US President Donald Trump’s announcement of draconian tariffs on exports to the US from virtually every country in the world is an act of such hostility that in previous eras it would even have been considered a prelude to military conflict. By this action, the line between ‘war’ and ‘peace’ has been muddied even more, indicating the complexities of the multidimensional, turbulent transition towards ‘multipolarity’ which the US seeks to halt and even reverse. Whatever multipolarity moves are occurring, the US wants to make sure it remains top dog in all regions. The US has no permanent allies, no eternal enemies, only permanent interests. The warlike tariffs policy dovetails directly with the administration’s threats to annex sovereign territory – Canada, Greenland, Panama, Mexico – by force. Global primacy, by any means necessary….At first they came for China, but…What began apparently as a way to contain and tame China has now become a worldwide declaration of economic war, regardless of status, a strategy to subordinate the world to US might. No ally has been spared, including the European Union, or Britain – which flaunts its ‘special relationship’ with the US to anyone who’ll listen. Even Israel has been slapped with a 17% tariff.This radical move is an attempt, which may well ultimately backfire, to show the world who’s the boss, that the US remains the world’s dominant power against all comers. Not since the Hawley-Smoot tariffs of the 1930s, during the great depression, has the US pursued such a protectionist strategy. At one fell swoop, President Trump has all but upended the international trading order. A large part in that decision is played by invoking spurious national security threats which enable the US to use emergency domestic laws and invoke exemptions from WTO rules forbidding tariffs.But 2025 is not 1930, and the global and US economies are more fundamentally interconnected than ever before. Recession in one region or economy impacts others, and the US stock market meltdown underway – unprecedented in living memory (that is even greater than 2008, and the pandemic’s effects) – have already set off chain reactions in other markets. Some estimates of the likely economic effects suggest losses of almost $1.5 trillion in the world economy.And geopolitically, the tariff war is pushing together powers previously reluctant to collaborate, such as China, Japan and South Korea.A fracturing world economy?Whether US tariffs will seriously fracture the global economy remains to be seen. After all, even Ford’s “American-made” cars rely on parts manufactured and supplied from dozens of other countries. That is unlikely to change in the short run, leading to higher prices for American consumers, fuelling inflation. It may well also embolden domestic US businesses to turn on Trump unless he diverts some of the tariff revenues into their pockets.In addition, even the tentative moves being made by China, Japan and South Korea are defensive, to lessen the impact of US tariffs, not to ‘gang up’ against the US. And China’s initial retaliatory tariff on $20 billion worth of US imports– a relatively puny level – contrasts with US tariffs on $450 billion worth of Chinese exports. China has announced a retaliatory 34% tariff which adds around $48 billion to the tally. Nevertheless, if we add on the very high US tariffs on Cambodia and Vietnam, in particular, then the tariffs on China are even more consequential. They will place pressure on companies that use China as manufacturing base, which then re-export those products to the US via Vietnam and Cambodia.Trump’s methodical madness?Trump’s tariffs should not be seen as arbitrary. They have been worked out in detail. And the tariff applied relates not only to reciprocating tariffs applied by others on US goods, but to a range of other factors. It appears that US economic officials assign a number to each state. That number is based on the tariff that state applies to US goods and to any manufacturing regulations, subsidies, currency values, that the US claims impact production costs. Whatever the final number assigned, it is divided by two to produce the tariff level. So, China is assigned 67 and therefore the tariff is set at 34%. But given a tariff of 20% had already been applied to China, the latter’s tariff now stands at 54%. The EU’s ‘number’ is 39 so its tariff is 20%.And countries to which no reciprocal tariff is applicable have been hit with a 10% charge to prevent companies from transferring production to those states.Money, money, moneyIt is estimated that the US treasury may benefit in the region of $700 billion annually, at most, on the taxes on imports. Where is that money to go? It will hardly make a dent in the total debt – which stands at $36 trillion. Even the annual interest payments on government debt stand at the moment at around $1 trillion, and rising. The bulk of the external revenue will probably