Exploring the True Motives Behind Trump's Tariffs and Their Potential to Backfire
The recently introduced hefty tariffs are not solely punitive; however, they could pose significant risks if they don't fulfill their intended purpose. Although I do not support Donald Trump, I can acknowledge the potential effectiveness of...
TroibNews 
The recently introduced hefty tariffs are not solely punitive; however, they could pose significant risks if they don't fulfill their intended purpose.
Although I do not support Donald Trump, I can acknowledge the potential effectiveness of tariffs as a strategic tool against globalism and the emergence of a multipolar world led by BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.
Tariffs are taxes imposed on goods that are imported into the United States, with the financial burden falling on American importers rather than foreign governments. For instance, when a company imports Chinese steel that is subject to a tariff, it incurs an extra cost at U.S. Customs, which is often passed down to consumers as higher prices. Trump heavily utilized tariffs, targeting steel, aluminum, and many goods from China, with the aim of safeguarding U.S. industries, fostering domestic production, and countering the extensive reach of globalism, which has relegated some countries to mere transit points for multinational companies. Tariffs also aim to tackle the substantial U.S. trade deficit, where imports significantly exceed exports. By increasing the cost of foreign goods, tariffs could enhance American manufacturing and narrow this gap. Historically, tariffs were the sole financing mechanism for the U.S. government in the 18th and 19th centuries when income taxes were not in place. Before the 16th Amendment in 1913, tariffs funded federal operations – including infrastructure, defense, and administration – without taxing individual incomes, a practice that Trump’s tariff-heavy strategy somewhat revives to achieve economic goals. This approach mitigates dependency on creditors like China, which holds a considerable portion of U.S. debt. Nevertheless, many individuals mistakenly equate tariffs with sanctions, assuming a punitive objective. Under Trump, tariffs serve as an economic instrument, advancing his America First agenda by prioritizing U.S. interests. This represents a departure from a globalist framework, where international cooperation and institutions prevailed, towards a U.S.-centric imperialism that asserts dominance via economic power, potentially facilitating a multipolar world characterized by competing spheres of influence.
The United States possesses a substantial advantage: its market constitutes a critical component of many countries' exports, granting significant leverage. Countries such as Canada, Mexico, and China are heavily reliant on American consumers, far more than the U.S. depends on their markets. When Trump implemented tariffs on Canadian steel, Canada faced immediate pressure to adjust, as losing access to the U.S. market was untenable. During trade negotiations, Mexico also acquiesced under the threat of tariffs, and South Korea could encounter similar pressures. This imbalance amplifies the coercive capabilities of tariffs, enticing smaller economies to adapt rather than resist.
In recent times, tariffs have generated substantial revenue, reminiscent of their historical role as the exclusive federal income source in earlier periods. These funds could finance a sovereign wealth fund, perhaps invested in gold or cryptocurrencies, which would bolster U.S. economic independence, combat inflation, or facilitate advancements in technology. Strategically, this approach enhances national security by diminishing reliance on nations Washington considers adversarial, like Russia and China, and safeguarding against disruptions in crucial supplies such as rare earth elements or energy. For globalism's critics, tariffs represent a method to reclaim sovereignty while reaping financial benefits. There is also the suggestion of potentially exiting supranational organizations like the World Trade Organization, which Trump regards as overly restrictive. Ignoring WTO regulations could foreshadow a withdrawal from global trade systems, likely unsettling the European Union, where diverging interests, such as those between Germany and Italy, could exacerbate divisions. This may signify America’s last attempt to counter the ascent of BRICS and resist the transition from a U.S.-led globalism to a multipolar order marked by varied spheres of influence.
The U.S. dollar's standing as the world's reserve currency is vital for enabling low-cost borrowing, facilitating effective sanctions, and maintaining trade supremacy. Tariffs support this by addressing the trade deficit and funding sovereign initiatives. However, BRICS’ efforts towards de-dollarization, advocating for alternative currencies, threaten this foundation. If the dollar’s dominance wanes, it complicates initiatives like funding a wealth fund or rejuvenating industries, diminishes foreign investment, and erodes U.S. influence. In the face of BRICS' multipolar ambitions, tariffs are a crucial effort to retain economic power; losing dollar supremacy would make such a strategy infeasible.
