A few years ago, when President Joe Biden, through subsidies and incentives, laid out the red carpet for semiconductor fabrication units under the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act, opinions were divided.
Some argued that the United States should focus solely on chip design rather than attempting to control every stage of production. Wouldn’t it be far more efficient, they contended, to outsource the manufacturing processes to global partners while maintaining a stronghold on innovation?
Others raised environmental concerns, pointing out that semiconductor fabrication plants are notoriously water-intensive, questioning whether the U.S. should even pursue domestic chip manufacturing.
However, for many working-class Americans, the initiative made economic sense. Some were part of the low-skilled workforce left behind in the era of outsourcing, and they saw semiconductor manufacturing as an opportunity to regain lost jobs.
READ: The perils of Trump’s proposed tariff trade war (February 6, 2025)
Despite concerns over efficiency losses, new fabrication plants were established in Oklahoma, Arizona, and New York. Meanwhile, Republicans grew uneasy, fearing that Biden’s push for domestic semiconductor manufacturing would boost his political standing ahead of the elections.
The administration, in turn, justified the move by citing lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, which exposed critical vulnerabilities in the global supply chain — reinforcing the need for domestic production to safeguard national security and economic stability.
Now, on his return to the White House, President Donald Trump is treading a dual path, simultaneously pushing for efficiency-driven deregulation while embracing protectionist economic policies. In his bid to shrink the role of the state, he has launched the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with Elon Musk as an advisor, crafting strategies to reduce bureaucratic scope.
Yet, in a striking contrast, he has also doubled down on economic nationalism, famously declaring in his State of the Union Address, “The word ‘tariff’ is the most beautiful word in the dictionary.” Under this philosophy, he has expanded the use of tariffs as a tool to protect domestic businesses — and unlike Biden, he has not confined his efforts to semiconductor manufacturing alone.
From steel and aluminum to coal and automobiles, Trump’s economic policies appear aimed at restoring American industrial strength. Whether dealing with allies or adversaries, he has unapologetically imposed tariffs, including a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum, much to the frustration of Canada and Mexico (the two U.S. neighbors and partners) and China alike.
For a large economy like the United States, tariffs can, in theory, generate trade gains that outweigh the distortions in production and consumption. But the pressing question remains—will this strategy ultimately benefit the U.S. economy, or will it fuel inflation and economic instability?
Determined to restore the glory of the American auto industry, Trump has threatened to impose reciprocal tariffs on countries that charge higher duties on American automobiles. Leaving no country untouched, he singled out India, referring to it as the “tariff king.”
In doing so, the United States has disregarded key principles of international trade, including bound tariffs, free trade agreements, and the special and differential treatment extended to developing countries. This aggressive stance signals a major shift away from traditional U.S. trade policy.
It is worth remembering that during the interwar years, countries engaged in competitive devaluation and rising tariffs, a practice that economist Joan Robinson famously described as “beggar-thy-neighbor” strategies.
In the aftermath of World War II, the United States took the lead in shaping a rules-based global economy, advocating for lower tariffs through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
READ: Canada, China, Mexico, South Korea, India among 10 countries to be hit by Trump’s tariffs on aluminum, steel (February 11, 2025)
The U.S. also spearheaded the reconstruction of war-torn Europe and Japan through the Marshall Plan and the Dodge Plan while extending an olive branch to developing countries by supporting special and differential treatment clauses within GATT.
Now, however, the president of the very country that once played a pivotal role in designing the post-war economic framework is taking an anti-institutional approach. Even as Trump reaffirms America’s trade priorities, he is doing so by undermining the very institutions the U.S. helped build.
This disregard for global agreements is evident in America’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord, signaling a broader retreat from multilateralism and international cooperation.
One might expect an American president to push back against demands for stronger action on climate change, arguing that the U.S. cannot shoulder too much responsibility.
However, withdrawing scientific committee members from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), outright denying the existence of global warming, and rallying supporters with slogans like “Drill, baby, drill!” is more than just resistance—it is reckless dismissal.
Such rhetoric trivializes the work of NASA educators, who, through their NASA Kids program, have been diligently spreading awareness about the planetary crisis we are facing. Even former Vice President Al Gore underscored the urgency of climate change in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” highlighting the grave environmental challenges ahead.
