Tariffs – REBOOT

Competition vs. Collective Action: A Call to Courage for Industry Leaders

While so many of us are watching the US from afar, ricocheting off feelings of being bewildered, amused, and concerned, others of you are caught in the “muzzle shot” of initiatives or, as the Trump team also talks about, their strategy of “flooding the zone”. So, if you are in the line of fire, how you should respond is the real question. Despite not having anything resembling a coherent strategy for the country, or a cohesive plan for implementing their incoherent strategy, what Trump administration do know is how to engage and negotiate locally, by picking off the influential weak and then systematically moving onto the next equivalent target.

We have seen Trump, and his obedient servants, pick off weak industry leaders and convert them to the new ideology. This has happened now with the largest law firms, starting with Paul, Weiss, and is now targeted at the universities, beginning with Columbia. We have also seen the most prominent tech firm leaders bow to the President and, in financial services, Goldman Sachs pledge silence. Are leaders brave only when their enemy is on the shores over 3,000 miles away?

American leadership is known for their competitive focus based on a zero-sum gain view of the world. This has always been a strength, but for today is it an achilles heal? Surely, the right response of a sector under threat is collective action. Fire a muzzle shot back and flood their zone as a group. Shift the focus to have them react and defend rather than attack. Play team chess against their game of isolating poker. We have seen the reaction when the market for US treasuries pressured Trump and he buckled. Now, every critical sector — universities, finance, pharmaceuticals, law, technology, automotive — must find a way to stand together.

Tragically, we have seen the capitulating response of the leadership of the largest legal firms, who have now committed over $1bn of pro-bono work in favour of the Administration. Do they really think they have a say on what work this will cover? Is this a Donald Trump war chest to respond to muzzle shots coming in his direction? If I were a client of one of these firms, I would either request a similar discount on fees or look for a high-performing, smaller firm that stands with their principles, beliefs in the importance of the legal system, and aligns with the standards of the profession. The Fortune 500 and all others need to pressure these firms to get back into line.

Thank God Harvard has shown leadership in its sector. All other universities should now figure out how they are going to join arms, help each other, and defeat this insurgency.

Who and how will the financial sector step up? Should you join hands with Jamie Dimon or Goldman Sachs?

For a moment, forget your market share and focus on a bigger prize – a healthy sector and a vibrant country. This will also be how you generate the long-term optimal value and legacy of your business. Oh, and I forgot to say, do something you may be proud of to tell your children and grandchildren what you did at a time of real adversity in the country.

US Playing Tariff Poker with China

US Poker Strategy

The United States has initiated a tariff-driven economic confrontation with China, banking on its apparent strength to win. On paper, the US seems formidable: it boasts the world’s largest economy, valued at $29 trillion, with imports accounting for just 10.5% of GDP and imports from China’s only comprising 1.8% ($524 billion) of US GDP. By contrast, China’s economy stands at $19 trillion, although 27% larger than the US on a purchasing power parity basis, with exports comprising 19% of its GDP and the imports from the US representing 0.7% ($143 billion) of its GDP. So, China’s economy is more vulnerable to the tariff war; although, exports to the US are only 2.7% of China’s GDP, which is well below China’s annual GDP growth rate.

However, this initial advantage may be deceptive. The US relies heavily on critical imports from China, including minerals, semiconductors, industrial machinery and equipment, solar panel and EV batteries, pharmaceuticals, as well as consumer goods. As an example, China provides the US 73% of smartphones, 78% of laptops, and over 40% of generic drugs. In addition, China will play an important part in most of the US’ critical supply chains.

China’s Long-Term Resilience

China also depends on imports from the US, including semiconductors (some already sanctioned) and related design tools, aerospace engines, pharmaceuticals, refining technologies, LNG, soybeans, and seeds. However, unlike the US, Beijing has been implementing a multi-year strategy to reduce reliance on American goods and has already made significant progress.

China’s ability to endure short-term pain may prove decisive. They are capable at playing the long game, Beijing can afford to lose a few hands of poker while maintaining its focus on broader strategic goals. In contrast, internal pressures in the US have already tested Washington’s resolve during previous trade confrontations.

Alienating Allies: A Strategic Misstep?

One critical flaw in America’s approach is its simultaneous alienation of all allies. By employing a tariff war against all nations — who collectively account for 74% of global GDP—the US risks isolating itself in a world where China’s economic influence continues to grow. This miscalculation could ultimately undermine Washington’s ability to rally international support against Beijing.

On Wednesday, it looked like Trump temporarily backed down after significant external pressures and now appears to be trying to isolate China. If the rest of the world is smart, they won’t let Trump put the toothpaste back in the bottle and successfully isolate them. All other countries need China not only for its capabilities and what it currently produces but also to offset this reckless use of power by the US.

Who will win the tariff poker game and not just the first few hands?