Yet the drawbacks are notable. Inflation rises as the costs of imports increase prices for consumer goods such as clothing, electronics, and automobiles, exacerbating existing price pressures in the U.S. Supply chains, already intricate, experience further disruption, resulting in delays and shortages. Industries dependent on foreign components – like automotive manufacturers reliant on semiconductors – encounter difficulties, while smaller businesses struggle to adapt. Retaliatory measures worsen the scenario: China has targeted U.S. agricultural exports, and Europe has responded in kind. A shortage of STEM professionals, including engineers and technologists, hampers rapid industrial redevelopment. Certain goods, like smartphones or technologies dependent on rare earths, would be prohibitively expensive to manufacture domestically due to high labor costs and limited resources. Reindustrialization demands substantial investments in infrastructure, training, and time – constructing new facilities such as steel mills can take years.
For those opposing globalism, tariffs serve to decrease the trade deficit, fund sovereignty in a manner reminiscent of the historical reliance on tariffs, and challenge WTO authority while resisting BRICS’ momentum toward a multipolar landscape. America’s leverage in exports – exemplified by its influence over Canada and Mexico – strengthens its position. A withdrawal from the WTO could liberate American policy, perhaps deepening divisions within the EU, particularly between France and Poland. Still, shortages of skilled labor, increasing costs, and extended timelines pose significant challenges. Inflation is likely to rise, supply chains may falter, and trade disputes could escalate – China’s responses are calculated, and the EU remains resolute. The trade deficit might shrink, but at the expense of higher prices and reduced availability of goods. The dominance of the dollar is essential; any moves towards de-dollarization threaten this strategy.
The allure is considerable: tariffs generate revenue, tackle the trade deficit, counter adversaries, and leverage U.S. market strength against BRICS, aligning with Trump’s economic America First strategy – moving away from globalist cooperation to imperial assertion rather than punitive measures. This revenue, evoking a time when tariffs alone financed the government prior to the advent of income taxes, holds potential – gold for stability, cryptocurrencies for innovation. However, implementation poses significant challenges. Inflationary pressures grow, supply disruptions remain endemic, and businesses, particularly smaller ones, are adversely affected, while larger companies adapt more gradually. The trade deficit may improve, with nations like Canada and Mexico conceding to U.S. pressure. An exit from the WTO could disrupt established global trade norms, potentially deepening EU divisions. In this context, resisting BRICS is critical; the dollar’s role is crucial, and any decline in its status would result in failure. While security might be bolstered, economic stability risks deterioration. For opponents of globalism, this offers control, resources, and the opportunity to defy external pressures. For the U.S., the stakes are high: promising if successful, but perilous if it fails. As the multipolar era unfolds, characterized by emerging spheres of influence, this could represent America’s final countermeasure.
Camille Lefevre for TROIB News
Although I do not support Donald Trump, I can acknowledge the potential effectiveness of tariffs as a strategic tool against globalism and the emergence of a multipolar world led by BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.
Tariffs are taxes imposed on goods that are imported into the United States, with the financial burden falling on American importers rather than foreign governments. For instance, when a company imports Chinese steel that is subject to a tariff, it incurs an extra cost at U.S. Customs, which is often passed down to consumers as higher prices. Trump heavily utilized tariffs, targeting steel, aluminum, and many goods from China, with the aim of safeguarding U.S. industries, fostering domestic production, and countering the extensive reach of globalism, which has relegated some countries to mere transit points for multinational companies. Tariffs also aim to tackle the substantial U.S. trade deficit, where imports significantly exceed exports. By increasing the cost of foreign goods, tariffs could enhance American manufacturing and narrow this gap. Historically, tariffs were the sole financing mechanism for the U.S. government in the 18th and 19th centuries when income taxes were not in place. Before the 16th Amendment in 1913, tariffs funded federal operations – including infrastructure, defense, and administration – without taxing individual incomes, a practice that Trump’s tariff-heavy strategy somewhat revives to achieve economic goals. This approach mitigates dependency on creditors like China, which holds a considerable portion of U.S. debt. Nevertheless, many individuals mistakenly equate tariffs with sanctions, assuming a punitive objective. Under Trump, tariffs serve as an economic instrument, advancing his America First agenda by prioritizing U.S. interests. This represents a departure from a globalist framework, where international cooperation and institutions prevailed, towards a U.S.-centric imperialism that asserts dominance via economic power, potentially facilitating a multipolar world characterized by competing spheres of influence.
The United States possesses a substantial advantage: its market constitutes a critical component of many countries' exports, granting significant leverage. Countries such as Canada, Mexico, and China are heavily reliant on American consumers, far more than the U.S. depends on their markets. When Trump implemented tariffs on Canadian steel, Canada faced immediate pressure to adjust, as losing access to the U.S. market was untenable. During trade negotiations, Mexico also acquiesced under the threat of tariffs, and South Korea could encounter similar pressures. This imbalance amplifies the coercive capabilities of tariffs, enticing smaller economies to adapt rather than resist.
