Muslim World Report

Trump's Economic Policies: A Recipe for Unrest and Global Instability

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 3, 2025 9:38 AM | 9 min read | 1750 words

TL;DR: Former President Trump’s economic policies face scrutiny for potentially exacerbating inequality and civil unrest, while his tariffs may threaten global trade stability. The consequences could reshape U.S. international relations, particularly with Muslim-majority countries.

The Future of America’s Economy: A Turning Point in Global Dynamics

The ongoing analysis of former President Donald Trump’s economic legacy has sparked intense discussions about the current state of the U.S. economy and its implications across the globe. Critics argue that Trump’s policies, particularly during his first term, have:

  • Jeopardized American industries
  • Laid the foundation for a potential economic catastrophe

This contentious dialogue evokes warnings reminiscent of the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930, a protectionist measure that deepened the Great Depression through punitive tariffs. Amid rising concerns, many analysts now reflect on the erosion of America’s middle class and the uncertain future awaiting working-class Americans amidst projections of market volatility (Gartzke, Li, & Boehmer, 2001).

The implications of these discussions extend far beyond domestic woes; they reverberate across global markets, shaping international economic relations. Trump’s reliance on tariffs has contributed to:

  • Escalating prices for essential goods
  • Diminished disposable income for millions, particularly among lower-income households (Kaufman & Haggard, 2018)

Reports indicate that a significant portion of the U.S. population could be facing financial distress, heavily reliant on credit to preserve their standard of living. As inflationary pressures escalate, consumer spending remains at risk, potentially triggering a broader economic downturn. The polarized opinions within the electorate fuel a growing sense of unease, prompting the assertion that “Americans will not stand by while Trump drives us off the economic cliff” (Newman et al., 2015).

As we stand on the precipice of major economic change, the ramifications of Trump’s policies have the potential to shift the balance of power not only within the United States but also in the global economic landscape. If the U.S. economy falters significantly, it could reverberate through international alliances, trade dynamics, and geopolitical stability, particularly affecting nations in the Muslim world, which are intricately tied to U.S. economic decisions (Ikenberry & James, 2001). The divergent views on Trump’s legacy signify a moment of reckoning, one that may determine the trajectory of economic justice and equity both domestically and internationally.

What If Trump’s Tariffs Trigger a Trade War?

What if the tariffs proposed by Trump escalate into a full-blown trade war, particularly with pivotal economies like China and the European Union? The immediate consequences could be severe. Consider the following potential outcomes:

  • Retaliatory tariffs would likely intensify, driving up costs for consumers and businesses alike
  • Disruption of supply chains across various sectors, including agriculture and technology
  • Increased prices for basic goods, deepening financial strain on already struggling households (Fajgelbaum & Khandelwal, 2022)

As an astute observer noted, “TARIFF = VAT,” indicating that the burden of these tariffs will ultimately be borne by American consumers rather than foreign nations (Stephen & Skidmore, 2018).

In our interconnected world, the ripple effects of a trade war would extend well beyond U.S. borders. Nations reliant on exports to the U.S. would grapple with:

  • Decreased market access
  • Job losses
  • Economic downturns within their regions (Huynh & Burggraf, 2020)

This could further polarize international relations, compelling countries to pursue alliances based on economic necessity rather than shared interests. Such fragmentation might exacerbate geopolitical tensions, leading to newfound instability in regions already facing significant challenges.

Moreover, the consequences of a persistent trade war could reshape the landscape for emerging economies in the Muslim world. As they navigate complex trade agreements while combating rising U.S. protectionism, these nations could find themselves caught in the crossfire of retaliatory tariffs that undermine their economic development. The interconnected nature of today’s economies suggests that the fallout from a trade escalation could usher in unprecedented challenges—not just for the U.S., but for the global community, compelling nations to rapidly adapt to shifting economic realities (Mintz & Courtwright, 2002).

What If Economic Backlash Leads to Civil Unrest?

What if the economic fallout from Trump’s policies leads to significant civil unrest within the United States? As economic conditions deteriorate, the frustration of those affected by rising unemployment and diminishing purchasing power may erupt into protests and demonstrations. Key points to consider include:

  • Social movements advocating for economic justice could gain momentum
  • A potential increase in challenges to perceived inequities perpetuated by the current administration (Nye, 2019)

A commentator ominously remarked, “It will shrink income. For those with disposable income, it will be less. For those without disposable income, it will be credit cards and debt to survive” (Bonikowski, 2017).

This scenario poses a precarious situation, as widespread civil unrest could heighten tensions between citizens and law enforcement, further fracturing an already divided society. The potential for violence and escalation could incite a heavy-handed response from authorities, exacerbating fears and societal divisions. Such unrest could distract from constructive dialogue on necessary economic reforms, fostering an environment fraught with fear and polarization.

The global community would undoubtedly observe the U.S. response to civil unrest, particularly regarding how it navigates dissent. Muslim-majority nations, which have historically contended with their own issues of civil unrest, might evaluate the dynamics of protest and governance within the U.S. Such shared experiences could foster solidarity and spark discussions around social justice, economic equity, and political agency in both realms (Cornwall & Nyamu‐Musembi, 2004). Furthermore, the U.S. response to civil unrest could impact its standing in international forums, potentially undermining its authority and moral high ground on matters of democracy and human rights (Akhavan, 1998).

What If Political Accountability is Achieved?

