Political | Opinion | TACO

TACO, Tariff-Anchoring, and the Tumult: Understanding Trump’s Smart Negotiations that Shake the Global Market

Image Credit: tweetyspics (Pixabay)

Meet Wall Street New Inside Joke TACO: “Trump Always Chickens Out.” Coined by Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong, the term has become a shorthand among traders and policy observers for what they see as a recurring pattern — former U.S. President Donald Trump making aggressive tariff threats, only to walk them back or delay them at the last minute.

Leading to the high market volatility and the prudent investor understanding the TACO effect, knowing these speculative trading cycles, invest when prices are low, stay calm and wait for the withdrawal of the statements and massively negotiated deals.

“Traders to approach his threats with “a grain of salt — and a bit of salsa”- Times of India

When confronted by a reporter about the now-infamous nickname, Trump labelled it a “nasty question,” doubling down that what Wall Street mocks as TACO is, in his view, just “negotiations.”

The backpedalling or brinkmanship, Trump’s tariff strategies reflect a deeper behavioural playbook — one that resembles the economic principle of anchoring.

🎯 The Psychology Behind Tariff-Anchoring: From Prices to Policies

Before we delve into how this applies to trade, it’s important to understand the behavioural economics foundation it’s built on: price anchoring.

Coined by the renowned psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, Anchoring refers to our cognitive bias to rely too heavily on the first piece of information (the “anchor”) when making decisions. For example, when a product is listed at $100 and then marked down to $60, consumers perceive it as a good deal — even if $60 was the actual fair value all along.

Trump’s trade policy consciously adopts a similar psychological concept, referring to it as smart negotiation or, instead, as “Tariff-Anchoring, the practice of announcing outrageously high tariffs to set a negotiating baseline. The goal? Use the inflated threat to frame the conversation, creating urgency and leverage. When the U.S. backs off — either by lowering the tariff or delaying it — it appears as a concession, often coaxing trade partners to reciprocate or settle.

🔍 How Visible is This TACO or Tariff-Anchoring Negotiation?

Tariff-Anchoring may sound theoretical, but it’s been repeatedly visible in Trump’s actual trade negotiations, especially during his second-term efforts to rewrite global trade equations. Here are some notable illustrations:

• 🇮🇳 India: In April 2025, the U.S. slapped a 26% reciprocal tariff on Indian steel and chemicals, citing unfair barriers to U.S. exports. Within weeks, both countries began negotiations that now aim to increase bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030. The U.S. is reportedly considering rolling back the tariffs — an apparent play of the “anchor-then-settle” script.
• 🇬🇧 United Kingdom: With post-Brexit trade still in flux, Trump announced a potential 50% tariff on European-origin auto parts entering the U.S. via the U.K. However, within a month, a compromise deal was reached, removing steel duties and promising tariff exemptions on green technology imports.
• 🇨🇳 China: In a surprise May 2025 decision, the Trump administration temporarily suspended certain China-targeted tariffs for 90 days, sparking optimism and lifting global market confidence. This came amid reports of quiet backchannel talks aimed at improving tech-sector access and IP protections.
• 🇻🇳 Vietnam: Even before formal threats materialised, Vietnam voluntarily reduced import duties on U.S. liquefied natural gas and vehicles — likely in anticipation of being swept into the reciprocal tariff dragnet.

Each of these examples underscores the same tactical arc: propose harsh terms, let the market react, then reel it back in to make a deal. Traders may call it TACO, but from a strategic lens, it’s textbook anchoring.

⚖️ Another Hit in Trump’s Global Gambit: Supreme Court Blocks Tariff Tool

While the administration may have relied on Tariff-Anchoring as a key negotiating lever, its legal legs were recently knocked out from under it. On May 28, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the reciprocal tariff policy unconstitutional, stating that the president cannot unilaterally impose retaliatory tariffs without Congressional approval.

The decision delivers a major blow to Trump’s signature tactic, severely limiting the executive’s freedom to use tariff threats as a negotiating weapon. The Court emphasised that trade regulation must be legislatively authorised, rejecting the idea that the White House could shape global economic policy through abrupt unilateral actions.

For global businesses and trade partners, this ruling is not just a legal technicality — it introduces fresh unpredictability. What was once a chaotic but familiar script is now a legal grey zone. Without the threat of immediate tariff implementation, America’s leverage at the negotiating table may have diminished.

🧠 Final Take: The Anchor Slips, But the Ripple Remains

The Trump administration’s reliance on tariff threats as a negotiation tactic introduced a volatile variable into the global trade system. This blend of psychological anchoring, aggressive diplomacy, and unilateralism significantly disrupted market expectations, causing repeated swings in commodity prices, investor confidence, and supply chain strategies. The “Tariff-Anchoring” approach and the mockingly dubbed “TACO” effect amplified uncertainty, often undermining traditional diplomatic and trade norms.

Moreover, the eventual judicial intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court not only marked a legal repudiation of this strategy but also signaled a recalibration of executive power in trade matters. The combination of erratic threats, backtracking, and legal constraints has complicated bilateral negotiations, eroded trust, and raised systemic concerns for economies interlinked with U.S. trade policy. In a landscape where consistency is vital, the political weaponization of tariffs may have produced more disruption than diplomacy, with long-term implications for global economic stability.

📚 References (Information)

• Times of India, What is a ‘TACO Trade’ and why does it have Donald Trump ‘fuming’? Internet reacts (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/etimes/trending/what-is-a-taco-trade-and-why-does-it-have-donald-trump-fuming-internet-reacts/articleshow/121477975.cms)
• Armstrong, R. (2025). Trump Always Chickens Out (TACO). Financial Times Column (as referenced in CNN and Times of India reports).
• CNN Business. (2025, May 28). Trump hits back after Wall Street traders joke about ‘TACO’ — Trump Always Chickens Out. Retrieved from: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/28/economy/trump-wall-street-taco-trade-nastiest-question
• Times of India. (2025, May 28). What is TACO trade? A term that ruffled Donald Trump. Retrieved from: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-business/what-is-taco-trade-a-term-that-ruffled-donald-trump/articleshow/121476984.cms
• BBC News. (2025, May 28). US Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s reciprocal tariffs plan. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c2dekzjg6gzt
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. (For foundational theory on anchoring bias.)
• Bloomberg. (2025, May). U.S. and India Look to Double Trade to $500 Billion After Tariff Row. [Note: exact URL omitted in chat; cite based on retrieval if formally used.]
• Reuters. (2025, April–May). Trump Admin Threatens UK, Eases China Tariffs in 90-Day Window. [As referenced contextually in market impact discussion.]
• Politico. (2025, April). Vietnam Quietly Lowers U.S. Auto and LNG Tariffs Amid Rising Pressure. [As mentioned in trade negotiations examples.]

Image Credit: Gabriel Douglas (Pixabay)