THE Donald blinked! But the scam artist and his minions made tons of money on the side. Trump has always telegraphed his disdain towards China and cockeyed intentions for the rest of the world. His campaign centered on raising tariffs globally to avenge America being ripped off. Barely a month into his second term, he arbitrarily fashioned a semblance of a scheme.

On Feb. 4, 2025, Trump imposed a 10-percent tariff on China; and on March 4, another 20 percent. Bolstered by China's non-response, he declared on April 2, America's "Liberation Day," bullying trading partners with a minimum 10-percent tariff on all US imports plus higher tariffs on 57 countries. China was singled out with an additional 34 percent. The pissing contest commenced.

On April 4, China retaliated with its own tariff of 34 percent. In a pique, Trump raised the ante to 145 percent. But on April 9, China hit back with 84 percent; and on April 11 slapped America further with 125 percent.

Trump was stunned but clueless still that his decisions on tariffs in two days, April 2 and 3, had obliterated $10 trillion of the global market capitalization. But more deadly, he precipitated a state of violent uncertainty, a bane to nations and corporations planning out their economies. The world is held hostage to the impulses of this inveterate megalomaniac.

The scam on the side

But before that, on April 10 — eight days after his "Liberation Day" announcements — the Donald caved in but hatched a diabolical scheme allowing his cronies and perhaps himself to make millions on the world financial markets. Hours before he announced a 90-day suspension of the April 2 tariff, he tweeted what could have been a signal to his friends, "This is a great time to buy!" Upon opening, the DOW skyrocketed 2,963 points — raking in millions for those that got the alert a few hours earlier. Senate Democrats want this insider trading investigated.

Then on April 13, Trump, humiliated, surrendered on the tariff war! He had to exclude 20 categories of Chinese electronics from the 90-day tariff suspension: smartphones, computers, laptops and other electronic devices, semiconductors, solar cells and memory cards.

To save face, he pretended this was his masterstroke — part of his plan all along, art of the deal — announcing 60 countries are "kissing his ass" to negotiate. Some did sue to negotiate. Not China. Trump prevaricated that China wants to negotiate but doesn't know how to go about it. "Please, pretty please, call to negotiate" — could have been Trump's plea to Xi Jinping!

The faux-free market capitalist

Predictably, Trump is incapable of grasping the repercussions of his acts. He plays things "oido" — no notes, bereft of strategy whatsoever, only chaos. As Jeffrey Sachs, the eminent Harvard political economist said, Trump's understanding of world trade and deficits is very low — Mickey Mouse level; with apologies to the Mickey who is smarter than the Donald. He is antediluvian on economic principles, unappreciative of the nuances of world trade as mutually beneficial — that if you stop trade, everybody loses. He is a zero-sum gamer; I win, you lose!

It has not sunk in that his decisions caused a sell-off in the bond markets — US Treasury debts — the safest financial instruments in the world, increasing yields on these bonds leading to increased borrowing rates for consumers and businesses potentially slowing global economic growth. Of the $36 trillion US debt, $7.9 trillion is held by Japan, China and the UK; heavily tariffed, they can dump these debts in retaliation.

American allies know that what Trump is doing is irrational. His tariffs, particularly against his bete noire, — China, at 145 percent. Sachs says he is driven "...by the USA's deep neurotic attachment to China — the US Political System hates China... because China's big and successful." This brewing trade war between America and China will mess up the whole world.

In the end, China, which does not depend so much on its 12 percent exports to the US, wins. Former NEDA director-general Cielito Habito warned: "China, shut off from the US market with prohibitive tariffs, will flood Southeast Asian markets with their manufactured products that have nowhere else to go — and in the process kill domestic manufacturers along with hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of jobs elsewhere in the region."

Tyrannus idioticus

On the corollary question: How can this happen when this makes no sense? Sach's take is that the US is now under one-person rule. The US political system is in a state of collapse. Trump operates by emergency rulings, dishing out a parade of executive orders abetted by the inaction of a castrated GOP majority, too intimidated to act against the MAGA. Trump has usurped congressional powers that has never been vested in the US presidency. So, in his puerile concept, trade deficits are emergencies to be resolved by arbitrary tariffs.

