By Keith Preston, April 13, 2025

Substack

The economic philosophy and policy platform popularly known as “Trumponomics” is marked by aggressive economic nationalism, trade protectionism, and a transactional approach to international relations. As embodied in the tariffs, deregulation efforts, subsidy reallocations, and foreign policy choices of the Trump administration, these policies represent a significant departure from the liberal international economic order that underpinned U.S. hegemony since World War II. The long-term impact of Trumponomics is still unfolding, but its broad contours are becoming increasingly evident. This assessment evaluates a series of claims regarding its geopolitical, class, and sectoral consequences and concludes that Trumponomics weakens the United States as a global leader, exacerbates class divisions within capitalism, and disproportionately benefits certain entrenched interests at the expense of workers, small businesses, and long-term financial stability.

1. Geopolitical Decline of the U.S. as a Nation-State

One of the most consequential outcomes of Trumponomics has been the weakening of the United States as a cohesive geopolitical actor. The “America First” strategy, marked by unilateral tariffs, withdrawal from multilateral institutions, and contempt for traditional alliances, undermines U.S. leadership in global governance structures such as the World Trade Organization, G7, and NATO. Allies have increasingly distanced themselves from Washington’s leadership, opting instead to pursue independent foreign policy paths or deepen regional ties, as seen in the expansion of BRICS and efforts within the EU and ASEAN to foster autonomy from U.S. influence. The result is an accelerated move toward multipolarity and a decline in Washington’s ability to coordinate collective action or enforce economic norms internationally. In this regard, the claim that the United States as a nation-state is geopolitically weakened under Trumponomics is well supported.

2. Weakening of the Global U.S. Capitalist Class

While the global financial elite have adapted to and even benefited from certain disruptions, Trumponomics has, on balance, undermined the position of globally integrated U.S. capital. Multinational corporations, major Wall Street firms, and export-oriented manufacturers—all of whom thrived in the post-Cold War era of market liberalization and global supply chains—are harmed by trade fragmentation, retaliatory tariffs, and the rise of regional economic blocs. These disruptions erode the postwar foundations of U.S. capitalist hegemony: predictable rules-based trade, open financial markets, and a trusted regulatory environment. As a result, the broader U.S. capitalist class—defined not simply by ownership, but by integration into global capital flows—is indeed weakened by Trumponomics.

3. Strategic Gains for Transnational Financial Interests

However, certain sectors within global finance are strategically positioned to profit from the chaos generated by nationalist economic policy. Firms like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, and Goldman Sachs are not tied to the health of the U.S. nation-state per se, but to the performance of dominant asset classes and commodity trends. Their scale, algorithmic capabilities, and diversified portfolios allow them to thrive during geopolitical volatility and inflationary environments—particularly when defense, fossil fuels, and emerging markets become profitable due to realignments in trade and resource flows. In this sense, transnational finance is not weakened by the unraveling of U.S. hegemony—it simply repositions.

4. Gains for Republican-Aligned Sectors of U.S. Capitalism

Another key outcome of Trumponomics is the empowerment of sectors tightly connected to the Republican Party’s electoral coalition, including defense, fossil fuels, and agribusiness. These industries benefit from nationalist economic policies such as reindustrialization, fossil fuel subsidies, and expanded military spending. Defense budgets swell amid global instability, while fossil fuel producers thrive under “energy independence” rhetoric and deregulation. Although agricultural interests are vulnerable to retaliatory tariffs, particularly from China, these losses are often offset by direct subsidies and trade bailouts. Thus, Trumponomics has functioned as a kind of class warfare from above: redistributing wealth toward politically favored sectors.

5. Mixed Outcomes in the Technology Sector

The effects of Trumponomics on the tech industry are nuanced. Elite firms such as Amazon, Tesla, and Meta (formerly Facebook) have the infrastructure, political influence, and geographic flexibility to weather global turbulence. They can regionalize operations, secure favorable treatment through lobbying, and even profit from digitization trends accelerated by crisis. However, the broader tech sector—especially small- and medium-sized firms reliant on global cloud infrastructure, offshore labor, or open digital markets—faces higher input costs and reduced competitiveness. Consequently, while Trumponomics may strengthen a narrow class of tech oligopolies, it simultaneously undermines innovation and dynamism in the broader digital economy.

6. Harm to U.S. Workers, Consumers, and Small Businesses

Perhaps the most empirically validated consequence of Trumponomics is its harmful effect on U.S. workers, consumers, and small businesses. Tariffs, particularly during the 2018–2019 trade war, acted as indirect taxes on consumers by raising prices for goods. Small businesses lacked the logistical capacity and capital to reroute supply chains or absorb new compliance costs, leaving them vulnerable to market disruption. Meanwhile, workers in export-dependent sectors were harmed by retaliatory trade measures. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Federal Reserve, and academic researchers all confirm that tariff policy under Trump disproportionately affected lower-income households and undermined job growth in several industries.

7. The Role of Currency Speculation and Bondholder Pressure

The complex dynamics between tariff policy, currency markets, and bondholder confidence provide a critical lens through which to assess the short-term versus long-term effects of Trumponomics. In April 2025, following Trump’s announcement of a 10% universal tariff and a 125% tariff on Chinese imports, currency speculators anticipated a short-term surge in the U.S. dollar. Expectations of inflation and Fed rate hikes led to capital flight into dollar-denominated assets. Traders benefited from this brief window of volatility. However, major bondholders—both foreign central banks and domestic institutional investors—soon voiced concern over inflation, fiscal instability, and devaluation risk. This pressure prompted a 90-day pause in the new tariffs, revealing a fundamental contradiction: one cannot simultaneously pursue aggressive tariff policy, provoke market uncertainty, and maintain confidence in U.S. Treasuries without undermining financial stability.

A Systemic Contradiction

Trumponomics, as an ideology and policy set, reveals the contradictions of attempting to revive national economic sovereignty within an interdependent global financial system. While it delivers benefits to select sectors—particularly defense, fossil fuels, and elite tech—it does so at the expense of broader geopolitical influence, economic coherence, and social equity. Most notably, it threatens the credibility of U.S. financial leadership by introducing systemic instability that even its short-term beneficiaries cannot fully control. In the final analysis, Trumponomics represents not just a shift in policy, but a symptom of a deeper transition: from liberal hegemonic order to fragmented multipolar competition, in which no actor—including the United States—can afford to gamble on chaos for very long.