Tug-of-War

President Donald Trump’s decision to delay higher tariffs on imports till August 1 while simultaneously issuing new levy warnings to 14 countries reinforces a now-familiar pattern in his economic strategy: pressure first, deals later ~ if at all. The tactic may appear shrewd on the surface, but beneath the rhetoric lies a high-stakes gamble with global economic stability. At the heart of the issue is Mr. Trump’s persistent belief in tariffs as leverage ~ a tool to force trade concessions, reset imbalances, and protect domestic industries. The threatened tariffs, ranging from 25 per cent to 40 per cent, target both key trading partners like Japan and South Korea and smaller economies such as Myanmar and Serbia.

The message is clear: no country is too strategic or too peripheral to be spared from this latest iteration of American trade unilateralism. Yet, Mr Trump’s own ambiguity undermines his threat. His comment that the August 1 deadline is “firm, but not 100 per cent firm” signals to negotiating countries that there is room for manoeuvre, thereby blunting the very pressure the tariffs were meant to exert. This wavering stance risks transforming economic policy into political theatre, where the appearance of toughness substitutes for long-term strategy. There is also a troubling absence of coherence in the selection and scale of tariffs. Why Myanmar should face a 40 per cent tariff while Malaysia faces 25 per cent remains unclear. Without a transparent rationale grounded in measurable trade violations or national security imperatives, the policy feels arbitrary. Such randomness sows confusion in foreign capitals, disrupts investment planning, and erodes goodwill among traditional allies.

Advertisement

Proponents argue that Mr. Trump’s approach is transactional and pragmatic ~ each country receives a different offer tailored to its trade profile and geopolitical relevance. Indeed, the White House claims its phone is “ringing off the hook” with leaders eager to strike deals. But these proclamations ignore the structural costs of constant brinkmanship. Markets recoil with each new announcement, and businesses are left to navigate shifting sands instead of stable frameworks. Moreover, while the administration insists these tariffs will boost American manufacturing, the empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Past rounds of tariffs have increased costs for US consumers and industries reliant on foreign inputs, while delivering only marginal gains in reshoring jobs. Mr. Trump’s strategy seems to blend economic populism with old-school power politics. But tariffs, unlike missiles, do not land cleanly. Their effects ripple through global supply chains, strain alliances, and invite retaliatory measures. Trade diplomacy demands consistency and predictability ~ qualities in short supply under the current regime. If the goal is truly to recalibrate America’s position in global trade, a coherent framework rooted in multilateral dialogue and enforceable standards would serve better than unpredictable salvos of tariffs. As it stands, the world is left guessing where the next hit will come from ~ and how long the ceasefire will last.