Tag: Trump

Posted on

Why the Trump Peace Plan for Israel and Hamas Is Unlikely to Succeed

A neutral analysis of political, ideological, and structural barriers to the Trump administration’s peace proposal.

The peace framework proposed by U.S. President Donald Trump aimed to end hostilities between Israel and Hamas by combining ceasefire measures, economic incentives, and regional mediation. Despite its ambition, the plan underestimates entrenched ideological positions, fragmented Palestinian representation, mediator credibility constraints, and implementation risks—factors that comparative peace-process research identifies as decisive.

1. Ideological incompatibility

Hamas does not recognize Israel’s legitimacy and prioritizes armed resistance; Israel treats Hamas as a terrorist actor to be contained or dismantled. Absent reciprocal legitimacy, negotiations on sovereignty and coexistence lack a viable foundation.

Peace agreements rely on a minimum level of mutual recognition. Without it, negotiations collapse into tactical pauses rather than long-term settlements. Transformative peace requires a shift in legitimacy, not just tactical compromise.

2. Fragmentation of Palestinian representation

The Trump plan largely bypassed the Palestinian Authority (PA), the internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people. By implicitly engaging with Hamas while marginalizing the PA, the proposal deepens the political split between the West Bank and Gaza. Without internal Palestinian unity, any peace agreement lacks credibility and implementation capacity.

Durable peace agreements depend on unified leadership. As long as the Palestinian Authority and Hamas pursue separate agendas, no framework can represent the Palestinian people as a whole.

3. Misplaced emphasis on economic incentives

The plan’s emphasis on economic growth and infrastructure investment misunderstands the nature of the conflict. The struggle is not primarily about poverty; it is about sovereignty, self-determination, and historical justice. Economic aid cannot substitute for political compromise. Previous attempts to “buy peace” through development funding have failed because they ignored these fundamental issues.

4. Perceived bias of the mediator

The credibility of the United States as a mediator was undermined before negotiations even began. The Trump administration’s decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and cut funding to UNRWA was interpreted by Palestinians as clear evidence of pro-Israeli bias. Effective mediation requires both power and perceived impartiality; the U.S. under Trump possessed the former but lacked the latter.

5. Implementation and enforcement challenges

The proposed multi-phase process—ceasefire, disarmament, reconstruction, and administrative reform—faces daunting implementation challenges. The security environment in Gaza remains volatile, and trust between the parties is virtually nonexistent. Without robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, compliance with the plan’s provisions would likely erode rapidly.

6. Lack of regional and legal anchoring

Successful peace agreements in the Middle East have historically relied on regional buy-in and international legal legitimacy. The Trump plan’s lack of clarity on Palestinian statehood, refugee rights, and international law left it isolated from both regional actors and global institutions. Without legal grounding and multilateral support, such initiatives struggle to achieve lasting acceptance.

Conclusion

While the Trump peace plan incorporated some pragmatic components—such as reconstruction, governance reform, and regional diplomacy—it neglected the essential political and ideological foundations of peace. Without mutual recognition, unified Palestinian representation, credible mediation, enforceable mechanisms, and a clear legal framework, the proposal remains a symbolic gesture rather than a viable roadmap to peace.

It appears that Hamas is using the deal as a breathing space and an opportunity to retreat with minimal loss of face. Israel is releasing 2,000 prisoners, and Hamas can regroup and strengthen. The leverage they had—the Israeli hostages—is now gone. The question is whether the majority of Palestinians still recognize Hamas’s legitimacy or whether they are weary and ready to hand over governance to the international community, with Israel playing a significant role in that process.

—

References and Further Reading

International Crisis Group — Israel/Palestine analyses

https://www.crisisgroup.org

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — Middle East and North Africa Program

https://carnegieendowment.org/programs/middleeast

Chatham House — Middle East and North Africa Programme

https://www.chathamhouse.org/topics/middle-east-north-africa

Brookings Institution — Middle East Studies

https://www.brookings.edu/topic/middle-east-north-africa

United Nations — Reports on Israel–Palestine and humanitarian law

https://www.un.org

Posted on

The EU views Trump’s trade deal quite differently. Here’s how.

