A Comparative Analysis of Trade Restriction Policies: Donald Trump’s Tariffs and Japan’s Sakoku Policy

Co-created by the Catalyzer Think Tank and Gemini Deep Research tool

The global economic landscape in 2025 has been significantly reshaped by the implementation of widespread tariffs by the administration of President Donald Trump. Invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, the President declared a national emergency concerning foreign trade and economic practices.1 This declaration served as the legal foundation for imposing a baseline tariff of 10% on imports from all countries, effective April 5, 2025. Furthermore, an individualized reciprocal higher tariff, ranging from 11% to 50%, was slated to take effect on April 9, 2025, targeting nations with substantial trade deficits with the United States.1 The stated objectives behind these measures include bolstering the United States’ competitive edge, safeguarding national sovereignty, strengthening national and economic security, and rectifying what are perceived as unfair trade imbalances.1

This recent development in US trade policy invites a comparison with a historical precedent of national seclusion: Japan’s Sakoku policy during the Edo period (1603-1868). Sakoku, meaning “chained country,” was a period characterized by severe limitations on foreign interaction and trade imposed by the Tokugawa Shogunate.10 This policy involved stringent regulations on commerce, a prohibition on foreign travel for Japanese citizens, and highly restricted interactions permitted only with specific entities such as Chinese and Dutch traders operating through the port of Nagasaki.10

This report aims to conduct a comparative analysis of these seemingly distinct approaches to international trade. By exploring the underlying motivations, the methods of implementation, and the potential outcomes in their respective historical and global contexts, this analysis seeks to provide a deeper understanding of the forces that drive nations towards trade restriction and the potential consequences in an increasingly interconnected world.

The invocation of a “national emergency” to justify the imposition of tariffs by President Trump bears a notable resemblance to the Tokugawa Shogunate’s emphasis on national stability as a primary impetus for the Sakoku policy. This suggests a recurring pattern in which governments prioritize internal security when making critical decisions about their engagement with the international community. Both leaders, despite operating centuries apart and within vastly different global structures, utilized a narrative of national crisis to legitimize significant restrictions on international trade and interaction. Trump’s administration articulated economic and national security threats stemming from persistent trade deficits and issues such as illegal immigration and drug trafficking.1 In contrast, the Tokugawa Shogunate’s primary concern revolved around the potential for destabilizing influences from Christianity and foreign powers, which they viewed as a direct threat to their authority and the existing social order.10 This similarity in framing the rationale for restrictive policies provides a fundamental point of comparison between these two historical instances.

President Donald Trump’s decision to impose widespread tariffs in 2025 was underpinned by a series of stated reasons and justifications.1 A central argument revolved around economic security, with the administration asserting that large and persistent trade deficits, particularly in goods, posed a significant threat to both national and economic well-being.1 The White House, in a fact sheet, highlighted the over $1.2 trillion deficit in goods recorded in 2024, characterizing it as an “unsustainable crisis” that had been neglected by previous administrations.1 This perspective emphasized the idea that such deficits had contributed to the “hollowing out” of the US manufacturing base and had created a dependence on foreign adversaries for critical components of the defense-industrial base.8

Another key justification was the perceived lack of reciprocity in international trade relationships. The Trump administration contended that other countries imposed significantly higher tariffs and maintained numerous non-tariff barriers that unfairly disadvantaged US goods in foreign markets.1 President Trump’s stated aim was to narrow the gap between the tariffs imposed by the US and those levied on American products by other nations.5 Specific examples of these disparities were cited, such as the comparatively low US tariff on motorcycles compared to those imposed by countries like Thailand, India, and Vietnam, as well as the differences in tariffs on automobiles between the US and the European Union, India, and Japan.19

National security concerns also played a significant role in the rationale behind the tariffs. The administration emphasized the importance of protecting strategic domestic sectors, including steel, aluminum, automobiles, shipbuilding, pharmaceuticals, and technology, arguing that reliance on foreign producers in these areas could create vulnerabilities.1 Maintaining a resilient domestic manufacturing capacity in these advanced sectors was deemed crucial for US competitiveness and national defense.1

Furthermore, the tariffs were presented as a means of re-shoring manufacturing, incentivizing companies to relocate their production facilities back to the United States and thereby creating more American jobs.1 The slogan “Made in America” was not just a tagline but an economic and national security priority, with the tariffs intended to address the “injustices of global trade” and drive economic growth for the American people.1

Beyond economic considerations, the Trump administration also linked the tariffs to efforts to address illegal immigration and drug trafficking. Tariffs were used as leverage to pressure countries like Canada and Mexico to enhance border security and stem the flow of illegal fentanyl into the United States.4 The extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs, including fentanyl, was explicitly cited as constituting a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.7

Finally, broader geopolitical goals were also interwoven into the rationale for the tariffs. The administration aimed to influence the balance of power between nations, secure access to critical resources, and build more resilient supply chains, viewing trade policy as a crucial component of national security.4

