For decades, the international trading system has functioned, however imperfectly, as the backbone of global economic integration. Built on a foundation of American leadership and multilateral cooperation, it helped fuel a remarkable era of growth and development. But today, that system is under mounting strain.
A wave of new tariffs, initiated by President Trump, is reshaping the landscape of global commerce. While the immediate impact on growth appears modest – at least on paper – the broader implications suggest a more troubling shift: a move away from predictability and openness toward fragmentation and uncertainty.
In its latest World Economic Outlook, the International Monetary Fund has captured this unease with quiet clarity. At first glance, the headline numbers seem deceptively mild and benign: global growth trimmed to 2.8 percent for 2025 and 3 percent for 2026. But beneath these decimal points lies a volatile mix of rising tariffs, fractured alliances, and an unraveling consensus.
The IMF’s reference forecast includes the flurry of tariff actions taken between February and early April this year – with the U.S. leading the charge. What began with strategic salvos aimed at key economic rivals such as China, Mexico, and Canada has metastasized into a full-blown trade war redux.
Notably, the April 2 round of U.S. levies pushes effective tariff rates beyond levels not seen since the Great Depression. This is not a mere skirmish. It is a rupture. Predictably, the effects are widespread. The IMF notes that the combined impact of new tariffs and their retaliatory counterparts is already visible in the global growth downgrade – nearly a full percentage point shaved off since January’s estimates. Had the April tariffs not been imposed, the economic dent would have been far shallower. But economic rationality appears to be a casualty of political theater.
In a particularly telling move, the U.S. momentarily halted some tariffs after April 4 – while initiating backdoor compromises. The symbolic gesture of “reciprocal tariffs” touted by Donald Trump, which claims to level the playing field, in practice targets others with surgical precision.
The result is not a more equitable trading system, but a thickening fog of uncertainty that weighs heavily on investors, businesses, and governments alike. Indeed, the concept of “epistemic uncertainty” – uncertainty about the very rules of engagement – pervades the IMF’s analysis. The institution’s cautious prose barely conceals the magnitude of concern: sustained unpredictability in trade policy, they warn, can undermine productivity, freeze investment, and stunt innovation. That fear is not theoretical; it is already materializing.
In the United States, the effects are palpable. The IMF cuts its U.S. growth forecast for this year to 1.8 percent – down almost a full percentage point from January. Tariffs alone account for 0.4 points of that downgrade, while inflation is now expected to climb by an additional percentage point. Far from insulating American workers or reviving manufacturing, the tariffs risk inducing stagflation: slow growth, rising prices, and diminished competitiveness.
The disparity in economic trajectories is revealing. American economic nationalism, once dismissed as a populist detour, is now the driver of systemic transformation. And yet, it is far from clear that the U.S. stands to gain. A tariff-induced realignment of supply chains – the fabled “decoupling” from China – is more complex in practice than in rhetoric. The global supply chain is not a straight line but a tangled web. Disruption in one node has cascading effects, a reality businesses are rediscovering with each logistical hiccup.
This complexity is compounded by the financial sector’s sensitivity to trade-induced volatility. The IMF notes a tightening of financial conditions, declining oil prices, and an investment pullback by firms bracing for further shocks. When uncertainty is weaponized, the market retreats. Exchange rates, too, are caught in the crossfire: while past episodes of tariffs led to dollar appreciation, today’s murkier growth outlook may instead see the greenback falter.
Across the Atlantic, Europe fares marginally better – but only in relative terms. With fewer direct hits from tariffs, its growth is revised down by 0.2 percentage points, to a paltry 0.8 percent. That figure speaks less to resilience and more to stagnation. Without a decisive shift in infrastructure spending or productivity-enhancing reforms, the eurozone risks fading into irrelevance in this reshaped order.
Emerging economies, meanwhile, find themselves caught in a pincer movement – vulnerable to both external demand shocks and rising capital costs. The IMF cuts their collective growth forecast by 0.5 points, to 3.7 percent. The fragile balancing act of development amid debt and dwindling aid is increasingly untenable. The structural implications of this moment cannot be overstated.
Tariffs, the IMF reminds us, are not just taxes. They are distortions. They misallocate resources, prop up inefficiencies, and breed rent-seeking behavior. Over time, they sap innovation and productivity. As protectionism masquerades as strategy, the global economy lurches towards a slower, more fragmented future.
And what of the politics driving these decisions? Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs are couched in the language of fairness – but fairness, in this context, is little more than a nationalist slogan. The deeper grievance lies in a sense of displacement, a perception – not entirely unfounded – that globalization’s rewards have been unevenly distributed.
The IMF’s prescription is, predictably, a call for calm: restore trade stability, rekindle cooperation, resist the allure of zero-sum logic. But such appeals to multilateralism increasingly fall on deaf ears. The global trading system, once underwritten by American leadership, now drifts rudderless as Washington turns inward and rivals scramble to adjust.
There is, nonetheless, a faint hope. Growth could rebound if current policies are reversed, if pragmatic trade deals replace punitive tariffs, if public investment offsets private retrenchment. But that would require a degree of vision and coordination that has, so far, been conspicuously absent.
In the interim, the world must manage an era of tariff-fueled turbulence, where the line between economic policy and political posturing grows ever thinner. We are entering a phase not merely of cyclical downturn, but of structural transition. The old order has unraveled, and the new one has yet to take shape. What emerges will depend less on the mechanics of trade models than on the choices of policymakers – and the convictions they bring to the table.
The stakes are not merely economic. The international system teeters at a pivotal crossroads. It is being re-scripted not by economists but by politicians wielding tariffs as cudgels and offering illusions as answers. Whether we lurch toward a more fragmented and confrontational world, or whether a new compact of cooperation can still be forged, remains the most important – and unanswered – question of our time.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
