Donald Trump’s tariffs — the cornerstone of his economic agenda — are closely linked to inflation, revenues, spending and the reshoring of manufacturing. They are the key to assessing Trump’s economic impact, but they come with profound uncertainty.

The Trump administration’s emphasis has shifted toward homeland security and the security of the Western Hemisphere. At the same time its deeply contradictory and confused mindset on Taiwan is dangerous and could lead the military astray.

As Trump’s administration barrels forward, what seemed like a potential era of isolation has become a series of interventions that seemingly have come with one single calculation resting on America’s peerless power.

The international community looks to the United States to be a champion of partnership, not to reduce global health to a mere tool of geopolitical competition. The choice Washington makes now will echo for generations.

The United States faces a profound domestic governance crisis compounded by a loss of international credibility. This is undermining policy cohesion and eroding the foundation of America’s long-term strength and global influence.

The second Trump administration has combined aggressive diplomatic engagement with a confrontational trade policy that alienates allies and risks triggering a global recession, despite legitimate concerns about America’s industrial decline. While Trump's trade agenda aims to restructure global commerce to favor U.S. interests, its unilateral execution and failure to build a coalition undermine its effectiveness and may isolate the U.S. rather than restore its manufacturing strength.

In the post-World War II period, the US maintained nearly uncontested supremacy over the vast Asia-Pacific region. Under the San Francisco System, or the ‘Hub and Spokes’ architecture, the US established military alliances, provided economic assistance, and proactively engaged with the region. The strategic foundation of US policy relied on both bilateral and multilateral defense agreements, such as those with Japan (1951), South Korea (1953), the Philippines (1951), Australia, New Zealand (collectively known as ANZUS, 1951), and Thailand (1954).

The U.S. president’s policies have fueled deglobalization and disrupted the existing international order, but they have also pushed countries around the world to explore new models of cooperation and foster new approaches to trade.

If the United States can adapt flexibly and prioritize consensus with its trading partners, it may solidify its economic dominance. Otherwise, persistent high tariffs risk deepening global trade fragmentation and will challenge America’s long-term influence.

Washington is now piling up debt even in the absence of an emergency. In the long run, this sort of quick fix, where the cure is worse than the disease, will only worsen America’s economic fragility and add to uncertainty.