The world today stands on the precipice of a profound geopolitical and economic recalibration. With his latest sweeping tariff declaration—a 10% blanket levy on nearly all imported goods, alongside severe country-specific tariffs—Donald J. Trump has launched what may prove to be one of the most consequential acts of economic nationalism in modern history. Framed as a patriotic revival of American industry, it is, in fact, a seismic disruption of global trade norms with reverberations that will be especially destructive to the Global South and, by extension, the Islamic world.

This moment calls for clarity—not only of analysis but of strategy. For Muslim-majority countries already navigating fragile developmental paths, Trump’s tariff agenda may well become a catalyst for systemic realignment. It demands not despair, but a redoubling of efforts toward economic self-determination, intra-OIC trade expansion, and a bold embrace of Islamic economic principles.

A Revival of Mercantilism in a Globalized Age

At the heart of Trump’s new economic policy lies a nostalgia-fueled resurrection of mercantilist thought. In seeking to reverse the effects of decades-long globalization, his administration is deploying 20th-century tools against a 21st-century reality. The United States, no longer the singular industrial hegemon it was after World War II, now competes in a multipolar economic world. Yet Trump’s tariff regime assumes that insulating domestic markets from international competition will singlehandedly reindustrialize the American economy.

History, however, warns against such assumptions. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930—often cited by economists as a contributing factor to the Great Depression—demonstrated how aggressive protectionism can lead to retaliatory spirals, global contraction, and social unrest. What we are witnessing today bears alarming similarities, albeit on a digitally interconnected and supply-chain-dependent global stage.

An Asymmetric Earthquake: The Vulnerability of Emerging Islamic Economies

The Islamic world—comprising over 50 nations, many of which are dependent on exports to Western markets—is uniquely exposed to this unfolding economic earthquake. While countries like China and the European Union may possess the leverage and infrastructure to respond with countermeasures, Muslim-majority economies—especially in South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia—face a more existential challenge.

Consider the case of Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Egypt. These nations are not only reliant on textile and agricultural exports to the United States but are also structurally embedded within global value chains that feed Western consumer markets. A sudden imposition of high tariffs on these exports—some reportedly as high as 50%—is not just punitive; it is potentially ruinous.

More alarmingly, these policies threaten to undermine decades of incremental gains achieved through preferential trade agreements, foreign direct investment, and participation in multilateral trading systems. For many of these nations, Trump’s tariffs are not just economic measures—they are external shocks with deeply internal consequences: rising unemployment, inflationary pressures, balance-of-payments crises, and heightened political instability.

An Opportunity to Reclaim Strategic Economic Sovereignty

Yet within this crisis lies a generational opportunity. Trump’s unilateralism and the broader Western trend toward economic insularity may, paradoxically, offer the Islamic world a historic opening to reimagine its position in the global economy—not as passive peripheries, but as an interconnected bloc of strategic importance.

There is a growing case for the acceleration of intra-OIC trade, currently hovering around a modest 20% of total trade among member states. Through strengthened regional economic cooperation, harmonized halal certification, integrated digital payment systems, and Islamic finance-backed industrial projects, Muslim-majority nations can foster alternative markets less susceptible to Western volatility.

Institutions such as the Islamic Development Bank, OIC Trade Negotiating Committee, and D-8 Organization for Economic Cooperation must now take center stage in coordinating a South-South trade renaissance. Additionally, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations, with their sovereign wealth and capital surpluses, have a critical role to play in underwriting industrialization efforts across lower-income OIC partners, creating mutually reinforcing economic corridors.

Furthermore, this is an opportune moment to reinvigorate the Islamic economic paradigm itself. Rooted in risk-sharing, ethical finance, and real-sector investment, Islamic economics offers a framework better attuned to sustainable development than the speculative excesses of neoliberal globalization. The decoupling of global trade may, therefore, provide the Islamic world with the impetus to invest in economic models that reflect its values and aspirations.

The Imperative of Strategic Unity

A fragmented response to this crisis will only deepen vulnerabilities. But a coordinated, principle-driven, and future-focused strategy could transform this tariff tsunami into a platform for economic reawakening across the Islamic world. The choice before us is stark: either remain at the mercy of shifting Western political winds or rise collectively to forge new alliances, institutions, and economic instruments.

Let us be clear: Trump’s tariffs are not simply a U.S. domestic policy—they are a challenge to the very fabric of globalization and an implicit message that the rules-based international economic order may no longer serve emerging economies. If so, then the Islamic world must not only ask what it stands to lose—but what it can gain by standing together.

