Examining the Effect of Trump’s Weaponized Tariffs

President Donald Trump signs an Executive Order on the Administration’s tariff plans at a “Make America Wealthy Again” event, Wednesday, April 2, 2025, in the White House Rose Garden. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Tariffs–a tax that a country levies on foreign goods imported into the country–have been a part of United States history since 1789 with the Tariff Act. Tariffs returned to modern headlines when U.S. President Donald Trump made day-one promises to increase tariffs on many trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, China, and the EU.

Historically, tariffs have served as a source of revenue for governments and have tended to support developing domestic industries. The Trump administration has developed a pattern of using tariffs as a political end rather than these typical routes. China and Denmark have borne the brunt of these weaponized tariffs, with major economic consequences for the countries involved and global economic dynamics.

Trump began his trade war with China on February 4, 2025, when sweeping 10% tariffs went into effect after being announced on February 1. China quickly responded with same-day reciprocal tariffs, and the two powerhouse countries began their back-and-forth of increasing tariffs upon one another across many industries. This trade war has drawn significant attention due to its volatility.

Over the past year, the President has announced additional tariffs, reaching a high of 145% on April 9, 2025, and temporary reductions that returned tariffs to their baseline of 10% on November 10.

According to the White House, trade agreements over semiconductors, fentanyl, and agriculture drove these numbers back to the baseline. In the case of fentanyl discussions, Trump has weaponized tariffs by putting economic pressure on China in order to achieve a political outcome; this practice strays from the norm of using tariffs as an economic, rather than political, tool.

The implications of U.S.-China economic tensions are immense, with projected supply chain disruptions, higher production costs, and a changing global geopolitical equilibrium. These tariffs will likely be borne by consumers and citizens in the form of higher prices or lower wages as firms make up for lost profits.

The use of tariffs as a geopolitical tool has also appeared in negotiations between Trump and other countries. In late January of 2026, Trump vowed to impose sweeping tariffs on all European countries that were not compliant with his plan to seize Greenland as a U.S. territory from Denmark. Tariffs have been Trump’s main source of pressure, as military force appears to be off-the-table, while attempting to purchase the territory–a clear example of the weaponization of tariffs.

Trump’s plans have rekindled international tensions between the U.S. and the European Union, which had led to a previous trade agreement in July of 2025. The deal stated that the EU would reduce U.S. agricultural tariffs to near zero, while the U.S. would lower the majority of EU tariffs to a 15% rate. This agreement is an example of the EU’s initial strategy to appease Trump.

A possible route for the EU, proposed by France, is to use the anti-coercion instrument if Trump follows through with his plan — a policy that has never been implemented. The ACI would prevent American corporations from accessing the entire European market and partially discontinue intellectual property rights protections.

A grandiose measure of this kind takes time to implement and could backfire, further damaging the transatlantic relationship. However, these drawbacks are being increasingly considered in defense of Greenland’s autonomy and Denmark’s sovereignty.

Another proposed solution is the EU’s own reciprocal tariffs on the U.S. The $108 billion package was proposed to go into effect on February 7, 2026. 17 days before this deadline, President Trump announced that he would not impose the tariffs on the countries supporting Greenland. In turn, the EU froze the package until a later date.

The pattern of the Trump administration's use of tariffs as a political tool rather than an economic one is a form of weaponization. China and the EU, in their relationship with Greenland, have been among the many targets. These trade wars have changed the international political climate and affected the economic stability of the involved countries. Due to rising prices and the difficulty of planning future purchases, consumers and corporations in the U.S. — as well as in other countries — bear the ultimate burden of tariffs.