Global Tariffs and Selective Outrage: A Familiar Story
The United States Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's attempt to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. So, naturally, the former president, eyeing a return, simply pivoted, announcing a planned 15% global tariff using Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act instead. The financial news, predictably, breathlessly discusses winners and losers among global markets,
carefully dissecting percentages and potential impacts on allies versus perceived rivals. This selective outrage and strategic amnesia are nothing new. We saw this in 2018 when Trump’s administration imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, citing national security concerns, yet granting waivers to some 'allied' nations while punishing others. The logic was always about leverage, never truly
about a level playing field. Rewind to 1890, when the McKinley Tariff Act raised average duties to almost 50%, initiating a trade war that damaged agricultural exports and consumer purchasing power. This wasn't about protecting American workers; it was about protecting powerful industrial trusts and consolidating corporate power. The pattern remains eerily consistent across centuries and
administrations, regardless of party affiliation. Economic pressure is simply a cudgel, wielded differently by each hand, but always with the same underlying goal of maintaining global dominance. Now, countries like China, India, and Brazil, previously hit hard, might find some momentary reprieve or even benefit from these new tariffs, while 'friends' like the UK, EU, and Japan, accustomed to