“A One-Sided Deal with Trump”:
After Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr.’s
U.S. Visit rather Undermines Philippine Interests
President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s recent visit to the United States, which included a highly publicized meeting with former President Donald J. Trump, has generated mixed reactions both at home and among Filipino communities abroad. While administration-aligned media have painted the visit as a diplomatic success, the terms of a newly announced U.S.-Philippine trade agreement suggest a far less favorable outcome for the country. Critics are calling the deal “humiliating,” “imbalanced,” and “economically damaging,” with growing concern that Marcos Jr. has conceded too much for too little in return.
At the center of the controversy is the trade deal which maintains a steep 19% U.S. tariff on most Philippine exports—a negligible 1% reduction from the original 20%. In contrast, U.S. exports will enter the Philippine market at a 0% tariff, meaning American goods will enjoy full market access while Filipino products face high entry costs in the U.S. This glaring asymmetry has drawn ire from economists, industry leaders, and political observers alike.
In 2023, the Philippines exported over $11.5 billion worth of goods to the United States, including electronics, garments, coconut oil, processed foods, and fresh fruits. Many of these are labor-intensive industries dependent on competitive pricing. Even a marginal tariff increase can significantly affect shelf pricing in the American market, which is highly price-sensitive. For example, a popular $5.50 pack of garlic peanuts now costs American consumers around $6.60 due to the tariff, making them less appealing compared to snack products from Vietnam or Thailand, both of which benefit from more favorable trade arrangements under the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) and the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), which the Philippines has struggled to fully regain.
Meanwhile, the Philippine domestic market is being opened wide to duty-free American agricultural and industrial products, ranging from wheat, meat, and corn to processed foods and machinery. Local producers—especially farmers and small-scale manufacturers—are expected to suffer the most.
The Philippine agriculture sector, which employs over 23% of the national labor force, has long been plagued by low productivity, insufficient state subsidies, and dependence on middlemen. In 2022, agriculture contributed only 8.9% of GDP, a disproportionate figure considering its labor share. The entry of cheap, tariff-free American goods is expected to depress farm-gate prices further and drive many rural producers out of business.
Such thoughts would summarise it not as a free trade agreement but a colonial hangover dressed up in diplomatic language. For “The U.S. gives with one hand and takes with both.”
Further fueling public anger are reports of immigration raids and deportations of Filipino workers during the same period as the Marcos visit. In Virginia, multiple Filipino crew members aboard a cruise ship were allegedly removed and deported shortly before Marcos’ arrival, despite holding valid work permits. Rights groups have criticized the silence of the Philippine delegation on these incidents, interpreting it as a tacit acceptance of U.S. domestic policy excesses in exchange for photo ops and token economic gestures.
Analysts also note the absence of any major investment commitments from the United States, despite repeated announcements of “expanded cooperation.” In contrast, Vietnam secured over $10 billion in U.S. private sector investments during President Biden’s 2023 visit to Hanoi. The Philippines, by comparison, was offered a few security-related engagements and vague promises of economic collaboration—with no firm deliverables.
While the Department of Trade and Industry framed the deal as a “strategic realignment,” many see it as a signal that geopolitical alignment with Washington is being prioritized over economic fairness and national self-sufficiency. “You cannot eat strategy,” quipped one labor leader. “You cannot send your children to school with talking points.”
Instead of using the visit to press for better terms or revive Philippine participation in preferential trade programs like the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)—which lapsed for the country in 2020—Marcos Jr. appears to have accepted symbolic diplomacy in place of hard economic wins.
Critics argue that for the Philippines to attain long-term development and resilience, it must strengthen its manufacturing and agricultural base, not depend on foreign consumption and remittances. In 2024, remittances accounted for nearly 9.3% of GDP, a figure that underscores how dependent the country has become on its diaspora, even as their rights are being undermined abroad.
In summary, what should have been a golden opportunity to renegotiate the country’s position in the global economic system has instead become an exercise in symbolic allegiance and material surrender. A handshake with Trump. A meeting with Pentagon TV hosts. A 1% tariff reduction. All this, while Filipino farmers lose markets, workers face deportation, and the country opens its doors wider to foreign goods.
If this is the future of Philippine diplomacy under Marcos Jr., then many are asking: who really benefits?