Karachi:
In the period prior to the presidential elections of the United States, Donald Trump defended the radical commercial tariffs on foreign goods as a magical wand that will help “make the United States large again” by earning billions of dollars in revenue, stimulating industrial growth and creating millions of jobs. Politics revived a debate on commercial protectionism, economic nationalism and the health of the world’s largest economy. Trump followed his promise after returning to the White House, announcing unprecedented tariffs about friends and enemies equally through executive orders.
It was not random. The policy involved a strategic approach based on commercial balances and security relations. Countries with US commercial deficits and defense ties, such as Australia, received 10%tariffs. Japan and South Korea, despite having similar security alliances, faced 15% due to larger surpluses. The rest of the Asian nations were slapped with average tariffs of 22.1%, although those willing to negotiate, such as Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, obtained a “discount” rate of 19%. The most surprising victim of Trump’s tariffs was the strategic ally of the United States, who faced 50%duties, the highest after Brazil, for refusing to stop buying Russia’s raw.
Trump seems to have won the advantage in the tariff war, since most of the United States commercial partners, including the European Union, ultimately, accepted unfavorable commercial terms, distrust economic reprisals and the risk of losing access to the lucrative US market. Even Canada, who initially responded with retaliation rates, has begun to climb some of them. However, China, the main objective of Trump’s tariff strategy, refused to yield and responded with counter-tariffs. This confrontation led Trump to declare two consecutive “90 -day tricks” as both nations continue the negotiations towards a commitment.
While Trump could have won the Round one of the Commercial War in the diplomatic front, the economic objectives that he sought remain largely breached. It is possible that the measure of the president of the United States has not overturned the international financial system, as analysts feared previously, recent data reveal that the tariff strategy is promoting inflation, interrupting supply chains and stopping the labor market at home, consequences that affect US workers and the most difficult consumers.
Trump sought to protect US jobs, particularly in manufacturing, encouraging national production and discouraging imports by making foreign goods more expensive through rates. Such measures, argue the proponents, can restore industrial hearts saved by globalization, but critics say that the economic costs of tariffs eclipse their benefits.
One of the immediate consequences of rates has been a visible increase in prices throughout the United States. According to the consumer price index (CPI) of July 2025, general prices increased by 2.7%, with the costs of food that rose 2.9%. Much of this inflation is attributed to tariffs on agricultural and industrial imports. This price increase is not limited to food; Other consumer goods, including electronics and cars, have also become more expensive, disproportionately affecting the Americans of low and medium -sized revenues, who spend a large part of their income on the essential elements.
If you trust Trump’s economic logic, the United States would expect solid employment growth, especially in industries directly aimed at protection. However, the reports of the US media tell the opposite history: employment creation has stagnated practically since the beginning of 2025. Although the unemployment rate is still low, fresh hiring has decreased and the key industrial sectors are fighting. The July 2025 job report indicates a net gain in the works, but did not reach expectations and revealed decelerations in manufacturing and construction, the sectors that, according to Trump’s calculations, were supposed to benefit from tariffs.
Trump’s tariffs were destined to unleashed reprisals. And this is exactly what happened. The president of the United States managed to intimidate some countries to accept unfavorable agreements, but the three key commercial partners of the United States, China, Canada and Mexico, responded with specific measures against the sectors of American agriculture, technology and manufacturing.
As a direct result, American exporters are now struggling to stay competitive in the markets abroad, incorporating more pressure on the workers Trump claims to protect. Similarly, American farmers have seen an increasing demand for soybeans, pork and dairy exports, which leads to farm closures and a growing dependence on federal subsidies to stay afloat.
An March 2025 analysis of CNBC indicates a broad consensus among economists, both conservative and liberal, that Trump tariffs are unlikely to obtain sustained economic benefits. These economists argue that tariffs act as a regressive tax, which reaches low -income households. Its evaluations predict a long -term drag in GDP and a net loss of jobs, particularly taking into account retaliation rates. While some industries may experience modest employment profits, they are expected to be overcome by the loss of jobs in other sectors, especially those that depend on imported supplies or export markets.
Politically, Trump’s tariffs offer a simple message: “We are causing the United States to be great again.” But the harsh economic reality is much more complex. While trying to protect US industries, tariffs have exposed the vulnerability of the economy to global shocks and their imports dependence for both consumer goods and industrial supplies.
In addition, many manufacturers seem to be absorbing the cost of tariffs when passing them to consumers or cutting corners in other places, reducing work hours, freezing hiring or cutting growing investments. This feedback cycle (higher prices, a reduced investment, slower hiring, creates the conditions for economic stagnation, not the revival. Wall Street strategists already warn that the United States economy is displacing towards stagflation. The data suggests a period that is close to sticky inflation and slow economic growth, according to analysts.
Instead of clinging to obsolete models of economic nationalism, Trump requires a prospective strategy, one that addresses the interruptions of globalization while preserving economic dynamism and protects everyday Americans from undue difficulties. As implemented, tariffs are not that strategy; They are a short -term political tool with long -term economic costs.
While Trump seems relentless in the search for his tariff strategy, the American judiciary can offer a ray of hope. Last week, a Federal Court of Appeals annulled several of its rates, ruling that it was illegally supported by emergency powers to impose import taxes. The court argued that the International Law of Emergency Economic Powers does not authorize the type of tariffs Trump introduced earlier this year, thus maintaining a decision of the lower court against them.
The White House, however, defended the president’s powers when Attorney General Pam Bondi said the administration will appeal the ruling. Attention now resorts to the Supreme Court, which will deliver the final verdict.
The writer is an independent journalist with special interest in geoeconomy.
