Trade vs. tyranny? The rise of human rights tariffs

Imagine walking through a marketplace where each price tag carries a cost that is not only made of dollars, but carries moral cues. What if the fruits of international trade came at a tariff that rises or falls depending on a nation’s human rights record? This once-theoretical idea is inching closer to reality. According to The New York Times, the United States under President Donald Trump is testing this concept on the global stage by tying trade penalties to the behaviour of an authoritarian regime. Last week, the Trump administration announced tariffs of up to 25% on all imports from any country that continues to do business with Venezuela’s strongman, Nicolás Maduro. This bold gambit effectively puts a price on trading with a dictatorship. It also signals a provocative shift: aligning international trade policy with human rights principles.

Critics call it a dangerous mixing of moralism and commerce, while others hail it as long overdue. Either way, this development marks a new chapter in the age-old debate about whether foreign policy should prioritise principles over profits. The situation with Venezuela in 2025 sits at the intersection of trade and human rights, with ramifications extending far beyond Caracas. The question now is whether tariffs can become tools of justice—and how global powers, including China, will navigate this uncharted territory.

Linking trade to human rights: A bold shift 

For decades, international trade agreements have largely been the realm of economists and diplomats, focused on tariffs, quotas, and market access. Human rights, when raised, were usually addressed through sanctions or naming-and-shaming at the United Nations—not through the tariffs in trade pacts. The Trump administration’s recent move breaks this norm. By weaponising tariffs against those propping up Venezuela’s repressive regime, Washington is explicitly yoking trade policy to human rights and governance concerns. 

The logic is straightforward: make it economically painful to support a regime that tramples democracy and dignity. “These tariffs aim to sever the financial lifelines of Nicolás Maduro’s corrupt regime and curb its destabilising influence across the Western Hemisphere,” the White House fact sheet declared. In other words, dollars and deals are now conditional on a foreign government’s respect for its people. Maduro’s government has been accused of undermining democratic institutions, suppressing free elections, and driving a humanitarian crisis. By imposing what some are calling “human rights tariffs,” the U.S. is effectively saying: if you bankroll a dictatorship, you’ll pay a price at the U.S. border. 

This approach carries a moral clarity that is appealing in principle. Linking tariffs to a Universal Human Rights Index or a Rule of Law Index could turn abstract principles into tangible economic incentives. In the Venezuela case, the tariff policy is a response to very real abuses: years of political oppression and economic mismanagement that have forced millions of Venezuelans to flee their country. The ethical justification seems compelling—why should nations enjoy unfettered trade benefits if their governments are jailing opponents or stealing elections? A tariff tied to human rights performance attempts to calibrate trade relations to a country’s behaviour. It is a bold shift, essentially telling governments that how they treat people at home can affect what they can sell abroad. 

Venezuela 2025: Putting principle into practice 

On March 24, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order that stunned many in foreign capitals: any country buying oil or gas from Venezuela would face a 25% U.S. tariff on all its exports to America. In practical terms, this “secondary tariff” means if a company or nation trades with Maduro, it risks losing access to U.S. markets or paying steep duties. 

Washington paired the tariff announcement with a clear moral and strategic rationale. Official statements emphasised Venezuela’s assaults on democracy and the rule of law, framing the tariff as a response to those violations. Maduro’s regime “systemically undermines democratic institutions” and has “triggered a regional humanitarian crisis,” U.S. officials noted, justifying the extraordinary trade measure, a novel hybrid of economic statecraft and ethical stand. Early evidence shows the policy is having bite. Venezuela’s oil exports for 2025 were already limping due to years of sanctions, but this new tariff threat further deterred buyers. American companies had largely withdrawn from Venezuela, but firms abroad now also have to think twice. The Associated Press noted that countries like Spain, Russia, Singapore, and Vietnam which were among Venezuela’s remaining petroleum customers now face a stark choice: continue dealing with Caracas and pay a hefty tariff on U.S.-bound trade, or scale back ties with Venezuela to retain normal access to U.S. markets. Even American refiners felt a tinge of irony as the United States itself imported some Venezuelan oil in January 2025 as part of limited sanction exemptions. This underscores how entangled global supply chains are, and it hints at the challenges of applying moral tariffs consistently. Nonetheless, the immediate impact is clear: doing business with Venezuela’s regime has suddenly become a far costlier proposition.

Venezuela's crude oil export by region and country, 2023 (percentage of total crude oil exports)

China’s dilemma: Principle vs. energy needs 

China’s Dominance in Venezuelan Oil: The pie chart above (based on data from energy analytics firm Vortexa Ltd.) illustrates Venezuela’s 2023 crude oil export destinations. A striking 68% — more than two-thirds — of Venezuela’s oil exports went to China. This outsized share highlights why Beijing is feeling the heat from Washington’s tariff manoeuvre. China has been one of Maduro’s largest benefactors on the global stage, extending loans and investments to Venezuela and eagerly buying its crude at a discount. Now, China finds itself caught in a trans-Pacific dilemma: Will it curtail its Venezuelan oil purchases to avoid U.S. tariffs, or double down and brave the economic fallout? 

The South China Morning Post, in an article titled “Why Trump’s Venezuela Tariff Move Presents Dilemma for China,” put it bluntly: Beijing may have to choose between giving up on its closest ally in the Americas or being hit with additional U.S. trade penalties. China’s foreign ministry has loudly denounced the U.S. move, calling it “illegal unilateral sanctions” and “gross interference in internal affairs”. Such rhetoric signals China’s principled stance against linking trade to political conditions. Yet behind the scenes, the calculus is complicated. Almost immediately after Trump’s announcement, Chinese oil traders and refiners hit the pause button. “The worst thing in the oil market is uncertainty. We won’t dare touch the oil for now,” admitted one Chinese trading executive when asked about Venezuelan crude. Shipments of Venezuelan oil to China stalled in the days following the U.S. decree as companies waited for clarity. Beijing, for its part, has had to reassess its commercial policy with Venezuela in light of the potential tariffs, balancing its energy security against the risk of escalating a trade war with its largest export market. 

