Tariffs, often positioned at the crossroads of economic policy and international relations, have emerged as both a legitimate economic tool for nations seeking to protect domestic industries and as potential weapons in escalating trade wars. As we find ourselves in the midst of a significant global trade war in 2025, the distinction between tariffs as policy instruments and tariffs as economic weapons has never been more blurred. This article examines the dual nature of tariffs in international commerce, exploring how these border taxes serve both as shields and swords in the complex arena of global trade. The fundamental question remains: are tariffs primarily economic tools designed to address specific market failures, or have they evolved into weapons wielded in increasingly hostile economic conflicts between nations?
The current global economic landscape presents a troubling picture of rising protectionism, with tariffs at the forefront of trade policy discussions. President Trump’s recent imposition of sweeping tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China has triggered retaliatory measures, creating a cascading effect that threatens to undermine decades of trade liberalization12. As economic blocs and nations position themselves in this evolving trade war, understanding the true nature and impact of tariffs has never been more critical for businesses, policymakers, and citizens worldwide.
The Historical Evolution of Tariffs
Tariffs represent one of the oldest instruments of economic policy, with roots stretching back to ancient civilizations. Throughout history, governments have imposed duties on imported goods to generate revenue and protect domestic industries from foreign competition. These early tariffs were the ancestors of today’s complex trade systems, designed to regulate commerce and ensure that royal treasuries remained healthily filled7.
In the modern era, tariffs have gone through several distinct phases. The 19th century saw many nations, including the United States, use high tariffs to protect nascent industries during their industrialization phases. The infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised U.S. tariffs to historically high levels, is widely credited with deepening the Great Depression by triggering retaliatory measures from trading partners and causing global trade to collapse.
The post-World War II period witnessed a dramatic shift toward trade liberalization. The establishment of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947, later evolved into the World Trade Organization (WTO), created a framework for progressive reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers. This system was built on the premise that freer trade would promote economic growth, raise living standards, and reduce international tensions.
Globalization accelerated this process from the 1980s onward, with complex international supply chains developing across borders. As manufacturing became increasingly distributed globally, the economic case against tariffs strengthened, since they created cascading effects through these supply networks. A tariff on steel, for instance, affects not just steel producers and importers but also automobile manufacturers, construction companies, and countless other downstream industries.
Despite this general trend toward liberalization, tariffs never disappeared from the policy toolkit. Even countries deeply committed to free trade maintained tariff schedules, particularly on sensitive products. Moreover, the WTO system explicitly allowed for temporary protective measures under certain circumstances, such as import surges or unfair trade practices.
The pendulum began swinging back toward protectionism in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, with increasing skepticism about the benefits of globalization. Rising inequality, job losses in manufacturing sectors, and concerns about unfair trade practices fueled a populist backlash against free trade agreements and international economic integration.
By 2025, we find ourselves in a dramatically different trade policy environment than seemed likely just a decade ago. National security concerns increasingly trump purely economic considerations, with “strategic autonomy” and “economic security” becoming watchwords of the new approach. This evolution has transformed tariffs from relatively obscure technical measures into front-page news and political flashpoints.
The Economic Theory Behind Tariffs
From a theoretical perspective, tariffs can serve multiple legitimate economic functions. The most frequently cited justification is the “infant industry” argument, which suggests that new domestic industries need temporary protection from established foreign competitors until they develop the economies of scale and expertise necessary to compete internationally. This approach has historical precedent in the development strategies of now-advanced economies like the United States in the 19th century and South Korea in the 20th century4.
Another economic rationale involves countering unfair trade practices. When foreign countries subsidize their exporters or dump products at artificially low prices, tariffs can help level the playing field for domestic producers. In this context, tariffs function as a corrective mechanism rather than a purely protectionist measure4.
National security considerations provide additional justification for certain tariffs. The argument holds that maintaining domestic production capacity in strategic industries such as steel, aluminum, or semiconductors ensures a nation is not dependent on potentially hostile foreign powers for critical supplies during conflicts or emergencies3. The Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum imposed by the United States exemplify this national security rationale.
Political Machines APUSH Definition: Influence, Corruption, and Impact on U.S. History
From a fiscal perspective, tariffs generate government revenue historically a significant function before the widespread adoption of income taxes. For developing economies with limited administrative capacity, tariffs remain relatively simple to collect compared to more complex taxation systems4.
