Why Trump's tariff tantrums will fail: Lessons from primate politics

Editor's note: April 2 is a pivotal date in U.S. President Donald Trump's eyes, as he shakes the world with sweeping tariffs, claiming to make America "great again." Why has this president repeatedly confused the world with his harsh measures, which are not often seen among other politicians? What potentially revelatory parallel can be drawn between primate politics and modern trade warfare? CGTN's Yang Yan applies animal behavior theory to decode the political zoology of Trump's tariff policies. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

In the animal kingdom, alpha males rule in different ways. Some, like chimpanzee leaders, build coalitions through grooming and food-sharing, fostering long-term stability. Others, like despotic baboons, maintain control through intimidation and brute force, often sowing division and conflict. The difference? One style sustains the troop, while the other breeds chaos.

U.S. President Donald Trump's trade wars have so far followed the baboon playbook – with eerily similar consequences. His tariffs, rather than securing American economic dominance, have created disorder, weakened the global trading system and alienated allies.

In contrast, past U.S. presidents, particularly Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, pursued a multilateral approach to trade and recognized the importance of economic interdependence with trading partners. This helped strengthen global economic integration and secure America's long-term influence.

The chaotic consequences of Trump's approach demonstrate a universal truth: Whether in nature or international affairs, stable leadership requires mutual respect and shared benefits rather than coercion. Sustained strength comes not from chest-beating but from cooperation.

The alpha who ate the global trading system

Trump's "America First" approach to trade isn't just a series of protectionist measures – it's a display of dominance straight out of primate politics:

a) Chest-beating with steel – Trump's 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum imports were intended to intimidate trading partners, but swift and substantial retaliatory measures from key allies undermined the objectives of his aggressive trade policies, exposing their drawbacks. During Trump's first term, escalating trade tensions prompted China to slash U.S. soybean imports by 75 percent, forcing Washington to issue nearly $30 billion in farm bailouts – an unintended consequence of his own tariff strategy.

b) Breaking the troop's rules – Trump paralyzed the World Trade Organization's (WTO) dispute settlement system in 2019, violating what primatologists call a "social contract." The WTO warned in 2023 that a surge of unilateral measures, if unchecked, would fragment the world economy, stripping 5 percent of global income.

c) Resource hoarding – Trump's "Buy American" policies during his first term, aimed at monopolizing supply chains, mimicked chimpanzees guarding fruit trees. But rather than strengthening manufacturing, the trade war cost nearly 300,000 American jobs and an estimated 0.3 percent of real GDP due to disrupted supply chains, according to a September 2019 study by Moody's Analytics.

The result? A staggering decline of hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. exports, stock market volatility, and a more technologically independent China that enhanced its domestic capabilities. In seeking to dominate, Trump undermined America's own influence and economic power.

Reagan's secret: The primate statesman

Compare Trump's aggression to Ronald Reagan's approach – less tantrum-throwing baboon, wiser silverback.

In his 1982 radio address on international free trade, Reagan affirmed his belief that free trade drives economic progress. He expressed pride in America's leadership after WWII in shaping a global trading system that limited government interference in cross-border trade. Reagan understood that strengthening economic alliances, rather than antagonizing partners, was the key to U.S. global leadership. His strategy rested on three pillars:

a) Sharing the bananas – While addressing concerns about market access and alleged dumping of Japanese chips, Reagan's administration tolerated trade deficits with Japan, recognizing that allowing tech imports would boost U.S. semiconductor innovation. Rather than viewing trade as a zero-sum battle, he saw it as a strategic investment in long-term competitiveness.

b) Strengthened troop bonds – Rather than threatening allies with tariffs to create leverage, Reagan negotiated trade agreements based on long-term mutual benefit. This laid the groundwork for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which fundamentally reshaped North American economic relations and deepened U.S.-Canada ties.

c) Respected the elders – Unlike Trump, who weakened global trade institutions, Reagan worked within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) system and used its dispute resolution mechanisms to address trade conflicts.

While the global environment is starkly different today, the comparative trends are undeniable. Under Reagan, the U.S. created 16 million new jobs, experienced a technological boom, and solidified its position as the world's economic leader. By contrast, Trump's erratic policies have cost the U.S. nearly $5 trillion in market losses since mid-February and have driven allies towards trade deals with China and the EU, leaving the U.S. more isolated in the long term.

The 'Law of the Jungle' legacy

Alexander Wendt, a leading constructivist political scientist, once said, "Anarchy is what states make of it." Trump made a Hobbesian jungle:

a) He turned trade negotiations into dominance battles, making win-win cooperation nearly impossible.

b) His decoupling push inadvertently reinforced China's long-standing commitment to technological self-reliance, accelerating indigenous innovation.

c) He left the global economy weakened, with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development revising global growth forecasts downward amid his trade wars.

The lesson? Whether governing primates or nations, leaders who mistake bullying for strength eventually end up alone, wounded, and watching their coalition dissolve.

Moral authority vs. primate instincts

Trump's chaotic approach highlights a deeper question: What truly distinguishes human leadership from animal hierarchy? Aristotle and Kant both believed that humans are unique not just because of intelligence, but because of moral autonomy – our ability to make reasoned, ethical choices. While animals act on instinct, human societies thrive on rules, cooperation and shared norms.

Trump's tariffs ignore this fundamental truth. They treat international relations as a simplistic zero-sum survival game, rather than a complex system governed by rules and cooperation.

Beyond power and utopia: The constructivist perspective

This brings us to a broader debate in international relations. Classical realism argues that world politics is an unchanging struggle for power. Liberalism envisions a world of harmony driven by trade and cooperation. But constructivism tells a more compelling story:

a) Global politics is not static – it is shaped by the choices and norms that states adopt.
b) Power is not just material – it is built through relationships, institutions and perceptions.
c) Anarchy is not inevitable – it is what states make of it.

Realism sees the world as perpetually doomed to conflict. Liberalism dreams of effortless cooperation. But constructivism offers something more practical: an understanding that global rules aren't written in stone – they are rewritten daily by the choices we make. That's not just an observation. It's an invitation. If international politics is a social construct, then we are not merely its subjects – we are its authors. The question is: what kind of system do we want to build?

The next American alpha: A smarter playbook

Trump's tariffs aren't just economically destabilizing – they are a failure of leadership.

a) Trade isn't a zero-sum game – Strength comes from cooperation, not trade wars.
b) Trading partners aren't subordinates – Economic leadership means building consensus, not coercing partners.
c) Global rules matter – The U.S. should work with other countries and the international community to strengthen international institutions, not break them.

If America wants to retain its global economic influence, it must ditch the baboon playbook and embrace the strategies of a true silverback statesman – one who understands that real power is in knowing which rules to enforce and when to share the bananas.

(Cover: VCG)