The Trump Trade Policy: A Strategic, Politically Aligned Approach
Takeoff Clues:
It might be tempting to think that Donald Trump lacks a strategy, and his trade decisions—tariffs, threats, false starts, sudden policy shifts—are mere occurrences. However, upon closer examination, a pattern emerges: the United States has begun to selectively and deliberately manage access to its market, turning it into a strategic tool. Instead of offering this access as part of a global free trade vision, as it did for decades, the U.S. now grants it as a privilege to those who align with Washington’s broader agenda.
Visualizing the US Trade Policy as Concentric Circles
Imagine the U.S. trade policy as a system of concentric circles. At the center are countries closest and most useful to U.S. interests. Successive circles place economies based on their openness, alignment, or rivalry with the U.S. The further a country is from the center, the more exposed it will be to tariffs, regulatory restrictions, inspections, threats, and trade pressures.
This concentric circles framework is highly beneficial for Donald Trump’s mercantilist and transactional agenda. Under his vision, the U.S. market is the country’s most valuable negotiating asset, and it must be managed accordingly. Want to sell to the U.S.? Then cooperate with Washington on migration policy, fight against fentanyl, compete with China, and align on energy interests. Otherwise, access to the U.S. economy will be in doubt.
Key Players and Their Circles
First Circle:
Countries like the United Kingdom or Vietnam have accepted this dynamic and started negotiating agreements to be in the first circle, closer to the center. In theory, countries with a U.S. free trade agreement should also occupy this space, but it hasn’t always been the case—for example, almost all Latin American countries were included in the “reciprocal” tariffs list announced by Donald Trump on April 2.
Second Circle:
Countries with significant trade relations but without a free trade agreement, such as the European Union and Japan, fall into this category. There’s trade, investments, and geopolitical alignments, but also frequent friction.
Third Circle:
Countries like Brazil or South Africa, with relevant economies seeking deeper integration into global trade but facing erratic treatment from Washington, belong here. They are sometimes praised as new partners or publicly humiliated (Sudan’s president visit is a clear example), threatened with sanctions, or criticized for their activism in regional forums like the BRICS. For them, U.S. market entry remains uncertain and subject to review.
Fourth Circle:
Strategic rivals, such as China, Russia, and Iran, are condemned to the farthest circle. Here, trade measures serve as geopolitical pressure tools: export controls on semiconductors, restrictions on tech companies, and campaigns to reduce dependence on their products.
Where Does Mexico Fit In?
I believe Mexico is currently in the first circle. The USMCA provides a solid foundation for our relationship with the U.S., even if its effectiveness is sometimes questioned, and our bilateral relationship remains intense and deeply interdependent. However, being in the center doesn’t guarantee immunity. To secure its status and place, Mexico must constantly address the issues Washington considers priorities—security, energy, migration, automotive industry, China relations, etc. Above all, Mexico must ensure the USMCA review’s success and its readiness to advance in all areas is duly recognized and rewarded.
Understanding the U.S. trade policy in these terms helps anticipate risks, design strategies, and avoid naive interpretations. Trump proposes a reorganization of international trade based not on rules but political loyalties. In this new order, access to the world’s largest market is not won by economic efficiency but political alignment.
About the Author
*The author is a research professor at the Universidad Panamericana; previously, he spent twenty years working in the federal government on international trade negotiations.