Rolling Up Sleeves for the Nation's sake: Treating Trump's MAGA as a Challenge to the Philippines Amid Tariff Changes and Geopolitical Tensions

Rolling Up Sleeves for the Nation's sake: 

Treating Trump's MAGA as a Challenge to the Philippines

 Amid Tariff Changes and Geopolitical Tensions

In an era marked by shifting global power dynamics, U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement of a 17 percent tariff on Philippine goods starting April 9 presents both a challenge and an opportunity for the Philippines. The move, part of Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff policy, is designed to strengthen the U.S. economy and protect American workers. While this policy may initially hurt Filipino exporters, it also serves as a wake-up call—a challenge for the Philippines to chart its own course and reassess its place in the world, especially amid rising Sino-American tensions over the Pacific. 

At a time when the U.S. and China engage in saber-rattling, and the Philippines finds itself caught in the crossfire, the country can no longer afford to be passive. It must take ownership of its future—economically and geopolitically—and consider Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) principles not as a doctrine to follow but as a challenge to adapt and apply. Trump’s policies offer a unique opportunity for the Philippines to reassess its reliance on foreign powers and consider how it might carve out a path of self-sufficiency, independence, and resilience in the face of global uncertainties. 

Trump’s MAGA: A Challenge, Not a Blueprint 

Trump’s MAGA agenda has focused on economic self-sufficiency, seeking to rebuild America’s manufacturing sector and reduce its dependence on foreign imports. This vision, while understandable for the U.S., is not a one-size-fits-all solution for every nation. His approach to tariffs—designed to protect American industries at the expense of foreign trade partners—echoes the protectionist rhetoric of President Warren Harding in the 1920s and the nationalist sentiments of President Ronald Reagan, who championed American strength during the Cold War. However, Trump’s policies diverge from both Harding’s and Reagan’s approaches, especially in terms of their underlying motivations. 

Harding’s “Return to Normalcy” aimed to bring stability after the First World War, while Reagan focused on global leadership and spreading American values. Trump’s policies, in contrast, are more transactional and focused on securing short-term victories. His “America First” agenda often sacrifices long-term diplomatic relationships for immediate economic gains, particularly in terms of trade imbalances. As such, while MAGA may provide some useful lessons for the Philippines, it is not a model to follow blindly. Instead, the Philippines must view it as a challenge—an opportunity to reassess its own economic policies and forge a path that is suited to its unique circumstances. 

The Philippines’ Path to Economic Independence 

If Trump’s policies push the U.S. toward economic self-sufficiency, the Philippines should consider how it might adopt similar principles to fortify its own economy. While the tariffs may hurt Filipino exporters in the short term, they also expose the fragility of an economy heavily reliant on external markets, especially the U.S. The Philippines cannot afford to remain dependent on a volatile global marketplace or a single trading partner. Now is the time for the country to focus on building a more resilient, self-sustaining economy. 

Dindo Manhit, president of the Manila-based think tank Stratbase ADR Institute, highlighted that the relatively low tariff of 17% imposed on the Philippines “presents both risks and opportunities for the country.” While this move could make Philippine products less competitive in the U.S. market, it also opens doors for new trade and investment prospects. “The Philippines, with a comparatively lower tariff rate, could position itself as an attractive alternative for businesses looking to diversify their supply chains,” Manhit said.

This presents an exciting opportunity for the Philippines. The country could leverage the 17 percent tariff as a way to entice businesses seeking alternatives to China or other regions that may be facing escalating geopolitical risks. By positioning itself as a viable and cost-effective trade partner, the Philippines could draw new investments and diversify its export markets beyond the U.S. and China. This not only mitigates the risk of relying too heavily on any single trading partner but also allows the country to solidify its position in the broader global economy.

The Philippines’ economic structure has long been shaped by trade, with a significant emphasis on raw materials and basic manufacturing exports. However, this dependence makes it vulnerable to global market fluctuations and shifts in foreign policy. To foster true economic independence, the Philippines must invest in advanced industries such as renewable energy, high-value electronics, and defense manufacturing. By focusing on sectors that are not only resilient to external shocks but also competitive in the global marketplace, the Philippines can build an economy that stands strong on its own—much as Trump aims for the U.S. to do. 

