What does Trump really want to achieve with tariffs?
The strategic goal of the Trump 2.0 administration is to completely rewrite the global order of the last 80 years. And, in two months, the world agenda has actually already been completely rewritten. But what are the limits and why is the only possible strategy to think the unthinkable? Peter Kruger's analysis taken from his Facebook profile
Rates. I see many people struggling to understand the intentions of the Trump Administration.
Now it's the economists' turn (after the same thing happened to journalists, scientists, geopolitical experts, etc.). They confuse tactics with strategy.
The strategic objective of the Trump 2.0 administration (I explained it some time ago) is to completely rewrite the global order of the last 80 years which has seen the USA as the hegemonic power guaranteeing, both on a military and financial level, international trade. Note: this was also true during the Cold War, when Soviet merchant ships also benefited from the security guaranteed by the American “blue water fleet”. Note also how that capacity has already been significantly reduced in recent years (and the Houti crisis in the Red Sea is the clearest proof of this).
Whether wrong or right, many circles in Washington have been thinking for years about the fact that the USA can no longer afford the costs (industrial, financial, political, military) of maintaining this position. The parallel that is always described is the one with the end of the British Empire, seen as a great mercantile empire that destroyed itself in a vain attempt to preserve its "privileges".
The goal, therefore, is to quickly manage the transition to a new multipolar order (of spheres of influence) while the US is still in a dominant position to be able to impose its game proactively (and not reactively).
Now, I see many problems in this strategy (I'll talk about them later), but they are not the ones that are talked about most in the comments I read on this tariff issue.
Some, for example, argue that it is a suicidal policy because the US is risking its credibility built over 80 years of global hegemony. They fail to understand that the policy pursued by the Trump Administration is a "burnt bridges" policy. There's no going back. This is a game you can only afford once. And, then, all the better to exploit in the most cynical way all the levers you currently have (and which you will not have in the future).
Others object by highlighting how the USA, by pursuing this policy, inflicts financial and economic damage on itself that brings no benefits. They, however, fail to understand that, from the perspective of those who support this declinist theory, the USA is already headed towards the loss of its global hegemony (with all the financial benefits that derive from it). We are not talking about win-win strategies or even zero-sum games. This is a losing game. Whoever loses the least wins.
The criticism here is mainly of the "retrenchment" theory that has guided US administrations since the first Obama administration, including Trump 1.0, which aimed at a rebalancing of US power projection in an anti-Chinese way. The reasoning here is that, even if the US were to emerge victorious in its attempt to disrupt China's emergence as a major global power, the costs incurred by the US would be catastrophic (no less than they were for the British Empire to fight two world wars during the 20th century). In this sense, it is better to immediately find an agreement with China (and greetings to Taiwan), consolidate its sphere of influence (and greetings to Canada and Greenland) and entirely reorient the US industrial and financial system to a sort of extended autarky (includes the Mexican manufacturing boom and Canadian/Arctic resources).
And the tactics? Here we are at the Trumpian default. Ensure at all costs that you control the agenda, whether it is inviting Covid patients to inject themselves with “bleach”, storming a Capitol, or, like yesterday, announcing a barrage of tariffs outside the grace of God. Never get backed into a corner and find yourself in a reactive position.
This is not an invitation to underestimate Trumpian rhetoric. When Trump talks about annexing Canada and Greenland, it should be taken damn seriously. And even when he announces tariffs (but, at the same time, claims to have an excellent relationship with Xi Jin Ping…). The logic is simple: if you want to manage the transition towards a new world order in your favor, you must determine the agenda (not Moscow with its wars, not Beijing with its diplomacy/business and, certainly, not the Western liberal world, until yesterday an ally of the USA, which lives in permanent confusion).
And, in this sense, it must be recognized that Trump is now winning. In two months, the world agenda has been completely rewritten and we are all speaking in “Trumpian” tones. We are already fully in the new multipolar order (and woe betide anyone who doesn't realign quickly).
Yes, but markets collapsing? Inflation coming back? The looming recession? All this chaos? Even chaos can be part of a strategy (not tactics).
In a situation of chaos, the idea is that those who are fragile perish (the EU has been warned). Only the strongest survive. And the US is still the dominant power (but not for long). So, better act now.
Now, what are the limits of this vision. There are many, but I will limit myself to one, in my opinion the most important: the underestimation of the agency of those who, in the predatory perspective, are destined to be "prey".
We have seen the clearest proof of this with the war in Ukraine: a people, already seen as inexorably destined to succumb, who ends up upsetting the hegemonic plans of a presumed multipolar power. And we see it now with Europe rearming itself (for those who don't live on the moon), with China, Japan and South Korea starting to agree on common responses to tariff policies (something simply impossible to imagine just a few weeks ago).
The problem is that the levers that the Trump administration thinks it can use in this “great transition” could fall apart much more quickly than is foreseeable. And that doesn't mean it's a good thing. Because, from here on, we are moving into completely unexplored terrain.
You can rest assured: in the coming months/years we will witness things that, even today, appear completely unthinkable. For us Europeans, the only possible strategy is to think the unthinkable. And, among all the unthinkables, war is the first taboo we must get rid of (if we don't really want to be forced to fight one).
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/cosa-vuole-ottenere-davvero-trump-con-i-dazi/ on Sat, 05 Apr 2025 06:43:25 +0000.