The Philippine situation

America has been one of our longest trading partners, having been its colony for more than 100 years. Currently, trade with America totals $23.5 billion. We imported $9.3 billion and exported $14.2 billion for a surplus of $4.9 billion — conversely, America's deficit.

For this deficit on Big Brother, Trump slapped us a reciprocal 17-percent tariff. And we couldn't even retaliate. But being longtime vassals, brown brothers, we should be able to negotiate a lower final tariff rate.

What should worry us is the impact on our overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) — our citizens in diaspora all over the world. Offhand, in 2024 OFW remittances accounted for 8.3 percent of the country's gross domestic product and 7.41percent of gross national income. This represents a substantial contribution to our economy keeping it afloat. This helped us expand our economy by 5.6 percent last year. To a large extent, this $38.34 billion propped up the Philippines better than some other countries in Southeast Asia post the Covid pandemic — and this is not subject to tariffs.

On a much more personal level, remittances are not only one of our major sources of foreign exchange but more importantly, they provide income for families, pay for their rent, put food on the table and send the children to schools, helping these Filipinos to hopefully prop their heads over the poverty line. Trade wars and disruptions in global economies affect the OFW adversely — perforce sinking our own.

A silver lining

As a resilient people, kept under bondage by centuries of foreigners and decades by our own kind — the Filipino politicians and their allies among the political dynasties and the oligarchy — we have a knack for looking at the bright side of any debacle. We should see a window of opportunity in these current US-China driven tariff and trade wars. If we can persuade the anti-Marcos and the anti-Duterte to pause for a moment from their internecine fight and dig deep into their patriotic sinews, then we can follow the adage that "when elephants dance, the ants get out of their way," or at least something to that effect.

There is a window of opportunity opening for us to attract global manufacturing and investments abandoning China and America looking for safe havens.

We have a comparative advantage to ensnare these.

THE Deegong is languishing at The Hague with zero prospects of ever coming home — at least not before the start of the ICC trial in September. The midterm election is upon us, making a mockery of the choice of our political leadership with all sides employing the proverbial "guns-gold-goons" to put in power actors, entertainers, incompetents and the corrupt. But these concerns may be overshadowed by a looming crisis comparable to the years 2008 and 2019.

To recall, the 2008 financial crisis, centered on America triggered a recession stemming from a combination of factors, including a housing bubble fueled by risky mortgages, complex financial instruments peddled by big banks — too big to fail but inadequately regulated; run of bankruptcy and capital exodus. These caused massive job losses and erosion of household wealth, leading to a global economic meltdown.

A decade later, emanating from Wuhan, China, under Xi Jinping's watch, the Covid-19 pandemic struck. The virus killed millions. It devastated economies with forced lockdowns causing social and cultural disruptions lasting for years. America suffered 1.193 million fatalities. This was during Trump's first presidential term, "...where he sought to cure the coronavirus-infected by injecting the patients with bleach and disinfectants and run a light inside the body through the skin..."

The same two personalities are again in the forefront of the 2025 crisis. This time, this crisis was not by an act of God but by an act of a megalomaniac. On April 2, 2025, Trump's imposition of "reciprocal tariffs" across the board against all its trading partners, including penguins in Antarctica and uninhabited islands somewhere, is currently bashing the world and tanking financial markets. By all accounts, his acts were ostensibly to free America from decades of being ripped off by trading partners, singling out China — where a 145-percent tariff was levied on Chinese goods. In retaliation, China slapped a 125-percent tariff on American goods. (The Philippines was slapped 17 percent but has been suspended for 90 days.)

This tit for tat is unconscionable, childish and stupid. Offhand, Trump targeted China as unfairly causing America's biggest trade deficit of $295.4 billion. US exports were $143.5 billion, while imports from China were $438.9 billion. America has been running similar deficits with China for years.

