Why are Trump’s threats losing effect

The main weakness of the United States’ financial system is that when the stock market suffers a major crash, the heavily indebted and almost unregulated hedge funds fail to survive and suddenly start selling assets, including government bonds, to raise cash. This creates widespread panic and instability in the market. It is this sudden volatility that makes the US economy weaker than many others. However arrogant or threatening Trump sounds, in reality he is weak inside. When the tariffs he imposes harm the business interests of his wealthy friends, he retreats.

The question now is how can other countries exploit these two weaknesses? The answer certainly does not lie in bowing one’s head in front of Trump in Washington. That is not only humiliating but also completely useless. Because it only makes Trump feel more powerful and gives him the chance to play one country against another. Worse still, if Trump senses a country’s weakness, he imposes even harsher conditions. There is also doubt about whether deals made with him will even be implemented, because he himself often disregards them.

In that sense, these agreements are little more than signatures on paper. Put simply, confronting Trump does not mean submission; rather, identifying his weak spots and striking there will bring results. A far more effective strategy is to put maximum pressure on the US economy.

This would expose America’s real vulnerability, spread panic among Trump’s wealthy allies and ultimately force him to back down again. If other countries avoid negotiations altogether and respond to Trump’s tariff policy with equivalent counter-tariffs, then such pressure can be applied. If many countries adopt this strategy together, the US will be left isolated. It must be remembered that the United States accounts for only 15 percent of global trade. The remaining 85 percent, if united, would benefit more. However, some economists oppose the logic of counter-tariffs. Conventional free trade thinking suggests that the country imposing tariffs hurts itself most.

Looking at America’s past history, we see that in 1901 President William McKinley was assassinated by a gunman. Yet with modern medical technology his life could have been saved. Although X-ray had been discovered by then, it was still limited. McKinley’s medical team could not locate one of the assassin’s bullets. He died of sepsis. Antibiotics to prevent such infection would not be discovered for decades. When President Donald Trump speaks of making America great again, he refers to this period. Trump has remarked that McKinley was a strong believer in tariffs. Under McKinley’s leadership, the US was perhaps wealthier than at any other point in its history. However, Trump is misreading both history and economics.

Initially, the McKinley Tariff was passed in 1890 under a representative name. Seven years later, during his presidency, McKinley himself took a stand against it. This was during the height of the Gilded Age, but life was far from golden for all Americans. At that time, America’s real income was one-seventh of today’s. Extreme inequality persisted. For example, in 1890 only 1 percent of American households had access to indoor toilets, compared with 99 percent today. Needless to say, since McKinley’s time, conditions have dramatically improved. Child mortality in the US has fallen from 23.9 percent in 1890 to 0.7 percent today. Life expectancy has risen from 47 years to 77 years. Such progress has been possible mainly due to improved sanitation and advances in science and medicine. The impact of vaccination can also be considered.

In 1937, South African immigrant Max Theiler developed a vaccine for yellow fever, which eliminated the disease in the US and elsewhere. In 1939, Pearl Kendrick and Grace Eldering created a vaccine for whooping cough, drastically reducing deaths from it. In 1955, Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine and, in 1960, Polish immigrant Albert Sabin’s oral vaccine eliminated the disease from all but a few countries. Measles is another major example, once a leading cause of child mortality in the US. In 2000, measles was declared eliminated in the US thanks to the vaccine introduced in 1963, which also suppressed it in other parts of the world. In addition, vaccines for smallpox, typhoid, diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis B and influenza have saved countless lives.

Then came the COVID-19 vaccine—a true triumph of modern science. Built on mRNA breakthroughs, vaccines were developed in under a year and in their first 12 months prevented an estimated 14–20 million deaths. This achievement was possible thanks to the tireless work and intellect of immigrants such as Hungarian-born Katalin Karikó, Lebanese-born Noubar Afeyan, French-born Stéphane Bancel, and Indian-born Nita Patel, who led Novavax’s vaccine team.

At a glance, vaccines have saved at least 154 million lives over the past half-century, around 40–50 million each year. Since McKinley, in 124 years, vaccination has driven extraordinary advances in disease prevention and treatment. Now Trump is threatening to undo this progress. His administration, under the banner of ‘America First,’ has cut foreign aid and opposed international cooperation. He has even dismissed the Director of the Centres for Disease Control because the official refused to endorse the anti-vaccine stance of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. By enabling the resurgence of controlled diseases and obstructing progress against others, Trump has indirectly endangered American health. His administration has virtually declared war on universities, hospitals, public health agencies and other non-profit science-based institutions.

Funding for vital medical research, including grants from the National Institutes of Health, has been severely reduced or halted. His war on universities ties in with his war on immigrants. As the new academic year begins, many desks remain empty because the Trump administration has restricted international students from entering the US. Despite immigrants’ role in long-standing scientific progress, Trump is trying to make it harder for them to stay in the country after earning their degrees. This is not a brain drain but a brain contraction. The COVID-19 pandemic should have served as a wake-up call, making it impossible to ignore the value of scientific expertise, medical research and public health preparedness. Instead, the opposite has happened in the US: trust in science, government and public institutions has plummeted to new lows. Part of the reason lies in the MAGA movement’s health-related disinformation, conspiracy theories and distrust of institutions. Now vaccine hesitancy is on the rise.

It was only because of the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine that millions of Americans survived. This vaccine, along with those that have saved millions of children’s lives and added decades to life expectancy, is now being questioned by the Trump administration. For Trump loyalists there is now a conspiracy theory to fuel their fears and more besides. On top of this, repeated US sanctions have also significantly accelerated the process.

But if the Trump administration imposes 100 percent tariffs on BRICS countries, it could backfire. As a result, central banks may be forced to shift their international reserves towards renminbi (yuan), weaker currencies, or even gold. Donald Trump talks about lowering the dollar’s exchange rate to reduce America’s trade deficit with countries running surpluses with the US, such as those using renminbi and other currencies.

Yet his stated goals do not align with the practicalities of international use of the dollar. Instead, the call to lower the dollar’s value is consistent with Trump’s other pledges that could fuel inflation, such as threatening the independence of the Federal Reserve or proposing mass deportations of immigrants. But the idea of deliberately weakening a currency like the dollar—which, despite its inflation risk, serves as a global reserve currency—is far from compelling. In short, Trump’s tariff threats will not be of much use in resolving disputes.

The author is a researcher and columnist