The Hegemonic Power of North American Tariffs: Economic Instrumentation in Geopolitical Strategy
Abstract
This article examines the strategic deployment of tariffs by the United States as instruments of hegemonic power in the contemporary global economy. Analyzing recent policy developments under the second Trump administration, we argue that what appears as economic protectionism is fundamentally a recalibration of coercive statecraft aimed at reversing perceived American decline. Through a comprehensive analysis of executive orders, retaliatory measures, and differential tariff applications, we demonstrate how tariff architecture has evolved from trade policy tools into sophisticated mechanisms of geopolitical coercion. The research reveals how selective tariff imposition creates hierarchies of compliance among trading partners, while secondary sanctions mechanisms extend U.S. economic influence beyond bilateral relationships. Contrary to conventional economic analyses, we contend that the primary objectives of this tariff regime are political rather than economic—designed to discipline allies, contain rivals, and reassert American dominance amid systemic challenges. The article concludes by assessing the contradictions inherent in this approach, particularly its potential to accelerate the dollar system erosion and foster alternative economic alignments that ultimately undermine long-term U.S. hegemony.
1 Introduction
The unprecedented expansion of U.S. tariff policy since 2025 represents a profound transformation in the application of economic statecraft within the international system. What began as campaign rhetoric has materialized into a comprehensive architecture of commercial barriers affecting over $4 trillion in global trade flows . The Trump administration's systematic implementation of differential tariff regimes across trading partners has raised the weighted average applied U.S. tariff rate from 1.5% in 2022 to an estimated 14.0%—the highest level since 1946 . This dramatic shift transcends conventional trade policy, emerging instead as a strategic instrument in what analysts increasingly recognize as a project to reassert American hegemony amid perceived economic and geopolitical decline.
Contemporary discourse has predominantly framed these tariffs through economic lenses—evaluating their impact on inflation, supply chains, and growth projections. The Tax Foundation estimates that the tariffs will reduce long-run U.S. GDP by 0.7% and eliminate nearly 600,000 full-time equivalent jobs when accounting for foreign retaliation . However, such analyses insufficiently address the geopolitical motivations driving this policy transformation. As Marxist economist Michael Roberts observes, "Trump's strategy aims at restoring the United States's manufacturing base, reducing the trade deficit in goods, and reasserting US global hegemony, particularly against China" . This perspective illuminates how tariff structures operate as mechanisms of coercion rather than merely protection, creating compliance hierarchies among states that reflect strategic priorities rather than economic imbalances.
This article advances a multidisciplinary analysis situating U.S. tariff policy within broader theories of hegemonic power and decline. Drawing on political economy, international relations, and critical security studies, we examine how the administrative architecture of contemporary tariffs—from reciprocal baseline rates to secondary sanctions and transshipment penalties—constitutes a system of economic warfare designed to reorder global commercial relationships. We particularly analyze how these measures extend beyond bilateral trade disputes to encompass extraterritorial enforcement, creating what Grace Blakeley describes as a system where "the goal of the capitalist state is not to deliver prosperity for all. It's to maintain order, protect property, and preserve the dominance of capital, both at home and abroad" .
The research proceeds through several analytical stages. First, we establish a theoretical framework connecting tariff policy to hegemonic power dynamics. Second, we document the evolution and structure of contemporary U.S. tariff regimes, analyzing their differential application across geopolitical blocs. Third, we examine the strategic logic underpinning this application, revealing patterns of coercive diplomacy and hierarchy-construction. Fourth, we assess economic consequences that contradict stated policy objectives, suggesting alternative motivations. Finally, we evaluate the long-term implications for U.S. hegemony, particularly regarding dollar dominance and alliance structures. Throughout, we incorporate legal challenges currently before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), recognizing how judicial review may constrain or legitimize these hegemonic instruments .
