'Unsolicited obedience' to avoid Trump tariffs

The return of Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States has stirred uncertainty across various global economic sectors, including European wine. This shift has also given rise to strategic approaches like the so-called "unsolicited obedience", which some industries are exploring as a way to prevent tariffs or unfavorable trade policies. This concept, characterized by proactive alignment with the preferences of a governing authority without explicit demand, has prompted speculation about its potential application to the European wine industry as a means to avoid tariffs.

During Trump's previous presidency, sectors like technology and automotive adapted their messaging and investment strategies to align with his administration's priorities, such as job creation in the United States. Examples included announcements of new investments in U.S. operations or public endorsements of policies favored by the Trump administration. While some companies benefited from these moves, others faced criticism or failed to secure their intended outcomes, as Trump's decisions often prioritized short-term political and economic goals over symbolic gestures.

The European wine industry, significantly impacted by tariffs during Trump's earlier term, could consider a similar strategy. Those tariffs, imposed amidst a broader trade dispute between the U.S. and the European Union involving the aerospace industry, increased costs for producers in France, Spain, Italy, and other nations. Although the Biden administration brokered temporary agreements to suspend some of these tariffs, Trump's return has revived fears of their reinstatement or expansion.

Possible measures by the wine sector could include public campaigns emphasizing cultural ties between European wine-producing countries and the United States, investments in U.S.-based ventures, or partnerships that support local job creation. Such actions might be seen as aligning with Trump's economic agenda and could serve to reduce trade tensions. Recent examples from other industries, such as British Finance Minister Rachel Reeves referencing Trump's emotional and economic ties to Scotch whisky at the World Economic Forum in Davos, highlight how businesses and officials are employing this strategy to safeguard their interests.

However, the potential benefits of such actions remain uncertain. The tariffs on European wine during Trump's first term were largely tied to the aerospace dispute, rather than any direct issue with the wine sector. This suggests that alignment efforts might have limited influence if broader political or economic objectives drive trade policy.

Furthermore, this strategy carries significant risks. Aligning with Trump could be perceived as opportunistic, potentially alienating consumers in markets where he remains a polarizing figure. In Europe, where the wine industry holds cultural and economic significance, gestures that appear to prioritize U.S. political interests could attract criticism. The unpredictable nature of Trump's decision-making further complicates the viability of this approach, as past attempts to align with his administration did not always yield consistent or favorable outcomes.

Relying on symbolic gestures to avoid tariffs could also undermine the wine industry's negotiating power in the long term. Such moves might be viewed as acquiescence, reducing the sector's leverage in broader diplomatic and institutional trade negotiations. While seeking to mitigate risks from potential tariffs, the European wine industry must carefully weigh the uncertain benefits of this approach against its possible reputational and strategic drawbacks.