Professor Jones: Trump’s ‘Tariff Dictatorship’ Is Undermining the Global Trade Order

In an in-depth interview with ECPS, Professor Kent Jones warns that Donald Trump’s second-term trade strategy amounts to a “tariff dictatorship,” dismantling WTO norms and centralizing unprecedented power. “Trade has become a populist weapon,” says Professor Jones, “used to stoke anger and identify scapegoats rather than manage the economy.” He explains how Trump’s emotionally charged, anti-globalist rhetoric recasts trade deficits as existential threats while ignoring economic realities. Yet Professor Jones remains cautiously hopeful: “Globalization has faced downturns before. The human impulse to exchange and specialize endures.” As America retreats, he argues, others may step up. “If the US won’t lead, new trade alliances will form. But unpredictability is a burden—not a strength.”

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

In this timely and wide-ranging interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Prof. Kent Jones—Professor Emeritus of International Economics at Babson College and author of Populism and Trade: The Challenge to the Global Trading System—offers a sobering yet analytically rich critique of the Trump administration’s second-term trade strategy. Drawing on decades of experience and deep institutional knowledge, Professor Jones warns that the United States is no longer the steward of the postwar liberal trade order, but rather its chief saboteur. He argues that President Donald Trump’s erratic and hyper-personalized approach to trade—what he calls a “tariff dictatorship”—has effectively dismantled key pillars of the World Trade Organization (WTO), including most-favored-nation treatment and tariff binding, while concentrating unprecedented power in the hands of one individual.

Professor Jones emphasizes that trade policy, under Trump, has ceased to function as a tool of economic management and has instead become a populist weapon—repurposed to rally a nationalist, anti-elite political base through emotionally charged narratives about foreign threats and national decline. Trade deficits are recast as existential challenges, tariffs are imposed arbitrarily, and America’s longstanding commitments to multilateralism are eroded in favor of bilateral, loyalty-based deals that reflect Trump’s personal brand of grievance politics.

Yet amid this bleak portrait of institutional decay and populist distortion, Professor Jones also leaves room for cautious optimism. He underscores that globalization has weathered cyclical downturns before and that the human impulse to exchange, specialize, and cooperate across borders remains strong. While the US has stepped back, other actors—including the European Union, Canada, and emerging regional blocs—may step forward to rebuild a rules-based trade system, albeit imperfectly and without American leadership. Furthermore, Professor Jones suggests that the very unpredictability and economic pain caused by Trump’s tariffs may provoke renewed public scrutiny, mobilizing calls for Congress to reclaim its constitutional role in trade policymaking.

Ultimately, Professor Jones invites us to consider not only what has been lost, but what might still be recovered—provided that political institutions, civil society, and international alliances respond with resolve. As the world faces growing economic fragmentation, his insights provide a vital lens for understanding what’s at stake and how democratic societies might chart a path forward.

Here is the lightly edited transcript of the interview with Professor Kent Jones.

Trade as a Psychological Tool in Trump’s Populist Arsenal

Professor Jones, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: How has trade policy been strategically deployed by Donald Trump as a tool of electoral mobilization? To what extent has the administration’s populist trade rhetoric succeeded in forging a durable political coalition that bridges economic grievances and cultural identity politics?

Professor Kent Jones: As I try to communicate in my book, Trump undoubtedly used trade as a strategic element of his electoral platform. However, it must be understood within the broader context of other grievances he exploited—particularly in the most recent election in November—many of which could be described as cultural. Immigration, for instance, was a major concern for many Americans. Inflation was also a key issue, even though it wasn’t as severe as Trump portrayed it; nonetheless, he promised to bring prices down. These issues were part of a larger constellation of concerns, including cultural ones—such as transgender politics—which, in my view, received disproportionate attention.

What Trump effectively managed to do was to construct a political package in which trade plays a central role in identifying a scapegoat—namely, the globalist elite—whom he claims is responsible for many of the country’s problems. To the extent that he succeeded in doing so, he was able to extend his appeal beyond his base of highly enthusiastic and passionate supporters to include individuals concerned with broader issues—such as border security. At the same time, he found it politically expedient to block Congressional efforts to address immigration, ensuring that the issue would remain salient within his campaign platform.

