Since the beginning of his second term in 2025, United States President Donald Trump has used tariffs to achieve a range of foreign policy goals. Trump’s administration declared a national emergency in April 2025, asserting that large and persistent US trade deficits had led to the hollowing out of the manufacturing base, inhibited the scaling of advanced domestic manufacturing capacity, undermined critical supply chains, and rendered the defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries. Trump cited these conditions as an unusual and extraordinary threat to national security, stemming from a lack of reciprocity in bilateral trade relationships, disparate tariff rates, trade barriers, and trading partners’ economic policies. The emergency declaration, dubbed ‘Liberation Day’ by the administration, invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to bypass Congress and justify sweeping tariff measures under a ‘national emergency.’

The Trump administration has asserted that access to the US market is a ‘privilege’ that can be conditioned on cooperation rather than a right, and justified the tariffs as a ‘powerful, proven source of leverage’ to secure cooperation from other nations. The administration has also argued that such measures would reshore manufacturing, strengthen supply chains, and reduce dependency on foreign adversaries, all contributing to broader national security objectives. The use of tariffs for foreign policy leverage represents a continuation and expansion of the ‘America First’ strategy first implemented between 2017 and 2021. This approach reflects a potentially fundamental shift in how trade policy is conceptualized; not just as an economic tool, but as an instrument of national security, diplomacy and geopolitical coercion.

Tariffs of the Trump administration in August 2025

On February 1st, 2025, Trump signed executive orders imposing a 25% tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico, and a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports, citing the fentanyl crisis and border security concerns. Parallel to the so-called ‘fentanyl tariffs,’ Trump’s administration developed a broader ‘reciprocal tariff’ framework, announced on April 2nd, 2025. The ‘Liberation Day’ 10% baseline rate on imports from nearly all countries took effect on April 5th, 2025, and applied to imports from all countries not otherwise subject to specific sanctions or exemptions. By August 2025, the tariff regime had evolved into a complex, dynamic system of baseline rates, country-specific adjustments, featuring 10% universal ‘reciprocal tariff,’ supplemented by country-specific reciprocal tariffs. However, these were not implemented as originally threatened, with most suspended or renegotiated. Only some countries that did not reach deals or were targeted for geopolitical reasons faced significantly higher duties.

Trump has also used tariffs as a tool to advance foreign policy and national security objectives, or as a method to influence the behavior of other countries. Tariffs were explicitly used as leverage to force Canada and Mexico to address border security. Similarly, tariffs on China were justified not only on trade grounds but also for failing to stop the export of fentanyl precursors and for engaging in intellectual property theft. Brazil was subjected to an additional 40% tariff on top of the 10% ‘reciprocal’ rate that took effect in early August 2025, bringing the total to 50%, after Trump declared a ‘national emergency,’ citing the Brazilian government’s treatment of former President Jair Bolsonaro. Similarly, India was targeted with a ‘secondary tariff’ of 25% beginning August 27th, 2025, raising its total rate to 50%, as a penalty for continuing to purchase Russian oil.

Outcomes of Trump’s tariffs

The threat of tariffs appears to have become a cornerstone of the Trump administration’s diplomatic strategy, leading to mixed outcomes. While the threats of tariffs have pressured countries into trade negotiations, they have also heightened tensions and are prompting realignments as nations react to the trade pressure. Nevertheless, the threat of tariffs has proven effective as a negotiating tactic, and by August 2025, the US had negotiated favorable trade agreements with multiple countries, and where deals weren’t reached in time, Trump showed willingness to follow through, showing that economic leverage can yield diplomatic results. The Trump administration has also leveraged tariffs to pursue broader foreign policy objectives and advance national security aims, such as containing China’s strategic influence.

This approach suggests a broader strategy of using tariffs as an instrument not just for raising revenue or reshoring manufacturing, but also for inducing foreign policy concessions. However, this carries substantial risks, and the effectiveness of this strategy has been questioned. The overall impact of tariff threats has been twofold: it has forced targeted countries to the negotiating table and extracted concessions, but it has also strained diplomatic relationships. Despite pressure, China has not altered its policies on intellectual property, market access, or regional dominance. Instead, it has accelerated efforts to counter US dominance and bypass the US-led financial system. Recent reports also indicate that India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has refused to take multiple phone calls from Trump in recent weeks amid trade tensions between the two countries. US allies are also showing signs of rethinking their reliance on the US, whether by seeking other trade partners or debating non-US defense options. Nevertheless, while the long-term strategic gains remain uncertain, the Trump administration continues to view tariffs as a multipurpose tool, capable of generating revenue, protecting domestic industries, repatriating manufacturing, and achieving foreign policy aims.

