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

Following the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries around the world should have joined forces to overcome common challenges and worked together to restore global economic growth. Yet reality has fallen short of this expectation. According to UNCTAD's Trade and Development Report 2025, the global economy is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 2.7% during 2023-2026, below the 3.0% average recorded between 2011 and 2019, the pre-pandemic period. This slowdown stems from a complex interplay of factors, among which the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the conflict in the Middle East, and the uncertainty surrounding the US trade policy have had particularly significant adverse effects. The repercussions of the United States' imposition of high tariffs and non-tariff restrictions on its trading partners are still unfolding. Nowadays, the European Union has also begun introducing a series of economic and trade protection policies in close step with the United States. Whether Europe will ultimately embark on the path of American-style protectionism is a matter of growing concern.

At present, the United States' abuse of protectionist trade policies remains largely unchecked. In 2025, the new administration of the US once again attributed domestic challenges — including employment difficulties and manufacturing decline — primarily to the so-called "trade imbalances". Disregarding the WTO's fundamental principle of non-discrimination, US President Donald Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, beyond the authority granted under US law, to impose the so-called "reciprocal tariffs" unilaterally on nearly all trading partners. At the same time, the administration further strengthened industrial subsidies and trade remedy measures. Although these tariff increases may have helped narrow the US trade deficit, they have failed to address the country's deep-rooted structural problems. According to data released by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis in July 2026, total US merchandise trade reached approximately $2.53 trillion during the first five months of 2026, an increase of 3.3% year on year, while the merchandise trade deficit declined to $440.3 billion, down 30.8% (or $195.6 billion) from the same period a year earlier. However, these protectionist measures have artificially raised the cost of international trade, disrupted global industrial and supply chains, and ultimately reduced the efficiency of global resource allocation. Although the US Supreme Court ruled in February 2026 that tariffs imposed under the IEEPA were unconstitutional, the US government quickly shifted to other legal instruments, including the Trade Act of 1974, to continue wielding the tariff weapon. In essence, the US trade policy has changed only in terms of the legal instruments employed, not in the substance of its tariff barriers. 

American-style protectionism is characterized by placing domestic law above international law, cloaking double standards under the banner of "fair trade," and abusing protectionist measures whenever they serve the US interests. What is deemed "fair" depends solely on whether it benefits the United States. Ultimately, the objective is to reshape international trade rules in ways that overwhelmingly favor the US interests.

Today, the European Union appears increasingly inclined to follow the US approach. Guided by a stronger emphasis on self-interest, it has introduced a succession of trade and industrial protection measures. In recent years, the EU's protectionist policies have become increasingly comprehensive, systematic, and targeted, exhibiting many of the characteristics of American-style protectionism. For example, following the full implementation of the International Procurement Instrument in August 2022 and the Foreign Subsidies Regulation in July 2023, the EU has been involved in a number of cases in which these instruments were used to target foreign enterprises unjustifiably. The Critical Raw Materials Act, which entered into force in May 2024, the Net-Zero Industry Act, effective from June 2024, and the proposed Industrial Accelerator Act all require, through green subsidies and public procurement rules, greater preference for products manufactured in Europe and higher levels of local content. On January 1, 2026, the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism entered its charging phase, imposing carbon-based levies on imports of steel, aluminum, cement, and other carbon-intensive products, thereby creating what many regard as a "green trade barrier". Beginning in July 2026, the EU also abolished the duty-free exemption for low-value parcels and introduced a fixed customs charge of three euros per imported package, placing additional constraints on cross-border e-commerce.

To be sure, the EU's decision-making process differs significantly from that of the United States. Nevertheless, both are fundamentally strengthening industrial protection. As one of the world's major economic powers, the euro area continues to face structural tensions arising from the mismatch between monetary and fiscal policies. Within the EU, opinions remain divided over whether Europe should pursue greater strategic autonomy or continue to align closely with the US policy. Voices opposing American-style protectionism have likewise become increasingly prominent. When international trade rules are shaped by dominant market powers, a fundamental question arises: Will the very definition of fair competition be rewritten? Against this backdrop, all economies should strengthen solidarity and strategic dialogue on trade and economic cooperation, reject narrow self-interest and protectionist tendencies, and strive for an upward equilibrium — one that expands the global economic pie by making fuller use of global resources and improving their efficient allocation — rather than a downward equilibrium, which merely shrinks the pie by relying on local resources and improving efficiency only within limited jurisdictions. All economies should embrace a sound understanding of fair trade that seeks both "fair free trade" and "free fair trade," uphold genuine multilateralism, and work together to advance international trade civilization and human society along the right path.