Jarsking covers all cosmetics,cannabis and perfume markets. Ask custom solutions here!
The world’s go-to cosmetic packaging factory for custom branding. Talk to Jarsking Team
Donald Trump’s second term as President of the United States, which began on January 20, 2025, is set to redefine the landscape of international trade. Building on his “America First” doctrine, Trump’s administration aims to implement significant changes in trade relations, focusing on tariffs and protectionist measures that prioritize U.S. interests. This analysis will delve into the implications of these policies, examining their historical context, key components, effects on trade partners, legal frameworks for implementation, domestic economic impacts, and global repercussions.
Donald Trump’s first term in office (2017-2021) marked a significant shift in U.S. trade policy, moving away from the multilateralism that had defined post-World War II trade agreements like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Driven by economic nationalism, protectionist sentiments, and a desire to renegotiate trade deals to better serve American interests, the Trump administration prioritized bilateral agreements over multilateral frameworks. This shift laid the foundation for an aggressive trade agenda, characterized by protectionist measures and a focus on unilateral actions, that continues to shape U.S. trade policy today.
Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) shortly after taking office was one of the first signals of his administration’s intent to abandon multilateralism. The TPP was a significant trade agreement involving 12 countries that accounted for approximately 40% of global GDP. By pulling out, Trump not only undermined U.S. leadership in the Asia-Pacific region but also diminished opportunities for collective bargaining with key trading partners.
Critics argue that this withdrawal reinforced doubts about the U.S.’s commitment to global economic leadership and weakened its ability to set the rules for international trade. The absence of U.S. influence in such agreements allowed other nations, particularly China, to fill the void and strengthen their own trade relationships within the region.
Trump’s administration favored one-on-one negotiations over multilateral agreements, believing this approach would yield better terms for the U.S.:
Bilateral Negotiations: The administration sought to renegotiate existing trade agreements, such as NAFTA, which was transformed into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). This new agreement included stricter labor standards and automotive manufacturing requirements aimed at boosting American manufacturing.
Perceived Leverage: Trump’s belief in leveraging America’s market power during bilateral negotiations was central to his strategy. He argued that direct negotiations would allow for quicker results and better terms than lengthy multilateral discussions.
However, this expectation did not fully materialize. The anticipated wave of successful bilateral agreements failed to materialize as quickly as Trump had hoped, leading to frustrations both domestically and internationally.
The administration’s emphasis on protecting American jobs led to increased tariffs and trade barriers:
Tariffs on Imports: Trump’s administration imposed tariffs on a wide range of imports, including steel and aluminum, under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, citing national security concerns. These tariffs were part of a broader strategy aimed at revitalizing American manufacturing and reducing reliance on foreign goods.
Trade War with China: One of the most significant aspects of Trump’s protectionist agenda was the initiation of a trade war with China. The administration imposed tariffs on approximately $370 billion worth of Chinese goods, aiming to address perceived unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft. This aggressive stance led to retaliatory tariffs from China, escalating tensions between the two largest economies in the world.
Economic Nationalism
Trump’s “America First” doctrine emphasized economic nationalism as a guiding principle:
Reclaiming Economic Sovereignty: The administration sought to reclaim economic sovereignty from global institutions and foreign competitors. This perspective viewed unilateral actions as necessary to restore American dominance in international markets.
Populist Appeal: The rise of populist sentiment among voters who felt left behind by globalization played a crucial role in shaping Trump’s trade policies. Many Americans believed that previous administrations had prioritized free trade at the expense of domestic jobs, leading Trump to adopt an aggressive protectionist stance.
Transactional Approach
Trump approached international relations through a transactional lens:
Short-Term Gains Over Long-Term Partnerships: This perspective prioritized immediate economic gains over building long-term partnerships with allies. The focus on bilateral negotiations often sidelined traditional allies who were accustomed to collaborative approaches.
Use of Tariffs as Leverage: Trump viewed tariffs as multipurpose tools—sometimes as negotiating leverage and other times as ends unto themselves—to encourage reshoring American manufacturing or generate revenue for tax cuts.
