After the EU, it is now Switzerland’s turn to bemoan humiliation and surrender at the hands of the Trump administration. Politicians and companies are reeling from the shock of a new tariff of 39 percent, well above the EU’s 15 percent, which could cost the country 1 percent of GDP. For Swiss drugmakers such as Novartis AG, the stay of execution granted to the sector feels temporary, with a possible 25 percent pharmaceutical tariff to come if no deal is done. Local media have compared it to the Swiss defeat at Marignano at the hands of the French in 1515.
This is obviously not an emerging-market-style crisis moment: Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world, and Rolex watches are somewhat less price-sensitive than Volkswagen AG cars. The Swiss stock market, which quickly recovered early losses, is taking solace in the fact that 39 percent feels like a blustery prelude to more concessions and a handshake. Already, the Alpine country is scrambling to offer more goodies to an irate US administration. One might imagine more EU-style pledges are coming, such as buying more US energy.
Yet there are deep geopolitical doubts rocking the land of 9 million, which has had its fair share of recent crises, including the collapse of Credit Suisse in 2023. The shock stems from the abundance of confidence that Swiss leaders had in their ability to sweet-talk Trump, shying away from retaliation and making all sorts of positive noises, from buying US jets to encouraging more Swiss investment across the Atlantic (Roche Holding AG has said it would invest US$50 billion).
Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter even claimed some credit for Trump’s initial tariff climb-down in April. Her Midas touch, if it was ever there, has gone; some parties are using this as a chance to call for a more pro-EU political direction.
The humbling reality is that maybe this is not a negotiation after all, but a test of strength as US economic policy goes full-on mercantilist — a test that Bern could never really win. The Trump administration sees Switzerland as a currency manipulator (the Swiss National Bank disagrees) that is ripping off Americans via a US$38 billion trade surplus in goods, even if a huge chunk of this is gold bullion refining. Switzerland seems to have played up its small size, happy neutrality and dependence on the US as plus points in trade talks — failing to realize that playing nice with a bully can also have costs.
Making matters worse is the collective action problem that seems to be plaguing the entire European continent, if not the world. Last month, the Kiel Institute published a proposal to counter the misguided economics of Trump’s tariffs with a coalition of countries representing 50 percent of goods exports to the US, including the EU, Canada and South Korea. The proposed retaliation would be concentrated and powerful enough to get the US to blink.
Yet we seem to be getting further away from such a scenario, with Switzerland the latest example of a country that could only have made a difference as part of a larger bloc including the EU. Even knowing the likelihood that collective action would work better than every market going its own way, the urge would always be to negotiate separately in the hope of getting a better deal than your neighbor.
Whatever happens next, the message cannot be just business as usual. Pharmaceutical industry consultant Lawrence Lynch said that one silver lining of a lose-lose tariff fight for drugmakers would be a stronger and more integrated European market and more diversification away from the US to make up for higher barriers.
As for the politicians now preparing for subsequent rounds of arm-twisting over trade, there should be a recognition that the turmoil is just getting started. Dodging a bullet today does not mean escaping another tomorrow.
Lionel Laurent is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist writing about the future of money and the future of Europe. Previously, he was a reporter for Reuters and Forbes. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
China’s recent aggressive military posture around Taiwan simply reflects the truth that China is a millennium behind, as Kobe City Councilor Norihiro Uehata has commented. While democratic countries work for peace, prosperity and progress, authoritarian countries such as Russia and China only care about territorial expansion, superpower status and world dominance, while their people suffer. Two millennia ago, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) would have advised Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that “people are the most important, state is lesser, and the ruler is the least important.” In fact, the reverse order is causing the great depression in China right now,
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
RSS