My focus on trade has always been that it’s part of a larger—perhaps psychological—set of issues that allows a candidate like Trump to say: “Look at immigration and what a problem it is. Well, trade is a very similar thing. Globalists have destroyed American manufacturing, just as immigrants have come in and polluted our population with foreign, unfamiliar, non-American elements.” These themes converge. Trade, as it turns out, is a very important part of Trump’s populist agenda. I don’t see this as a general populist tendency. Most of the other countries I studied in my book had governments led by populists, but many of them were small, open economies that did not have the capacity to use trade as a weapon in their populist platforms. For example, Israel, which currently has a populist government, is a small, open economy that remains broadly committed to free trade. You’re not going to see the same railing against the WTO and related institutions from countries like that as you did from Trump.

Now, regarding whether this is a viable coalition—I think that remains to be seen, because Trump has not kept his promises on bringing inflation down. The immigration problem has somewhat subsided, but he now appears to be focusing as much on that issue as on tariffs. For example, deporting Venezuelans to El Salvador—something that is constitutionally very questionable, and probably illegal. The Trump administration is now trying to position itself as being independent of rulings by courts, including even the Supreme Court, in pursuing its policies. There’s a multi-pronged effort by Trump to gain and concentrate more and more power, and trade is playing a role in that. I think this also reveals some weaknesses in his use of trade, because while people may be upset about jobs being sent abroad, they are equally upset about being charged significantly more—for automobiles, clothing, steel, and aluminum—as a result of his tariff plan. So, I see this as a Trump attempt to use trade politically, but not yet a successful one in cementing a durable populist coalition.

Anger as the Engine in Populist Playbook

Have we now entered the phase you previously anticipated, in which economic expertise in trade policy is increasingly eclipsed by emotionally charged populist narratives? Under Trump’s renewed administration, what specific events or discursive strategies are being used to reignite trade as an emotional flashpoint?

Professor Kent Jones: Yes, of course. In the study of populism, the issue of affect is important. If you can make people very angry, you’re more likely to be successful as a populist—and I think Trump has done that to a certain extent. I’m not sure whether this coalition—going back to your previous question—is very stable, but when it comes to trade, this is something that, as an economist, I’ve always lamented: the idea that a trade balance or imbalance is a valid justification for tariffs.

Trump has attempted to weaponize trade by claiming that foreign countries have, as he puts it, “cheated” and “ripped off” Americans over the past decades by causing the US to run a trade deficit. If you take a close look at his tariff formula, economists have thoroughly ridiculed it. It’s essentially a trade balance-based formula that imposes tariffs according to the size of a country’s trade surplus with the United States—purportedly to justify his so-called “reciprocal tariffs.”

But these tariffs aren’t actually reciprocal, because they don’t target foreign tariffs levied against US imports. Instead, they create a system in which Trump can identify grievances—some trade-related, some not—and then use them to pressure countries into negotiating access to the US market. In this way, he is attempting to weaponize trade by consolidating sole decision-making power over market access. I call it a “tariff dictatorship,” and this authority has, in many ways, been enabled by Congress. It is now backed by a Republican majority that refuses to challenge him effectively.

This is the context in which trade is being used as an emotional issue. For example, many people were bewildered when he claimed, “Canadians have been ripping us off for years.” Most people don’t have that view of Canada. It seems like a friendly country, and yet Trump portrays it as a dark force damaging the American economy.

So yes, I agree that the typical populist playbook relies heavily on affect—on stirring voters’ emotions, particularly anger. The angrier people are, the more likely they are to follow you. When I was conducting research for my book, I found that anger motivates voters more than anything else—even more than fear. If you can make them angry, you can get them to the polls. An angry voter tends to be a more reliable populist voter. Maintaining that level of anger is, therefore, key to Trump’s political strategy and success.

But the Achilles’ heel for any populist, in my view, is basic economic performance. Once a populist is in control of the government, he can no longer present himself as the anti-elitist, because he becomes responsible for policy outcomes. I think the danger Trump faces now with his tariff policy is that he’s making a lot of people nervous—and even angry—because their retirement accounts are being eroded, the bond market is collapsing, the dollar is weakening, and interest rates are likely to rise.

He’s tried to point back to Biden as the cause of these problems, but it’s increasingly difficult to do that when you, as a populist, actually control the White House and both houses of Congress.

At Its Core, This Is About Power—Not Policy

Would you argue that the appeal of ‘economic nationalism’ has now overtaken economic rationale as the dominant force shaping US trade policy?

Professor Kent Jones: Well, certainly under Trump it has. The focal point of my book was the impact of all this on institutions. We’ve had tariffs before, and there are actually many Democrats who favor tariffs and may have been more reluctant to criticize Trump in principle for using them.