In terms of specific measures implemented in 2025, President Trump imposed a 10% baseline tariff on imports from all countries, effective April 5th.1 Additionally, higher reciprocal tariffs, ranging from 11% to 50%, were announced for 57 countries identified as having significant trade deficits with the US, set to take effect on April 9th.2 Specific tariffs on Canada and Mexico remained in place, with a 25% tariff on non-USMCA compliant goods, while USMCA-compliant goods continued to receive preferential treatment.1 Certain categories of goods were exempted from these new tariffs, including items already subject to Section 232 tariffs (such as steel, aluminum, and automobiles), as well as copper, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors.1

The justifications provided by the Trump administration for imposing these tariffs are multifaceted, encompassing economic, national security, and geopolitical objectives. This broad range of motivations stands in contrast to the potentially more singular focus often associated with historical isolationist policies. While Japan’s Sakoku policy was primarily driven by concerns about internal political and social stability, coupled with a fear of foreign religious and colonial influence 10, Trump’s rationale incorporates a wider array of goals. These include not only rectifying trade imbalances and revitalizing domestic industries but also addressing issues such as drug trafficking and asserting US leverage in the global arena. This broader scope suggests a more complex and potentially reactive approach to international engagement compared to the more proactive and exclusionary nature of Sakoku.

Japan’s policy of national seclusion, or Sakoku, implemented during the Edo period (1603-1868), was a direct response to a confluence of historical circumstances and motivations under the Tokugawa Shogunate.10 The primary driver behind Sakoku was the desire to prevent colonial and religious influence, particularly from Spain and Portugal, which were perceived as significant threats to the stability of the shogunate and to peace within the Japanese archipelago.10 The efforts of Christian missionaries, such as Francis Xavier, had led to a steady increase in the number of converts, including influential daimyo (feudal lords). This spread of Christianity was viewed with suspicion by the shogunate, which saw it as a potential challenge to traditional beliefs and the existing social order.12 The Shimabara Rebellion of 1637-38, an uprising involving a large number of mostly Christian peasants, is often cited as a direct trigger that spurred the full imposition of Sakoku.10 The shogunate feared that foreign powers could exploit religious divisions to gain political influence.

Maintaining political stability was another crucial motivation for Sakoku. The Tokugawa Shogunate, established by Tokugawa Ieyasu in 1603, had consolidated power after a long period of civil war and was determined to prevent any challenges to its authority.12 The shogunate was wary of the potential for foreign powers to interfere in internal conflicts or to forge alliances with regional lords (daimyo) who might oppose the central government.13 By restricting foreign contact, the shogunate aimed to consolidate its control and prevent any external influences that could undermine its authority.15

Economic self-sufficiency was also a significant goal of the Sakoku policy. By limiting foreign trade, the shogunate aimed to promote the development of domestic industries and to prevent the outflow of valuable resources, particularly precious metals like silver and copper.12 While some limited trade was permitted, the emphasis was on fostering local production and ensuring a stable food supply through advancements in agriculture and craftsmanship.12 Sakoku was also seen as a way to protect Japan’s mineral resources from being depleted by foreign demand.10

Furthermore, the Sakoku policy played a vital role in preserving traditional Japanese culture. By minimizing contact with foreign cultures, the shogunate sought to protect traditional Japanese beliefs, social structures, and cultural practices from external influences.12 This period saw the flourishing of uniquely Japanese art forms, such as tea ceremonies, kabuki theater, and ukiyo-e woodblock prints.12 There was a fear that increased interaction with foreign cultures could lead to cultural assimilation and the erosion of Japanese identity.15

The implementation of Sakoku involved a series of strict restrictions on foreign interaction and trade.10 Japanese citizens were forbidden to travel abroad or to return from overseas under penalty of death.10 Most foreign nationals were expelled from Japan, with limited exceptions made for Chinese and Dutch traders, who were confined to designated areas in Nagasaki.10 The Dutch were particularly monitored and restricted to the artificial island of Dejima in Nagasaki harbor to prevent any undue influence on Japanese society.12 Strict regulations were imposed on the limited trade that was allowed, ensuring that it remained under the tight control of the shogunate.10

The Sakoku policy was a deliberate and comprehensive strategy aimed at achieving internal control and excluding external influences, primarily driven by fears of political and cultural disruption. While President Trump’s tariffs also aim for a degree of control over international trade, they operate within a fundamentally different framework of continued, albeit modified, international engagement. The scale and nature of isolation under Sakoku were far more extreme than the imposition of tariffs. Sakoku sought near-total exclusion, whereas tariffs represent a tool to manage trade flows and exert pressure within an existing global trade system. The underlying fear in Sakoku was existential – the potential overthrow of the Shogunate and the disruption of Japanese society – while President Trump’s stated fears are more centered on economic and national security vulnerabilities within the current international order.

A comparison of Donald Trump’s tariffs and Japan’s Sakoku policy reveals both interesting similarities and fundamental differences in their motivations, scope, and methods. Both policies were implemented under the leadership of a strong figure who perceived a significant threat to national interests.1 In the case of Japan, it was the Tokugawa Shogunate seeking to consolidate power and prevent foreign interference, while in the US, it was President Trump acting on concerns about economic and national security.

