Trump and Tariffs: A Plan for Economic Rebuilding Against Globalist Drift
di Patrizio Ricci
In recent days, markets have shown notable volatility, and international media outlets have amplified every sign of instability. The prevailing narrative portrays U.S. President Donald Trump’s economic policy as a threat to the global economic order. Yet behind this alarmist framing lies a more complex reality: this is not a reckless or visionless move, but part of a strategic plan aimed at challenging the very foundations of today’s globalized, financialized system.
Trump’s economic choices reflect a radical reconsideration of the relationship between the economy, production, and national sovereignty. This interpretation is supported by the work of several heterodox economists—Dani Rodrik, Ha-Joon Chang, Joseph Stiglitz, and Armando Savini among them—whose critiques of hyper-globalization, financialization, and the erosion of democratic control over national economies have shaped my understanding of current economic dynamics.
A Systemic Crisis in Motion
Trump’s policies must be understood in the broader context of a systemic crisis. Since the 1990s, the globalist model—centered around extended supply chains and the financialization of the economy—has revealed deep vulnerabilities: uncontrollable interdependencies, chronic imbalances, loss of domestic productive capacity, and mounting social instability.
This crisis was not caused by Trump. Rather, it stems from a system he is attempting to reform. His strategy seeks to restore focus on production, labor, and social cohesion by reducing dependence on an increasingly abstract, speculation-driven economy.
Economic Sovereignty as a Prerequisite for Resilience
The tariffs introduced by the Trump administration are not a return to protectionism for its own sake. They are a tool to rebalance the American economic structure. The goal is to reduce reliance on fragile, geopolitically exposed global supply chains, rebuild a domestic industrial base, and strengthen strategic sectors.
The underlying vision is clear: a nation can only be truly sovereign if it retains essential control over the pillars of its own economy. In this view, offshoring is no longer an asset but a structural vulnerability. Rodrik and Chang have long argued for the need to restore balance between the state, the market, and society, redefining the role of public policy in the global economic arena.
Beyond Ideological Globalization: Toward a New Multipolar Model
Trump’s goal is not to isolate the United States from the world, but to move beyond a model of globalization that has become ideological, hyper-liberal, and—at times—self-defeating. His intent is to renegotiate trade relations on a bilateral and equal footing, moving away from multilateral agreements that have, over the years, constrained national sovereignty and disproportionately benefited large multinational corporations.
Even Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has emphasized that the current structure of globalization has produced serious distortions and social costs, especially in developed countries. Trump’s partial return to productive realities fits into a vision of globalization that is regulated and sustainable—not automatic and extreme.
Financialization and Speculation: A Core Issue
A central theme of Trump’s strategy is the desire to reduce the excessive weight of speculative finance, which has gradually overtaken the real economy as the primary engine of growth. The market turbulence we’ve witnessed is not proof of policy failure, but rather the reaction of a system whose unearned advantages are being questioned.
Financialization has produced an economy increasingly detached from real production—where profits are generated by algorithms and derivatives instead of labor and industrial innovation. In this sense, Trump’s actions—despite all their limits—represent an initial attempt to reassert control over a system that has spiraled far out of balance.
De-Dollarization as a Geopolitical Test
An emerging trend further complicates the picture: de-dollarization. More and more countries—especially across Eurasia—are reducing their reliance on the U.S. dollar in international transactions. Though gradual, this trend weakens America’s structural financial power. Trump’s response is to strengthen the domestic economy and redefine trade in sovereign terms. This too is part of a broader strategy: to confront a new multipolar order with a more solid and independent economic foundation.
Europe, the Euro, and Structural Imbalances
In the debate over global economic tensions, one often-overlooked issue is the role of the euro and the deeply asymmetric architecture of the European Monetary Union. Far from being a neutral tool of economic integration, the single currency has, from the start, operated as a mechanism tailored to the interests of the German economy.
The euro’s exchange rate, being an average of vastly different economies in terms of productivity and competitiveness, has historically been lower than what a purely German currency—the Deutsche Mark—would have been. Had Germany kept its own currency, its industrial strength and consistent trade surplus would have inevitably pushed its value higher, reducing its export competitiveness and rebalancing international trade flows.
Instead, the euro has acted as a “permanently undervalued” currency for Germany, boosting its exports and feeding a structural trade surplus. Meanwhile, countries in Southern Europe have suffered from an exchange rate too high for their weaker economies, making them more vulnerable to international competition.
The situation is made worse by the loss of a vital adjustment tool: currency devaluation. In the past, Southern European countries used flexible exchange rates to offset structural weaknesses. Now, bound to a rigid currency and constrained by strict fiscal rules—often dictated by a distant technocratic orthodoxy—they have seen their productive fabric erode, fallen into debt crises, and endured long periods of austerity that have damaged social cohesion.
Another key factor is the euro/dollar exchange rate, which is kept artificially low thanks to the inclusion of weaker economies within the eurozone. This has further boosted Germany’s exports to the U.S., contributing to a substantial trade surplus with America. In other words, the euro has acted as a multiplier of advantages for Germany while limiting the economic flexibility of less competitive countries.
In this light, Trump’s tariffs should not be seen as an attack on free trade, but as a corrective measure aimed at a skewed, artificial system. They represent a political response to a persistent economic imbalance—a way to offset the competitive distortion caused by a manipulated euro/dollar exchange rate.
Of course, this strategy carries risks, including the potential destabilization of the euro if trade tensions escalate. But the fundamental issue remains: can a single currency survive without real political and fiscal union? As long as the Eurozone remains an incomplete monetary union, unable to guarantee real convergence and solidarity, calls for a return to national currencies—now seen as marginal—may gain renewed legitimacy and strength.
If that happens, it won’t be out of nostalgia or ideology, but from the realization that forced integration, without correction mechanisms, breeds divergence rather than unity. In such a context, monetary sovereignty may no longer be seen as a relic of the past, but as a necessary instrument for the survival of national economic democracies.
A New Paradigm in the Making
Trump’s economic policies are not free of risks or excesses. But their value lies in their capacity to break with conformism and challenge a system that has shown clear limits. The effort to restore the centrality of production, reinforce economic sovereignty, and address the distortions created by thirty years of unchecked globalism is a necessary step—regardless of one’s ideological stance.
Only time will tell whether this path will yield lasting results. But one thing is already clear: Trump, for better or worse, has reopened a crucial question—who truly holds power in the global economy? Sovereign states or a transnational technocratic-financial system? And above all: to whom is that power accountable?