Based on President Trump’s public statements about the EU-US trade deal announced on 27 July 2025, here’s how they align or potentially contradict the European Commission’s framing:

Points of Agreement

Both sides emphasize:

  • The 15% tariff ceiling: Trump confirmed that the U.S. will impose a flat 15% tariff on most EU goods, including cars, which is consistent with the EU’s statement.
  • Energy and investment commitments: Trump highlighted the EU’s agreement to purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy and invest $600 billion in the U.S., which matches the EU’s announcement.
  • Strategic product exemptions: Both sides noted that certain products like aircraft parts, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals will receive special treatment or exemptions.
  • Section 232 investigations: Trump acknowledged that pharmaceuticals and semiconductors will temporarily face 0% tariffs pending national security reviews, aligning with the EU’s description.

Here’s where Trump’s tone or framing may differ from the EU’s:

  1. Tariff Framing:
    • Trump described the deal as a “very powerful” and “biggest of all the deals”, emphasizing tough negotiations and portraying the 15% tariff as a win for the U.S.
    • EU framing presents the 15% as a ceiling that reduces existing tariffs (e.g., on cars from 25% + 2.5% MFN), suggesting relief rather than escalation.
  2. EU Expectations:
    • Reports indicate that Europe had hoped for lower tariffs, around 10%, and some EU officials expressed relief mixed with concern over the final deal.
    • Trump’s tone suggests the EU market was “essentially closed” and now “opened up,” which may not reflect the EU’s view of its own openness.
  3. Military Purchases:
    • Trump mentioned that the EU would be “purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of military equipment”, a claim not mentioned in the EU’s official statement.
  4. Steel and Aluminum Tariffs:
    • Trump indicated that 50% tariffs remain for now, with a quota system to be negotiated. The EU emphasized cutting tariffs and protecting against global overcapacity, suggesting a more cooperative tone.

Moreover: the EU-US trade deal announced on 27 July 2025 is a political agreement and not legally binding until it is formally ratified through the EU’s internal procedures, which may require approval from all 27 member states.

Download the official EU Commission’s statement

Posted on

As the NATO Summit Nears, It’s Not Just About Spending—It’s About Strategy

What defines a strong NATO ally? Since the alliance’s founding in 1949, debates over burden-sharing have been constant. Donald Trump, both in his first and current term, has sharply criticized European members for underfunding their defense while relying on U.S. protection—and not without reason.

His message is resonating. Belgium’s defense minister recently vowed to end the country’s “national shame” of being NATO’s most notorious free rider. Even Iceland, which lacks a standing army, is exploring how to contribute more meaningfully.

Image: Pixabay

To assess NATO members’ contributions, consider the “three Cs”: cash, capabilities, and commitment.

Cash: More Members Are Meeting Targets—But Is It Enough?

Today, 22 of NATO’s 32 members meet the 2% of GDP defense spending target, a big jump from just seven a decade ago. Italy and Spain are on track to join them this year. But the bar is rising: at the upcoming summit in The Hague, NATO is expected to adopt a new target of 3.5% of GDP, plus 1.5% for supporting infrastructure.

Still, raw spending figures can be misleading. Some countries inflate their numbers by including loosely related expenses under “defense.”

Capabilities: What the Money Buys Matters More

NATO recommends that at least 20% of defense budgets go toward equipment—most members comply, and that threshold may soon rise to 33%. But quantity doesn’t equal quality. Greece, for example, spends heavily on gear, but much of it is aimed at deterring Turkey, not Russia.

The NATO Defense Planning Process aims to align national purchases with alliance needs. After years of counterterrorism focus, the threat from Russia is refocusing priorities. Allies are now being asked to build forces primarily for deterrence in Europe.
New “capability targets” expected this month will guide what each country should provide—especially in areas where the U.S. may scale back, like intelligence, long-range strike, and logistics.

Commitment: Who Shows Up?

Operationally, even the most frugal allies are stepping up. Spain leads a multinational brigade in Slovakia; Italy commands one in Bulgaria. Portuguese jets patrol Baltic airspace. Smaller nations like Albania and Slovenia also contribute troops to NATO’s eastern flank.

But NATO wants more. In a major conflict, it aims to deploy 100,000 troops within 10 days and another 200,000 within 30. Without more European investment in recruitment and readiness, those goals may be out of reach—especially without U.S. troops.

A Smarter Division of Labor?

NATO is exploring a “multi-speed” model: larger militaries take on high-end combat roles, while smaller states focus on logistics, cyber, or niche capabilities. Luxembourg, for instance, supports satellite communications and surveillance; Iceland runs an air-defense system.