My argument—ever since these new tariffs began—is that regardless of whether you support tariffs, it is deeply problematic to vest all tariff authority in a single individual who can change them at will, for whatever reason he chooses, under the justification of an emergency economic powers act. Many now argue that this justification is not even legal, because its premise—that there’s a national emergency requiring tariffs as a solution—is questionable.

Just this morning, there was news of a new group of businesses suing the Trump administration over its use of tariffs, claiming it contradicts the very law invoked to support them. What we’re witnessing is the erosion of institutional checks and balances, with trade policy effectively centralized in one person.

There’s also a psychological factor to consider. When you have an individual with a narcissistic personality like Trump, who is used to getting his way, the accumulation of power becomes an end in itself. It enables him to exact revenge on perceived enemies, compel others to seek his favor, or pressure countries into buying more American goods or signing bilateral deals skewed in America’s favor.

So, at its core, this is about power. Trump has managed to concentrate it, and many voices are now calling on Congress to step up and reclaim the authority the Constitution grants it. According to Article I, Section 8, Congress—not the president—has the power to regulate commerce and trade. This is where the institutional battle lies, and it’s where the future of trade governance will likely be contested.

US Trade Has Become a One-Man Operation

Are we now witnessing the culmination of what you’ve described as the ‘de–legitimization of trade institutions’ in US politics? If so, what are the broader implications of continued US disengagement from multilateral trade frameworks for global economic stability and governance?

Professor Kent Jones: Well, certainly—as long as Trump is President—we’re not going to see much engagement with the WTO in US trade policy. As I’ve documented in my book, and more recently in my commentaries on his tariff policy, Trump has already done away with key institutional principles of the WTO.

For example, he’s discarded the most-favored nation rule, which is foundational to the WTO framework. He’s also rejected tariff binding, the commitment that countries won’t arbitrarily raise their tariffs. These principles stand in the way of Trump’s pursuit of unilateral power. Once those constraints are removed, he can assign different tariffs to different countries’ products—entirely contrary to the GATT/WTO system—and negotiate individual agreements that maximize his own leverage.

Trump claims there are now 75 countries wanting trade deals with him, meaning he can sit down with each one individually, judge the outcome on his own terms, and adjust tariffs at will. There’s no need for congressional input or legislative approval—just Trump’s personal satisfaction. That effectively turns US trade policy into a one-man operation.

This is the antithesis of what the GATT and WTO systems were designed to prevent. Back in 1947, when the GATT was founded, the memory of the Great Depression and the tariff wars of the 1930s—especially the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the US—was still fresh. The global economic community had learned that trade wars were harmful, and for 70 to 80 years, that lesson held.

Now, Trump has effectively resurrected the notion that “trade wars are good and easy to win.” He justifies this by pointing to America’s trade deficit, claiming that other countries will bear the cost. But in practice, the 145% tariffs on Chinese goods, for instance, are paid by American consumers. People are starting to realize this—whether it’s an iPhone that might jump from $1,000 to $2,000 or $3,000, a house built with increasingly expensive Canadian lumber, or an automobile that now costs $10,000 to $15,000 more due to a 25% tariff.

These developments are creating a growing crisis for Trump. That’s likely why he’s started pausing tariffs and promising “great deals,” and recently announced some product-specific exemptions—such as with Chinese imports and possibly with automobiles. He knows that if Americans can’t afford their cars, it’ll hit both foreign and domestic models hard, and even drive up the cost of used cars—something already affected by COVID-era supply shocks.

All of this contributes to an unpredictable trade environment, largely because Trump has assumed complete control over tariff policy. At this point, no one else is making trade decisions—just Donald Trump.

Tariffs Have Become Symbols, Not Solutions

In Trump’s second term, how have tariffs been repurposed more as political symbols than as instruments of economic policy? How is the administration using revived trade rhetoric to frame persistent trade deficits as existential threats, and how is it justifying these measures politically despite their mixed economic outcomes?

Professor Kent Jones: Yes, this really gets to the core of the economic critique of Donald Trump’s trade policy. When you use a trade deficit as a justification for imposing tariffs, there is no theoretical basis for that in economics. Economists understand trade deficits as a macroeconomic phenomenon resulting from the imbalance between savings and investment in a country.

