As the world braces for American protectionism, Trump’s tariff war with Canada, Mexico, and China signals a geopolitical recalibration, attempting to dismantle decades of free trade agreements. Trump’s tariffs—25% on imports from Canada and Mexico and 10% on Chinese goods (so far)—are triggering economic contractions; Mexico’s GDP alone could drop by 16%.4 Legally speaking, these tariffs: “violate the free trade agreement that the president and I, along with our Mexican partner negotiated and signed a few years ago” Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau said. They will not, therefore, bow their heads, and choose to retaliate, along with the potential for the WTO to be involved in this dispute, as Beijing also anticipates. Can or will Canada and Mexico turn to Europe? This remains an open question for the coming months. In light of these aggressive moves, the 27 leaders are now rethinking their dependency on American support for their defence. It has been a long time since Europe started talking about independence from the US. Maybe that time has come? But at what price? There is a weak chance that this might happen considering the soon-coming tariffs on imports, the lack of cohesion and internal divisions – Poland wants the US as a key partner, France yearns for autonomy, and the Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani remarked that: “If Europe wants to avoid a trade war with Donald Trump, it has to buy more from the U.S., boost defence budgets, and deregulate to strengthen the EU economy”.
It seems, once again, that despite being aware of these tariffs since November, Brussels avoided the elephant in the room, hoping Trump’s promises would not materialise – or at least not this quickly. Now, Europe faces a defining moment. On top of the current stagnation, potential tariffs will lead to higher inflation, shifts in trade routes, and disruptions in supply chains. The scenario is twofold: either the EU focuses inwards, creating a reliable, solid internal market, or it will have to look East, hoping to secure better deals than with its transatlantic partner.
Yet Trump’s manoeuvring extends beyond tariffs.
Greenland and the Panama Canal are the new chessboards of global power competition. Trump’s ambitions in the Arctic and the Panama Canal share a common thread- control over global trade routes. The objective is to secure U.S. dominance in maritime commerce over the Russian and Chinese ones. As glaciers melt and the Northwest Passage opens, Putin sees this as an opportunity to turn Russia into a commercial superpower, while Trump pushes for U.S. influence, eyeing Greenland as a strategic outpost. Meanwhile, China secures its foothold through its ‘Polar Silk Road’, strengthening ties with Moscow. It came as no surprise that Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement. It is this very climate crisis that is opening the Arctic route, turning it into the frontline of what we might call an war for (shrinking) ice. Or an Ice War? Simultaneously, the US bemoans rising Panama Canal fees and Beijing’s economic footprint in Latin America. The Arctic offers an alternative to disrupted Red Sea trade, but so does the canal – where the U.S. remains the largest user, accounting for 40% of container traffic. In both the Arctic and Panama, the US seek to counterbalance growing Chinese and Russian influence, but its reluctance to acknowledge climate change—the very force making Arctic routes viable and Panama’s waterways less predictable—undermines its long-term strategic positioning. Global trade is being reshaped and in this evolving chess game, can we go as far as to say that we are entering a new phase of icy confrontation, with three actors and economic deterrence at its core?
