The Global Impact of Trump’s Leadership Style
Even prior to taking office, President-elect Donald Trump has been perceived by some as a figure of strength while others view him as a source of international instability.
As I pen this piece, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finds himself in a precarious position following the resignation of his finance minister, Chrystia Freeland. The catalyst for this turmoil? Trump’s threat to impose a staggering 25% tariff on goods imported from Canada. This move raises questions about its legality under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which Trump often touts as one of his administration’s achievements.
It is crucial to note that such tariffs would likely inflict more harm on American consumers than on Canadian exporters. While Canadian businesses may face challenges due to increased costs, it is U.S. consumers who will ultimately bear the brunt through higher prices and reduced purchasing power—an outcome that could negatively impact the broader American economy.
Moreover, Trump’s rationale for these tariffs appears perplexing; he links them to addressing the fentanyl crisis in America—a situation that seems to have peaked recently. This marks an unprecedented instance where tariffs are proposed as leverage against foreign nations regarding domestic issues within the U.S.
For many supporters and even for Trump himself, these complexities are irrelevant. They see him wielding influence over a leader from one of the G7 nations with just a single post on Truth Social. His approach—wherein foreign policy hinges upon personal relationships with world leaders—would have been considered unorthodox by previous standards but is now celebrated by his base as an embodiment of strength.
Trump’s relationship with Trudeau has always had personal undertones; he harbored resentment towards Trudeau after receiving criticism when he first assumed office in 2017, leading to strained relations between their countries ever since. The new president clearly hasn’t let go of this grudge and has included Canada among those targeted for trade sanctions.
While threatening tariffs can be seen as misguided there might be some logic behind suggesting Mexico could avoid them by enhancing border control efforts or implying that China should take stronger action against drug trafficking networks. However, what exactly does Trump expect Canada—the “Great Dominion”—to do in response?
In light of these developments, provincial leaders across Canada convened an emergency meeting in Toronto amidst federal government disarray over how best to respond to Trump’s threats. Ontario Premier Doug Ford described the situation in Ottawa as chaotic.
Trudeau attempted damage control reminiscent of past diplomatic blunders; he traveled to Mar-a-Lago seeking reconciliation—a gesture likely appreciated by Trump’s supporters but poorly received back home amid rising dissatisfaction among Liberal MPs who fear electoral repercussions under his leadership.
This scenario exemplifies how Trump conducts negotiations: issue alarming threats and observe how events unfold without intervention.
In another context reflecting similar bravado, Trump warned Hamas they would face “ALL HELL TO PAY.” What does this entail? He elaborated vaguely that it would not be pleasant but left much open-endedness regarding consequences—a tactic reminiscent of Shakespeare’s King Lear: “I shall do such things — what they are yet I know not — but they shall be the terrors of the Earth.” Will Hamas wait anxiously for clarity? What about other nations like Canada or Mexico?
Rich Lowry aptly summarizes what could resemble a “Trump Doctrine”: “Find out if I’m serious or not at your own risk.”
Some may interpret this assertive stance as a revitalization of American power akin to Teddy Roosevelt’s era; others might view it with concern—as an unsettling shift toward governance driven more by individual whims than established laws and principles.
Interestingly enough, public sentiment appears favorable towards Trump’s approach; unusually high approval ratings have emerged between election day and inauguration day—a testament perhaps to society’s ongoing fascination with strongman leadership styles prevalent throughout history across various cultures worldwide. Regardless, John Adams’ vision advocating “a government of laws not men” feels increasingly distant amid current political dynamics.
Graduated from University of Denver, Residing in Dallas, Texas. Political observer and a Conservative. Follow on Twitter for more.