2 Theoretical Framework: Hegemony, Power, and Economic Statecraft
The strategic deployment of tariffs as instruments of state power necessitates an analytical framework that transcends conventional trade economics. International relations scholarship has long recognized that economic dominance constitutes a fundamental pillar of hegemonic power, with the post-World War II Bretton Woods system institutionalizing American primacy through dollar centrality, institutional leadership, and market access conditionalities . Within this tradition, hegemonic stability theory posits that a dominant power provides public goods—including stable monetary systems and open markets—in exchange for systemic adherence to its preferred rules and norms. However, as U.S. relative economic power has declined from approximately 40% of global GDP in 1960 to under 25% today, its capacity to maintain this benevolent leadership has diminished, giving way to more coercive instruments of control .
Contemporary U.S. tariff policy exemplifies what international political economy scholars term "weaponized interdependence"—the strategic application of economic networks initially designed for mutual benefit as tools of coercion. As states become embedded within globally integrated production and financial systems, gatekeeping positions within these networks confer asymmetric power. The United States, through its control over dollar clearing systems, technology standards, and—increasingly—market access via tariffs, leverages these positions to extract compliance across multiple policy domains. This explains why tariff threats have extended beyond traditional trade matters to encompass issues as diverse as migration control ("fentanyl" tariffs against Canada and Mexico), territorial ambitions (Greenland-related tariffs against European nations), and secondary sanctions enforcement (threatened tariffs against purchasers of Russian, Iranian, and Venezuelan commodities) .
The theoretical innovation of the current tariff regime lies in its transformation of economic interdependence from a constraint on state power into its very instrument. Traditional globalization theory presumed that deepening commercial integration would render coercive trade measures increasingly costly and thus less likely. The Trump administration has inverted this logic, systematically weaponizing the very dependencies created by decades of neoliberal globalization. As Roberts notes, "Over the last forty years of 'globalization,' multinational companies in the United States, Europe, and Japan moved their manufacturing operations into the Global South to take advantage of cheap labor costs... But these countries in Asia dramatically industrialized their economies as a result and thus gained market share" . Contemporary tariffs represent an attempt to reclaim the bargaining power ceded through this process by threatening to sever the market access upon which export-oriented economies depend.
Critical to this framework is understanding how tariff structures create and reinforce hierarchies of compliance. Unlike uniform protectionism, the differential application of tariffs—with rates ranging from 0% for preferred partners to 50% for "worst offenders" like India and Brazil—establishes a clear spectrum of geopolitical alignment . This graduated system operates as what political scientists term a "tariff-rank hierarchy," wherein states perceive their assigned rates as indicators of standing within the U.S.-led order. The administrative complexity of this system, with its countless exemptions, special regimes, and conditionalities, further enhances American leverage by necessitating continuous bilateral negotiations that invariably extend beyond commercial matters into broader strategic concessions.
3 Evolution of Contemporary U.S. Tariff Policy: From Protectionism to Coercive Statecraft
The architecture of contemporary U.S. tariff policy represents a dramatic departure from post-Cold War trade orthodoxy, systematically converting temporary protective measures into permanent instruments of geopolitical strategy. This transformation has unfolded through executive actions that have progressively expanded both the scope and strategic application of tariffs, bypassing Congressional authority through contested emergency powers . The resulting policy landscape constitutes a sophisticated hierarchy of commercial barriers designed to maximize coercive leverage across multiple dimensions of international relations.
3.1 Legal Foundations and Executive Expansion
The legal scaffolding for this tariff regime rests predominantly on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, originally designed to address extraordinary threats to national security, foreign policy, or the economy. The Trump administration's invocation of IEEPA authority for broad-based tariff imposition represents a unprecedented expansion of this statute's application. As documented in the USTR's compilation of presidential actions, between February and November 2025 alone, the administration issued at least thirteen executive orders modifying tariff rates and establishing new tariff categories, creating what legal scholars characterize as a "shadow trade policy" operating parallel to conventional statutory frameworks . This extensive use of emergency powers is currently under Supreme Court review, with oral arguments heard in November 2025 and a decision expected in early 2026 that could invalidate tariffs affecting over $180 billion in annual trade .