It’s a high-stakes game of chicken. China’s reliance on Venezuelan oil is significant but not irreplaceable — Beijing could seek more oil from other partners or tap strategic reserves if necessary. Yet shifting away from Venezuela would mean abandoning an ally and potentially conceding to U.S. pressure, something China is loath to do. On the other hand, pressing on with Venezuelan imports in defiance of the U.S. tariff threat could invite a 25% duty on all Chinese goods entering the United States, a tax that would reverberate through China’s economy. This standoff has created unease not just in Caracas and Beijing, but in any nation navigating great-power politics with real economic interests on the line. Chinese officials have hinted that they will adjust tactics as needed – state media discussions suggest that while China officially rejects Washington’s terms, its refiners might quietly source oil elsewhere for now, hoping the storm passes.

Ripples through global trade norms 

The Venezuela case is already sending ripples through global supply chains and trade discussions. Multinational companies and trading houses are suddenly factoring in human rights performance as a new kind of trade risk. In boardrooms and trade ministries around the world, officials are asking: Could this be the new normal? If the U.S. is willing to slap tariffs on a country’s exports because that country buys from a regime like Maduro’s, what might come next? It’s a short leap to imagine tariffs tied to other benchmarks of governance—press freedom, political prisoners, or corruption levels. The mere possibility is forcing a rethink of long-standing trade practices. 

Global supply chains, long optimised for cost and efficiency, may need to optimise for conscience as well. Companies are beginning to do due diligence not just on what is in their supply chain, but who and how. We have seen in recent years how consumer pressure over labor conditions (like child labor or forced labor concerns) led to import bans on certain goods. Now we’re seeing government action take a broader aim: entire categories of trade penalised due to a country’s human rights record. In Venezuela’s oil sector, for instance, middlemen have tried to obscure the origin of crude shipments to evade sanctions. A significant volume of Venezuelan oil has been “rebranded” as Malaysian after ship-to-ship transfers, just to slip past sanctions and reach buyers in Asia. Such creative (and legally dubious) manoeuvres underscore how global commerce can twist itself into knots to avoid moral scrutiny. If human rights tariffs become more common, we might witness either more such evasive gymnastics or, optimistically, a cleansing effect on supply chains as businesses steer away from tainted sources altogether.

Trade experts note that this approach upends some of the traditional norms governed by the World Trade Organisation, which generally frowns on arbitrary tariffs. There is a genuine debate here: one nation’s ethical tariff might be seen by another as protectionism in disguise. The South China Morning Post highlighted concerns from Beijing that the U.S. move was less about human rights and more about strategic dominance, given that American oil companies stand to benefit if China retreats from Venezuela. Indeed, CNBC reported that U.S. officials hope the tariffs will make it harder for China to gain a foothold in Venezuela’s oil industry. Such skepticism serves as a reminder: for this new model to have global legitimacy, it cannot be a veneer for great-power politics. It must be part of a broader, collaborative effort to redefine fair trade. 

Toward a principle-based future in trade 

Envision a future in which every trade agreement includes a human rights clause with real teeth. In this future, the tariff you face on exporting your goods doesn’t just depend on industry lobbying or agricultural quotas—it also slides up or down based on your country’s human rights record.. Such a system could draw on established benchmarks: the Universal Human Rights Index, the World Bank’s Good Governance Index, the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index, to name a few.. This idea may sound far-fetched, but so did linking tariffs to human rights—until it happened. It is a vision of trade that directly incentivises respect for human dignity. 

Crucially, this cannot be a U.S.-only crusade. For a human-rights-linked tariff regime to truly take root, it must be embraced by a coalition of nations – democracies and beyond – that are committed to upholding universal values. The European Union, for instance, has leverage through its large market to implement such conditional access (and has at times used it, as in its GSP+ program rewarding good governance). Other democracies like Canada, Japan, and India could join in creating a united front where human rights benchmarks are formally baked into trade deals. Even international bodies like the WTO might one day carve out exceptions to permit these ethically driven trade measures. The goal would be a world where dictators and kleptocrats know that oppression carries not just a moral cost, but a financial one as well. 

Yet, for all the appeal of this vision, leadership by example remains essential. Linking trade to human rights is a powerful idea—but to be effective and credible, it must be underpinned by consistency at home. No country can persuasively champion human rights abroad while overlooking challenges within its own borders.

For the United States, this represents an opportunity, not a liability. While America has long positioned itself as a global advocate for democracy and the rule of law, it also faces its own governance challenges. The U.S. currently ranks 26th out of 142 countries on the Rule of Law Index, trailing behind many of its high-income peers. Issues such as racial disparities in the justice system and the treatment of migrants have attracted international scrutiny—and would likely surface in any reciprocal debate about human rights and trade.

Acknowledging these realities is not a weakness; it is a strength. If the United States aspires to lead in aligning trade with human rights, embracing transparency and committing to domestic improvement will only bolster its case. Doing so would enhance credibility, encourage international cooperation, and preempt claims of double standards. In this sense, the U.S. has a chance not only to promote a transformative policy vision, but also to model how democratic societies can evolve and lead by example—inviting others, too, to raise their standards in the process.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.