Editor's note: Tang Jie is a researcher at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation under the Chinese Ministry of Commerce. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 established a multilateral order based on the "rules first" principle and this was originally dominated by the US. However, the US itself is now undermining its foundations by pursuing unilateralism and hegemonism, interfering with the normal functioning of international affairs and undermining multilateral cooperation. The US imposes its tariff policies on other countries, essentially leveraging the hegemony of the dollar and its economic dominance to exercise hegemonic power over other countries. Unilateralism and hegemonic power not only fail to achieve the so-called "America First" goal, but instead force a fundamental restructuring of the global economic and trade landscape, putting the US at risk of marginalization from the global economic system.

Trump's steep tariff policy triggers widespread dissatisfaction and countermeasures

The bargaining over tariffs between the US and other countries is shaping a new economic system characterized by protectionism, tension and trade-offs. This system ignores the essence of division of labor and cooperation among countries in international trade and supply chains. The resulting high uncertainty and instability have caused panic in all aspects of the stock market, foreign exchange market, bond market, etc., further aggravating disorder and inefficiency in the international supply chain.

The US's wanton wielding of the "tariff stick" has triggered widespread dissatisfaction and countermeasures. Many countries, including its allies, have launched a wave of boycotts on American products. Many countries have filed lawsuits through the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, accusing the US of violating international trade rules, such as most-favored-nation treatment and tariff binding obligations.

A global shift away from the United States is emerging

In theory, imposing tariffs would reduce US import demand and push up the dollar. However, the dollar's weakness against other major currencies suggests that imposing tariffs is "a serious act of self-harm," with a greater impact on the US economy than direct impact on others. Although some countries have reached unequal agreements with the US under pressure, this will not alleviate their losing trade position with the US. On the contrary, they may lose the autonomy and the development right of their industrial supply chains on top of losing trade benefits.

Japanese media Mainichi Shimbun published an article titled "US Tariffs Shake the World, More Countries Will Leave the US" and pointed out that the US currently holds a limited share of global trade, and many countries are expected to find new markets, resulting in a "global move away from the US." Spanish publication El País pointed out that the tariff war provoked by the US is giving rise to new alliances. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also stated that Europe has reached agreements with 76 countries, and the trade facilitation network is still expanding.

As mentioned above, many economies are turning to each other while tentatively reaching agreements with the US to weather the immediate trade crisis, signing deals to dilute US leverage (e.g. EU-Mercosur, RCEP). At the same time, agreements like those reached between the EU and the US usually include major economic concessions, such as mandatory energy purchases or investment commitments, which means that the US actually has very strong demands on other countries. Therefore, we can consider the US to be negotiable (negotiations are flexible) because what they are actually targeting are the benefits of these concessions rather than just the tariffs themselves.

Trading partners prefer engaging with more reliable, rule-based blocs and nations

Moreover, global manufacturers are shifting sourcing away from the US, while affected countries are seeking alternative markets and trade partners. Over time, when economic relations with the US are riddled with friction, yet other countries maintain robust economic ties among themselves, several strategic consequences are set to unfold. Trade partners may prefer dealing with more reliable, rules-based blocs such as EU, ASEAN or BRICS (Mexico has applied to join the BRICS), pushing the US to the periphery.

Suppliers may bypass US firms entirely in sourcing decisions, reducing US input in manufacturing ecosystems and even directly excluding US from global value chains. As trade partners retaliate or redirect commerce, the size and dynamism of the US market contracts relative to other blocs. Countries that negotiate bilateral deals or join multilateral blocs gain counter-leverage, sidelining US unilateralism and diminishing its power. The US has withdrawn from multiple international organizations. Without participation, the US loses access to rule-shaping institutions and future supply/technology standards development.

The global reactions – retaliatory tariffs, boycotts and alternative trade partnerships – reflect deep dissatisfaction and diminishing trust in the US as a stable trade partner. If the US remains persistently combative while others sustain open economies, its market becomes isolated, its supply‑chain presence weakens, and its influence over global value chains declines. Trade, once the engine of US economic leadership, now risks becoming a kind of burden.

(Cover via VCG)