In this interview, she delves into the complexities of these policies, the internal conflicts driving them, and their potential impact on both the US and the global stage.
Q: What is your assessment of the Trump administration’s tariff strategy?A: The goal of the Trump administration is to bring manufacturing back to the United States. This is something that Trump was committed to on the campaign trail. It is not surprising that he is putting a lot of effort into bringing manufacturing back; bringing jobs back to the United States. The problem is how the tariffs were rolled out, and the fact that not only has he targeted US adversaries, particularly China, but he has also levied tariffs on allies and partners, including some allies that the US had a trade surplus with.
It has not made a lot of sense to people why he would do these broad tariffs on so many nations, including allies and partners. It did backfire — that is why he has stepped back, and he has put on this 90-day moratorium. Unfortunately, the way the tariffs were rolled out, there didn’t seem to be a good strategy in place. It seemed like a haphazard approach to applying tariffs across the board, across the world, and it badly backfired on them.
There may be a lesson learned here, but right now, the tariffs are still on with China, and the US and China are virtually in a trade war. The question is, how will this impact the US economy? We are yet to see how it will all play out for the average US consumer.
Q: It is quite clear that Donald Trump is using trade as a weapon and as a centrepiece of foreign policy. The pause on tariffs suggests a course correction. What do you think prompted the administration to hit pause?
A: One of the main reasons we are seeing such an overfocus on tariffs is that it is really a one-track strategy. If you ask me, there should be a broader economic strategy. If you really want to bring manufacturing back to the United States, you cannot just rely on tariffs. Unfortunately, his advisor — people like Peter Navarro — has been all tariffs, all the time. He has written books about it, he has influenced President Trump, and that is why we saw the disagreement.
Read Here | Exclusive | Trump paused reciprocal tariff as it backfired and needed course correction, says Lisa Curtis
Over the weekend, Elon Musk was very clear that he disagreed with this strategy and wanted to see the US negotiating. I think it is good that he came out and gave another perspective to Peter Navarro’s pro-tariff stance. In that case, some of the infighting within the Trump administration played out in a way that helped the United States in the end — because it did finally lead President Trump to back off tariffs across the board, even against our allies and partners. In a way, it was a course correction. We can only hope there was some learning there, and that we will see a more thought-out strategy, rather than just thinking you can disrupt the entire system and hope for the best. That is not really how one should go about achieving goals and objectives.
Q: In the first Trump administration, we saw many high-level exits. Do you see a repeat of that? Is the infighting worse now?
A: I do. I think that this time around, you have individuals who have personal agendas, and they are bringing these to the fore. There are a lot of different camps — you have the camp that is very focused on domestic issues and wants to take a more isolationist view towards foreign policy. This camp is almost anti-Europe. They are not interested in preserving traditional alliances, not really remembering why we have those alliances in the first place — the history of World War Two, how these alliances have largely kept the peace all these years, how we share values with our European allies. That crowd is just ignoring that.
The second camp is more the traditional foreign policy group — I would include Michael Waltz, Marco Rubio in that camp. They have been supportive of our traditional alliances and are interested in competing with China. Then you have another category — the pro-business, the tech giants, the business executives — who are focused more on the economic piece of this. However, even within those three broad categories, you have differences among individuals, and so it is causing a lot of chaos. Many of us are hoping that some order is brought to the process. When I was at the National Security Council, we always tried to have a very deliberate process and to bring the president options — these are the options, this is what is most likely to happen. Of course, the president makes the final decision, but you need to bring informed options. You need to rely on your experts who know the issues and can provide sound policy advice. Hopefully, we will see a proper national security process put in place.
Q: But why is Donald Trump in a rush, in his second term?
A: He knows he only has three and a half more years. He has already had one term in office. According to our Constitution, he can only serve two terms. Therefore, I think he feels he needs to make some of these big changes that maybe he did not have the opportunity to do the first time around. He has also said he wants to be known as a peacemaker. That is very important to him — to show that he can make this a more peaceful world.
However, unfortunately, I am seeing some contradictions. The whole “peace through strength” idea will not be fulfilled if the US abandons Ukraine — if Russia is able to use military might to change borders. I do not think that bodes well for a peace-through-strength legacy for President Trump.
Q: My final question — the US has paused reciprocal tariffs but raised them on China to 145%. China is retaliating. How bad is this for world security, and how could China take advantage of the situation?
A: The developing trade war between the US and China will be harmful to the global economy. It is going to hurt the economies of both the United States and China — who suffers more, we are yet to see. However, once the American consumer really starts to feel the bite of these tariffs, I think you are going to see a great deal of pushback. The US is a democracy, so people are not going to hold back in terms of complaints to the Trump administration. Let us watch that space and see what happens.
The second part of your question is very relevant. As the US pulls back on foreign assistance and imposes tariffs on its allies and partners, it will lose the soft power that has served it so well in the past. The vacuum created by the lack of US engagement, particularly in the global south, will benefit China. China will step in. In that respect, the US will suffer in its broader strategic competition with China. That soft power element is crucial, and unfortunately, the US stands to lose out as it retreats from meaningful global partnerships.
Also Read | Trump Tariff Pause: 10% baseline tariff remains in place for all, including India — Here’s what it means