Trump’s approach to climate change mirrors his stance on global healthcare and human rights — marked by sweeping dismissals and confrontational rhetoric. His outlandish attacks on the World Health Organization (WHO) and sharp criticism of the UNHCR reflect a broader pattern of disengagement from international institutions.
When such statements and actions come from the leader of the world’s most powerful country, they veer into the bizarre, signaling a retreat from global leadership. It does not befit a nation that has long stood at the forefront of international cooperation to take an “America First” stance at the expense of collective progress.
The U.S. must recognize that in the interests of the global economy and shared prosperity, it must work together with the rest of the world — leading not through isolation, but through collaboration.
If the United States refuses to fund international organizations like the WHO, how can it expect to lead the fight against global inequality and deprivation alone?
Shouldn’t the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) worldwide be a major concern and priority for the world’s leading power? Shouldn’t the U.S. bear the moral responsibility of working toward the collective common good?
Without a committed global leader, the world may be forced to look elsewhere for guidance. Meanwhile, America’s disregard for the WTO — which operates on a one-country, one-vote system—continues to erode international cooperation, potentially worsening existing trade tensions.
More importantly, the fundamental premise of American trade policy is deeply flawed.
A core argument for protectionist policies is that the United States has a massive current account deficit. While it is true that the U.S. current account deficit stands at $800 billion, it is essential to put this figure into perspective.
As a percentage of GDP, the deficit is currently just 3% — a significant drop from 6% in 2006. In other words, since the global financial crisis, the U.S. current account deficit has declined sharply as a share of GDP, contradicting the narrative that it is spiraling out of control.
Furthermore, the current account deficit of the United States has been a structural feature of its economy since the 1980s. It is not simply a consequence of recent global economic conditions but rather an inherent characteristic of the U.S. economic model.
This historical pattern suggests that current protectionist measures are based on a misdiagnosis of economic realities, rather than addressing the structural forces shaping America’s trade balance.
Second, even China’s reliance on external markets for growth has diminished significantly. In 2006, China’s current account surplus stood at 9% of its GDP, but today, it has dropped to just 1.5%. This shift is largely due to China’s transition from an export-driven economy to a “dual circulation” strategy, which prioritizes both domestic and international markets for sustained growth.
Third, while the United States exports far fewer goods than China, with U.S. exports totaling $2 trillion compared to China’s $3 trillion, it dominates the global services trade. The global service exports market is valued at $8 trillion, and one-eighth of this — $1 trillion — is accounted for by the U.S., far outpacing other economies.
Fourth, the United States continues to maintain a dominant presence in global multinational corporations (MNCs). A significant portion of exports from Asian economies originates from U.S.-based multinationals operating in those countries, meaning that American companies — and their shareholders — ultimately benefit through profits and dividends. No other country in the world earns as much from dividends and royalty payments as the United States, reinforcing its economic leverage.
Fifth, the anti-immigration rhetoric sweeping the U.S. poses a long-term threat to its own economy. Can the U.S. sustain its innovation ecosystem without immigrant labor? A significant portion of its travel, hospitality, and other non-tradable sectors is heavily dependent on semi-skilled immigrant workers. Restricting immigration could weaken these industries, disrupt economic stability, and stifle the very innovation that has fueled America’s global leadership.
Rather than blaming the rest of the world for its own economic challenges, the U.S. president would be better served by examining the impact of growing monopoly power on the country’s productivity and innovation.
A bipartisan congressional report on digital markets has already highlighted the lack of competition in the sector, a concern that both parties agree upon. If the United States fails to address this issue, the current dominance of the “Magnificent 7” — Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia, Amazon, Meta, Alphabet, and Tesla — could ultimately become a burden rather than an asset.
READ: Trump threatens to impose tariffs on countries that may ‘harm’ America, includes India (January 28, 2025)
History rarely sees a global leader resorting to protectionism. Instead of engaging in counterproductive economic isolation, the United States must rise to the challenge of competing with economies that operate under non-market systems.
Meeting this challenge will require greater creative state intervention and a more open approach to immigrant labor. Without innovation-driven policies and a steady influx of skilled workers, the U.S. risks losing its competitive edge on the global stage.