Trump’s 2025 tariffs: Systemic trade distortions reveal 19th-century colonial patterns, disproportionately burdening Global South producers and US working classes

Indigenous economic models prioritize reciprocity and ecological balance over extractive trade, offering alternatives to the tariff-driven cycles of overconsumption and debt that harm both Global South producers and US working classes. In the US, Native nations like the Navajo Nation have long resisted exploitative trade practices, yet their sovereignty is ignored in tariff debates that frame all trade as either 'free' or 'protected.' Traditional knowledge systems in the Andes and Pacific Islands emphasize circular economies, which contrast with the linear 'produce-consume-discard' model reinforced by tariff-driven price distortions.

The 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act raised US tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods, triggering retaliatory measures that deepened the Great Depression and contributed to a 61% drop in global trade by 1933. Similar patterns emerged in the 1980s Plaza Accord, where coordinated currency devaluations (not tariffs) were used to address trade imbalances, avoiding the inflationary pitfalls of unilateral protectionism. Colonial trade systems, such as the British Corn Laws or French mercantilism, demonstrate how tariffs historically redistribute wealth upward while destabilizing peripheral economies dependent on primary commodity exports.

In Japan, the post-WWII 'catch-up' model used selective tariffs to protect infant industries before liberalizing, a strategy that contrasts with the US’s current approach of blanket tariffs that harm both domestic consumers and foreign suppliers. African regional blocs like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) view tariffs as barriers to intra-continental trade, which could reduce reliance on Western markets and foster South-South economic resilience. In India, Gandhi’s advocacy for 'swadeshi' (self-sufficiency) was rooted in decolonial economics, offering a framework to critique tariffs as tools of neocolonial control rather than solutions to inequality.

Empirical studies (e.g., Fajgelbaum et al., 2020) show that 2018-2019 US tariffs were largely passed through to US consumers, with lower-income households facing a 1.4% increase in prices for targeted goods. Computable general equilibrium (CGE) models predict that retaliatory tariffs reduce US GDP by 0.5% annually, with disproportionate impacts on rural and manufacturing-dependent regions. The 'optimal tariff' theory (Bickerdike-Robinson-Metzler) suggests tariffs are only welfare-improving if the tariff-imposing country has significant market power, a condition the US no longer holds in many sectors due to globalization.

Artists like Kara Walker and Kehinde Wiley critique the commodification of labor under tariff-driven trade systems, framing economic policies as extensions of racial capitalism. Indigenous artists in the Amazon, such as Jaider Esbell, depict the spiritual violence of extractivist trade models, where tariffs accelerate deforestation and cultural erasure. In Buddhist traditions, the concept of 'dukkha' (suffering from craving) parallels the insatiable demand for cheap goods that tariffs fail to address, instead of transforming the underlying cycles of desire and exploitation.

Scenario modelling by the IMF (2025) suggests that a 10% across-the-board tariff could reduce global trade by 12% within five years, triggering cascading supply chain collapses in sectors like electronics and pharmaceuticals. Alternative models, such as 'progressive tariffs' that exempt essential goods while targeting luxury items, could mitigate inflation while addressing inequality—echoing proposals from the 1970s 'New International Economic Order.' Long-term, tariffs may accelerate the fragmentation of global trade into rival blocs (US, EU, China), reducing the benefits of comparative advantage and increasing geopolitical instability.

Black and Latino communities in the US, who spend a larger share of income on tariff-affected goods (e.g., electronics, clothing), are disproportionately harmed by inflationary tariffs, yet their perspectives are excluded from policy debates. In Mexico, maquiladora workers—predominantly women—face job losses as US tariffs disrupt manufacturing supply chains, yet their testimonies are rarely cited in Western media. Indigenous farmers in Central America, who rely on US export markets for coffee and bananas, report increased debt and land dispossession as tariffs reduce demand for their crops, a crisis ignored by mainstream narratives.