Getting underperformers like Spain and Italy to specialize more effectively may be key. Encouraging them to invest in maritime capabilities could be a strategic win.

Posted on

How Americans Have Been ‘Borrowing’ Money from the Rest of the World for Decades Without Consequences

It’s a strange phenomenon. Americans keep buying Mercedes cars and other expensive items—even though they can’t actually afford them. Normally, a country that does that would be in serious trouble. But we lend them the money to buy those things. What’s going on here?

US Dollar and other currencies

Trade Deficit
America has been living beyond its means for decades. They buy far more than they produce, and that gap is filled with imports. Last year, Americans bought over $1.2 trillion more from abroad than they sold abroad. That’s more than the Netherlands produces and consumes in a whole year. And they’re buying on credit—Europe or China lends them the money for those Mercedes cars and other goods.

Budget Deficit
It’s not just trade that shows a big deficit; government spending is also way out of balance. Last year, the budget deficit was $1.8 trillion, or 6 percent of GDP. The government structurally spends more than it takes in. Many developing countries are doing better financially than the U.S.

Normally, a country with such deficits would face a huge problem. Financiers would demand high interest rates for loans—if they’re willing to lend at all. That forces a country to make painful choices to fix its deficits.

Many developing countries are doing better financially than the U.S.

Greece
Take Greece ten years ago. The country had major deficits. To fix them, they had to slash government spending, which mostly hurt the public. Thousands of civil servants lost their jobs, and wages dropped sharply so they could become competitive with foreign countries again. For Greeks, no more new Mercedes—only second-hand Dacias.

But the U.S. has no problem financing its deficits. In fact, we’re lining up to lend them money. While Greece saw interest rates on new government bonds spike to 35 percent, the U.S. borrows at just 2 to 4 percent.

The Secret
There’s no talk of painful measures in the U.S. On the contrary, the government—recently with Congress’s approval—raised the debt ceiling again. So the state can borrow even more. Elon Musk might be laying off millions of civil servants, but not as a government spending cut. That money is meant for tax cuts, which means less income for the government.

So what’s America’s secret? How can they rack up debt for decades without serious consequences? The answer: the dollar.

This requires some explanation. The U.S. dollar is the world’s dominant currency. The vast majority of international trade transactions are settled in dollars—just think of the oil trade. As global trade grows, so does the demand for dollars. That demand helps the dollar maintain its value. This is a major reason why investors and countries keep investing in the U.S.

That’s why the U.S. can borrow at low interest rates despite its large deficit—unlike Greece, which had to offer sky-high rates.

Mountains of Dollars
Because many countries have trade surpluses with the U.S., they end up with large reserves of dollars. They reinvest those dollars in the U.S., buying U.S. government bonds—called treasuries. These treasuries are considered the safest government bonds in the world. And the market is enormous.

So you can always sell those bonds if you need dollars, or buy them if you have dollars to spare. The euro or the Chinese yuan offer nothing similar and thus can’t compete with the dollar.

There’s something ironic about it. The fact that Americans have such a massive and growing mountain of debt actually makes the dollar strong. And the dollar’s dominant position seems untouchable—there are no credible alternatives to the American currency.

A Drawback
But the dollar isn’t only beneficial to Americans. Because there’s always demand for dollars, the exchange rate stays high compared to other currencies. And that expensive dollar is a disadvantage for U.S. companies that export. It’s one reason much of U.S. industry has disappeared. Countries with weaker currencies can produce more cheaply.

That’s why Trump is trying to improve the competitive position of American companies by imposing tariffs on imports. That makes imports more expensive compared to domestic production.

Posted on

Milton Friedman on Free Trade and Tariffs

Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and leading advocate of free-market capitalism, was a strong proponent of free trade and firmly opposed to tariffs.

Milton Friedman

He believed that free trade promotes economic efficiency, consumer choice, and global prosperity, while tariffs distort markets, protect inefficient industries, and ultimately harm consumers by raising prices.

Friedman argued that even if other countries impose tariffs, it is still in a nation’s best interest to keep its own markets open. He viewed trade as a voluntary exchange that benefits both parties and saw government interference, such as tariffs and quotas, as economically damaging and politically motivated.

In his view, the best policy was unilateral free trade — reducing or eliminating trade barriers regardless of what other countries do — because this would benefit the domestic economy by allowing consumers access to cheaper goods and encouraging competition and innovation among producers.

