Antonio Navalón
It all began with a fistful of tariffs, like the title of an old Western movie in which the bad guys always lose to the good guys. A kind of film where figures like John Ford emerged as spokesmen for a doctrine that gave rise to what until now had been the most enduring and coherent democracy: the United States of America.
Until a few months ago, it seemed that the hegemony and, above all, the coherence of American leadership would endure and transcend for many years to come. However, a character arrived who would change everything: Donald J. Trump. Trump is not only to blame for sparking a fire that could set the whole world ablaze, but he can also be considered responsible for eradicating decades of commercial culture. With the implementation of his radical measures, it is almost a certainty that his actions will completely destabilize the established order.
During the Industrial Revolution, development took different forms in each nation. In England, it manifested itself through its naval power and commercial expansion, ensuring dominance of the seas and control of strategic routes. In other regions, it meant fighting against scarcity, territorial expansion, and the desire to consolidate their presence in a changing world.
In the United States, the industrial revolution boosted economic growth and reinforced the idea that success depended on transforming a past of violence and war into a system based on law and commerce. While in France, the revolution had been stained with blood and the guillotine its symbol, in the United States, the process resulted in the creation of codes of coexistence that sought stability and progress, inspired by republican models such as those of ancient Rome.
Over time, these divergent trajectories led to an almost universal acceptance of free trade as a pillar of development and of cooperation as an alternative to conflict and war. To a large extent, economic competition replaced military confrontation, and countries began to negotiate based on shared interests rather than irreconcilable rivalries.
However, for Donald Trump, none of these developments have been relevant, much less useful. In his view, supremacy is not built through agreements or through a regulated trading system but by imposing the law of the strongest. His logic is simple and dangerous: “I am in charge because I am more powerful”. And everyone else… obeys. Under this premise, commercial diplomacy and the construction of economic blocs have been displaced by a strategy of direct confrontation, where tariffs and sanctions are not tools for negotiation but weapons to break their opponents.
This approach has generated a scenario of unprecedented instability. Trade wars have gone from a mere dispute over tariffs to a mechanism for global political pressure. Governments around the world have been forced to rethink their economic strategies, meeting urgently and constantly to decipher Trump’s next moves and assess the impact of his decisions on their respective economies.
The uncertainty is total: what will come next? What kind of tax, invasion threat, or territory purchase will he follow? Who will be affected? And equally important, how will the world respond?
In this scenario of complete uncertainty and constant alert, it must be borne in mind that he who kills with tariffs dies by tariffs. And to see this, one only has to look at the various chain reactions that are taking place as a consequence of his decisions.
Trump’s confrontation policy has pushed former rivals to cooperate with each other and countries that were once considered close allies to formulate responses of containment and defense.
Canada has initiated a boycott aimed directly at Donald Trump. In a comparative study of land trips made by Canadian residents to the United States during February this year, a 23% drop was recorded compared to the previous year. In addition, Canadians have already implemented a reciprocal tariff response on US products such as steel and sports equipment.
In Europe, uncertainty has strengthened the idea of strategic autonomy, accelerating debates on the need to reduce dependence on the United States, mainly in matters of defense and trade. European independence is an increasingly imminent reality, even though to achieve it, they will have to adopt a policy of indebtedness that could have serious social and financial consequences. The Europeans have now responded with countermeasures of 26 billion euros in tariffs on US imports.
In Asia, China, Japan, and South Korea have found common ground in their rejection of US policies, despite their historical differences. It should not be forgotten that the two countries with the largest amount of US debt are precisely Japan and China.
Surely, we will learn more about the measures taken by the affected countries with each passing day.
The feeling of vulnerability has led countries to reconsider their preparedness for possible conflicts, not only with traditional actors such as Russia or China but even with the possibility that the United States will cease to be a reliable ally. A clear example of this is the historic investment of 800 billion euros aimed at strengthening military structures in Europe, an investment that speaks for itself.
To mention other data, a study by Aston University estimates that a trade war triggered by 25% tariffs could have an impact of 1.4 trillion dollars on the world economy by increasing prices in the United States and reducing its exports by more than 43.6%.
Geopolitics has entered a phase of forced realignment, where survival depends more on responsiveness than diplomacy.
These are no longer just times of uncertainty; they are about abandoning the illusion that global stability is unshakeable. Trump has changed the rules of the game, and the great nightmares of history are once again on the table and over the heads of the various world leaders.
In reality, is this the future that Donald Trump imagined or the reason why he worked so hard to return to the White House? We don’t know. The only sure thing is that when the most profitable business is war, weapons are not stockpiled for deterrence but to be used.
Donald Trump made his purposes and intentions very clear on the day he christened it “Liberation Day”. With a series of cardboard cut-outs, the US president explained with data – his data – that his country had been a victim of world trade and its trading partners over the last few decades. In his eyes, all he was doing was defending his nation and “inviting” and convincing foreign companies that producing their products within US territory is much more convenient and, above all, profitable than outside it. Or in other words, it is better to be on his side than against him.
In this model, which is based on a complete and absolute offensive against everyone at once, infinite unknowns arise. Two of them would be:
1. Has he calculated how long it will take to re-establish manufacturing in the United States or move foreign companies’ production plants to his country?
2. Why is he so convinced that Americans want to go back 50 years and go back to manufacturing? Has he already forgotten that it was his own society that preferred to pay the Chinese and many others to do what they were not willing to do?
And finally, there is the greatest contradiction: on the one hand, he is toughening immigration policies; on the other, he is promising to create millions of jobs within the country. How does he plan to resolve this paradox? Because analyzing things as they are – and leaving room for the fact that in his mind they are probably different – what he is unconsciously provoking is not only the creation of commercial blocs that exclude or aim to reduce US interdependence, but he is also preparing the ground for any country – be it China, Mexico or any other – that is willing to take advantage of the work that his compatriots are not willing to do.
Further Reading: