With Dollar Hegemony At Risk, Could This Be Crypto’s Moment?

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 09: (L-R) U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of Commerce ... More Howard Lutnick look on as U.S. President Donald Trump prepares to sign executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House on April 09, 2025 in Washington, DC. President Trump signed several executive orders including directing the “repeal of unlawful regulations” and reducing “anti-competitive regulatory barriers.” (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Getty Images
On Wednesday, President Trump announced a much-needed 90-day pause on the steep tariffs he proposed last week during “Liberation Day”—likely prompted by the significant market turmoil his initial decision caused, including a troubling spike in key U.S. Treasury yields.
For now, most countries still face a substantial 10% tariff, with two notable exceptions: Russia, exempt from new tariffs but sidelined due to sanctions, and China, singled out with a punishing 125% tariff. For historical context, consider the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, widely blamed for deepening the Great Depression. That measure raised the average tariff rate across goods to just 19.8%, and even then, it strategically targeted specific agricultural and industrial goods.
Economists rarely find consensus—but the empirical evidence against sweeping tariffs is nearly unanimous. Tariffs essentially act as an indirect tax on consumers, provoke retaliatory measures, drive inflation higher, and destabilize financial markets. While targeted and temporary tariffs can indeed protect nascent industries from premature foreign competition, these measures must be carefully phased out once industries mature. Similarly, selective tariffs might support essential national security supply chains, but only if implemented judiciously.
Yet, the last two weeks represented something unprecedented. To fully grasp the long-term implications, we must start with CEA Chairman Steve Miran’s recent comments on America’s role in providing "global public goods": primarily, a global security umbrella, and secondarily, maintaining the dollar’s position as the global reserve currency.
What Miran overlooks is that these roles are inseparable: you cannot maintain reserve currency dominance without military strength. Geopolitical influence and credibility depend fundamentally on a nation’s capacity to protect its interests, both at home and overseas—whether safeguarding global maritime trade routes, undersea internet cables, critical energy resources and rare materials, or vital payment and financial infrastructures.