Both policies also aimed to bolster domestic industries, although the mechanisms employed differed significantly.1 Sakoku achieved this through enforced self-sufficiency and by limiting competition from foreign goods, fostering the growth of traditional crafts and agriculture within Japan.12 In contrast, President Trump’s tariffs aimed to make imported goods more expensive, thereby encouraging consumers to purchase domestically produced goods and incentivizing companies to invest in US manufacturing.1

Furthermore, both instances involved a degree of skepticism or mistrust towards foreign influence.1 The Tokugawa Shogunate was deeply suspicious of the colonial and religious ambitions of European powers 10, while President Trump expressed concerns about unfair trade practices, currency manipulation, and the impact of foreign competition on American jobs and industries.1 Both policies also aimed to increase a sense of national self-reliance, with Sakoku fostering complete internal reliance 12 and Trump’s tariffs seeking to reduce dependence on foreign producers in key sectors.1

However, the differences between these two approaches are more pronounced. The scope of Sakoku was a near-total isolation from the rest of the world, with minimal exceptions for specific trade under strict control.10 In stark contrast, President Trump’s tariffs, while protectionist, operate within a globally interconnected world. The US continues to engage in international trade, albeit under altered terms, and the policies include mechanisms for adjustments based on negotiations and the actions of trading partners.1

The primary motivations behind the two policies also diverge significantly. Sakoku’s main drivers were the preservation of political and cultural stability within Japan, driven by fears of external threats to the shogunate’s authority and Japanese traditions.10 President Trump’s tariffs, on the other hand, are primarily focused on addressing economic and national security concerns in a competitive global landscape, aiming to rectify trade imbalances, protect strategic industries, and bring back manufacturing jobs.1

The methods employed by the two policies were also fundamentally different. Sakoku involved outright bans on foreign travel and the expulsion of most foreigners, with the limited permitted trade subject to stringent regulations.10 President Trump’s approach utilizes tariffs – taxes imposed on imported goods – as the primary tool to influence trade flows and protect domestic industries.1

The global context in which these policies were implemented also varied dramatically. Sakoku occurred in a world with significantly less intense global interconnectedness compared to the 21st century.10 Today, the world is characterized by intricate global supply chains, rapid flows of information, and a high degree of economic interdependence.1

Finally, President Trump’s tariff policy includes mechanisms for flexibility, allowing for increases or decreases in tariffs depending on the responses of trading partners and progress in negotiations.1 In contrast, Sakoku was a more rigid and less adaptable policy, maintained for over two centuries with relatively few significant modifications.10

While both policies reflect a desire to prioritize domestic interests, the tools employed and the degree of separation from the global community are vastly different. President Trump’s approach can be characterized as a form of economic nationalism operating within the framework of globalization, seeking to reshape trade relationships to the perceived benefit of the US. Sakoku, on the other hand, represented a more profound rejection of international engagement, driven by a desire for internal control and the exclusion of external influences that were seen as potentially destabilizing.

The imposition of widespread tariffs by the United States in 2025 has prompted extensive analysis regarding its potential short-term and long-term economic repercussions on global trade. Expert opinions and economic reports largely converge on the expectation of significant negative consequences. In the short term, one of the most immediate effects is projected to be increased consumer prices. Tariffs, being essentially taxes on imports, are typically passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for a wide range of imported goods, affecting various sectors from electronics and apparel to food and automobiles.3 For instance, the Budget Lab at Yale University estimated that all tariffs implemented in 2025 could lead to a short-run price level increase of 2.3%, translating to an average annual consumer loss of $3,800 per household.33 Specific sectors are expected to be particularly affected, with projections indicating potential increases of 3.7% in food prices and 7.8% in auto prices.24

Another significant short-term impact is the disruption of global supply chains. Many businesses today rely on complex and intricate international supply chains for components and raw materials. Tariffs on these imported inputs can lead to increased costs and potential delays, creating operational challenges for numerous industries and potentially hindering the competitiveness of domestic manufacturers who depend on these imports.3

The announcement and implementation of widespread tariffs also tend to generate market volatility and uncertainty. Investors become concerned about the potential impact on the global economy, inflation, and the earnings of corporations, leading to instability in financial markets.3 The initial reaction to President Trump’s tariff announcement in April 2025 saw a dip in US stock futures, reflecting investor anxieties about the potential ramifications.3

A crucial short-term consideration is the likelihood of retaliatory measures from affected countries. When one nation imposes tariffs on imports, the targeted countries often respond by imposing their own tariffs on exports from the initiating country, potentially escalating into a full-blown trade war.3 Several major trading partners, including the European Union and China, announced or indicated their intention to implement retaliatory tariffs in response to the US measures.3

Collectively, these short-term effects are projected to contribute to a slowdown in economic growth. Reduced consumer spending due to higher prices and decreased business investment in response to increased costs and uncertainty can dampen overall economic activity, leading to lower GDP growth.3 The Budget Lab at Yale estimated that all tariffs implemented in 2025 could lower US real GDP growth by 0.9 percentage points in that year.33

Looking at the long-term economic effects, the imposition of widespread tariffs is expected to lead to persistent higher prices and inflation. The initial price increases in imported goods can become embedded in the economy, contributing to a sustained higher price level over time.20

Economists also anticipate reduced productivity and efficiency in the long run. Tariffs can distort market signals and incentivize the reallocation of resources, including labor and investment, towards less efficient domestic industries that are now protected from foreign competition. This can lead to an overall decrease in how much output is generated for the time and resources used.43

Several analyses suggest that widespread tariffs could result in a smaller US economy in the long term. Reduced trade and investment flows, coupled with lower productivity, can lead to a persistent decrease in the overall size of the economy.24 The Budget Lab’s long-term projections indicated that the US economy could be 0.6% smaller annually due to the tariffs implemented in 2025.33

Retaliatory tariffs imposed by other countries can also harm US exporters, potentially leading to job losses in export-oriented sectors.22 As foreign markets become less accessible or more expensive for US goods, companies that rely on exports may need to reduce production or lay off workers.

Over the longer term, the imposition of significant tariffs by a major economy like the US is likely to lead to shifting global trade patterns. Companies may seek to relocate their production to countries not subject to the tariffs or to diversify their supply chains to reduce their reliance on goods from tariffed regions.17 This could result in a restructuring of international trade flows and potentially the emergence of new trade relationships.

The impact of tariffs on domestic manufacturing is a subject of debate. While proponents argue that tariffs will incentivize companies to bring manufacturing back to the US, creating jobs 18, many economists are skeptical. They point out that higher costs for imported inputs due to tariffs could actually harm US manufacturers, making them less competitive. Furthermore, the overall slowdown in economic activity resulting from tariffs could also negatively impact the manufacturing sector.25 Historical evidence from President Trump’s first term also suggests that tariffs did not necessarily lead to a significant increase in manufacturing jobs.25

Metric	Short-Term Projection (Source)	Long-Term Projection (Source)	Scenario
Price Level Increase	2.3% (Budget Lab at Yale)	Persistent increase expected	All 2025 Tariffs
Average Household Consumer Loss	$3,800 annually (Budget Lab at Yale)	N/A	All 2025 Tariffs
US Real GDP Growth Reduction	0.9 percentage points lower in 2025 (Budget Lab at Yale)	0.6% smaller economy (Budget Lab at Yale)	All 2025 Tariffs
Food Price Increase	3.7% (Budget Lab at Yale)	N/A	20% Broad Tariff Scenario
Auto Price Increase	7.8% (Budget Lab at Yale)	N/A	20% Broad Tariff Scenario (stacked)
Global GDP Reduction	At least 1% (AllianzGI)	0.1-0.25% smaller (no retaliation) to 0.25% smaller (full retaliation) (Budget Lab at Yale)	Various Scenarios
US GDP Reduction	2-4% (AllianzGI estimate for broad protectionist measures)	N/A	Broad Protectionist Measures
US Unemployment Increase	2.6% (Richmond Fed citing 2024 paper on 2018-19 tariffs, includes China retaliation)	N/A	Comprehensive Tariff Package
US Tariff Rate	Average effective rate rises to 22.5% (Budget Lab at Yale), Highest since 1909; 18.8% (Tax Foundation)	N/A	All 2025 Tariffs

The current global landscape, characterized by intense interconnectedness in terms of data flows, social media, trade, and global GDP, is likely to amplify the effects of US tariffs compared to historical instances of trade restrictions, such as Japan’s Sakoku policy. Modern production processes are highly reliant on complex and intertwined global supply chains. Tariffs imposed on intermediate goods can have cascading effects throughout these chains, increasing costs for a wide range of industries and making it more challenging for domestic manufacturers to remain competitive, even in their own markets.3 This intricate web of production stands in stark contrast to the more localized economies prevalent during the Sakoku period.

The rapid dissemination of information through data flows and social media can also amplify the impact of tariffs. News about price increases and trade disputes spreads quickly, potentially affecting consumer and business confidence more rapidly and widely than in previous eras.3 This heightened awareness and sensitivity can lead to quicker and potentially more significant shifts in economic behavior.

In a highly interconnected world, countries also have more avenues for retaliation against trade measures. The intricate nature of trade relationships means that nations can identify specific sectors and products to target with retaliatory tariffs that could inflict significant pain on the initiating country.3 This potential for swift and broad retaliation makes the initiation of trade restrictions a riskier proposition in the modern era.

Furthermore, the sheer scale of global GDP and the volume of international trade mean that tariffs imposed by a major economy like the US can have significant repercussions for the global economy as a whole.20 The interconnectedness of national economies implies that a shock to one major player can quickly ripple through the entire system, affecting numerous countries and industries, even those not directly targeted by the tariffs.

While there might be some potential mitigating effects, such as the possibility of consumers and businesses substituting towards domestically produced goods or finding alternative sources of imports 6, the broad scope of President Trump’s tariffs likely limits the effectiveness of such substitutions. Currency adjustments could theoretically offset some tariff costs 17, but empirical evidence suggests that the pass-through to foreign exporters is often limited, meaning the burden largely falls on domestic consumers and firms.22

The high degree of global interconnectedness in the 21st century is therefore likely to amplify the negative economic consequences of widespread tariffs compared to historical instances like Japan’s Sakoku. Sakoku, by its very nature, limited the impact of external economic disruptions on Japan, albeit at the significant cost of its own economic and technological progress.12 In contrast, President Trump’s tariffs are imposed on a world where economies are deeply intertwined. A shock to a major player like the US can quickly propagate through the entire system, affecting numerous countries and industries, even those not directly targeted. The speed and ease of information flow today also contribute to heightened uncertainty and potentially faster and more widespread reactions from both consumers and governments.

The imposition of widespread tariffs by the United States is not merely an economic policy decision; it carries significant geopolitical ramifications that could reshape international relations and the global economic order. These measures are likely to increase geopolitical tensions between the US and its key trading partners, leading to diplomatic friction and potentially undermining long-standing alliances.4 Many foreign leaders have voiced strong disapproval of the tariffs, viewing them as detrimental to the global economy and a departure from established norms of international trade.29 The Australian Prime Minister, for example, described the tariffs as “not the act of a friend”.38

The unilateral imposition of tariffs by the US can also be seen as weakening the rules-based global trading system, particularly the authority and effectiveness of international organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO).4 By bypassing or challenging WTO norms, the US risks undermining the multilateral framework that has governed international trade for decades.6 This could encourage other countries to take similar unilateral actions, leading to a less predictable and more fragmented global trade environment.

The US’s actions could also contribute to the rise of protectionism and the formation of competing trade blocs around the world.4 If major economies increasingly resort to tariffs and other protectionist measures, it could lead to a reversal of the trend towards greater trade liberalization and integration that has characterized the global economy for much of the post-World War II era.

Some analysts suggest that the tariffs could negatively impact US global influence and reputation, making it more difficult for the country to work collaboratively with allies on a range of international issues.20 Forecasts indicate that anger over the Trump administration’s trade policies could even lead to a decline in international tourism to the US.49

However, it is also possible that the tariffs are intended to be used as leverage in bilateral trade negotiations, pressuring countries to make concessions and agree to new trade deals that the US perceives as more favorable.3 The Trump administration has indicated a willingness to negotiate with countries that are willing to address what the US sees as unfair trade practices.1

The imposition of widespread tariffs by a major global power like the US has significant geopolitical ramifications that extend beyond mere economic considerations. Unlike Japan’s Sakoku, which primarily resulted in a withdrawal from the global stage, President Trump’s tariffs represent an active and assertive intervention in international trade, directly impacting numerous countries and forcing them to respond. This proactive approach is likely to generate a more dynamic and potentially confrontational geopolitical landscape compared to the relative isolation maintained during Japan’s era of seclusion.

Examining the potential long-term outcomes of US tariffs in the modern era alongside the historical consequences of Japan’s isolationist policies reveals both possible parallels and significant divergences. One potential similarity lies in the focus on domestic industries. Both policies, albeit through different mechanisms, aimed to protect and promote domestic production. Japan’s Sakoku fostered this through enforced self-sufficiency and limited foreign competition 12, while President Trump’s tariffs seek to achieve this by making imported goods more expensive.1

Both policies could also lead to increased national self-reliance, although the extent and nature would differ considerably.1 Sakoku aimed for complete self-sufficiency in most essential goods, while the US under tariffs might see a reduced reliance on foreign producers in certain strategic sectors. While not a primary objective, a potential parallel could be drawn in the area of cultural preservation. Japan’s Sakoku undeniably played a role in preserving and fostering unique Japanese cultural traditions.12 It is speculative whether reduced foreign interaction due to US tariffs could lead to a greater emphasis on domestic culture, but it remains a possibility.

However, the key divergences in long-term outcomes are more pronounced. Japan’s Sakoku led to economic stagnation and limited technological advancement over a period of more than two centuries.47 In contrast, the projected outcome of US tariffs is a slowdown in economic growth, not necessarily complete stagnation, within a global economy that continues to evolve and develop.3

Furthermore, Sakoku severely restricted Japan’s access to foreign technology and scientific knowledge.16 While the US under tariffs might face higher costs for imported technological components, it will still have access to global information and technological developments.

In terms of global influence, Sakoku resulted in Japan’s withdrawal from the global stage and a period of limited international engagement.10 The US, even with the imposition of tariffs, remains a major global power with significant international influence, although this influence could potentially be diminished due to strained relationships with trading partners.20

Finally, Japan’s isolation under Sakoku eventually made it vulnerable to external pressure to open its borders in the mid-19th century.11 The US, as a dominant global power, faces a different kind of vulnerability – the risk of economic retaliation from other countries and a potential decline in its global standing as a reliable trading partner.

While both policies share a focus on prioritizing domestic interests, the long-term consequences are likely to be vastly different due to the fundamental differences in the policies themselves and the global contexts in which they are implemented. The US is unlikely to experience the same level of technological and economic isolation as Japan did under Sakoku. However, it faces the significant risk of economic disruption and heightened geopolitical friction in a world characterized by deep interdependence.