The Case for a Shift Toward Domestic Industrialization 

and Agricultural Development

However, the right response to these tariffs must go beyond simply chasing new trade deals or relying on foreign investment. Sonny Africa, of the IBON Foundation, stressed the need for the Philippines to focus on domestic-based development, particularly in agriculture and manufacturing, instead of further deepening its dependence on foreign imports. “The right response to Trump’s tariffs isn’t to yearn for a bygone world of lower tariffs nor to fall over ourselves to please foreign investment,” Africa argued. “Doing this for the last 45 years just made PH manufacturing and agriculture fall to historic low shares of the economy, worsened our import-dependence, and made cheap labor our biggest export.”

Africa’s comments underscore a critical truth: the Philippines’ past approach of relying on foreign markets has led to systemic weaknesses in its domestic industries. The country must pivot away from a model that has placed cheap labor and import dependency at the forefront. Instead, Africa calls for a return to “real agricultural development and national industrialization.” Filipino farms and industrial firms need protection and support—not the fairy tale of free markets that has, in effect, undermined local industries and deepened dependency.

“The right response is to deal with the looming inflationary pressures, but also to look far beyond to real agricultural development and national industrialization,” Africa said. The Philippines cannot afford to let its industries wither while competing in a global market that favors efficiency over local resilience. Supporting domestic industries—especially agriculture and manufacturing—will be key to securing long-term economic stability and reducing vulnerability to global market fluctuations.

The Need for a Stronger, Independent Foreign Policy 

Geopolitically, the Philippines finds itself caught between two superpowers—the U.S. and China—as tensions over the South China Sea and the broader Pacific region continue to escalate. In this environment, the Philippines cannot afford to remain passive or overly reliant on any single ally. As the situation unfolds, it is clear that the country must adopt a foreign policy that is grounded in its own national interests, one that asserts its sovereignty and independence rather than depending on an external ally to dictate its actions. 

To do so, the Philippines must look beyond the traditional East-West divide and explore diplomatic and economic partnerships that align with its own interests. While the relationship with the U.S. remains vital, the Philippines should consider diversifying its alliances with countries such as India, Japan, Russia, and other ASEAN members. In doing so, the Philippines can better protect its territorial claims and assert its independence in a region where competition for influence is intensifying. 

By fostering stronger ties with emerging global powers, the Philippines can avoid the risks of being caught in the middle of a U.S.-China rivalry. This strategic diversification will allow the country to play a more active and influential role in shaping regional security, ensuring that it is not beholden to any one nation for its defense or economic wellbeing. 

Military Self-Reliance and Sovereignty 

In the face of growing regional tensions, it is increasingly clear that the Philippines must prioritize military self-reliance. While the U.S. remains a critical defense partner, the country can no longer afford to solely depend on external powers for its security. The Philippines must take steps to modernize its military, particularly its maritime capabilities, to protect its territorial integrity in the South China Sea. 

Building a more self-sufficient military force does not mean severing ties with traditional allies, but rather enhancing the Philippines’ ability to defend itself. By investing in defense technology, infrastructure, and personnel, the Philippines can ensure that it is prepared to protect its national interests without waiting for external assistance. This approach is in line with Trump’s MAGA principles, which emphasize self-reliance and reducing dependence on foreign powers—lessons the Philippines can adapt for its own defense needs. 

A Call for Action: Embrace the Challenge 

Trump’s MAGA policies may have driven the U.S. toward economic self-sufficiency, but the Philippines should view these changes not as a threat, but as a challenge to rise to. The country cannot afford to remain passive or wait for its “ally” to intervene when the stakes are high. Instead, it must take proactive steps to build a more resilient economy, assert its independence in foreign policy, and strengthen its defense capabilities. 

The Philippines stands at a crossroads. The path forward will require both bold action and strategic foresight—rolling up sleeves to create an economy and defense system that is not dependent on external forces. By embracing the challenge of self-reliance and sovereignty, the Philippines can emerge as a stronger, more independent player on the world stage, capable of navigating the complexities of a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. 

