Both Mario Draghi in Europe and Donald Trump in the United States support increasing tariffs on Chinese imports, but with objectives that reflect different historical conceptions of the wealth of nations. For any of these strategies to be successful, it will be necessary to manage not only the consequences on a highly interconnected productive network worldwide – a widely debated issue – but also the impact on the global financial architecture. Trump adopts a mercantilist perspective, measuring wealth by assets that a country controls. His emphasis on reversing the trade deficit with China responds to fear of a transfer of wealth that today strengthens Beijing's financial power. His concern evokes the panic in the United States during the 1980s, when Japan used its surpluses to acquire American assets, including Rockefeller Center. On the contrary, Draghi conceives wealth as the productive capacity of an economy. It proposes temporary tariffs focused on nascent strategic sectors, to promote industries that innovate and lead the sustainable transition. In essence, while Trump focuses on redistributing existing wealth, Draghi seeks to expand it. Although different, these visions are not exclusive. Draghi's position, aligned with economic theory since Adam Smith, is reflected in the development observed since the Industrial Revolution. However, history shows how many nations have collapsed under confrontational policies imposed by creditor countries, a key risk in a world with weakened multilateral institutions and geopolitical tensions. Neither is assured of success. Both are aware of the repercussions on an interconnected global productive network, but they would do well to consider more carefully the other side of the mirror: the impact of tariffs on a global financial architecture where the Chinese investor is increasingly relevant. If the new tariffs reduce his interest in foreign assets—whether because of a recession in China or less interest in financing less commercially connected economies—Trump could feel vindicated. But this scenario would imply a tightening of global financial conditions, making the financing necessary for the industrial renewal proposed by Draghi more expensive. On the contrary, if Chinese credit continues to flow, without capital control and backed by surpluses with third countries, Trump's objective could fail while Draghi would benefit from a persistent source of international credit. Tariff policies, fiscal and trade tools by nature, have proven to be powerful financial instruments, capable of influencing the trade deficit and the accumulation of external debt. Markets already reflect the complexity of potential tariff wars, underscoring the importance of monitoring the repercussions on the global financial architecture, including the increasingly important Chinese investor.Alejandro Neut. BBVA Research.