As Trump embarks on his second term with an aggressive agenda aimed at reshaping global trade dynamics further, stakeholders must navigate an increasingly complex environment characterized by uncertainty and potential conflict among nations vying for economic dominance. The long-term consequences of this shift will likely reverberate throughout the global trading system for years to come, necessitating careful consideration from policymakers and business leaders alike as they adapt to this new reality.
One of the most defining features of Trump’s trade policy was the proposed implementation of universal tariffs on imports:
Proposed Tariff Rates: Trump suggested imposing tariffs ranging from 10% to 20% on all imports, with specific rates potentially reaching as high as 60% on certain goods from China. This approach aimed to protect American industries by making foreign products more expensive and thereby encouraging consumers to purchase domestically produced goods.
Rationale Behind Universal Tariffs: The administration argued that these tariffs would help reduce the trade deficit, protect American jobs, and incentivize companies to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. However, critics contended that such broad tariffs would lead to higher prices for consumers and could provoke retaliatory measures from trading partners.
Economic Impact: The imposition of these tariffs was expected to generate significant revenue for the federal government while also creating economic uncertainty. Estimates indicated that the tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by approximately 0.2% in the long run due to increased costs for consumers and businesses reliant on imported goods.
In addition to universal tariffs, Trump’s administration implemented sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries:
Steel and Aluminum Tariffs: Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, Trump imposed tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum imports. These measures were justified on national security grounds, with the administration arguing that reliance on foreign metals threatened U.S. defense capabilities.
Impact on Domestic Industries: While these tariffs were intended to protect domestic steel and aluminum producers, they also raised costs for industries that rely on these materials, such as automotive manufacturing and construction. Critics noted that the benefits for steel producers were outweighed by job losses in sectors dependent on these inputs.
Automotive Industry Focus: Trump proposed additional tariffs specifically targeting imported automobiles and parts, arguing that such measures were necessary to support American manufacturers and reduce trade imbalances with countries like Japan and Germany.
A distinctive aspect of Trump’s trade policy was its close connection to national security:
Linking Trade Policy to Security: The administration frequently framed trade issues as national security concerns, particularly regarding China. This approach allowed Trump to justify aggressive tariff actions under legal frameworks designed for national security rather than traditional trade laws.
Export Controls and Technology Transfers: The administration sought to restrict technology transfers to countries deemed adversarial, particularly China. This included implementing stricter export controls on sensitive technologies and reviewing foreign investments in critical sectors.
Reviving Domestic Manufacturing: By emphasizing national security in trade discussions, Trump aimed to bolster domestic manufacturing capabilities as a means of ensuring economic resilience in times of geopolitical tension. This focus aligned with broader objectives of reducing reliance on foreign supply chains for essential goods.
Canada’s trade relationship with the U.S. is one of the most significant in the world, with approximately 75% of Canadian exports directed south. The potential imposition of a 25% tariff on Canadian goods poses serious risks:
Economic Vulnerability: Canadian officials have expressed concern that such tariffs could lead to a severe economic downturn. Estimates suggest that a 25% tariff could reduce Canada’s GDP by up to 2% and jeopardize over a million jobs, particularly in sectors like automotive manufacturing and agriculture, which are heavily reliant on U.S. markets.
Retaliatory Measures: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has indicated that Canada would respond robustly to any unfair tariffs. Potential retaliatory measures could include tariffs on American goods, particularly those from states that heavily rely on trade with Canada. This tit-for-tat scenario could escalate into a full-blown trade war, significantly disrupting established supply chains.
Impact on Consumers: If tariffs are implemented, American consumers are likely to bear some of the costs as retailers pass on increased prices for goods imported from Canada. Essential items such as food and household products could see price hikes, leading to inflationary pressures within the U.S.
Mexico’s economy is particularly vulnerable to U.S. trade policies due to its reliance on exports:
Heavy Reliance on U.S. Trade: Approximately 80% of Mexico’s exports go to the United States, making it highly susceptible to tariff impositions. A 25% tariff could trigger a process of deindustrialization in Mexico, leading to significant factory closures and job losses in key sectors such as automotive manufacturing.
Economic Growth Projections: Experts predict that such tariffs could lower Mexico’s economic growth by about 2 percentage points, exacerbating existing economic challenges and increasing poverty rates.
