How Trump’s Tariffs Are Triggering a Redrawing of Global Trade Alliances

President Trump’s firehose of tariffs is having an impact on the world that extends well beyond the price of imported goods. It promises to trigger a wholesale realignment of global trade alliances.

That’s the contention of Sam Wilkin, director of political risk analytics with Willis, a global insurance brokerage and risk adviser.

In exchange for reduced tariffs, Wilkin explains, a number of countries have agreed to align with the U.S. on national security policies, such as screening investments in the supply chain, supporting American export controls, and tightening up on rules of origin to prevent transshipments meant to circumvent import restrictions.

The shifting of chairs at the trade negotiating table “has been one underappreciated feature of the Administration’s approach to tariffs,” he adds.

Willis’s Political Risk Index, surveying the second half of 2025, bears that observation out. It describes a “dramatic transformation” in international trade that is well underway. Trump’s tariffs, the report says, “have become the frontline of geopolitics, replacing the old rules-based order with a system that mirrors East-West divides.

“Countries once considered firm allies have drifted toward neutrality, while others have flipped camps entirely,” Willis adds. “These changes are now embedded in trade deals, tariff rates and competitive positioning, making geopolitical alignment a critical factor for global businesses.”

Countries that weren’t traditionally strong allies of the U.S. are now being asked to fall into line if they wish to have access to American markets. Wilkin cites the example of Vietnam, which had been growing closer to the Chinese even as it presented a sourcing alternative to China. Now, Wilkin says, Vietnam has pledged to enforce U.S. export controls and monitor transshipments, in exchange for favorable tariff treatment. “It’s not abandoning its relationship with China,” he says. “It’s just an unexpected shift.”

Also under pressure to conform to U.S. trade priorities are Cambodia and Thailand. The first, which has been aligned closely with China, has signed on to help police U.S. export sanctions. “That’s very surprising for those who considered Cambodia to be in China’s orbit,” Wilkin says. Washington had repeatedly accused the country of being host to a China-financed naval base. And last fall, Thailand struck a deal under which it pledged to eliminate tariff barriers on 99% of U.S. goods.

The precise nature of the new global order remains unclear, given that so many of the deals that Trump has sought with trade partners have yet to be finalized. The U.S. and India recently announced a major trade pact that will reportedly take six months to officially sign, and a year to implement. Other trade deals have been described as “frameworks,” with the details to filled in later. Questions exist around the status of South Africa, Brazil and Indonesia, to name a few, as future American partners. In a number of cases, says Wilkin, “there’s a lot of fine print yet to be worked out.”

Another challenge to the stability of this still-cohering community is the inclusion of “poison pills” in certain trade agreements. Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (due for renegotiation this year), the signatories are barred from entering into additional free-trade agreements with “non-market” economies, which could describe a number of Asian powerhouses.

Wilkin considers it “astonishing” that only Canada and China have so far retaliated strongly against the Trump tariffs imposed in the President’s second term. Instead, many countries have lined up to meet U.S. demands for more favorable trade treatment. “Maybe with the level of tariffs being what they are,” he says, “to retaliate in kind would have been so catastrophic for the world economy that they decided just to walk away.”

That degree of acquiescence could be tested in the coming months, however. More recently, Europe pushed back hard against Trump’s threat to raise tariffs as punishment for the continent’s opposition to his bid to acquire Greenland. European leaders raised the possibility of invoking their anti-coercion instrument, known more colorfully as a “trade bazooka,” to counter what they see as economic bullying. But even that standoff isn’t likely to stop the reshuffling of international trade partnerships that’s currently in the making.

The big question now, of course, is how Trump’s trade deals, regardless of how finalized they might be, will be affected by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the tariffs he imposed under authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Trump has vowed to maintain the tariffs under numerous other statutes, so the Court’s decision isn’t likely to halt the reshuffling of global trade alliances, as countries seek to counter the uncertainties caused by the President’s constant readjustment of tariff levels.

Source: Supply Chain Brain

Image Source: iStock/wildpixel