Posted on

Is Trump the new Hoover, who plunged the world into the Great Depression with his tariffs?

The new American tariffs resemble those of President Herbert Hoover in the 1930s, which helped plunge the world into the Great Depression. Economists and historians consider them one of the greatest blunders in history. Trump does not.

Workers in a Ford factory in Minnesota, 1935

Ben Stein is the most famous economics teacher in American film history thanks to Hollywood. He played the role of the dreadfully boring teacher in the 1986 movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. In a monotone voice, he attempts to explain the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which was signed on June 17, 1930—eight months after the Wall Street crash of October 1929—by then-President Herbert Hoover.

On that “Liberation Day,” import tariffs were imposed on 20,000 goods from other countries in an attempt to protect domestic agriculture and industry from “unfair foreign competition.”

Stein can’t hold the students’ attention. By repeatedly asking, “Anyone? Anyone?”, he tries in vain to involve them. The film became a huge success.

Japan

When Wall Street experienced a crash on Black Monday, October 19, 1987—an even worse drop than Black Thursday in 1929—then-President Ronald Reagan decided to do absolutely nothing. As a neoliberal, free trade was sacred to him, even though the U.S. faced massive trade deficits at the time. China wasn’t the main culprit back then—Japan was, with its Datsuns, Toyotas, and products from Sony and Panasonic.

Barely a year later, the markets had recovered. World trade and the global economy would experience an unprecedented boom in the 1990s thanks to globalization and digitalization. After the credit crisis in 2008, the world’s major industrial nations—now united in the G20—decided not to worsen the looming recession and unemployment with protectionist measures.

Economists and historians consider Smoot-Hawley one of the greatest policy blunders in global history. Trump does not. The comparison is inevitable. Just like in 1930, the Republicans now control both the White House and Congress. And just as we are now in the midst of a technological revolution driven by social media and artificial intelligence, the 1930s were marked by one as well—leading to the loss of many “well-paid jobs” in agriculture and craftsmanship.

‘Economic stupidity’

Thanks to the gasoline engine and electricity, the 1920s saw a massive increase in productivity. In rural areas, draft and work animals were replaced by tractors and trucks. Land previously needed for grazing could now be used for production.

Like Trump, Hoover called the tariffs countermeasures. By the late 1920s, France had imposed 100 percent tariffs on American cars like the famous Model T. Italy and Germany had restricted imports of American grain. In 1928, Hoover won the presidential election with a promise to protect American jobs—just like Trump did last year.

Nevertheless, there was significant opposition to Smoot-Hawley. In May 1930, 1,028 leading economists signed a petition urging Hoover to veto the law. Automobile magnate Henry Ford called it “economic stupidity.” JP Morgan CEO Thomas Lamont said he “begged Hoover on his knees not to go through with the plan.”

Two-thirds untaxed

But Hoover stuck to his “beggar-thy-neighbor” strategy: improving one’s own economy at the expense of others by creating trade barriers. U.S. trade partners retaliated. Canada was the first to impose tariffs on sixteen key American products, which together accounted for 30 percent of total U.S. exports to the country.

American exports to countries that responded—among them Canada, France, Cuba, Mexico, Spain, Argentina, and Switzerland—fell by 31 percent. In the following years, the highest tariffs rose to nearly 60 percent on some products. But unlike now, two-thirds of imports remained untaxed. Trump’s tariffs apply to all imports.

Weak financial system

World trade collapsed in less than four years. U.S. imports dropped 66 percent, from $4.4 billion in 1929 to $1.5 billion in 1933. Exports fell from $5.4 billion to $2.1 billion. GDP was cut in half, from $103 billion in 1929 to $55.6 billion in 1933. Unemployment rose from 8 percent in 1930 to 25 percent in 1933.

Not everyone blames Smoot-Hawley for that. According to monetarists like Milton Friedman, the weak U.S. financial system was more to blame for the Great Depression than protectionism—after the crash, 9,000 of the 25,000 banks failed. In 1930, trade only accounted for 5 percent of U.S. GDP. Today, it’s 25 percent.

‘Never again’

Regardless, it was a vital lesson. After World War II, Western nations made massive agreements under the motto: never again. Organizations were created to promote free trade. In 1947, GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) came into effect, gradually reducing import barriers.

Whether Trump has seen Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is unknown. He may have fallen asleep. Either way, he shows no regard for the fact that after Smoot-Hawley, the Great Depression followed—a prelude to another world war.

