A Trump Trade Doctrine? Trump Links Trade to U.S. Military Dominance
The 2024 presidential election saw the reelection of Donald Trump, whose first term was marked by a distinct approach to international trade. As Trump prepares for a second term, it’s worth examining the underlying philosophy that appears to animate the president’s trade actions and statements – a Trump trade doctrine that blurs the lines between trade facilitation and U.S. military might.
Decades of Linking Trade to U.S. Military Security
Throughout his career, from his time as a private citizen to his first presidency and campaign to retake the White House, Donald Trump has consistently criticized what he perceives as “unfair” trade treatment of the United States by allies, rivals, and global organizations, including in Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and the WTO. Trump’s first term tariffs on washing machines and solar panels, and steel and aluminum tariffs, appeared to address dumping and government subsidies unfairly advantaging foreign exporters. However, Trump’s consistent statements over decades suggest that that his trade doctrine is animated by non-traditional “trade” concerns.
Trump has indicated that he views trade as “unfair” when other nations fail to adequately compensate the United States for providing the secure conditions under which they are able to trade and prosper. As far back as 1987, Citizen Trump took out full-page newspaper ads criticizing U.S. “foreign defense policy” for lacking “backbone” and questioning why nations like Japan were not “paying the United States for the human lives and billions of dollars we are losing to protect their interests.” In a 1988 interview with Oprah Winfrey, Trump wondered why Kuwait, “where the poorest people live like kings,” was not paying the United States “25 percent of what they’re making” from oil sales when “we make it possible for them to sell their oil.”
This sentiment continued into Trump’s first presidency. For example, to extract trade concessions, the president has reminded South Korea of its reliance on the United States for its security. Trump’s statements suggest that, in his view, international trade and the U.S.’s economic position relative to other nations is not “fair” unless the U.S. is at a net advantage or is adequately compensated for the security it provides.
The Legal Significance of the Trump Doctrine
The president’s philosophy on the interplay between international trade, economics, and national security holds significant legal implications. U.S. law, such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, empowers the president to regulate, prohibit, or limit international trade and transactions on national security grounds.
Given this legal authority, the Trump administration’s definition of “national security” and its relationship to international trade and economic relations could again have far-reaching consequences. Understanding the president’s underlying objectives and philosophical approach lends valuable context to interpreting the administration’s trade actions, including potential “trade wars” or conflicts with China, EU nations, and others.
As the Trump presidency enters a second term, close examination of the president’s “trade doctrine” and its legal foundations will be crucial for businesses, policymakers, and legal professionals navigating the evolving landscape of international trade and economics.
****
This post was first published in May 2018 and was updated after Trump’s reelection on November 4, 2024. For more information, please see MassPoint’s related publications and blog, or contact the author, Hdeel Abdelhady.