The global reaction to the tariffs imposed by President Trump in 2025 has been overwhelmingly negative, with widespread condemnation from various countries and international organizations.20 Many view these measures as detrimental to the global economy and a violation of established international trade rules. China’s Ministry of Commerce, for example, strongly condemned the tariffs as “bullying” and promised to take countermeasures to protect its interests.38 Similarly, Taiwan labeled the tariffs as “highly unreasonable”.38

Several major trading partners have announced or are preparing to implement retaliatory measures against US exports. The European Union’s Commission President Ursula von der Leyen described the tariffs as a “major blow to the world economy” and indicated that the EU was prepared to respond with countermeasures.38 France also denounced the tariffs and suggested that the EU would likely implement retaliatory measures targeting various sectors, potentially including online services.39 China also promised countermeasures in response to what it termed US “bullying”.38

A primary concern among these nations is the potential negative impact on their own economies. Leaders from countries like Germany, France, Ireland, and Italy expressed worries about higher prices for consumers, disruptions to supply chains, and the overall harm to global economic growth.39 The Swedish Trade Minister stated that the country does not want growing trade barriers or a trade war.39

Despite the widespread condemnation, some countries have signaled a more cautious approach, emphasizing the need for negotiation and dialogue. The UK, while noting that the US remains its closest ally, stated its intention to seek a trade deal to mitigate the impact of the tariffs.39 Japan’s Trade Minister also indicated that the country would continue to push the Trump administration for an exemption.31

Interestingly, some countries like Mexico initially demurred on immediate retaliation, with President Claudia Sheinbaum stating that she would avoid pursuing “tit-for-tat” tariffs, prioritizing the strengthening of the Mexican economy.29 New Zealand also disputed the logic behind the tariffs and indicated that it would not retaliate.40

International organizations have also voiced their concerns. The WTO, while not directly quoted in the provided material regarding the 2025 tariffs, has historically been critical of unilateral trade actions that bypass its established dispute resolution mechanisms.6

Country/Organization	Initial Reaction to Tariffs	Announced or Potential Retaliatory Measures	Stated Intentions Regarding Negotiation
China	Condemnation as “bullying,” violation of international trade rules, “highly unreasonable”	Countermeasures to safeguard rights and interests	Urges dialogue
European Union	“Major blow to the world economy,” “dire” consequences	Two-stage rebuttal targeting aluminum, steel, and potentially all products and services, including online	Ready to negotiate, but prepared to respond
Germany	“Fundamentally wrong,” attack on a trade system	Europe will respond united, strong, and proportionately	Wants cooperation, not confrontation
France	Denounced tariffs, Trump behaving as “master of the world”	EU likely to implement countermeasures	Likely to push for EU countermeasures
United Kingdom	US remains “closest ally,” but tariff is a concern	“Nothing is off the table,” government will defend national interest	Seeks a trade deal to mitigate impact
Japan	“Extremely regrettable”	Will continue to push for an exemption	Will negotiate with US counterparts
Canada	Tariffs ended partnership, vows to fight	Already announced retaliatory tariffs in response to previous US tariffs	Will fight US tariffs
Mexico	Avoid pursuing “tit-for-tat” tariffs	Demurred	Focus on strengthening own economy
Australia	“Not the act of a friend,” “totally unwarranted”	Will not retaliate	N/A
New Zealand	Disputed tariff logic	Will not retaliate	N/A

The global reaction to President Trump’s tariffs in 2025 underscores the high level of economic interdependence in the modern world. The widespread negative response and the threat of retaliatory measures highlight the potential for significant disruptions to international trade and the challenges to multilateral cooperation posed by unilateral protectionist actions.

In conclusion, the comparative analysis between Donald Trump’s imposition of global tariffs and Japan’s historical Sakoku policy reveals distinct approaches to managing international engagement. While both reflect a prioritization of domestic interests and a degree of skepticism towards foreign influence, the scope, motivations, and methods employed differ significantly. Sakoku was a near-total isolation driven by fears of political and cultural destabilization, whereas Trump’s tariffs represent a trade management tool within a highly interconnected global economy, aimed at addressing perceived economic and national security vulnerabilities.

The projected economic consequences of President Trump’s tariffs in the 21st century are largely negative, with economists anticipating increased consumer prices, disruptions to global supply chains, market volatility, retaliatory measures from trading partners, and a slowdown in overall economic growth. Long-term effects are expected to include persistent inflation, reduced productivity, a smaller US economy, and potential shifts in global trade patterns. These potential outcomes stand in stark contrast to the economic stagnation and technological limitations experienced by Japan during its period of isolation.

The high degree of global interconnectedness in the modern era is likely to amplify the negative effects of widespread tariffs compared to historical instances. The intricate web of supply chains and the rapid dissemination of information mean that trade restrictions imposed by a major economy like the US can have far-reaching and swift repercussions.

Geopolitically, President Trump’s tariffs are likely to strain international relations, potentially weaken the rules-based global trading system, and contribute to a more fragmented and less predictable international economic landscape. This contrasts with Sakoku, which primarily resulted in Japan’s withdrawal from global affairs.

Historical precedents of trade restrictions, such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act during the Great Depression 17 and various trade wars throughout history 32, underscore the potential for negative economic outcomes and increased international tensions. These historical lessons suggest that while tariffs may be intended to protect domestic industries, they often lead to unintended consequences that harm consumers, businesses, and the global economy.