Justification and rationale behind the tariffs of the Trump administration

The strategy behind the review, intended to provide the foundation for potential future trade actions, including the imposition of tariffs, draws from figures such as Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, who argue that decades of free trade have eroded US power. Navarro, Trump’s senior counselor for trade and manufacturing since January 2025, has consistently argued that the global trading system is rigged against the US, claiming that other countries impose higher tariffs, use subsidies, and manipulate currencies, leading to the US being ‘taken advantage of’ for decades. The Trump administration cites persistent US trade deficits as a security threat, arguing they erode the industrial base needed for defense and technological leadership, and the ‘reciprocal tariffs’ enforce symmetry in trade, leveling what Trump views as an uneven global playing field.

Upon taking office in January 2025, Trump issued the ‘America First Trade Policy Memorandum,’

which directed federal agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of US trade policy, including the identification of unfair trade practices by other countries. The ideology of ‘America First’ blends protectionism, unilateralism, and economic coercion into a doctrine aimed at restoring US economic sovereignty, weakening adversaries, and reordering global trade on terms favorable to US interests. The core pillar of this ideology is based on the belief that national power is fundamentally economic, and that a strong domestic industrial base, low trade deficits, and self-reliance in critical sectors are essential to national security. This means that tariffs are used not just to protect industries, but to reshore manufacturing, reduce dependency on foreign supply chains, and revitalize US industrial capacity.

The memorandum specifically authorized the use of IEEPA to impose tariffs on countries deemed to be contributing to the fentanyl crisis or engaging in unfair trade practices. IEEPA, a 1977 law traditionally used for sanctions against adversaries, had never before been used to impose broad tariffs or justify economic policy, making this application unprecedented. The administration relying heavily on IEEPA is seen as a significant expansion of executive authority, stretching the original intent of IEEPA, as the law was not designed for economic policy.

The use of IEEPA for tariffs was met with criticism and quickly faced legal scrutiny. Critics pointed out that IEEPA does not explicitly mention tariffs or duties, and the broad application of tariffs on trading partners lacks a direct connection to the declared emergencies. Many legal experts and economists also argued that the invocation of emergency powers is an abuse of authority and a contrivance to bypass Congress and international trade rules. In May 2025, the US Court of International Trade ruled that the President’s authority under IEEPA to ‘regulate […] importation’ does not authorize the broad, unbounded tariffs imposed and that interpreting it otherwise would amount to an unconstitutional delegation of power. The government appealed, and in June 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a stay, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect pending the outcome of the appeal. On August 29th, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the previous ruling from the Court of International Trade. The court made the decision that the power to impose tariffs resides exclusively with Congress, stating that IEEPA does not grant the President unlimited authority to impose such taxes. However, the court imposed another stay to allow an appeal to the US Supreme Court. While enforcement is stayed, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect pending appeal, the legal precedent threatens the policy’s long-term viability.

Economically, critics argue that the tariffs undermine US price stability and lead to higher prices and slower economic growth. While the administration argues that revitalizing domestic manufacturing strengthens industrial capacity and supply chain resilience, critics contend that the tariffs erode US credibility. They also say that the depletion of trust among traditional partners and allies, driven by erratic US policies, is leading many countries to reconsider their reliance on the US. The perception of US unreliability extends beyond trade and could make it difficult to build cohesive coalitions in the future, as allies now question US commitment and competence. Several NATO allies, including Canada and Portugal, have signaled they are reconsidering their reliance on US military platforms such as the F-35 fighter jet due to concerns over strategic dependence on an ally whose economic and foreign policies have become increasingly unpredictable.

Closing thoughts: Trade tariffs under Trump

President Trump’s use of tariffs in 2025 exemplifies a foreign policy that increasingly blurs the lines between trade, security, and diplomacy, as tariffs have been repurposed from economic tools into instruments used to also achieve non-economic goals. While the strategy has succeeded in negotiating trade deals favorable to the US, it carries significant risks; while it may force negotiations and concessions, it may also lead to struggles to build sustainable partnerships.

The aggressive use of tariffs is reshaping US relations, straining alliances, and escalating standoffs with adversaries. It has led to an erosion of trust and raised concerns about the reliability of US commitments. Even the traditional allies of the US are beginning to view Trump’s trade policies as unpredictable and weaponized, and some nations have begun exploring alternative arrangements, weakening the cohesion of Western alliances at a time of growing global instability. The long-term sustainability of this tariff-centric foreign policy remains uncertain, particularly as legal challenges proceed and economic consequences unfold.

At Silobreaker, we understand the critical impact that geopolitical conflicts can have on your organization. Learn more about how to stay one step ahead of potential scenarios and risks that could influence your business here.