The underlying issues

Trump's main grievances are that these deficits are the result of China's bigoted trade practices, including currency manipulation, subsidies for Chinese industries, and erecting barriers against US companies entering the Chinese market. Tariffs as punitive sanctions are aimed at reforming China's practices regarding intellectual property (IP) theft and forced technology transfers. Trump and previous US presidents have criticized China for its state-led economic model, which it views as giving Chinese companies an unfair advantage over foreign competitors. Tariffs were meant to counteract what the US sees as China's predatory trade practices. But Trump's tariffs, economists agree, are devoid of economic rationality and are simply instruments of blackmail and bully tactics — an extension of the US president's persona.

What Trump wants

Trump's motivations apparently were to fulfill his election promises to MAGA: to bring back six million manufacturing jobs which left America since 1979; cut deficits to the bone; and use tariffs to raise revenue from foreign countries exporting their goods to the US. He declared pompously that, "Tariff is the most beautiful word in the dictionary to me... after God, religion and love... and tariff will make America wealthy again."

This untutored and illiterate buffoon never did understand that tariffs on imports are taxes imposed by a government on goods and services brought into the country from abroad. Economists outside of his circle of sycophants have warned him that tariffs on imports typically lead to higher prices for imported goods. When America imposes a tariff, importers with an eye for their bottom line often pass on the additional costs to consumers. This makes imported products more expensive than the domestically produced alternatives. The effects could be fewer product options to choose from, limiting access to certain goods.

More often than not, domestic producers facing less competition from foreign imports may raise their prices as well — negating the purposes for which tariffs are imposed in the first place.

Advantages of tariff on imports

There are seeming advantages to tariffication, foremost among which is that they protect domestic industries from foreign competition, allowing them time to grow and thrive until they can compete in the international market. Some are aimed at shielding sectors deemed vital for national security and economic stability. While tariffs in the short run provide protection on certain domestic industries and jobs, they can also lead to job losses in other sectors, particularly those reliant solely on imported materials for locally assembled products.

But with the higher costs of imported goods, so the argument goes, US companies could invest more on domestic manufacturing, incentivizing those US companies that have established manufacturing abroad to relocate to the US mainland.

Tariff drawbacks far outweigh the gains

Trump's arguments on relocation of manufacturing from abroad back to the US is tenuous at best. The gestation period as it is, will take several years to get a factory up and running. At which time, America would have possible changes in government after the midterm and presidential elections. Governments and policies can seesaw between the GOP and the Democrats. Unless Trump illegally stays on after 2028 for another term — which he has been hinting at.

But imposition of tariffs is not a one-way-street. Retaliation by countries like Canada, Mexico, the European Union and particularly China, will result in trade wars exacerbating price wars, supply chain disruptions, economic uncertainty and global economic slowdown.

Trump may or may not grasp the subtleties. But Trump's hubris may have driven him to prove globalists got it wrong, not him. His MAGA crowd now claims these are pathways to negotiations. His art of the deal.

But these impending trade wars will inflict too much pain on inflation-weary American consumers compared to the Chinese. A totalitarian state has a much greater leeway curtailing freedoms as it does, in alleviating economic pain than America. China's Covid-19's severe lockdowns come to mind.

After Trump blinked, panicked by the volatility of the bond market, suspending his reciprocal tariffs for 90 days (except those for China), he had to save face with his usual infantile bravado, "...countries will line up to 'kiss my ass' just dying to negotiate. China wants a deal; it just doesn't know how to go about it."

Not true, said Victor Gao, a former translator close to Deng Xiaoping in his interview with Cathy Newman, a journalist. With America composing 15 percent of its exports, can it afford not to negotiate?

Gao's retort: "China is fully prepared to fight to the very end because the world is big enough that the United States is not the totality of the market... China has been here for 5,000 years... and we expect to survive for another 5,000 years."

The two biggest economies with the two biggest egos may yet let the problem fester driving the world deep into a recession. The world may survive, but at what cost. Meanwhile, Trump and Xi Jinping will continue their pissing contest.

Pataasan ng ihi!

