President Donald Trump’s trade tariff pronouncements, marked with unpredictability, abrupt shifts, and a confrontational and bullying tone, help us realise that we live in “interesting times”. This phrase has gained popularity in English-speaking contexts to convey the idea that turbulent, unpredictable periods—while seemingly exciting—are often filled with hardship, instability, and conflict. Coping with interesting times needs us to step back and look at broad trends to understand underlying processes that will help us navigate a fast-changing situation.
The French economist Frédéric Bastiat famously warned, “When goods don’t cross borders, armies will.” This belief—that trade fosters peace by economically integrating nations—has been repeatedly tested throughout history. Yet, it is equally true that such integration has often served hegemonic interests rather than fostering equitable cooperation.
In the run-up to World War I, protectionist policies such as the US McKinley Tariff (1890) and Germany’s agricultural tariffs intensified economic rivalry among imperial powers. These trade barriers, coupled with colonial competition, fractured global markets and heightened geopolitical tensions. Similarly, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 exacerbated the Great Depression, slashing global trade by nearly two-thirds and stoking economic nationalism. The economic fallout contributed to militarist turnarounds in Japan and autarkic policies in Nazi Germany, paving the way for World War II.
These episodes underscore how trade restrictions, while sometimes intended to protect domestic economies, can inflame global conflict. They also reconfigure power structures—disrupting supply chains, reshaping alliances, and producing new global governance arrangements.
After World War II, institutions like the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) were designed to reduce tariffs and encourage free trade. However, these also entrenched Western dominance. Colonial powers had long extracted resources and imposed unequal trade terms, as seen in Britain’s deindustrialsation of India—reducing its share of global manufacturing from ~25 per cent in 1750 to less than 2 per cent by 1947. This legacy of unequal exchange continued under postcolonial liberalisation.
Under Bretton Woods, the US dollar became the global reserve currency. Developing countries were encouraged to liberalise without the protections historically used by now-industrialised nations. African and Asian economies exported raw materials and imported costly manufactured goods, replicating colonial dependencies. Promises of development through trade often collapsed under the weight of debt crises, commodity price crashes, and International Monetary Fund-imposed structural adjustment programs (SAPs) in the 1980s and 1990s.
Donald Trump’s current presidency marks a turning point. His “America First” doctrine challenged multilateral trade norms. Tariffs on steel and aluminium, the US-China trade war, and withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) revealed a return to economic nationalism. However, far from being an anomaly, Trump’s policies exposed the long-standing coercive aspects of US-led trade liberalism—shaped more by geopolitical interests than by altruism.
Trump’s tariffs have reduced global trade volumes, realigned supply chains, and provoked retaliatory tariffs. These moves also highlighted how US trade policies have long relied on conditionalities imposed through institutions like the IMF and World Bank, or via patent regimes and military leverage.
As US dominance wanes, other powers and blocs are asserting themselves. The BRICS nations are increasingly trading in local currencies, chipping away at dollar hegemony. India, while maintaining ties with the West, is also deepening South-South cooperation and pursuing regional partnerships. Many countries are reviving industrial policy, investing in research and development, and asserting more state control over key sectors.
Social movements across the Global South are calling for debt cancellation, climate reparations, and fairer access to technologies—shifting away from a charity-based model to one rooted in justice. Trump’s trade discourse also amplified xenophobia and economic nationalism, contributing to cultural polarisation globally. Deglobalisation trends have impacted workers across the world, from Indian farmers to US factory workers, as neoliberal trade models continue to erode local livelihoods.
If trade remains shaped only by the interests of states and corporations, global inequalities will simply reproduce under new names. A just trade future must be decolonial, ecological, and democratic—centred on feminist economics, indigenous knowledge, and the voices of those most affected.
We are living through a historic transition. As US hegemony fractures, the resulting void could be filled by either new empires or emancipatory possibilities. The stakes are not just geopolitical—they are civilisational.
Will we once again dress up domination as development? Or can global trade be reimagined as a platform for justice, reparations, and shared humanity? The answer depends on who holds power—and whether people’s movements can reclaim it from both old and emerging empires. Till then we will continue to live in “interesting times”.
The authors are associated with ActionAid Association. The views expressed are individual and do not necessarily represent those of the organisation.
Views are authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth