Understanding Trump’s tariff strategy: context, history, rationale, and goals

1. Context: A radical economic reorientation

Donald Trump’s tariff policy is not an isolated or improvised move. According to his advisors, it marks the first stage of a broader strategy to reshape the global economic order, aiming to reverse American deindustrialization and reassert the United States as a manufacturing power. Trump’s approach starts with what has been labeled tariff chaos — an aggressive imposition of duties on both allies and rivals — intended not as a final goal but as a negotiation tool for a new global arrangement.

2. Historical background: two previous global orders

Trump’s economic vision stands in opposition to two key historical systems the United States itself helped create:

a. The Bretton Woods System (1944–1973)
• Core features: Fixed exchange rates pegged to the US dollar (which was convertible to gold); American military protection for allied countries; support to rebuild their industrial sectors.
• Strategic goals: Avoid another world war, secure allies against communism, expand markets for US exports, and establish the US dollar as the global reserve currency.
• Outcome: US hegemony was bolstered, but over time, the system generated structural tensions (e.g., the Triffin dilemma) and collapsed in 1971 when Nixon ended the dollar’s convertibility to gold.

The Bretton Woods system, established in the aftermath of World War II, represented a foundational framework for international economic cooperation. Designed to prevent another Great Depression and to ensure global financial stability, it was rooted in fixed exchange rates and underpinned by American economic and military power.

Core Features
• Fixed Exchange Rates Anchored to the Dollar: Each participating country pegged its currency to the U.S. dollar, which was in turn convertible into gold at a fixed rate of $35 per ounce. This gold-dollar linkage was meant to provide monetary stability and predictability in international trade.
• Creation of Global Institutions: Two major institutions were established — the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank — to manage monetary cooperation, provide financial support, and facilitate post-war reconstruction and development.
• American Military and Industrial Support: The U.S. not only guaranteed monetary stability but also provided military protection and economic assistance (e.g., the Marshall Plan) to its allies, helping them rebuild and modernize their industrial bases.

Strategic Goals
• Prevent Global Economic Collapse: The architects of Bretton Woods sought to avoid the protectionism, currency wars, and chaos of the 1930s. A rules-based system with stable exchange rates was seen as essential to global recovery and peace.
• Contain Communism through Economic Growth: Economic stability and prosperity in Western Europe and Japan were considered vital for deterring the spread of Soviet influence during the Cold War.
• Expand Global Markets for U.S. Exports: By integrating allied economies and encouraging trade liberalization under the dollar system, the U.S. secured growing demand for its industrial output.
• Establish Dollar Hegemony: Bretton Woods solidified the U.S. dollar’s role as the central currency in the international financial system, initiating what French finance minister Valéry Giscard d’Estaing later called the “exorbitant privilege” of the dollar.

Outcomes and Collapse

Despite initial successes, the Bretton Woods system faced mounting structural tensions:
• The Triffin Dilemma: Economist Robert Triffin identified a fatal flaw — to supply the world with dollars, the U.S. had to run persistent balance-of-payments deficits. Over time, this undermined confidence in the dollar’s convertibility into gold.
• The Nixon Shock (1971): Amid declining gold reserves and a surge in dollar liabilities abroad, President Richard Nixon unilaterally suspended the dollar’s convertibility into gold. This act, meant to be temporary, effectively ended the Bretton Woods system.
• Transition to Floating Exchange Rates: By 1973, the system of fixed rates had collapsed entirely. Major economies moved toward floating exchange rates, allowing market forces to determine currency values.

Historical Significance

Bretton Woods created a monetary architecture that allowed for unprecedented global economic expansion and reconstruction in the post-war decades. It ensured dollar primacy, promoted Western cohesion during the Cold War, and embedded the United States at the center of the global economic system. However, its internal contradictions — particularly the dependence on U.S. deficits to sustain global liquidity — led to its eventual unraveling, paving the way for the more volatile, deregulated system that followed.

b. The Neoliberal Order (early 1980s–2016)
• Core features: Deregulation, low tariffs, capital mobility, flexible exchange rates, and the dominance of the US dollar without formal compulsion.
• Strategic goals: Promote global free trade; make the world wealthier and, thereby, more politically stable and friendly to US interests.
• Side effects: Boosted US financial power but led to deindustrialization, growing inequality, and dependence on foreign manufacturing — especially from China after its 2001 WTO accession.

Following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s and the economic turbulence of that decade — marked by stagflation, oil shocks, and fiscal instability — a new paradigm emerged in the 1980s under the political leadership of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom. This shift, often referred to as the neoliberal order, reflected a profound reorientation of global economic governance, rooted in market liberalism, deregulation, and globalization.