EDSA 1986 was a perfect political storm, a rare convergence of adverse dynamics that altered the Philippine system of governance. But thirty-nine years after that phenomenon, we find ourselves wondering if another political storm is brewing. The Deegong's March 28 birthday celebrations, that unprecedented nationwide and worldwide OFW-driven display of affection for the Deegong and protests against this government's cavalier treatment of a beloved ex-president — still unproven guilty in the courts of law — has caused added volatility to the midterm election season; notwithstanding the already divisive series of legislative hearings and the inquisition of the vice president leading towards her impeachment.

Are we on a crescendo towards a reprisal of EDSA1986? This pivotal moment in Philippine history was an aggressive non-violent yet profound articulation of the Filipino's demands: restore a democratic government after years of Marcos' martial law and authoritarian rule; instigate reforms that would address social inequalities, freeing us from the shackles of stark poverty and injustice; establish a system of transparent governance ending corruption in government and the looting of public funds practiced to perfection by the dictator's cronies; and empower civil society and grassroots movements that spearheaded the revolution through mass mobilization, peaceful protests and collective appeals for justice and the rule of law.

Broken promises: Where are we now?

Today, Marcos is back! Not his ghost — but his progeny and the underlying iniquities we booted out the father for. In retrospect, EDSA 1986, perhaps unwittingly by our euphoria, planted the seeds for its own destruction. We have not heeded George Santayana's dictum and thus "...we are condemned to repeat it."

Today, in lieu of the "conjugal dictatorship," we have a "triumvirate of malevolence," intact with their allies in the highest echelons of government, elected and unelected, that have been controlling the levers of power resulting in the very distortions EDSA 1986 was supposed to delete.

To understand better those developments, last week's column was a study in contrast between the 1983 politico-economic environment prior to the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution and current 2025 events, discerning parallelisms that could induce a similar uprising. Four similarities were described: the country as a seething economic and political cauldron; human rights violations and the suppression of dissent and protest by the regime; the crucial role of the military and religious components; and the dramatis personae involved. All these needing a spark to erupt in a political upheaval.

Flawed principal actors and a different scenario

As preconditions for a revolution or a semblance of what transpired in EDSA in 1986, three of these factors could be present. The fourth however is debatable — the personalities involved. Although both periods were led by the country's presidents, Ferdinand, the father, in 1983 and Bongbong, the son, in 2025, Ninoy the assassinated martyr in 1983 by any stretch of the imagination cannot be comparable to the Deegong currently exiled in The Hague. Ninoy was killed while the Deegong is a confessed killer.

BBM wrote a different script; unlike Ninoy's, there was no assassination at the airport tarmac — just a forced rendition and exile to The Hague. There is no one equivalent to Cory, the aggrieved widow, and the reluctant housewife-leader of the long-oppressed citizenry who symbolized the restoration of democracy and the fight against authoritarianism; and emerged as a unifying figure representing the people's desire for change, transparency, and democratic governance.

The wives and consorts of the Deegong to be fair are good women but possess no inclinations for national politics. VP Sara, no resemblance to Cory, could be an inadequate understudy. Her popularity has gone up, but she carries too much political baggage. She was impeached. There is no Cardinal Sin to summon the people to EDSA. The 67-year-old Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle, slated to be in line for the papacy, would be more comfortable shepherding the souls of his fellowmen. His politics is that of the afterlife.

Bro. Eduardo Manalo, executive head of the Iglesia ni Cristo, could play a part rousing millions of followers as evidenced by the recent National Rally for Peace. And they have shown sympathy for the Deegong's plight of late. The charlatan self-proclaimed appointed son of God, Apollo Quiboloy, is currently behind bars, awaiting possible extradition to the US and trailing poorly in his bid for a Senate seat.

There is no charismatic Gen. Fidel Ramos to inspire the uniformed sector although there are former military leaders now in local government. One of those is the 64-year-old mayor of Baguio City, former PNP general Benjamin "Benjie" Magalong, who seems to speak the right language.

We may not need another EDSA 1986 but...

The concluding remarks of my column last week was in fact a challenge to us: "Are the elements for a revolution valid? We the people — not necessarily pro-Marcos or pro-Duterte who have weakened each other — must control this narrative. Then act we must!"