What if the ongoing critiques of Trump’s economic policies yield substantial political accountability? Should public sentiment continue to coalesce around demands for economic justice, a shift in political leadership and policies may emerge. An empowered electorate could advocate for significant reforms, including:

  • The rollback of detrimental tariffs
  • Strategic investments in job creation, particularly in industries that prioritize environmental sustainability and community resilience (Nagy, 2008)

This potential transformation could have profound implications for U.S. foreign policy and its relations with the Muslim world. A government that emphasizes equitable economic strategies could work towards rebuilding trust with international allies disproportionately affected by past unilateral decisions. Negotiations surrounding trade, aid, and cooperative economic initiatives might be redefined, creating avenues for mutual growth and partnership (Held & McGrew, 2008). As one commentator reflects, “If only we were given warning this would happen,” suggesting that collective awareness could pave the way for transformative political change.

Additionally, the push for political accountability could invigorate grassroots movements, fostering an atmosphere where diverse voices are included in decision-making processes (Parks & Warren, 2009). For the Muslim world, such a shift could present renewed opportunities for collaboration, moving beyond the austerity measures and protectionist policies that have historically stifled economic progress. This potential revision indicates that public engagement and activism could forge a more equitable economic landscape, underscoring the importance of solidarity, shared prosperity, and mutual benefit in confronting complex global challenges.

Strategic Maneuvers in Response to the Economic Landscape

In light of the developments surrounding Trump’s economic policies, various stakeholders must consider strategic maneuvers to navigate the shifting landscape. For the American public, increased civic engagement will be critical. Key actions include:

  • Organizing grassroots movements
  • Building coalitions across socio-economic backgrounds to demand accountability from their leaders
  • Advocating for policies prioritizing investments in public goods, such as education and healthcare, to help mitigate the adverse impacts of tariffs and rising costs on vulnerable populations (Obstfeld & Rogoff, 2005)

Simultaneously, businesses and industries must adapt to the evolving economic framework. Companies outsourcing production to evade tariffs should reassess their strategies to minimize risks while supporting domestic job creation. Investment in automation and green technologies will position businesses to thrive in a changing market while positively contributing to the national economy and labor force (Kaufman & Haggard, 2018).

For policymakers, addressing the concerns of a polarized electorate requires open dialogue and collaborative solutions. Embracing economic transparency and accountability must become paramount in restoring public trust. Engaging diverse stakeholder perspectives can lead to policies that protect the interests of the middle and working classes while fostering economic growth.

Moreover, international stakeholders, particularly those in the Muslim world, have an opportunity to bolster cooperative economic ties. By collaborating on trade agreements that promote fairness, nations can strive toward collective advancement. This strategic realignment could pave the way for robust partnerships, enhancing economic resilience and mutual support during challenging times (Held & McGrew, 2008).

In summary, as the U.S. grapples with the implications of Trump’s economic legacy, various players must navigate this landscape through strategic engagement and proactive measures. By doing so, they can contribute to shaping a more sustainable and equitable economic future that resonates not only within the United States but also extends its reach to the broader global community.

References

  • Akhavan, P. (1998). The International Criminal Court: A New Era for International Justice. College of Law, University of Auckland.
  • Bonikowski, T. (2017). “The Twilight of the American Century.” New York Times.
  • Cornwall, A., & Nyamu‐Musembi, C. (2004). “Putting the ‘Rights-Based Approach’ to Development into Perspective.” Development Policy Review, 22(5), 573-584.
  • Fajgelbaum, P. D., & Khandelwal, A. K. (2022). “Measuring the Distributional Effects of Trade Policy.” Economics of Trade Policy, Springer.
  • Gartzke, E., Li, Q., & Boehmer, C. (2001). “Investing in Peace: Economic Interdependence and International Conflict.” International Organization, 55(2), 391-438.
  • Held, D., & McGrew, A. (2008). Globalization/Anti-Globalization: Contradictory Dynamics of Globalization in the Contemporary World. Polity Press.
  • Huynh, K. & Burggraf, E. (2020). “The Trade War and Its Effect on Global Supply Chains.” World Economy Journal.
  • Ikenberry, G. J., & James, R. (2001). “The End of the West?” Foreign Affairs.
  • Kaufman, R. R., & Haggard, S. (2018). “The Political Economy of Democracy: The Role of Institutions in Economic Growth.” Journal of Politics in Latin America, 10(1), 35-68.
  • Mintz, A., & Courtwright, A. (2002). “The Very Idea of a Trade War: The Political Economy of Trade Policy.” Review of International Political Economy, 9(4), 578-610.
  • Nagy, R. (2008). “Reclaiming the Future: Economic Justice in the Post-Globalization Era.” Social Justice Journal.
  • Newman, A., Smith, M., & Wang, L. (2015). “Populism and the Financial Crisis: Reassessing the Politics of Economic Change Based on Class.” Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 203-224.
  • Nye, J. S. (2019). “Understanding Soft Power.” Harvard International Review.
  • Obstfeld, M., & Rogoff, K. (2005). Global Capital Markets: Integration, Crisis, and Growth. Cambridge University Press.
  • Parks, T., & Warren, R. (2009). “Grassroots Mobilization: Can It Work?” American Political Science Review, 103(2), 135-148.
  • Stephen, M. M., & Skidmore, D. (2018). “The Cost of Protectionism: The Impact of Tariffs on Consumers.” Economic Policy Review.
← Prev Next →