Dispatches from the Potomac#56 | The Future of Trump’s “America First” Policies: Military Interventions and Tariffs

This is a translation of an article originally written in February 2026 for publication in the April 2026 edition of the Marubeni Group Magazine, M-SPIRIT.

General Manager, Washington DC Office, Marubeni America Corporation    Yusuke Inoue

Escalating Involvement in the Western Hemisphere

2026 began with a shocking international military intervention: On January 3, U.S. special forces struck the Venezuelan capital of Caracas, detained Venezuelan President Maduro and his wife, and brought them to the United States to be put on trial. Even more surprising were the rapid developments that followed, particularly the announcement that the U.S. would now manage Venezuela, with Vice President Rodríguez assuming the role of interim president. U.S. President Trump praised the overwhelming military capability of the U.S. forces and seemed highly satisfied with his own decisiveness and ability to act. Approximately one month prior to this incident, the Trump administration had released its National Security Strategy (NSS), championing an “America First” policy—one aimed at eliminating the influence of external powers from the Western Hemisphere, drawing significant attention to the future of U.S. engagement in the region.

Immediately after the Venezuela incident, Trump turned his attention back to the sovereignty of Greenland, in which he has shown a keen interest since the beginning of his administration. Just before the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, he reiterated the need for U.S. control of the territory. Greenland, also located in the Western Hemisphere, is considered to be of great military and economic importance to the United States due to its deposits of rare earths and other important minerals, its proximity to Arctic Sea shipping routes, and its potential for missile defense. However, the island is a self-governing territory of Denmark, a NATO member, and is very different from Venezuela in that it is not hostile to the U.S. Trump nevertheless indicated his intention to impose tariffs on Denmark and other major European countries that oppose U.S. actions, whether in Greenland or elsewhere, as a retaliatory measure. Despite the Greenland situation de-escalating as a result of the immediate proposal of a framework deal, Trump’s actions and rhetoric have left a rift in transatlantic relations. As indicated in Canadian Prime Minister Carney’s speech at the WEF, the view that the postwar U.S.-led international order will not return to its former state is beginning to gain prominence.

An Uncompromising Tariff Policy

Following the storm of January’s developments, February saw a major trade policy development. On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs, and thus the imposition of reciprocal tariffs based on the IEEPA was illegal. Trump immediately held a press conference, harshly criticizing the judges who objected to the tariffs, and imposed a 10% tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act on the entire world. Although this measure is limited to 150 days, there is potential for extensions, rate increases, or a shift to alternative measures based on different legislation, and preparations are already underway for the administration to continue with its tariff policy.

This incident has made it clear that Trump has no intention of compromising, at least on tariff policy. There are several reasons underlying this stance, but first and foremost are economic factors. Trump claims to want to leverage tariffs to reshape the U.S. economic structure, particularly to revive manufacturing. Specifically, he hopes to consolidate supply chains for materials and advanced technologies essential for maintaining and expanding national security and military capabilities within the United States. This will require incentives for companies to produce domestically. Investment negotiations with other countries have already begun in earnest, under the assumption that tariffs will enhance the competitive advantage of domestic production in the U.S., and thus, at this stage, it is imperative to the administration not to have these efforts undermined. Furthermore, if the tariffs are deemed illegal, the administration will need to respond to large-scale refund requests and could potentially lose the tariff revenue already collected. Considering the risk that concerns over fiscal deterioration could lead to a rise in interest rates, the ripple effects would be significant.

Politically, even more complex factors come into play. Tariffs are a signature policy of the Trump administration, and rejecting them would also mean rejecting Trump’s own claims. If his past assertions were proven wrong, it would damage Trump’s reputation, something he absolutely cannot tolerate. Meanwhile, voters have been caught up in the effects of these tariff policies and burdened by rising prices. Should the underlying policy be ruled unconstitutional, it could further erode trust in the administration and potentially weaken its momentum. The impact this could have on the already challenging midterm elections cannot be ignored.

Moreover, tariffs have been used not only in trade negotiations but also as a bargaining chip in promoting a wide range of policies. As hinted at with the Greenland situation, they have been used in various ways in foreign policy while also playing a role in resolving domestic policy issues such as immigration. For Trump, who wants to accomplish what previous presidents have failed to achieve as well as leave a lasting legacy, tariffs remain his greatest weapon. If he can no longer use tariffs, he will need to rethink his strategies.

As of this writing, many major diplomatic events will be held in the upcoming months, including Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi’s visit to the U.S. and President Trump’s visit to China. Tariffs have been a driving force behind many policies under the Trump administration, and alongside diplomacy, tariff policy will likely continue to be a focus in the weeks ahead.