Controlling the narrative is an imperative suggesting that we need to initiate drastic changes in our system of governance. The people in power today are the same old tired faces waiting to be replaced by another set of tired old faces, ensconced in power too long advancing the agenda of their political dynasties allied with the oligarchy. As baby steps, using the legitimate methods for changes in government, we start with the midterm elections.

I refer to Franklin Drilon's pronouncements. "The best evidence of our political system's desperate bankruptcy is the proliferation of actors, actresses and comedians dominating our legislative and executive branches, including the local government units. The enactment of laws and their implementation are now being entrusted to some people who never studied law or public administration."

He named names — the buffoons, the corrupt and incompetents vying for power. He knows whereof he speaks. He was a Senate president and went through executive positions in the bureaucracy from labor secretary to executive secretary in Malacañang.

John Raña, a political technocrat came up with a simple system, ".. a 'multiple choice' approach: first, eliminate the candidates who fail to meet basic standards of accountability and competence and then select the best among the remaining options. (Those out): 1) candidates tainted by the PDAF scam; 2) recycled politicians with poor performance records; finally, 3) I will not vote for individuals who run for office solely on the strength of their popularity, without a clear and substantive agenda."

Serious voters should educate themselves and dig for qualifications and relevant experience in lawmaking, legislative agenda and advocacy. This columnist's particular bias is for candidates who may also opt for the abolition of political dynasties and a shift to a parliamentary form of government.

We need to use our votes to install more responsive people in public service. Failing this, then perhaps we, the people, may need to up the ante by other means: coalition building by the those that aren't pro-Marcos or pro-Duterte towards a more drastic but legitimate methods we used prior to EDSA 1986 — civil disobedience — a non-violent nationwide sustained protests in the streets. We did this as the parliament of the streets.

We can do this again!

THOSE who love him assert it was a spontaneous expression of solidarity. Those who despise him dismiss it as maudlin, corny and staged-managed. March 28 was the Deegong's 80th birthday, a venerable age worth celebrating, but for a besieged former president banished from his homeland, the pathos was devastating. As expected, a polarized people interpreted this day according to their best lights and from where they sit. But how does an ordinary Filipino with no inclination toward local politics or even a foreign observer infer from hundreds of images from countless Philippine cities and hundreds more from foreign lands of thousands greeting him a happy birthday. Signs of "We Love you Tatay Digong," "We await your return" were raised from Abu Dhabi to Oslo, to New York to Antarctica; to General Santos, to Davao City, to Bohol; to the seven continents and even to a pocket of Pinoys somewhere in China. This was OFW-driven — the Deegong's own, those in the fringes and like him, exiles from the land they love.

Pundits on both sides of the aisle now take sides; the pro-Duterte predicting a people power movement leading towards a revolution, echoing that of 1986. The pro-Marcos opine that this is a flash in the pan, an emotional response to the rendition to the Hague of the former president-criminal and therefore not sustainable. Let's wait for the circus of the midterm elections and the evidence from witnesses pouring in from the trial on the "crimes against humanity," they proclaim.

Similarities/dissimilarities 1983 vis-a vis 2025

I took the liberty of communicating with many of those participants of the events leading towards EDSA 1986, gathering their inputs during those times compared to those of today. Paul D, a Davaoeño political technocrat and historian, framed the current events in a timeline analogous to 1983 when Ninoy Aquino was assassinated on the tarmac coming down from a plane from Taiwan on his way back from exile during Marcos the father's watch. Not that Ninoy's assassination is equivalent to the Deegong's forced rendition directly from a commercial plane from Hong Kong to a private plane to the Hague; this time abetted by Marcos, the son. The eerie circumstances may be akin to déjà vu. But not quite. With the Marcos DNA clearly imprinted, we mark this as a point of departure for today's column.

Dramatis personae

John Raña, another political technocrat, opines that "history has a way of repeating itself, and the events leading to EDSA 1 in 1986 mirror many aspects of the political climate." Raña juxtaposed this historical perspective with both personalities as martyrs; Ninoy in 1983 and the Deegong in 2025.

