U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade policy has once again drifted into territory where the traditional rules of the game no longer apply. Some details of the new tariff decisions remain unclear. The uncertainty extends even to fundamental questions. Do the tariffs also apply to services? Are certain sectors or products exempt? No one seems to know for sure – and that is precisely the problem.
Tariff policy is often viewed through the lens of traditional industry, as a tool for protecting domestic production. In this case, however, Trump’s tariffs look more like sanctions than trade-policy instruments. Their primary purpose is not economic optimisation, but political pressure. The economy is a means, not an end.
In the startup sector, the effects are concrete and immediate. A European growth company described a situation where they had to decide which two markets they would build their next local teams in. The United States was one option. For commercial reasons, the company chose Germany and the United Kingdom – and they are now especially pleased with that decision. It wasn’t driven by ideology, but by managing uncertainty.
A similar story is also being heard from an early-stage life science startup. The U.S. was the number one market from the beginning, but because of the political situation the company has, with very limited resources, been forced to build a European backup plan alongside it. That has meant splitting focus and slowing progress. For a startup, this is not a minor issue – it can be fatal.
It is less often remembered that the impact is not one-directional. American startups and growth companies are likely making similar calculations and choosing not to expand into Europe. In trade policy there are rarely winners. In the short term, someone may benefit, but in the long term, the losses accumulate for everyone—including the United States itself. If pressure is to be created, the European Union must be capable of bold decisions and establish clear leverage, for example, toward the U.S. services sector, which includes American tech giants. If the Union cannot demonstrate its strength in trade policy measures, then where can it?
So far, the EU’s response has been cautious and even out of sync between different member states. Statements alone are not enough; concrete actions are needed. This raises a key question: what if some other superpower behaved like this? Would we allow it? Or is this a double standard, where a rules-based trading system applies only when it is politically convenient?
When the United States picks fights with practically all of its key partners, partners will simply start to run out. The importance of partners is not currently being recognised in Trump’s policy.
It is impossible to predict the long-term effects precisely, but one direction is clear: uncertainty reduces investment, slows innovation, and pushes growth elsewhere. In theory, the only winner could be China—at least until Trump turns his attention back there again.
Trump has just under three years left before his presidential term ends. It is hard to avoid the thought that this is his way of securing a place in the history books. The question is: at what price, and at whose expense? Europe cannot afford to be left behind – and double standards must be thrown on the scrap heap.
This piece was published on Kauppalehti’s Viivan alla blog on January 21, 2026.