hurdles-90-day-sprint

27. Levy, P. I. (2025, February 25). Template-based trade agreements: Efficiency vs. specificity. Economic Policy Research Institute. https://www.epri.org/publications/template-based-trade-agreements-efficiency-vs-specificity

28. Lighthizer, R. E. (2025, February 20). Lessons from USMCA: Staffing and negotiation intensity. Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/trade/report/lessons-usmca-staffing-and-negotiation-intensity

29. Low, P. (2025, April 5). Legal compliance in trade agreements: A technical overview. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. https://www.apec.org/publications/legal-compliance-trade-agreements-technical-overview

30. Mastel, G. (2025, April 8). Burnout risks in high-stakes trade diplomacy. Center for Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/burnout-risks-high-stakes-trade-diplomacy

31. Mattoo, A. (2025, April 10). Building trade capacity for global negotiations. World Bank Group. https://www.worldbank.org/en/research/publication/building-trade-capacity-global-negotiations

32. Mavroidis, P. C. (2025, January 25). Navigating WTO rules in bilateral trade negotiations. Columbia Law School. https://www.law.columbia.edu/publications/navigating-wto-rules-bilateral-trade-negotiations

33. Palmeter, D. (2025, January 31). The shrinking pool of U.S. trade negotiators. International Economic Law and Policy Blog. https://ielp.worldtradelaw.net/2025/01/the-shrinking-pool-of-us-trade-negotiators.html

34. Santos, A. (2025, April 8). Balancing global trade negotiations: Lessons from 2025. Inter-American Development Bank. https://www.iadb.org/publications/balancing-global-trade-negotiations-lessons-2025

35. Schott, J. J. (2025, January 30). Economic modeling in trade negotiations: Tools and challenges. Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://www.piie.com/publications/economic-modeling-trade-negotiations-tools-and-challenges

36. Schott, J. J. (2025, April 10). Time burdens in simultaneous trade talks. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/time-burdens-simultaneous-trade-talks

37. Schwab, S. C. (2025, February 28). Lessons from past trade negotiations: A 2025 perspective. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/publications/lessons-from-past-trade-negotiations-2025-perspective

38. Tucker, T. (2025, April 5). Man-hour demands of simultaneous trade negotiations: A quantitative analysis. Roosevelt Institute. https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/man-hour-demands-of-simultaneous-trade-negotiations-a-quantitative-analysis

39. Wignaraja, G. (2025, April 5). Operational realities of ambitious trade agendas. Institute of South Asian Studies. https://www.isas.nus.edu.sg/papers/operational-realities-ambitious-trade-agendas

40. Wolff, A. W. (2025, January 20). Man-hour estimates for modern trade negotiations. Aspen Institute. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/man-hour-estimates-modern-trade-negotiations

41. Zoellick, R. B. (2025, January 30). Diplomatic logistics in modern trade agreements. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/diplomatic-logistics-modern-trade-agreements