You may have noticed recent headlines about Nvidia’s staggering $100 billion investment in OpenAI. You might also have followed discussions about enticing TSMC, Taiwan’s semiconductor giant that supplies chips to Nvidia, to relocate part of its operations to the United States.
These developments symbolize the age of digital interdependence, global supply chains, and complex transnational challenges. Yet, President Donald Trump’s worldview remains stubbornly anchored in the past.
His recent rhetoric at the United Nations, where he lambasted migration and multilateralism, underscores a deeper ideological commitment: A revival of 19th-century economic nationalism inspired by the ideas of Friedrich List and earlier mercantilism, applied to confront 21st-century problems.
Friedrich List was a 19th-century German economist and political thinker, well-known for his conservative approach to economic development and nationalism. He emphasized the importance of a strong national economy, supported by protective tariffs and state intervention, to foster industrial growth.
List’s ideas stood in contrast to classical liberalism and laissez-faire economics. He advocated for a strategic role of the state in economic policy to ensure national prosperity and political strength. His work deeply influenced economic nationalism and developmental policies in countries such as Germany, the United States, and Japan during their industrialization phases.
For List, free trade benefits only already advanced nations, while developing countries must protect their nascent industries until they become globally competitive. However, this rationale does not apply to the United States -- the world’s foremost knowledge, technology, and economic powerhouse.
A return to mercantilist thinking
Mercantilism -- the dominant economic doctrine in Europe from the 16th to 18th centuries -- emphasized national self-sufficiency, protectionist tariffs, and wealth accumulation through trade surpluses. Trump’s policies echo this antiquated model.
His proposals for blanket tariffs of 10-20% on all imports and a staggering 60% on Chinese goods are not mere tactical trade measures; they are ideological statements. He views global trade as a zero-sum game where America must “win” by shielding itself from foreign competition, even if this leads to higher consumer prices and retaliatory trade wars.
This approach ignores the reality that modern economies thrive on comparative advantage, innovation, and cooperation. The global economy is no longer a battlefield of national treasuries but a complex web of shared prosperity -- a fact Trump seems unwilling to acknowledge.
Fortress America: Migration as a threat
Trump’s stance on migration is equally regressive. At the UN, he accused the organization of “funding an assault” on Western nations through migration, declaring that countries with open borders are “going to hell.”
His vision of national identity is exclusionary, rooted in fear rather than fact. Mass deportations, expanded border walls, and restrictions on work rights for undocumented immigrants are central to his platform.
Yet in the 21st century, migration is an economic imperative. Aging populations, labour shortages, and innovation hubs depend on the movement of people. Trump’s policies risk isolating the United States from the very talent and dynamism that fuel its global leadership.
When Albert Einstein fled Europe to join the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, he did not replace an American scientist -- he added value to an already burgeoning academic powerhouse. Indeed, a significant number of Nobel laureates in the United States have been immigrants or descendants of immigrants, underscoring the vital role migration plays in scientific progress.
Jensen Huang, the Taiwanese-American founder of Nvidia -- the world’s most valuable semiconductor company -- came from a migrant family from Taiwan, exemplifying how immigrant entrepreneurship drives innovation and economic growth.
Even beyond scientific and technological human resources, American industrialization was built on immigrant labour. The railroads of the late 19th century, for example, relied heavily on Chinese and Indian migrants. The early 20th century’s exclusionary immigration policies, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, were direct consequences of misguided 19th-century nationalism.
Rejecting globalization, embracing fragmentation
Trump’s broader rejection of globalization -- from withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Accord to undermining multilateral institutions like the World Health Organization and NATO -- signals a retreat from the post-World War II liberal international order. His “America First” doctrine prioritizes sovereignty over cooperation, bilateral deals over global frameworks, and nationalism over shared responsibility.
This inward turn may resonate with voters nostalgic for an industrial-era simplicity, but it is ill-suited to a world grappling with climate change, pandemics, and digital disruption. These are challenges that transcend borders and demand collaborative solutions.
A misguided compass
Trump’s economic nationalism and anti-globalization stance are not just policy choices but philosophical commitments to a bygone era. By preaching mercantilism in the age of artificial intelligence and global interconnectivity, he risks steering America -- and the world -- toward fragmentation, inflation, and economic stagnation.
I recall feeling frustrated and despondent during the second George W Bush administration. A friend, a visiting scholar from Harvard University whom I was assisting as his driver and private secretary, tried to comfort me by saying, “Don’t worry, he’ll be gone in four years. That’s our system.”
Indeed, the US Constitution limits presidents to a maximum of two terms, providing some safeguard against prolonged misdirection.
Yet, while we can take solace in this democratic mechanism, the damage done to globalization and the evolving culture of cosmopolitanism will linger long after this 19th-century nationalist is gone.
The 21st century demands bold, cooperative leadership. Clinging to 19th-century ideologies is not only outdated -- it is ominous.
Habibul Haque Khondker is a sociologist and columnist.