Trump’s Tariffs, “America First,” and the Challenge for the Philippines:
Reviving Domestic-Based Development
(Or: Will the Philippines cling to the neoliberal convention?)
With the imposition of 20% tariffs, particularly on Chinese imports, Trump’s administration underscored the “America First” agenda, one that aims to reduce the trade deficit and foster American industry. As Trump famously declared, “We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams.” This rallying cry to prioritize American interests has created ripples across the globe, impacting trade-dependent economies like the Philippines.
For the Philippines, which has long been embedded within global supply chains, the implications of these tariffs are significant. On the one hand, there is an opportunity: American companies searching for alternatives to Chinese suppliers might see Philippine industries as viable options, leading to increased demand in electronics assembly, textile manufacturing, and other sectors. But on the other hand, reduced U.S. consumer demand due to higher tariffs could hurt the Philippines’ export-reliant sectors, making it vulnerable to fluctuations in American economic policy.
Rethinking Reliance on Finance Capitalism
The tariff situation poses a pivotal question for the Philippines: should it continue relying on finance capitalism—a model dominated by speculative investment and stock market gains, or should it focus on reviving a domestic-based development strategy? Finance capitalism, which has driven Philippine growth in recent decades, has largely benefited a small elite, leaving local industries underdeveloped and vulnerable to external market shifts. With an economy structured on global dependency, the Philippines has often found itself at the mercy of foreign market fluctuations and global trade policy shifts, including those under Trump’s “America First.”
As economist Alejandro Lichauco once argued, “Our national interest cannot be served by an economic system which is run for the benefit of a few and dictated by foreigners.” This sentiment underscores a crucial need to redefine growth away from speculative finance and toward a model that strengthens local industries and prioritizes self-sufficiency. Reviving domestic-based development means investing in industrialization, technological infrastructure, and human capital, fostering economic resilience, and reducing the country’s dependence on foreign capital flows.
By pivoting toward local enterprise and industrialization, the Philippines can begin building a future less vulnerable to shifts in foreign markets. This approach doesn’t mean isolating itself from the world; instead, it’s about building internal economic strength, fostering innovation, and equipping future generations with the skills needed for a globally competitive yet domestically robust economy.
“America First” as a Challenge for the country
to become “Filipino First”
Trump’s “America First” rhetoric is more than just a policy decision; it’s a call to Filipinos to evaluate their own economic stance. The slogan reminds the Philippines of the necessity of prioritizing its own interests, as America does, rather than remaining a “little brown brother” in the international order. For Filipinos, hearing “America First” should resonate as a call to redefine their nation’s identity and trajectory—a moment to recalibrate “Filipino First” as a guiding principle, one rooted in inclusivity, innovation, and resilience.
Historically, “Filipino First” has not always aligned with the needs of the broader population. Past attempts at nationalism, whether political or economic, often became elitist or crony-driven, with the benefits concentrated among a select few. However, there are industrialists who were patriotic enough to insist the national alternative to a cycle of subservience to a foreign-dominated market. As Salvador Araneta, a prominent Filipino industrialist, once said, “Let us not forget that the Philippines belongs to us, and not to any other foreign power.” His words serve as a reminder that true nationalism must work for all Filipinos, especially the toiling masses, and not merely those in power. A recalibrated “Filipino First” should strive to balance national pride with inclusive growth, prioritizing Filipino enterprises, technology, and skills that foster self-reliance.
Creating an Inclusive Economic Model
A reimagined “Filipino First” must go beyond rhetoric. Economic nationalism in the Philippines must now focus on reducing dependency on foreign goods and capital by promoting local industries that meet Filipino needs. Strengthening sectors such as manufacturing, technology, and agriculture can help generate jobs, raise incomes, and reduce inequality. Additionally, by investing in education, research, and infrastructure, the Philippines can lay the groundwork for long-term economic competitiveness on the global stage.
Jose Rizal, in his El Filibusterismo, once questioned, “What’s the use of independence if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow?” Rizal's warning highlights the risk of an elite-driven nationalism that leaves the Filipino majority behind. “Filipino First” must, therefore, be an idea that serves all sectors of society. This means supporting small and medium enterprises, local artisans, and regional industries that can thrive within a protected and nurturing economy. Rather than an elite-driven narrative, this vision of economic nationalism must bring tangible benefits to the average Filipino, transforming the country into a producer and innovator, not just a consumer or labor exporter.
