How Has Trump Weaponised Trade Protectionism as a Political Tool?

Trade protectionism refers to the use of tariffs, quotas, and other regulations to shield and promote domestic manufacturing industries, thereby protecting them against foreign competition. Protectionism has been a common economic policy in America since its founding; however, it was first “weaponised” as a political mechanism in the first term of President Donald Trump in 2017-2021 to push the national agenda and win votes.

One of his largest uses of trade protectionism was during the US–China trade war, in which the Trump administration imposed tariffs on over $360 billion worth of Chinese goods spanning multiple industries. The US government created an image of intellectual property theft and cited alleged unfair trade practices, referencing the large trade deficit. This trade deficit would go on to be one of Trump’s leading arguments on how the US is “losing” or being a victim of international trade, which is fundamentally incorrect, displaying his mercantilist mindset. Mercantilism was a dominant European economic thinking from the 16th to the 18th century. It focused on trade as a zero-sum game. However, this protectionism was not through purely economic motivation, as by creating a threat in China, Trump aimed to appeal to the American workers who felt they had been abandoned by globalization in key swing states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. This spread the notion that Trump was “making a stand” against countries that were using America in the eyes of industrial workers who were experiencing the effects of deindustrialisation.

Trump further promoted this propaganda through his slogan “America First”. Protectionism was framed as a patriotic cause rather than economic legislation, where the administration was striving to bring back jobs (especially in heavy industry), which had been on the decline due to offshoring. This was evident in his wave of steel and aluminium tariffs, which targeted Canada, Mexico, and the EU. These were areas that Trump claimed were taking advantage of America and “winning” due to a trade deficit. This played out well politically as it created an image of the president protecting American interests. This was then followed by the withdrawal from multilateral international trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the replacement of NAFTA with the USCMCA (United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement). Although the economic impacts were unclear, it presented Trump as saving America from “unfair deals” and putting them in a “winning position”.

Most of Trump's tariff policies were under the assumption that a trade deficit is unfair to the US. However, a deficit occurs when a country imports more goods and services than it exports. In the US, this was driven by strong consumer demand due to constant economic growth and a robust dollar. Having a currency with a strong purchasing power allowed Americans to benefit from cheaper imports while making exports more expensive for other countries, which is why China is often accused of intentionally tampering with its currency to give it a low purchasing power. While a deficit is often seen in a negative light, it is a sign of strong economic growth and global confidence in an economy, while also keeping inflation in check. A deficit also displays America's status as a haven for foreign investment, as capital inflows offset the trade gap.

Through using economic policy as a bargaining chip, Trump introduced a new standard for international diplomacy as he used the power of the American economy to leverage in issues such as NATO funding and border security. In this sense, protectionism was no longer an economic policy but a political weapon that has allowed powerful economies to bully reliant nations into one-sided deals.

In conclusion, Trump employed trade protectionism not only as a means to manage the economy but also as a political weapon. He appealed to disaffected voters, challenged international norms, and used tariffs as tools of leverage and symbolism. While economists may debate the effectiveness of his policies, their political value was clear. Trade became part of a wider nationalist agenda, showing how economic tools can be repurposed for political gain.

September 2025