3.2 Structural Components of the Tariff Architecture
The contemporary tariff system comprises several interlocking components that together form a comprehensive architecture of economic statecraft:
*Table 1: Structural Components of U.S. Tariff Architecture (2025-2026)*
This multilayered structure enables what analysts term "granular coercion"—the precise calibration of economic pressure to achieve specific strategic outcomes across diverse geopolitical contexts. The system's administrative complexity itself becomes a source of power, as trading partners must navigate opaque exemption processes and unpredictable modifications. As the BBC notes, "Some tariffs have been amended, delayed or scrapped after being announced," creating a climate of uncertainty that enhances American leverage in bilateral negotiations .
3.3 The "Fentanyl" Tariffs: Case Study in Linkage Strategy
A particularly illustrative example of this coercive logic emerges in the so-called "fentanyl tariffs" imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China. Formally justified as measures to combat synthetic opioid flows, these tariffs exemplify how commercial measures link seemingly unrelated policy domains. Canada faces a complex tiered structure: 0% for goods entering under USMCA, 10% for energy and potash, and 35% for all other products . This differential application creates selective pressure points designed to elicit cooperation on migration and border security while minimizing disruption to integrated supply chains. The strategic nature of this linkage is further evidenced by the October 2025 U.S.-China truce, wherein fentanyl tariff reductions were explicitly exchanged for Chinese concessions on rare earth export controls—demonstrating how ostensibly domestic public health measures function as bargaining chips in broader strategic competition .
4 Geopolitical Targets and Strategic Logic
The differential application of tariffs across trading partners reveals a coherent geopolitical logic that transcends economic considerations. This selective architecture creates distinct categories of states within the U.S.-led order, each subjected to calibrated pressure designed to advance specific strategic objectives. Analysis of the tariff matrix reveals three primary target categories: strategic competitors, economic rivals, and non-compliant allies, each facing distinct tariff regimes reflecting their position within American hegemonic strategy.
4.1 Strategic Competitors: The China Containment Framework
China represents the paramount target of contemporary U.S. tariff policy, subjected to a complex regime combining baseline rates, sectoral tariffs, and secondary measures designed to constrain its economic and technological ascent. The October 2025 temporary truce reduced the effective U.S. tariff rate on Chinese goods from 42% to 32%, but maintained structural barriers across strategic sectors . More significantly, the tariff architecture extends beyond bilateral measures to encompass third-country coercion through secondary sanctions threats against nations trading with China in sensitive technologies. As the Trade Compliance Resource Hub documents, "secondary (Russian-origin goods)" tariffs threaten 100% duties on "all products from any country that purchases Russian-origin goods," with similar measures targeting Iranian and Venezuelan oil transactions—measures disproportionately affecting Chinese commercial relationships .
This multifaceted approach reflects what analysts term "strategic decoupling"—the systematic severing of commercial interdependencies in sectors deemed critical to long-term competition. The 100% tariff threat on Chinese rare earth exports in October 2025, though temporarily suspended following negotiations, exemplifies how tariff policy functions alongside export controls to restructure global supply chains along geopolitical lines . As J.P. Morgan analysts note, "Both sides have shown willingness to compromise, but strategic competition will persist, with the possibility of further tit-for-tat actions" , indicating that tariffs constitute one element within a broader toolkit of economic statecraft aimed at containing Chinese influence.
4.2 Economic Rivals: Hierarchical Discipline within the Liberal Order
Beyond China, the tariff regime establishes clear hierarchies among traditional economic competitors, principally the European Union, Japan, and South Korea. The EU faces 15-20% tariffs on most goods, with additional threatened measures against member states pursuing digital services taxes or resisting U.S. territorial ambitions regarding Greenland . Japan confronts 15% baseline rates, while South Korea—initially granted preferential treatment—faces escalation to 25% following accusations of non-compliance with prior agreements . This graduated pressure reflects what Blakeley identifies as the "disciplinary function" of contemporary tariffs: "They're an attempt to weaponize the size of the US economy and its importance to global trade to discipline both allies and rivals; to force other nations to accept his terms or risk being locked out" .