Ninoy's martyrdom in 1983 is perhaps too much of a hyperbole to label the Deegong's circumstance similarly. The former was an ambitious tradpol who sensed a dictator's impending demise handing him an opportunity to negotiate a modus vivendi for the country — fearful of the ascendancy to power of the rival Imelda-Ver-Cojuangco triumvirate.

Deegong on the other hand is accused of crimes against humanity for which the ICC issued an arrest warrant against him and he must face trial at The Hague. Not a martyr in my books. But the method of his rendition and the anomalous participation of a complicit bureaucracy speaks nonetheless of the cowardly act of BBM. His trial abroad is justified because justice in the Philippines is skewed towards the mighty and the powerful; and the Deegong with allies ensconced in the highest echelons still possess the residual effects of power and influence with the capability of distorting the process.

Seething cauldron

Raña's and Paul D's second element as preconditions for an uprising or a revolution was that both periods saw massive corruption and looting of government coffers, economic decline and the perversion of the rule of law. The elder Marcos introduced "cronyism" and "kleptocracy" to the political lexicon and their gross mismanagement perpetrated a debt crisis and bankruptcy of the government leading to hard currency and capital flight.

BBM, aided by relatives elected and unelected, likewise perpetrated massive looting of funds through the budget process and is now poised to extend his grasp on power by perverting the election process with ayuda. Compared to 1983, 2025 is depravity of a lesser magnitude — but unconscionable nonetheless.

Dissent and protests

The third element refers to the suppression of dissent. In 1983, Macoy muzzled the press, allowing the publication only of newspapers controlled by cronies, disseminating his version of truth. The political opposition, resorting to massive protests in the "parliament of the streets," were perfunctorily curtailed, their leaders incarcerated.

In 2025, in this era of internet and social media, the regime's method of press and media repression began with the congressional committee hearings against the mostly pro-Duterte vloggers and podcasters labeling them as "tsismis disseminators" and producers of "fake news" — shaming the leading ones to tears. The brazen minions of the House Speaker during the infamous VP Sara hearing were the same bullies conducting this inquisition.

Military and religious components

The fourth element provided by Harvard-trained retired colonel Alejandro "Babes" Flores is the military's role. In 1983, the Reform the Armed Forces (RAM) movement played a critical role with the defense secretary Juan Ponce Enrile as its patron. A coup d'etat was the primary intention. But it was bound to fail without the participation of the fifth element.

And therein lies the importance of the religious sector headed by Cardinal Sin of the Catholic hierarchy. The people were summoned to EDSA to protect the breakaway forces led by the much respected and charismatic Gen. Fidel Ramos. They came in droves unfazed by the battle tanks of Gen. Fabian Ver, the Marcos berdugo. This would not have happened were it not for the seething anger against the decades-long oppression by the dictatorship and the people's patience reaching its breaking point.

Hovering over these events was a figure that would stamp its legitimacy on the EDSA People Power 1986 — the housewife Cory, the widow of the slain martyr.

The military and police components today are similarly polarized. As to the segments of the civilian population, Marcos has retained the loyalty of the Ilocanos in the North where their political dynasty and its tentacles reign supreme. And he may have the loyalty of the oligarchy and the elite. But these are opportunists with their fealty, transitory. And the Americans as usual will stand and watch as the weathervane perpetually points to their self-interest. China's position on all these developments is irrelevant. Its bromance with Duterte has long lost its luster with EDCA bases and the missiles now in place.

Duterte's fledgling dynasty exists only in Davao and his sons do not inspire. The one true heir to his legacy, VP Sara, may be impeached over her indiscretions on her own anomalies but could still claim fidelity from Davaoeños and the Muslims in Mindanao.

The Tagalogs, the Bicolanos, the Visayans may not be as responsive. Thus, Colonel Babes' pronouncement that "demographics may spell the difference."

Are the elements for a revolution valid? We the people — not necessarily pro-Marcos or pro-Duterte who have weakened each other — must control this narrative.

Then act we must!