Trump Leads America’s Retreat in the Language of Power, Producing Chaos

February 04, 2025

Nasser Kandil

• President Donald Trump’s threats may suggest that the United States is expanding its global influence. After all, when a great power speaks in the language of force, it is typically accompanied by an expansion of its dominance. However, closer scrutiny reveals that Trump is not threatening his adversaries but rather his allies – from Mexico to Canada to Europe – wielding a weapon long known to his predecessors but one they deliberately overlooked in exchange for maintaining American influence over these allies. The trade imbalance with Europe and Canada, amounting to roughly $500 billion annually, was a cost that a prosperous America willingly bore, leveraging its imperial reach to secure unwavering European and Canadian alignment with its global policies. While European and Canadian economies thrived and stabilised due to their access to American markets, the U.S. capitalised on its global economic dominance, particularly through the power of the dollar, which facilitated international trade – most notably among its own allies.

• Washington’s decision to prioritise its own economic gains as a market and a state over its leadership role among allies amounts to an implicit admission of its declining global standing – something that requires no further proof. The case of Panama serves as a telling example of this retreat. Trump began by demanding that the Panamanian government return control of the Panama Canal to the U.S., arguing that the canal was originally American before being handed over to Panama as part of past expansionist policies. When Panama refused, Trump threatened an invasion to seize the canal by force unless it was returned voluntarily. However, negotiations ultimately left the canal under Panamanian control, with Washington settling for minor concessions, such as using a military base for monitoring illegal migration.

• Washington can impose tariffs on imports from Europe, Canada, and Mexico, but this will not necessarily correct the trade imbalance with its allies. What it does guarantee, however, is additional revenue for the U.S. Treasury through customs duties. Yet, the real impact will be felt by American consumers, who will face higher prices on imported goods that have no cheaper or better domestic alternatives. This is precisely what played out in Trump’s tariff policy toward China. Initially, he threatened to impose high tariffs on Chinese imports, only to later announce negotiations, recognising that China is an irreplaceable trade partner. A significant portion of U.S. supply chains relies on Chinese goods, and raising their prices would not stimulate American production or encourage domestic consumption; it would simply increase costs for consumers. Thus, after initially pushing for a 20% tariff, Trump was forced to scale it back to 10% and is now negotiating instead.

• Trump’s dilemma lies in his attempt to mask America’s retreat by amplifying threats, using them as a smokescreen for decline. However, reality inevitably surfaces. European and Canadian societies, more influential than their governments in shaping policy, are increasingly embracing nationalist approaches to foreign relations. In Canada, calls to boycott American goods are growing louder, while in Germany, voices advocating for the reactivation of the Nord Stream pipeline to access cheap Russian gas – rather than paying four times the price for American gas – are gaining traction. As American influence wanes, so too does the standing of the parties and leaders who once embodied that influence.

• Trump’s shortsighted and superficial worldview is particularly evident in his approach to Gaza. Is it conceivable that the leader of the world’s most powerful nation would claim that had he been in office on the day of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, it would never have happened? Now, he repeats the same misguided rhetoric, issuing orders to Egypt and Jordan to take in displaced Gazans, as if the issue lies with him or those he is pressuring. The real question is: who could even achieve such mass displacement? After enduring an unprecedented war of extermination, Gaza’s people have not only survived but have begun returning to their devastated towns and refugee camps, without waiting for tents, food aid, or medical relief. Their attachment to the land remains unshaken, even to the point of martyrdom. The most Trump can do is refrain from opposing Benjamin Netanyahu’s continuation of the war, but that does not mean he can alter its outcomes.

• Chaotic rhetoric cloaked in populist grandiosity serves only to obscure America’s retreat. But when such confusion emanates from the highest levels of power in a nation that still leads the world, it does not merely create disorder – it fuels further political, economic, and security instability on a global scale. And that, it seems, is precisely what lies ahead.