Former President Donald Trump has honed this scorched earth approach to negotiations over his political career. He favors coercive tactics over the conventional, Democratic machine-style deal-making that may be more familiar. A few important decisions he took while in office underscore this truth. These range from the administration imposing new tariffs to the administration picking fights with the nation’s universities.
One year later, in April 2018, Trump first tried to impose large-scale tariffs against all of the country’s trading partners. It was a choice between the tariffs or prolonged, painful negotiations. In doing so, he sent letters to roughly two dozen countries and the EU, outlining the specific tariff rates. Incredibly, 30% tariffs were required on imports from both the EU and Mexico. This strategy reflects his preference for ultimatums, rather than compromise, which has characterized his dealings in both international trade and domestic policy.
Beyond tariff wars, Trump’s administration got mired in disputes with American colleges and universities. In his case, in March 2021, he withdrew $175 million in formula federal funding from the University of Pennsylvania. This decision was the result of a battle over women’s athletics. Trump’s stance was clear: “Federal funding is a privilege, not a right, for colleges and universities,” stated Kush Desai, an advocate for education reform.
Tariffs as a Primary Tool
Trump’s use of tariffs as a way to manage the United States’ international relationships has multiple stakeholders buzzing, both in praise and condemnation. His administration chose to take this step of imposing these tariffs. Many saw this move as an effort to short-circuit tedious deliberations that are often critical in diplomatic negotiations. Admirers of Trump loudly claim this hawkish approach is necessary. They think it’s purposefully equipping him to face down the biggest challenges from Democrats, the judiciary — and withering 24/7 media scrutiny.
Despite the controversies surrounding his tariff policies, some supporters assert that Trump has generated “overwhelming interest” from other countries eager to negotiate trade deals. This interest, they argue, gives the US significant leverage in negotiations. As experts warn, this kind of inconsistency does long-term damage by creating distrust about U.S. intentions and actions on the world stage.
“There will be real costs if markets and global investors think the Fed has been beaten into submission by Trump,” – David Wessel
In an extraordinary act of economic intimidation, Trump threatened Brazil with a massive 50% tariff. He called for the country to cease prosecuting former President Jair Bolsonaro. These type of statements show Trump’s readiness to use trade as a weapon of political leverage.
Higher Education Under Scrutiny
Trump’s time in higher education has been characterized by showmanship over substance. His administration recently attempted to prevent Harvard University from accommodating the presence of about 7,000 foreign students. This move raised central and serious concerns for academic freedom and international collaboration. Harvard’s tax-exempt status Now that Donald Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status. This demonstrates his eagerness to use financial penalties as a means of coercive influence.
Critics warn that these coercive strategies may backfire by eroding confidence in U.S. institutions and policy, jeopardizing the long-term health of the international system. Inu Manak expressed skepticism about the long-term implications of such approaches: “serious questions about the meaning of signing any deal with the United States at all” may arise if coercive measures persist.
As he pushed through these challenges, Trump’s extreme negotiating tactics opened up a national debate on the long-term effects their use was having on other industries. His administration was not afraid to criticize Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s house. This new level of scrutiny made economic negotiations even more complicated. Yet of all his priorities, tariff policy is proving to be the most damaging. Such a focus would heighten inflation fears and damage the Federal Reserve’s credibility.
The Impact of Coercive Negotiation
What the long-term effects of Trump’s coercive negotiating style will turn out to be is anybody’s guess. Our experts caution that this method could provide illusory short-term benefits or bait. It has other dangers too, like producing an overall climate of suspicion between U.S. and non-U.S. partners. The impression that Trump’s administration brought sabre rattling rather than consensus building to the table may make it harder to negotiate the next one.
John C. Brown remarked on Trump’s unique approach: “No one has done this in history,” emphasizing the unprecedented nature of such strategies in political discourse. This new initiative’s perspective is helpful in deepening our understanding of this huge impact of Trump. They affect not only his administration but the larger playing field of U.S. foreign relations.
Further, Trump’s tariffs could end up hurting the economy in other ways. Many economists warn that more aggressive oversight of monetary policy could push up inflationary pressures, making it harder to avoid a double-dip recession. How about the correlation between Trump’s negotiation tactics like steel and aluminum tariffs, and their impact on the domestic and international economy?
