In an unexpected turn of events, the United States has identified Lesotho as a significant economic threat, placing it alongside China in discussions of international trade. Under the recent trade policy initiated by President Donald Trump, China faces a hefty combined tariff of 54 percent. Meanwhile, Lesotho appears to be designated for a 'reciprocal' tariff rate of 50 percent on its exports to the U.S. This situation is particularly striking when compared to other countries: Cambodia is at 49 percent, Vietnam at 46 percent, and Indonesia and Taiwan at 32 percent. In contrast, major trading partners like the European Union and the United Kingdom enjoy much lower tariffs of 20 percent and 10 percent, respectively.

The dramatic shift in trade policy—one that seems almost ludicrous—has raised eyebrows across the globe. It's rather astonishing that no one within the administration informed the president that singling out Lesotho in this manner would reflect poorly on the U.S. Instead, the approach taken appears to be simplistic and devoid of nuanced economic analysis. This is evident in the way tariffs have been calculated, which, according to economic advisor Peter Navarro, are based on the bilateral trade deficit divided by bilateral imports. The underlying assumption is that trade should balance perfectly with every partner country, a notion that is fundamentally flawed and misleading. Such a perspective suggests that the United States positions itself as a victim of a global trade conspiracy, rather than engaging in constructive economic discourse.

This flawed reasoning not only creates confusion but also poses a moral dilemma. It calls to mind the U.S. involvement in Vietnam, where economic policies have been used to impact another nation's growth negatively. Vietnam, along with other emerging economies, has been striving to take advantage of the benefits of open trade—a promise that the U.S. seems to be retracting. This trend could have devastating repercussions for nations attempting to engage in global commerce.

The repercussions of Trump's tariffs are not limited to Lesotho. Canada and Mexico are also feeling the effects of what has been termed 'fentanyl tariffs', which include a 25 percent levy on automobiles, alongside increased tariffs on steel and aluminum. Historically, high tariffs have proven ineffective at addressing trade deficits. Looking back to the 1970s, when India had one of the most protected economies in the world, it was clear that imposing restrictions did not result in trade surpluses. Instead, India faced a dismal export income due to a lack of competitiveness.

The same negative outcome could be in store for the U.S. Imports may decline, but exports will also likely take a hit, leading to little change in the overall trade deficit. The result of these policies could be a diminished global economy, with the United States bearing the brunt of these consequences. Research from Germany’s Kiel Institute indicates that the adverse effects of these protectionist measures are likely to primarily impact the U.S., as protectionism ultimately amounts to shooting oneself in the foot.

Historically, the architects of the global trading system in the 1930s and 1940s understood the catastrophic consequences of protectionist policies, which fueled the economic troubles of the 1920s and 1930s. They established a system founded on principles of non-discrimination, reciprocal bargaining, and impartial adjudication. This framework has led to a dynamic, open global economy, largely facilitated by U.S. diplomacy. In stark contrast, Trump’s administration has not only reversed these principles but has also unleashed a level of protectionism unseen in a century, undermining the foundational goals set by previous administrations.

The current political landscape raises questions about the direction of American governance. The ongoing debate over whether to take Trump literally or seriously has reached a conclusion. The administration now appears to actively challenge the core tenets of the American republic, ranging from the role of law and legislative authority to scientific integrity and academic independence. This assault threatens the very foundations of U.S. freedom and prosperity, all while dismantling the liberal international order that has prevailed for decades.

The tariffs serve as a clear emblem of the administration’s approach, leveraging a fabricated 'emergency' to impose a regressive tax scheme that disproportionately affects his political base. The uncertain and unpredictable nature of these new trade policies is likely to inflict economic damage both in the short and long term. Given the heightened openness of today’s economies, the impact of sudden protectionist measures will be magnified, suggesting further volatility in the markets.

Amidst this chaos, there lies a glimmer of hope. The effort by Trump and his allies to subvert the republic may not last, as the mounting economic turmoil could result in significant Republican losses in the upcoming midterm elections. Such a shift could hinder the ambitious goals of the MAGA (Make America Great Again) agenda, potentially restoring some resilience to U.S. institutions. With any luck, the next presidential election might unfold under fairer conditions.

However, as long as the MAGA ideology continues to dominate American conservatism, the country could remain susceptible to erratic and harmful policies, providing an unintended advantage to nations like China. Yet, as the situation deteriorates, the likelihood of MAGA being recognized as a fleeting interlude rather than a permanent state grows, offering a small measure of consolation and optimism for the future.

For more insights and updates, follow Martin Wolf on myFT and on X.