A conversation of the deaf after Trump’s tariffs

They don’t get it. As Donald Trump embarks on his project to restructure the global trade order, many countries are proceeding with business as usual. They recognize the challenge that the 47th U.S. president presents, but they’re responding with the language and logic of a bygone era. They’re talking past each other.

In recent conversations in Phnom Penh, for example, before Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement of tariffs on all U.S. imports, Cambodian participants in a U.S.-Cambodia dialogue on strategic concerns made the case for continued engagement with the U.S. in traditional terms. After all, the U.S. is the country’s No. 1 trade partner; its nearly $12.7 billion in imports from Cambodia in 2024 was more than three times that of Vietnam, the number two destination ($3.6 billion).

Cambodians cheered a global economic system premised on free trade and ever greater market access that promoted “win-win” solutions for all participants.

Yet for the current U.S. administration, those are not guiding principles for trade policy, nor do they have much appeal. Even under former President Joe Biden, the U.S. had abandoned many of the key tenets that had girded Washington’s approach to international economic engagement. Using those arguments not only betrays ignorance of the changes in thinking that are under way, but also risks antagonizing Washington. At best, it demonstrates to U.S. policy makers that these governments don’t get it.

Instead of celebrating rising prosperity and the public goods that the U.S. has traditionally provided, countries that want to engage with the Trump administration must demonstrate their value to the U.S. — forget this so-called win-win stuff. They must make the case to Washington why they are good partners and how they help the U.S. Nothing else much matters.

This isn’t a uniquely Cambodian problem. Most of Washington’s allies and partners use this vocabulary and logic. Typical is the response of Lawrence Wong, Singapore’s prime minister, to Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs: He urged the world instead to “double down on integration, on win-win solutions.” The great majority of developing nations also think this way.

(Trump likes win-win too, but his win-win scenario is different from those of his trade partners. For him, it means that manufacturing jobs return to the United States while the tariffs generate trillions of dollars in new revenue.)

I don’t think Trump and his team get it either. They insist that tariffs are leverage that will force other countries to dismantle trade barriers. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argued Sunday that the tariffs gave Trump “maximum leverage,” and claimed that more than 50 nations had begun negotiations with the U.S. since they were announced. (Leave aside the inconsistency of administration claims that the tariffs are both leverage to prompt policy shifts in other governments — implying that they are temporary and will be lifted when trade partners make a deal — and permanent mechanisms to raise funds and restructure the U.S. tax system.)

Some governments will rush to strike a deal. Reportedly, Vietnam is among them. Many others know that bending to Trump on tariffs will only encourage more coercive behavior by the U.S. or other similarly situated governments. Nor can they be certain that any deal struck with this administration will be honored. Governments in Mexico City, Ottawa and Seoul have first-hand experience with the durability and credibility of Trump’s promises, having negotiated trade deals with his first administration that have since been torn up.

Bessent’s plea that other governments not panic or retaliate is being ignored by key trade partners. China has imposed 34% tariffs on all U.S. imports, launched several probes of U.S. companies operating in China for anti-competitive behavior and threatened exports of rare earth elements. Ursula von der Leyen, head of the European Commission, called the tariffs “a major blow to the world economy” that had “dire” consequences for millions of people. She added that the EU would respond; trade ministers met Monday to decide on a course of action. Retaliatory tariffs are expected next week.

Those governments are also likely to restructure their trade relationships to diminish the ability of the U.S. to inflict that pain or impose its will. David Santoro, my colleague and president of the Hawaii-based Pacific Forum think tank, warns that some governments “may very well decide that the U.S. is too crazy to engage. They will likely never completely disengage because the U.S. is too big to ignore, but in effect they will distance themselves from the U.S.” Ultimately, he expects “a renaissance of strategic autonomy as many countries will just watch out for themselves.”

Many governments will emulate Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who warned that Trump’s tariffs oblige his country to “fundamentally reimagine our economy.” He explained that Canada needs to build an economy Canadians can control, and that includes rethinking its trade relationship with other countries as Ottawa searches for “reliable” partners.

China will be the beneficiary of this. Beijing has been making the case that it protects the global order and the U.S. is the great disruptor. A spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry explained Monday that, “The latest U.S. tariff hikes will essentially deprive countries of their right to development. This is particularly the case for Global South countries. It is estimated that those tariffs will further widen the wealth gap and hit the less developed countries hardest.”

Supreme leader Xi Jinping has accused some countries — without naming them — of “weaponizing” trade and “forcing companies to take sides and make choices that go against economic principles.” As a result, “We must jointly maintain the multilateral trading system, jointly maintain the stability of the global industrial chain,” he said. Last month, He Lifeng, one of the country's vice premiers, urged the EU to work with China to “jointly resist unilateralism and protectionism to protect the multilateral trading system.”

Also in March, Foreign Minister Wang Yi touted China as “the center of stability in Asia, an engine of economic development.” Warning against unilateralism that would result in the law of the jungle, he countered that China advocates “open regionalism and sharing Asia’s development opportunities on the basis of mutual respect, mutual benefit and win-win results.”

It is either great luck or real strategy that Xi is reportedly set to visit Vietnam, Cambodia and Malaysia soon, countries that Trump hit with duties of 46%, 49% and 24%, respectively. During those meetings, Xi will certainly argue that China is defending an economic order under assault by the U.S.

While there are real questions about the sincerity of those positions, the language is music to the ears of governments struggling to develop. What they likely don’t or refuse to recognize is that the alignment of rhetoric fuels charges that they are parroting Beijing's talking points, an accusation that diminishes their standing in Washington’s eyes.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is increasingly tone deaf. The damage being done occurs as attitudes in Southeast Asia appear to be shifting in Washington’s favor. In the most recent survey by the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, an annual authoritative look at elite opinion in the region, views of China have become increasingly skeptical.

In the 2025 poll, taken during a monthlong period that straddles Trump’s inauguration, more than half of respondents (51.6%) rank aggressive behavior in the South China Sea as their top geopolitical concern. (Climate change and extreme weather are the top challenges at 55.3%). China is considered the most influential economic power (56.4%) and political-strategic power (37.9%) in the region — in both cases still well ahead of the U.S. — but those numbers mark an overall decline. There is, write the authors of the analysis, more concern about China’s strategic influence than acceptance.

Significantly, the U.S. has overtaken China to become the prevailing choice (52.3%) if Southeast Asia were forced to choose between the two. Support for China fell from 50.5% to 47.7%. Given that trajectory, Trump’s tariffs are the equivalent of the U.S. shooting itself in the foot, knee and thigh.

Japan shines in comparison. This country remains the most trusted major power in the region, with 66.8% of respondents expressing support for it, up from 58.9% last year. Adroit and aggressive leadership in Tokyo could exploit that position to build a coalition to back a rules-based regional and global economic order, boosting its own standing in the process. That will take more than the “polite phone call and a request” to the U.S. that The Japan Times identified as the Tokyo government’s response to Liberation Day in Monday’s paper. They don’t seem to get it either.