In the United States, the persistent trade deficit reflects higher levels of consumption relative to production, and lower savings relative to investment. When consumption exceeds production, the difference naturally comes from imports.

Trump tried to use this logic in his first term to justify a trade war with China, and now he has extended that rationale globally. But this effort was not successful. The tariffs did not significantly reduce the US trade deficit—not even with China. And as long as the structural imbalance between savings and investment persists, the trade deficit will remain.

Moreover, any reduction in imports from China led to trade diversion. Chinese firms simply rerouted production through third countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philippines—even Mexico. For instance, Vietnam’s trade surplus with the US grew substantially. Trump is now using that as justification for imposing global tariffs rather than China-specific ones.

So trade deficits are being repurposed symbolically. Whenever Trump can point to a trade surplus from another country, he frames it as a hostile act against the United States. Many Americans, including politicians in Washington, still believe that having a trade deficit means the US is “losing.”

As I often point out in my classes, the US is not a company with a balance sheet—it’s 300 million individuals making consumption decisions. A trade deficit is like an individual going to the grocery store and spending money. That doesn’t mean the store is cheating you. Likewise, if Americans choose to buy Korean cars or Vietnamese clothing, that doesn’t reflect economic weakness or foreign deception. In fact, it’s often a sign of economic strength—of choice, affordability, and productivity.

Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in convincing many people otherwise. But eventually, the economic consequences catch up. Americans are now seeing the costs in the form of higher prices—for phones, homes, cars, and everyday goods. The stock market and bond market, both globally integrated, are reacting negatively, and that’s something even Trump cannot control.

He’s trying to de-globalize domestic production, but reshoring takes time. Manufacturing shoes, nails, clothing—these can’t be brought back overnight. He says it’ll take six months or two years, but that’s highly unrealistic.

So people are starting to ask: when does the promised pay-off arrive? When will we see the benefits that justify the current pain—higher prices, falling stock values, a weakening dollar, and a diminished global economic reputation?

This is likely why Trump is starting to pause certain tariff measures and promise relief. The symbolic transformation of tariffs into a nationalist cause has been attempted—but economic realities are hard to avoid, especially when you’re the one in charge and can no longer blame your predecessor.

Uncertainty Is the New Normal for Global Trade and the Vulnerable Pay the Price

What socio-economic burdens are likely to be borne by ordinary citizens—both in the US and globally—as a consequence of the Trump administration’s erratic and politically charged trade and tariff wars? How do these unpredictable policy shifts impact everyday economic security, particularly for vulnerable populations?

Professor Kent Jones: Well, certainly in the United States, one of the most significant developments in trade policy analysis has been the emergence of what we now call “uncertainty analysis.” In fact, indexes of trade policy uncertainty have become an increasingly prominent tool for tracking how markets react to Trump’s trade policies.

The original idea behind the WTO was to create stability. Everyone followed the same rules, and everyone benefitted from that predictability. These rules included non-discrimination and tariff binding—principles that gave businesses the confidence to invest in trade-related activities. If you were exporting to a foreign market, you could count on that market upholding WTO rules. If you were an importer in the US, you could similarly rely on your own government to follow those rules and not change tariffs arbitrarily.

There were, of course, accepted exceptions in the WTO framework—such as anti-dumping measures—but these were limited and rule-bound. That embedded liberalism allowed trade to flourish within a relatively stable system.

What we’re now seeing, however, is the erosion of that system. The socioeconomic consequences will come first through higher consumer prices. We’re already seeing that. Then, likely, through higher interest rates as global confidence in the US economy diminishes. And higher interest rates increase the likelihood of a recession, with all the accompanying hardships—job losses, reduced investment, and economic insecurity for average Americans.

Globally, the situation is equally troubling. We’re seeing punitive tariffs applied even to poor countries like Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Cambodia. In some cases—like Madagascar, which exports vanilla to the US—American trade officials are complaining that these countries don’t import US automobiles, using that as justification for tariffs. The logic is absurd and completely contrary to the idea of comparative advantage. Expecting a country like Madagascar to buy American cars in exchange for sending vanilla exemplifies the irrationality of these policies.

This kind of policy undermines the efficiency and fairness of the global trading system and inflicts economic pain on both developing nations and their trading partners. The decline in global trade efficiency will affect the most vulnerable—both at home and abroad.

As a result, other countries are beginning to rethink their trade strategies. We’re already seeing Canada and the EU discussing deeper trade ties with each other. And there’s emerging talk of building new multilateral frameworks that exclude the United States.

