Trump’s Presidency: A Reign of Extortion and Coercion

.dotcomrendering.pageElements.RichLinkBlockElement.

To what extent did Trump‘s use of tariffs represent a departure from conventional US trade policy?

Trade Wars as Leverage: Economic Coercion Under trump

Donald trump’s presidency was frequently characterized by a willingness to wield economic power – specifically, the threat of tariffs – as a tool for political leverage. This strategy, often described as economic coercion or even extortion, moved beyond traditional trade negotiations and into the realm of demanding concessions on unrelated policy matters. The use of tariffs wasn’t solely about achieving “fair trade”; it was demonstrably about forcing other nations to comply with Trump’s demands, nonetheless of international norms or agreements.

Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum: The imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports in 2018, justified under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (national security grounds), quickly escalated into a global trade dispute. These tariffs weren’t limited to countries engaging in unfair trade practices; allies like canada and the European Union were also targeted.

China trade War: The most prominent example of Trump’s coercive trade tactics was the trade war with China.Beginning in 2018, the US imposed tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods, and China retaliated in kind. The stated goals shifted frequently,ranging from reducing the trade deficit to forcing China to address intellectual property theft and unfair trade practices. However, the underlying pattern was clear: inflict economic pain to compel policy changes.

Impact on Global Supply Chains: These trade disputes disrupted global supply chains, increased costs for businesses and consumers, and created significant economic uncertainty.

Targeting Allies and Adversaries Alike: A Consistent Pattern

Trump’s approach wasn’t selective based on geopolitical alignment.Both allies and adversaries faced the threat of economic penalties if they didn’t fall in line with his administration’s policies. This created a climate of instability and distrust in international relations.

Mexico and Immigration: Threats of tariffs on Mexican goods were used to pressure the Mexican government to address the issue of illegal immigration at the US-Mexico border.This tactic, while temporarily effective in securing concessions, highlighted the willingness to use economic leverage for immigration policy.

European Union Disputes: disputes with the EU over aircraft subsidies (Boeing vs. Airbus) and other trade issues were frequently enough accompanied by threats of tariffs on European goods, including agricultural products.

The case of Turkey: Following Turkey’s purchase of the Russian S-400 missile defense system,the US threatened economic sanctions,demonstrating a willingness to punish allies for perceived security risks.

Pharmaceutical Industry Threats: A Recent Example of Coercion

Recent reports demonstrate this pattern continues to resonate even after leaving office. As reported on August 23, 2025, Trump has threatened pharmaceutical companies with tariffs of up to 250% if they don’t manufacture drugs within the United States. This isn’t about promoting domestic manufacturing through incentives; it’s about using the threat of crippling tariffs to force companies to relocate production.

Impact on Drug Prices: While the stated goal is to lower drug prices, the imposition of such high tariffs could actually increase costs for consumers by disrupting supply chains and limiting competition.

National Security Concerns: The justification often centers around national security, arguing that reliance on foreign manufacturers for essential medicines poses a risk. However, critics argue this is a pretext for protectionism and coercion.

Precedent for Future Actions: This threat sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting that any industry can be targeted with punitive tariffs if it doesn’t align with the former president’s preferences.

the Legal and Ethical Implications of Economic Extortion

The use of tariffs as a tool for coercion raises serious legal and ethical questions. While countries have the right to impose tariffs to protect their industries, using them to extract concessions on unrelated policy matters is widely seen as a violation of international trade norms.

WTO Rules: The World Trade Association (WTO) generally prohibits the use of tariffs for political purposes. Trump’s administration frequently circumvented WTO rules, arguing that national security concerns justified it’s actions.

Breach of Trust: the consistent use of threats and intimidation eroded trust in the US as a reliable trading partner.

Damage to Alliances: The targeting of allies strained relationships and undermined international cooperation.

Long-Term Consequences: A Shift in global Power Dynamics

Trump’s presidency marked a significant shift in the way the US engaged with the world. The willingness to use economic coercion as a primary foreign policy tool has had lasting consequences, potentially reshaping global power dynamics.

Increased Protectionism: the emphasis on protectionism and bilateral deals over multilateral agreements has weakened the global trading system.

Rise of Economic Nationalism: Trump’s policies fueled a rise in economic nationalism around the world, as other countries began to prioritize their own interests over international cooperation.

* Uncertainty and Instability: The unpredictable nature of Trump’s trade policies created a climate of uncertainty and