Osman Şenkul
US customs duties, which stood at $79 billion in 2024, rose by 234 per cent to $264 billion in 2025, the year Donald Trump took office for a second term following a campaign based on his “Make America Great Again (MAGA)” slogan.
As will be recalled, Trump announced that he would raise customs duties as soon as he took office in early 2025, with the aim of restricting imports into the US—considered the world’s largest market—and, in turn, forcing many countries to import US goods; he began implementing these measures in April 2025. The primary target of these significantly increased tariffs was the People’s Republic of China, known as the world’s second-largest economy with a projected GDP of $20 trillion for 2026, following the US, which is projected to have a GDP of $31 trillion for 2026. From April 2025 onwards, Trump increased tariffs by between 50% and 125% on a wide range of key products exported by China to the US, including steel, aluminium, copper, spare parts for cars and other vehicles, and solar panels, and continued to take successive steps in this direction throughout the year.
Trump extended the tariff offensive he had launched against China and other Southeast Asian countries, extended to European countries, including Germany—the world’s third-largest economy with a projected 2026 GDP of 5 trillion dollars—and began imposing a 25 per cent tariff on a narrow range of semiconductor imports, primarily advanced computer chips.
Trump stated that he would withdraw the tariffs on medicines and medical supplies imported from the UK and EU countries, provided that the countries made reciprocal investments. Following this, many major pharmaceutical companies announced or accelerated their production investments in the US to take advantage of tariff exemptions linked to domestic production.
Trump also launched a trade war against Canada and Mexico on 1 February 2025 by signing executive orders imposing comprehensive tariffs on goods entering the US from these two neighbours. The executive order provided for a 25 per cent tariff on all imports from Mexico and a 10 per cent tariff on all imports from Canada; petroleum and energy products were to be subject to a 10 per cent tariff.
On 17 January, Trump also warned that he would impose successive increases in tariffs on European allies until the US was permitted to purchase Greenland. In a post shared on Truth Social, Trump stated that an additional 10 per cent import duty would be applied to goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland and the United Kingdom from 1 February. Trump also wrote on Truth Social that these tariffs would rise to 25 per cent on 1 June and would remain in place until an agreement is reached regarding the US purchase of Greenland.
Following these tariff warnings, Trump has repeatedly emphasised that he would not settle for anything less than full ownership of Greenland. Both Danish and Greenlandic leaders have reiterated that the island is not for sale and does not wish to become part of the US. In response, Trump argued that Greenland is of vital importance to US security due to its strategic location and vast mineral deposits, stating that he might even use force to seize the island. European countries deployed military personnel to the island this week at Denmark’s request.
The US Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants US presidents the authority to impose tariffs (customs duties) during extraordinary periods, cannot be invoked. The Court noted that the IEEPA is a federal law dating from 1977 which grants the US President the authority to regulate international trade, impose sanctions and freeze assets by declaring a national emergency in response to extraordinary threats from abroad.
The Tax Foundation, a leading, independent tax policy organisation, stated in a commentary following this IEEPA-based ruling: “With the ruling that IEEPA tariffs are unlawful, the government will be required to refund the revenue collected from these tariffs. The total revenue from customs duties will be less than direct collections; as customs duties automatically reduce the tax base for income and payroll taxes. According to our estimates, the government generated a net revenue of $36 billion from the new Section 232 customs duties in 2025.”
Whilst all this was being debated, the European Parliament also officially suspended the ratification process for the trade agreement with the US in response to Trump’s threat to impose a 10 per cent tariff on EU exports if the EU did not agree to his demand to take over Greenland. This suspension was described as the EU’s strongest concrete response to date to a situation in which many leaders from EU member states had characterised Trump’s statements as “blackmail”. Bernd Lange, Chair of the European Parliament’s Trade Committee, stated in his remarks on the matter: “Until the threats against Greenland cease, there will be no possibility of reaching an agreement on the ratification of the deal with the US, which promises a new era of zero tariffs on many industrial exports to Americans.”