However, standard economic theory generally recognizes that tariffs create deadweight losses and reduce overall economic efficiency. They typically raise prices for consumers, increase costs for businesses that use imported inputs, and distort market signals that would otherwise guide resources to their most productive uses4. This is why many economists advocate for free trade as the policy most likely to maximize global welfare and economic growth.
The tension between these competing economic considerations protection versus efficiency lies at the heart of the debate about whether tariffs should be viewed primarily as legitimate economic tools or as weapons in trade conflicts.
Anatomy of a Trade War
The line between tariffs as economic policy instruments and tariffs as weapons can be difficult to discern, but the distinction lies primarily in intent, scope, and the pattern of implementation. A trade war emerges when countries engage in a tit-for-tat exchange of ever-escalating trade barriers, moving beyond targeted measures addressing specific concerns to broader actions aimed at causing economic harm to adversaries6.
Trade wars typically begin with a grievance real or perceived about unfair trade practices. One country implements tariffs or other trade barriers, ostensibly to protect domestic industries or address specific issues. The targeted country, viewing these measures as unjustified, retaliates with its own tariffs on imports from the initiating country6. This cycle of retaliation can quickly escalate, encompassing more products and higher tariff rates, potentially spreading to non-tariff barriers and even measures outside the trade realm.
The weaponization of tariffs becomes evident when they are deployed not primarily to address specific trade concerns but rather to exert pressure on another country’s broader policies or to inflict economic pain as leverage in negotiations. In these cases, the tariffs often target politically sensitive industries to maximize domestic pressure on foreign governments.
Several types of protectionist measures can be deployed in trade wars. Tariffs remain the most visible and straightforward, imposing direct taxes on imported goods. Import quotas limit the quantity of certain goods that can enter a country, regardless of price4. Subsidies to domestic producers artificially enhance their competitiveness against foreign competitors. Non-tariff barriers, including complex regulatory requirements, standards, and licensing procedures, can effectively block foreign products without explicit taxes or quotas4. Currency devaluation can give a country’s exports a price advantage, though this approach carries significant risks.
The Digital Dollar Debate: Is America Ready for the Future of Money?
The economic logic of trade wars is fundamentally flawed from a global welfare perspective. Standard economic theory indicates that trade wars typically reduce economic efficiency and welfare for all participants. Even if one country “wins” in relative terms, both sides usually experience absolute losses. This makes trade wars a form of negative-sum game, unlike trade itself, which generally creates positive-sum outcomes6.
Yet the political logic of trade wars can be compelling, at least in the short term. Visible protection for specific industries can yield concentrated benefits for those sectors and their workers, while the costs though larger in aggregate are diffused across consumers in the form of higher prices and reduced choices. Politicians may find it advantageous to highlight the protection of jobs in specific sectors while downplaying the broader economic costs.
The 2025 Global Trade War
The global trade war that has intensified in 2025 represents one of the most significant disruptions to international commerce in decades. What began as targeted measures has expanded into a complex web of tariffs, retaliations, and counter-retaliations affecting hundreds of billions of dollars in trade across multiple continents.
President Trump initiated this global trade conflict by announcing across-the-board tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China early in 20251. These measures came earlier than many analysts had anticipated and marked a dramatic escalation from the more targeted approach of previous years. Using authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Trump imposed 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico and 10 percent tariffs on China on February 1, 2025, with implementation beginning just days later3.
The scope of these tariffs has been extraordinary. Initially, they covered all imports from the targeted countries, though subsequent modifications created various exemptions and carve-outs. For Canada, the administration eventually exempted automotive imports and goods covered by the USMCA trade agreement until April 2, while lowering the tariff on certain agricultural inputs like potash to 10 percent3. Similar temporary exemptions were granted for Mexico. The China tariffs took effect on February 4 and were increased by another 10 percentage points to a total of 20 percent in early March3.
The response from trading partners was swift and substantial. The European Commission, though not initially targeted by the February measures, announced counter duties on 26 billion euros ($28 billion) worth of U.S. goods after the expansion of steel and aluminum tariffs2. According to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, “This matches the economic scope of the US tariffs,” demonstrating the precise calibration of retaliatory measures2.