Core Features

• Deregulation: Governments rolled back regulations across key sectors, especially finance, allowing capital markets to expand rapidly. Banking restrictions were eased, labor markets were liberalized, and the private sector gained dominance over state-led development models.
• Low Tariffs and Trade Liberalization: A global consensus, institutionalized through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and later the World Trade Organization (WTO), promoted the reduction of trade barriers. This helped expand international trade volumes and encouraged cross-border investment.
• Capital Mobility: Restrictions on capital flows were dismantled, enabling investors to move funds freely across borders. This facilitated the globalization of production and finance but also increased exposure to market volatility and financial crises.
• Flexible Exchange Rates: In contrast to Bretton Woods, the neoliberal order relied on floating currency regimes. Exchange rates were determined by supply and demand in global currency markets, without formal pegs or gold backing.
• De Facto Dollar Dominance: There was no formal requirement to use the U.S. dollar in international trade or reserves, but the dollar remained dominant due to its liquidity, stability, and the unparalleled size of U.S. capital markets. This gave the U.S. significant leverage over global financial flows and institutions.

Strategic Goals

• Promote Global Free Trade: The underlying belief was that open markets would allocate resources more efficiently, stimulate innovation, and boost economic growth for all participants.
• Generate Global Prosperity and Political Stability: By integrating countries into a U.S.-led economic system, it was assumed they would become wealthier and more politically aligned with Western democratic and capitalist norms. This strategy particularly influenced post-Cold War relations with Eastern Europe, Latin America, and East Asia.
• Strengthen U.S. Global Influence Through Economic Power: The combination of financial dominance, capital mobility, and trade liberalization consolidated the United States’ position at the center of the global economic architecture without the need for formal imperial structures.

Side Effects and Unintended Consequences

• Deindustrialization in the United States: As multinational corporations relocated manufacturing to countries with lower labor costs and weaker regulatory standards, the U.S. industrial base — especially in the Midwest and Rust Belt — eroded significantly. This triggered economic stagnation and social decline in former manufacturing hubs.
• Rising Inequality: Financial globalization and deregulation disproportionately benefited capital over labor. Returns to investors outpaced wage growth, and access to global markets concentrated wealth in the hands of transnational elites.
• Dependence on Foreign Manufacturing: The neoliberal order fostered a global division of labor that made advanced economies, particularly the U.S., increasingly reliant on external supply chains. This dependency became starkly visible during the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical tensions with China.
• The China Shock: China’s accession to the WTO in 2001 dramatically accelerated global manufacturing shifts. While U.S. consumers benefited from cheap imports, domestic industries collapsed under pressure, and trade imbalances grew. Beijing, meanwhile, used state-directed industrial policy to build a formidable manufacturing and technological base.

Legacy and Decline

By the mid-2010s, the neoliberal order began to lose legitimacy. Its promises of shared prosperity had failed to materialize for large segments of the Western working class. The financial crisis of 2008 exposed the fragility of unregulated markets. The rise of populism and protectionist rhetoric — culminating in Trump’s first trade war in 2016 — signaled a backlash against globalism and the beginning of a search for alternative models of economic organization.

3. Reasons behind Trump’s use of tariffs

Trump’s advisors (notably Scott Bessent and Steven Miran) view tariffs not as protectionist relics but as instruments of strategic leverage:

a. Reindustrialization as National Security
• Manufacturing’s share of US GDP fell from 28% in the 1950s to 10% today.
• A weakened industrial base is seen as a threat in a future military conflict, particularly against China.
• Trump’s team believes economic strength underpins military readiness.

b. Breakdown of the Current Order
• They argue that both Bretton Woods and neoliberalism have stopped serving American interests.
• Globalization benefited US elites but hollowed out the industrial heartland, which strongly supported Trump in 2024.

c. Tariffs as Negotiation Tools
• Tariffs are meant to create pressure and chaos — not as a permanent state, but as a bridge to new trade agreements.
• The idea is to force other countries to the table by leveraging their dependence on the US market and the dollar.

President Donald Trump’s key economic advisors, Scott Bessent and Stephen Miran, advocate for the use of tariffs not as outdated protectionist measures but as strategic instruments to advance U.S. national interests. Their approach encompasses three primary objectives:

a. Reindustrialization as National Security

• Decline in Manufacturing: The U.S. manufacturing sector’s contribution to GDP has diminished from 28% in the 1950s to approximately 10% in recent years.
• Strategic Vulnerability: Bessent and Miran contend that this industrial decline poses a significant threat to national security. They emphasize that a robust manufacturing base is crucial for military preparedness, especially in potential conflicts with nations like China, which has substantially expanded its industrial capabilities.  
• Economic Foundation for Defense: The advisors assert that economic strength, underpinned by a revitalized manufacturing sector, is essential for sustaining military readiness and ensuring the U.S. can independently support its defense needs.

b. Breakdown of the Current Order

• Obsolescence of Existing Systems: They argue that frameworks such as Bretton Woods and the subsequent neoliberal economic order no longer serve American interests effectively. These systems, in their view, have facilitated globalization in a manner that benefits multinational elites while neglecting domestic industrial growth.
• Impact on the Industrial Heartland: The advisors highlight that globalization has led to the erosion of the U.S. industrial base, particularly affecting regions known as the “Rust Belt.” This economic displacement has fueled political support for policies aimed at reversing deindustrialization.

c. Tariffs as Negotiation Tools

• Leveraging Economic Pressure: Bessent and Miran advocate for the use of tariffs to create economic pressure and strategic uncertainty. Rather than viewing tariffs as ends in themselves, they see them as means to compel trading partners to renegotiate terms more favorable to the U.S.  
• Forcing Engagement: By imposing tariffs, the U.S. can incentivize other nations to enter negotiations, leveraging their reliance on access to American markets and the U.S. dollar. This strategy aims to rectify trade imbalances and establish more equitable economic relationships.

