By George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom Institute
In an age of rising authoritarianism and economic interdependence, the question of how the United States should conduct its trade policy is not merely one of dollars and cents — it is a matter of national security, moral clarity, and global leadership. The current global system requires a differentiated approach: one that rewards cooperation and punishes coercion. While the U.S. should pursue zero or near-zero tariffs with allies and like-minded democracies, it must maintain — and in many cases increase — trade barriers with regimes that weaponize trade to undermine sovereignty, expand authoritarian influence, or use their profits from international trade to fund unjustified wars and aggression against their neighbors, or fund terrorism around the globe.
The United States has long championed the virtues of free trade, and rightly so. When conducted among democratic allies who share a commitment to the rule of law, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, free trade is an engine of prosperity and peace. Lowering or eliminating tariffs among such nations not only boosts economic growth but strengthens the fabric of a free and open international order.
However, the same tools that build mutual prosperity among friends can be weaponized by authoritarian regimes bent on domination and exporting terrorism. Nations like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have demonstrated a willingness to use trade, shipping, and economic leverage as instruments of coercion and control. China’s Belt and Road Initiative, for example, is not merely a trade plan — it is a strategy for global dominance that exploits economic dependence to bend nations to its will. In such cases, the United States must respond with strength and strategy. This means imposing tariffs and other trade barriers that blunt the power of economic warfare, incentivize American companies to re-shore or diversify their supply chains, and prevent our allies from falling prey to authoritarian chokeholds.
The complexity of the various goals with regard to trade policy — to promote economic growth and economic benefits among free nations, while at the same time making it more difficult for totalitarian regimes to fund wars against their neighbors, or fund and export terrorism, or to engage in economic warfare around the globe — a two-tiered approach to global trade policy is needed: one that promotes zero tariffs among trusted allies to foster mutual prosperity and another that uses strategic tariffs against hostile regimes to counteract their imperial ambitions. By aligning trade policy with national values and strategic interests, America can build a stronger economy at home, a more resilient alliance abroad, and a freer world for generations to come.
The bottom line is that drawing from history, economics, and real-world case studies, it becomes clear that free trade among friends promotes peace and prosperity, while free trade with adversaries must be constrained to prevent exploitation, coercion, and imperialism.
The Value of Free Trade Among Friends
The economic arguments for free trade are well-established. Free trade allows nations to specialize in areas of comparative advantage, leading to increased efficiency, lower costs, and greater prosperity. Historically, the lowering of trade barriers among Western nations has fueled growth and innovation. The post-World War II liberal economic order — anchored by institutions like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor, the World Trade Organization (WTO) — helped the free world rebuild and flourish.
But free trade is more than an economic concept — it is both a practical and a political principle. When democratic nations trade freely, they are not only exchanging goods and services; they are reinforcing bonds of mutual trust and shared values. Trade among allies supports the development of robust middle classes, strengthens civil institutions, and reduces the incentives for conflict. In short, it helps build a peaceful international order.
Trade liberalization among democracies has produced decades of growth. Even a mediocre trade agreement like NAFTA, let to trade among the NAFTA parties growing from $290 billion in 1993 to over $1.2 trillion by 2021.1 The U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS), in effect since 2012, increased American exports to South Korea by nearly 50% over its first five years.2
These economic gains are not confined to GDP. They reflect strategic alignment: shared standards, transparent institutions, respect for rule of law, and protection of intellectual property. By lowering barriers among friendly nations, the United States can encourage innovation, strengthen allies’ economies, and reduce global dependence on authoritarian states.
For these reasons, the United States should pursue near-zero tariffs with its closest allies: Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union and NATO nations, Japan, South Korea, Morocco, Israel, and emerging partners like India, the Philippines, Azerbaijan, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. Such agreements would not only benefit American workers and consumers, but also create an economic bloc strong enough to withstand coercion from authoritarian regimes.
Tariffs as Strategic Tools Against Hostile Regimes
While free trade works well among friends, it can be disastrous when extended to adversaries who reject the rules of fair competition and wield economic tools to advance totalitarian aims. Authoritarian regimes view trade not as a partnership, but as a pressure point. For them, commerce is a tool of control, not cooperation. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea have repeatedly used trade relationships to coerce neighbors, undermine global norms, fund unjustified threats and wars against their neighbors, export terrorism, and gain asymmetric advantages.
