On the fifth of December 1791, Alexander Hamilton sent Congress his Report on the Subject of Manufactures. The sentence the United States’ Treasury Secretary now quotes back to the world is this one: every nation “ought to endeavour to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply.” Read the next sentence, which the present Secretary does not quote. “These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing, and defence.” Hamilton named four essentials, and defence came last.
Scott Bessent in his WSJ opinion piece made that first sentence the opening principle of what he called American economic statecraft. The doctrine deserves to be read structurally.
Advertisement – Scroll to continue
Tariffs, Reimagined
Begin with the fact that the doctrine has already outlived its instrument. On the 20th of February 2026, in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, decided alongside Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., the Supreme Court held by six to three that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 does not authorise tariffs, and struck down the reciprocal duties of April 2025. Within weeks the same wall was rebuilt out of older stone: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Bessent’s own forecast was that the combination would leave 2026 tariff revenue “virtually unchanged.”
What settles is a particular answer to an old question, the one every trading nation must answer. What to make at home, what to buy abroad, and what never to depend on a rival to supply. For eighty years the Western answer was institutional. Comparative advantage, as Ricardo set it out in 1817, said buy where it is cheapest. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1947 added the discipline, Article I, the most-favoured-nation rule: a concession granted to one is a concession granted to all. The new answer keeps the vocabulary and discards the discipline. From that single move, four consequences follow for the world.
4 Big Consequences For The World
First, non-discrimination is being replaced by reciprocity, which is its opposite. Article I made trade a rule. A bilateral bargain makes it a deal. Once the largest market grants access with conditions, as Bessent puts it, access becomes a lever, and a lever is pulled one counterparty at a time.
Second, the arbiter is gone and is not coming back. The WTO’s Appellate Body has had no quorum since December 2019, because the United States blocked appointments under three successive Presidents. Nearly sixty members, accounting for about three-fifths of world trade, now appeal to a stopgap, the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement. The United States is not among them and does not intend to be. A court the strongest party has walked out of is not a court.
Third, finance becomes ordnance. Bessent’s fourth principle names the dollar an instrument of statecraft. It is candid, and it is also an invitation. Every nation told that the payment system can be switched off will build, slowly and at cost, a way to route around it. To weaponise interdependence is to teach everyone to reduce it.
Fourth, mercantilism becomes the norm because imitation is rational. If the largest economy redefines openness as conditional and subsidises its own semiconductors, shipyards, critical minerals and pharmaceuticals, no second nation can keep its own market innocent. Friedrich List argued exactly this in 1841, that the nation and not the individual is the unit, and that prevailing free trade is the ladder the climber kicks away once at the top. The doctrine is contagious by design.
India Agrees, But At What Cost?
The instructive fact, for Delhi, is that India already agrees with the diagnosis. Atmanirbhar Bharat is Hamilton in another grammar, or more precisely it is Keynes, whose 1933 lecture “National Self-Sufficiency” supplied the case that a nation may rationally pay for the capacity to make what it needs. So the question is not whether the doctrine is sound, but how it cuts. It cuts four ways.
It cuts close, first, because India’s dependence is sharper than America’s. In 2024-2025, as much as 93 per cent of India’s permanent magnet imports came from China. For bulk drugs and intermediates, the Chinese share crossed 70%, and for some antibiotic categories it reached 87%. The nation that, on Bessent’s test, cannot be sovereign while it depends on a rival for critical inputs is, on that same test, India before it is the United States.
Second, India is negotiating for a thing at war with itself. The commerce minister has said the trade deal with Washington turns on a guaranteed comparative advantage, a tariff margin over competitors, built around a rate near 18%. A guaranteed margin over others is a preference, not a rule. At the Thirteenth Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi in 2024, India asked for the reverse: a transparent, inclusive, rule-bound reform and the restoration of the Appellate Body. One cannot defend non-discrimination in Geneva on Monday and bid for discrimination in Washington on Tuesday.
The Paradox Of Rules
Third, India loses its cheapest insurance. A middle power without a superpower’s coercive reach was protected most by rules, because rules bind the strong more than the weak. In a world of deals, India bargains from weakness against the United States and China at once, and it sits outside the interim appeal arrangement that nearly 60 others have joined.
Fourth, the opening is real, the record sobering. The Union Budget of 2026-27 announced rare earth corridors in Odisha, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. The REPM scheme commits ₹7,280 crore. The bulk drug PLI scheme had drawn ₹4,709 crore of investment by 2025, creating capacity for 26 active ingredients. The overall import share did not move, because China cut prices to hold the market. Hamilton and List both knew that an infant industry carries a cost, paid by the consumer and the taxpayer, justified only if the infant grows. The gap between the announcement and the outcome is where this will be decided, as it usually is.
What, then, is the new order. It is neither free trade nor autarky. It is managed interdependence: economics subordinated to security, openness made conditional, the multilateral institution surviving as a forum but not as an arbiter, and each nation tending a portfolio of dependencies it is trying, expensively, to de-risk. The rules-based order is becoming a strength-based order. That is description, not complaint. The rules were always a bargain the strong accepted because predictability was worth more to them than the occasional adverse ruling. When the strongest decides the bargain no longer pays, the rules do not collapse. They merely stop applying to the strong, which, for the weak, is the same thing.
A rule that binds only the weak was never quite a rule. It was a courtesy. And courtesies, unlike rules, are withdrawn without notice.
(The author was with the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
