Jessica Durdu
Editor’s note: Jessica Durdu, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a foreign affairs specialist and PhD candidate in international relations at China Foreign Affairs University. The article reflects the author’s opinions.
The Donald Trump administration’s aggressive tariff policy, initially framed as a domestic economic revitalization strategy and a liberation moment, increasingly reveals its unintended consequences, not on adversaries, but on the U.S.’s closest allies. While tariffs were once considered a tactical economic tool to correct trade imbalances, the administration’s indiscriminate application of duties especially on steel, aluminum and autos against long-standing partners like Japan, Germany, Canada and Australia has exposed a deeper truth: For the current U.S. administration, there are no enduring allies, but only transactional interests.
What began as a campaign to bring jobs back to America is now exacting a high price on bilateral trust, economic stability and the domestic political landscapes of allied nations. Countries that historically aligned with the U.S. vision of a liberal international order are now recalibrating their strategic orientations in the face of what they perceive as economic coercion disguised as nationalism.
For the U.S., these policies have backfired first on its own consumers. Former U.S. Vice President Mike Pence said that the tariffs are nearly 10 times of those imposed during the Trump-Pence Administration and “will cost American families over $3,500 per year.” While framed as “tough on trade,” the Trump administration’s strategy has inadvertently hurt the domestic economy it claimed to protect, while also compromising international goodwill.
But tariffs do not operate in isolation. They send ripple effects through supply chains, inflation indices and investor confidence. For export-oriented economies like Germany and Japan, the disruption of access to U.S. markets affects not just manufacturers but downstream suppliers and even pension funds. The unpredictability of Trump’s tariff decisions, such as pausing measures only after markets reacted negatively, has added an element of volatility to long-term planning.
Canada’s retaliatory tariffs, while symbolically potent, also carry economic risk. The Canadian government’s decision to use tariff revenue to support affected workers signals a shift toward interventionist monetary policy, but it also underscores the domestic harm caused by the standoff. The very act of safeguarding workers illustrates how trade disputes can become social welfare issues, amplifying the political stakes.
Japan’s decision to forgo confrontation and pursue quiet diplomacy speaks volumes about the deep discomfort the tariffs have created. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s refusal to impose retaliatory tariffs or file a WTO case may underscore Tokyo’s desire to protect the fragile U.S.-Japan alliance. But beneath this restraint lies a growing unease. Japan had expected an exemption from the tariffs as a trusted partner, especially as a geopolitically important actor in Asia-Pacific, where global power shifts to, yet the imposition of levies, not least but especially on its automobile sector, delivered a symbolic blow. Tokyo now finds itself walking a tightrope: probably upholding bilateral ties while avoiding domestic backlash over perceived submission to Washington’s unpredictability.
In Germany, the warning issued by the upcoming Chancellor Friedrich Merz, is more direct. Trump’s tariffs, he argued, have increased the likelihood of a global financial crisis. Berlin’s alarm reflects not just concern for its own industrial base, but for the health of the global economic architecture that Germany helped build under U.S. leadership. By exempting selected industries such as electronics, seemingly at whim, the U.S. signaled that trade rules could be reshaped according to political expedience, not mutual agreement.
Canada, in contrast, has opted for a retaliatory path. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s counter-tariffs are calibrated to target the most politically sensitive U.S. sectors, causing “maximum pain” in the U.S. Yet his statement also reveals a shift in tone: No longer is Canada the silent neighbor deferring to Washington. Instead, it is asserting its sovereignty with unprecedented clarity.
The political impact of these tariffs has reverberated beyond economic ministries and trade negotiation tables. For countries that once championed U.S.-led initiatives, from NATO to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the tariffs have triggered a moment of reckoning. The realization is setting in that alignment with U.S. policy does not guarantee protection, nor even predictability. This growing mistrust is pushing allies to reconsider their strategic dependencies.
In Europe, Merz is among the first to voice what others are now contemplating privately: The EU must counterweight the U.S. and seek structural independence, particularly in capital markets and energy. Merz’s engagement with French President Emmanuel Macron, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer signals an emerging bloc of leaders who seek to accelerate European strategic autonomy in response to Washington’s unilateralism.
In Asia, Japan’s traditionally cautious diplomacy now appears increasingly constrained. The preference for bilateral talks with the U.S. is as much a delay strategy as engagement. Behind closed doors, Tokyo is reassessing its reliance on a partner that can shift from ally to adversary with the stroke of an executive order.
For Australia, the mistrust started even before, when Trump, during a joint press conference with Starmer, was asked about AUKUS and responded, “What’s that?” – an answer that greatly offended Australian politicians. Since the implementation of the “Trump tariffs,” even criticism of the AUKUS agreement has grown in Australia.
A visible tilt toward multipolarity accompanies this rethinking of alliances. Once tightly woven into U.S.-centric security and trade frameworks, countries are now exploring alternatives that provide greater maneuvering space. Whether through regional trade agreements or closer coordination with rising powers, the message is clear: allies no longer take U.S. reliability for granted.
Perhaps most telling is how these economic and political shocks translate into cultural shifts. Once admired, or at least tolerated, for his boldness and anti-establishment rhetoric, President Trump is now viewed by many citizens in allied countries as a destabilizing force. This change in perception is not merely a diplomatic issue; it shapes electoral behavior and redefines political narratives.
Australia’s case is illustrative. Opposition leader Peter Dutton once gained momentum by mimicking Trump’s populist style. But as trade tensions and global instability grew, that political capital eroded. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Labor Party are now regaining support, benefiting from a narrative that favors stability, diplomacy and multilateral engagement. Trump’s image has become polarizing, no longer a model but a cautionary tale.
In Canada and Germany, anti-Trump sentiment is now mainstream. Public opinion, once broadly pro-American, has turned skeptical of U.S. leadership. Cultural affinity, long a glue in transatlantic and Pacific partnerships, is fraying under the weight of transactional diplomacy.
The tariff disputes initiated under the Trump administration have become more than economic disagreements; they are inflection points. As traditional allies absorb the impact of unilateral U.S. actions, they are adjusting their trade policies and reimagining their roles in the global order. The emerging trend is clear: from Berlin to Tokyo, from Ottawa to Canberra, countries are pursuing strategies that hedge against U.S. volatility and elevate their own autonomy.
In doing so, they are contributing to shaping a multipolar world where power is distributed, alliances are flexible and no single nation can dictate the rules without consensus. The irony is stark: in seeking to assert American strength through tariffs, the Trump administration has accelerated the very global rebalancing it hoped to resist.