Unlocked: this issue first went to Pro subscribers on August 4, 2026. Mekong Brief issues open to everyone 60 days after publication. Pro members read them the day they land -- upgrade here.

Electronics did the work. Seven-month imports reached $340.05 billion against exports of $319.53 billion, up 34.8% and 21.7%. Computers, electronics and components alone reached $135.8 billion, up 65.9%, an increase of roughly $54 billion against a total import rise of about $88 billion. Machinery grew 22.7% to $41.07 billion, slower than imports overall, so it diluted the deficit rather than driving it. Production inputs accounted for 94.1% of imports; consumer goods, 5.9%. An economy importing at that ratio is buying capacity.

The cautious reading comes from inside the government. NSO Director General Nguyễn Thị Hương attributed roughly $8 billion of the January-to-May gap to petroleum and warned that a deficit generally weighs on economic performance. HSC's Phạm Vũ Thăng Long offers a third reading: semiconductor shortages pushing firms to build inventory, which would make part of the electronics surge a stockpiling artifact. All three fit the same data. At a 94.1% input share the investment reading is likeliest, and it remains a reading.

Two documents, two rates: what was and wasn’t signed in Kuala Lumpur

Kuala Lumpur, October 26, 2025. Cambodia and Malaysia each signed an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade with the United States, both published on USTR's agreements page. Vietnam and Thailand issued joint statements that month about frameworks for agreements they have not concluded, and neither appears there. Thailand's says more about labor than Vietnam's, committing it to amend its freedom-of-association law and enforce labor law "in sectors with a high risk for forced labor and child labor." What neither commits to is prohibiting the importation of forced-labor goods, the only thing the criterion counts. USTR's July fact sheet is plain: partners "that have made commitments to adopt, and effectively enforce, forced labor import prohibitions will have a 10% tariff, and trading partners that have failed to adopt a forced labor import prohibition will have a 12.5% tariff rate."

Section 301 is carrying this because the alternative was removed: the Supreme Court invalidated the IEEPA tariffs on February 20 in Learning Resources v. Trump and did not reach Sections 232, 301 or 122, which remain available.

What I'd tell a client this week: the number to model is 2.5, not 12.5. Section 122's 10% surcharge hit its 150-day statutory limit and expired at the same hour the Section 301 duty began, so Vietnam's own landed cost moved 2.5 points on July 24. Keep that separate from the other 2.5 in this issue, which is the competitive gap against Cambodia, Indonesia and Malaysia and bites only where those economies actually compete. Apparel is where they do. Section 232 goods sit outside the duty altogether -- steel, aluminum, copper and derivatives, vehicles and parts, wood products, semiconductors -- which narrows exposure further than most client alerts have suggested, though the duty does stack with MFN and leaves AD/CVD intact. And the regional comparison is narrower than the headlines imply: Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore all sit at 12.5% alongside Vietnam.

Wispr Flow turns your voice into clean, professional text inside any app. Emails, Slack, client updates — speak once, send without editing. 4x faster than typing.

Try Wispr Flow free

Cambodia and Malaysia signed Agreements on Reciprocal Trade with the United States in Kuala Lumpur on October 26, 2025, both on USTR's agreements page alongside seven other economies'. Vietnam and Thailand issued joint statements that month about agreements they have not concluded, and neither appears there. Nine months later Cambodia and Malaysia pay 10%. Vietnam and Thailand pay 12.5%.

The articles, and what the criterion counts

Cambodia's Article 2.8 opens: "Cambodia shall adopt and effectively implement a prohibition on the importation of goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by forced or compulsory labor, as defined by the relevant International Labor Organization (ILO) instruments to which Cambodia is a party." No deadline, and that was a choice -- the same agreement gives Cambodia five years to digitize its customs procedures.

Malaysia's Article 2.9 is not the same text. It says "adopt and implement," dropping the word "effectively" that is USTR's standard enforcement hook in labor chapters. It carries no ILO anchor. And it closes: "Malaysia shall implement the obligations in this paragraph within two years of the date of entry into force of this Agreement."

USTR made its choice explicitly, in the section where rates are decided. Explaining what to charge, the July 28 notice said that "imposing an economy-wide rate of zero or lower than 10 percent on economies that have entered into an ART without implementing a forced labor import prohibition, or on economies that have imposed a prohibition but do not yet effectively implement such prohibition, would be ineffective." An economy that has signed and implemented nothing belongs at 10%.

Malaysia's agreement enters into force sixty days after the parties exchange written notifications certifying completion of their legal procedures. They have not exchanged them. It was signed in October 2025 and still unratified on the day USTR acted.

Malaysia's Minister of Investment, Trade and Industry, Johari Abdul Ghani, said as much in the Dewan Rakyat on June 23, answering Opposition Leader Hamzah Zainudin on the agreement's status. Malaysia currently has no law or mechanism to prohibit imports of goods produced by forced labor, he told the House, and Washington had already signaled what that would cost: the forced-labor investigation was nearly finished, and the United States "dah bagi kita indikatif bahawa selepas 24 Julai ini, kemungkinan besar AS akan kenakan kita tarif indikatif 10 peratus untuk isu ini" -- had indicated that after July 24 it would most likely impose an indicative 10% tariff.

