Why Understanding Trump on Trade Policy is Futile
In the world of geopolitics and economics, trade policy is typically guided by consistent principles, clear objectives, and a recognition of long-term consequences. But when it comes to Donald Trump’s trade policy, such logic falls apart. Attempting to understand his approach—rooted in unpredictability, contradictory actions, and rhetoric over substance—becomes an exercise in futility. Here’s why.
A Philosophy of Chaos
Trump’s trade policy has often been described as a "gut instinct" approach. Unlike traditional policymakers who rely on economic models or expert advice, Trump’s decisions seem to emerge from a belief in disruption as a strategy. His imposition of tariffs, withdrawal from multilateral agreements, and re-negotiations like the USMCA were driven less by coherent planning and more by a desire to assert dominance and project strength.
The result? Policies that appear intentionally erratic. One day, China is a trade partner; the next, it’s an enemy of the American worker. Mexico is alternately praised for cooperation and threatened with tariffs. For allies and rivals alike, Trump’s unpredictability makes it nearly impossible to negotiate or plan ahead.
Contradictions at the Core
A hallmark of Trump’s trade policy is its inherent contradictions. His “America First” agenda ostensibly aimed to protect U.S. workers and industries, yet his tariffs often hurt the very groups they were meant to shield. Farmers, a key base of support for Trump, faced devastating losses due to retaliatory tariffs from countries like China. At the same time, U.S. manufacturers reliant on imported materials saw costs skyrocket, reducing their global competitiveness.
Even the much-touted USMCA, the renegotiated NAFTA, largely preserved the existing framework of the agreement while adding modest changes. Despite this, Trump framed it as a monumental victory—a narrative at odds with the policy’s actual substance.
Rhetoric Over Results
Trump’s trade policy often blurred the line between policy and propaganda. His focus was not on measurable outcomes but on controlling the narrative. He declared his tariffs on China a win, despite evidence that they cost U.S. consumers billions of dollars. The “Phase One” trade deal with China, signed in 2020, was heralded as a triumph, but it failed to address the structural issues Trump had claimed were his priorities.
The rhetoric also shifted unpredictably. One week, tariffs were the ultimate weapon; the next, they were a negotiating tool to be used or removed at whim. This lack of consistency turned his trade policy into a moving target, making meaningful analysis or long-term understanding almost impossible.
Ignoring Economic Realities
Economic policy thrives on consistency and adherence to basic principles. Trump, however, often dismissed expert consensus, showing disdain for the complexities of global trade. He described trade deficits—a natural and often harmless outcome of international trade—as a loss, conflating national accounting figures with business profit and loss statements.
By treating trade as a zero-sum game, Trump ignored the interconnectedness of modern economies. His tariffs on Chinese goods, for instance, disrupted supply chains across industries, harming U.S. businesses as much as, if not more than, their Chinese counterparts.
The Futility of Understanding
The fundamental challenge in understanding Trump’s trade policy lies in its lack of grounding in a cohesive vision. It is not based on economic theory, strategic consistency, or even a clear set of objectives. Instead, it reflects an approach driven by personal branding, short-term wins, and an almost theatrical desire to upend norms.
For those attempting to analyse or predict his trade moves, the lack of coherence makes any effort feel like chasing shadows. Trump’s decisions are less about outcomes and more about the spectacle, leaving economists, policymakers, and global leaders struggling to reconcile actions with intentions.
Conclusion: Beyond the Fog
Understanding Trump’s trade policy is futile because it was never designed to be understood—it was designed to disrupt. For better or worse, this approach left an indelible mark on global trade relations. While some of his actions may have temporarily shifted dynamics, the long-term effects are still unfolding.
As the world moves forward, the lessons of Trump’s trade policy may not lie in what was done but in how unpredictability and personality-driven decision-making can destabilise an interconnected global economy. For anyone hoping for clarity, the only certainty is that there was none to begin with.