Playing with Fire: Trump’s Threats and the Game Theory of Global Politics

J. André Faust (March 15, 2025)

Threats are a powerful tool in game theory,but only when they are credible. In geopolitics, threats manifest in many forms,economic, military, and diplomatic,each designed to coerce, deter, or manipulate an opponent’s actions. Trump has wielded threats as a cornerstone of his international strategy, often relying on unpredictability as a weapon. But effectiveness depends on more than just making threats,it hinges on whether opponents believe he will follow through.

The critical question is: How have other nations responded? Not everyone plays tit-for-tat,some are countering with patience, others are calling his bluffs, and a few are rewriting the rules altogether. To understand this, we need to break down the different types of threats in game theory and examine the strategic responses they provoke

The Types of Threats Trump Uses

1. Credible Threats (When the Opponent Believes You’ll Follow Through)

• Trade Tariffs as Leverage: The U.S.-China trade war saw Trump impose tariffs on Chinese goods, signaling his willingness to endure economic backlash to force a new trade agreement.
• Military Strikes as a Warning: The assassination of Qasem Soleimani was a clear message: provoke the U.S., and the response will be lethal.

2. Non-Credible Threats (Bluffs That Fall Apart Under Scrutiny)

• Threats to Leave NATO: Many saw this as an empty bluff since withdrawing would undermine U.S. strategic influence.
• Cutting Off Trade With China Entirely: Given the level of economic interdependence, this was never truly feasible.

3. Grim Trigger Strategy (Permanent Punishment for Defection)

This strategy involves retaliating in a way that makes future cooperation impossible.

• The China Trade War’s Ongoing Escalation: Unlike a traditional tit-for-tat approach, Trump escalated tariffs even when China made concessions. This created long-term economic damage on both sides.

4. Brinkmanship (Pushing to the Edge, Hoping the Other Side Backs Down)

• Threats Against North Korea: Trump’s “fire and fury” rhetoric pushed North Korea into negotiations, though it remains unclear how much was achieved.
• Border Tariff Threats Against Mexico: Threatening tariffs unless Mexico enforced stricter immigration controls led to Mexican compliance, showing brinkmanship can work when the opponent has more to lose.

How Other Countries Respond

1. Strategic Patience (Waiting Out the Storm)

• China’s Tariff Countermeasures: Rather than escalating immediately, China imposed selective retaliatory tariffs while diversifying its trade partners.
• The European Union’s Response to Steel Tariffs: The EU waited, knowing a new U.S. administration might reverse course, while placing counter-tariffs on symbolic American goods.

2. Selective Retaliation (Picking Battles Wisely)

• Canada’s Response to Aluminum Tariffs: Canada imposed counter-tariffs but left diplomatic channels open, preventing total escalation.
• France’s Response to Digital Tax Threats: When Trump threatened tariffs over France’s digital services tax, France delayed implementation to defuse tensions.

3. Adaptive Game Play (Shifting Strategies Mid-Game)

• Mexico’s Migration Enforcement: Initially resistant, Mexico pivoted quickly to avoid economic fallout.
• North Korea’s Mix of Provocation and Negotiation: Kim Jong Un alternated between diplomacy and missile tests, trying to dictate the pace of engagement.

Why Not Everyone Plays Tit-for-Tat

Classical tit-for-tat suggests that if Trump imposes a tariff, the other country should impose a proportional tariff. Yet many nations opted for alternative strategies:

• Asymmetry of Power: Smaller economies can’t afford full-scale trade wars, so they either comply or delay retaliation.
• Reputation Management: Countries like Germany and Japan prioritize long-term stability over immediate retaliation.
• Game Complexity: The global economy isn’t a simple two-player game—responses must factor in alliances, public perception, and long-term economic consequences.

Final Thoughts: Is Trump’s Game Sustainable?

Game theory teaches us that aggressive strategies can work, but they have limits. Trump’s threats, particularly his brinkmanship and grim trigger strategies, have forced concessions but also alienated allies. Meanwhile, many countries are betting that patience, adaptation, or selective counterplay will outlast his tactics.

The real question is whether Trump’s approach has set a new precedent for U.S. foreign policy or if it was a short-term shift in global strategy. One thing is clear: not everyone is playing the same game, and in geopolitics, the ability to recognize the rules is just as important as the ability to change them.

Would love to hear your thoughts—what strategies do you see emerging as world leaders respond to these shifting tactics? Drop your comments below!

---