Speaking of economic nationalism, Claro M. Recto’s vision of economic nationalism is deeply rooted in the belief that a nation’s true sovereignty extends beyond political independence to encompass economic autonomy. He argued that true nationalism could only be achieved if a nation’s resources were controlled and utilized primarily by its own people, ensuring that these resources directly benefited the local population rather than foreign powers or corporations.
Recto’s view echoed that of José Rizal, who also saw economic self-determination as a crucial part of national identity. He stressed that industrialization was integral to this vision of nationalism, emphasizing that a nation’s economic independence and prosperity were impossible without developing its own industries. For Recto, industrialization would not only create jobs, stimulate local economies, and reduce dependence on foreign imports, but it would also promote technological advancement and foster economic democracy by encouraging Filipino ownership and management of key industries.
He critiqued the foreign domination of the Philippine economy, particularly the monopolies held by foreign capitalists in agriculture, mining, and manufacturing, which he saw as a form of neo-colonial exploitation that hindered the country’s development. By advocating for a Filipino-controlled industrial sector, Recto sought to shift the economy away from dependence on foreign markets, allowing Filipinos to harness their own resources for their own benefit. In this way, he envisioned economic nationalism and industrialization as the dual pillars for transforming the Philippines into a modern, self-sustaining, and independent nation capable of asserting itself in the global arena. His ideas remain relevant today despite neoliberal prevalence over local economic affairs, serving as a critical lens through which to consider the intersections of economic sovereignty, globalization, and national development in the contemporary world.
Self-Reliance and Responsible Global Engagement
This recalibration doesn’t mean that the Philippines should forgo foreign investments or shut its doors to foreign talent and knowledge. There’s a misconception that self-reliance equates to isolationism, but self-reliance is about strengthening local industries so they can compete globally. As Trump’s “America First” policy demonstrated, a country can prioritize its interests without entirely rejecting the global economy. The U.S. still boasts global powerhouses like Ford, Apple, and Tesla, which are symbols of American ingenuity. China has similarly risen by nurturing companies like Huawei, Xiaomi, and Hongqi, which serve Chinese interests while competing internationally.
If America and China can develop world-class industries and assert their place in the global economy, why can’t the Philippines do the same? By establishing a strong industrial foundation, the Philippines can negotiate with other countries from a position of strength rather than dependency. A self-reliant economy would not only boost national pride but would also empower the Philippines to assert itself in international trade, defend its interests, and leverage its assets.
Building a Self-Sufficient and Resilient Future
The ultimate goal of a recalibrated “Filipino First” policy is to create a nation that is capable of thriving independently, even while engaging globally. The Philippines should develop a more self-sufficient economy that can weather external pressures like U.S. tariffs or global market crashes. By focusing on domestic innovation, supporting Filipino industries, and building a resilient infrastructure, the country can achieve sustainable growth that benefits all citizens.
This vision would enable the Philippines to move beyond a dependency on foreign capital and remittances and become a nation where Filipinos can dream, create, and prosper. As Lichauco argued, “Economic nationalism is a struggle for the liberation of the Filipino from the colonial yoke, be it political or economic.” This shift would bring the Philippines closer to true independence—a place of respect and influence in the international community, not through servitude but through strength and self-reliance. The Philippines, like any nation, deserves an economic foundation that protects its interests, supports its people, and upholds its dignity on the world stage.
Through this vision, the Philippines can rise from being a “little brown brother” to becoming a robust and self-reliant nation, empowered to face the challenges of a rapidly changing world.
For the Philippines, which has long been embedded within global supply chains, the implications of these tariffs are significant. On the one hand, there is an opportunity: American companies searching for alternatives to Chinese suppliers might see Philippine industries as viable options, leading to increased demand in electronics assembly, textile manufacturing, and other sectors. But on the other hand, reduced U.S. consumer demand due to higher tariffs could hurt the Philippines’ export-reliant sectors, making it vulnerable to fluctuations in American economic policy.
Rethinking Reliance on Finance Capitalism
The tariff situation poses a pivotal question for the Philippines: should it continue relying on finance capitalism—a model dominated by speculative investment and stock market gains, or should it focus on reviving a domestic-based development strategy? Finance capitalism, which has driven Philippine growth in recent decades, has largely benefited a small elite, leaving local industries underdeveloped and vulnerable to external market shifts. With an economy structured on global dependency, the Philippines has often found itself at the mercy of foreign market fluctuations and global trade policy shifts, including those under Trump’s “America First.”