He tied the two-year window to ratification himself. Speaking on July 25, the day after the duty took effect: "The two years are not immediate because the agreement has already been signed. Once we ratify the relevant elements, it means they are giving us two years to fix the laws that we do not have." He spoke in Malay; that is Malay Mail's English rendering of remarks reported by Berita Harian. The clock he describes starts at entry into force, which has not happened.

Neither Federal Register notice states any requirement that an agreement be in force or ratified, and both are silent on the status of every ART. USTR's determination for Malaysia credits "Malaysia's obligation in its ART" and mentions none of the ratification dispute. Malaysia pays 10%.

Cambodia is the closer comparison -- same day, same room in Kuala Lumpur, same regional apparel exposure -- and its determination reads differently. It credits "Cambodia's commitment in its ART related to prohibiting the importation of forced labor goods and its adoption of a forced labor import prohibition subsequent to the publication of the June 5, 2026 FRN." Cambodia issued that prohibition as a joint prakas on July 1. Guatemala's determination carries the same double clause; Malaysia's carries no second half.

USTR also calls Malaysia's an "obligation" and Cambodia's a "commitment," a distinction it draws for only Malaysia and Bangladesh among the ten. The notice does not say why.

USTR recorded the difference and was asked to price it. Comments proposed separate rates for economies that had imposed prohibitions, economies that had only committed in an agreement, and economies running a partial regime. It declined, on the ground that "imposing distinct tariff rates on each of these groups at this time would hinder the ability of the Trade Representative to achieve the elimination of the investigated acts, policies, and practices." The President's July 23 memorandum then named Cambodia and Malaysia in the same enumerated list of seventeen economies at 10%.

Vietnam signed a prohibition into law on July 22, 2026, to commence on September 5. Vietnam pays 12.5%.

There is a defensible answer, and the imprecise version flatters it. A commitment made in a bilateral agreement is one Washington may declare breached on its own assessment and act on under its own law, a recourse no foreign decree gives it. What it is not is adjudicated. Neither agreement has a dispute-settlement chapter, a joint committee or a panel; Malaysia's Article 7.4 obliges a party only to "notify and seek consultations in good faith" and only "when practicable." The machinery runs one way -- and an agreement never in force gives even that nothing to run on.

The test is disjunctive, which most coverage has missed: an economy reaches 10% by imposing a prohibition, by committing to one in an agreement, or by running a partial regime. Four got there after June 5 on their own prohibitions: Honduras, Sri Lanka and Trinidad and Tobago, none holding a concluded agreement, and India, which does hold a February framework for an interim agreement that says nothing about forced labor.

The textile quota is narrower again. All four economies that were directed a quota hold agreements -- and so do six that got nothing, among them Guatemala and Jordan. The agreement was the entry ticket; apparel volume decided who got through, which means concluding one would not automatically produce a quota for Vietnam. The Tracker has the mechanics.

Where Vietnam's decree falls

What fails the test is a measure still on paper: "the mere development or proposal of a measure to prohibit the importation of forced labor goods, absent adoption of such measure, is insufficient." The July notice then draws the line the other way as well, distinguishing a proposal from "circumstances where an economy has taken on a concrete obligation to prohibit the importation of goods." Vietnam's decree is in neither state. It is signed and does not commence until September 5. USTR's operative verb throughout is imposes, and whether a signed decree that has not commenced counts as imposed is the question the notice does not answer. Vietnam appears only in the list of 54 economies found to have failed to impose and effectively enforce, and its determination is word-for-word identical to Thailand's and Singapore's.

Hanoi said its piece and got no answer on the record. On July 25 Foreign Ministry spokesperson Phạm Thu Hằng said the decision "chưa phản ánh đầy đủ" -- has not yet fully reflected -- "Vietnam's reality and efforts in preventing, reducing and eliminating forced labor, including the prohibition on importing products made using forced labor." A day later MoIT said it would keep working with USTR to "apply import tariff provisions appropriate to Vietnam's reality." That is a request to move the rate, and nothing in the record shows it answered.

What Vietnamese exporters have been told to do

Concrete guidance arrived faster than the English-language coverage did. On July 28 MoIT's Department of Domestic Market Management and Development issued seven instructions:

Item six is key. Vietnamese firms are being told to put labor clauses into their own contracts -- the commitment Vietnam has not made at state level, pushed down the supply chain and paid for privately. Whatever happens at the table, that documentation is the evidence base any future commitment would rest on -- and for now it is the only part of this that Vietnamese firms control.

Every country has different employment laws, payroll requirements, notice periods, and benefits expectations.

Oyster's Global Hiring Guides help you navigate the details, avoid surprises, and hire with confidence—wherever you're growing next.

Get the country guides