Does Trump Believe Corporations and Foreign Governments Have Been Taking Advantage of the USA?
By Shayne Heffernan
April 7, 2025
Donald Trump’s rhetoric and policies have long centered on the idea that the United States has been exploited on the global stage, a view that has defined much of his political career. From his first term to his current administration, Trump has consistently argued that both foreign governments and corporations—both domestic and international—have been taking advantage of the USA, undermining its economic and national security. This perspective, rooted in his “America First” philosophy, has shaped his approach to trade, foreign policy, and domestic governance. Let’s explore Trump’s stance, his actions, and whether this narrative holds up under scrutiny.
Trump’s View: A Nation Exploited
Trump has made it clear that he believes the U.S. has been unfairly treated by foreign governments for decades. In a March 2025 statement, he declared, “The United States has been taken advantage of for 40 years… It’s going to be very costly for people to take advantage of this country. They can’t come in and steal our money, steal our jobs, take our factories, and take our businesses and expect not to be [punished].” This sentiment echoes posts on X, where users have noted Trump’s focus on reducing the trade deficit, arguing that America has been “pillaged” by foreigners and “cheaters.” He’s pointed fingers at countries like Canada, Mexico, the EU, and India, calling them “terrible abusers” of the U.S. economy.
Trump’s criticism isn’t limited to governments—he’s also targeted corporations, both foreign and domestic, for what he sees as exploitative practices. He’s accused foreign companies of intellectual property theft, currency manipulation, and unfair competition, particularly from China. During his first term, Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, including steel and aluminum, starting in January 2018, to counter what he called the decline of American manufacturing due to China’s economic abuses. In his second term, he’s doubled down, with a February 2025 memorandum aimed at curbing Chinese investments in strategic U.S. sectors like technology and critical infrastructure, citing risks to national security.
Even U.S. corporations haven’t escaped Trump’s ire. He’s criticized them for outsourcing jobs and investing in foreign countries, especially China, at the expense of American workers. A National Security Presidential Memorandum in February 2025 outlined new rules to stop U.S. companies from “pouring investments into China” and to prevent China from “buying up America,” focusing on protecting American innovation in fields like AI and semiconductors. Trump’s narrative is that these corporations prioritize profits over national interest, leaving the U.S. vulnerable to foreign influence and economic decline.
Actions Speak Louder: Tariffs and Policy Shifts
Trump’s belief that the U.S. has been taken advantage of is evident in his policies. In April 2025, he declared a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, citing large trade deficits as a threat to national security. He imposed reciprocal tariffs—10% on all imports, with higher rates like 34% on China—to address what he sees as unfair trade practices, such as currency manipulation and high value-added taxes (VATs) imposed by foreign governments. The White House fact sheet from that announcement stated that U.S. companies pay over $200 billion annually in VATs to foreign governments, calling it a “double-whammy” since European firms don’t face similar taxes on U.S. exports.
Trump’s first term also saw him withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and renegotiate NAFTA into the USMCA, moves he justified as protecting American workers from unfair trade deals. He’s argued that foreign governments have tariffed U.S. goods at higher rates—for example, the U.S. imposes a 2.5% tariff on passenger vehicles, while the EU charges 10% and India 70%—creating an uneven playing field. His recent tariffs aim to force reciprocity, with the mantra, “Treat us like we treat you,” as a cornerstone of his trade agenda.
On the corporate front, Trump has targeted U.S. tech giants for their role in global markets. In February 2025, he criticized EU regulations like the Digital Markets Act, calling them “almost like a tariff,” and pushed for pressure on the EU to drop tech regulations, leveraging Europe’s military dependence on the U.S. as a bargaining chip. This aligns with his view that American companies are being exploited by foreign governments through fines, penalties, and compliance costs, which he believes undermine their competitiveness.
The Other Side: A Closer Look at the Narrative
While Trump’s narrative resonates with many Americans—evident in the support from Republican leaders like Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who praised his tariffs for ending “bad trade deals”—it’s worth examining whether corporations and foreign governments are truly “taking advantage” of the U.S. to the extent he claims. The U.S. trade deficit, which Trump often cites, has indeed been large and persistent, with a goods trade deficit of $916 billion in 2023, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. However, this deficit reflects complex global economic dynamics, including the U.S.’s role as a consumer-driven economy and the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, which encourages imports over exports.
Trump’s claim that foreign governments exploit the U.S. through high tariffs and VATs oversimplifies the issue. VATs, for instance, are standard in many countries and applied uniformly to domestic and foreign goods, not specifically targeting the U.S. The EU’s 10% car tariff versus the U.S.’s 2.5% does create a disparity, but it’s part of broader trade agreements that also benefit U.S. industries—like agriculture, where the U.S. exports heavily to Europe. Trump’s tariffs, while aimed at leveling the playing field, have raised prices for American consumers, with the Federal Reserve noting in January 2025 that firms are passing on higher costs from tariffs, contributing to inflation.
As for corporations, Trump’s criticism of U.S. firms outsourcing jobs is valid—manufacturing employment dropped by 5 million jobs from 1997 to 2024, per White House data—but it ignores the role of automation and market forces. Companies like Apple and Nvidia have invested overseas to access global supply chains and lower costs, a practice driven by shareholder demands for efficiency, not a desire to “exploit” the U.S. Trump’s policies, such as restricting outbound investments to China, aim to curb this, but they risk isolating U.S. firms from global markets, potentially stifling innovation and growth.
A Pattern of Profit and Power
Trump’s own actions complicate his narrative. During his first term, his businesses reportedly received at least $7.8 million from 20 foreign governments, according to a 2024 House Oversight Committee report, with China alone contributing $7.5 million. Transactions included payments to Trump properties like the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., and Trump World Tower in New York, raising questions about conflicts of interest. For example, the Qatari sovereign wealth fund spent an estimated $337,500 renting office space at Trump’s 555 California St. property, while Trump criticized Qatar on social media in 2017. Such dealings suggest that while Trump decries exploitation, his businesses may have benefited from foreign governments seeking influence, a contradiction that undermines his stance.
The Bigger Picture
Trump’s belief that corporations and foreign governments have taken advantage of the U.S. is a core part of his “America First” agenda, driving policies like tariffs and investment restrictions. There’s some truth to his concerns—trade imbalances and intellectual property theft are real issues—but his solutions often oversimplify complex economic realities and risk unintended consequences like higher consumer prices and global trade tensions. His own financial ties to foreign entities during his presidency also cast doubt on his narrative, suggesting a selective view of exploitation that conveniently excludes his personal dealings. While Trump’s rhetoric resonates with Americans frustrated by globalization, a more nuanced approach—one that balances protectionism with global engagement—might better serve the U.S. in the long run.