China, in particular, presents a sobering case study in how a nation can use trade and investment to undermine the global order. Under the guise of development, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has ensnared dozens of countries in debt traps, forced infrastructure dependencies, and undermined local governance. Through control of ports, railroads, and shipping lanes, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is constructing a new kind of empire — one based not on traditional military conquest, but on strategic economic entanglement. In Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and even parts of Europe, China now exerts influence not because of shared values or fair competition, but because of raw economic leverage.
Under the Belt and Road Initiative, China has funded roads, ports, and railways in over 100 countries. But these are not gifts — they are loans with strings. In Sri Lanka, the inability to service Chinese debt forced the government to hand over Hambantota Port in a 99-year lease.3 In Africa, Chinese-financed projects have brought accusations of neo-colonialism and environmental abuse.
Moreover, China routinely uses trade as leverage. After Australia called for an independent inquiry into COVID-19’s origins, China retaliated with tariffs and import bans on Australian wine, beef, and barley.4 Lithuania faced similar punishment after opening a Taiwanese representative office in Vilnius.5 These acts make it clear: Beijing views trade as a weapon.
For years, Europe’s reliance on Russian natural gas muted its response to Moscow’s aggression. Germany, the EU’s largest economy, built energy policy on the faulty premise that economic engagement with Russia would lead to liberalization. Instead, the Nord Stream pipelines gave Vladimir Putin both revenue and leverage. Only after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine did Europe begin to unwind this dangerous dependency.6
Iran uses its oil revenues to fund regional terror proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Despite crippling sanctions, it continues to trade with sympathetic regimes — often through illicit channels — undermining regional stability. North Korea, though more isolated, uses its limited trade and cybercrime to finance its weapons programs which it uses to threaten many nations across the globe. Neither regime participates in global trade in good faith.
To ignore this would be dangerously naïve. The United States must treat trade with such regimes not as an economic opportunity, but as a strategic threat. Tariffs are one of the few tools that democratic nations can use to push back against this aggression without direct military conflict. By raising the cost of doing business with China, we can create disincentives for American companies to invest in a nation that seeks to control and ultimately undermine us.
The Dual Role of Tariffs: Economic Protection and Strategic Defense
Critics of tariffs often portray them as purely protectionist, economically harmful, or counterproductive. While blanket, arbitrary tariffs can indeed have negative effects, when used strategically — as levers of negotiation or tools of deterrence — they can be profoundly effective.
Simply stated, traditional free market economic theory often opposes tariffs, arguing they distort markets and harm consumers. In a vacuum, that may be true. But in the real world, where states pursue geopolitical advantage through trade, tariffs are sometimes necessary tools of statecraft.
President Donald Trump demonstrated this with his bold trade policies, particularly his approach to China. President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs — particularly against China—demonstrated their value as leverage. By imposing Section 301 tariffs, the Trump administration targeted sectors implicated in intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, and subsidies to state-owned enterprises.7 These measures prompted a reevaluation of China’s role in global supply chains.
With respect to China, Trump’s tariffs served a broader geopolitical purpose. By making it more costly to manufacture and import Chinese goods, these policies encouraged U.S. firms to move production either back to the United States or to more reliable trading partners such as Vietnam, India, Indonesia and the Philippines. This realignment is crucial. Not only does it reduce dependence on a hostile power, but it strengthens the economies of democratic allies and diversifies the global supply chain.
Tariffs also set the stage for renegotiated and improved trade deals. For example, the tariffs Trump implemented and threatened allowed the U.S. to renegotiate NAFTA into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a deal that ensured stronger protections for American labor, tighter enforcement of trade rules, and greater access to markets.8 Though controversial at the time, the use of tariffs produced tangible gains and began reorienting American trade policy toward strategic objectives.
Nonetheless, unilateral action can only go so far. There is a risk that, in response to U.S. tariffs, China may dump its excess products — steel, solar panels, batteries, clothing, and more — into allied markets at below-market prices, eroding industries in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. To prevent this, the United States must coordinate its tariff strategy with its partners. Just as NATO provides collective defense against military aggression, a multilateral trade strategy can defend against China’s economic coercion.