The geopolitical logic underlying this disciplinary approach becomes particularly evident in the Greenland episode of January 2026, when the U.S. threatened tariffs against eight European nations conducting joint military exercises on the territory. Though subsequently withdrawn following NATO framework negotiations, this episode demonstrated how tariff threats extend into core security domains, weaponizing economic interdependence to reshape alliance politics . As J.P. Morgan analysts observed, "Tensions have eased again, likely reflecting a combination of opposition in the U.S. Congress, skeptical U.S. public opinion, proposals made by NATO secretary general Mark Rutte to Trump on Greenland... and an assertive threat of retaliation by the EU" , revealing the complex interplay between economic coercion and traditional alliance management.
4.3 Regional Hegemony: Asserting Primacy in the Western Hemisphere
The tariff architecture's application within North America particularly illuminates its function as an instrument of regional hegemony. Despite the USMCA framework guaranteeing generally duty-free trade, Canada and Mexico face complex conditional tariffs linking market access to compliance on non-trade issues. Canada's "fentanyl" tariff structure explicitly ties exemptions to cooperation on border security and opioid enforcement, while Mexico faces parallel pressure regarding migration control . This linkage strategy extends to extraterritorial enforcement, as evidenced by threatened secondary tariffs against Latin American nations engaging with Cuba, Venezuela, or Nicaragua without U.S. approval .
The symbolic significance of these measures arguably outweighs their economic impact, given the extensive exemptions for USMCA-compliant trade. As Roberts notes, "Trump echoes today with his comments about Canada, Greenland, or Gaza" the nineteenth-century "sphere of influence" politics of President William McKinley, who similarly linked tariff policy to territorial expansion . Within this historical analogue, contemporary North American tariffs function less as commercial barriers than as rituals of subordination—public demonstrations of American capacity to compel compliance from geographically proximate states regardless of formal institutional arrangements.
5 Economic Impact Versus Strategic Objectives
The economic consequences of contemporary U.S. tariff policy reveal profound contradictions between stated objectives and actual outcomes, suggesting that conventional protectionist explanations insufficiently account for their strategic logic. While publicly justified as measures to reduce trade deficits, revive manufacturing, and create jobs, empirical analysis indicates negative impacts across all these domains, pointing toward alternative geopolitical motivations.
5.1 Macroeconomic Consequences: Growth, Employment, and Inflation
Comprehensive modeling by the Tax Foundation indicates that implemented and threatened tariffs will reduce long-run U.S. GDP by 0.7% and eliminate approximately 588,000 full-time equivalent jobs when accounting for foreign retaliation . These losses are distributed across sectors, with particularly significant impacts in automotive manufacturing (-98,000 jobs), consumer goods (-142,000 jobs from baseline tariffs), and metals production (-27,000 jobs). Contrary to administration claims that tariffs would be "beautiful" revenue generators, dynamic scoring accounting for reduced economic activity shows net revenue of $1.6 trillion over 2026-2035—substantially below the $2.1 trillion conventional estimate and insufficient to offset concurrent corporate tax cuts .
Table 2: Estimated Economic Impact of 2025 Trump Tariffs
| Tariff Category | Long-Run GDP Impact | Full-Time Equivalent Job Losses | 10-Year Revenue (Dynamic) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 232 (Autos, Steel, etc.) | -0.2% | -154,000 | $490 billion |
| IEEPA Tariffs (Baseline + Country-Specific) | -0.4% | -293,000 | $1.1 trillion |
| Foreign Retaliation | -0.2% | -141,000 | -$136 billion |
| Total | -0.7% | -588,000 | $1.6 trillion |
Inflationary pressures represent another significant economic contradiction. U.S. inflation rose from 2.4% in April 2025 to 2.7% by December 2025, with particular increases in tariff-sensitive categories including furniture, appliances, and certain foodstuffs . Major retailers including Target, Walmart, and Adidas have confirmed cost passthrough to consumers, while manufacturers face increased input costs due to tariffs on intermediate goods . These inflationary effects are exacerbated by the elimination of de minimis exemptions for sub-$800 shipments, affecting millions of e-commerce transactions annually .