As economist Alejandro Lichauco once argued, “Our national interest cannot be served by an economic system which is run for the benefit of a few and dictated by foreigners.” This sentiment underscores a crucial need to redefine growth away from speculative finance and toward a model that strengthens local industries and prioritizes self-sufficiency. Reviving domestic-based development means investing in industrialization, technological infrastructure, and human capital, fostering economic resilience, and reducing the country’s dependence on foreign capital flows.
By pivoting toward local enterprise and industrialization, the Philippines can begin building a future less vulnerable to shifts in foreign markets. This approach doesn’t mean isolating itself from the world; instead, it’s about building internal economic strength, fostering innovation, and equipping future generations with the skills needed for a globally competitive yet domestically robust economy.
“America First” as a Challenge for the country
to become “Filipino First”
Trump’s “America First” rhetoric is more than just a policy decision; it’s a call to Filipinos to evaluate their own economic stance. The slogan reminds the Philippines of the necessity of prioritizing its own interests, as America does, rather than remaining a “little brown brother” in the international order. For Filipinos, hearing “America First” should resonate as a call to redefine their nation’s identity and trajectory—a moment to recalibrate “Filipino First” as a guiding principle, one rooted in inclusivity, innovation, and resilience.
Historically, “Filipino First” has not always aligned with the needs of the broader population. Past attempts at nationalism, whether political or economic, often became elitist or crony-driven, with the benefits concentrated among a select few. However, there are industrialists who were patriotic enough to insist the national alternative to a cycle of subservience to a foreign-dominated market. As Salvador Araneta, a prominent Filipino industrialist, once said, “Let us not forget that the Philippines belongs to us, and not to any other foreign power.” His words serve as a reminder that true nationalism must work for all Filipinos, especially the toiling masses, and not merely those in power. A recalibrated “Filipino First” should strive to balance national pride with inclusive growth, prioritizing Filipino enterprises, technology, and skills that foster self-reliance.
Creating an Inclusive Economic Model
A reimagined “Filipino First” must go beyond rhetoric. Economic nationalism in the Philippines must now focus on reducing dependency on foreign goods and capital by promoting local industries that meet Filipino needs. Strengthening sectors such as manufacturing, technology, and agriculture can help generate jobs, raise incomes, and reduce inequality. Additionally, by investing in education, research, and infrastructure, the Philippines can lay the groundwork for long-term economic competitiveness on the global stage.
Jose Rizal, in his El Filibusterismo, once questioned, “What’s the use of independence if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow?” Rizal's warning highlights the risk of an elite-driven nationalism that leaves the Filipino majority behind. “Filipino First” must, therefore, be an idea that serves all sectors of society. This means supporting small and medium enterprises, local artisans, and regional industries that can thrive within a protected and nurturing economy. Rather than an elite-driven narrative, this vision of economic nationalism must bring tangible benefits to the average Filipino, transforming the country into a producer and innovator, not just a consumer or labor exporter.
Speaking of economic nationalism, Claro M. Recto’s vision of economic nationalism is deeply rooted in the belief that a nation’s true sovereignty extends beyond political independence to encompass economic autonomy. He argued that true nationalism could only be achieved if a nation’s resources were controlled and utilized primarily by its own people, ensuring that these resources directly benefited the local population rather than foreign powers or corporations.
Recto’s view echoed that of José Rizal, who also saw economic self-determination as a crucial part of national identity. He stressed that industrialization was integral to this vision of nationalism, emphasizing that a nation’s economic independence and prosperity were impossible without developing its own industries. For Recto, industrialization would not only create jobs, stimulate local economies, and reduce dependence on foreign imports, but it would also promote technological advancement and foster economic democracy by encouraging Filipino ownership and management of key industries.
He critiqued the foreign domination of the Philippine economy, particularly the monopolies held by foreign capitalists in agriculture, mining, and manufacturing, which he saw as a form of neo-colonial exploitation that hindered the country’s development. By advocating for a Filipino-controlled industrial sector, Recto sought to shift the economy away from dependence on foreign markets, allowing Filipinos to harness their own resources for their own benefit. In this way, he envisioned economic nationalism and industrialization as the dual pillars for transforming the Philippines into a modern, self-sustaining, and independent nation capable of asserting itself in the global arena. His ideas remain relevant today despite neoliberal prevalence over local economic affairs, serving as a critical lens through which to consider the intersections of economic sovereignty, globalization, and national development in the contemporary world.
