DPresident Donald Trump’s tyranny toward the United States’ three largest trading partners, with a $500 billion trade deficit, should surprise no one. Since 2016, both Trump and Biden have departed from established norms in international trade. The two presidents have had vastly different approaches, with Biden emphasizing institutional reform and Trump relying on rhetoric and theatrics. Both governments faced criticism for pushing up costs through tariffs and industrial policies, but the rise in prices was largely driven by global events.
Mr. Trump’s declared preference for tariffs is closely tied to his ability to unilaterally approve tariffs in defiance of Congress, citing national security. This would impose a 25% tariff on all goods from Canada and Mexico and an additional 10% tariff on imports from China unless these countries address their problems with illegal immigration and suspected fentanyl smuggling. This may explain his recent plans to impose a The president-elect of the United States clearly sees tariffs as more than just policy. They are calculated means of gaining influence. By threatening to impose them, Mr. Trump signals a willingness to negotiate, but only on his own terms.
Mr. Trump’s trade strategy restructured relations with Mexico and Canada, setting the stage for a 2026 review of 2019 agreements with America’s neighbors. But his approach stalled with China. Despite the first Trump administration imposing $112 billion in tariffs and threatening to impose another $500 billion in additional tariffs, Beijing negotiated a 2020 trade deal, but the coronavirus outbreak After his illness, he did not fulfill his promise, leaving Mr. Biden to continue his confrontation.
Trade involves sacrifices in order to gain profits. Cheaper consumer goods could lead to fewer domestic jobs and lower wages in certain industries. Increased imports could mean a decline in domestic manufacturing. Continuing trade deficits are not necessarily harmful, but we need activist policies to ensure that the pain is not concentrated geographically. For decades, the neoliberal economic order has championed a vision of a borderless world where goods and services flow freely with minimal barriers. This ideal dominated global trade policy and corporate strategy, and “protectionism” became taboo in mainstream discourse. However, since the global financial crisis, skepticism about globalization has steadily increased.
An increased focus on justice, sustainability and improving working conditions is reshaping trade priorities around the world. There is also a growing trend to produce products closer to home through increased domestic manufacturing and the development of nearby supply chains. But rich countries, led by the United States, have consistently resisted giving poor countries the flexibility to modernize and insisted on exceptions to the rules they impose on others. During the pandemic, the U.S. prioritized pharmaceutical industry profits over global vaccine access and blocked the delivery of lifesaving doses to developing countries.
The decline of globalization began long before Trump, and his protectionist policies reflect rather than drive this change. The pullback from globalization will likely continue due to geopolitical tensions, post-pandemic restructuring of supply chains, and growing demands for fair trade. But Trump’s policies will make an uncertain world even more unstable. His suspicions of win-win deals will make it more difficult for policymakers around the world trying to balance national interests with the need for global cooperation.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? Click here if you would like to email your answer of up to 300 words to be considered for publication in our email section.
