Which reciprocal trade agreements announced by the U.S. since 2025 have been fully implemented and legally ratified?
Executive summary
Since 2025 the United States has announced a rapid string of "reciprocal" trade frameworks and some signed bilateral agreements, and the administration has used executive authority to implement tariff changes for select partners; however, few of those commitments appear to have completed the textbook legal ratification processes on both sides or through Congress. Public records show tariff elements implemented administratively for the U.S.–EU framework and a series of executed U.S. agreements (e.g., Malaysia, Cambodia) and tariff adjustments (China), but the reporting makes clear that many deals remain frameworks pending partner-legislative steps or broader congressional action [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The EU framework: implemented on the U.S. side but not a fully ratified treaty
Washington and Brussels announced a Framework on an Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair, and Balanced Trade in August 2025, and the administration moved quickly to implement tariff-related elements via Executive Order 14346 and Federal Register notices that adjusted the Harmonized Tariff Schedule effective August–September 2025—actions the U.S. executed administratively to change tariff treatment [1] [5]. Those U.S. steps constitute implemented tariff adjustments under executive authority, but the EU still has internal legislative and regulatory steps to enact reciprocal tariff reductions, meaning the framework functions as an implemented U.S. tariff measure rather than a mutually ratified treaty that has cleared both sides’ full legal procedures [1] [6].
2. Bilateral deals signed by the U.S.: Malaysia and Cambodia described as legally binding on the U.S. side, but partner ratification and implementation timelines vary
USTR fact sheets and press releases report that the United States signed Agreements on Reciprocal Trade with Malaysia and Cambodia in October 2025, and USTR describes these as "legally binding" agreements that the President signed to provide increased U.S. market access [2] [7]. Industry reporting corroborates that the U.S. has implemented its side of related tariff ceilings through executive action, but the sources also indicate that entry-into-force clauses or partner-side completion steps (notifications that internal procedures are complete, or legislative ratification by the partner) remain prerequisites in many cases—meaning signature alone does not prove both-party ratification and full implementation [2] [8].
3. China and other tariff adjustments: executive implementation, temporary measures, not congressional ratification
On May 12, 2025, the U.S. and China issued a joint statement and the administration signed an executive order adjusting China-specific reciprocal tariff rates (including temporary and de‑minimis rule changes and a 10 percent interim rate for China‑origin goods), steps taken under executive authority to modify tariffs without a formal congressional treaty process [3]. These measures were implemented administratively and time‑limited in several cases, underscoring that the administration has used executive power to operationalize reciprocal tariff policy rather than pursuing new, congressionally ratified trade treaties in each instance [3].
4. Joint notices and tariff‑element implementation (December 2025) — administrative but significant
A joint notice published on December 17, 2025, implemented certain tariff elements and capped combined reciprocal tariffs for specific partners (for example, capping a combined 15 percent for Switzerland and Liechtenstein), demonstrating further administrative implementation of tariff commitments across a set of partners [4]. Those notices reflect concrete, enforceable U.S. tariff changes in the Federal Register and related administrative instruments, but they do not by themselves demonstrate that all counterparties have completed reciprocal legal ratification or that Congress has enacted implementing legislation where ordinarily required for free‑trade treaties [4].
5. What "fully implemented and legally ratified" means here — and where the record is thin
For classical trade treaties, "fully implemented and legally ratified" typically requires both parties to complete internal legal procedures (parliamentary ratification where applicable) and, in the U.S., often congressional implementing legislation; the available sources show multiple U.S. executive actions, signed agreements, and joint notices but are inconsistent about partner legislative ratification or congressional votes accepting new treaties [1] [2] [4]. Public USTR fact sheets and Federal Register entries document U.S. implementation steps for the EU framework, bilateral U.S. signatures (Malaysia, Cambodia), and tariff adjustments for China, but the sources do not uniformly confirm that those agreements have been through partner parliaments or through any new congressional treaty‑ratification process [1] [2] [3].
Conclusion: narrow, administrative implementation dominates; full mutual ratification is limited and often unresolved
The clearest instances of implemented U.S. actions since 2025 are executive and administrative: tariff modifications tied to the U.S.–EU framework and post‑signature tariff actions for several bilateral partners and China [1] [4] [3]. USTR fact sheets show signed, "legally binding" U.S. agreements with some countries (e.g., Malaysia, Cambodia), but the public record in these sources does not consistently demonstrate that those agreements have been fully ratified by partner governments or processed through any necessary congressional implementing procedures—so they should be regarded as implemented on the U.S. administrative side rather than as universally fully ratified, mutual trade treaties [2] [8] [1].