On 2 April 2025, US President Donald Trump announced sweeping reciprocal tariffs on nearly all countries around the globe and declared the day as America’s “Liberation Day”. This sudden tariff storm hit like an economic nuclear bomb, causing an immediate shock to global markets, plunging stock exchanges, sparking business panic and creating deep instability in the international trading system.
The motive behind Trump’s move was clear: to use extreme protectionist measures to force manufacturing to return to the US, thereby reinforcing his “America First” strategy. However, for the rest of the world, this “liberation” felt more like a full-blown economic catastrophe — one that has sparked profound global reflection on the current international order and economic governance frameworks.
Trade war logic: domestic deadlock, external scapegoats Since taking office, Trump has blamed globalisation and free trade for America’s manufacturing decline, job losses and widening income inequality. He firmly believes that the US trade deficit is the result of being taken advantage of by foreign countries — especially China. In his view, imposing tariffs and building trade barriers can revive manufacturing and heal internal divisions in American society.
But this view is overly simplistic. A vast body of research points out that the longstanding US trade deficit is rooted primarily in its own structural issues: a high-consumption, low-savings economy; the special role of the US dollar as a global reserve currency; and the gradual erosion of America’s competitive advantage in manufacturing. The relocation of industries overseas is a natural outcome of market forces, not the result of external “plunder”.
Moreover,
globalisation has brought substantial benefits to the US: the rise of high value-added industries, global profits for American companies, cheaper goods for consumers, and the preservation of dollar hegemony through capital outflows. In fact, America’s trade deficit is essential for exporting dollars worldwide — a key mechanism that sustains the dollar’s central role and underpins US global dominance. A sudden push towards “balanced trade” would inevitably weaken the dollar’s global standing and threaten America’s financial supremacy.
This presents a fundamental dilemma: should the US prioritise trade balance or preserve dollar hegemony? It cannot have both.
Slogans won’t revive manufacturing The
Trump administration’s attempt to coerce manufacturing back to American soil through tariffs is a textbook case of political interference in markets. Yet it overlooks what manufacturing truly needs: long-term investment stability, a complete industrial ecosystem, robust technological infrastructure and access to global markets. America’s current structural issues — political polarisation, policy short-termism and decaying infrastructure — cannot be solved with a single tariff policy.
Ultimately, reviving manufacturing is not just an economic challenge but a test of institutional capability. And the limitations of the American political system — particularly its inability to push through sustained structural reforms — are becoming increasingly evident.
‘America First’ at the expense of the world Recognising the difficulties of resolving issues domestically, Trump has turned his gaze outward. His “tariff therapy” essentially externalises America’s internal governance problems — generating revenue, appeasing voters and trying to reclaim control over global supply chains by taxing the world. This beggar-thy-neighbour approach undermines the multilateral trade system painstakingly built after World War II and erodes the trust upon which international cooperation depends.
This trade war reveals a troubling truth: a country’s short-term electoral calculus can easily destabilise the global economy; a single leader’s personal style can jeopardise the collective well-being of the world.
We must ask ourselves: why is global stability so vulnerable to the whims of one country’s unilateralism? Does the world have adequate institutional checks and balances? Do we need a new, more inclusive and equitable international economic order?
Towards a post-America-centric world? The US once led the postwar international order by providing global public goods. Today, it has largely abandoned that role. Having gained the most from globalisation, it now seeks to dismantle it. Once a champion of multilateralism, it has become a disruptor.
If the US no longer wishes to shoulder global responsibilities, is the world ready for a post-America era? This question is increasingly central to the discussions of scholars and policymakers around the world.
Just as the
United Nations and the World Trade Organization rose from the ashes of war 80 years ago, we may now be standing at another historic crossroads.
We must ask how to free ourselves from the uncertainty and dangers of a single superpower’s dominance and build a new global governance structure — one in which all nations, large or small, strong or weak, can participate equally in international affairs.
What we need is an international order no longer centred on coercive power, but grounded in rules, legal norms and fair participation — a system where global interests take precedence over national self-interest. This not only concerns the well-being of our own generation, but also the kind of world we leave to future generations.
Crisis as awakening — and hope If Trump’s “Liberation Day” marks a disaster for the global economy, it also serves as a wake-up call — a moment to ask whether we are willing to live in a world order centred on the narrow interests of a single country. It is time to act collectively and build a more diverse, balanced and resilient global governance system.
Perhaps this crisis can be a catalyst for global awakening — a turning point for the world to finally begin liberating itself from unilateral hegemony.
Rather than call it America’s Liberation Day, perhaps we should see it as the World’s Liberation Day.
This article was first published on ThinkChina on 8 April 2025.