4. The three-phase strategy

Trump’s global economic plan unfolds in three steps:

Phase 1: Tariff Chaos
• Blanket imposition of tariffs, including on allies.
• Purpose: generate leverage for future negotiations.
• The administration is ready to tolerate short-term economic pain to gain long-term strategic positioning.

Phase 2: Reciprocal Tariffs
• Objective: level the playing field.
• The system should reward innovation, rule of law, and stability, not labor suppression, currency manipulation, or regulatory distortion.
• The US seeks to force symmetric tariff policies and use trade pressure to secure currency realignment agreements.

Phase 3: “The Mar-a-Lago Agreement”
• A new global trade and monetary framework, loosely modeled on Bretton Woods but with major updates:
• Countries would be divided into green, yellow, and red buckets.
• Green countries: peg their currencies to the dollar, gain access to US markets and security guarantees — but might pay for this security, becoming “vassal states.”
• The aim is to maintain the dollar as a reserve currency while weakening it just enough to restore US manufacturing competitiveness.

5. Intended Purposes and Strategic Goals
   • Restore manufacturing to ensure both prosperity and security.
   • Reclaim US leverage over global trade rules through selective tariff use.
   • Replace the WTO-based liberal order with a tiered system of trust-based partnerships centered on American power.
   • Prevent loss of reserve currency status, which would severely limit US global influence.

6. Risks and Uncertainties
   • The success of the plan depends on foreign cooperation. Many countries may resist being labeled “vassals” or pegging their currencies to the dollar.
   • The credibility of US commitments is questioned, especially after erratic policy shifts and broken past agreements (e.g., NAFTA renegotiation, threats to NATO).
   • Economists argue that reindustrializing while maintaining a strong reserve currency is structurally contradictory.

–––––––––––––––

CONSEQUENCES

• Historically, U.S. economic power (sanctions, access to markets) worked because:
  1. Targets were often seen as violating international norms.
  2. Doing business with the U.S. was too valuable to risk.
• Despite current retaliation, U.S. markets remain attractive, and access to U.S. financial and trade systems still shapes international behavior.
• However, as the cost of accessing the U.S. market rises, countries may rethink compliance with broader U.S. demands (e.g., Iran sanctions).
• Some nations (e.g., China, EU) are pushing back with tariffs of their own; others (e.g., Japan) are seeking negotiation rather than retaliation.

Long-term effects

The tariffs may erode U.S. power to use its economy as a coercive tool due to four major trends:

1. Rising costs of engagement
   • Tariffs, combined with sanctions, raise the price of doing business with the U.S.
   • Foreign actors might choose to avoid the U.S. entirely, reducing the impact of sanctions that depend on existing trade ties.
2. Dilution of U.S. negotiating clarity
   • The U.S. now issues multiple, overlapping demands (trade deficits, Iran, China, supply chains).
   • Without clear goals or quid pro quo, foreign governments struggle to interpret what actions will lead to tariff relief or sanctions reduction.
3. Incentives to build alternatives
   • U.S. behavior encourages the creation of new trade blocs and non-U.S.-centered economic systems.
   • Long-term, this could limit U.S. market leverage and reshape the global trade architecture.
4. Reputational and political backlash
   • Foreign governments, businesses, and populations are alienated.
   • Some may reject U.S. coercion even at economic cost, simply out of political or symbolic resistance.

Looking forward: options for mitigation

To preserve U.S. economic influence and repair the damage, three measures are proposed:

1. Negotiate tariff deals
   • Trump can reduce tariffs in exchange for trade deficit reductions, as in his first term.
   • However, this may conflict with domestic goals (e.g., generating revenue for tax cuts).
2. Clarify U.S. economic strategy
   • The administration should articulate a coherent doctrine on how tariffs and sanctions serve national interests.
   • Current confusion weakens U.S. credibility and effectiveness.
3. Congressional oversight and reform
   • Congress can curb executive overreach by reforming the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
   • The tariffs’ legal basis under IEEPA is weak and arguably unconstitutional.

Conclusion

The Trump administration appears willing to abandon the costs of U.S. “economic exceptionality” in favor of brute-force leverage. But this exceptionality has long been a source of U.S. global influence. Weakening it may limit the country’s capacity to address real national security threats in the future.

Follow