Tariffs as a Tool of Authoritarian Coercion
The Trump Doctrine in Historical Context
In recent months, Donald Trump has weaponized trade tariffs not as a mechanism for economic negotiation or protection, but as a tool of political coercion. His administration's sweeping tariff announcements against Brazil (50%), China (60%), Mexico (20%), India (35%), and Vietnam (25%) have less to do with conventional trade disputes and more to do with strong-arm tactics aimed at forcing political alignment, suppressing dissent, and defending his allies abroad. This method mirrors a long historical pattern of authoritarian leaders who use economic power to discipline both allies and adversaries.
Take Brazil: The 50% tariff Trump announced was not because Brazil violated trade rules, but because its independent judiciary pursued criminal charges against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a close Trump ally. Trump framed Brazil's court system as corrupt and accused it of conducting a "witch hunt" against Bolsonaro. In retaliation, he imposed punitive tariffs, signaling a clear message: punish my political allies, and you will suffer economic consequences. This is not diplomacy—it is transactional authoritarianism.
Trump threatens 50% tariffs on Brazil if it doesn’t stop the Bolsonaro ‘witch hunt’ trial
This coercive approach has echoes in 20th-century authoritarian regimes. Consider how Adolf Hitler used economic power to enforce ideological conformity within occupied Europe. Nazi Germany often coerced smaller nations—like Hungary, Slovakia, and Romania—into economic and military compliance by controlling access to German markets or threatening embargoes. Compliance was rewarded with trade, while resistance was punished with economic isolation or direct occupation. The mechanism was not just about economics; it was about enforcing political submission.
Similarly, during the Cold War, Joseph Stalin used grain exports and access to Soviet aid as levers to control satellite states. When Yugoslavia under Tito defied Stalin in 1948, the USSR cut off economic support, leading to a years-long economic blockade. The goal was to break Tito's resistance and force a return to Moscow's political line. Tito's survival was only possible due to Western aid—a lesson in how economic warfare can be a brutal tool of ideological enforcement.
More recently, Vladimir Putin has used energy policy to exert political pressure. Countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia that resisted Kremlin influence—such as Ukraine or Georgia—faced gas shutoffs, price hikes, or restricted trade. Russia’s manipulation of Gazprom as a geopolitical weapon shows how authoritarian leaders use economic dependency to discipline neighbors and enforce loyalty.
Trump's use of tariffs falls into this tradition. He is no longer using U.S. economic might to build cooperative trade frameworks or enforce international norms. Instead, he is leveraging it to settle political scores, defend ideological allies, and pressure governments into political obedience. Mexico is being punished for immigration policies, India for currency decisions, Brazil for prosecuting Bolsonaro. These actions are not driven by trade policy—they are acts of political retaliation.
This poses a serious danger to the U.S. role in the world. By turning trade policy into a political cudgel, Trump undermines the credibility of U.S. economic agreements and accelerates a shift away from multilateralism. Worse, it signals to other authoritarians that this kind of coercion is not only acceptable but effective. It turns the rules-based international order into a transactional, power-based system where justice and diplomacy are subordinate to personal loyalty and political convenience.
As history shows, when economic power becomes a tool of authoritarian control, the consequences are far-reaching. It leads to instability, retaliatory escalations, and the erosion of international norms. If the U.S. continues down this path, it risks not only its global leadership but the very democratic values it claims to champion.