In recent times, tariffs have generated substantial revenue, reminiscent of their historical role as the exclusive federal income source in earlier periods. These funds could finance a sovereign wealth fund, perhaps invested in gold or cryptocurrencies, which would bolster U.S. economic independence, combat inflation, or facilitate advancements in technology. Strategically, this approach enhances national security by diminishing reliance on nations Washington considers adversarial, like Russia and China, and safeguarding against disruptions in crucial supplies such as rare earth elements or energy. For globalism's critics, tariffs represent a method to reclaim sovereignty while reaping financial benefits. There is also the suggestion of potentially exiting supranational organizations like the World Trade Organization, which Trump regards as overly restrictive. Ignoring WTO regulations could foreshadow a withdrawal from global trade systems, likely unsettling the European Union, where diverging interests, such as those between Germany and Italy, could exacerbate divisions. This may signify America’s last attempt to counter the ascent of BRICS and resist the transition from a U.S.-led globalism to a multipolar order marked by varied spheres of influence.
The U.S. dollar's standing as the world's reserve currency is vital for enabling low-cost borrowing, facilitating effective sanctions, and maintaining trade supremacy. Tariffs support this by addressing the trade deficit and funding sovereign initiatives. However, BRICS’ efforts towards de-dollarization, advocating for alternative currencies, threaten this foundation. If the dollar’s dominance wanes, it complicates initiatives like funding a wealth fund or rejuvenating industries, diminishes foreign investment, and erodes U.S. influence. In the face of BRICS' multipolar ambitions, tariffs are a crucial effort to retain economic power; losing dollar supremacy would make such a strategy infeasible.
Yet the drawbacks are notable. Inflation rises as the costs of imports increase prices for consumer goods such as clothing, electronics, and automobiles, exacerbating existing price pressures in the U.S. Supply chains, already intricate, experience further disruption, resulting in delays and shortages. Industries dependent on foreign components – like automotive manufacturers reliant on semiconductors – encounter difficulties, while smaller businesses struggle to adapt. Retaliatory measures worsen the scenario: China has targeted U.S. agricultural exports, and Europe has responded in kind. A shortage of STEM professionals, including engineers and technologists, hampers rapid industrial redevelopment. Certain goods, like smartphones or technologies dependent on rare earths, would be prohibitively expensive to manufacture domestically due to high labor costs and limited resources. Reindustrialization demands substantial investments in infrastructure, training, and time – constructing new facilities such as steel mills can take years.
For those opposing globalism, tariffs serve to decrease the trade deficit, fund sovereignty in a manner reminiscent of the historical reliance on tariffs, and challenge WTO authority while resisting BRICS’ momentum toward a multipolar landscape. America’s leverage in exports – exemplified by its influence over Canada and Mexico – strengthens its position. A withdrawal from the WTO could liberate American policy, perhaps deepening divisions within the EU, particularly between France and Poland. Still, shortages of skilled labor, increasing costs, and extended timelines pose significant challenges. Inflation is likely to rise, supply chains may falter, and trade disputes could escalate – China’s responses are calculated, and the EU remains resolute. The trade deficit might shrink, but at the expense of higher prices and reduced availability of goods. The dominance of the dollar is essential; any moves towards de-dollarization threaten this strategy.
The allure is considerable: tariffs generate revenue, tackle the trade deficit, counter adversaries, and leverage U.S. market strength against BRICS, aligning with Trump’s economic America First strategy – moving away from globalist cooperation to imperial assertion rather than punitive measures. This revenue, evoking a time when tariffs alone financed the government prior to the advent of income taxes, holds potential – gold for stability, cryptocurrencies for innovation. However, implementation poses significant challenges. Inflationary pressures grow, supply disruptions remain endemic, and businesses, particularly smaller ones, are adversely affected, while larger companies adapt more gradually. The trade deficit may improve, with nations like Canada and Mexico conceding to U.S. pressure. An exit from the WTO could disrupt established global trade norms, potentially deepening EU divisions. In this context, resisting BRICS is critical; the dollar’s role is crucial, and any decline in its status would result in failure. While security might be bolstered, economic stability risks deterioration. For opponents of globalism, this offers control, resources, and the opportunity to defy external pressures. For the U.S., the stakes are high: promising if successful, but perilous if it fails. As the multipolar era unfolds, characterized by emerging spheres of influence, this could represent America’s final countermeasure.
Camille Lefevre for TROIB News
Find more stories on Business, Economy and Finance in TROIB business