Lange also emphasised that the EU’s commitment to purchase $750 billion worth of energy from the US would not be affected by this decision, as it is separate from the tariff agreement.
It was on 28 February, just as the first year of Trump’s policies—which he had begun almost as soon as he came to power and which focused on “imposing tariffs as he saw fit and under the conditions he desired”—was drawing to a close, that he suddenly launched an attack on Iran with hundreds of long-range missiles. Whilst Trump was cutting off one of China’s vital energy arteries—a country that had complied with high tariffs without protest—he was simultaneously eliminating the most crucial energy artery of the European Union, which had stood up to him and challenged his authority.
In other words, the EU, which had stood up to him over Greenland and tariffs, would become entirely dependent on the US for energy under the $750 billion deal mentioned by Lange. Trump’s aim was to deal a heavy blow to Europe—which had sidelined Russia due to the war in Ukraine—thereby sidelining Europe, his second major rival after China, and proclaiming the “MAGA Empire”.
To put it more plainly, in order to declare the MAGA Empire, Trump – who had received significant backing from US billionaires – was obliged to fulfil the demands they had previously dictated as soon as he took office, and the pressure was mounting from day one.
For example, US billionaires such as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg and Sam Altman are investing in Greenland with the aim of securing reserves of rare earth elements, which are vital to the electric vehicle and technology sectors; these investments are gaining momentum under the leadership of the mining venture KoBold Metals. These investments align with the US’s growing geopolitical interests in the Arctic and with efforts – which have met with resistance – to increase American control in the region. Consequently, echoing Trump’s remarks on the matter, they are continuing to press the point with a ‘Come on, let’s get on with it’ attitude.
According to many experts and academics in the US, the Trump era saw the concentration of wealth among the richest Americans reach unprecedented levels in history, and consequently, the influence of billionaires on politics has risen to the same extent. For example, New York billionaire John Catsimatidis has long been involved in politics. However, last year, the Republican property and oil magnate donated $2.4 million to support Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress.
Speaking to The Washington Post, Catsimatidis said that, given the deep divide between the two parties, he felt it was becoming increasingly urgent to try to influence the course of American politics.
“If you’re a billionaire, you want to stay a billionaire,” said Catsimatidis, whose net worth is estimated at $4.5 billion. Noting that this was not just about his own wealth, Catsimatidis added, “I’m worried about America and the way of life we have.”
In this era marked by deep political divisions and the accumulation of immense wealth among the richest Americans, billionaires are spending unprecedented amounts of money on US politics. In recent years, dozens of billionaires have increased their political donations; this has led to a record-breaking surge in donations from the super-rich in 2024. According to an analysis by The Washington Post, political donations to federal elections by the 100 richest Americans have increased nearly 140-fold since 2000, far outpacing the rise in campaign costs.
According to an analysis by The Washington Post based on OpenSecrets data, in 2000 the country’s 100 richest individuals contributed roughly a quarter of 1 per cent of the total cost of federal elections. By 2024, although the cost of these elections had risen sharply, this group covered approximately 7.5 per cent of the cost. In other words, roughly 1 in every 13 dollars spent on last year’s national elections was donated by the country’s wealthiest few.
Billionaire Elon Musk donated a total of $278 million during the 2024 election cycle, largely with the aim of securing Trump’s re-election. This ‘investment’ proved highly profitable for him. Since Trump’s victory in 2024, Musk’s net worth has increased by 220 per cent. Musk has filed for an initial public offering (IPO) targeting a valuation of over $2 trillion, and this transaction is expected to generate $75 billion in funds; this would make it the largest IPO in history. Musk has filed for an IPO targeting a valuation of over $2 trillion, and the deal is expected to raise $75 billion; this would make it the largest IPO in history.
Following Musk, Wall Street financier Jeff Yass ranks next in the list of billionaires’ political spending; Yass has donated over $55 million so far during this midterm election cycle. Yass donated $16 million to MAGA, Inc., a super PAC dedicated to supporting candidates backed by Trump.
