As Japan’s parliamentary election comes to a close and its Prime Minister Sigeru Ishiba agrees to an important trade deal with the U.S., the stalemate between Japan and the U.S. reaches an important shift that spans much farther than domestic prices.
Recent events in Japan — the growth of a far-right nationalist party that finds its support among the country’s youth, a fracturing dominant leadership, and assent to an unfavorable trade deal — connect in ways that provide insight into a rapidly-evolving global trajectory. Is it possible that Trump’s controversial tariff gambit has found unlikely success in Japan’s weakened political climate? In the aftermath of a redefining election, Japan’s current predicament exemplifies the recent resurgence of global conservatism and the success of Trump’s tariff gamble.
Scales Shifting in Parliament
On July 20th, Japan’s dominant coalition, led by the Prime Minister’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), lost 19 of the 66 seats that were up for reelection this year, thereby losing the majority. This blow follows a similar loss in the lower house in the October 2024 elections, which entails that the LDP will not control either chamber for the first time since its founding in 1955. Popular support has shifted away from the ruling parties in favor of Sanseito, the most prominent of the right-wing parties that have recently surged in Japan.
While in the past, the LDP absorbed the far-right under its conservative umbrella, popular dissatisfaction with the LDP’s moderate policy choices have led to extremist cleavages. Sanseito’s platform relies on populist, anti-immigrant messaging, focusing on nationalistic sentiment and built on the “Japanese First” slogan. For the past three years, Sanseito remained a fringe party that held only one seat in the upper house; last month, it won fourteen additional seats, signaling a sizable shift in popular opinion.
Sanesito has been described as the Japanese equivalent of Trump’s party, especially by Sanseito’s leader, Sohei Kamiya, a controversial yet charismatic politician who has gained renown due to his public anti-semitic remarks, promotion of COVID-19 misinformation, and repressive views on women’s rights. He has garnered extensive popular support by capitalizing on anger about the status quo and a common desire for explosive change — factors that render Kamiya a facsimile of his American counterpart.
While the influence of a charismatic leader is crucial to the growth of ultra-conservative support in Parliament, equally significant were the grievances held by the public against the LDP and Mr. Ishiba. Dissatisfaction with the LDP, especially regarding material conditions relative to wages, has propelled disillusioned younger generations rightward and eroded their support for the LDP. Increased social security burdens associated with an aging population, rising prices and sinking real wages, and a loss of trust and faith in the ruling party — which has been perceived as weak and complacent — have contributed to dissidence.
This populist phenomenon of capitalizing on a dissatisfied population is not isolated to Japan or the U.S. Conservative pushes in the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland are only a selection of the numerous conservative parties that have found a niche of approval among young voter demographics. Spearheaded by Trump but followed closely by a host of daring and regressive leaders, this populist push focuses on an immigrant influx that can be scapegoated for the failures of modern globalization. Far-right representatives project strength and act as a foil to their moderate counterparts’ political lethargy — leading to the kinds of political changes demonstrated in Japan.
Dirtier Tactics in Trump’s Second Round
The global shift rightward is not necessarily a product of Trump’s policies, however. The Netherlands and Hungary made some rightward forays in the early 2010s, and similar patterns were observed in Italy and Sweden during Biden’s administration. However, replicated tactics and messaging suggest Trump is a source of ideological inspiration, and the resulting turmoil abroad has provided an opportunity for Trump to strike unlikely trade deals, using tariffs as leverage. His plays capitalize on domestic political pressures emboldened by his rhetoric and aggressive foreign policy — inciting a positive feedback loop between rising consumer prices and populist dissidence.
Japan is the first example of this. After months of a trade stalemate on rice and auto parts — where Trump threatened a hefty 25 percent tax on all imported Japanese goods — Mr. Ishiba finally signed a “massive” deal that promised a $550 billion investment — nearly 14% of Japan’s GDP — into American industries in exchange for a tariff reduction to 15 percent. The deal came unexpectedly only days after the election, was delivered with few details, and resulted in the lowest Trump tariffs of any country since his re-election.
It is of note that negotiations were ongoing between Mr. Trump and Mr. Ishiba for months but were signed merely days after the partial defeat. Amid intense domestic pressures to resign, Mr. Ishiba decided to remain in his position and specifically cited Trump’s tariffs as the most pressing issue at hand. He declared his departure could weaken Japan’s bargaining position with Washington, but confronted with eroding support, it is also possible that he decided to move forward with immediate results to alleviate pressure on consumers.
After Japan’s proxy party dutifully followed Trump’s lead, even imitating his slogan and controversial platform, Trump swiftly and competitively used domestic turmoil to take advantage of the rightward shift. Seen in this light, Trump’s gamble — where farcical tariffs can either enrich American businesses and or become a tool of economic coercion — may have found its first success in Japan with Mr. Ishiba. The question remained whether these results would replicate elsewhere.
The Tide Spreads to the Continent
Within days, versions of the trade deal established with Japan were signed with South Korea and the European Union, following a simple business model enacted by Trump: trading partners must either provide cash investment pledges or endure high tariff rates — some as high as 50 percent.
In exchange for 15 percent tariff rates, Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the E.U.’s executive branch, agreed to purchase $750 billion in American energy and to increase investment in American companies by more than $600 billion. These results failed to match the expectations of various E.U. member states, leaders of whom criticized the outcome. Days later, South Korea agreed to invest $350 billion in the United States and purchase $100 billion of liquefied natural gas in exchange for lowered tariffs.
For countries refusing to fall in line with Trump’s vision of American trading relations, the price is steep. The President imposed a fifty percent tariff on Brazil as a punishment for dissent against his political ally, President Bolsonaro, and threatened 100% tariffs on foreign chips manufactured outside the U.S.
According to Tami Overby, former president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea, countries don’t seem to have a choice. “This is how the president has decided to do it, and you either get on board or you pay higher tariffs.” It worked in Japan — and it’s working elsewhere, too.
The Role of the Rise of Populism
The temporal proximity between the election of far-right nationalists in governments around the world — like Sanseito in Japan — and the complete restructuring of the international economy suggests that there may be a greater pattern at play.
While a simple causal link is unlikely, it is possible that the rise of both economic nationalism and conservative movements are born from a growing proclivity for protectionist, sovereign-first, individualist politics — an antithetical rejection of globalization.
The post-fordist era has been defined by greater global migration, multinational corporatism, and lowered trade tariffs through G.A.T.T. rounds, but growing inequality and displaced manufacturing sources has meant that the payout for individual consumers has been disappointing. The blame is shifted to foreign powers and immigrants, which elects conservative leaders and legitimizes the dissolution of the free-trade landscape.
The question remains of whether Trump’s tariffs will succeed at strengthening the American economy and whether it will embolden — or slow — the global shift away from globalization.
Edited by Lara Cevasco
This is an article written by a Staff Writer. Catalyst is a student-led platform that fosters engagement with global issues from a learning perspective. The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
Noé Beaudoin is a second year student at McGill majoring in International Development Studies and Economics and minoring in English. As a writer for Catalyst, she seeks to explore the interaction between current events abroad and cultural discourse and is particularly interested in the Middle East and climate action.