Potential for Retaliation: Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has emphasized the importance of maintaining “cool heads” in response to Trump’s threats but has not ruled out retaliatory measures if necessary. The interconnected nature of supply chains means that tariffs imposed by either country would likely have ripple effects across both economies.
The European Union is also in Trump’s crosshairs as he considers imposing tariffs on imports:
Trade Surplus Concerns: Trump has criticized the EU for its trade surplus with the United States, which he claims amounts to $350 billion annually. His administration’s focus on reducing this deficit could lead to punitive tariffs targeting European goods.
Retaliatory Responses: The EU has historically responded strongly to U.S. tariff threats with its own countermeasures. If Trump follows through with tariffs on European products, it is likely that Europe would retaliate against American exports, further escalating tensions between the two regions.
Economic Impact: Tariffs could disrupt established trade relationships and supply chains between the U.S. and EU member states, particularly affecting industries such as automotive manufacturing and agriculture that rely heavily on transatlantic trade.
China remains a focal point of Trump’s trade policy, with new threats of tariffs looming:
Continued Trade Conflict: Trump has indicated plans for a 10% tariff on Chinese imports starting February 1, citing concerns over China’s role in the fentanyl crisis affecting the U.S. This move is part of an ongoing trade conflict that began during Trump’s first term and has already resulted in substantial tariffs on over $300 billion worth of Chinese goods.
Economic Consequences for China: While China’s overall exports have shown resilience despite previous tariffs, additional duties could strain its economy further by increasing costs for manufacturers reliant on American markets.
Geopolitical Tensions: The imposition of new tariffs could exacerbate existing geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China, potentially impacting cooperation in other areas such as climate change and regional security issues.
Southeast Asian nations are poised for dramatic shifts in their trade relations with the U.S. under Trump’s second term. The region has become increasingly important as an alternative source of manufacturing and exports, particularly amid ongoing U.S.-China tensions.
Trade Surpluses and Tariff Threats
Countries like Vietnam, Thailand, and Malaysia have established substantial trade surpluses with the U.S., which could place them in Trump’s crosshairs:
Vietnam: As Southeast Asia’s largest exporter to the U.S., Vietnam faces heightened scrutiny due to its significant trade surplus. In 2024, Vietnam exported goods worth approximately $75 billion to the U.S., making it a potential target for punitive tariffs if Trump perceives it as a “bad actor.” The risk of tariffs could lead to increased costs for American consumers and manufacturers reliant on Vietnamese goods.
Thailand: With exports to the U.S. valued at around $28 billion in 2023, Thailand also risks facing tariffs. Experts suggest that Thailand should prepare for potential economic disruptions by strengthening ties within ASEAN and negotiating favorable trade agreements with the U.S.
Malaysia: Similar to Thailand, Malaysia’s export economy is vulnerable to changes in U.S. trade policy. The country has been proactive in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) but must navigate potential tariff impositions that could hinder its economic growth.
Supply Chain Reorientation
The “China Plus One” strategy is gaining traction among multinational corporations seeking to diversify their supply chains away from China:
Investment Shifts: Companies are increasingly relocating production facilities to Southeast Asia to mitigate risks associated with tariffs and geopolitical tensions. Countries like Vietnam and Malaysia are seen as attractive alternatives due to their competitive labor costs and improving infrastructure.
Potential Benefits: While reshoring may reduce demand for ASEAN’s manufacturing output in some sectors, it could also create opportunities for increased FDI as companies seek new bases of operations closer to the U.S. market.
Strategic Partnership
India’s strategic importance as a counterbalance to China has positioned it favorably in U.S. foreign policy:
Economic Ties: The deepening economic relationship between India and the U.S. is expected to benefit from Trump’s focus on national security and defense cooperation. This partnership may lead to increased investment opportunities in defense technology and infrastructure.
Trade Balance Challenges: However, India’s significant trade surplus with the U.S.—approximately $30 billion—could attract scrutiny from Trump’s administration, potentially leading to tariff threats similar to those faced by other countries with large surpluses.
Vulnerabilities in Key Sectors
Certain sectors within India may face challenges under Trump’s protectionist policies:
Textiles and Apparel: The ready-made garment sector, which relies heavily on exports to the U.S., could suffer from increased tariffs that would make Indian products less competitive compared to those from other countries.
