Trump’s Trade Geopolitics: From Tariffs to Alliance Tensions

Introduction
The resurgence of Donald Trump in the 2025 U.S. presidential election marked a dramatic return to a nationalist and protectionist trade agenda. Building on the foundations of his first term (2016–2020), Trump's second term saw the reassertion of tariffs, withdrawal from multilateral agreements, and a direct challenge to the global trade order. This research critically examines how Trump's trade policies were used as geopolitical tools to reshape alliances, apply strategic pressure, and confront China's growing economic influence. The study addresses key questions about the erosion of multilateral institutions, the legal and economic implications of tariff policies, and the broader strategic vision behind Trump's "America First" doctrine.
 
Methodology
This study adopts a qualitative and comparative methodology grounded in international political economy (IPE) and geopolitical analysis. The research draws on primary sources such as official U.S. government documents, court rulings (from the Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), and policy papers from institutions including the IMF, WTO, and OECD, as well as secondary academic literature. It also integrates theoretical frameworks such as geoeconomics, strategic trade theory, hegemonic stability theory, and neorealism. The analytical approach is descriptive-analytical, focusing on causal relationships between U.S. trade policies and shifts in global economic and political alignments.
 
Results and Discussion
The findings reveal that Donald Trump's second-term trade policies triggered significant disruptions across the global economic and political landscape.
 
Economic Impacts
The widespread imposition of tariffs by the United States led to a measurable contraction in GDP—up to 0.9%—while consumer prices increased substantially in essential sectors such as food, electronics, and clothing. Simultaneously, the U.S. economy experienced considerable job losses, exceeding 700,000 in key industries like manufacturing and agriculture. These losses undermined the domestic labor market that Trump's policies had claimed to protect. Despite these aggressive measures, trade deficits with major partners such as China, Mexico, and the European Union remained largely unchanged, highlighting the limited effectiveness of the tariffs in achieving their stated goals.
 
Legal Challenges
On the legal front, the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as justification for tariff escalation was met with judicial resistance. U.S. federal courts, particularly the Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, issued rulings questioning the legitimacy and scope of executive authority in this domain. These legal uncertainties contributed to a broader climate of unpredictability for international businesses and investors.
 
Geopolitical Consequences
Geopolitically, Trump's tariff strategy strained longstanding U.S. alliances. Countries such as Canada, Mexico, the European Union member states, Japan, and South Korea found themselves increasingly at odds with Washington, facing both economic pressure and strategic disillusionment. These tensions prompted many traditional allies to reassess their trade alignments, expand cooperation with China, and accelerate the diversification of their supply chains. In effect, the United States, through its aggressive economic unilateralism, inadvertently weakened the cohesion of the Western alliance system.
 
Erosion of Multilateralism
Furthermore, the research highlights how Trump's actions led to the deliberate erosion of multilateral trade frameworks. By blocking appointments to the World Trade Organization's Appellate Body and threatening to withdraw from the institution altogether, the United States undermined the rules-based international trading system. As a result, the world witnessed a resurgence of bilateralism and regionalism, with several countries pursuing alternative trade routes and partnerships to mitigate U.S. unpredictability.
 
The Securitization of Trade
A particularly striking outcome was the securitization of trade itself. Under Trump's leadership, economic tools—especially those related to technology and critical industries—were explicitly repurposed as instruments of geopolitical containment, particularly against China. Export restrictions targeting semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing were designed not merely for economic protection but as part of a broader strategic campaign. This signaled the arrival of a new era in global trade, one in which the lines between economic policy and national security have become increasingly blurred, and tariffs function as levers of geopolitical influence rather than tools of reciprocal commerce.
 
Conclusion
Trump's trade agenda in his second term represents a clear shift from liberal economic globalization to a fragmented, coercive, and geopolitically charged model of trade. While aiming to reassert U.S. dominance and address China's rise, the outcome was widespread economic instability, erosion of multilateral institutions, and the weakening of traditional alliances. The study underscores that tariffs, once merely economic tools, have now become instruments of strategic influence in a contested global order. It concludes that Trumpism, in its revived form, prioritizes sovereignty and strategic leverage over cooperative norms and mutual economic gain.
 
have become deeply intertwined, giving rise to the concept of legal politics. This study aims to clarify the conceptual foundations of legal politics within the legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It highlights the necessity of defining this concept in order to identify both the challenges and the mechanisms for its development within Iran's legal framework.
                                                           
Methodology
This research adopts a descriptive-analytical approach based on library sources. The main research question is: What is legal politics, and how is it produced? The study explores this question through three targeted conceptual comparisons: (1) the relationship between law and politics; (2) the distinction between legal politics and legal science; and (3) the difference between legal politics and political law.
 
Results and Discussion
The article argues that legal politics emerges from the intersection of law and politics. It manifests itself in two principal processes:
1.Legalization of politics – the transformation of political intentions into enforceable legal norms (laws, regulations, and policies).
2.Political valuation of law – the use of political judgment in shaping or applying legal tools.
These processes can produce legal outcomes that are enforceable either broadly (e.g., all legislation) or specifically (e.g., official policy documents). The paper distinguishes legal politics from legal science, which seeks an objective understanding of legal norms, and from political law, which focuses on the political dimensions of lawmaking and enforcement.
 
Conclusion
Legal politics serves as a crucial analytical lens for understanding the production and legitimation of legal norms within a politically embedded context. It reveals how political intentions are formalized into binding rules and how legal reasoning is influenced by political values. Recognizing legal politics as a distinct field helps clarify the dynamic relationship between the legal and political systems in Iran and underscores the importance of developing a coherent conceptual framework for its analysis.