Of course, a global trading system without US leadership won’t be as effective. The US was, for decades, the anchor of global economic order after World War II. But with Trump’s retreat from multilateralism, we’re now seeing a broader pattern—one that also extends to military alliances. NATO, for instance, has been encouraged to think more about European-based defense. The war in Ukraine adds another dimension to this shifting landscape.

Altogether, this reflects a larger withdrawal of the US from global engagement. And that retreat has consequences. American stability and leadership added enormous value to global affairs. Take that away, and others will suffer—but it may also spur efforts to reconstruct international cooperation through alternative means.

Trump’s History Lessons Are More Political Theater Than Economic Strategy

How is trade policy being used in Trump’s second term to reinforce nationalist and anti-elite populist messaging, and what role do ‘chrono-political’ narratives—drawing on selective historical memory and future promises—play in sustaining public support for renewed protectionism?

Professor Kent Jones: We have a president who likes to use history for his own purposes. The more immediate history, of course, is that all of America’s current problems—including those Trump himself has created—are, according to him, really the fault of President Joe Biden. That’s one way he uses history: to convince people that during his first term, everything was a “golden age,” and then when Biden came along, everything fell apart. So, if there are problems now, don’t blame Trump—blame Biden.

Another interesting use of history—particularly for Americans who know their history—is Trump’s fascination with President William McKinley. Actually, not just President McKinley, but also Senator McKinley, a Republican from the 1890s who sponsored a major tariff bill. At that time, tariffs made up about half of US government revenue, since there was little in the way of income tax. Trump has used this historical reference to argue that we could eliminate income taxes altogether and rely on tariff revenue instead.

You may have seen news about Trump wanting to rename the tallest mountain in Alaska—Denali—back to Mount McKinley, because of this admiration. But historically, the McKinley Tariff was highly unpopular. After it passed, the Republicans lost many congressional seats in the next election because the public faced higher prices and increased industrial concentration. Trump doesn’t seem to think this historical lesson applies to him, but it’s already proving to be a similar liability.

So, we see a selective and manipulated use of history. The narrative is: “Look how great America was in the 1890s—look how we were growing, how proud people were to be Americans.” But in reality, that era had deep problems—racism, immigration tensions, and inequality—that tariffs didn’t solve. In fact, the introduction of a broader income tax in 1913 allowed the US to move toward a more liberal and successful trading regime. American economic growth since then has been strong—so why go back?

Trump continues to insist that tariffs are paid by foreigners, not Americans. He argues that this makes tariffs an ideal way to fund the US government—as if foreign countries are footing the bill. His advisors know this isn’t true, but you won’t hear them say so publicly.

In short, Trump is using history in a way that serves his populist message, but not very effectively. If he were a better student of history, he might find stronger justifications for his policies. As it stands, invoking the McKinley era and blaming “woke Democrats” for current issues doesn’t offer a coherent economic argument—especially when you consider that the US economy under Obama and Biden has actually performed quite well.

Trump’s China Policy Turns Trade into a Populist Proxy for National Decline

How does the Trump administration’s hardline stance toward China reflect a broader populist narrative of foreign threats and national decline? In the context of ongoing de–coupling efforts from China, how is this policy being used to mobilize anti-globalization sentiment and reinforce the administration’s appeal to its populist base?

Professor Kent Jones: It’s very interesting the way Trump seems to view China. On the one hand, he appears to admire President Xi as a strong, tough leader—something Trump seems to find admirable. At the same time, he insists that China has been “ripping us off” through its trade practices, largely because of the large volume of imports the US receives from China.

I think Trump has been surprised—and perhaps disappointed—by how assertive Xi has been in responding to US tariffs. Xi has made it clear he won’t back down. Trump would like to portray Xi as someone he can deal with—someone who respects him and will sit down to work out a deal. But if we look back at Trump’s first administration, we see how that played out.

The trade war Trump initiated in 2018, with escalating tariffs against China, did not, in fact, reduce the US trade deficit. By January 2020, Trump declared victory and announced a “Phase One” trade deal with China. This was essentially a countertrade agreement—China would commit to importing a specific value of US goods, and in return, the US would reduce tariffs. The goal was to balance bilateral trade flows.

But such a deal was never feasible. It would require a Soviet-style, government-managed trade system, completely incompatible with a market-based global trading regime. It violated WTO principles such as non-discrimination and the prohibition of quantitative restrictions. And ultimately, it didn’t work—COVID-19 disrupted global trade, and China didn’t meet its import commitments. Trump’s administration could blame COVID, but the agreement itself was flawed from the start.

