In under 100 days, President Donald Trump launched a sweeping transformation of global economic relations, framed around reducing trade imbalances. His approach was to impose high tariffs on key trading nations, withdraw from multilateral agreements, and unilaterally redefine the rules governing global commerce. While this strategy was politically framed as a corrective measure, it represents more than just a shift in trade dynamics—it is a deliberate effort to construct a new global order, centered on a U.S.-driven economic and ideological framework.
This emerging doctrine has a distinctly neo-mercantilist character, reintroducing protectionism as both a policy tool and an organizing principle for global influence. To grasp the full significance of this approach, it’s essential to examine it through three foundational elements: knowledge, actions, and beliefs. These pillars shape how societies define truth, decide on priorities, and establish what is worth pursuing.
1. Redefining Knowledge: Contesting “What is True”
Trump’s trade policy challenges the foundational assumptions of globalization. Long-standing agreements like NAFTA and WTO frameworks are now seen as imbalanced and exploitative. Economic data is selectively interpreted to frame trade deficits as strategic threats, rather than the byproduct of structural competitiveness.
Through this approach, the administration seeks to build a new knowledge framework—one that values bilateral power dynamics over multilateral cooperation and prioritizes national surpluses over global efficiency. The goal is to establish a new economic “truth” that self-interest and zero-sum logic should dominate over mutual benefit.
For currency markets, this shift creates systemic uncertainty. Traditional macroeconomic indicators become distorted as competing narratives gain prominence. FX markets become more sensitive to political rhetoric, trade threats, and retaliatory actions, resulting in short-term volatility and a longer-term reassessment of global risk.
2. Redefining Actions: Deciding “What is Worth Doing”
The second pillar is action. The Trump administration quickly translated its ideology into concrete steps—imposing tariffs on Chinese goods, restricting steel imports, encouraging reshoring, and revising trade deals to favor U.S. manufacturing.
This operational shift alters what is considered economically valuable. Domestic production, reduced dependence on foreign supply chains, and transactional leverage become top priorities. In this new framework, economic activities are worthwhile only if they align with national sovereignty.
The global repercussions are significant. Capital and investment are reallocated, supply chains become fragmented, and multinational cooperation wanes. Currency markets respond not just through trade flows but also by adjusting risk premiums, as countries face heightened exposure to policy shifts, capital flight, and liquidity crises.
3. Reshaping Beliefs: Reframing “What is Important”
Finally, Trump’s trade philosophy aims to reshape the moral compass of economic engagement. Cooperation is no longer assumed as a given; it must be earned or coerced. Multilateralism is framed as a weakness, while sovereignty, strength, and unilateral action become the defining values.
This philosophical shift is strategic. It seeks to shift not only policies but also values—recasting the United States as a dominant actor, capable of setting the rules and compelling others to follow.
As these beliefs evolve, currency markets react to shifts in perception. Trust in institutional frameworks and geopolitical alliances weakens, making safe haven flows less predictable. Market sentiment, built on shared expectations, fractures, amplifying FX market volatility.
Strengthening the Strong, Weakening the Vulnerable
The implications of such a shift are profound. Developed economies, with robust institutions and financial capacity, may adjust and even benefit from renegotiated trade deals or more efficient domestic industries. However, developing nations, which rely heavily on global trade openness and foreign investment, face disproportionate challenges. Disrupted supply chains, restricted access to U.S. markets, and increased uncertainty could undermine years of development.
In essence, Trump’s strategy is an attempt to re-engineer the global economic framework by challenging the very philosophical foundations upon which it is built. This is not merely a shift in policy but a deliberate ideological campaign to redefine how nations perceive truth, prioritize economic actions, and shape their core values.
A New Normal or a Temporary Disruption?
Whether Trump’s trade strategy will lead to a permanent shift in the global order remains uncertain. However, his early actions clearly indicate a deliberate attempt to establish a new global normal—one characterized by protectionism, national sovereignty, and selective cooperation. If successful, this could pave the way for a multipolar world, where regional powers assert their own truths and moral compasses, further fragmenting global unity.
As history shows, altering the core pillars of knowledge, action, and belief is an immense challenge. The true legacy of Trump’s trade doctrine may not lie solely in the tariffs or deals renegotiated, but in the intellectual and ethical frameworks it inspires—or dismantles—across the global stage.
