In the development of the Trump Ocean Club in Panama, Donald Trump initially promised a distinctive sail-shaped skyscraper featuring upscale shops, luxurious condos, a hotel, and a casino. However, instead of a smooth and successful project, it was bogged down by lengthy legal battles, mismanagement, contentious disagreements with the property’s owner, and eventually the forced removal of the Trump name.

This situation, as seen in Panama, highlights how Trump manages negotiations, not limited to real estate but also on the global trade stage.

Trump’s recent announcement of imposing wide-ranging tariffs on nearly all major trading partners mirrors his strategy of acting assertively, escalating quickly, maintaining turmoil, and refusing to yield. This kind of approach, seeking dominance without prioritizing mutually beneficial outcomes, is evident whether dealing with a condo board in Central America or major international trade partners like the European Union.

In the case of Panama, the Trump Organization was neither the project’s financier nor the builder but rather licensed the name and oversaw the operation. Yet, when facing challenges from the owners’ association over alleged overbilling and opaque financial decisions, they responded aggressively by filing a $75 million arbitration claim, accusing the board of connivance, and resisting eviction until judicial intervention. Even upon the court-mandated removal of the Trump name, it was portrayed as a public drama signifying strength and resolve.

By employing a similar playbook on global trade, Trump is wielding the U.S. market as leverage, pressuring other nations to comply swiftly to avoid losing access. While some countries may eventually concede under this pressure, larger powers such as China, the European Union, and Japan may push back and lead to a combination of short-term agreements and prolonged animosity.

The political rationale behind Trump’s tariff strategy stems from his desire to revitalize American manufacturing, protect U.S. workers, and rejuvenate regions affected by industrial decline due to past trade engagements. The administration argues that prior trade pacts have adversely affected American jobs, and the tariffs are a method to encourage domestic production, sourced by American labor and adhering to U.S. regulations.

If successful, these trade policies could resonate politically, especially in regions hit hard by factory closures, indicating a much-needed shift in priorities favoring American workers. Whether these measures would truly restore lost manufacturing jobs, revamp local economies, and earn long-term approval from American labor force remains uncertain, dependent on encouraging investment, infrastructure development, and workforce enhancements.

Undoubtedly, reshaping trade dynamics was bound to encounter resistance, given the historical stance of accommodating high foreign tariffs in exchange for other diplomatic benefits. Trump’s confrontational style, though contentious, has drawn attention to substantial issues that previous administrations chose to overlook, setting a precedent for assertiveness in international trade negotiations.

As the midterms approach, the results will determine if Trump’s method of negotiation proved beneficial or recklessly detrimental. Economic growth, increased employment, and tangible progress may validate the tariff strategies, securing support from American workers whose approval will shape the legacy of these policies.