Donald Trump's political rhetoric has long positioned him as a staunch opponent of globalism, a term he uses to describe an interconnected system of international elites, corporations, and institutions that he claims undermine national sovereignty and prioritise global interests over American ones.
From his campaign promises to "Make America Great Again" (MAGA), to his speeches rejecting globalism at the United Nations, Trump has framed himself as the antidote to this perceived threat. Yet, despite his efforts, tariffs, immigration restrictions, and an "America First" foreign policy, the influence of globalists persists. The reasons for this are multifaceted, rooted in the entrenched nature of global systems, the limitations of his approach, and the unintended consequences of his actions.
Globalism, as a phenomenon, is not a monolith that can be dismantled by a single leader, even one wielding the power of the U.S. presidency. It is a deeply embedded network of economic, political, and cultural forces, built over decades through trade agreements, multinational corporations, and international organisations like the World Trade Organization and the United Nations. These structures are resilient, supported by a vast array of stakeholders—governments, businesses, and even citizens—who benefit from interconnected markets and global cooperation. Trump's policies, such as imposing tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico, aimed to disrupt this system by prioritising domestic interests. However, these measures have not eradicated globalism's influence. Instead, they've prompted other nations to adapt, forging new trade alliances that exclude the U.S., like the revamped Trans-Pacific Partnership or China's Belt and Road Initiative. In this sense, globalism has proven agile, shifting its shape rather than collapsing under Trump's pressure.
Trump's tariffs, intended to bring manufacturing back to American soil, disrupted supply chains, yet many companies responded by relocating production to other countries like Vietnam or India rather than the U.S., further entrenching global economic networks. Even Trump's personal business history, relying on international investments and branding, reflects a deep entanglement with the very globalist systems he decries, undermining his ability to fully reject them. This duality suggests that his anti-globalist stance is more rhetorical than practical, a tool for rallying domestic support rather than a coherent strategy for dismantling global structures.
The political and economic realities of the United States also limit Trump's ability to end the globalist threat. America's economy is fundamentally tied to the global market, its dollar is the world's reserve currency, its corporations operate worldwide, and its consumers rely on imported goods. Completely severing these ties would risk economic collapse, a reality Trump has tacitly acknowledged by tempering his tariff threats with exemptions and delays, as seen in his negotiations with Canada and Mexico in 2025. Additionally, the U.S. government itself is not a monolith under his control—Congress, the judiciary, and entrenched bureaucracies often resist or dilute his initiatives, preserving ties to international norms and institutions.
Another layer of complexity lies in the globalist response to Trump. Rather than weakening under his assaults, globalist entities—corporations, NGOs, and foreign governments—have doubled down on their agendas. Tech giants like Google and Amazon, often labelled as globalist by Trump's allies, continue to wield immense influence, shaping markets and information flows beyond the reach of national policies. Foreign leaders, from Emmanuel Macron to Xi Jinping, have capitalised on Trump's retreat to advance their own visions of global order, often at America's expense. The "threat" of globalists, as Trump defines it, is not a static target but a dynamic force that evolves in response to his moves, making it elusive and resistant to eradication.
Finally, Trump's focus on short-term wins, tariff announcements, border wall photo ops, and fiery speeches, lacks the sustained, systemic strategy needed to uproot globalism. Ending the globalist threat would require not just dismantling trade deals or punishing corporations, but reimagining America's role in the world, a task that demands bipartisan support, long-term planning, and international cooperation—areas where Trump has shown little interest or success.
In essence, Trump has not ended the threat of globalists because globalism is not a foe that can be vanquished with the tools he wields. It is a pervasive, adaptive system, intertwined with America's own society and sustained by forces beyond his control. To truly dismantle globalism will require much more radical tools, such as financial independence, via use of Douglas social credit for example to break away from the real globalist domination. MAGA has yet to even think about the issue of financial freedom and reform.