Canada, as the largest foreign supplier of steel and aluminum to the United States, also threatened reciprocal actions2. When Canada announced its initial retaliation, President Trump briefly threatened to double the steel and aluminum tariffs to 50 percent, though he subsequently walked back this escalation3. This incident demonstrates the volatile and unpredictable nature of trade wars, where threats and counter-threats can rapidly intensify tensions.
The economic consequences of these tariff measures have been substantial. According to Oxford Economics, the tariffs will lead to weaker GDP growth, higher unemployment, higher interest rates, and higher inflation in 2025 for Canada, Mexico, and the United States than previously forecast1. While the U.S. is expected to avoid a recession, the economic impact on Canada and Mexico is projected to be even more severe, with potential contractions in their economies1.
Looking ahead, the trade war appears poised to expand further. Trump has announced plans for 25 percent tariffs on European Union imports, with implementation expected in the coming months3. Additional tariffs on agricultural products from countries outside of existing free trade agreements are slated to begin in April3. Meanwhile, Section 232 national security investigations have been launched for timber, lumber, copper, and derivative products, potentially leading to additional tariffs on these goods by the end of the year3.
The expansiveness of these measures goes well beyond addressing specific trade grievances and clearly enters the territory of using tariffs as economic weapons. The stated justifications have shifted from addressing particular unfair practices to broader goals like pressuring countries on immigration policy, extracting concessions on other issues, and implementing what Trump has called “reciprocal” treatment matching other countries’ tariffs regardless of WTO commitments or existing agreements.
United States and China: The Central Economic Conflict
At the heart of the current global trade tensions lies the economic relationship between the United States and China, the world’s two largest economies. This relationship has evolved from one of constructive engagement and growing interdependence to strategic competition and mutual suspicion, with tariffs serving as a primary battlefield in this economic conflict.
The economic rivalry between these superpowers has deep roots. For decades following China’s market reforms in the late 1970s, U.S. policy favored integration of China into the global economic system, culminating in China’s accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001. The underlying assumption was that economic liberalization would eventually lead to political liberalization and a China more aligned with Western interests and values.
However, this assumption proved overly optimistic. China pursued what might be termed “state capitalism,” combining market mechanisms with strong government direction and support for strategic industries. Its manufacturing prowess grew exponentially, transforming China into the “world’s factory” and leading to massive trade surpluses with the United States and other advanced economies.
As of 2025, China’s economic policy continues to prioritize a strong manufacturing sector5. In late 2024, Beijing unleashed fiscal and monetary stimulus to boost consumption and investment, but manufacturing remains central to its economic strategy5. This policy support for priority industries has expanded capacity amid weakening domestic demand, creating downward price pressure and driving strong exports from Chinese manufacturers5.
The scale and breadth of China’s manufacturing capabilities mean that these dynamics affect a wide range of sectors globally. As the search results indicate, there are growing concerns in the U.S. and EU about whether legacy semiconductors might be the next sector affected by Chinese export growth5. Meanwhile, developing countries fear that “China shocks” will undercut their own industrialization strategies5.
Political Division in the United States: Partisan Conflict and Declining Freedoms
The U.S. response to China’s economic rise has become increasingly confrontational. Tariffs have been a central tool in this approach. The 10 percent tariff imposed on all Chinese imports in February 2025, later increased to 20 percent in March, represents just the latest escalation in a series of trade measures targeting China3. Unlike previous rounds of tariffs that focused on specific sectors or products, these across-the-board tariffs signal a fundamental shift toward treating China as an economic adversary rather than a complicated partner.
National security concerns increasingly dominate the economic relationship. The concept of “de-risking” has gained prominence, with advanced economies seeking to limit dependence on China for critical supply chains5. Export controls on advanced technologies, particularly semiconductors, complement tariffs as tools to slow China’s technological advancement in areas deemed sensitive for national security.
Beijing appears prepared for intensified trade warfare. The search results indicate that China “is braced for intensified trade warfare from the US in 2025 and has multiple tools to counter tariffs, export controls and sanctions”5. While China has used these tools “selectively and cautiously” against the United States, it has sometimes been “less restrained with other countries” and “has signalled that it could deploy these tools much more” aggressively5.