Self-Reliance and Responsible Global Engagement
This recalibration doesn’t mean that the Philippines should forgo foreign investments or shut its doors to foreign talent and knowledge. There’s a misconception that self-reliance equates to isolationism, but self-reliance is about strengthening local industries so they can compete globally. As Trump’s “America First” policy demonstrated, a country can prioritize its interests without entirely rejecting the global economy. The U.S. still boasts global powerhouses like Ford, Apple, and Tesla, which are symbols of American ingenuity. China has similarly risen by nurturing companies like Huawei, Xiaomi, and Hongqi, which serve Chinese interests while competing internationally.
If America and China can develop world-class industries and assert their place in the global economy, why can’t the Philippines do the same? By establishing a strong industrial foundation, the Philippines can negotiate with other countries from a position of strength rather than dependency. A self-reliant economy would not only boost national pride but would also empower the Philippines to assert itself in international trade, defend its interests, and leverage its assets.
Lichauco’s view on nationalism, particularly his conception of economic nationalism, provides an important perspective on self-reliance and the role of the state in both domestic and global affairs. According to Lichauco, nationalism is more than a mere expression of political power—it is a comprehensive philosophy that encompasses the methods, strategies, and processes for building and sustaining the power of the state as an "organic entity." This conceptualization ties power directly to survival and prosperity, suggesting that a state must actively cultivate and amass its own resources, both material and strategic, to ensure its stability and to meet the needs of its people.
At the core of Lichauco's argument is the idea of self-reliance. For him, a state must assert its independence in all aspects of its existence, particularly its economic activities. This is not merely a matter of political autonomy, but of economic self-sufficiency. In this context, the state must have control over key sectors of its economy—such as steel mills, manufacturing, and other vital industries—because these are essential for national survival and development. Lichauco’s call for states to "manage their own business" underscores the idea that economic sovereignty is integral to national sovereignty. This self-reliance does not necessarily mean complete isolation from the global economy, but it does demand that the state have the capacity to make independent decisions, build critical infrastructure, and develop industries that serve national interests, rather than being overly dependent on foreign powers or multinational corporations.
The idea of responsible global engagement emerges from Lichauco's assertion that "independence and power are intertwined"—a state that is economically self-reliant is better positioned to engage with the global community from a position of strength. Economic nationalism, as Lichauco frames it, does not advocate for isolationism, but for a type of global participation where the state can protect and promote its interests. The goal is not to shut out foreign trade nor investment, but to ensure that such engagement is mutually beneficial and does not compromise the country's economic autonomy or social welfare. In this way, the state can be part of the global economy, but it should avoid being subjected to the dictates of foreign powers or corporations, which may exploit domestic resources and labor for external gain.
Self-reliance in Lichauco’s vision is both a practical and philosophical stance—practical because it ensures that the state has the power to determine its own destiny, and philosophical because it is grounded in the belief that a state's primary responsibility is to its people and to its long-term development. The state's **responsible global engagement**, on the other hand, involves negotiating international relations in a way that enhances national power, protects sovereignty, and promotes sustainable growth, while acknowledging the interconnectedness of the global economy.
Thus, Lichauco’s economic nationalism provides a blueprint for a balanced approach to global interaction—one that emphasizes the importance of economic sovereignty and self-reliance, while also recognizing the necessity of responsible and strategic participation in the global arena. This view advocates for a nation that is strong enough to withstand external pressures and make informed decisions that serve its national interest, all the while fostering a global environment that is not exploitative but rather cooperative and beneficial to all parties involved.
Building a Self-Sufficient and Resilient Future
The ultimate goal of a recalibrated “Filipino First” policy is to create a nation that is capable of thriving independently, even while engaging globally. The Philippines should develop a more self-sufficient economy that can weather external pressures like U.S. tariffs or global market crashes. By focusing on domestic innovation, supporting Filipino industries, and building a resilient infrastructure, the country can achieve sustainable growth that benefits all citizens.
This vision would enable the Philippines to move beyond a dependency on foreign capital and remittances and become a nation where Filipinos can dream, create, and prosper. As Lichauco argued, “Economic nationalism is a struggle for the liberation of the Filipino from the colonial yoke, be it political or economic.” This shift would bring the Philippines closer to true independence—a place of respect and influence in the international community, not through servitude but through strength and self-reliance. The Philippines, like any nation, deserves an economic foundation that protects its interests, supports its people, and upholds its dignity on the world stage.
Through this vision, the Philippines can rise from being a “little brown brother” to becoming a robust and self-reliant nation, empowered to face the challenges of a rapidly changing world.