The Tariff Gambit — Why the Math, Messaging and Market Strategy All Fail

COMMENTARY

Part 1 — The Illusion of Strategy

That op-ed floating around — framing President Donald Trump’s latest tariffs as some high-stakes, fiscal kung fu move to refinance debt, reset global alliances and jump-start domestic industry — is glowingly seductive spin. It sounds like 3D chess.

But if you’ve actually seen how these tariffs were calculated — globally, not surgically — you’d know the administration is not playing chess. It’s not even winning at tic-tac-toe.

Here’s the formula: Take the trade deficit with a country, divide it by the total imports from that country, then cut that number in half and slap it on as a tariff. That’s how they got 34% for China.

But they didn’t stop there.

They used this same lazy math on countries so small they couldn’t tip the scale of a lemonade stand, let alone the global trade balance. Think: Latvia. Honduras. Mauritius. Even some Caribbean nations with a handful of exports were hit with double-digit tariffs based on this one-size-fits-all spreadsheet logic.

None of these countries pose a strategic threat. Most of them export boutique goods, ag products or basic textiles. And they certainly don’t have the kind of leverage — or trade volume — that should make them targets for punitive tariffs. But the math didn’t care. It was algorithmic nationalism: dumb, blunt and universal.

If this was a real strategic play, you’d see differentiation. You’d see exemptions based on things like U.S. military partnerships, drug interdiction cooperation, critical minerals sourcing and humanitarian relevance.

Instead? Tariffs by template. They hit allies and non-allies, trading partners and non-entities alike. That’s not chess. That’s Monopoly with a vengeance.

Part 2 — Tariffs by Template

This is what happens when you treat trade policy like an algorithm: No nuance, no exemptions, no respect for diplomacy or partnerships — just a plug-and-play formula that treats Latvia like China and St. Lucia like India.

A real strategist would have said: “Let’s use tariffs to apply pressure where we need geopolitical or economic leverage, and exempt partners, allies and low-volume traders who don’t need to be caught in the crossfire.”

But nope. We got tariffs by template. It’s the diplomatic equivalent of firing a shotgun into a room because you think someone in there owes you money.

Let’s be crystal clear: This isn’t part of a clever global reset. It’s a tantrum. A badly aimed one.

And while the White House scrambles to spin this as economic jiu-jitsu, small U.S. exporters and supply chain–dependent businesses are the ones catching the shrapnel. Meanwhile, countries that had no dog in this fight are suddenly reassessing their ties to the United States — because we treated them like enemies for no reason.

If Part 1 showed that the administration isn’t playing chess, Part 2 proves they’re not even watching the board. They’re playing darts in the dark and calling it policy.

And some of those darts are landing on friends.

Part 3 — Rebutting the 3D Chess Fantasy

That viral op-ed tried to paint the Trump administration’s new tariffs as part of a masterstroke economic strategy — a “3D chess” maneuver to lower interest rates, refinance $9 trillion in debt, rebuild U.S. manufacturing and rewire the global order.

Sounds great. But here’s the truth: none of it holds up.

If the administration actually wanted to run that play, it should have brought in spindoctors who knew how to craft a temporary, targeted tariff strategy — something with real political cover, a clear economic objective and a countdown clock.

Instead, it mailed a half-baked spreadsheet to every trading partner on Earth and called it policy.

This wasn’t some masterstroke. It was economic improvisation, dressed up after the fact to look like design.

And while this administration plays make-believe economist with a Sharpie and a PowerPoint, the American taxpayer just got hammered with the largest tax increase in U.S. history — because that’s what across-the-board tariffs really are — a massive, regressive tax on working Americans.

No vote. No debate. Just higher prices across every aisle.

Don’t tell me it’s chess. This was a drive-by with a flag on the side.

Skip Middleton is a retired tech executive, turnaround specialist and independent board advisor. He served on the advisory board of Pioneer Corporation following its $1 billion acquisition by Baring PE Asia and has advised firms across the U.S., Europe and APAC. A registered independent, Middleton values competence over party loyalty and supports legal immigration, fiscal sustainability and centrist reform. He can be found on LinkedIn.