S President Donald Trump has paused global tariffs for 90 days, except for China. “Well, I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line. They were getting yippy, you know. They’re getting a little bit … afraid,” Trump told reporters on April 10. These tariffs had been imposed on April 2.

Looking back, it becomes evident that Trump has his own views about global trade. When he had first campaigned for US presidency in 2016, he repeatedly vowed to “bring back jobs,” “punish China” and protect American industry through aggressive trade policies. His political base, a coalition of hyper-conservatives, responded positively to his populist tone. For them, tariffs were not just an economic instrument, they symbolised a fight-back against globalisation, immigration and a world they believed had left them behind. Generally, fulfilling campaign promises is an expected feature of democratic governance. Trump’s case was unique in that much of his economic policy—especially on trade—was driven less by some expert consensus than ideological fervour.

Little wonder, Trump’s tariff policy is grounded in flimsy intellectual foundation in terms of blindly believing in a book titled: Death by China: Confronting the Dragon – A Call to Action by Peter Navarro and Greg Autry. The book is riddled with alarmist rhetoric, pseudo-economic logic, and exaggerated claims about China’s supposed war against American industry. Navarro, who later became Trump’s senior advisor on trade and manufacturing, used this and similar works to advocate a deeply flawed view of global trade. The most bizarre detail, however, is Navarro’s invention of a fictional “expert” named Ron Vara — an anagram of his own name — whose quotes and warnings were cited as evidence throughout the book. Rachel Maddow and other analysts exposed this deception, highlighting how Trump’s trade policy was influenced by a narrative created by someone who fabricated their own source. That such a critical area of economic policy could be guided by such unserious scholarship is alarming. Importantly, Navarro’s presence in the White House from 2017 onward (and again in 2025) further institutionalised this approach, creating a dangerous echo chamber where ideological bias trumped economic reason.

Consequently, among the more inexplicable outcomes of this worldview was the Trump administration’s April 2 decision to impose universal tariffs, in some cases targeting regions and islands with no commercial significance — some even uninhabited. This blanket approach disregarded the complexity of global supply chains and the importance of trade diplomacy. It also overlooked the reality that US manufacturing is often deeply intertwined with global production networks. The April 2 tariffs had not only hit adversaries such as China but also affect America’s allies and trading partners in terms of sparking retaliation, disrupting markets and raising costs for American consumers and businesses.

China has been at the heart of the Trump tariff strategy. The US levied tariffs on over $350 billion worth of Chinese goods, citing the so-called trade imbalance, which empirically is unfounded. These concerns are not new, but the tools used to address them this time around are rather blunt. Expectedly, China has responded with tariffs on American goods, particularly agricultural products, thus, hitting Trump’s own voter base in the Mid-West. Soybean farmers, for example, have lost access to one of their largest export markets.

Trump’s tariff policy is grounded in flimsy intellectual foundation in terms of blindly believing in a book titled: Death by China: Confronting the Dragon – A Call to Action by Peter Navarro and Greg Autry. The book is riddled with alarmist rhetoric, pseudo-economic logic and exaggerated claims about China’s supposed war against American industry. Navarro, who later became Trump’s senior advisor on trade and manufacturing, used this and similar works to advocate a deeply flawed view of global trade.

In the latest round of this economic tug-of-war, tensions have escalated. On April 2, the Trump regime had imposed a series of new tariffs to the tune of 104 percent on all goods. These included high tariffs on electric vehicles and high-tech components imported from China, citing national security concerns and the need to “protect American innovation.” China swiftly retaliated by imposing an average tariff of 84 percent on a wide range of American exports, including agricultural goods, semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. Chinese officials stated that such actions were necessary to “safeguard national dignity and economic interests.” The Trumpian measures have rattled markets, discouraged long-term investment and raised fears of a broader decoupling of the world’s two largest economies.

This shift echoes an earlier dark chapter in the US economic history — the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. Enacted during the Great Depression, it aimed to protect American jobs by raising tariffs on thousands of imported goods. Instead, it triggered international retaliation, deepened the economic crisis and became a textbook example of how protectionism can backfire. Recognising this failure, the US took a leading role in constructing a post-war order based on liberalised trade and multilateral cooperation. Institutions and regimes such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and later the World Trade Organisation were American-led efforts to prevent a repeat of the 1930s.

For nearly eight decades, the US remained the principal architect and champion of global trade and a free market economy. Trump’s tariff regime represents a dramatic reversal of that tradition. It reverts the US to a protectionist stance not seen since the inter-wars period. Most economists warn that these excessive and ill-conceived tariffs can lead to higher inflation even within the US, cause supply shortages and potentially trigger global recession.

For countries like Pakistan, facing 29 percent additional tariffs, the implications of the US-led universal tariffs could be very serious. Pakistan has maintained a positive trade balance with the US in recent years. This surplus might vanish if Washington continues to impose blanket tariffs. Pakistani policymakers have their work cut out. They may feel the need to lower tariffs on American goods to avoid falling afoul of retaliatory measures that could harm local industries. In addition, Pakistani authorities should do more to attract foreign direct investment, particularly from Southeast Asia and Central Asia. Pakistan should also prioritise promoting regional trade, especially with neighbouring countries and in frameworks such as BRICS+. Enhancing connectivity, reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers and investing in cross-border infrastructure can bolster economic resilience. Stronger regional ties will help Pakistan mitigate external shocks and benefit from diversified, mutually beneficial trade partnerships. Nonetheless, this depends entirely on ensuring political stability and security.

The writer has a PhD in political science from Heidelberg University and post-doc experience at University of California, Berkeley. He is a DAAD, FDDI and Fulbright fellow and an associate professor at Lahore School of Economics. He can be reached at ejaz.bhatty@gmail.com.