In a twist that probably shouldn't surprise anyone who's followed the last decade of global trade politics, former President Donald Trump has declared himself "extremely satisfied" with the European Union's hefty 50% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles.
Yes, that's the same Trump who repeatedly labeled the EU a "foe" during his presidency. The same Trump who slapped tariffs on European steel and aluminum and threatened European automakers with the same. Political memory, it seems, is as flexible as market sentiment.
There's something almost poetic about the situation. Here's Trump, campaigning on a promise to impose a blanket 10% tariff on all imports (with special punishment reserved for China), now applauding the EU for going even further than he did. It's like watching someone criticize a restaurant's prices before congratulating them on raising them even higher.
I've covered trade politics since the Obama administration, and if there's one constant, it's that consistency is never the point. What matters is who benefits from which policy at which moment.
The EU's move against Chinese EVs tells us something significant about where global trade is heading. We're witnessing what economists call "decoupling" happening in real time - but it's not just economic decoupling from China. It's also the divorce between free market rhetoric and protectionist reality.
Look, everyone claims to support free trade in principle. It's like claiming to support world peace or puppies. But when cheap imports threaten jobs in politically sensitive sectors? That's when the asterisks and exceptions start multiplying.
The automotive industry presents a particularly thorny case. European consumers might love affordable Chinese EVs. European automakers definitely don't. Politicians need both groups' support, so they split the difference: tariffs high enough to protect domestic manufacturers, not so high as to eliminate all competition. It's the Goldilocks approach to trade policy - not too hot, not too cold.
(Speaking with several European trade officials last month at a conference in Brussels, I heard this tension described repeatedly, though never for attribution.)
What makes Trump's endorsement particularly revealing is how it strips away the pretense. His criticism of EU trade policy was never really about principles - it was about who controlled the levers. When they pull those levers in ways that align with his preferences? Suddenly, Brussels isn't so bad after all.
The economic fallout is both predictable and complex. Higher tariffs will likely slow EV adoption by raising prices. Chinese manufacturers will accelerate plans to build European factories to bypass tariffs. European automakers get breathing room but might lose the competitive pressure that drives innovation.
Everything connects, everything cascades.
There's also a delicious irony here that I can't help but note. Trump's enthusiastic endorsement might actually undermine European support for these very tariffs. Having Trump as your policy's cheerleader in today's political climate is like having your investment strategy endorsed by Bernie Madoff - technically knowledgeable, but perhaps not the association you're going for.
The broader shift in global trade is unmistakable, though. We've moved from liberalization toward strategic management. Everyone's doing it while calling it something different. "Dual circulation" in China. "Friend-shoring" in America. "Strategic autonomy" in Europe. Same wine, fancier bottles.
Which isn't great for economic efficiency but might be necessary for political stability. Markets can handle inefficiency better than democracies can handle mass discontent.
The ultimate irony? As Trump celebrates Europe's protectionist move, he's validating the multilateral approach to confronting China that his administration rejected. Sometimes in politics, as in markets, you end up exactly where you started - just with different terminology and a fresh set of talking points.
And maybe that's the point.
