A game-theory breakdown for the NDD (Narrative Dependency Disorder–Points to reliance on media narratives as a substitute for analysis) afflicted

by Gaylord Livingston

Donald Trump’s presidency will be analyzed by historians and economists for generations, especially his aggressive stance on trade policy and tariffs. Critics, particularly far-left Democrats and those afflicted by Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), accuse him of recklessness or ignorance. But a closer look at his approach reveals strategic moves deeply rooted in game theory—the science of strategy, anticipation, and counteractions.

Game theory is essentially a structured way to understand how people, corporations, or nations strategize when their choices depend on others. It’s about anticipation, pressure, cooperation, and consequences. Trump’s use of tariffs—particularly with China—fits neatly into the model of a strategic, high-stakes negotiation known in game theory as the “credible threat.”

For decades, American presidents accepted an imbalanced relationship with China, tolerating significant trade deficits and intellectual property theft. Why? They feared short-term pain—economic disruption or political fallout. China exploited this fear, confident no U.S. leader would seriously challenge the status quo.

Trump, in contrast, openly threatened—and delivered—significant tariffs. This wasn’t arbitrary or purely punitive; it was a deliberate, calculated move designed to shift the balance of power. In game theory terms, Trump was resetting China’s expectations, demonstrating the credibility of American resolve and changing the payoff matrix.

Consider a simple analogy: two neighbors sharing a fence. Neighbor A consistently takes advantage of Neighbor B, borrowing tools without returning them, encroaching slightly on property lines. Neighbor B, wanting peace, avoids confrontation, inadvertently incentivizing further misbehavior. But one day, Neighbor B announces a firm stance: no more borrowing, no more encroachment—or legal action will follow. Suddenly, Neighbor A must reconsider their strategy. This shift, although uncomfortable, reestablishes clear boundaries and healthier respect.

Similarly, Trump’s tariffs were strategic signals designed to force China’s hand. By imposing tariffs, he demonstrated that the U.S. was willing to bear short-term costs to achieve long-term structural reforms in trade. The key to credible threats is believability. Without following through, the threat remains empty—China would continue exploiting U.S. reluctance.

Trump’s negotiation strategy mirrors a known principle in game theory called “tit-for-tat,” renowned for achieving cooperation even among adversaries. This strategy emphasizes clear communication, immediate reciprocity, and openness to reconciliation once cooperation resumes. Trump’s administration always communicated clear expectations: fairer trade, reduced intellectual theft, market openness. Tariffs weren’t punitive; they were strategic pressure to prompt reciprocity.

Critics on the far left or suffering from TDS often view Trump’s moves purely emotionally. They see aggression rather than strategic communication. They see chaos rather than calculated pressure. But Trump’s negotiation approach, objectively analyzed through game theory, suggests he wasn’t recklessly disruptive. Instead, he was systematically restructuring incentives for long-term national gain.

For those who despise Trump, it might be useful to separate personal distaste from strategic understanding. Tariffs weren’t acts of vanity or impulsivity. Rather, they were disciplined moves within a complex geopolitical chess match. Understanding this, even begrudgingly, clarifies his logic and perhaps reduces the emotionally charged reactions.

Americans must ask: would endless passivity have truly improved trade fairness or national security? Was resetting the trade negotiation game really so unwise, or might it have been precisely what America needed?

Analyzed through the lens of game theory, Trump’s moves were rational, strategic, and well-planned—even if not always politically comfortable. Understanding this could elevate public discourse beyond emotional antipathy, fostering more rational debates on America’s global strategy.

Perhaps clarity, rather than confrontation, is the remedy we truly need.