Conclusion: Beyond Reaction, Toward Reinvention

In Surah Ar-Ra’d (13:11), the Qur’an reminds us: “Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.” This is not merely spiritual counsel—it is strategic guidance.

The Islamic world now faces a defining test. Will it continue to look outward for validation and markets, or will it summon the internal resolve to build resilient, just, and independent economies? Trump’s tariff tsunami may well be a global economic earthquake—but it could also be the spark of a long-overdue economic renaissance for the Ummah.

From the heart of Washington, D.C., the world is once again being dragged into an economic tailspin orchestrated by one man’s populist instincts and obsession with “winning.” Donald Trump’s latest tariff moves are not merely policy missteps—they are manifestations of a worldview that sees international economic cooperation not as a shared platform for mutual benefit, but as a zero-sum game of dominance and coercion.

For Islamic economists and policymakers concerned with equity, stability, and the moral dimensions of trade, the Trump Tariff Show is more than just theatrics—it’s a warning signal of how deeply distorted the global economic order has become.

Tariffs as Weapons, Not Tools

Unlike the Islamic economic tradition which views trade as a mutual covenant governed by justice (adl) and cooperation (ta’awun), Trump’s tariffs are being wielded as economic weapons. The idea of “reciprocal tariffs”—the notion that trade must always be balanced in numerical terms—is rooted in transactional nationalism, not in economic sense. In fact, scholars from Brookings to Peterson Institute for International Economics have repeatedly warned that such a view misinterprets the nature of global value chains and ignores the very logic of comparative advantage.

Islamic teachings on trade, as found in both the Qur’an and Hadith, emphasize ethical conduct, fairness, and avoiding harm (darar). The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself was a merchant whose success came not from closing markets to others, but from being known as “Al-Amin” – the trustworthy. Trump’s approach undermines trust and creates fear, a far cry from the Prophetic model.

A Strategy Without Strategy

Trump’s tariff saga lacks coherence. As reported, there is no clear doctrine—only the impulsive judgments of a leader playing to his domestic base. One day tariffs are imposed, the next day they’re paused. Global markets reel and recover like an abused partner in an unpredictable relationship. As The Economist notes, America has moved from predictable superpower to mercurial bully, unsettling even its closest allies.

Compare this with the Islamic economic emphasis on istiqrar (stability) and maslahah (public interest). Policies must be predictable, transparent, and rooted in long-term welfare—not short-term political spectacle. The Qur’an explicitly condemns deceit and sudden, destabilizing action in commercial dealings. In the Islamic vision of a just economic order, the state should be a shepherd (ra’i), not a predator.

The Myth of Reshoring and Manufacturing Mirages

Trump’s fantasy of “bringing jobs back” through punitive tariffs ignores basic economic realities. U.S. manufacturers are not leaving because tariffs are too low—they’re moving operations because of automation, wage differentials, and global efficiency gains. Punishing trading partners won’t change this. On the contrary, it risks triggering retaliation, increasing consumer costs, and destabilizing emerging economies—including those in the Muslim world.

China has already responded with its own tariffs, and others may follow. The world is being forced into trade blocs and protectionist corners. Islamic economies, particularly those dependent on export markets—like Malaysia, Indonesia, and even parts of the Middle East—stand to lose significantly. The result? Greater inequality, disrupted supply chains, and rising food and energy insecurity.

The Islamic Economic Alternative: Justice and Interdependence

The Islamic economic system envisions a world of interdependence based on moral values. Trade is a bridge, not a battleground. Protectionism must be measured, not malicious. Policies must promote the maqasid al-shari’ah—preservation of wealth, life, and dignity—not endanger them.

Instead of Trump’s chaos, we need international trade governed by mudarabah (risk-sharing), sukuk for infrastructure development, and transparent mechanisms that elevate developing economies rather than suffocate them.

Muslim-majority countries, especially those in the OIC, must use this moment to reevaluate their dependency on unpredictable partners and instead pursue regional trade, South-South cooperation, and Islamic economic integration. The Islamic Development Bank and institutions like D-8 must step up with frameworks that promote intra-OIC trade based on principles of equity, not economic blackmail.

Conclusion: Chaos as a Symptom of Deeper Decay

Trump’s tariff theatrics are not an isolated event—they are symptomatic of a deeper corrosion of global economic ethics. For Islamic economists, the lesson is clear: the time has come to build parallel economic institutions rooted in moral clarity, strategic foresight, and inclusive prosperity.