Duterte’s Lawyer’s ‘Kidnapping’ Claim: A Distraction from the Real Issue?

Duterte’s Lawyer’s ‘Kidnapping’ Claim: 

A Distraction from the Real Issue?

Nicholas Kaufman, the lawyer for former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, recently claimed that his client’s arrest by the International Criminal Court (ICC) was nothing more than “kidnapping.” This absurd assertion, framed as an “extrajudicial rendition,” distracts from the real issue: Duterte’s role in a brutal war on drugs that left thousands dead. Kaufman’s argument isn’t just legally weak, it’s an attempt to sideline the serious charges against Duterte, ones that demand accountability on the global stage. 

What’s even more telling is the broader question this legal maneuver raises: If Duterte’s supporters truly believe in his innocence, why are they not helping him face justice in a legitimate international forum to clear his name? Why is their concept of justice so narrowly confined to a broken local system, riddled with corruption, impunity, and “hoodlums in robes,” as critics of the government would put it? Why does it take an international body like the ICC to investigate, prosecute, and possibly put Duterte on trial, while local courts—where this battle should have been fought from the start—have been complicit in turning a blind eye to the thousands killed in Duterte’s drug war? 

Instead of supporting Duterte’s defense in a proper legal setting, his defenders are playing this distraction game, seeking to undermine the international process that could provide the impartial examination of the evidence that the local system failed to do. This is not about procedural technicalities; it’s about accountability for the systematic, state-sponsored killings under Duterte’s orders. Whether the death toll is 6,000 or 30,000, the ICC’s case hinges on proving that Duterte endorsed and encouraged extrajudicial killings, that his government turned a blind eye to atrocities, and that these actions amounted to crimes against humanity. It’s about powerful figures being held accountable when local systems have failed to do so. 

Kaufman’s claim of “kidnapping” has already been dismissed by legal experts, including Atty. Joel Butuyan, an ICC-accredited lawyer, who called it a “rehashed” argument with no merit. Butuyan pointed out that Duterte’s arrest was in full compliance with the law, following valid legal procedures, with a warrant issued, and with Duterte’s rights respected. The ICC maintains jurisdiction over the case, as the crimes allegedly took place while the Philippines was still a member state. Kaufman’s attempt to discredit the ICC’s authority has already been debunked and will likely fail to prevent the trial from moving forward. 

So why does this matter? It’s not just about the technicalities of international law. It’s about the fundamental question of justice: if Duterte’s supporters truly care about his innocence, why are they not pushing for him to face justice head-on, instead of playing this charade of resistance? Why are they trying to deflect from the clear evidence of wrongdoing that has led to Duterte’s arrest and international scrutiny? If they want to show they’re serious about justice, why not embrace the legal process that could clear his name rather than undermining it? 

It’s striking how those who now rally to Duterte’s defense were the same voices that dismissed calls for justice during his reign—when victims of the drug war had nowhere to turn and the government refused to even acknowledge the deaths. These defenders now question the legitimacy of the ICC’s jurisdiction, despite it being backed by both the Philippines Supreme Court and international law. Where was their outrage when local calls for accountability were dismissed as “jest” or “nonsense”? They now speak of “dura lex sed lex”—the law is harsh, but it is the law—yet fail to apply it when the law might actually bring justice against Duterte. Does their understanding of justice stop at the local level, where powerful figures like Duterte could escape accountability? Or is justice only serious when it’s being handled by international bodies, and not the very same local systems they once disregarded? 

This is a moment for the Philippines to truly examine its commitment to justice. Duterte’s defenders may be quick to claim he’s a victim of international politics, but they’re the ones avoiding the real question: Why, when it comes to serious allegations of extrajudicial killings and crimes against humanity, does it take the ICC to get to the truth when local courts have failed? If they really believe in Duterte’s innocence, they should help him face justice, not continue with this narrative of evasion. Because in the end, justice is not about protecting powerful individuals—it’s about ensuring accountability, no matter how high up the chain it goes.