Abdalla Mohamed
This article critically examines Donald Trump’s economic agenda through the theoretical framework of classical liberalism. The primary objective is not to assess the global economic repercussions of his policies, but rather to evaluate the extent to which his approach aligned with-or diverged from-the foundational principles of classical economic thought, particularly those associated with Adam Smith, as well as from the traditional economic orthodoxy of the Republican Party (RP).
Although Donald Trump’s presidency was relatively brief, the economic policies implemented during his administration exerted a substantial and wide-ranging influence on both domestic and global economic dynamics. Domestically, protesters across many U.S. states mobilized in response to perceived threats to human rights and civil liberties, particularly concerning immigration policies and minority rights. There were also widespread concerns about the integrity of democratic institutions, with critics pointing to rhetoric and actions they believed undermined constitutional norms and the rule of law.
Economic justice constituted another major grievance-especially in relation to tax policies and the perception of favoritism toward the wealthy and large corporations at the expense of working-class communities. Environmental concerns were amplified as the administration rolled back key climate regulations and withdrew from the Paris Agreement. Additionally, demonstrators emphasized the need for robust public health protections and transparency in governance, particularly following the decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO).
Globally, Trump’s policies significantly altered the dynamics of international trade, diplomacy, and environmental cooperation. His “America First” agenda triggered trade wars-most notably with China-disrupting global supply chains and heightening economic uncertainty. The renegotiation of key trade agreements, such as the replacement of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), unsettled markets and challenged long-standing economic relationships.
In terms of foreign policy, Trump distanced the United States from multilateral frameworks by withdrawing from pivotal agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran Nuclear Deal. These actions weakened international cooperation and strained traditional alliances, particularly within NATO. His administration’s controversial immigration policies-including the so-called “Muslim Ban”-drew global condemnation and damaged the U.S.’s international image, especially in Muslim-majority and Latin American countries.
In light of these developments, the contradictions between Trumpism and Adam Smith’s legacy become evident. Adam Smith, often regarded as the father of classical economic liberalism, envisioned an economic system grounded in free markets, minimal state interference, and international trade as pathways to mutual prosperity. In stark contrast, Trump’s economic agenda-often referred to as “Trumpism”-embraced protectionism, unilateral tariffs, and aggressive reshoring strategies, which appear to contradict the foundational principles of Smithian economics. While Smith warned against the distortions caused by tariffs and government favoritism, Trump frequently employed such tools as instruments of leverage and national interest to advance his “America First” agenda. This divergence raises fundamental questions about whether Trumpism represents a repudiation of classical liberal economic principles.
Equally significant is Trump’s departure from the traditional economic philosophy of the Republican Party. Historically, the RP-particularly from the Reagan era onward-was influenced by neoliberal economic principles that emphasized free trade, limited government intervention, fiscal conservatism, deregulation, privatization, and low taxes. In contrast, Trump introduced a brand of economic nationalism that rejected many of these tenets. He imposed tariffs, withdrew from international trade agreements, and pursued policies aimed at reshoring manufacturing and protecting domestic industries. Unlike his Republican predecessors, Trump did not hesitate to intervene in private sector affairs, using the presidency to influence corporate decisions and market behavior.
Overall, many analysts argue that Trump’s approach blended conservative economic instruments with populist protectionism, reshaping the Republican economic identity in ways that continue to shape the party’s trajectory. His populist agenda combined economic nationalism, cultural conservatism, anti-elite rhetoric, and direct appeals to the working class. It represented a break from traditional Republican orthodoxy-particularly in areas such as free trade and international cooperation-by centering on a narrative of restoring the power and prosperity of “the forgotten American.”
The future prospects of Trump’s populist policies depend on a variety of factors, including electoral outcomes, shifts in party dynamics, global economic changes, and evolving public sentiment. However, it is noteworthy that even if Trump himself does not return to office, Trumpist populism is unlikely to disappear. It has redefined the Republican Party platform and reshaped political discourse in the United States and beyond. Its endurance will depend on whether it can address legitimate economic and social grievances without succumbing to authoritarian tendencies or internal contradictions.