Remittance Flows: Stricter immigration policies may impact remittance flows from Indian workers in the U.S., further affecting economic stability at home.
Bilateral Negotiations
Trump’s administration is likely to engage Japan in renewed bilateral negotiations:
Automotive Sector Concerns: Japanese automakers could face heightened scrutiny under Trump’s proposed tariffs on imported vehicles and parts, particularly if they are manufactured outside of the U.S. This could compel companies like Toyota and Honda to reconsider their manufacturing strategies.
Inflationary Pressures: A stronger dollar resulting from Trump’s fiscal policies may adversely affect Japanese companies’ sales and revenues in the U.S., leading to inflationary pressures that could impact overall economic performance.
Technology and Security Issues
Japan may also need to navigate complex technology transfer issues:
National Security Scrutiny: As Trump emphasizes national security considerations in trade policy, Japanese firms may face challenges related to technology exports deemed sensitive or dual-use by the U.S., complicating their operations.
Export Support Measures
In anticipation of potential negative impacts from Trump’s tariffs, South Korea has pledged record amounts of financing support for exporters:
Mitigating Risks: The South Korean government aims to bolster its exporters against adverse effects stemming from changes in U.S. trade policy by providing financial assistance and incentives.
Technology Sector Vulnerabilities
South Korea’s advanced technology sector may experience specific challenges:
High-Tech Restrictions: As Trump expands high-tech restrictions on China, South Korean electronics firms may find themselves caught in the crossfire due to their significant exports of semiconductors and consumer electronics.
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 empowers the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to investigate and respond to unfair foreign trade practices. This provision allows the president to impose remedies, such as tariffs, without needing congressional approval.
Investigative Authority: Under Section 301, the USTR can initiate investigations into foreign practices that are deemed unjustifiable or discriminatory and that burden U.S. commerce. The process typically begins when an interested party files a petition or when the USTR self-initiates an investigation based on perceived trade violations.
Tariff Implementation: If an investigation concludes that a foreign country is engaging in unfair practices, the USTR can recommend imposing tariffs or other trade restrictions as a form of retaliation. The tariffs can be significant; during Trump’s first term, they ranged from 7.5% to 25% on various Chinese goods in response to allegations of intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers.
Process Requirements: Although Section 301 provides broad authority, it requires a detailed investigation process that includes consultations with the offending country, public input, and a thorough factual and legal analysis. Investigations can take up to a year or longer, which may delay immediate tariff actions.
Retaliatory Measures: Section 301 also allows for retaliatory measures that can include not only tariffs but also other import restrictions aimed at balancing trade disparities. The flexibility of this provision makes it a key tool for addressing perceived imbalances in international trade relationships.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 permits the president to impose tariffs based on national security concerns:
National Security Justification: This provision allows for import restrictions if certain imports are determined to threaten national security. The Department of Commerce conducts investigations to assess whether specific imports impair national security interests.
Trump’s Utilization: During his first term, Trump initiated eight Section 232 investigations, most notably on steel and aluminum imports. The investigations concluded that these imports threatened U.S. national security due to their impact on domestic production capabilities.
Tariff Implementation Process: Following an affirmative determination by Commerce, the president has broad discretion to impose tariffs or quotas without congressional approval. Once imposed, these tariffs can remain in place indefinitely unless revoked or modified by subsequent presidential action.
Controversies and Challenges: The use of Section 232 has generated debate both domestically and internationally, particularly regarding its implications for global trade norms and relationships with allies who may be adversely affected by such tariffs.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants the president broad authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies:
Emergency Declaration Requirement: To invoke IEEPA, the president must declare a national emergency concerning an unusual and extraordinary threat originating from outside the United States that affects national security, foreign policy, or the economy.
Broad Authority: IEEPA allows for swift imposition of economic sanctions or tariffs without going through standard procedural checks such as public consultations or lengthy investigations required under other statutes like Sections 301 and 232.
Potential Use Cases: Although no president has used IEEPA specifically to impose tariffs, Trump showed interest in utilizing this act during his first term when he considered imposing tariffs on Mexican imports related to immigration issues. Such a move would enable rapid tariff implementation based on emergency declarations rather than lengthy investigative processes.
