- Experts test the dynamics of a global trade war in a high-stakes simulation.
- Despite challenges, a path to potential resolution emerges through bilateral agreements.
The world’s largest economies were locked in an intense trade conflict, marked by President Trump’s sweeping tariffs on global trade partners and the retaliatory measures that followed. The economic toll was mounting, with rising inflation, job losses, and growing frustration over the uncertainty of U.S. trade policies. Yet, the high-stakes showdown was not reality but a simulation, aimed at understanding how such a global trade dispute might evolve.
Last month, a group of two dozen trade experts from the United States and abroad convened at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based bipartisan think tank, to role-play the unfolding of Trump’s aggressive tariff policies. The teams—representing the U.S., China, Europe, and other governments—spent a day in intense discussions, running between conference rooms to negotiate proposals aimed at defusing the tensions, prevent economic collapse, and avoid a full-scale trade war.
The simulation was not meant to predict future events but to explore the potential consequences and dynamics of Trump’s trade approach. In recent months, the U.S. president had already imposed tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico, along with global steel and aluminum levies. On the horizon, Trump was set to announce an increase in tariffs, including a 25 percent levy on cars and auto parts set to take effect soon.
The tariffs had already prompted retaliatory actions from China and Canada, and European governments were considering countermeasures. The rising tariffs have escalated to levels unseen since World War II, fueling questions about the future of international trade and whether the trade war could be defused through negotiations or if the world would be forced into a long-term economic standoff.
The simulation at the think tank aimed to answer these questions. A game board placed at the center of the conference table tracked the impact of escalating tariffs, using colored cubes—green for favorable outcomes, yellow for unfavorable ones, and red for catastrophic results. Early on, the board was flooded with red cubes, signaling worsening international relations, job losses, and spiraling inflation.
But, as the simulation progressed, a surprising shift occurred. Faced with the looming possibility of economic collapse, the participants began to reach compromises. By the end of the day, many of the red cubes were cleared from the board. The European team agreed to reduce some trade barriers, and the U.S. lifted tariffs on Canada and Mexico, renewing trade agreements.
Emily Kilcrease, a senior fellow at the think tank who played the role of President Trump, suggested that the exercise demonstrated a potential path for U.S. tariffs to lead to favorable outcomes, provided the U.S. focused on bilateral trade deals. While the strategy could succeed, she warned it carried high risks.
Geoffrey Gertz, another senior fellow, pointed out that the simulation underscored America’s dominant position in global trade. Despite China’s attempts to build alliances with other countries, the majority of governments still aligned themselves with the U.S. to secure better deals.
“There’s no doubt that the U.S. is still in control,” Gertz remarked. “When the U.S. acts, the world responds.”
While some countries, like Canada, explored alternatives—such as investing in infrastructure to trade directly with Mexico—most nations waited for the U.S. to lead the way.
Nazak Nikakhtar, a former Trump administration official, echoed this sentiment, noting how the simulation highlighted the centrality of U.S. trade policies in shaping global priorities. “Every country’s focus is now on negotiating with the U.S. on trade issues,” she said.
However, not all participants were as optimistic about the long-term prospects. Tobias Gehrke, a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, noted that some European nations, like Spain and Italy, were leaning towards closer ties with China as a hedge against U.S. policies. Yet, in this simulation, Europe had largely remained united in its dealings with the U.S.
“There’s hope,” Gehrke said, “but only if the U.S. truly wants to strike deals and dismantle tariffs. If the goal is simply to raise them, that hope fades.”
The simulation also revealed potential pitfalls. Public opinion toward the U.S. soured in some countries, and more extreme actions—such as territorial disputes or unpredictable policy shifts—could erode the willingness of nations to negotiate with the U.S.
Kilcrease acknowledged the challenge of simultaneously engaging the entire world on trade issues, emphasizing the toll on the U.S. team as they scrambled to negotiate with multiple countries. “Can we really handle all this at once?” she questioned.
Ultimately, while the simulation indicated a potential path forward, the outcome of such a trade war remains uncertain. “A world where the U.S. comes out ahead is possible, but it’s not guaranteed,” Kilcrease concluded.