Posted on

Trump gets Putin Completely Wrong

Some interesting ideas from Sir Alex Younger, former head of MI6:

Trump and Putin

Younger: “Trump and Putin talk about different things. Trump thinks this is about territory, about giving land to Russia in exchange for peace. But it’s not about territory—Putin has said it’s about sovereignty.

The existence of Ukraine as a sovereign and free country was an unacceptable affront to Russian security. He will not stop until Ukraine ceases to be a country. And that is a completely different conversation.”

Posted on

U.S. Special Prosecutor’s Report Released: ‘Trump Lied to Stay in Power’

Donald Trump committed an “unprecedented criminal attempt” to remain in power. That is the conclusion of Special Prosecutor Jack Smith in a long-anticipated report on the outgoing U.S. president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, which he lost. The report was released today.

AFP

Since Trump won the most recent presidential election, the charges against him have been dropped. The U.S. Department of Justice does not prosecute sitting presidents. The report concludes that there was sufficient evidence to convict Trump, but his upcoming presidency makes that impossible.

The Justice Department submitted the report to Congress early this morning. “The common thread in all of Trump’s criminal activities was deceit,” the report states. “Knowingly and willingly, he made false claims of election fraud. The evidence shows that Trump weaponized these lies to obstruct a federal government function that is fundamental to the U.S. democratic process.”

Although many details of Trump’s attempts to overturn the election were already well known, the document contains, for the first time, a detailed assessment from Smith regarding his investigation. It also includes Smith’s response to Trump and his allies’ claims that the investigation was politically motivated.

Smith argues that his actions against Trump were in defense of the rule of law. He also addressed ongoing criticism from the newly re-elected president. “Trump’s claim that my prosecutorial decisions were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in one word, ridiculous,” Smith wrote in a letter to the Attorney General about the report.

Quiet Resignation

Smith also intended to indict Trump for illegally storing sensitive national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida after leaving the White House in 2021. However, the Justice Department has pledged not to release that part of the investigation publicly, as legal proceedings are still ongoing against two Trump associates charged in the case.

Over the weekend, it was announced that Jack Smith had resigned. His departure had been expected ever since Trump won the election in November. Jack Smith (55), who previously prosecuted war criminals at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, was appointed in 2022 to prosecute Trump.

Trump himself responded in his typical fashion to the report’s release. On Truth Social, he called Smith a “dumb prosecutor who failed to get his case heard before the election.” He did not mention that his own legal team had filed numerous procedures to delay the trial.

Jack SmithDownload

Posted on

Zuckerberg is Cozying Up to Trump: Meta Ends Partnership with Fact-Checkers in the U.S. Due to ‘Censorship’

Meta is ending its collaboration with fact-checkers in the United States, according to an announcement made today by owner Mark Zuckerberg. Instead, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, will implement a system that allows users to comment on potentially misleading content.

Mark-Zuckerberg-2019

The new system, based on user comments, is similar to the Community Notes feature on X (formerly Twitter). In this system, users can provide feedback on potentially misleading posts, meaning that professional fact-checkers will no longer be responsible for verifying content.

The company says it is terminating its partnership with experts, including journalists from major international news agencies, because, according to Zuckerberg, they are “politically biased.” “The fact-checkers have done more harm than good in terms of building trust,” Zuckerberg stated in a video message.

Immigration and Gender

Zuckerberg also announced plans to change Meta’s moderation policy on certain topics. “We want fewer restrictions on subjects like immigration and gender,” he said. According to him, Facebook and Instagram have shifted from being inclusive platforms to spaces where people are silenced too quickly.

He also claimed that too many posts are being fact-checked and censored. The fact-checking is currently handled by employees of major international news agencies such as AFP, AP, and Reuters.

Zuckerberg pointed to recent U.S. elections as a major factor in his decision. “The last elections feel like a cultural turning point to bring freedom of speech back to the forefront,” he said.

Cozying Up to Trump

Zuckerberg is clearly seeking favor with Donald Trump, with whom he dined shortly after Trump’s election victory at Mar-a-Lago. Trump was informed of Meta’s plans in advance. Meta also donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration, along with other tech companies.

By relocating moderation teams to Texas and shifting to user-driven corrections instead of professional fact-checking, Meta is following the example of Trump advisor Elon Musk, owner of X. Under Musk’s leadership, that platform has transformed into a propaganda machine for the new president.

