Empire by Executive Order: The Return of Coercive Economics in the Age of American Decline

muted documentary photography, diplomatic setting, formal atmosphere, institutional gravitas, desaturated color palette, press photography style, 35mm film grain, natural lighting, professional photojournalism, a weathered, half-burned treaty manuscript spread across a polished mahogany table, parchment cracked and charred at one edge, ink faded but still legible with clauses on trade and aid, side-lit by low-angle light from tall, arched windows, dust hanging in the air, beneath a blank ornamental seal mount on a stone wall, atmosphere of solemn abandonment [Bria Fibo]
If bilateral tariff measures expand to low-income economies with minimal export capacity, then the architecture of preferential trade arrangements will increasingly reflect coercive reciprocity rather than developmental partnership.
History whispers through the cracks of policy: what we are witnessing is not the birth of a new world order, but the return of an old one, cloaked in modern executive orders. In 1846, Britain repealed the Corn Laws not out of benevolence, but to consolidate its industrial dominance through free trade—on its own terms. A century later, the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe not merely to heal, but to anchor it against Soviet influence. In the 1980s, IMF structural adjustment programs 'liberalized' economies across the Global South, but often left them weaker, more dependent, and stripped of policy sovereignty. Now, as China challenges U.S. primacy, America responds not with renewal, but with retrenchment—dismantling USAID, slapping tariffs on Madagascar and Lesotho, and letting AGOA expire. The pattern is unmistakable: when empire feels threatened, it tightens its grip. The tools change—tariffs replace gunboats, executive orders replace colonial governors—but the function remains: to preserve hierarchy. What makes this moment distinct is its brazenness. There is no 'white man’s burden' to justify it, no lofty rhetoric of development. Just power, raw and unapologetic. And in that honesty, we see the truth: the rules-based order was never as rules-based as we pretended. It was always power-based, and now the mask has slipped.[^1][^2][^3][^4][^5] —Marcus Ashworth