US intelligence

Geo-tariffics

The US has adopted a transactional approach to trade under President Trump, emphasising protectionism and economic leverage. This approach prioritises short-term wins over long-term strategic partnerships, often seeking zero-sum outcomes rather than mutually beneficial arrangements. At the time of writing, the primary targets include:

• China:

• European Union (EU)

• Canada and Mexico.

  
  

They have simply reacted defensively and opted for retaliatory tariffs.

Umbrage is not a strategy

Rather than mirroring Trump’s win-lose mentality, other countries could take longer-term strategic actions that increase resilience and reduce dependence on US trade policies:

• Trade diversification: Strengthening intra-regional trade agreements would reduce exposure to US tariffs. The EU, for example, could expand partnerships with Asia and Latin America to rebalance its trade dependencies.

• Investment in domestic innovation: Governments could increase R&D funding in key industries to reduce reliance on US imports and exports, ensuring long-term economic competitiveness.

• Targeted pressure rather than broad retaliation: Instead of engaging in blanket retaliatory tariffs, countries could selectively target industries where the US is vulnerable, such as technology and pharmaceuticals.

• Building economic alliances beyond tariffs: Engaging US companies directly through tax incentives, strategic investments, and relocation benefits could shift leverage away from Washington’s unilateral decisions.

  
  

Attempting to go toe to toe with someone whose identity is inextricably linked to winning or at least the perception of winning, is unlikely to lead to short term success and highly likely to lead to long term damage.

Chainsaw diplomacy

Trump’s approach to tariffs echoes last-century business tactics, focusing on dominance over diplomacy. Whilst it may yield short-term economic boosts, it risks undermining the US's global economic leadership in the long run, perhaps accelerating a hegemonic shift.

A more intelligent approach would include:

• Selective tariffs rather than blanket policies: The US could focus tariffs only where there are genuine national security risks or unfair competition, such as in semiconductors and AI, rather than applying broad protectionist measures.

• Strengthening domestic competitiveness: Instead of simply blocking imports, the US should invest in high-tech manufacturing, supply chain resilience, and workforce upskilling to enhance long-term economic security.

• Coalition-based economic pressure: Rather than isolating itself, the US could collaborate with allies like the EU, Canada, and Japan to create a unified economic front against China's trade policies, making it more difficult for Beijing to exploit divisions among Western nations.

• Balancing trade and diplomacy: Instead of pursuing a zero-sum game, the US should return to bilateral and multilateral negotiations, ensuring sustainable, mutually beneficial agreements that reinforce global economic stability.

  
  

Is there a method in his madness?

There may be a deeper strategic intent behind President Trump’s actions. Some possibilities include:

• A negotiation tactic: Trump often applies maximum pressure (e.g., high tariffs) as an opening move, then later negotiates better terms (Read any 20th century business classic). This could be an attempt to force trading partners into more favourable deals.

• Economic decoupling from China: The tariffs on China may reflect a broader goal of reshoring manufacturing and reducing dependence on Chinese supply chains, aligning with long-term US economic security interests.

• Political leverage: Tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and the EU may not be just about trade but about wider geopolitical leverage (e.g., using economic pressure to influence defence spending or border policies).

So the US tariffs perhaps are ‘diplomatic chaff’ to conceal a more thoughtful intention.

The risks of a win-lose strategy

Collateral damage is inevitable. This approach:

• Damages US businesses and consumers: Higher costs for imports hurt American industries and consumers more than foreign governments.

• Alienates allies: The US is pressuring traditional partners rather than building a unified front against China.

  • Up until recently, the US had allies whilst China had transactional partners. Allyship, like trust, take time to build and can be destroyed instantly. This is levelling the hegemonic field of play. China must be delighted.

• Encourages creative counter-strategies: Countries are responding by diversifying away from the US, weakening America's economic influence.

If Trump were playing a truly intelligent game, he would be coordinating with allies, focusing on innovation rather than protectionism, and selectively targeting areas where the US has real leverage. Instead, the current approach risks short-term ‘wins’ at the expense of long-term US strength.

Make America isolated again

The US has a history of isolationism. It is just that none of us are old enough to remember. So this behaviour should not come as a shock or be seen as Trumpism. In any case, Trump’s tariff policy is rooted in transactional, short-term thinking, favouring win-lose outcomes that create instability rather than sustainable economic gains.

The US has a history of isolationism. It is just that none of us are old enough to remember.

Broadly speaking, an intelligent approach does not appear to be fashionable with many of our global leaders. This is a cause for concern.

Whilst other nations have mostly retaliated, they have an opportunity to respond more strategically by reshaping global trade relationships and reducing dependency on the US Similarly, the US could adopt a more sophisticated economic approach, leveraging its position as a global leader to shape trade in a way that is both competitive and cooperative. Without these adjustments, the current trajectory risks deepening economic divisions and weakening the long-term influence of the United States on global trade. But unfortunately that may be the plan.

Let’s make the world intelligent (again?).