How much further can President Trump push tariff card?

From the moment Donald Trump stepped into the White House again, his administration moved to impose high trade tariffs on multiple countries, ranging from 10%-25%. Some, such as Mexico and Canada, which have existing trade agreements with Washington, sought to delay the tariffs by accommodating certain US demands, securing a one-month postponement of the duties.

China, however, took a different approach. Rather than yielding to US pressure, Beijing retaliated, imposing matching tariffs of up to 15% on American imports.

Trump's policies appear to rely on the threat of extreme measures to extract concessions, which explains his occasional reversals or adjustments once partial agreements are reached. This approach has created two distinct categories: those countries that seek to de-escalate tensions by complying with US demands, and those with the economic strength to counter Washington’s policies through reciprocal action.

But why has Trump prioritized tariffs over other economic tools? This question highlights a key contrast with the Biden administration, which primarily used financial sanctions, which, while effective in pressuring adversaries, weakened the dollar’s global standing and reduced its role in international trade.

This posed a serious risk to the American economy, which derives much of its strength from the dollar’s status as the world's primary reserve currency. This enables the US to finance its needs by printing its own currency—a privilege that would erode if the dollar's dominance continued to decline.

The trend is already evident, as economies like China, India, Russia and several Arab nations increasingly use their own currencies for trade, bypassing the dollar and accelerating its marginalization.

As a businessman, Trump was acutely aware of the risks surrounding the dollar and the economic and geopolitical status of the US. In response, he turned to tariffs as his primary tool, aiming first to deter a shift away from the dollar.

He threatened BRICS nations with a 100% tariff should they introduce a shared currency for trade. The move prompted Russia, a key member of the bloc, to publicly deny such plans, despite earlier indications from within the group that some had explored the idea.

At the same time, Trump sought to improve the American trade balance, which was plagued by a significant deficit, by applying trade pressure. He has acknowledged that these high tariffs would hurt American families due to rising prices on imported goods, particularly from China.

This raises another important question: Will these measures succeed, or will they backfire—much like financial sanctions did earlier? These measures directly impact Washington’s largest trading partners, including the EU and China.

Yet, no nation—regardless of its economic, military, or political power—can sustain a prolonged trade war against much of the world without significant consequences. This is beyond the capacity of any state.

The fate of these protectionist measures is unlikely to be more successful than that of financial sanctions. If continued, they could have very damaging effects on the American economy, particularly in trade, significantly raising the prices of goods.

This could provoke widespread public discontent, especially in the context of high inflation rates.

Certainly, these measures may yield some short-term gains. While they are framed as tactical moves to negotiate better terms and secure quick trade advantages, their long-term consequences could prove detrimental.

Beyond these commercial aspects, geopolitical actions—such as the demand for Greenland, control over the Gaza Strip, and the potential annexation of Canada—also fall within the scope of this Trumpian approach.

Such actions would severely damage Washington’s standing and reputation, as they constitute blatant violations of international law and the sovereignty of nations. This includes the internationally prohibited practice of ethnic cleansing, as seen in the case of the Gaza Strip.

Such moves could transform the world into a chaotic, lawless arena, where stronger nations feel justified in occupying the land and taking over resources of smaller, weaker neighbors. If the powerful of the international community disregard multilateral laws and norms, it is unlikely that others will feel compelled to respect them either.