The world must reject Trump's tariff wars?

Few policies are as politically tempting yet economically destructive as tariff wars. They are often pitched as patriotic, as shields for domestic industry. But the real effect is the opposite: higher costs for ordinary citizens, disrupted supply chains, and escalating diplomatic rifts. In a globally integrated economy, unilateral trade offensives do more harm than good.

Tariffs are essentially taxes on trade. When one country imposes them, the burden falls on consumers and producers reliant on imports or export markets. Retaliation is almost inevitable, setting off cycles of escalation in which nobody wins. The short-term allure of "protecting jobs" gives way quickly to inflation, lost competitiveness, and uncertainty.

During the US-China tariff standoff in the late 2010s, we saw exactly this play out. Both sides slapped on billions in import duties. The result? Manufacturers in both countries faced rising costs, exports shrank, and companies delayed investment decisions amid deep uncertainty. Farmers, especially in the US, lost critical export markets overnight. The economic pain spread well beyond the borders of the two giants.

Today, the US administration's renewed focus on tariffs as a coercive instrument of trade policy is deeply concerning. Using import taxes not as a negotiating tool, but as a blunt instrument to pressure allies or adversaries, undermines the foundations of predictable trade relations. Economic bullying via tariffs replaces dialogue and negotiation with force--a tactic that should draw robust condemnation from the global community.

Tariff wars also display a profound misunderstanding of modern production. Few goods are fully produced in one country anymore. A smartphone assembled in China may incorporate components from Taiwan region, ROK, Germany, and Japan. A car built in Kenya might use steel from Japan, wiring from China, and software from Europe. Tariffs on one link in that chain only distort the entire value network, harming both importers and exporters.

Developing countries stand to lose most. Many rely on exports to generate foreign exchange, attract foreign direct investment, and drive industrialization. When global demand slows down because of trade barriers, their currencies become volatile, capital inflows weaken, and fiscal planning becomes more difficult. Kenya, for instance, earns critical revenues from exports of tea, horticulture, and coffee-sectors especially vulnerable to protectionist backlash abroad.

Tariff wars also corrode trust among nations. Trade should be built on cooperation and mutual gain, not confrontation. When countries resort to punitive measures, they heighten suspicion and raise the stakes of every dispute. The result is fragmentation, not integration—and that is especially risky in a world already facing geopolitical tensions.

Moreover, tariffs often fail to deliver the protection promised. Under shielded industries may grow complacent, with less incentive to invest in innovation or efficiency. Over time, they become dependent on protection, rather than world-class competitiveness. In contrast, firms that face open competition are compelled to modernize, cut waste, and compete globally—the sustainable route to growth.

So, what's the alternative? We should double down on transparent, rules-based negotiation. Global institutions such as the World Trade Organization exist to arbitrate trade wrangles and prevent unilateral escalation. Using those established channels, rather than escalating tariffs, offers predictability—a critical factor for business decisions, investment, and economic stability.

For Africa, the stakes are higher than ever. The African Continental Free Trade Area rests on the promise that lowered internal barriers and access to external markets will drive growth. Tariff wars among major economies threaten that promise by undermining global demand and raising in-put costs. For a continent striving to industrialize, open access to global supply chains is not optional—it's essential.

Tariff wars are a symptom of political impatience. They offer the illusion of instant protection, but the reality is slow, sustained damage. Real strength lies not in how high one can raise walls, but how adept one can be at competing when those walls don't exist. In a deeply interconnected global system, isolation and aggression backfire. Trade must remain a bridge—not a battlefield.

The writer is a journalist and communications consultant based in Nairobi, Kenya.