As Donald Trump’s trade war with Europe intensifies, a fundamental question emerges: what does victory actually look like? The administration’s aggressive tactics and diverse targets make it difficult to discern a clear and achievable end game, leaving allies and analysts alike to ponder the ultimate objective of this high-stakes conflict.
Is the end game simply the onshoring of as many jobs as possible? If so, victory would be measured by the number of foreign companies that announce new factories on US soil. In this scenario, the tariffs are not a temporary negotiating tool, but a permanent feature of the landscape designed to constantly pressure companies to invest in America.
Alternatively, is the end game a complete overhaul of existing trade deals? The administration may be using the chaos and pressure of tariffs to force partners like the EU and the UK to come to the table and negotiate new agreements that are more favorable to the US. In this version, victory would be the signing of a “better deal,” after which the tariffs would be removed.
A third, more cynical view is that the end game is purely political. The trade war could be a tool to rally a political base, to appear tough on the world stage, and to create a constant sense of crisis that dominates the news cycle. If this is the case, victory is not an economic outcome, but a successful election campaign.
Without a clear definition of victory, the trade war risks becoming a “forever war”—a permanent state of conflict with shifting targets and no obvious resolution. For the European industries caught in the crossfire, this is the most alarming prospect of all: a conflict with no discernible end game is a conflict that can never truly be won.
