> Don't take the comparison with Iran too literally; it was a gibe about yet another in an endless line of Trump deals (political, business, personal) that didn't stick.

Sure but you used the comparison so I did want to make sure that if we were taking a serious tone we have to realize they aren't honest negotiators anyway and there's a lot of in-fighting.

> I know a lot of the deals are vague/incomplete executive directives; not treaties ratified by congress.

How do you know that? What do you mean by an incomplete executive directive? Are you sure that all trade deals or modifications of such deals must go through Congress? How familiar are you with the US legislative system?

> So I asked you a question (which you didn't answer).

Was it a rhetorical question or are you genuinely asking? You already answered your question by pointing out a few different deals. That's why I'm a little confused. I addressed your question, even if I didn't answer it... because you answered it!! lol

Separately does it matter? My point was that Congress has abdicated this responsibility to the Executive and Judicial branches and this has gone on for decades and only gotten worse over time. The lack of Congressional approval for trade deals would just reinforce the point I am making.

Agreements approved by Congress are more politically and legally durable than something simply signed by the executive. Especially when the executive is as dishonest and capricious as this one is.

CUSMA was approved by Congress in the middle of Trump's second term. In this area at least, they haven't been abdicating for decades.

Also, seems primary blame for Trump's illegal tariffs should lie with... Trump?