Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump backed down from tariffs on Canada that could have derailed both the American and Canadian economies, harming the very people he claims to represent. His reversal, prompted by market pressures and Wall Street’s reaction, reflects an image-conscious leader aware of the gravity of public opinion.

Though seemingly a victory for common sense, the president’s retreat wasn’t driven by logic alone. Rather, it was driven by a more powerful force: the tangible pressure of economic consequences, amplified by one of Trump’s favorite funding sources, Wall Street.

In fact, former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who just left office, quoted the Wall Street Journal — a paper that Trump reportedly reads — on live television, calling the tariffs “very dumb.” Indeed, they are reckless, counterproductive, and, most of all, damaging to the people Trump claims to serve.

This moment, however, illustrated more than just a diplomatic exchange. What Wall Street, and numerous political figures and grassroots movements have engaged in is, at its core, an exercise in civil disobedience — one of the most enduring American traditions of resistance.

As writers like Henry David Thoreau and Hannah Arendt would argue, civil disobedience is a necessary practice to challenge governments that fail to serve the public good. Thoreau famously wrote that citizens must not merely criticize their government but actively withdraw their consent from unjust laws. In this way, the force of the state is undermined when it is deprived of legitimacy by those it purports to represent.

This principle of withdrawing consent and practicing political resistance can be seen throughout American history, from Martin Luther King Jr.’s marches to Noam Chomsky’s activism, from Bernie Sanders’ campaign for reform to the many acts of resistance carried out by ordinary citizens. They all practiced a form of civil disobedience to confront the injustices of their time. What Wall Street as well as the grassroots movements did — challenging the tariffs — was, in essence, an act of lawful resistance aimed at disrupting the actions of a government that has lost its accountability to the people. This resistance is not only appropriate but necessary.

However, opposition to the Trump administration’s disregard of international law cannot simply be termed as civil disobedience. Although the stance against it taken by countries like China, Canada, Mexico and so on reflects in a way the same principles of resistance and accountability that Thoreau and Arendt advocated, it is more of efforts to uphold the framework of the international order based on principles conceived by the countries which triumphed in World War II, including the United States under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This is evidenced by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s words at the Munich Security Conference, where he reaffirmed China’s commitment to upholding the international rule of law as grounded in the United Nations and its charter.

In the context of growing global tensions, China’s position on international law is significant. By emphasizing the U.N. Charter as the “bedrock” of international relations, China advocates for the very framework that was meant to safeguard the sovereignty and rights of nations. This commitment echoes the notion that when powerful nations, particularly those like the U.S., disregard international norms and laws, it is the responsibility of other countries to resist this unbalanced power and stand in opposition to violations of international law.

Now, more than ever, there is a need for international actors to organize in opposition to policies that threaten the global framework of justice, fairness and mutual respect. When the White House or any powerful nation-state moves in blatantly unlawful directions, its legitimacy must be questioned not just by its own people but by the global community.

If the United States continues to undermine the U.N. framework, the World Trade Organization, and other international institutions, it will inevitably spark a broader, more unified call for international resistance.

In the face of growing global instability, all people around the world must unite to defend their legitimate institutions. Nations must rise to protect their sovereignty and, when necessary, redirect global trade away from irresponsible actors who prioritize power politics over principle. From the U.N. Charter to the U.N. System and other international institutions, the principles of justice, and peace are non-negotiable. When the Trump administration refuses to comply with these rules, it is not only the right but also the responsibility of other nations to uphold them.

For Americans, this should be a lesson in the necessity of standing up against unlawful behavior by the state. My own experiences in the United States today — resisting unlawful actions by my local government, exposing corruption and advocating for constitutional rights — reflect the same impulse to reclaim justice when it is ignored.

As China-U.S. relations and global politics continue to evolve, we must remember that these principles are essential for global peace, stability and security. Let us rise to the challenge, ensuring that the international rule of law remains firm and that all nations are held accountable, regardless of their power.

Bradley Blankenship is an American investigative journalist and columnist.