I'm not sure it's possible to know what the intent is behind the US administration's tariffs. The administration itself comes with new justifications regularly: raise money, rebuild US manufacturing, bring back jobs, negotiations, start a conversation etc etc.
However, I think the biggest impact is not the cost the tariffs are imposing on Americans. Instead, it's that this signals in emphatic terms that any agreement the US has made with others - even during the last Trump presidency - is now null and void. In dealing with the US there is no longer a rules based order. Old, current and presumably new agreements will be at best transitory. Uncertainty is now chronic and endemic.
Of course, in business and diplomatic dealings with China, uncertainty has also become chronic and endemic. The two great powers are now alike.
Given all that, and noting Danny's thoughts, maybe our thinking about strategies to use might be informed by assuming we now live in an era of Level 4 uncertainty. Prediction is impossible. Erratic actions are now the norm. If so, maybe this is useful: https://hbr.org/1997/11/strategy-under-uncertainty
At first glance, it might seem like President Trump’s approach is all gyration—but it’s really about pushing out a bold demand and then negotiating it back. That’s not unusual. In fact, it mirrors how negotiation works in many parts of the world. In an open-air market in Asia or the Grand Bazaar, it’s understood that you start by doubling or even tripling the price—then work your way down. That’s the dance.
In the U.S., we’re used to fixed prices. We walk into stores, see a tag, and pay it. Even when we negotiate for a house, the culture is more restrained—you might offer a bit below asking, but go too low and it’s seen as an insult.
But tariffs? That’s a different arena entirely. It’s more like the open-air market model: bold opening, clear intent, then serious talk. We’re simply not used to that at the geopolitical level, so it feels jarring. But for better or worse, it’s a form of negotiation that, culturally, much of the world already understands—and responds to.
No one came to the table when Trump was just talking. They only came when the tariffs hit. That’s human nature. I wish we lived in a world where people met halfway without pressure, but more often than not, people need to feel something before they move. So we just have to read the room here.
What looks like bullying from the outside may actually be the only language some actors respond to. It’s not about domination—it’s about being taken seriously in a world where too much deference can be read as weakness.
It is sad—tariffs affect real lives, and people feel the pain long before the political goals are clear. But on the other hand, we also have to understand the logic behind the strategy. When President Trump announces something like a 25% tariff, it sounds severe. But take Nike, for example: if a shoe costs them $10 to make and they sell it for $100, then a 25% tariff on production cost adds just $2.50.
In many cases, companies like Nike absorb that cost—at least initially—because the margin allows it. So while the rhetoric is loud, the real impact is often more measured than people fear. It’s a tough balancing act: projecting strength on the global stage while trying to shield everyday people from fallout.
I don’t love that this is the arena we’re in either—but I think Trump’s strategy is less about aggression and more about moving the negotiation forward. Danny, I always value how you frame these global shifts, and I hope this adds another layer to the conversation you’re opening up.
I'm not sure it's possible to know what the intent is behind the US administration's tariffs. The administration itself comes with new justifications regularly: raise money, rebuild US manufacturing, bring back jobs, negotiations, start a conversation etc etc.
However, I think the biggest impact is not the cost the tariffs are imposing on Americans. Instead, it's that this signals in emphatic terms that any agreement the US has made with others - even during the last Trump presidency - is now null and void. In dealing with the US there is no longer a rules based order. Old, current and presumably new agreements will be at best transitory. Uncertainty is now chronic and endemic.
Of course, in business and diplomatic dealings with China, uncertainty has also become chronic and endemic. The two great powers are now alike.
Given all that, and noting Danny's thoughts, maybe our thinking about strategies to use might be informed by assuming we now live in an era of Level 4 uncertainty. Prediction is impossible. Erratic actions are now the norm. If so, maybe this is useful: https://hbr.org/1997/11/strategy-under-uncertainty
At first glance, it might seem like President Trump’s approach is all gyration—but it’s really about pushing out a bold demand and then negotiating it back. That’s not unusual. In fact, it mirrors how negotiation works in many parts of the world. In an open-air market in Asia or the Grand Bazaar, it’s understood that you start by doubling or even tripling the price—then work your way down. That’s the dance.
In the U.S., we’re used to fixed prices. We walk into stores, see a tag, and pay it. Even when we negotiate for a house, the culture is more restrained—you might offer a bit below asking, but go too low and it’s seen as an insult.
But tariffs? That’s a different arena entirely. It’s more like the open-air market model: bold opening, clear intent, then serious talk. We’re simply not used to that at the geopolitical level, so it feels jarring. But for better or worse, it’s a form of negotiation that, culturally, much of the world already understands—and responds to.
No one came to the table when Trump was just talking. They only came when the tariffs hit. That’s human nature. I wish we lived in a world where people met halfway without pressure, but more often than not, people need to feel something before they move. So we just have to read the room here.
What looks like bullying from the outside may actually be the only language some actors respond to. It’s not about domination—it’s about being taken seriously in a world where too much deference can be read as weakness.
It is sad—tariffs affect real lives, and people feel the pain long before the political goals are clear. But on the other hand, we also have to understand the logic behind the strategy. When President Trump announces something like a 25% tariff, it sounds severe. But take Nike, for example: if a shoe costs them $10 to make and they sell it for $100, then a 25% tariff on production cost adds just $2.50.
In many cases, companies like Nike absorb that cost—at least initially—because the margin allows it. So while the rhetoric is loud, the real impact is often more measured than people fear. It’s a tough balancing act: projecting strength on the global stage while trying to shield everyday people from fallout.
I don’t love that this is the arena we’re in either—but I think Trump’s strategy is less about aggression and more about moving the negotiation forward. Danny, I always value how you frame these global shifts, and I hope this adds another layer to the conversation you’re opening up.