Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Nicholas Sebastian's avatar

Timothy Snyder’s critique of Donald Trump’s trade policies, framed as a psychological diagnosis, does more to advance partisan fearmongering than to provide a serious economic or political analysis. His claims not only misrepresent the principles behind Trump’s trade agenda but also dangerously conflate policy disagreement with mental instability, betraying the kind of anti-intellectual sensationalism unbecoming of a scholar.

Let’s start with the central thesis: that Trump’s trade decisions are irrational outgrowths of personal paranoia, rather than the product of coherent strategic thinking. This caricature overlooks a growing body of bipartisan concern over the structural imbalances in global trade and the erosion of American manufacturing. Trump’s focus on trade deficits—while often simplified in rhetoric—is not unique to him. Economists, policymakers, and voters across the spectrum have increasingly questioned whether “free trade” as practiced has truly been fair trade. The Trump administration’s push for tariffs and restructured agreements like USMCA sought to correct systemic disadvantages, bolster domestic industry, and reassert leverage long ceded in multilateral deals.

Snyder’s analogy of a conversation where each party must speak the same number of words to illustrate trade balance is clever but fundamentally flawed. Unlike casual conversation, trade relations involve tangible outputs, national employment, and strategic dependencies. If one side benefits disproportionately for decades—through subsidies, dumping, or currency manipulation—then expecting more symmetry is not madness; it’s a recalibration. Indeed, many of the same critics who mocked Trump’s tariffs now acknowledge that China, for instance, exploited WTO membership while hollowing out Western industries.

Further, Snyder implies Trump’s rejection of traditional diplomacy and multilateralism stems from a delusional sense of being personally wronged. In reality, many Americans elected Trump precisely because of his willingness to disrupt a stale consensus that had left middle America behind. Decades of bipartisan support for globalist trade policy brought little benefit to the Rust Belt communities devastated by offshoring and automation. Trump’s direct approach—calling out NATO members for underpaying, renegotiating NAFTA, confronting China—reflected not neurosis but a realignment of priorities toward national interest and economic sovereignty.

As for the Ukraine reference, it is rich to suggest Trump’s concern over aid corruption was “nonsensical,” especially given the long-documented issues with oversight in foreign assistance. Conflating his skepticism with Russian manipulation conveniently ignores the fact that strategic competitors are always seeking to influence U.S. policy, regardless of who is president. That’s not unique to Trump—it’s geopolitics.

Finally, Snyder’s conclusion descends into outright hyperbole. He paints Trump as an omnipotent tyrant, “a mad king” immune to checks and balances. But this ignores the reality that Trump was and remains subject to intense judicial scrutiny, media opposition, congressional investigations, and a deeply divided electorate. The idea that one man has dismantled American democracy is not only false—it diminishes the resilience of our institutions and the agency of the voters.

In the end, Snyder’s essay reads less like political analysis and more like psychological warfare dressed in academic prose. Disagree with Trump’s policies if you wish—that’s fair game in a democracy. But pathologizing those disagreements, reducing them to “vulnerabilities,” and declaring them the seeds of national destruction is not argumentation. It’s projection.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts