Expanded Analysis: Trump’s Tariff Strategy and the Stockholm Syndrome Analogy

Trump’s Tariff Strategy: A Rollercoaster of Threats and Reversals

Donald Trump’s approach to international trade during his presidency (2017-2021) and his recent actions in 2025, as implied by your prompt, have been marked by a pattern of aggressive tariff threats, implementation, withdrawals, and reimpositions. This creates a cycle of uncertainty for global economies:

• Initial Threats and Imposition: Trump has frequently used tariffs as a tool to pressure countries into trade concessions, often citing national security or economic fairness. For instance:
  • In 2018, he imposed a 25% tariff on steel and 10% on aluminum imports from multiple countries, including allies like Canada and the EU, under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.
  • In 2025, as per your prompt, he slaps retaliatory tariffs on dozens of countries, signaling a return to this hardline stance.
• Withdrawals and Relief: Trump has also shown a tendency to back off after negotiations or domestic pushback. For example:
  • In 2019, he lifted the steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada and Mexico to facilitate the USMCA (NAFTA’s replacement).
  • In your scenario, Canada is “spared the worst” of the new tariffs, suggesting a partial or temporary reprieve.
• Reimposition and Uncertainty: The reintroduction of tariffs, as you describe with Trump adding them “back again,” keeps countries on edge. This mirrors:
  • His 2020 threat to reimpose tariffs on Canada if it didn’t increase dairy market access, a threat he later acted on in 2025 with new tariffs on Canadian goods like softwood lumber (hypothetically, based on historical patterns).

This erratic pattern—threaten, impose, withdraw, reimpose—creates a global economic environment where countries are constantly reacting to Trump’s whims, unsure of whether they’ll be targeted or spared next.

The Psychological Impact on Countries: A Stockholm Syndrome Parallel

Stockholm Syndrome refers to a psychological phenomenon where hostages develop a bond with their captors, often feeling gratitude for small acts of mercy amidst abuse. In the context of Trump’s tariff strategy, countries subject to his trade policies exhibit similar dynamics:

• Fear and Powerlessness: Trump’s threats to “the whole world” position him as a dominant, unpredictable force. Smaller economies, like those in the Global South, or even mid-sized powers like South Korea, feel powerless against the U.S., the world’s largest economy.
  • For example, a 25% tariff on imports can devastate export-dependent nations, raising costs for their goods and risking economic downturns.
• Relief and Gratitude for Small Mercies: When Trump spares a country or lowers tariffs, as with Canada in your scenario, the affected nation feels a sense of relief and even gratitude.
  • Canada, spared “the worst” of the 2025 tariffs, might feel “lucky” compared to countries like China or the EU, which face steeper duties.
  • This mirrors how a Stockholm Syndrome victim might feel grateful when a captor spares them from harsher treatment, even though the captor created the threat in the first place.
• Dependency and Adaptation: Over time, countries adapt to Trump’s volatility by aligning their policies to avoid his wrath.
  • For instance, Japan and South Korea negotiated trade deals in 2019 to avoid auto tariffs, effectively “appeasing” Trump.
  • This dependency on his goodwill fosters a psychological bond where nations feel they must please him to survive economically, much like a hostage seeking favor from a captor.

Economic and Political Ramifications

The tariff rollercoaster has tangible effects that reinforce the Stockholm Syndrome analogy:

• Economic Instability: Countries facing tariffs experience immediate economic strain.
  • For example, a 2025 tariff of 20% on EU goods (hypothetical) could raise prices for U.S. consumers, disrupt supply chains, and hurt EU exporters.
  • When Trump withdraws tariffs, the relief is palpable, but the reimposition creates a cycle of boom-and-bust uncertainty, making long-term planning difficult.
• Political Posturing: Leaders of affected countries often publicly criticize Trump but privately seek to curry favor.
  • For instance, Canada’s Justin Trudeau might publicly decry Trump’s tariffs as unfair but quietly negotiate exemptions, as seen in the USMCA talks.
  • This duality reflects a Stockholm-like dynamic: outward resistance paired with inward submission.
• Global Perception of the U.S.: Trump’s strategy erodes trust in the U.S. as a reliable trade partner.
  • Allies like Canada, despite being spared the worst, remain wary of future threats, fostering a love-hate relationship where they’re grateful for leniency but resentful of the coercion.

Case Study: Canada’s “Lucky” Position

Canada’s experience in 2025, as you noted, exemplifies the Stockholm Syndrome analogy. Spared the worst of Trump’s tariffs, Canada might feel fortunate compared to, say, China, which could face a 50% tariff on tech exports (hypothetical, based on Trump’s past targeting of China). Yet, this leniency comes after years of trade tension:

• In 2018, Canada faced steel and aluminum tariffs, leading to retaliatory duties on U.S. goods like whiskey and maple syrup.
• The 2019 USMCA negotiations saw Canada concede more dairy market access to avoid further tariffs, a move some Canadian analysts called a “capitulation.”
• In 2025, being spared the worst tariffs might lead Canadian leaders to feel a mix of relief and gratitude, even as they brace for future threats—mirroring how a Stockholm Syndrome victim might feel relief when a captor withholds punishment.

Broader Implications: A Global Stockholm Syndrome

This dynamic extends beyond Canada to the global stage:

• Smaller Economies: Countries like Vietnam or Mexico, heavily reliant on U.S. trade, might feel especially “lucky” when tariffs are lowered, even if they remain high.
  • For instance, a 10% tariff on Mexican auto parts (down from 25%) might be seen as a win, despite the underlying coercion.
• Allies vs. Adversaries: Trump’s strategy often spares allies (like Canada) while targeting perceived adversaries (like China), creating a divide where allies feel grateful for their “special treatment,” further entrenching the psychological bond.
• Long-Term Effects: Over time, this cycle could normalize Trump’s behavior, with countries accepting tariffs as a fact of life and praising him for any leniency.
  • This mirrors how Stockholm Syndrome victims eventually empathize with their captors, seeing their actions as justified.

Critical Perspective: Is It Truly Stockholm Syndrome?

While the analogy is compelling, there are nuances to consider:

• Rational Self-Interest: Countries feeling “lucky” might not be experiencing a psychological bond but rather acting out of pragmatic self-interest.
  • Canada’s relief at lower tariffs could simply reflect economic necessity, not emotional attachment to Trump.
• Power Dynamics: Unlike a hostage situation, nations have agency to retaliate (e.g., EU tariffs on U.S. goods in 2018).
  • However, the U.S.’s economic dominance limits this agency, creating an imbalance akin to a captor-hostage relationship.
• Global Resistance: Some countries, like China, have resisted Trump’s tariffs through trade diversification (e.g., boosting trade with ASEAN nations).
  • This defiance challenges the Stockholm Syndrome analogy, though smaller nations may lack such leverage.

Conclusion

Trump’s tariff strategy—threatening the world, imposing tariffs, withdrawing, and reimposing them—creates a cycle of fear, relief, and dependency that mirrors Stockholm Syndrome on a global scale. Countries like Canada, spared the worst in 2025, feel “lucky” despite the underlying coercion, much like a hostage grateful for a captor’s mercy. This dynamic reshapes international trade, fostering a psychological bond where nations adapt to Trump’s volatility, seeking his favor to avoid economic harm. However, the analogy isn’t perfect; nations retain some agency, and their “gratitude” may stem from pragmatism rather than emotional attachment. Still, the comparison highlights the profound impact of Trump’s unpredictable trade policies on global psychology and economics.

Would you like to explore a specific country’s experience or dive deeper into the economic data behind these tariffs?