Trump's tariff legacy and its global echo
Impact on India and reflections in Manipur

Dr Makakmayum Baadshah *

Donald Trump's aggressive trade agenda was not merely an economic tac-tic—it was the product of a worldview forged in the business battles of the 1980s. As Jim Tankersley and Mark Landler wrote in The New York Times (May 15, 2019), Trump's fixation with tariffs can be traced back to his formative years in business when he viewed Japan's growing dominance as a direct threat to American interests.

For Trump, tariffs were not just tools of policy—they were symbols of strength and sovereignty. Throughout his Presidency, he used them to project executive power, punish countries he believed were exploiting the US, and re-define global economic relationships through the lens of economic Nationalism.

The Trump administration's implementation of sweeping tariffs—most notably against China—set off a chain reaction that reverberated across global markets. The imposition of Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminium imports and Section 301 tariffs on over $360 billion worth of Chinese goods led to a full-blown trade war.

In retaliation, countries imposed counter-tariffs on American goods, affecting sectors from agriculture to technology. Global investors and corporations faced mounting uncertainty as supply chains were disrupted, raw material prices fluctuated, and long-standing trade alliances came under strain.

The World Trade Organization saw a spike in trade disputes, while institutions like the International Monetary Fund revised global growth forecasts downward during this period. India, too, found itself caught in the crossfire. A key flashpoint came in 2019 when the Trump administration revoked India's Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) status, which had allowed nearly $5.6 billion worth of Indian goods to enter the US duty-free.

This move directly impacted small and medium Indian exporters, particularly in sectors like textiles, pharmaceuticals, and automobile parts. India responded by levying retaliatory tariffs on 28 US products, including almonds, walnuts, and apples—items widely consumed across Indian households. The strain, however, went beyond trade figures.

Trump repeatedly criticized India for being a "tariff king" and demanded a more open market, notably for American motorcycles like Harley-Davidson. These tensions forced India to recalibrate its trade strategy and seek deeper engagements with alternative markets in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Europe.

While Manipur was not directly involved in global export-import dynamics, the ripple effects of Trump's tariffs were felt subtly but significantly in the region. For instance, the price volatility in imported fruits and nuts—such as apples and almonds—impacted local traders in Manipur's markets, from Imphal to Kakching.

The broader uncertainty in global markets affected India's export-dependent sectors, which in turn influenced job opportunities for youth from Manipur who migrate to metropolitan cities for employment in textiles, IT services, and manufacturing.

Moreover, Manipur's fledgling handloom and handicraft industry, which occasionally taps into global niche markets through Indian e-commerce platforms, faced setbacks as export sentiments weakened during tariff tensions. The situation also highlighted an opportunity gap.

As India sought to shift its trade focus eastward under the Act East Policy—with ambitions of enhancing connectivity to Southeast Asia through Manipur—poor infrastructure and lack of logistical capacity in the region meant it could not fully capitalize on global supply chain realignments.

Despite being strategically positioned along the Indo-Myanmar border, Manipur struggled to insert itself into the larger narrative of trade diversification due to inadequate transport, warehousing, and digital infrastructure. India's broader response to the Trump-era tariff turbulence was pragmatic and multi-layered.

The Government accelerated domestic manufacturing through initiatives like Make in India and the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes. Simultaneously, it increased diplomatic engagement with the US through strategic platforms like QUAD and bilateral trade talks, even while contesting tariff hikes at the World Trade Organization.

India also renewed its commitment to self-reliance under the Atmanirbhar Bharat vision, aiming to build internal capacities in critical sectors like electronics, defence manufacturing, and agriculture. For Manipur, the lessons from the Trump tariff era are instructive.

To harness future global trade opportunities, the State must improve border infrastructure, promote agro-based and organic industries, and equip its youth with export-related skills. Manipur's unique handloom, handicraft, and organic products can tap into niche international markets if supported by appropriate certification mechanisms and e-commerce connectivity.

The ongoing development of the India–Myanmar–Thailand Trilateral Highway and cross-border trade facilities at Moreh present long-term opportunities—provided there is investment in logistics, internet penetration, and financial inclusion.

In conclusion, Donald Trump's tariffs were not just short-term political tools; they reflected a deeper ideological shift in how the United States viewed its place in the global economy. They disrupted decades of trade orthodoxy and left both advanced and emerging economies scrambling to adjust. India, despite challenges, used the period to bolster its economic resilience.

For Manipur, while the impact was indirect, the period serves as a reminder of the interconnectedness of local economies with global policy. As India continues to navigate shifting global tides, it is essential that States like Manipur are not left on the margins but are empowered to participate in and benefit from global economic transformations.