Strengthening the Economic Front of the Free World
Economic strength is a prerequisite for national security. A country that relies on hostile regimes for essential goods — such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, energy, or rare earth minerals — is not truly sovereign. America’s trade policy should reflect this reality.
But security does not require isolation. On the contrary, we should be deepening economic ties with nations that share our values and geopolitical interests. By reducing tariffs, increasing investment, and promoting innovation within this trusted circle, the United States can lead the creation of a new economic alliance — one based not on coercion, but on cooperation.
One benefit of strategic tariffs is the acceleration of reshoring and “friendshoring” — moving production out of adversarial countries and into domestic or allied economies. American firms, in response to tariffs and rising Chinese labor costs, have shifted operations to Vietnam, India, and Mexico.9 These shifts enhance supply chain resilience and reduce vulnerability to economic blackmail.
The U.S. should also invest in capacity-building programs to help allies develop their own industries and infrastructure. For example, redirecting supply chains away from China will only succeed if nations like India and Vietnam can scale production and logistics. A targeted, values-based foreign aid program focused on industrial development could go a long way in achieving this. In the long term, a world in which the United States and its allies supply each other, rather than being dependent on authoritarian powers, is not only more prosperous, but far more stable and secure.
Historical Lessons: The Cold War and Economic Containment
During the Cold War, the U.S. recognized the danger of economically empowering adversaries. The Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (CoCom) restricted Western technology transfers to the Soviet bloc. The Marshall Plan, by contrast, aimed to revive Western Europe economically, creating a bulwark against communism. The logic was simple: economic strength undergirds political freedom.
Today’s authoritarian regimes should be met with the same moral clarity. Totalitarian powers should not be allowed to exploit free markets while suppressing their own people and threatening their neighbors.
Coordinating With Allies to Maximize Impact
Strategic tariffs are most likely effective if coordinated and implemented multilaterally. If the U.S. imposes tariffs on China, but Europe and Southeast Asia increase trade with Beijing, the effect is diluted or reversed. Worse, Chinese goods diverted from American markets may flood allied economies, undercutting their industries. Coordinated tariff and investment policies among allies would ensure that China cannot shift its exports to friendlier markets and undercut their domestic industries.
The U.S. must lead a global coalition of democracies with a unified trade strategy. This could include:
- A Democratic Trade Alliance that lowers tariffs among member states.
- A Digital Trade Charter to combat cyber-espionage and protect Intellectual Property as China is the leading thief of intellectual property.
- Joint investment funds for critical infrastructure in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to counter the influence of the CCP’s Belt and Road Initiative designed to create international choke points for China’s advantage.
- Multilateral enforcement of labor and environmental standards, barring products made with forced labor or ecological abuse.
The United States should actively promote tariff-free or low-tariff trade among members of the free world. This would not only reward good behavior but also encourage more countries — especially emerging economies — to adopt liberal democratic principles as a path to economic prosperity. This framework would reward democratic governance and economic transparency, while isolating bad actors and evil doers.
Addressing Critiques of Strategic Tariffs
Critics of tariffs sometimes raise valid concerns: higher prices for consumers, supply chain disruptions, and risks of retaliation. But these costs must be weighed against the strategic imperative of resisting authoritarian influence.
Moreover, some of these concerns are exaggerated. The initial inflationary effects of tariffs often level out as supply chains adjust. More importantly, the cost of dependence on authoritarian regimes — economic coercion, strategic vulnerability, and moral compromise — is far greater. For example, during World War II, I doubt anyone who valued freedom was arguing that the world should be engaging in free trade with Hitler’s Nazi regime. It makes no sense to empower those who once they obtain power will use it to enslave you and dominate you.
Another critique is that tariffs hurt developing nations. But this is precisely why a coalition of democracies should step in to offer developing countries fairer alternatives — through investment, trade access, and technology transfer — without the strings of authoritarian loans like China does. We can build economic situations that provide profits for both sides of investment. But we can’t follow China’s model which is investment to grow only our ability to choke off other nations.