5.2 Manufacturing and Trade Balance: Contradictions of "Reshoring"
The central economic justification for tariff policy—revitalizing U.S. manufacturing—shows limited evidence of materializing. While some anecdotal examples of reshoring exist, systemic data indicates minimal impact on manufacturing employment or output shares. Manufacturing's contribution to U.S. GDP remains at approximately 10.2%, with no significant acceleration following tariff implementation . More fundamentally, the structure of contemporary global production undermines reshoring narratives, as tariff-increased costs for imported components often outweigh advantages from finished goods protection. As Roberts observes, "Applying tariffs to goods imports further undermines the ability of US manufacturing and services to grow, because it increases the cost of components going into final production" .
The trade deficit—frequently cited as evidence of American "exploitation"—has shown ambiguous response to tariff measures. While imports from targeted countries have declined in certain categories, multilateral trade diversion has often shifted deficits rather than eliminated them. More significantly, the United States maintains substantial services surpluses that partially offset goods deficits, complicating zero-sum interpretations of trade balances . As J.P. Morgan analysts note regarding U.S.-China tensions, "both countries have reduced their bilateral trade exposure since the start of the year" , suggesting that the primary effect has been supply chain reorganization rather than deficit reduction.
5.3 Strategic Costs: Alliance Relations and Systemic Stability
Perhaps the most significant economic contradictions emerge in the diplomatic realm, where tariff coercion strains the alliance networks underpinning post-war American hegemony. The European Union has pursued "strategic autonomy" initiatives in technology and defense partially in response to U.S. tariff threats, while Asian partners have accelerated regional trade agreements excluding the United States . More fundamentally, as Al Jazeera analysts warn, "by upending the foreign policy unity between the US and Europe supposedly to 'Make America Great Again', Trump may end up inadvertently upending the dollar system that has been responsible for much of America's power and greatness for decades" .
This risk to dollar hegemony represents the ultimate contradiction in contemporary tariff strategy. The system's "exorbitant privilege"—allowing the United States to finance deficits through dollar seigniorage—rests fundamentally on confidence in American institutional stability and predictability. Weaponizing trade relationships through arbitrary tariff adjustments undermines this confidence, potentially accelerating de-dollarization initiatives already underway among BRICS nations and other strategic competitors . As Blakeley summarizes this paradox, "Trump's tariffs are a warning: when hegemony begins to slip, the gloves come off. If the American ruling class can't rule through consent, they will rule through coercion" —a strategy that may ultimately accelerate the very decline it seeks to reverse.
6 Implications for U.S. Hegemony and Global Economic Order
The strategic deployment of tariffs as instruments of coercive statecraft carries profound implications for the architecture of American hegemony and the future of the liberal international order. Beyond immediate economic consequences, this policy transformation signals a fundamental reorientation in how the United States exercises power within the global system, with potentially irreversible effects on alliance structures, institutional legitimacy, and the very foundations of dollar dominance.
6.1 The Paradox of Coercive Hegemony
Contemporary tariff policy exemplifies what international relations scholars term the "paradox of hegemony"—the tendency for dominant powers to undermine the very systems that sustain their dominance through excessive coercion. The post-World War II liberal order rested on what political scientist John Ikenberry characterized as "strategic restraint"—the voluntary acceptance of institutional constraints in exchange for widespread legitimacy and cooperation. By contrast, the arbitrary, unilateral application of tariff measures represents the antithesis of this restrained leadership, replacing rule-based predictability with transactional coercion. As Blakeley observes, "For decades, US leaders claimed to support 'free markets' and 'free trade'. In reality, they used the language of freedom to hide a system of imperial dominance... Trump has dropped the nice-sounding rhetoric" .
