It’s a columnist’s childish delight! He goes against popular cynicism and predicts an unusually positive outcome. He’s either ignored (indulgently) or booed (what a twit!). But, against all odds, time vindicates his analysis. The future turns out as he had predicted. He’s childishly delighted.
When every business pundit and stock market index was predicting “gloom and doom” at Trump’s globe-wrecking, maniacal tariffs in the third week of January 2025, I had written:
Trump’s Manifest Destiny: MAGA is Make America Go Alone
He is beginning to sound like a medieval czar, obsessed by his “manifest destiny”, issuing whimsical firmans. But reality cannot be so linear. Whenever czars have pushed people beyond a threshold of tolerance, subjects have revolted, set up underground resistance, and often created counterrevolutions. Just as necessity is the mother of invention, extreme coercion is the creator of unlikely, defensive coalitions.
So, is President Donald Trump underestimating the compulsion and ability of the rest of the world (ROW) to quietly take him on? By withdrawing from critical multilateral forums—the World Health Organisation (WHO), Paris Climate Accord, Global Tax Regime—he is allowing other prominent voices—from China, Europe, India, Russia, Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa, South America—to shake off America’s hegemonic presence, find common cause, create an underground resistance, and neutralise the damage caused by Trump’s unilateral policies...could the isolation shrink Uncle Sam’s geopolitical footprint? Yes, in several key areas.
Nearly a year later, Trump had tempered his wild tariffs, but not his tempestuous quest to isolate America. In fact, he decided to abandon the world as part of a doctrine. His “go alone” destiny was now statecraft. This is what I wrote in December 2025:
By Calling China a “Near Peer”, Has Trump Underestimated America & Allies
Have you read Trump’s 29-page National Security Strategy (NSS) document dated November 2025? It’s a voluntary abdication by the Emperor who wants to shrink and become a regional chieftain. It bemoans that America’s strategy went “astray” as the country took on others’ burdens. “We cannot afford to be equally attentive to every region and every problem in the world.”
America must engineer “a readjustment of our global military presence to address urgent threats in our (Western) Hemisphere…away from theatres whose relative import to American national security has declined”. This is repeatedly emphasised as the Foremost Priority and Objective Number One of Trump’s global doctrine—we care only for the Western Hemisphere; go look after yourself elsewhere. We will help but cannot lead or out-spend native stakeholders.
In a seminal framework segment—What Do We Want In and From the World—Trump underlines his indifference towards China and India by simply omitting any direct reference to them. In fact, India is the needle in the haystack. We make our first appearance, buried deep on Page 21:
“We must continue commercial (and other) relations with India to encourage New Delhi to contribute to Indo-Pacific security.”
After being inconspicuous for more than half the document, China emerges strongly in the segment on Asia. “China got rich and powerful; one of the world’s poorest countries has transformed into near-peers (emphasis is mine) … the Indo-Pacific is the source of almost half the world’s GDP based on purchasing power parity (PPP)”. After damning his allies in copious paras, a nervous Trump now does an about turn—“the United States must work with our treaty allies and partners—who together add another $ 35 trillion in economic power to our own $30 trillion national economy—to counteract predatory economic policies and use our combined economic power to help safeguard our prime position in the world economy”.
What’s the Price at Which America Has Abdicated its Unipolarity?
But Trump’s belated entreaty to estranged allies has met the same fate as the proverbial “wolf is coming” bluff. The world has moved on, reacting to Trump’s extreme coercion by creating unlikely, defensive coalitions (I quote again from my column of January 2025).
Once the world recovered from Trump’s shock-and-awe tariffs, it’s been a welter of positive trade deals crisscrossing the globe. India-UK kicked off with a blockbuster, which could suck away about $ 5 bn of existing trade flows from America. India-European Union (EU) Free Trade Agreement (FTA) could double that to $10 bn.
EU-Indonesia, EU-Mexico, China-ASEAN, India-Oman, UAE-Malaysia, UAE/India-New Zealand, UAE-Ukraine/Kenya…it’s been a relentless string of bilateral treaties which could lop off $40 bn of current American trade deals per annum once resting equilibrium is gained!
What about America? What has the erstwhile world leader gained or lost in this frenzy that Trump has single-handedly orchestrated? First the perceived “wins”.
Trump’s tariffs could enrich Uncle Sam by nearly $250 bn every year. Some estimates put it at cumulative earnings of $2.5 trillion over the coming decade. While Trump naively thinks he has skinned this cash off trading partners, the truth is harsh—it’s a tax slapped on the American people.
Worse, America risks becoming a closed economy. As per some estimates, American imports could drop by over $300 bn per annum, even as exports shrink by $30 bn.
Yes, Trump may crash his trade deficit, but at what price? A big consumption levy on American citizens? Higher price points for producers? Migration of cutting-edge talent to other geographies? Fewer foreign students? A diminution of the dollar’s “exorbitant privilege”? Smaller foreign holdings of US treasury bills, leading to higher interest rates?
All the above are “known unknowns” whose exact trajectory is difficult to predict. Of course, America may yet come through relatively unscathed, but would the uncertainty have been worth it?
Ultimately, will history record that President Donald Trump “sold” America’s global leadership for the “princely” sum of $250 bn per annum, and retreated into the Western Hemisphere?
Or will history proclaim that non-American nations paid a “paltry” amount of $250 bn to create a more equalised, energetic, engaged, and multi-polar world?
As of now, I am willing to bet on the latter outcome.