In third place is San Francisco-based AI technology giant Greg Brockman, who has donated $25 million to midterm election campaigns so far. Most of these donations were made to Trump’s super PAC; according to political analysts, this is because Brockman wants to eliminate state-level AI regulations through federal-level pre-emptive measures and believes Trump will assist him in this regard.
Forbes, which has researched and published on this topic, also noted in its 14 August 2024 edition—prior to Trump’s victory in the November election—that some of the wealthiest MAGA and, by extension, Trump supporters were backing his bid to return to the White House:
The 26 wealthiest billionaires, with a combined net worth of $143 billion, have contributed $162 million to this campaign so far.
Timothy Mellon / Donation to Trump: $76.5 million | Net worth: $1 billion
- Linda McMahon / Donation to Trump: $16 million | Net worth: $3.1 billion
- Diane Hendricks / Donation to Trump: $6.3 million | Net worth: $20.9 billion
- Miriam Adelson / Donation to Trump: $5.8 million | Net worth: $27.8 billion
- Kelcy Warren / Donation to Trump: $5.8 million | Net worth: $6.2 billion
- Timothy Dunn / Donation to Trump: $5 million | Net worth: $2.2 billion
- Elizabeth Uihlein / Donation to Trump: $5 million | Net worth: $6 billion
- Richard Uihlein / Donation to Trump: $5 million | Net worth: $6 billion
- Jeff Sprecher & Kelly Loeffler / Donation to Trump: $4.9 million | Net worth: $1.1 billion
- Phil Ruffin / Donation to Trump: $3.3 million | Net worth: $2.6 billion
- Jimmy John Liautaud / Donation to Trump: $3.1 million | Net worth: $2.4 billion
- Geoffrey Palmer / Donation to Trump: $3 million | Net worth: $3.1 billion
- Bernard Marcus / Donation to Trump: $2.7 million | Net worth: $9.9 billion
- Robert “Woody” Johnson / Donation to Trump: $2.7 million | Net worth: $3.3 billion
- Kenny Troutt / Donation to Trump: $2.2 million | Net worth: $1.7 billion
- George Bishop / Donation to Trump: $2 million | Net worth: $3.2 billion
- J. Joe Ricketts / Donation to Trump: $2 million | Net worth: $3.6 billion
- Andrew Beal / Donation to Trump: $1.8 million | Net worth: $12.2 billion
- Cameron Winklevoss / Donation to Trump: $1.3 million | Net worth: $2.7 billion
- Tyler Winklevoss / Donation to Trump: $1.3 million | Net worth: $2.7 billion
- Don Ahern / Donation to Trump: $1.1 million | Net worth: $1 billion
- Roger Penske / Donation to Trump: $1.1 million | Net worth: $6.3 billion
- Steve Wynn / Donation to Trump: $1.1 million | Net worth: $3.4 billion
- Richard Kurtz / Donation to Trump: $1 million | Net worth: $1 billion
- Antonio Gracias & Douglas Leone: Donation to Trump: $1 million | Net worth: $9.1 (1.2 + 7.9) billion
In short, particularly since Trump came to power, anti-billionaire movements in the US—such as ‘Workers Over Billionaires’ and ‘No Kings’—have gained momentum by organising nationwide rallies, marches and strikes to challenge the influence of the wealthy over politics, tax policies and the economy. These campaigns focus on workers’ rights, the redistribution of wealth and limiting corporate power.
For example, the Workers Over Billionaires movement organised over 1,000 rallies, picnics and demonstrations, particularly around May Day 2025, to protest against the US government being “taken over by billionaires”. The No Kings movement organised protests and marches across all 50 states—including Democratic cities and Republican regions—to oppose the concentration of wealth and political influence in a single entity.
Alongside these groups, numerous other local and national movements have also taken action against the deepening economic inequalities caused by billionaire Trump, bringing to the fore demands for the ultra-rich to pay higher taxes to fund public services such as education, healthcare and housing.
Viewed from this perspective, we can see that the sole force behind Trump—who has caused the loss of thousands of lives and widespread destruction—is the MAGA supporters with their billions of dollars.