Trump’s De-Globalisztion: A Businessman’s Approach to Int’l Relations

Md Ikhtiar Uddin Bhuiyan and Towhid Bin Shafi :

Donald Trump, the President of the United States as well as a businessman, must be considered in the context of his business philosophy influenced by The Art of the Deal, which was a bestseller in 1987.

His second presidency has featured a clear, unambiguously de-globalizing role; it put an “America First” agenda prioritizing US interests over multinational treaties, from slashing foreign aid to threatening tariffs; his choices were those of a businessman, not a conventional politician.

The world economy is becoming increasingly complex daily due to the rapid advancements in technology and globalization.

Activists, politicians, and media enablers, representing both conservative and liberal perspectives, as well as left and right ideologies, consistently take advantage of this opportunity to offer simplistic explanations and propagate the latest myths about economic issues.

Grover Cleveland, the twenty-second (and twenty-fourth) president of the United States, characterized import tariffs as a “vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary taxation that imposes a burden upon those who consume domestic products as well as those who consume imported products” and thus creates a tax on all people.

In 1930, despite Cleveland’s warning and a petition from over a thousand economists, the U.S. enacted the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, raising import duties by 50%. Other nations retaliated, cutting both imports and exports.

From 1929 to 1933, U.S. exports fell by over half, deepening the Great Depression, shrinking GDP by 30%, and pushing unemployment to 25%. After World War II, trade liberalization removed tariffs, spurring trade and economic growth.

When Donald Trump became president of the United States on January 20, 2025, he immediately began imposing hefty tariffs on products that were imported from China, Canada, and Mexico right after taking office.

In contrast to globalization, which encourages free trade to stimulate economic growth, this decision is a form of deglobalization.

Furthermore, it is a country’s protection policy. Protectionism is a policy that Nariman Behravesh, in his book Spin-Free Economics, describes protectionism causes more problems than it solves.

Now, we need to determine the impact of Trump’s deglobalization strategy on the world.
Globalization and De-Globalization:

Globalization emerged as a prominent term in the 1990s. Davos and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman extolled its merits and inevitability. Globalization encompasses various interpretations.

Economic globalization exemplifies the integration of national economies into the global economy via trade, foreign direct investment by firms and multinationals. In contemporary society, globalization has been criticized for various issues, including child labor, environmental degradation, cultural uniformity, and numerous other problems impacting both affluent and impoverished nations. An alternative form of world governance is urgently required.
Mechanisms and Drivers of Deglobalization:

The process of deglobalization is driven by several mechanisms, one of which is the growing costs and diminishing benefits at the national level.

The period of deglobalization that has occurred throughout history has been characterized by economic nationalism and protectionist measures, as was the case after the First World War.

In this era, there were no international norms or institutions that could facilitate economic cooperation. As a result, informal networks emerged as a means of maintaining some sort of commercial interaction.

Comparatively, the Great Depression and the time following the Financial Crisis of 2008 are also notable examples of deglobalization.

Cutting Global Ties: The De-Globalization Step:
One of the most significant things Trump rolled back was probably the reduction of US financial responsibilities to foreign organizations. He cut off funding to organizations including the World Health Organization (WHO), NATO, and the United Nations, saying that the US was providing cash without authorization or in accordance with established guidelines.

His image was further cemented when he withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Climate Agreement.

Although his economic objective is to depict displacement, this is a flawless illustration of neoclassical realism. The foundation of the trade war with China was his conviction that the United States was being defrauded in global trade.

Negotiating from a Position of Strength:
Trump’s de-globalization approach wasn’t just about isolation and using economic power to force better bargains.

An early lesson from The Art of the Deal is to “use leverage,” he is trying to use an incredible amount of it in global politics.

He pushed NATO allies to increase the money they spent on defenses, saying the US was burdened with too many financial obligations.

His position on halting foreign aid was an expression of that belief. Even more, Trump’s immigration policies were part of his larger de-globalizationagenda. He achieved this by hardening border controls and reducing the number of visas granted, claiming that foreign labor drove down American jobs and wages Now it’s a question on whether Donald Trump is following a pragmatism approach or deglobalization process to operate US foreingn policy. Prior to drawing a conclusion, we need to define a progatism approach that emphasizes practical benefits and evaluates the value and validity of an action or belief based on the advantages it produces.

This approach suggests that not all principles must be strictly followed if deviating from them serves the interests of a country. A clear example of pragmatism in action is U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on imported goods from China, Canada, and Mexico.

Similarly, his decision to send back illegal immigrants from the United States can also be viewed as a pragmatic approach focused on maintaining national security and economic stability. However, if all countries were to follow a pragmatic approach solely in their national interest, the world’s most vulnerable nations could face severe consequences.

A shift towards protectionist policies, such as tariffs and restricted immigration, would isolate these nations, making it harder for them to compete in the global market. A global shift towards pragmatism or deglobalization, would likely lead to a more fragmented economic system, where powerful nations prioritize self-interest over cooperative economic policies. This could result in increased economic disparities, as weaker nations struggle to attract investment or gain access to essential resources.

(Writers are: Md Ikhtiar Uddin Bhuiyan, Associate Professor, Jahangirnagar University and Towhid Bin Shafi, Director Admin and Execution, Canadian University of Bangladesh.)