The Realist Reorder: From Free Trade to Fortress Trade
How Economic Nationalism Is Rewiring Globalization Under a Hard Power Lens
Introduction
The post-Cold War consensus of open markets, open borders, and the promise of global integration is being rewritten. In its place, a new strategic order is forming, one where trade, industry, and national power are once again tightly linked. This isn't isolationism or deglobalization. It's something else: re-globalization. The reconfiguration of global trade under the terms of national sovereignty.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the second administration of Donald J. Trump. His approach to trade, tariffs, and industrial policy marks a profound shift away from liberal orthodoxy and toward state-centric realism. Far from a departure into economic nationalism for its own sake, Trump's strategy can be understood, and arguably best understood, through the lens of structural realism: A theory of international politics that prioritizes survival, sovereignty, and relative power in an anarchic world.
Structural Realism: The Strategic Framework
Structural realism, or neorealism, as formalized by Kenneth Waltz in Theory of International Politics (1979), explains state behavior not through ideology or ethics but through the structure of the international system. In a world with no central authority, each state operates in self-help mode, focused on securing its own survival.
Waltz’s theory departs from classical realism — the realm of Morgenthau and Carr — by focusing not on human nature, but on systemic constraints. Power, under neorealism, is not an end in itself, but a requirement for survival. As Waltz notes, “Each state pursues its own interests, however defined, in ways it judges best” (Wivel, 2013).
The theory splits into two main branches:
Defensive realism (Waltz): states seek to maintain enough power to remain secure.
Offensive realism (Mearsheimer): states pursue power maximization and regional dominance as the surest path to survival (Schmidt, 2004).
These frameworks, particularly Mearsheimer’s, are essential for understanding the logic of Trump's trade doctrine. In his view, trade is not an economic activity separated from politics. It is politics, by other means.
As Mearsheimer put it: “States operating in a self-help world fear dependence. They prize autonomy above interdependence.”
Economic Nationalism as Realist Statecraft
Trump’s trade policies follow this logic closely. His administration imposed aggressive tariffs, not only on adversaries, but on allies, with little concern for institutional backlash. These moves were not tactical quirks or populist theater. They were expressions of strategic autonomy.
Trump's doctrine views economic dependence as strategic weakness. Tariffs become not merely economic instruments but geopolitical levers. Trade negotiations become less about mutual gain and more about coercive bargaining. Supply chains are not efficiency machines but national security liabilities when stretched across rival powers.
As Sheldon et al. (2018) noted in their review of Trump’s first term trade policy: “The traditional rules-based approach has been replaced with unilateralism backed by threats, deadlines, and enforcement tools.”
Rather than pursue Pareto-optimal outcomes — the holy grail of liberal trade theory — the Trump administration embraced relative gains. Even if the total pie shrinks, what matters is that the U.S. commands a larger slice. That, in realist terms, is winning.
The Rust Belt and the Return of Industrial Power
Nowhere is this logic more resonant than in America’s industrial heartland. The collapse of the Rust Belt was not just an economic event, it was a strategic unraveling. Factories once considered the "arsenal of democracy" were hollowed out in the name of global efficiency. Entire regions were sacrificed to abstract notions of comparative advantage.
Economic nationalism, in this context, is not a luxury. It is a requirement for sovereignty. If a country cannot produce what it needs to defend itself, it is no longer sovereign.
Trump’s emphasis on re-shoring key industries, subsidizing manufacturing, and restricting imports reflects a realist commitment to resilience over efficiency. Whether or not these policies yield maximum GDP growth is beside the point. Their purpose is power: National power, economic self-determination, and the restoration of strategic industry.
Re-Globalization: From Open Markets to National Leverage
To call this “de-globalization” or “protectionsim” misses the point. Trade has not ended. It has been reorganized. What’s happening is re-globalization: The reconstruction of trade patterns based not on idealistic integration but on interest-driven realignment.
This new order is defined by:
Bilateralism over multilateralism
Friend-shoring over global supply chains
State-guided capital flows over laissez-faire finance
As Heydarian Pashakhanlou (2018) observed in applying offensive realism to trade: “Power preponderance is the best safeguard for state survival.” Trade under Trump is not about interdependence. It’s about dominance. More so, sovereignty.
And it is producing results. In April 2025, the U.S. posted the largest monthly trade deficit drop on record. Imports plunged, exports surged, and the Atlanta Fed now projects 4.6% GDP growth in Q2 — a full point higher than the previous estimate. This shift is not accidental. It is policy-driven. And it is realist to the core.
Conclusion
Trump’s second-term economic strategy is not a departure from foreign policy tradition. It is a return to it through the lens of realism. The liberal dream of a borderless world, managed by international institutions and governed by market efficiencies, has failed to protect American strength. It has outsourced production, weakened critical supply lines, and exposed the nation to leverage by its rivals.
What replaces it is not isolation. It is re-nationalization. It is the sovereign state reclaiming control over its economic lifelines: Its industries, its workers, its trade relationships.
This is re-globalization through a realist lens. Not a retreat, but a redirection. Not about fear, but about power. And in an anarchic world, power is the final word.
Sources Cited
Wivel, Ole. “Realism.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies, 2013.
Schmidt, Brian C. “Realist Conceptualizations of Power.” Review of International Studies, 2004.
Pashakhanlou, Arash Heydarian. “Offensive Realism and Trade.” International Politics, 2018.
Sheldon, Ian et al. “Trump’s Trade Policy: A New Realism or a Return to Mercantilism?” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 2018.
Bimantara, Teguh. “The Neorealist Roots of Trump’s Trade Doctrine.” Geopolitical Monitor, 2018.