Economists, who rarely agree, were almost unanimous in their criticism – some even mocking. Political experts also found it difficult to see any strategically comprehensible logic in the threat of a global trade war. And yet, when viewed in a different light, the move makes perfect sense – because it may not be about trade at all, but about power.

This is what Francisco Rodríguez, Professor of International Relations at the University of Denver, writes in a guest article in the New York Times that is well worth reading.

According to the US Constitution, responsibility for trade issues lies with Congress. However, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows the president to regulate trade in the event of economic emergencies, thereby effectively bypassing the constitutional control body. The message was clear: the executive branch is claiming more powers than it is entitled to under the Constitution.

The financial markets reacted accordingly: unlike in previous crises, the dollar did not rise – on the contrary, it fell significantly. This signals that investors not only fear economic damage, but are increasingly doubting whether the US is still a reliable place to invest capital.

For observers from countries where authoritarian tendencies are emerging, however, this seemingly irrational approach is familiar. Similar patterns can be seen in Venezuela, where Hugo Chávez paralysed the economy from 2003 onwards by imposing state-controlled prices and exchange rates – while at the same time securing control over the allocation of foreign currency. Or in Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe not only ruined agriculture by expropriating white landowners, but also awarded the land to political followers as a reward.

Such measures appear economically unreasonable, but they are extremely effective politically. As my research in developing countries shows, those responsible usually know exactly what they are doing. They are not concerned with economic efficiency, but with securing power and rewarding alliances.

There are certainly staunch protectionists in the White House too. But the apparent arbitrariness behind Trump’s decisions is not a side effect – it is the principle. Only through seemingly unpredictable measures can a government circle seeking to expand its power demonstrate: We make the rules.