President Donald Trump always wants three things: gamble, negotiate and win. Not necessarily in that order. Now he has just made a new bet: go against the world with a 50% tariff on steel.

For Trump, trade is not a system of shared rules, but a power board where one competes for advantage. The new measure - formalized this June 3 in a presidential proclamation - raises tariffs on steel and aluminum from 25% to 50%, under the argument that these are essential sectors for national security. The logic: if the United States cannot produce its own critical metals, neither can it guarantee its defense or rebuild its infrastructure in an emergency. Just what the liberal doctrine of trade denies: all countries need each other and autarky will always be a bad strategy.

But steel is much more than a sheet or an import statistic. It is also a symbol. Since his first term, Trump has chosen this input as an emblem of his industrial policy, of his protectionist outburst and of his promise to "make America great again" from the factories. The metal industry represents in his imaginary a strong, self-sufficient nation, with well-paying jobs and domestic value chains. By raising tariffs, Trump not only seeks to correct what he considers a "distorted market": he also asserts his leadership as the architect of a new economic order.

However, the question remains open: can a country redesign a global market as interconnected as the steel market with tariffs alone?

Steel: symbol and symptom

In Trump's narrative, steel is much more than a product of international trade: it is a test of national strength. It is not surprising, then, that he chose to announce this measure at a US Steel plant in Pennsylvania, the cradle of the US steel industry. There, he declared: "No one will be able to steal your industry. He was not only speaking to the metal workers, but to an electorate hit by deindustrialization and willing to listen to a speech of protection and sovereignty.

The symbolism is not accidental. In his first term, Trump had already applied 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum in the name of national security under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. According to his administration, these industries were being ravaged by global overcapacity and dumping promoted by foreign governments. The new measure doubles the previous tariff and seeks to close what it considers to be loopholes and exceptions that have weakened the initial effect. It is no longer enough to protect: it is necessary to reconquer.

Fixing the market

For Trump, fix does not mean liberalize. It means recovering. The diagnosis offered by his administration is clear: the market is broken because the rules do not apply equally to all. While the United States operates with higher environmental, labor and tax standards, other countries - among them China, but also allies such as Brazil, Mexico or Canada - flood the market with subsidized and cheap steel.

In figures, the argument gains strength: in 2024, the United States imported half of the steel and aluminum it consumed, reports AFP. The White House adds that domestic production capacity is in decline: the use of installed capacity in steel fell from 80% in 2021 to 75.3% in 2023; in aluminum, from 61% in 2019 to 55% in 2023. And although investments of more than $10 billion were announced during his first term, the rebound has not been enough.

The president then proposes a direct solution: punishing imports with high tariffs and tightening controls on the composition of imported products. The presidential proclamation warns that severe sanctions will be imposed on those who falsely declare the steel and aluminum content of their exports to the US.

From this point of view, "fixing" the market means closing the leaks, reconfiguring the rules and forcing external actors to bow to U.S. logic. It is not a multilateral reform: it is a warning. But no one can fix or transform a market with tariffs. Trump would have to go back to Schumpeter's notion of creative destruction to understand that some things often have to be destroyed in order for others to be born.

The global dilemma

The problem is that steel does not circulate in a vacuum. It is part of international value chains, with ramifications in the automotive, construction, energy and defense industries. Punishing foreign suppliers can raise costs for local manufacturers, generate diplomatic tensions and weaken agreements with strategic allies.

Canada - the main supplier of steel to the U.S. - has already filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization, alleging that the tariffs violate the United States' multilateral obligations. Mexico, Brazil and Argentina are also on the list of countries directly affected. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has been momentarily excluded from the new tariff wave, pending progress on a bilateral agreement with Washington.

Trump, however, insists the tariffs are working. The White House cites studies purportedly showing that prices did not rise significantly, that domestic production increased, and that the economy benefited from the reshoring. It even cites former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who reportedly stated that consumers will not feel any significant effects on prices. For the administration, this is proof that selective protectionism can be efficient.

But the dilemma persists: when the world's greatest power acts without consensus, does it rearrange the system or weaken it? Trump is betting on the former. The rest of the world is beginning to prepare for the latter.

A war with its own rules

Can one country fix the global steel market? In Donald Trump's logic, yes, but not with agreements or cooperation, but with force, pressure and tariffs. His view of global trade is not that of an ecosystem with shared rules, but of a hard bargaining board, where each country fights for its relative advantage.

What is at stake is not just the price of steel. It is the possibility of one power imposing its economic vision on the rest of the world, redefining what is fair, what is strategic and what is acceptable in trade relations. Trump does not hide his intention: if other countries do not protect their industries, it is their problem. The U.S. should do whatever it takes to protect theirs, even if it's at the expense of underrepresented consumers.

But that same logic leaves it alone in the face of an unresolved dilemma: fixing the market may end up fracturing it further. Increasing domestic capacity without international coordination can generate chain reactions: retaliation, legal disagreements, fragmentation of the rules of the game. It is unclear whether the market will become fairer or simply more uncertain.

The steel dilemma, really, is the dilemma of this trade era: can there be order without consensus? Trump thinks so. The world - once again - will have to respond.

The case of Mexico

The Mexican government said Tuesday that it will ask to be excluded from the 50% tariff on steel and aluminum announced by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Mexico is one of the countries most vulnerable to Trump's tariffs since 80% of its exports are destined for the United States, its largest trading partner.

"We will ask on Friday that Mexico be excluded," Economy Secretary Marcelo Ebrard told reporters, calling the measure "unfair, unsustainable and inconvenient".

Ebrard added that the tariffs are unfair because the United States has a surplus with Mexico, that is, it sends more steel than it imports.

"It makes no sense to impose tariffs on a product in which you have a surplus," said the official, who said that it would be difficult for this tax to be sustained over time due to its economic impact.

At the end of 2024, the United States had a surplus of 2.4 million tons of steel, according to industry figures.

Canada is its main steel supplier, followed by Brazil and Mexico, with products destined for industries such as the automotive and construction sectors.

Mexico's government has avoided the so-called reciprocal tariffs that Trump applied to dozens of countries, although it faces tariffs on this industry and the vital automotive sector.

The Mexican government has said that close to 90% of trade with the United States is tariff-free thanks to the T-MEC free trade agreement, the review of which will begin between September and October.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said at the end of May that her government is still negotiating the tariff issue with Trump.