The social contract is a profound idea rooted in the busy marketplace of human society centuries ago. Forged in the fiery debates of the Enlightenment, this philosophical foundation holds that individuals trade under the protection of the state. Visionaries such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau articulated this contract theory as an explanation for why people prefer to live under rules rather than without them.
In today’s interconnected world, this concept is at work in the global trade landscape. In these networks, individuals as well as nations agree on rules for mutual prosperity.
Against this backdrop, the arrival of President Donald Trump and his trade policies have stirred up a storm in this global landscape. In 2017, Trump began imposing tariffs on imported goods, targeting countries like China, Canada and Mexico to protect American workers and industries.
He further expanded these measures after taking office for a second term in 2025, declaring a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to address a trade deficit of over $1.2trn in 2024. He imposed 10 percent tariffs on all countries, including rates as high as 145 percent on China, effective from April 9, targeting countries with the largest US trade deficits.
Retaliatory tariffs from countries such as China and the European Union could harm American exporters, such as farmers, potentially reducing job gains. If the economic harm outweighs the benefits, the government may be failing in its duty to promote the welfare of citizens.
Globally, Trump’s tariffs test the fragile threads of the international social contract. Like Locke’s conditional agreement, trade agreements are mutual. By acting unilaterally, Trump’s policies risk violating this contract. This could lead to retaliation and market turmoil. Japan’s prime minister called it a ‘national crisis’, and JP Morgan raised the risk of a global recession to 60 percent.
Proponents argue that the global trading system was already broken, with countries like China engaging in unfair practices. From a Hobbesian perspective, Trump’s tariffs assert US sovereignty to protect its citizens, risking a flawed global contract. Yet they also risk destabilizing the cooperative framework that has underpinned post-World War II prosperity.
A philosophical lens
In the swirling currents of global trade, where nations vie for advantage, the ideas of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau cast distinct lights on the unfolding drama of President Trump’s tariffs. Each philosopher, with his unique vision of the social contract, offers a way to understand the motives, actions, and ripples of this modern trade saga.
Imagine a world where countries act like wary travelers in a lawless land, each guarding their own treasures. For Hobbes, this is the state of nature—a realm of raw competition where chaos looms without a strong hand to guide it. In his 1651 work Leviathan, he saw nations, much like individuals, needing a powerful sovereign to impose order. Trump’s tariffs, launched in 2017 and intensified in 2025, seem to fit this mold: bold moves by the United States to assert control, protect its industries, and carve out security in a turbulent trade landscape. Yet, Hobbes dreamed of an unchallenged ruler whose word was law. The reality of global trade tells a different story. As nations like China and the EU fire back with their own tariffs, markets tremble and Japan’s Prime Minister calls it a “national crisis”. This resistance reveals a world that bows to no single power, challenging Hobbes’ vision of a tidy, obedient order.
Locke steps into the tale with a gentler view, one rooted in rights and reason. Writing in 1690, he saw people coming together to protect their natural rights to life, liberty and property, forming a government only with their consent. Locke might nod at Trump’s aim to shield American workers and businesses, seeing it as a government’s duty to safeguard its people’s economic freedom. But he’d pause at the way these tariffs were imposed—unilaterally, without the nod of global partners. For Locke, legitimacy hinges on agreement, and actions that stray from the public good risk breaking the contract. When tariffs drive up prices, potentially hiking the cost of an iPhone by 30 percent or adding $1,280 to household expenses in 2025, Locke might warn that the government is failing its own citizens, betraying the very trust it was meant to uphold.
Then there’s Rousseau, who in 1762 wove a vision of the “general will”—a collective spirit where people unite for the common good. He’d peer closely at Trump’s tariffs, asking: do they truly reflect the heart of the American people or do they serve a narrower agenda? Protecting jobs in steel towns might seem to honor the general will, rallying communities hit hard by global trade. But Rousseau’s gaze would stretch further, to the global stage. By favoring American interests over shared prosperity, these tariffs spark retaliatory volleys that could shrink the US GDP by 0.8 percent or cost 740,000 jobs if unchecked. Rousseau might argue that such policies fracture the unspoken pact among nations, sowing mutual harm where cooperation could have flourished.
Together, these philosophers weave a rich tapestry of questions about Trump’s tariff war. Hobbes sees a bold bid for order in a chaotic world, yet stumbles against global defiance. Locke champions the protection of rights but demands consent and care for the public good. Rousseau seeks a collective will that binds both nation and world, wary of actions that pit one against the other. Their voices echo through the clatter of trade disputes, reminding us of the delicate dance between national pride and global trust, between safeguarding one’s own and honoring the shared bonds that keep the world turning.
The heart of the matter
Trump’s tariff war lays bare a core tension: can a nation honor its domestic social contract while upholding its global commitments? Domestically, tariffs address real concerns about job losses and economic decline, but their costs—higher prices and potential job losses from retaliation—raise doubts about their alignment with the common good. Globally, unilateral actions challenge the mutual consent that underpins trade agreements, risking a breakdown in the global social contract.
The tariffs reflect a broader distrust in globalization, fueled by perceived inequities in trade. Yet, the path forward is fraught. As nations grapple with rising costs and market instability, the principles of social contract theory remind us that legitimate governance, whether at home or abroad, requires mutual agreement and a commitment to shared prosperity.