The U.S.-China economic conflict illustrates how tariffs can evolve from targeted measures addressing specific concerns (such as intellectual property protection or forced technology transfer) to broader weapons in a strategic competition. Both countries now appear to view tariffs not merely as corrections for specific market distortions but as instruments in a larger contest for economic and technological primacy.
The Economic Protection Dilemma
The widespread deployment of tariffs in the current global trade war highlights a fundamental dilemma facing policymakers: while protectionist measures like tariffs can provide visible short-term benefits to specific sectors, they typically generate larger, though more diffuse, long-term costs for the broader economy. This tension between concentrated benefits and dispersed costs lies at the heart of debates about trade policy.
The short-term benefits of tariffs can be substantial for protected industries. By shielding domestic producers from foreign competition, tariffs can preserve jobs in those sectors, particularly in manufacturing industries that have faced intense international competition4. For communities built around such industries, these protections can seem essential to economic survival. Politicians representing these areas naturally emphasize these immediate, visible benefits when advocating for protectionist policies.
Tariffs also generate direct revenue for governments. In 2025, the expansive tariffs implemented by the United States are projected to raise significant sums for the Treasury, though this fiscal benefit must be weighed against other economic impacts.
However, the economic costs of protectionism typically outweigh these benefits, particularly over the longer term. Standard economic theory identifies several key mechanisms through which tariffs reduce overall economic welfare:
First, tariffs raise prices for consumers and downstream businesses. When imports become more expensive due to tariffs, domestic consumers pay higher prices both for imported goods and for domestic products that can now command premium prices in the protected market. For example, tariffs on steel increase costs not just for those buying imported steel but also for industries that use steel as an input, from automakers to construction firms4.
Second, tariffs reduce competition and efficiency. By insulating domestic producers from foreign competition, tariffs can reduce incentives for innovation and cost control. Over time, this can lead to less competitive domestic industries, ironically undermining the very sectors the tariffs were designed to protect.
Third, tariffs typically trigger retaliation, harming export-oriented sectors. The current global trade war demonstrates this clearly, with countries quickly responding to tariffs with their own countermeasures. These retaliatory tariffs often target politically sensitive exports from the country that initiated the protectionist measures2.
Fourth, protectionism creates uncertainty that dampens investment. The unpredictable nature of the current trade conflicts makes business planning more difficult, potentially delaying or diverting investments that would otherwise contribute to economic growth.
The economic effects of the 2025 tariffs illustrate these costs. According to Oxford Economics, the tariffs will shave 0.7 percentage points off U.S. GDP growth this year, while imposing even more severe impacts on Canada and Mexico1. Higher inflation and interest rates are also projected consequences of these measures1.
The distribution of costs and benefits from protectionist policies is not uniform across society. Workers and owners in protected industries may gain, at least temporarily, while consumers generally lose through higher prices. Industries dependent on imported inputs face higher costs, potentially reducing their competitiveness and employment. The aggregate effect is typically negative, but the dispersed nature of the costs makes them less politically salient than the concentrated benefits.
This asymmetry creates a persistent bias toward protectionism in political systems, even when economists broadly agree that freer trade would generate greater overall prosperity. The visible job saved in a steel mill carries more political weight than the invisible jobs never created in steel-using industries due to higher input costs.
Regional and Global Implications
The escalating global trade war has profound implications that extend far beyond the bilateral relationships between the initiating and targeted countries. These effects ripple through regional economic blocs, developing economies, and the global trading system itself, potentially reshaping patterns of production, investment, and economic cooperation for years to come.
Regional trade blocs face particular challenges in this environment. The European Union, for instance, must respond collectively to tariffs targeting its members while maintaining internal cohesion among countries with diverse economic interests. The EU’s swift and unified response to U.S. tariffs, announcing counter duties of 26 billion euros, demonstrates its attempt to project strength and solidarity2. However, individual EU member states may face different impacts depending on their export profiles, potentially straining the bloc’s common commercial policy.
The USMCA (formerly NAFTA) region is experiencing similar tensions. Despite this free trade agreement, the United States has imposed significant tariffs on Canada and Mexico, though temporarily exempting goods covered by the agreement until April 20253. This creates uncertainty about the durability of regional economic integration in North America and raises questions about the value of trade agreements that can be partially suspended through unilateral action.
America’s Digital Privacy: Does the U.S. Need EU-Style Regulations?
