The Strength Trap: How America's Power Moves Are Making It Weaker

When Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declared America's 145% tariffs on Chinese goods "unsustainable" this past April, he inadvertently revealed what economic historians have long understood: protectionist policies devour their own objectives.

Similarly, when federal debt service costs surpassed national defence spending for the first time in modern history, we witnessed not merely a budgetary milestone but a symbolic inversion—a nation spending more to service past decisions than to secure its future.

These aren't isolated policy mistakes. They represent what we might call the "strength paradox"—policies designed to project American power that systematically undermine the foundations upon which that power rests. Like a bodybuilder who mistakes bulk for functional fitness, current approaches prioritise the appearance of economic muscle while weakening the underlying capabilities essential for genuine resilience.

America's combination of fiscal expansion during prosperity and protectionist trade policies represents a fundamental misunderstanding of national strength. Current policies erode both the fiscal flexibility and competitive dynamism essential for effective crisis response, creating a less stable operating environment and potentially deeper, longer recoveries.

Tariffs: When Protection Becomes Weakness

The contemporary enthusiasm for tariffs reveals a recurring historical error—confusing protection with strength. America's early industrial advantages came not from isolation but from embracing global best practices. When Samuel Slater memorised British textile designs and Francis Cabot Lowell studied Manchester's processes, they demonstrated that competitive superiority flows from adopting the world's best innovations, not from building walls against them.

This pattern repeated when America faced Japan's manufacturing challenge in the 1980s. The winning response wasn't protectionist retrenchment but Silicon Valley's elegant solution: offshore the assembly, onshore the innovation. It was a strategy that turned apparent dependence into genuine strength through focusing on high-value activities.

Today's tariff regime reverses this proven formula. Trump's first-term tariffs, despite job-protection rhetoric, caused net American job losses—a result predictable to anyone familiar with trade economics. When approximately half of American imports directly support domestic manufacturing, imposing duties on these inputs resembles penalising yourself for efficiency. The cure proves more damaging than the supposed disease.

The deeper problem lies in what these policies reveal about American capitalism's evolution. Corporate lobbying has surged nearly two-thirds since the late 1990s, while three-quarters of industries have become more concentrated. We're witnessing the transformation of dynamic capitalism into something economists politely term "crony capitalism," where political connections matter more than competitive efficiency. This trend threatens the innovation ecosystem that has historically driven American resilience.

Rising Debt: Prosperity Built on Borrowed Capacity

Current fiscal policy reveals an equally profound confusion about national resilience. The basic principle of public finance—save during prosperity, spend during adversity—has been abandoned with remarkable consistency. Federal debt has tripled since 2000, reaching 100% of GDP, with projections showing 125% by 2034—a level unprecedented since the nation's founding.

This trajectory violates what previous generations understood instinctively: fiscal capacity must be preserved during good times for deployment during crises. Reagan's recession-era tax cuts were followed by recovery-era increases. Clinton balanced budgets during the 1990s boom. These leaders understood that effective fiscal policy moves counter-cyclically. Recent policy produces the opposite: deficits that expand regardless of economic conditions.

The consequences manifest immediately and systemically. Interest payments now exceed defence spending—a budgetary inversion that previous generations would have found alarming. More concerning, research by economists David and Christina Romer shows that countries entering crises with high debt loads provide less economic support, even when markets remain willing to lend. The constraint proves as much psychological as financial: policymakers become reluctant to act when debt ratios appear unsustainable.

Recent market signals suggest approaching what former Biden official Daleep Singh calls "psychological tipping points"—moments when investor confidence shifts suddenly. Long-term yields have risen while the dollar has weakened, indicating markets are beginning to price in fiscal risks.

The Compounding Effect: When Weaknesses Converge

The interaction of these trends creates a vulnerability greater than either problem alone. Consider a recession triggered by trade conflicts hitting an economy burdened by tariff-inflated costs, while government response capacity remains constrained by debt concerns. The safety net that provided crucial support during 2008 ($800 billion) and 2020 ($5 trillion) may prove unavailable when needed.

This extends beyond traditional policy tools. Current approaches undermine broader sources of strength: scientific research capabilities, alliance relationships, and institutional frameworks that enable coordinated responses to global challenges. The reduction of federal research funding represents what economists call a "massive, self-inflicted wound," while deteriorating alliances reduce capacity to coordinate responses to pandemics or supply chain disruptions.

Historical precedent proves sobering. Economic research shows trade wars can "easily morph into enduring conflict," while countries with constrained fiscal capacity experience "longer periods of high unemployment" during recoveries. America risks entering its next major crisis with both economic efficiency reduced and policy options significantly limited.

Strategic Clarity: Rediscovering Genuine Strength

For executives and policymakers navigating this landscape, the implications demand strategic adjustment rather than panic. Companies must build greater internal resilience: diversifying supply chains beyond tariff vulnerabilities, maintaining stronger balance sheets for potentially deeper downturns, and investing in innovation to offset market distortions.

Policy correction flows logically from proper diagnosis. Genuine strength requires returning to fiscal consolidation during prosperity, replacing unilateral tariffs with rules-based trade policies that harness beneficial global integration, and restoring investment in research and alliances that enhance competitive advantages.

The choice crystallises clearly: continue policies providing short-term political satisfaction while eroding long-term capacity, or restore the fiscal discipline and competitive openness that historically enabled America to emerge from crises stronger. The next recession or geopolitical shock will test which path we've chosen—but by then, it may be too late to change course.

Need to revise your strategy?

Is your business equipped to navigate the intricate web of global geopolitics and identify the opportunities hidden within the uncertainty? If you're seeking to build a more resilient and strategically agile organisation, a Tier 1: Strategic Kickstarter Call can help you assess your current approach and explore how to turn geopolitical insight into a competitive advantage.

The Strength Trap: How America's Power Moves Are Making It Weaker