Now, Trump claims that 75 countries are lining up to negotiate similar deals, and that he’ll finalize them within 90 days. Anyone with experience in trade negotiations knows that’s unrealistic. Bilateral trade deals are complex and time-consuming. My prediction is that we’ll see vague, formulaic agreements—pieces of paper promising balanced trade flows without any serious enforcement or economic logic behind them.

Trump may even try a version of this again with China. But the structural issues remain: we live in a world of complex technological interdependence, and the US cannot simply de-couple from China. Instead of trade wars, what we need is a return to multilateral cooperation. If the US worked with Europe, Canada, and other OECD countries, it could form a united front to pressure China into complying more fully with WTO rules.

China’s state-led economic model makes it difficult to enforce existing trade norms, but a coordinated multilateral effort could make progress. Unfortunately, the US—once the architect and guarantor of the global trading order—is now undermining it. That leadership vacuum is at the heart of the problem.

So to return to your original question: Trump’s framing of China as a threat fits squarely within his broader populist narrative of national decline and foreign exploitation. But his policies haven’t solved the trade imbalance—and now he’s trying to apply the same flawed logic to the entire world. He wants to control all trade through bilateral, Trump-approved formulas for balance, which are economically irrational and unworkable.

In the end, like many populist strategies, these deals may sound good in the abstract but will likely prove disappointing once implemented. The rhetoric may mobilize his base, but the economic outcomes could be far less favorable.

Globalization Is on Ice—But Far From Over

And lastly, Professor Jones, in light of ongoing debates and speculation about the potential collapse or end of globalization, how do you assess the current trajectory of global economic integration, and what indicators do you consider most critical in evaluating whether globalization is truly in decline?

Professor Kent Jones: Well, certainly globalization is being damaged by President Trump’s policies—there’s no doubt about that. He’s taking the largest economy in the world, the original architect of the WTO and the postwar trade order, and essentially reversing its role. The WTO is now portrayed as the enemy by Trump and his followers.

So yes, globalization has clearly suffered. However, one thing I’ve learned as an economist—particularly from my early training in Geneva—is the value of taking a long historical view of trade. Trade has always gone through waves. Periods of free trade have often been followed by periods of protectionism, and vice versa.

Take Britain’s repeal of the Corn Laws in the 19th century, which ushered in an era of freer trade and economic expansion built around the British Empire. The US came on board later. Then came the Great Depression, which triggered a new wave of protectionism. The post-WWII creation of the WTO system marked another liberalizing wave. Now, with the resurgence of economic nationalism and protectionism, we appear to be in another downward swing.

That said, globalization has always required flexibility. The decline of some industries must be managed so others can emerge. In the 1800s, this adjustment was relatively smooth. But the entry of China into the global economy in the 2000s created a massive shock—its capacity to produce across a wide range of sectors was something even the US struggled to adapt to quickly.

We also cannot ignore the role of technology. Are we really going to return to an economy of cobblers and factory floor workers in an age of robotics, AI, and complex supply chains? It seems unlikely. I think it all circles back to what Adam Smith said about the innate human tendency to “truck and barter.” Even before language, early humans were trading. We’ve always valued specialization and exchange—and I believe that instinct endures.

Suppressing globalization won’t eliminate that fundamental impulse. If the US abandons its leadership role, others will step in. We may see regional trade agreements emerge as partial substitutes for global ones. It’s not a perfect replacement, but it’s better than nothing.

Technological progress is also linked to globalization. If you halt global exchange, you risk slowing innovation. Still, I believe there’s opportunity. Many countries that once focused heavily on trade with the US will begin looking elsewhere. China may try to lead, but many are skeptical of that. Perhaps another leadership structure will emerge—or perhaps we simply wait until 2028, when some hope the US will again elect a president who values multilateralism and stable partnerships.

What Trump doesn’t seem to understand is that unpredictability, which he views as a strength, is actually an economic burden. It erodes trust and undermines investment. The global economy thrives on rules and stability—not arbitrary decisions.

So, to return to your question: Yes, globalization has been put on ice for now. But I don’t think it’s over. There’s still a strong drive—among individuals, firms, and governments—to rebuild trade networks. Even if US leadership is absent, globalization will find ways to adapt and re-emerge.