What strategies can be employed when the United States initiates a trade war with your nation? For individuals, one potential response is to launch a personal trade war by boycotting American goods.
Former President Donald Trump declared that no country would be spared from his tariffs, affecting both Australia and New Zealand. His tariffs on steel and aluminium imports could specifically impact Australia’s industries, while New Zealand’s meat and wine exports to the U.S. may also suffer.
Responses from political leaders have varied. Canada, Mexico, and the European Union have enacted reciprocal tariffs against the U.S., whereas Australia has signaled that it will refrain from retaliation.
Regardless of governmental actions, citizens in these nations, and others, have begun to take a stand. This includes prominent figures like renowned pianist András Schiff, who has chosen to cancel his upcoming tour in the U.S.
Noteworthy is the surge of global outrage directed at the U.S. president, which has led to a widespread boycott of Elon Musk’s Tesla due to his association with the Trump administration. In Australia, Tesla sales have plummeted by 72%, and in Germany, they have dropped by 76%. The company’s share price has fallen by over 50% since December 2024, with increasing calls for Musk to resign as CEO.
Some governments are even promoting consumer boycotts. For instance, the Canadian government has encouraged citizens to “resist the unjustified U.S. tariffs” by opting for Canadian products and vacationing domestically.
Canadians appear to be taking this suggestion to heart, with road trips to the U.S. dipping by more than 20% in the last month, and certain U.S. liquor brands being pulled from Canadian shelves.
The growth in calls to boycott American brands is expected in the Trump 2.0 era, where the distinction between government and corporate interests has become increasingly blurred.
Political change by proxy
When individuals seek to protest a government policy and lack political influence because they are non-citizens, boycotting companies or brands can serve as a platform for their voices. These actions are often referred to as “surrogate” or “proxy” boycotts.
This mode of “political consumerism,” where purchasing choices align with personal values, has emerged as a prevalent form of political engagement in liberal democracies.
For example, in response to France’s opposition to the Iraq War in 2003, supporters of the war in the U.S. attempted to boycott French products. Consumers in the U.S., the U.K., and beyond have boycotted Russian goods following the invasion of Ukraine, as well as Israeli products due to its military activities in Gaza and the West Bank.
Noteworthy protests against South Africa’s apartheid regime, which occurred from the 1950s to the 1990s, effectively isolated the government and contributed to its eventual change.
The current wave of boycotts addresses more than just Trump’s trade war; it also concerns the influence of unelected leaders in corporate circles, like Musk and executives from major tech and social media firms, and their perceived self-serving interests.
In response to consumer boycotts, Trump has reacted with anger, claiming that actions against companies like Tesla are “illegal,” although they are not. Politicians like Trump often assert that consumer action, rather than legislative pressure, should guide corporations in adhering to social norms.
Getty Images
How to wage a personal trade war
Consumer boycotts can indeed drive change under specific circumstances—usually when there exists a clear issue that the targeted corporation is capable of addressing.
Take, for example, the boycotts against Nestlé in the 1970s owing to misleading and harmful advertising of infant powdered milk, which resulted in changes to the company’s marketing strategies. Similarly, boycotts of Nike over sweatshop labor conditions directly impacted the company’s earnings and prompted improvements.
Although there remain issues at both Nestlé and Nike, these cases demonstrate that consumer pressure can spark corporate change. However, it becomes considerably challenging—yet not impossible—when the subject of a boycott is a government entity.
Consumers opposing American products can enhance their protest’s effectiveness by directly lobbying retailers. If enough individuals refrain from purchasing a U.S. soft drink, major supermarket chains like Woolworths and Foodstuffs may be compelled to cease buying large quantities.
Additionally, there are alternative means to “vote with your wallet.” Individuals may engage in “political investorism,” leveraging their status as shareholders, customers of banks, or pension-fund members to express their political sentiments.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for instance, investors actively sought to divest from Russian enterprises, and superannuation funds faced pressure from their members to do likewise.
As both consumers and investors, individuals can engage in a personal trade war, sending a strong message. While Trump may choose to ignore the leaders of allied countries, sustained consumer and investor pressure that gains global traction could eventually make him listen to the voice of corporate America.
