The world is perched precariously between possibility and probability. Across the globe, in national capitals and financial markets, it would seem the future has been put on a pause—heads of state and CEOs have adopted Donald J Trump’s catch phrase, “We will see what happens.” The Trumpian stance is designed to liberate him from detailing his ideas, while leaving him free to align conviction with convenience.
In the 25-odd days Trump has been in office, he has unleashed a tsunami of words, ideas and actions designed to upend the existing rule-based world order. A data point illustrates the blitzkrieg. The 47th US president has signed 64 executive orders between January 20 and February 14, and more are on the way—in sharp contrast in his first presidency as the 45th incumbent, during which he signed 55 executive orders in all of 2017.
The chaos unleashed by Trump is unravelling in slow-motion. The articulations of a remarkable collision of notions and nuances, with attendant twists and turns, have disrupted assumptions and expectations. There are many streams of consciousness. Such is the array that the common refrain prefacing any question or interpretation is not what he said, but when he said what.
The migration of the tariff policy from targeted rates to universal tariffs to reciprocal tariffs—even as confirmations of the nominated commerce secretary and trade representative are awaited—illuminates the saga. This week, barely hours before his meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Trump announced reciprocal tariffs. The barefaced tactic aside, the idea itself is not new and owes its origins to the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act initiated by Franklin D Roosevelt in 1934.
The stark difference is that in 1934 the US was facing the Great Depression. In 2025, American economic growth illuminates the term ‘US exceptionalism’. The reciprocal tariff threat is mired in complexities—the US Harmonised Tariff Schedule for 160 countries is spread over 98 chapters, and has over 18,000 10-digit codes for imports. Imagine its implementation in the backdrop of the promised purge by the department of government efficiency!
Indeed, there is a distinct scent of voodoo economics scaffolding the tariff policy. The ideas seem to stem from the Project 2025 report. While the report advocates advancing “bilateral relation with India as crucial”, the chapters sing a different tune. In one titled ‘Case for fair trade’, Peter Navarro argues that if India were to reduce tariffs to the US levels, it would trim America’s trade deficit by 24 percent; and if the US raised tariffs to India’s levels, the reduction would be a dramatic 88 percent. Can bilateral ties or trade expand under this approach?
Take the 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminium. A litany of studies has established that tariffs on base inputs will hurt the US economy. A 2023 study by Lydia Cox at Yale University shows that ‘upstream tariffs’ have a negative impact on employment and production. While some argue it’s a negotiating tactic, Cox points out that even temporary tariffs can have persistent effects on the economy. Trump’s plans could well end up hurting his MAGA base.
During his campaign, Trump said “tariff is the most beautiful word” and promised the MAGA crowd and America that he would target China with 60 percent tariffs. Indeed, in October 2024, Trump declared that if China went into Taiwan, he would ramp up tariffs to 150-200 percent. He seems to have beaten a retreat since then. As of February 15, tariffs on China were at 10 percent—lower than the 25 percent threatened on America’s supply chain partners Canada and Mexico. Trump’s approach of ‘buy American or else’ with its neighbours and Europe could well dent US GDP. For now, Trump says the pain for Americans will be temporary.
The pivot is even starker on the geopolitical front. On Thursday, Trump stunned and stupefied Europe (and many other allies) by presenting the radical idea that he wants Russia back in the G8: “I’d love to have them back. I think it was a mistake to throw them out.” Even as the idea was being processed, Trump threw a new curve-ball. The US president declared, “I want one of the first meetings I have is with President Xi of China [and] President Putin of Russia. And I want to say, let’s cut our military budget in half.”
Last week, as Benjamin Netanyahu visited the White House, Trump declared that America could take over the Gaza Strip, “level it and rebuild it”. The idea was summarily rejected by the Arab world. But Trump has doubled down on the ‘Eastern Riviera’ plan. He told Fox News that Palestinians wouldn’t have the right to return under his plan. On Friday, Arab states began discussions on a Saudi initiative to counter the Trump plan. The January 2020 Trump peace plan and the two-state solution for Palestine are now under a cloud.
If this was a lesser power, questions would be aired about its leader’s cognitive coherence. This, though, is the self-professed master of the art of the deal—of grand starts, combative quotes, and mega declarations. Typically, the tack is to declare success even before objectives and outcomes are aligned to be measured. If Trump was seen moored to ideology during the campaign, in power, he seems to be guided by the expediency afforded by ambiguity. The slow motion of chaos could well get accelerated.
Shankkar Aiyar
Author of The Gated Republic, Aadhaar: A Biometric History of India’s 12 Digit Revolution, and Accidental India
(shankkar.aiyar@gmail.com)