MANILA – The 10 percent tariff imposed by President Donald Trump on Vietnamese goods as a temporary measure while trade negotiations continue is set to expire on Friday. Hanoi had sent a message to Washington the day before: Close the investigation, and let the result reflect Vietnam’s cooperation.
Vietnam’s Foreign Ministry said Thursday it remains committed to ending bilateral trade talks with the United States, and called on the U.S. Trade Representative to end its Section 301 investigation into Vietnamese practices with a decision that fully acknowledges Vietnam’s efforts. The statement was issued in Hanoi on the same day that Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Vietnamese Foreign Minister Le Hoi Trung on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Manila, where the two sides discussed ways to strengthen relations and rebalance trade. Reuters reported.
The 10% tariff ends on the grounds that Hanoi finds nothing inappropriate. Vietnam is simultaneously facing three separate Trump administration investigations: one targeting what Washington calls excess industrial capacity, a second under Section 301 that addresses intellectual property violations, and a third focusing on goods produced using forced labor. Everyone goes on his own path. No one reached a conclusion.
Truong told Rubio that Vietnam wants to make it easier for American companies to expand their investments and business operations in the country. This offer is the diplomatic vocabulary of a government trying to position itself as an indispensable industrial destination during a period when Washington is actively discouraging dependence on China. Vietnam’s view is that it is not China, that its factories are fulfilling orders that used to go to Shenzhen and Guangzhou, and that punishing Vietnamese exports for their successful substitution runs counter to the very industrial strategy that the Trump administration says it wants to encourage.
Trade numbers make the symptom and the problem visible at the same time. The US trade deficit with Vietnam reached $75.3 billion in the first half of 2026, an increase of 21% from the same period of the previous year, according to Vietnamese government data. For Washington, this number is exactly the kind of bilateral imbalance that Trump’s tariff plan was designed to address. For Hanoi, this is evidence of how completely intertwined the two economies have become since the transfer of manufacturing from China to Vietnam over the past decade.
Section 301 of the US Trade Act allows the US Trade Office to investigate practices of foreign governments that burden or restrict US commerce. The investigation into Vietnam was opened in October 2020 during Trump’s first term, and initially focused on currency manipulation by the State Bank of Vietnam and timber sourcing practices. The Biden administration inherited the investigation and pursued it without resolution. Since then, the second Trump administration has added the intellectual property track, opened the forced labor investigation separately, and allowed all three investigations to run in parallel while Hanoi and Washington negotiated a broader bilateral trade framework. This framework remains incomplete.
A Section 301 finding could result in tariffs. It could also lead to a negotiated agreement in which the targeted government commits to specific reforms in exchange for closing the investigation without penalty. Vietnam was pushing for the second result. The Trump administration has not publicly announced which direction it is leaning, and Rubio did not comment publicly after his meeting with Truong on Thursday. Likewise, the US Trade Representative has not set a timeline for a Section 301 conclusion. Washington is conducting three investigations against Hanoi simultaneously and has given no public indication that any are close to resolution.
Vietnam is not the only country facing this combination of pressures. Washington’s Section 301 investigation, targeting India over allegations of forced labor, followed a similar pattern: an investigation opened without a clear timeline, trade negotiations taking place in parallel, and the aggrieved government making public calls for a positive outcome while trying not to appear to be negotiating under duress. The Indian Commerce Minister described the suspended tariffs as a gift to local manufacturers. The Vietnamese Foreign Ministry opted for a more precise record.
Vietnam’s position at the ASEAN summit is that of a country trying to stay on good terms with the United States without formally aligning itself against China, a diplomatic balancing act that requires constant recalibration. Beijing is Vietnam’s largest trading partner. Washington is the largest market for its exports. The $75.3 billion surplus Hanoi runs with the United States is built largely on Chinese components arriving in Vietnam, assembled into finished goods, and shipped to Vietnamese American consumers. This structure is precisely what the three US investigations are designed to examine and, if necessary, stop.
Vietnam made offers. It agreed to import more US agricultural products and liquefied natural gas, commitments that emerged in the framework talks as rebalancing mechanisms. It has updated intellectual property laws and signed a supply chain transparency agreement covering timber sourcing. Whether these steps are enough to favorably close the Section 301 investigation is a judgment call for the USTR, and nothing at Thursday’s Manila meeting indicated that an answer is imminent. The Trump administration’s willingness to impose heavy tariffs even on long-standing partners has given few governments reason to assume that good faith is enough.
The expiration of the tariffs on Friday creates a clear deadline but is not a guaranteed decision point. The 10 percent rate has always been a placeholder. It can be extended. It can be replaced with something higher or lower. The administration did not say what comes next. Vietnam’s statement on Thursday was a request for clarity dressed in diplomatic language — reaffirming cooperation, acknowledging efforts, and urging conclusions. What Rubio said in return is unknown.