The global reaction to President Trump’s tariffs has been overwhelmingly negative, with widespread condemnation and the threat of retaliation from key trading partners.20 This unified opposition highlights the interconnectedness of the modern global economy and the shared concerns about the destabilizing effects of unilateral protectionist policies.

In conclusion, while both President Trump’s tariffs and Japan’s Sakoku policy represent attempts to prioritize domestic interests through restrictions on international engagement, their nature, scope, and the global context in which they are implemented are fundamentally different. The modern global economy, characterized by deep interdependence and rapid information flows, makes widespread tariffs a risky policy with potentially significant negative consequences for both the initiating country and the rest of the world. The historical lessons from trade restrictions and the overwhelmingly negative global reaction to the US tariffs suggest a challenging path forward for international trade and relations in the coming years.

Works cited

1. Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase our Competitive Edge, Protect our Sovereignty, and Strengthen our National and Economic Security – The White House, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereignty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-security/
2. President Trump Announces 10 Percent Global Tariff, 11 Percent to …, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/04/president-trump-announces-10-percent-global-tariff-11-percent
3. What Trump’s tariff announcement means for global trade pros – Thomson Reuters tax, accessed April 3, 2025, https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/blog/what-trumps-global-tariff-announcement-means-for-trade-professionals/
4. The geopolitics of trade tariffs: The new Trump presidency – The House of Commons Library, accessed April 3, 2025, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-geopolitics-of-trade-tariffs-the-new-trump-presidency/
5. How soon will prices rise? 4 questions about Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, answered – PBS, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/how-soon-will-prices-rise-4-questions-about-trumps-reciprocal-tariffs-answered
6. What Are Tariffs? | Council on Foreign Relations, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-are-tariffs
7. Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes Tariffs on Imports …, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-tariffs-on-imports-from-canada-mexico-and-china/
8. Regulating Imports with a Reciprocal Tariff to Rectify Trade Practices that Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits – The White House, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/regulating-imports-with-a-reciprocal-tariff-to-rectify-trade-practices-that-contribute-to-large-and-persistent-annual-united-states-goods-trade-deficits/
9. How Trump’s sweeping new tariffs could shake up U.S. and global economies – PBS, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/classroom/daily-news-lessons/2025/04/how-trumps-sweeping-new-tariffs-could-shake-up-us-and-global-economies
10. Sakoku – Wikipedia, accessed April 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakoku
11. Sakoku | Japan, Edict, History, Facts, & Isolation – Britannica, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/sakoku
12. Japan’s Sakoku Policy: Isolation and Cultural Preservation – Welcome, accessed April 3, 2025, https://sengokuchronicles.com/japans-sakoku-policy-isolation-and-cultural-preservation/
13. Japan’s Seclusion Policy | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/japans-seclusion-policy
14. Japan’s Isolation Policy of Sakoku – Issuu, accessed April 3, 2025, https://issuu.com/marlborough_college/docs/mc_0421_reflections_final/s/12403272
15. (PDF) Seclusion of Japan in Tokugawa Period: Reasons, Advantages & Disadvantages, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371788845_Seclusion_of_Japan_in_Tokugawa_Period_Reasons_Advantages_Disadvantages
16. Sakoku policy and isolation from the outside world | History of Japan Class Notes – Fiveable, accessed April 3, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/history-japan/unit-6/sakoku-policy-isolation-world/study-guide/397ertt1kvhL65X1
17. US reciprocal tariffs: Upending the global trade policy landscape …, accessed April 3, 2025, https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/us-reciprocal-tariffs-upending-global-trade-policy-landscape
18. Tariffs Work — and President Trump’s First Term Proves It – The White House, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/04/tariffs-work-and-president-trumps-first-term-proves-it/
19. Which Countries Suffered Most from Trump’s Tariffs? – YouTube, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0ePPe8e0xk
20. Trump is set to announce new tariffs as he takes a political and financial gamble – AP News, accessed April 3, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-liberation-day-2a031b3c16120a5672a6ddd01da09933
21. The U.S. Launches the Largest Trade War in Modern History – Stratfor, accessed April 3, 2025, https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/us-launches-largest-trade-war-modern-history
22. Tariffs: Estimating the Economic Impact of the 2025 Measures and Proposals – Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2025/eb_25-12
23. US Tariffs: What’s the Impact? | J.P. Morgan Research, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/global-research/current-events/us-tariffs
24. The Fiscal, Economic, and Distributional Effects of a 20% Broad Tariff, accessed April 3, 2025, https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/fiscal-economic-and-distributional-effects-20-broad-tariff
25. What Will Trump’s Tariffs Do for U.S. Consumers, Workers, and …, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/what-will-trumps-tariffs-do-for-u-s-consumers-workers-and-businesses/
26. Q&A: What Are Tariffs and How Will They Affect Us? – The Darden Report, accessed April 3, 2025, https://news.darden.virginia.edu/2025/02/04/qa-what-are-tariffs-and-how-will-they-affect-us/