The Qur’an reminds us: “Woe to those who give less [than due], who when they take a measure from people take in full. But if they give by measure or by weight to them, they cause loss.” (Surah al-Mutaffifin 83:1-3). That, precisely, is the spirit of Trump’s tariff regime—mutaffifin economics. It is neither sustainable nor just.

Let us not merely watch this TV show from the sidelines. Let us offer a better script.

After nearly two years of brutal fighting, Sudan’s civil war remains an open wound in the heart of Africa. The recent claim by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) that it has regained control of Khartoum from its rivals, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), may offer a glimmer of hope, but history warns us against premature optimism. Rather than signaling an end to the war, this development could merely mark the transition to another phase of the conflict, in which the battlefront shifts, but the suffering of the Sudanese people remains unchanged.

At the core of this war is a longstanding power struggle over military control and integration. What began as a clash between two factions—the SAF led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the RSF under Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti)—has metastasized into a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe. With over 30 million Sudanese in need of aid, more than 14 million displaced, and tens of thousands killed, the war has created one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 21st century. Food shortages, economic collapse, and a near-total breakdown of essential services have pushed Sudan to the brink of state failure.

The Role of External Actors: Fueling the Flames

One of the greatest impediments to peace has been the continuous flow of weapons and financial support from external actors. Sudan has long been awash with arms, ranking second only to Egypt in the region for firearm prevalence. Early on, it became evident that both the SAF and RSF possessed sufficient weaponry to sustain a prolonged conflict. However, foreign interference has deepened Sudan’s turmoil, turning the war into a proxy battleground.

Various external actors—Chad, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—have picked sides, exacerbating internal rivalries. The UAE, in particular, has been accused of supplying the RSF with arms through Chad, prompting the Sudanese army to threaten retaliatory strikes on Chadian airports. Such actions heighten the risk of a regional spillover, threatening the already fragile stability of Sudan’s seven neighboring countries, including South Sudan, Ethiopia, and Eritrea.

Despite its rhetoric of peace and reconciliation, the international community’s handling of the Sudanese crisis has been marked by hypocrisy and competing geopolitical interests. While the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN) have attempted to mediate peace, their efforts have been systematically undermined by the vested interests of the very nations hosting these talks. Meetings in Jeddah and Switzerland have yielded little progress, as the primary sponsors of these negotiations are themselves deeply entangled in Sudan’s war economy. Philipp Kastner, a peace scholar, aptly notes that genuine peace negotiations are impossible as long as external military support continues to flow unabated to the warring parties.

The Abandonment of Civilians: A Moral and Political Catastrophe

As world powers play their strategic games, Sudanese civilians continue to bear the brunt of the conflict. Brutal attacks, rampant looting, and the deliberate destruction of infrastructure have turned urban centers into warzones. Medical services are virtually non-existent, and famine looms as agricultural production has ground to a halt. The displacement crisis, affecting over 14 million people, is one of the largest in the world today. Yet, global responses have been tepid at best, betraying an alarming indifference to Sudan’s plight.

A September 2024 UN report called for an independent force to protect Sudanese civilians, yet Sudanese officials swiftly rejected this proposal. With the UN-led political mission exiting the country in February 2024, there is now no security apparatus capable of shielding civilians from the horrors of war. Peacekeeping researcher Jenna Russo has advocated for the establishment of “green zones” to offer safe havens for displaced persons and facilitate humanitarian aid. However, without an enforceable international mandate, such measures remain theoretical rather than actionable.

What Must Be Done?

The international community has repeatedly failed Sudan. From the AU to the UN, from Riyadh to Abu Dhabi, the players involved have prioritized their own strategic interests over the lives of millions of Sudanese. Without a fundamental shift in approach, Sudan’s war will persist, with civilians continuing to pay the price.

To break this cycle of violence, a comprehensive, multilateral approach is necessary:

1. End External Interference – A strict arms embargo must be imposed and enforced to prevent further militarization of the conflict.
2. Establish a Neutral Mediation Process – Future peace negotiations must be brokered by impartial actors who are not funding or arming either side.
3. Deploy a Civilian Protection Force – Whether under the AU or a coalition of willing states, an international peacekeeping mission must be reinstated to protect civilians and humanitarian workers.
4. Hold Perpetrators Accountable – War crimes and atrocities must not go unpunished; international justice mechanisms must be activated to ensure accountability.
5. Prioritize Humanitarian Assistance – Immediate funding and logistics must be secured to provide food, medical aid, and shelter to the millions affected.

The tragedy of Sudan is not just a Sudanese problem—it is a global failure. If the world continues to look away, history will remember this as yet another moment when international diplomacy chose expediency over humanity. The time to act is now.