There have been noticeable changes to American foreign policy in 2025, notably regarding trade. The Second Trump Administration has put an unconditional 10% import duty on all countries importing to American companies within U.S. jurisdiction. This has certainly raised tensions between America and many Asian countries, as well as those who favor free trade policies in the West.
However, not many have been surprised about this. Trump’s first trade war with China had already established the Administration’s stance regarding the China trade. What peaked for the first administration of a 19.3% tariff in 2021 became 145% for most Chinese goods. (https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2019/us-china-trade-war-tariffs-date-chart), yet even this could increase to thwart the Chinese, who have also retaliated with figures upwards of 125% on U.S. goods.
Of course, tariffs are generally opposed by most people because companies raise prices, which causes inflation. (https://www.bankrate.com/taxes/trump-tariffs-explained/). There is a scholarly consensus among trade experts that low barriers to trade are beneficial to economic development throughout the world. Therefore, these pro-free trade experts will oppose the Trump Administration’s current measures.
A plurality of conservative Republican thinkers favor a protectionist stance towards world trade. They seek to promote internal American industrial development by forcing companies to turn inland instead of paying for many foreign supplies. In this case, however, Republicans and Democrats alike are seeking to undermine China’s sporadically unscrupulous economic processes. Many notice the lack of respect China has for making cheaper products and taking up a sizable amount of the general manufacturing market globally. This is the motivation behind the scheme of the current administration.
Similarly, the relationship between the United States and Japan in the 1980s and 90s was of the same feather to the current situation. Then, Japan was the second largest economy in the world with a 1995 nominal GDP of about $5.3 trillion to the United States’ $7.6 trillion. At the time, newspapers and other daily publications often portrayed the Japanese as flooding American markets with cheap, mass-produced goods. Therefore, many believed something needed to be done, as the island nation seemed to disrespect global trade institutions and was abusing the system that enabled their economy by monopolizing global manufacturing.
The result was the devaluing of the Japanese yen, and forcing Japan to lower its surplus with the U.S. in particular. America had done this due to the abuse of the global trade markets that Japan undertook. Today, China behaves in a similar fashion, except their economy and scale of power is much different than Japan’s. The People’s Republic is capable of tremendous power projection in their immediate area, and is also making other deals with neighbors, particularly through BRICs. The United States will have to heed its own speed. China’s yuan is also growing (https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2024/04/18/de-dollarization-the-belt-and-road-initiative-and-the-future-of-the-chinese-yuan/), as China reasonably seeks to diversify, and it would do good for the Chinese to be put in their place so as to force them to open up their other markets that do not include manufacturing.
The policy in isolation is a sensible one of keeping competition in the world proper and respectable. Once Japan was knocked with some sense, there was increased development and opportunity for other areas of Asia to continue their economic rise. From a foreign policy standpoint, this is a strong, disciplined policy that seeks to uphold global markets with fairness and competition, instead of one-nation dominance and tyranny over others. However, if egregiously used, this would spell ruin for all nations, as tariffs are to be avoided. Only for proper coercion must they be used for honorable ends.
It is important for the markets of the world to be diversified, instead of excessively relying on an established trading center to provide everything at a cheap buck. Development, not monopoly, should be the goal of economic competition.