This erosion of strategic restraint carries particularly significant consequences for alliance management. Traditional allies subject to tariff threats—including Canada, European nations, Japan, and South Korea—have responded not with compliance but with accelerated initiatives toward strategic autonomy. The EU's postponement and reconsideration of the EU-U.S. trade deal following Greenland-related tariff threats exemplifies this dynamic . As J.P. Morgan analysts note regarding Europe, "the EU needs to press on with strengthening its economic foundations" independent of American preferences —precisely the opposite of the policy's intended effect.
6.2 Dollar Hegemony and Financial Power
Perhaps the most significant long-term implication concerns the dollar's international role, historically the cornerstone of American structural power. The contemporary tariff regime directly threatens this foundation through two interconnected mechanisms. First, by undermining confidence in U.S. policy predictability, it incentivizes alternatives to dollar-denominated trade and finance. Second, by straining relations with surplus economies that finance American deficits—notably Asian exporters and oil producers—it potentially reduces demand for Treasury securities . As Al Jazeera's analysis warns, "Trump's moves – such as tariffs and annexation threats directed at allies – tend to undermine this system... Were Trump to be successful in his approach... the risk is that in aiming to do so, he blows up the US dollar system" .
This vulnerability is particularly acute given the asymmetrical interdependence of the contemporary monetary system. While the United States retains disproportionate power within dollar networks, its capacity to maintain this position depends fundamentally on others' willingness to participate. Major surplus economies like China and Gulf states hold alternative options, including expanded currency swaps, special drawing rights utilization, and increasingly credible digital alternatives. As the same analysis notes, "Beijing and other supporters of eroding the dollar system will seek to exploit these weaknesses" , with Russian President Vladimir Putin particularly focused on dollar alternatives since the 2022 Ukraine invasion.
6.3 Systemic Fragmentation and Alternative Alignments
The tariff architecture's most visible geopolitical effect has been accelerating systemic fragmentation along geopolitical lines. Traditional economic blocs are reorganizing according to strategic alignment with or resistance to American coercion. The expansion of BRICS—including recent additions from the Global South—represents one institutional manifestation of this fragmentation, offering alternatives to U.S.-dominated financial and trade networks . Within the Western alliance itself, tariff policy has exacerbated existing tensions between Atlanticist and more autonomist factions, particularly within the European Union.
This fragmentation extends into the institutional landscape of global economic governance. The World Trade Organization's dispute settlement mechanism, already weakened by prior U.S. blocking of appellate body appointments, faces near-total irrelevance as the United States bypasses multilateral channels entirely. Instead, bilateral "deals" like those with the United Kingdom (carving out exemptions for limited automotive imports) or Cambodia (special agricultural provisions) create a patchwork regime of preferential arrangements reflecting power asymmetries rather than rule-based principles . As Roberts summarizes this transformation, "Trump has broken with the neoliberal policies of 'globalization' and free trade in order to 'make America great again' at the expense of the rest of the world" .
6.4 Contradictions of Domestic Political Economy
Finally, the tariff regime exposes fundamental contradictions within American capitalism itself, particularly between internationally oriented financial capital and domestically focused industrial capital. While the former has generally accommodated tariff measures—with Wall Street expressing concern primarily about escalation rather than principle—significant sectors of transnational capital face disrupted supply chains and retaliatory barriers . The arrest and deportation of over five hundred Korean technicians at a Hyundai battery plant in Georgia—simultaneously with policies encouraging foreign direct investment—exemplifies these contradictions .
