So, I guess the real reason behind Trump’s tariffs have been pretty obvious all along.
I remember thinking when they were first being discussed that on their face - they made no sense. When it comes to bringing back manufacturing to the US - the final result from imposing tariffs is the same - either way - higher prices.
I even think I wrote something about Trump using this strategy as a bargaining chip - but not to help Americans - it had to be something else. But what?
Well, let’s rewind to 2018, when Trump kicked off his so-called trade war. Steel and aluminum tariffs were introduced under the pretense of saving American manufacturing.
Germany got hit with 25 percent tariffs on steel and 10 percent on aluminum. Poland too. And both countries opened their wallets - though Germany’s came years later: in March 2025 it approved a trillion-euro package, €500 billion for infrastructure plus looser borrowing limits for defense, and its new chancellor pointed to Russia, not tariffs. Poland signed billions in deals for American-made military gear. Patriot missiles. HIMARS rocket launchers. F-35 jets. That wasn’t a coincidence. That was the business model.
Fast forward to today - and the scam has gone full throttle.
This past April, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act - IEEPA - and declared a national emergency based on trade deficits. That gave him sweeping legal authority to impose 10 percent tariffs on nearly every country we import from, affecting 71 percent of US imports compared to just 15 percent in his first term. But there was a loophole - he could cut those tariffs for any country that lined up with the U.S. “on economic and national security matters.” That’s wide enough to cover buying American weapons.
Just this month, Trump fired off official tariff threat letters to Japan and South Korea - 25 percent across the board starting August 1 unless they cut a deal. Back in 2019, his administration also demanded Japan quadruple its payments for US troops - from about $2 billion to roughly $8 billion a year, according to Foreign Policy. This month, both countries cut deals - a 15 percent tariff in exchange for pledges to invest or spend billions in the US. Then came the Philippines agreement - according to Trump, they pay 19 percent tariffs while we pay zero, and in return they’re locked into a military partnership with us.
But the most aggressive move so far is the NATO-Ukraine arrangement.
Under this new deal, U.S. allies are buying billions in American weapons, transferring them to Ukraine, then replenishing their own arsenals by purchasing more U.S. equipment. All while Trump threatens “secondary tariffs” of up to 100 percent on countries that trade with Russia if there’s no peace deal in 50 days. It’s a feedback loop of military spending where we get the cash, and they get the pressure. It’s less a defense strategy and more a geopolitical pyramid scheme.
And while Trump’s cronies celebrate the “wins,” the costs are mounting. European allies and Canada did raise defense spending by over $50 billion a year from 2016 to 2020, and the number of allies hitting 2 percent went from 5 in 2016 to 23 by 2024. Defense stock prices dropped about 3 percent during tariff events, showing even the defense industry is skeptical of this approach.
Meanwhile, Europe is already moving on.
The EU has largely excluded U.S. defense firms from its new €150 billion rearmament fund. Countries are rethinking F-35 deals, citing concerns about America’s reliability. And instead of strengthening alliances, Trump is pushing them away - right into China’s waiting arms. The US Court of International Trade even ruled IEEPA tariffs illegal this past May, showing the questionable legal foundation of this whole operation.
Yes - NATO defense spending has gone up. More allies are meeting that 2 percent goal. But the long-term damage is baked in. Trump’s approach has transformed U.S. foreign policy into a transactional grift - you pay us, or you pay the price.
So let’s be crystal clear: This was never about jobs. This wasn’t about national security. Trump has turned America’s trade policy into a global weapons hustle - and if you don’t buy in, you get punished. It’s working, in the short term. But in the long term? We’re burning bridges, bleeding trust, and handing competitors an open lane to take our place.
But my real question when reading about all of this was - how does it help Trump?
Because if you’ve followed him for more than five minutes, you know he doesn’t do anything that doesn’t benefit him personally. So what’s the payoff?
Well, start with the money. Trump’s inner circle is crawling with people who profit off defense deals - post-office slush funds disguised as private equity firms, media ventures, and foreign investments. Jared Kushner, Mnuchin, and a laundry list of donor-class cronies all benefit when countries are bullied into buying U.S. weapons. Trump doesn’t need to hold stock in Lockheed - he just needs to keep the grift flowing through people who owe him favors.
Then there’s the politics. Trump uses this strategy to craft an image - the guy who made NATO pay up. Who punished freeloaders. Who played hardball while everyone else played nice. It doesn’t matter that the long-term cost is trust, stability, and credibility - it looks like a win, and that’s all he’s ever chasing.
But, of course, this whole scheme didn’t originate with Trump. He didn’t come up with it - he’s not that deep. The bones of this racket were built by economic nationalists like Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon. In recent years, the Heritage Foundation has cheered it on too. Trump didn’t invent this scam.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) has existed since 1977. It was intended for sanctions and true national security threats - but it’s vague enough to be twisted. Trump threatened to use it in 2019 to put tariffs on Mexico, then dropped the plan when Mexico made a deal on the border. That was a test run. This past April, he expanded it to cover 71 percent of U.S. imports.
Back during the Cold War, the U.S. pushed allies to increase defense spending and buy American weapons. What’s different now is the overt linking of economic pain to arms deals.
The Heritage Foundation has long advocated for trade protectionism and defense expansion. They love this strategy - calling tariffs “radiation and chemotherapy” to save the Rust Belt.
Peter Navarro, Trump’s former trade adviser, has been screaming about trade deficits and China for decades. He wrote Death by China and was the architect of Trump’s original tariff policies. His fingerprints are all over this approach.
Steve Bannon also promoted this type of economic nationalism - where tariffs and trade wars are used to create national loyalty and destroy multilateral cooperation. He helped sell Trump on using chaos as strategy.
So, again, Trump didn’t invent this strategy - he just branded it, monetized it, and turned it into a global extortion racket. The payoff comes through political wins, donor loyalty, and control over allies.
Like always - Trump’s not building a legacy. He’s running a hustle.
Correction, October 7th, 2026: This essay first said Germany committed to a trillion-euro defense plan as a direct response to Trump’s 2018 tariffs - Germany’s package came in March 2025, half of it for infrastructure, and its chancellor pointed to Russia. It also said Trump’s April order let him waive tariffs for countries that bought U.S. weapons (it lets him cut them for countries that line up with the U.S. on economic and national security matters), that this month’s letters to Japan and South Korea demanded arms deals and both countries complied (the letters threatened tariffs unless they made trade deals, and the deals were investment pledges), that Trump demanded Japan quadruple its troop payments this month (that was 2019), that he used the emergency law to put tariffs on Mexico in 2019 (he threatened to, then dropped it), and that allies meeting the 2 percent target went from 6 to 23 between 2016 and 2020 (it went from 5 in 2016 to 23 by 2024). A line saying Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin let slip that NATO allies might be exempt from tariffs was cut, and a figure of more than $11 billion for Poland was cut back.
Update, October 7th, 2026: The secondary-tariff line now says the threat was tied to a 50-day deadline for a peace deal, and the Heritage line now says its turn toward tariffs is recent.