Posted on

How ‘Trumponomics’ Revives a Forgotten Economic Worldview

The Great Plundering Can Begin

Will the United States, under Donald Trump’s leadership, lean toward an authoritarian capitalism similar to China’s model? His protectionist ideology, inspired by a forgotten and assassinated president, can be summarized in four words: “We are America, bitch.”

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump walks with Elon Musk before attending a viewing of the launch of the sixth test flight of the SpaceX Starship rocket, in Brownsville, Texas, U.S., November 19, 2024 . Brandon Bell/Pool via REUTERS

The U.S. Economy Under Trump in 2029

By January 1, 2029, the United States feels emptier. Contrary to analysts’ predictions that President Trump would scale back his rhetoric, he has kept his promises. Eleven million undocumented immigrants have been deported during his second term. This has significantly impacted a total workforce of 160 million people. Yet, the economy thrives: the oil sector operates without restrictions, and Wall Street enjoys freedom from stringent financial regulations. The result? Businesses are flooded with cheap energy and loans.

Import tariffs—60% on Chinese products and 10-20% on others—have further revitalized America’s declining industries. Store shelves are now filled with goods Made in America. The cherry on top? Income tax has been abolished. Hardworking Americans no longer fund their government directly—foreigners do, thanks to protectionist tariffs.

It’s a vision Trump outlined in a rally in Arizona before his sweeping victory in the fall of 2024:

“We’ll ensure low taxes, minimal regulations, cheap energy, low interest rates, and low inflation so that everyone can afford groceries, a car, and a beautiful home.”

This Trumpian utopia—a fantasy, of course—raises questions. What is the essence of his economic worldview? For many supporters, the answer is simple: it’s not an ideology but common sense. That term appears 12 times in the Republican Party’s brief election manifesto. Despite low unemployment and a booming economy under President Joe Biden, the document paints a grim picture: “For decades, politicians sold our jobs and livelihoods to the highest overseas bidders with unfair trade deals and blind faith in globalism’s siren song.”

Now, with the presidency, Senate, and House under Republican control, Trump’s team declares: “America will once again be the richest, most powerful nation, built on Truth, Justice, and Common Sense.”

The Return of Protectionism

While Trump’s supporters see this as pragmatic, critics argue otherwise. Antonio Gramsci observed that every dominant societal view cloaks itself as apolitical common sense. Trump’s economic preferences are anything but neutral. Commentators dissect his policies—dubbed “Trumponomics” or “Maganomics”—to uncover their essence.

From the start in 2016, Trump’s economic strategy was dual-faced. Domestically, he embraced neoliberalism: tax cuts (mostly benefiting elites), deregulation, and endless tweets lauding stock market growth as a success metric. Internationally, Trump adopted economic nationalism, with China bearing the brunt, followed by Europe through higher tariffs on steel and aluminum.

Trump’s second term shifts gears. His administration promises even more tax cuts for U.S.-based manufacturers and slashes government spending, aiming to save $2 trillion, led by Elon Musk and former candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Yet, tensions simmer as sectors like construction and hospitality face labor shortages, exacerbated by mass deportations and tariffs.

Echoes of Mercantilism

Trump’s vision of the economy mirrors mercantilism—a nationalist economic ideology dominant between 1600 and 1800. In this zero-sum view, wealth is finite, and nations must outcompete others to secure it. Protectionist tariffs serve as tools for economic supremacy.

Critics, including 16 Nobel laureates and Moody’s Analytics, predict rising inflation and a potential recession by mid-2025. Nevertheless, Trump dismisses these concerns, citing “common sense.”

The Bigger Picture: Toward Authoritarian Capitalism?

Trump’s policies, reminiscent of mercantilism and protectionism, contrast sharply with the Washington Consensus of the 1990s, which advocated liberal economic policies. Instead, his vision seems closer to the Beijing Consensus, emphasizing state-led capitalism and undermining democratic norms.

Analysts warn of the long-term costs. Studies show that populist and authoritarian leaders rarely deliver sustained economic growth, often prioritizing personal enrichment and political power over national prosperity.

In Trump’s America, protectionism isn’t merely policy—it’s an ideology cloaked in common sense, where the international economy is viewed as a battlefield rather than a collaborative space. As Trump declared in 1990: “I’d impose a tax on every Mercedes-Benz and Japanese product entering the U.S.” Decades later, that vision has taken center stage.

Original piece written in Dutch by Koen Haegens.