Developing economies face particular vulnerabilities in the current environment. Many have built their development strategies around export-led growth and integration into global supply chains. As these chains fragment due to tariffs and other restrictions, developing countries may find themselves forced to choose sides in the economic competition between major powers, potentially limiting their access to technology, investment, and markets.
The search results specifically note that emerging and developing countries fear “China shocks” will undercut their industrialization strategies5. Even nearshoring—the practice of moving production closer to end markets rather than seeking the lowest global costs is “under scrutiny as advanced economies move to ‘de-risk’ critical supply chains and limit indirect dependence on China”5. This suggests that developing countries may face challenges even when they are not direct targets of tariffs, as global supply chain reconfiguration alters investment patterns.
Global economic growth forecasts have been revised downward in response to the trade tensions. Oxford Economics has indicated that they will downgrade their 2025 global forecast in response to the escalating trade war1. The International Monetary Fund and other forecasters have similarly warned about the growth-dampening effects of trade conflicts and the increased uncertainty they generate.
The sectoral impact varies significantly. Industries with complex international supply chains, such as automotive, electronics, and machinery manufacturing, face particular disruption as they navigate multiple layers of tariffs affecting both their inputs and finished products. Agricultural exporters have often been targeted for retaliatory tariffs due to their political sensitivity, creating volatile market conditions for farmers.
Perhaps most concerning is the potential for trade conflicts to spill over into other domains of international relations. Economic interdependence has historically been viewed as a force for peace and cooperation, with commercial ties creating shared interests that discourage conflict. As countries deliberately reduce this interdependence in the name of economic security, this moderating influence may weaken. Moreover, trade disputes can exacerbate existing political tensions and complicate cooperation on other critical global challenges, from climate change to public health.
The global trading system itself faces an existential challenge. The World Trade Organization, already weakened by years of deadlock in its negotiating function and paralysis in its dispute settlement system, struggles to contain the current conflicts within its rule-based framework. As major economies increasingly operate outside WTO constraints, the organization’s relevance and authority diminish further, potentially accelerating the shift from a multilateral trade system to a more fragmented landscape of bilateral and regional arrangements.
The Future of International Trade
As we navigate through the turbulent waters of the 2025 global trade war, a central question emerges: what does the future hold for international trade? Will the world continue down a path of economic fragmentation and intensifying trade conflicts, or can a more cooperative approach to managing trade tensions emerge? The answers will shape not only economic outcomes but also the broader geopolitical landscape for decades to come.
Several potential trajectories for the global trading system can be discerned, each with different implications for businesses, workers, and consumers worldwide. A continuation and possible intensification of the current trade conflicts represents one plausible path. Under this scenario, tariffs and other trade barriers would become increasingly normalized as tools of economic statecraft rather than exceptional measures. Supply chains would continue to reconfigure along geopolitical lines, with “friend-shoring” or “ally-shoring” replacing purely efficiency-driven globalization. The world economy might effectively split into competing blocs centered around the United States, China, and possibly other major economic powers.
This path would likely result in lower global economic growth, higher prices for consumers, and reduced economic efficiency. However, it might also create more resilient supply chains for critical goods and reduce vulnerabilities created by excessive dependence on potentially hostile trading partners. For some industries and regions, the protection from foreign competition could stimulate domestic investment and employment, though at a significant overall economic cost.
Alternatively, the current trade tensions could eventually give way to a new equilibrium that preserves significant global economic integration while accommodating legitimate national security concerns. This would require a more nuanced approach to managing trade relationships than either unfettered globalization or aggressive protectionism.
Such an approach might involve more targeted restrictions on truly security-sensitive technologies and sectors, combined with a recommitment to rules-based trade for the vast majority of goods and services. It would likely require substantial reform of international trade institutions, particularly the WTO, to address legitimate concerns about unfair practices while preserving the benefits of an open trading system.
A third possibility involves cyclical patterns, where periods of increasing trade barriers are followed by renewed liberalization as the economic costs of protectionism become apparent. Historical precedent suggests some basis for this view, as previous waves of protectionism (such as in the 1930s or 1970s) eventually gave way to new efforts at trade liberalization.
For businesses navigating this uncertain landscape, strategic flexibility has become essential. Supply chain diversification, political risk assessment, and scenario planning are now core competencies rather than peripheral concerns. The ability to adapt quickly to changing trade rules and geopolitical alignments may provide competitive advantage in a fragmenting global economy.