President Trump’s trade and tariffs approach may not be absolutely perfect, but it is focused on not only helping America to be more prosperous and secure, but to work with our friends and allies to help them be more prosperous and secure, and at the same time making evil totalitarian regimes have a more difficult time funding their threats and violence against their own people and the rest of the world. This is a wise approach and hopefully he will be effective in putting these goals in practice.
The United States should always be promoting a values-based trade doctrine — one that recognizes the moral distinctions between democracies and dictatorships. Trade with friends should be open, robust, and tariff-free. Trade with adversaries must be conditional, limited, and cautious.
Policymakers must also remain vigilant to prevent tariffs from being captured by domestic special interests or devolving into protectionism. Tariff policies should be flexible, data-driven, and tied to clear strategic goals.
This doctrine aligns with core American principles: liberty, fairness, and the rule of law. It also reflects strategic wisdom. No nation will benefit if a totalitarian power like China dominates global shipping lanes, 5G infrastructure, rare earth minerals, and AI platforms.
Economic policy is not neutral. It either reinforces democratic order or subsidizes authoritarian advance. The time for moral ambiguity is over.
Navigating the Risks and Trade-Offs
No policy is without costs. Strategic tariffs may lead to higher consumer prices in the short term. Shifting supply chains can be complex, and retaliatory tariffs from adversarial nations are always a possibility. These risks are real — but they are manageable, especially when weighed against the costs of inaction.
China’s long-term strategy is to make the world dependent on its exports, control key global infrastructure, and leverage these dependencies for political and military gain. To pretend otherwise is to engage in wishful thinking. Tariffs — when based on clear strategic principles — can act as both punishment and prevention. They can send a message: the United States will not fund its enemies, nor will it allow its allies to be economically strangled.
The ultimate goal of American trade policy should be to serve the interests of the American people while also defending the principles of freedom, democracy, and sovereignty abroad. A healthy domestic manufacturing base, strong alliances, and a diversified global supply chain are not mutually exclusive—they are mutually reinforcing.
High tariffs on China and other hostile regimes can accelerate a realignment of global trade away from authoritarian power centers. At the same time, zero or near-zero tariffs among allies will unleash innovation, lower costs, and build a foundation for collective security and prosperity. In short, we must not treat all nations equally in trade policy—because not all nations share our values or our goals.
To ensure fairness and transparency, America’s tariff policy must be guided by a coherent framework — one that prioritizes national security, promotes democratic values, and seeks multilateral support. Tariffs should not be used impulsively, but rather as part of a long-term strategy of economic alignment with friends and economic decoupling from foes.
Conclusion
America’s trade policy must evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Free trade remains a cornerstone of prosperity and international cooperation — when practiced among friends. But when weaponized by authoritarian regimes, trade becomes a tool of domination and dependence. The United States must therefore adopt a differentiated tariff strategy: one that promotes near-zero tariffs among democratic allies, and one that uses strategic trade barriers to contain and counteract totalitarian economic warfare.
This is not only an economic necessity but a moral imperative. The global future must not be shaped by the coercive power of tyrants, but by the shared prosperity of free peoples. In leading this effort, America can ensure that its trade policy not only protects its workers and industries but also safeguards the freedom and dignity of nations around the globe. We must act not just as a marketplace, but as a moral leader — building a world where liberty and prosperity go hand in hand.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Endnotes:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
1 Office of the United States Trade Representative. “USMCA: United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.” https://ustr.gov/usmca.
2 U.S. Department of Commerce. “U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Outcomes.” 2020.
3 Abi-Habib, Maria. “How China Got Sri Lanka to Cough Up a Port.” The New York Times, June 25, 2018.
4 Dziedzic, Stephen. “Australia hits back at China’s economic coercion.” ABC News (Australia), Dec. 2020.
5 Karnitschnig, Matthew. “China punishes Lithuania for Taiwan ties.” Politico, December 2021.
6 European Commission. “EU Imports of Energy Products – Recent Developments.” https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics.
7 Bown, Chad P., and Douglas A. Irwin. “The Trump Trade War: Motivations, Manifestation, and the Future.” Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2019.
8 White House. “Fact Sheet: USMCA Agreement.” July 2020.
9 Sharma, Ruchir. “The Manufacturing Shift Away from China.” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2023.