What it’s like to do a tariff deal with Trump

Developments in the global economy from the past have taught us that volatility often emerges from a crisis of trust and morality in countries with strongmen placed as leaders. Such is the current political context, where the United States has a leader making unprecedented policy changes that affect the global economy financially and morally. Recent events, especially the abrupt escalation of tariff wars and their global repercussions, offer a revealing case study in how populism interacts with trade negotiations, power, and diplomacy. Dealing with Trump means entering a process where goodwill, past progress, or strategic partnerships offer little lasting security. Trade talks can unravel overnight based on perceived slights, electoral calculus, or shifts in Trump’s priorities (based on his whims). Imposing a 50% tariff on India only echoes the volatility that Trump’s populist rhetoric often shows on the global stage. 

Trump uses tariffs not just for bargaining, but to signal to his base that he is “fighting for American workers” and punishing foreign countries for perceived wrongs. This positioning resonates in U.S. heartlands that feel left behind by globalisation, even as economists warn of real harm to businesses and consumers. In the India case, talks broke down because Trump demanded unrestricted access to Indian agricultural markets, an area considered a “red line” politically and culturally for India. When India refused, preferring strategic autonomy, Trump doubled down on punitive tariffs, regardless of the potential for broader economic fallout. Interestingly, this crisis has placed one populist against the other, and while Modi’s silence might be deafening, partly due to the DOJ indictment against the Adani group, there surely is another rhetoric that is bound to emerge from the Indian side. Countries and their leaders scrambled to Washington to strike tariff and trade deals, giving rise to a crisis of morality where leaders gave in to the whims of a strongman. The blame, eventually, cannot be placed on those leaders since the Trump administration’s self-implosion is bound to bring economic downfall on unimaginable levels. Trying to conclude 90 deals within 90 days with several countries has undoubtedly been a challenging task for Washington, as the essentials of the deals are discussed. 

Academic and policy analyses agree that Trump’s tariff deals are less about economic efficiency and more about maintaining a combative, symbolic posture. Trump positions tariffs as urgent and patriotic acts to reclaim national control, often pressed with short negotiation deadlines ranging from 20 to 90 days and threats of escalation. Trade partners are sometimes selected for rhetorical value (China, India, Mexico: To BRICS), and deals are shaped by the electoral needs of the moment rather than strategic, long-term planning. The new 50% tariffs for India, set to take effect in late August, are expected to hit labour-intensive industries like textiles and jewellery hardest, potentially forcing many exporters to exit the U.S. market altogether. On a foreign policy stance, many analysts say it will be noteworthy if India withdraws its need for Russian oil. The average applied U.S. tariff has jumped to levels not seen in a century. This has whipsawed exporters, upended supply chains, and, according to market analysts, is bound to push world growth lower while transferring the costs to American consumers as well.

The effective strategy for a negotiation and a sit-down with the Trump administration? Stretch the timeline and let him gain a verbal victory, while one can plot the charts in the background. Making it quid pro quo while keeping the core industries off the table, as China has done, would be the perfect solution. Projecting power through his playbook and dealing with unpredictability through unpredictability would be a circumstance giving the other side the upper hand. My solution to this situation? Wait the storm out.

-by Yazad