More fundamentally, the tariff strategy's domestic economic costs disproportionately affect the very constituencies it purportedly serves. As the Tax Foundation estimates indicate, job losses concentrate in manufacturing sectors, while inflationary effects erode real wages . This regressive impact—combined with concurrent corporate tax cuts and social spending reductions—suggests that, as Blakeley argues, "Trump was not, of course, ever really concerned about the interests of American workers. His administration spent four years crushing unions, slashing taxes for the wealthy, and rolling back labour protections" . Instead, the tariff regime functions as what political economist Wolfgang Streeck terms a "legitimation prosthesis"—symbolic gestures toward economic nationalism that mask upward redistribution while channeling discontent toward external targets.
7 Conclusion
The contemporary U.S. tariff regime represents a transformative development in the exercise of hegemonic power within the global economic system. Far from conventional protectionism, this multilayered architecture of commercial barriers functions as a sophisticated instrument of coercive statecraft, designed to reassert American dominance amid perceived relative decline. Through differential application across trading partners, linkage to non-commercial objectives, and extraterritorial enforcement mechanisms, tariffs have evolved from trade policy tools into central components of geopolitical strategy.
This research has demonstrated how the strategic logic underlying tariff implementation consistently prioritizes political objectives over economic outcomes, despite public justifications centered on trade balances and manufacturing revival. The systematic creation of compliance hierarchies—with rates varying from 0% to 50% based on geopolitical alignment—establishes clear spectrums of allegiance within the U.S.-led order, while secondary sanctions extend coercive leverage beyond bilateral relationships. The economic consequences of this approach, including reduced GDP growth, employment losses, and inflationary pressures, contradict stated policy goals, further reinforcing the interpretation of tariffs as instruments of power rather than prosperity.
The long-term implications for American hegemony appear profoundly contradictory. While the tariff regime may achieve short-term concessions through coercive leverage, it simultaneously accelerates systemic fragmentation and erosion of the very foundations of U.S. structural power—particularly dollar centrality and alliance cohesion. As alternative financial networks expand and traditional partners pursue strategic autonomy, the United States risks undermining the institutional and relational foundations of its post-war dominance. The ultimate paradox of this coercive turn may be that in seeking to reverse hegemonic decline through unilateral force, the United States accelerates the very fragmentation of the liberal order that has sustained its primacy for generations.
Future research should examine several dimensions of this evolving landscape. The Supreme Court's impending decision on IEEPA authority will significantly shape the legal parameters of executive trade powers, potentially constraining or legitimating further coercive measures. Longitudinal studies of de-dollarization trends will illuminate whether tariff coercion accelerates alternatives to dollar hegemony. Finally, comparative analysis of regional integration initiatives—particularly within Asia and Latin America—will reveal the extent to which U.S. tariff policy stimulates the very multipolarity it seeks to prevent. What remains clear from current evidence is that the age of economic statecraft through tariff coercion has arrived, carrying with it profound uncertainties for the future of global economic governance and American power within it.
References
Trade Compliance Resource Hub. (2026). Trump 2.0 tariff tracker. Retrieved from https://www.tradecomplianceresourcehub.com/2026/02/02/trump-2-0-tariff-tracker/
J.P. Morgan Global Research. (2026). US Tariffs: What's the Impact? Retrieved from https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/global-research/current-events/us-tariffs
BBC News. (2026). What tariffs has Trump announced and why? Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn93e12rypgo
Spéth, A. (2025). The World After American Decline. Jacobin. Retrieved from https://jacobin.com/2025/10/hegemony-decline-trump-eu-china-brics
Blakeley, G. (2025). Trump's Tariffs Are About Power, Not Prosperity. Substack. Retrieved from https://graceblakeley.substack.com/p/trumps-tariffs-are-about-power-not
Tax Foundation. (2026). Trump Tariffs: Tracking the Economic Impact of the Trump Trade War. Retrieved from https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/
Office of the United States Trade Representative. (2026). Presidential Tariff Actions. Retrieved from https://ustr.gov/trade-topics/presidential-tariff-actions
Al Jazeera. (2025). Trump's tariffs may end up blowing up the US dollar hegemony. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/3/13/trumps-tariffs-may-end-up-blowing-up-the-us-dollar-hegemony
No comments:
Post a Comment