Trump’s trade policy aims to establish a new global normality

In less than 100 days, President Donald Trump initiated a radical transformation of global economic relations under the pretext of reducing trade deficits. His method: imposing high tariffs on key trading partners, withdrawing from multilateral agreements, and unilaterally reshaping the rules of global commerce. While this strategy was politically framed as a corrective measure, it represents far more than a shift in trade dynamics—it is a deliberate attempt to construct a new global normality, defined by a U.S.-centered economic and ideological order.

This emerging doctrine is deeply neo-mercantilist in nature—reviving protectionism not only as a policy tool but as an organizing principle of global influence. To fully understand the significance of this approach, we must examine it through the lens of three foundational pillars: knowledge, activities, and beliefs. These form the bedrock of how societies define truth, decide what is worth doing, and shape their collective priorities.

1. Redefining knowledge: The contest for “what is true”

President Trump’s trade policy begins by challenging the epistemological foundations of globalization. Agreements long considered sacrosanct—such as NAFTA or WTO frameworks—are reinterpreted as imbalanced and exploitative. Economic data is selectively framed to portray trade deficits as strategic threats rather than symptoms of structural competitiveness.

In doing so, the administration attempts to construct a new knowledge paradigm: one that elevates bilateral power plays over multilateral cooperation, and national trade surpluses over global efficiency. The goal is to embed a new economic “truth”—that self-interest and zero-sum logic must prevail over shared benefit.

For currency markets, this shift introduces systemic uncertainty. Traditional macroeconomic signals become blurred as narratives diverge. FX pricing becomes increasingly sensitive to political messaging, trade threats, and retaliatory actions—fueling short-term volatility and longer-term revaluation of global risk perceptions.

2. Rewriting activities: Deciding “what is worth doing”

The second pillar is about execution. The Trump administration moved swiftly to convert its ideology into action: from imposing tariffs on Chinese goods and steel imports to promoting reshoring and revising trade deals to favor U.S. manufacturing.

This operational doctrine redefines what is economically valuable. It places a premium on domestic production, reduced dependence on foreign supply chains, and transactional leverage. In this model, economic activities are worth pursuing only if they serve national sovereignty.

The global implications are profound. Capital and investment begin to redirect, supply chains fragment, and multinational coordination erodes. FX markets respond to these shifts not just through trade flows, but also via risk premiums, as countries become more exposed to policy shocks, capital flight, and liquidity disruptions.

3. Reshaping beliefs: Reframing “what is important”

Finally, Trump’s trade philosophy seeks to reshape the collective moral compass of economic engagement. Cooperation is no longer assumed; it must be earned or enforced. Multilateralism is portrayed as weakness. Sovereignty, strength, and the ability to act unilaterally define importance.

This reorientation is strategic—it aims to intimidate, to shift not just policies, but values. It repositions the United States not as a global collaborator, but as a dominant actor that sets the rules and compels others to follow.

As beliefs evolve, currency markets react to perception risk. Confidence in institutional frameworks and geopolitical alliances becomes fragile. Safe haven flows become less predictable. Market sentiment, which is built on shared expectations, becomes fractured—amplifying FX market sensitivity.

Strengthening the strong, weakening the vulnerable

The consequences of such a shift are significant. Developed economies with the institutional and financial capacity to absorb shocks may recalibrate and eventually benefit from renegotiated trade terms or improved domestic industries. However, developing economies, which depend heavily on global trade openness and foreign investment, are likely to face disproportionate challenges. Supply chain disruptions, reduced access to U.S. markets, and heightened uncertainty could derail years of developmental progress.

In essence, Trump’s approach seeks to reengineer the global economic architecture by transforming the philosophical foundations upon which it stands. It is not merely a policy shift but an ideological campaign to redefine how nations perceive truth, determine their economic actions, and prioritize their values.

A New Normality or a Temporary Disruption?

Whether President Trump’s trade strategy will permanently alter the global order remains to be seen. However, what is clear is that his early actions mark a deliberate attempt to establish a new normal—one based on protectionism, sovereignty, and selective cooperation. If successful, this could lead to a multipolar world where regional powers assert their truths and moral compasses, further fragmenting global cohesion.

As history teaches us, reshaping the pillars of knowledge, activity, and belief is a monumental task. The true legacy of Trump's trade doctrine may lie not only in the tariffs imposed or deals renegotiated but in the intellectual and ethical frameworks it inspires—or dismantles—across the global stage.