Donald Trump’s win in the 2024 election has sent shockwaves around the world. One of his boldest threats? Tariffs on all imports to the United States. That’s a big deal, not just for Americans but for the entire global economy.
Here’s why this matters: the US is a powerhouse in technology. No country spends more on research or racks up more Nobel Prizes. It’s the land of groundbreaking inventions and economic success. But here’s the kicker—the rest of the world has become a bit too dependent on the US, and that’s a problem.
The truth is, even if Kamala Harris had won, the situation wouldn’t have been much different. “America first” isn’t just Trump’s mantra; it’s been a theme in US policy for years. Back when Barack Obama was in charge, he focused on making the US energy-independent. Since then, presidents—regardless of party—have been laser-focused on keeping industrial jobs at home and staying ahead in technology.
During Trump’s first term, he made a controversial move: protecting American businesses by making imports more expensive. For example, in 2018, he slapped tariffs on washing machines from around the world. The result? US consumers paid 12% more for their washers. When Joe Biden took over, he didn’t reverse these tariffs. In fact, he raised some of them—like a whopping 100% on electric vehicles from China.
This “protect America” strategy has slowed progress in other areas, like renewable energy. Higher tariffs on solar cells and batteries made it harder for the US to transition to cleaner energy sources. Biden also introduced massive subsidies to boost US industries. His Inflation Reduction Act poured $369 billion into things like electric vehicles and renewable energy. Then there’s the Chips Act, which allocated $52 billion to support American chip and semiconductor manufacturing.
But these moves have ripple effects. Other countries have had to respond. China, for example, used to thrive on exporting its goods. Now, it’s grappling with too many factories and not enough buyers. Europe, meanwhile, has joined the subsidy race, despite facing financial struggles. Germany, a country already dealing with slow growth, recently pledged €900 million to keep Swedish battery maker Northvolt producing in Europe.
Here’s the twist: while rich nations are battling to out-subsidize each other, this money could have been used for something world-changing—like bringing electricity to Africa with solar power. Instead, countries like China have stepped in, investing heavily in Africa to secure natural resources.
Now, Trump’s return to the White House could push the world to rethink its strategy. For example, Europe could help China deal with its overproduction issues. One idea? End the tariff wars on Chinese tech, like solar panels and electric cars. In return, Europe could reclaim some independence by producing its own clean energy instead of relying on US gas. Working with Chinese companies might even give Europe new insights and tech advantages. And let’s not forget, China has influence over Russia and could help pressure them to end the war in Ukraine.
The European Union could also lean into what it does best: striking trade deals. These deals could help fight climate change by setting environmental standards for everyone involved.
But there’s a bigger picture here. Across the globe, life seems to be taking a step backward. Hunger is rising to levels we haven’t seen since 2008. Wars are raging in Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, Syria, and now Lebanon. Civilian deaths haven’t been this high since 2010.
The world is on its own. A second Trump presidency isn’t likely to bring more US involvement in global issues like peace, climate change, or free trade. America has chosen to focus inward, and the rest of the world has to figure out how to adapt.
So, what’s next? Maybe not much will change in the US—Trump’s approach could just continue the path of the last decade. Or maybe his policies will make the US economy less dominant over time. Either way, the rest of the world has little choice but to learn how to work together better and become less dependent on any one country. After all, the future of the global economy may depend on it.
