An empire does not become harmless when its authority weakens. It may become more coercive, while those resisting it may reproduce the same appetite for domination. This is the question that must accompany any assessment of Donald Trump’s attempt to reorder the world: how much freedom will ordinary people gain from the redistribution of power among states?

Paramjit Singh’s American Imperialism in the Age of Trump, published in International Critical Thought on September 20, 2026, offers a substantial starting point. His central proposition is that Trump represents a more openly coercive phase of an established imperial project. Tariffs, financial pressure and military power form what Paramjit Singh calls a “New Imperial Deal”, intended to restore American supremacy while transferring its costs to others.

This approach has considerable merit. Reducing American foreign policy to Trump’s personality conceals the institutions and commercial interests that survive changes of administration. Paramjit Singh also refuses to confuse an expanding group of rival powers with an inherently emancipatory order. His concluding demand for cooperation serving working populations deserves serious attention. The difficulty lies in the distance between that demand and parts of his analysis.

His treatment of tariffs is particularly persuasive. A customs barrier can protect corporate margins while raising the costs borne by consumers and manufacturers using imported inputs. Mary Amiti, Stephen Redding and David Weinstein’s research found that the 2018 tariffs were passed through fully into domestic prices of imported goods. The promise that foreigners would pay was contradicted by the incidence of the tax inside America.

Pakistanis should recognise the mechanism. Protection presented as national development must be judged by its effects on productivity, competition, wages and household purchasing power. A politically connected producer’s gain cannot stand as proof of the nation’s gain. Singh correctly directs attention towards these distributional consequences, which disappear when trade disputes are narrated solely as contests between flags.

However, an economically damaging policy can still secure political concessions or enrich its sponsors. Paramjit Singh acknowledges this geopolitical purpose, but his conclusion that the project is self-defeating requires clearer tests.

Failure to restore manufacturing employment, failure to obtain........

© The Friday Times