27. Tariffs: What to expect from US increased in tariffs 2025 – Transnational Matters, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.transnationalmatters.com/what-to-expect-from-us-increased-in-tariffs-2025/
28. White House Unveils Sweeping Tariff Plan | Charles Schwab, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/white-house-unveils-sweeping-tariff-plan
29. Trump’s promised ‘Liberation Day’ of tariffs is coming. Here’s what it could mean for you – AP News, accessed April 3, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-new-tariffs-liberation-day-import-taxes-118d73f50e5133ef3d9598aed6661a6c
30. Key moments and reaction to Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement of new tariffs, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-liberation-day-announcement-tariffs/
31. Trump’s Tariffs Send Shockwaves Across Global Economy – Articles – Advisor Perspectives, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2025/04/03/trumps-tariffs-shockwaves-global-economy
32. Historical Impact of Trade Wars on the U.S. Economy – NetNewsLedger, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.netnewsledger.com/2025/02/02/historical-impact-of-trade-wars-on-the-u-s-economy/
33. Where We Stand: The Fiscal, Economic, and Distributional Effects of All U.S. Tariffs Enacted in 2025 Through April 2 | The Budget Lab at Yale, accessed April 3, 2025, https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/where-we-stand-fiscal-economic-and-distributional-effects-all-us-tariffs-enacted-2025-through-april
34. 2025 US Tariffs and Their Impact on Global Trade | UPS Supply Chain Solutions, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.ups.com/us/en/supplychain/resources/news-and-market-updates/2025-us-tariffs-impact-global-trade
35. Tariffs: could “liberation day” shackle the global economy?, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.allianzgi.com/en/insights/outlook-and-commentary/tariffs-global-economic-impact
36. Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ is unlikely to free businesses from uncertainty surrounding trade policy – AP News, accessed April 3, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-economy-business-uncertainty-bae299eaf7c842507f9b7fa88297700d
37. Global cost of 2025 tariff war could reach $1.4 trillion | Aston University, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.aston.ac.uk/latest-news/global-cost-2025-tariff-war-could-reach-14-trillion
38. Trump’s tariffs: Which countries will hit back – and which likely won’t …, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/3/trumps-tariffs-which-countries-will-hit-back-and-which-likely-wont
39. ‘Nothing is off the table’: World leaders react to Trump’s tariffs – Al Jazeera, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/3/nothing-is-off-the-table-how-us-trade-partners-are-responding-to-tariffs
40. How the World’s Reacting to Trump’s Latest Tariffs – Time, accessed April 3, 2025, https://time.com/7274195/trump-reciprocal-tariffs-world-responses-china-eu-countries-leaders-countermeasures/
41. The world reacts with caution to US ‘reciprocal’ tariffs against dozens of nations – KARE 11, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.kare11.com/article/news/politics/national-politics/world-reacts-us-tariffs-against/507-7317c9a1-3cd5-424c-9d45-58aa9132383b
42. What is the impact of tariffs on the U.S. economy? – RBC Thought Leadership, accessed April 3, 2025, https://thoughtleadership.rbc.com/what-is-the-impact-of-tariffs-on-the-us-economy/
43. Time (or Buying American) Won’t Erase the Economic Harm of Higher Tariffs, accessed April 3, 2025, https://taxfoundation.org/blog/trump-tariffs-prices-long-term-effects/
44. Tariff tremors: The global impact of US trade policies – LSEG, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.lseg.com/en/insights/ftse-russell/tariff-tremors-the-global-impact-of-us-trade-policies
45. Technological Progress – (History of Japan) – Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable, accessed April 3, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/history-japan/technological-progress
46. Japan’s Sakoku Policy Impact Study Guide – Quizlet, accessed April 3, 2025, https://quizlet.com/study-guides/japan-s-sakoku-policy-impact-0753b3d9-d9d8-4e80-a4d1-fae5eacf5cf1
47. What were the economic consequences of isolation for Japan? – TutorChase, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.tutorchase.com/answers/ib/history/what-were-the-economic-consequences-of-isolation-for-japan
48. How did isolation affect Japan’s technological development? – TutorChase, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.tutorchase.com/answers/ib/history/how-did-isolation-affect-japan-s-technological-development
49. Anger against Trump is forecast to cost the US international visitors – AP News, accessed April 3, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/us-travel-canada-europe-international-tourism-22294ec17518cd28450cb3c0227b8351
50. ‘I hope he’s right’: Markets tumble on tariffs — but Trump isn’t flinching – Politico, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/03/i-hope-hes-right-markets-tumble-on-tariffs-but-trump-isnt-flinching-00269800
51. Japan’s Ishiba says he will push for US auto tariffs exemption – AP News, accessed April 3, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/japan-us-ishiba-trump-auto-tariffs-7f757002f5d8ee1c7eeaf6a80dafdc68
52. Trade war – Wikipedia, accessed April 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_war
53. 10 Historic Trade Wars That Shaped the World | History – Vocal Media, accessed April 3, 2025, https://vocal.media/history/10-historic-trade-wars-that-shaped-the-world
54. History shows how a trade war can become a violent conflict: Brock expert, accessed April 3, 2025, https://brocku.ca/brock-news/2025/02/history-shows-how-a-trade-war-can-become-a-violent-conflict-brock-expert/

Top 5 Trade Wars Throughout History | International Relations Major, accessed April 3, 2025, https://www.internationalrelationsedu.org/2018/05/top-5-trade-wars-throughout-history/