When Donald Trump developed the Trump Ocean Club in Panama, he made a promise of significance. This sail-shaped tower housed upscale boutiques, luxurious residences, hotels, and casinos. However, this was followed by enduring lawsuits, mismanagement, intense conflicts with owners, and the removal of court mandates. Trump’s branding.
The initiative showcases how Trump conducts negotiations—not just in real estate, but also on the global trade stage.
This month, Trump unveiled broad new tariffs affecting nearly all major trading allies. This approach wasn’t carved out for specific sectors or thorough evaluation. It was broad, forceful, and intention-driven. Observing his business history, especially in Panama, this reaction isn’t surprising.
Trump’s tactic is to assert dominance, swiftly escalate, cause unrest, and stubbornly refuse to back down. It doesn’t matter if the counterpart is a Central American Condominium Commission or the European Union.
He applies pressure right from the outset, expecting concessions to be made to him. His goal isn’t to achieve small wins—rather, he seeks full dominance.
In Panama, the Trump organization neither financed nor constructed the venue. They merely licensed their name and managed the establishment. Yet, when the owners’ association attempted to dismiss Trump’s team due to overcharging and questionable financial decisions, Trump’s lawyers swiftly filed arbitration claims, invoked conspiracy allegations, and refused to leave until a court intervened. An official view of his name being removed was eventually created.
The focus wasn’t on resolving issues, but rather maintaining a hard stance, projecting strength, and prolonging the conflict. This might have been effective in New York real estate and Panama, but it could struggle to adapt within international trade.
When Trump enforces tariffs, he employs the same strategy. The US market is a critical leverage point. The underlying assumption is that no nation wants to forgo access to it, eventually leading to their collapse. Some might indeed. Smaller nations can quietly adapt their strategies to avert complications.
However, it’s also significant to note that Trump’s method remains unpredictable. Days after the tariffs were announced, he halted proposed tariffs, illustrating a dynamic shift often zipping between urgency and negotiation. What seems to escalate one day may lead to discussions the next.
But global circumstances have changed. Major powers—China, the European Union, Japan—are less receptive to coercive approaches. What’s observed is a blend of transient trade dealings and enduring strategic responses.
A similar scenario unfolded in Panama as well. Trump’s brand was eventually erased, but it drew condemnation, legal battles, and negative press. While the deal proceeded, satisfaction was notably absent.
China presents a unique scenario. Chinese officials typically steer clear of direct confrontations yet have a low tolerance for embarrassment. If an exit strategy exists that allows them to save face, they will utilize it. However, if they find themselves cornered, they respond with order and patience. This isn’t an escape; it’s a tactical reevaluation.
Of course, this conversation isn’t limited to appearances or leverage. It zeros in on rejuvenating American manufacturing and delivering jobs to American workers. This is the fundamental message behind the tariffs.
Trump argues that years of poor trade agreements have depleted industrial foundations, moved jobs overseas, and left many regions behind. Tariffs flip the narrative—under American conditions, along with employing American labor, boost the incentive to manufacture domestically.
This debate resonates politically. In communities that have seen factories relocate to China and Mexico, there’s little nostalgia for the previous system. If some global tension brings work back to Ohio or Pennsylvania, many are willing to accept the trade-offs. Trump doesn’t necessarily seek international acclaim; he desires tangible resultsfor the Rust Belt.
Moreover, this impact reaches not just urban areas but also the Rust Belt. Thousands of small towns and cities have seen their manufacturing livelihoods evaporate, leaving deep economic voids unfilled.
For many voters, this transcends economic theory; it’s about who advocates for them when no one else does. In towns stripped of factories, a resonant urgency exists concerning deals that have strained their communities. The tariffs may not be flawless, but to many, they seem like a vital correction long overdue.
Nonetheless, the outcomes remain uncertain. The manufacturing sector is influenced not merely by tariffs but also by investment, supply chain, automation, and workforce readiness. Tariffs might adjust incentives, but actual manufacturing calls for investment, infrastructure, and skilled labor. Have the necessary foundations been established?
Reading trade dynamics has never been straightforward. For decades, the United States has acted as a global benefactor, wealthy, distracted, often willing to absorb high foreign tariffs for diplomatic purposes. Nations discovered they could request lenience with the concept of “just this once,” and the US complied.
This has resulted in a setup where every nation reaps benefits from access to the U.S. market while shielding their own. Altering this landscape would be contentious. It required more than cordial negotiations over coffee or amicable agreements. Someone had to address the underlying issues directly.
Thus, Trump’s methodology—loud, aggressive, often contentious—wasn’t flawed. It may have been the only approach that could compel recognition of the issues at stake. While style is critiqued, the substance he introduced commanded attention, and Trump was the first president bold enough to confront it directly. That holds significance. In fact, it is crucial.
The clock is ticking for the president, too. The midterm elections will arrive shortly, serving as a gauge to evaluate whether this gamble has been worthwhile. If workers witness improvement, the strategy can be validated if factories reopen and the economy shows genuine growth, not just in theory. Failing that, it might be recalled as a reckless venture that aggravated international relations without reinforcing the nation.
The more pressing question remains whether American workers deem this effort worthwhile. If jobs return and communities thrive, Trump can navigate through any lingering resentment. However, if the anticipated benefits do not materialize, it could lead to hardships, increased costs, and familiar letdowns.
Ron Maccammon, ed.D. is a retired US Army Special Forces Colonel and former political officer. He extensively writes on security, governance, and international affairs. He resided in Panama from 2002 to 2016.