Policymakers face the challenge of balancing multiple competing objectives: economic efficiency, national security, distributional fairness, and environmental sustainability, among others. Threading this needle requires more sophisticated policy tools than blunt instruments like across-the-board tariffs. Targeted approaches to specific security concerns, combined with improved adjustment assistance for workers and communities affected by trade, might offer a more sustainable path forward.
Reform of the global trading system is clearly needed. The WTO’s inability to address concerns about non-market economies, state subsidies, forced technology transfer, and other issues has contributed to the current trade tensions. A revitalized multilateral framework that can accommodate legitimate security concerns while preventing protectionist abuses would help restore confidence in rules-based trade.
Regional trade agreements may play an increasingly important role in this evolving landscape. By bringing together like-minded countries with similar economic systems and values, such agreements can maintain the benefits of trade liberalization within blocs while managing external relationships more cautiously.
Technology will continue to shape trade patterns, sometimes in ways that bypass traditional trade barriers. Digital services, data flows, and intellectual property are increasingly important components of international commerce, yet they operate differently from traditional goods trade and may require new governance approaches.
Conclusion: Balancing Tool and Weapon
As we return to our central question are tariffs primarily economic tools or weapons in trade wars? the evidence presented throughout this analysis suggests that they can function as either, depending on their design, implementation, and the broader context in which they are deployed.
Tariffs can serve as legitimate economic tools when they address specific market failures or unfair practices, are proportional to the issue at hand, conform to international rules and commitments, and are implemented with careful attention to their broader economic impacts. Used in this way, tariffs can help level the playing field for domestic producers facing unfair foreign competition, provide temporary protection for developing industries with potential comparative advantage, ensure national security in truly strategic sectors, or generate revenue for governments with limited fiscal capacity4.
However, tariffs transform into economic weapons when they are imposed broadly across multiple sectors without clear justification, are designed primarily to inflict economic pain rather than correct specific distortions, are deployed as leverage in negotiations unrelated to trade, or are implemented in a manner calculated to provoke retaliation rather than resolution. The 2025 global trade war, with its escalating cycle of tariffs and counter-tariffs affecting hundreds of billions of dollars in trade, clearly demonstrates this weaponization of what were once primarily technical instruments of commercial policy123.
The consequences of this transformation are significant. When tariffs become weapons in economic conflicts, they generate greater uncertainty, more severe economic dislocations, and higher risks of spillover into other domains of international relations. Businesses face more complex planning environments, consumers pay higher prices, and the global trading system itself is undermined.
Yet the binary framing of “tool or weapon” perhaps oversimplifies a complex reality. In practice, tariffs often serve multiple purposes simultaneously, combining legitimate protective functions with more aggressive strategic objectives. The same steel tariff might both address genuine overcapacity issues and serve as leverage in broader negotiations. This ambiguity makes evaluating and responding to tariffs particularly challenging for trading partners and international institutions.
Looking ahead, the key challenge for policymakers, businesses, and citizens is to develop approaches to trade policy that acknowledge legitimate concerns about fairness, security, and resilience without descending into destructive economic nationalism. This will require more nuanced policy instruments, stronger international coordination, improved domestic programs to support those adversely affected by trade disruption, and greater attention to the distributional consequences of trade agreements.
The current global trade war of 2025 may ultimately prove to be a painful but necessary transition to a more balanced approach to international economic integration one that preserves the substantial benefits of trade while addressing its real shortcomings and vulnerabilities. The alternative a continued escalation of trade conflicts leading to permanent economic fragmentation would represent a significant failure of economic statecraft with lasting consequences for global prosperity and security.
Tariffs, like many policy instruments, are neither inherently good nor inherently bad. Their value depends on how they are used, for what purposes, and with what consequences. As we navigate the troubled waters of today’s trade conflicts, we would do well to maintain this nuanced perspective, seeking neither unfettered globalization nor reflexive protectionism, but rather a balanced approach that harnesses the power of international trade while addressing its legitimate challenges.
The world has experienced periods of trade conflict before and has eventually found paths to renewed cooperation. With wisdom, patience, and good faith, we can hope to do so again, transforming tariffs from weapons back into tools used sparingly, judiciously, and in service of a more prosperous and secure global economy.