go into the pockets of the major arms manufacturers and as subsidies to firms and farmers based in pro-Trump states.Red Maga states will be hard hitRepublican-run states with economies heavily tied to agriculture, manufacturing reliant on imported components, or exports facing retaliation are poised to bear the brunt of Trump’s tariffs.Kentucky may be hardest hit. The Tax Policy Center’s 2024 analysis projected that Trump’s proposed tariffs would raise tariff payments to nearly 5% of state GDP, the highest in the US, due to the Blue Grass state’s reliance on imported manufacturing parts. In 2025, Kentucky’s auto sector (Ford and Toyota plants) faces higher costs for imported parts. Retaliatory tariffs from Canada ($20.7 billion, effective March 13) and the EU ($26 billion, expanding April 13) target bourbon, a $9 billion industry with 24,000 workers. The costs will be passed onto consumers, costing foreign exporters nothing, if past experience is taken into account.Tennessee’s manufacturers, especially carmakers (e.g., Nissan, Volkswagen), rely on imported steel and components, now costlier under the 25% steel tariff and 25% auto tariff (effective April 3). The state’s $3.6 billion in exports to Canada (e.g., whiskey, machinery) faces Canadian retaliation, while its $1.5 billion in EU exports (e.g., chemicals) is hit by EU measures. Rural areas, often dependent on single employers, are at greatest risk.A similar story goes for Indiana and Mississippi, among others. Low-income households, prevalent in the latter state, will be hit by an estimated $2,700 annually per household, according to the Center for American Progress. Iowa’s $16 billion agricultural export economy (soybeans, corn, pork) is vulnerable to China’s $20 billion in counter-tariffs (e.g., 10% on farm equipment, suspended soybean licenses) and Canada’s duties on poultry. Farmers are uneasy given they faced $27 billion in losses during Trump’s first-term.Going up?Inflation is set to spurt as cars, for example, increase in price by $3,000-$5000. The rate of inflation will also rise across the board, forcing greater hardship, despite election promises, on working people, including Trump’s own electoral base. Job losses will also run into the thousands, and any new manufacturing plants set up in the US will most likely be highly automated, meaning few additional jobs.Further contradictions in the tariff war are evident: Trump’s claim that he wants to make US exports cheaper by bringing down the price of the dollar pushes up against its role as a global reserve currency. Trump has previously stated maintaining the role of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency is an existential issue for the country, the equivalent of losing a war.BRICS of clayBut one look at the reaction of the BRICS+ shows that the ‘bloc’ has feet of clay. Each one of the states, except China, has virtually capitulated in the face of Trump’s tariffs. Brazil has been largely exempted, India is sitting on the fence, and no one is talking about a BRICS currency to take on the mighty dollar.India has taken its traditionally pragmatic stance. Facing a 26% reciprocal tariff (effective April 9) on $83 billion in U.S. exports (e.g., electronics but not pharmaceuticals so far), its foreign ministry already downplayed de-dollarization, contending that India has “no such policy.” PM Narendra Modi is prioritising a bilateral trade deal with Trump. India cut tariffs on US motorcycles in February 2025 as a goodwill gesture, reflecting its balancing act between BRICS solidarity and the almost $200 billion U.S. trade relationship.BRICS+ reactions – from China’s defiance and Russia’s pushback to India’s pragmatism, Brazil’s caution, and the newcomers’ (Iran, Indonesia, Egypt, etc) restraint, demonstrate that Trump’s tariffs have not galvanised a unified counteroffensive. However, they have accelerated discussions on reducing dollar reliance, albeit without concrete alternatives to date. The bloc’s fragmented response underscores its challenge: balancing economic ties with the US against a desire for multipolarity.US global primacy goals require the subordination of any and all possible competitors and rivals, even among those that have been historic allies – by any means necessary.By his actions, Trump is normalising war as the first resort of the most powerful. The law of the jungle is his path to Making America Great Again.Inderjeet Parmar is a professor of international politics and associate dean of research in the School of Policy and Global Affairs at City St George’s, University of London, a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, and a columnist at The Wire. He is an International Fellow at the ROADS Initiative think tank, Islamabad, and author of several books including Foundations of the American Century. He is currently writing a book on the history, politics, and powers of the US foreign policy establishment.