Legal Implications: The use of IEEPA raises questions about its appropriateness for imposing tariffs, as it was primarily designed for sanctioning foreign threats rather than regulating trade broadly. Critics argue that invoking IEEPA for tariff purposes could lead to legal challenges regarding its legitimacy.
Job Creation vs. Job Losses: While some sectors may benefit from protectionist measures, others are expected to face challenges. Estimates suggest that the proposed tariffs could lead to a net loss of 344,900 full-time equivalent jobs in the long run. This is due to the complex nature of global supply chains and the interconnectedness of industries.
Sector-Specific Impacts: Certain industries, such as steel and aluminum manufacturing, may see short-term gains. For example, the 2018 tariffs on washing machines led to the creation of about 1,800 new jobs. However, these gains often come at a significant cost to consumers and other sectors of the economy.
Manufacturing Relocation: Some companies may choose to relocate production to the United States to avoid tariffs. For instance, foreign companies shifted some production to the U.S. in response to the 2018 washing machine tariffs, creating an additional 1,600 jobs. However, this trend is not universal and may be offset by U.S. companies moving production overseas to remain competitive.
Immediate Price Hikes: Historical evidence shows that tariffs often result in price increases for affected goods. For example, the 2018 tariffs led to a 12% increase in the prices of washing machines and dryers.
Broader Inflationary Pressures: As tariffs affect a wide range of goods, including intermediate products used in manufacturing, the overall cost of living for American consumers is likely to rise. This could lead to reduced purchasing power and lower standards of living for many households.
Estimated Household Impact: Before accounting for behavioral effects, the proposed tariffs could amount to an average annual tax increase of $625 per U.S. household. Even conservative estimates based on actual revenue collections suggest an increase of $200 to $300 annually per household.
GDP Reduction: Long-term estimates suggest that the proposed tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.4%. This reduction in economic output could have far-reaching consequences for employment, investment, and overall economic well-being.
Capital Stock Impact: The tariffs are projected to reduce the capital stock by 0.3%. This decrease in capital investment could potentially slow down long-term economic growth and productivity improvements.
Global Growth Concerns: The World Bank has warned that U.S. across-the-board tariffs of 10% could reduce already lackluster global economic growth from an expected 2.7% in 2025. This global slowdown could have ripple effects on the U.S. economy, potentially exacerbating domestic economic challenges.
Sectoral Impacts: Certain industries may be disproportionately affected. For instance, the automotive sector could face significant disruptions, potentially leading to job losses and reduced output.
Supply Chain Disruptions: Companies reliant on global supply chains may need to reevaluate their strategies. This could lead to increased costs and reduced efficiency as businesses scramble to adapt to the new trade landscape.
Investment Uncertainty: The unpredictability surrounding trade policies could lead to hesitation in business investments. A study by the London School of Economics indicates that tariffs proposed by President-elect Trump could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.64%, which may cause businesses to delay or cancel planned investments.
Competitiveness Concerns: Some U.S. companies may find it harder to compete globally due to increased input costs and potential retaliatory measures from other countries. This could lead to a loss of market share in international markets and reduced export opportunities.
Strategic Shifts: Businesses may need to consider relocating production facilities, diversifying supply chains, or exploring alternative markets to mitigate the impact of tariffs. For instance, some companies might shift production from China to other countries like Vietnam or Mexico to avoid higher tariffs on Chinese goods.
Revenue Generation: The proposed tariffs are estimated to generate $1.2 trillion in tax revenue from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis. This substantial increase in federal revenue could potentially be used to offset other fiscal priorities.
Deficit Reduction: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that more tariff revenue would help shrink the federal budget deficit by $2.7 trillion from fiscal years 2025 to 2034. However, this estimate does not fully account for potential negative economic effects.
Dynamic Effects: When accounting for macroeconomic effects, the CBO estimates that a uniform 10% tariff increase would decrease deficits by $2.1 trillion over the 2025-2034 period, slightly less than the conventional estimate.
Fiscal Policy Challenges: The additional revenue from tariffs may be used to offset the cost of extending expiring tax provisions. However, this approach raises concerns about increased reliance on debt financing and an elevated debt-to-GDP ratio.
Long-term Fiscal Outlook: While tariffs may provide a short-term boost to federal revenue, the potential negative impacts on economic growth could offset these gains in the long run, complicating the overall fiscal picture.
In conclusion, the domestic economic implications of President Trump’s proposed tariffs are likely to be far-reaching and complex. While some sectors may see short-term benefits, the overall impact on the U.S. economy is expected to be negative, with potential reductions in GDP, job losses, and increased costs for consumers. Policymakers and businesses will need to carefully navigate these challenges to mitigate the potential negative effects on the American economy.
Escalation of Tensions: Tariffs imposed by the U.S. on steel and aluminum in 2018 prompted retaliatory measures from several countries, highlighting the potential for a domino effect in trade conflicts. Historical precedents suggest that such tit-for-tat strategies can escalate quickly, leading to broader disputes. For example, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 exacerbated the Great Depression by provoking widespread retaliatory tariffs, causing a collapse in global trade volumes.
Disruption of Global Supply Chains: Modern economies are deeply interconnected through intricate supply chains. Tariffs disrupt these networks by increasing costs and forcing businesses to reconfigure sourcing and production. For instance, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods led to increased production costs for American companies reliant on Chinese components, compelling them to seek alternatives in Southeast Asia, Europe, or domestically.
Impact on Global Trade Volumes: The World Bank’s prediction of slowed economic growth underscores the fragility of the global economy in the face of such measures. Trade wars historically dampen investment and reduce consumer confidence, compounding the negative impact on growth.
Shift Towards Regionalization: Firms are increasingly exploring regional supply chains to mitigate risks associated with cross-border tariffs. For example, the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) encourages North American trade integration, which could influence companies to prioritize production within this bloc.
Diversification of Production: In response to rising tariffs on Chinese goods, multinational corporations have begun diversifying manufacturing operations, benefiting economies in Southeast Asia such as Vietnam and Thailand. For instance, Vietnam’s exports to the U.S. surged by 35% in 2019, fueled by businesses seeking to bypass Chinese tariffs.
Reshoring Trends: Tariff-induced uncertainties have also revived discussions around reshoring, with industries such as electronics and pharmaceuticals exploring localized production. While reshoring can enhance supply chain resilience, it may increase operational costs, potentially impacting profitability and consumer prices.
United States: While intended to protect domestic industries, the tariffs may harm the broader economy. Studies suggest that the 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum raised input costs for American manufacturers, reducing competitiveness. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimated that these tariffs could reduce GDP by 0.64% and result in the loss of nearly 600,000 jobs, particularly in sectors reliant on imported materials.
China: As the primary target of U.S. tariffs, China faces significant economic headwinds. The tariffs exacerbate existing challenges, such as an aging population and high levels of debt, potentially slowing GDP growth further.
European Union: While the overall economic impact on the EU may be moderate, export-dependent economies like Germany are particularly vulnerable. German automakers, reliant on U.S. markets, have expressed concerns about prolonged tariffs undermining competitiveness.
Canada and Mexico: With their economies closely tied to the U.S., both nations face substantial risks. For Canada, a 25% tariff on automotive exports could jeopardize nearly 160,000 jobs, while Mexico’s reliance on U.S. trade makes it acutely sensitive to tariff shocks.
Erosion of Multilateral Institutions: Organizations like the WTO, which rely on consensus and rule-based systems, are being sidelined in favor of unilateral action. This weakens their capacity to mediate disputes, as demonstrated by the U.S. blocking WTO appellate body appointments during Trump’s tenure.
Fragmentation of Trade Networks: Retaliatory measures and protectionist policies risk dividing global trade into competing regional blocs. Such fragmentation could hinder the efficiency and inclusivity of international trade, potentially disadvantaging smaller economies unable to align with dominant blocs.
As we conclude our analysis of Donald Trump’s proposed trade policies in his second presidency, it’s clear that business owners in the US and other countries must take proactive steps to mitigate risks and strengthen their positions in the face of potential tariffs and trade barriers. Here are key actions that business leaders should consider:
By implementing these strategies, business owners can better position themselves to navigate the uncertain trade landscape, mitigate risks associated with potential tariffs, and maintain competitiveness in global markets.
© 2025 Jarsking. All Rights Reserved. Guangzhou Jiaxing Glass Products Co., Ltd. belongs to Jarsking.
WhatsApp us