Economic Anxiety, Nationalist Pride: How Vietnam Navigates the Trump Storm

In 2015, Vietnam’s then prime minister, Nguyen Tan Dung, marked the 40th anniversary of the Vietnam War’s end by accusing the United States of committing “countless barbarous crimes“. A decade later, at the very same commemoration, Communist Party chief To Lam struck a different chord, emphasising reconciliation, forgiveness, and a thriving “comprehensive strategic partnership” with Washington – a deliberate, pragmatic shift in Hanoi’s narrative from highlighting past grievances to promoting strategic cooperation.

However, that partnership strategy, first unveiled two years ago, now faces a litmus test amid the volatility of the Trump 2.0 administration. During President Donald Trump’s first 100 days – culminating exactly on Vietnam’s 50th reunification anniversary on 30 April – his administration abruptly halted wartime remediation programmes amid America’s sweeping global aid rollbacks, imposed steep tariffs on Vietnamese exports as part of his global tariff offensive and declined Hanoi’s invitation to send a representative to attend Vietnam’s reunification celebrations. These moves threatened Vietnam’s economic stability and risked eroding the trust that has been carefully cultivated and strengthened over the past decades between the two former foes.

But rather than buckle, Hanoi swiftly recalibrated its strategic communications in response to Trump’s policies, carefully balancing domestic sentiment and diplomatic pragmatism. Mainstream media projected measured diplomacy and cooperation, signalling resilience without confrontation, while pro-regime Facebook pages channelled populist outrage to reinforce regime credibility and suppress domestic criticism of Hanoi’s diplomacy and economic management. The goals of this orchestrated media campaign were clear: maintain productive ties with Washington, avoid appearing weak under pressure, and prevent nationalist sentiment from spiralling into anti-Americanism.

Three episodes from Trump’s early presidency vividly illustrate how Vietnam pursued these goals to bolster legitimacy while managing disruptions in bilateral ties.

First, less than a month into his presidency, Trump’s halt of USAID’s mine-clearing programme and clean-up of Agent Orange initially alarmed Hanoi. While mainstream Vietnamese media expressed concern without directly blaming Washington, pro-regime Facebook pages openly downplayed the suspension as trivial, championed Vietnam’s resilience, and accused US-based “hostile forces” of deliberately influencing Trump’s decision with a view to undermining bilateral ties. When Washington partially resumed assistance, mainstream outlets reported positively without triumphalism, whereas pro-regime Facebook pages doubled down on attacking USAID as a corrupt tool of political manipulation, dismissing its aid as Washington’s minimal, overdue obligation to address its wartime legacy in Vietnam.

Second, in early April, Trump’s sudden imposition of 46 per cent tariffs on Vietnamese exports drew mainstream media caution, urging dialogue over confrontation. Online, pro-regime accounts aggressively dismissed potential harm, deriding sceptics of the government’s economic and trade policies as “a group intent on dragging Vietnam down”.

After Washington paused tariffs to renegotiate, mainstream media adopted restrained optimism, while online propagandists aggressively portrayed the outcome as a victory due to steadfast party leadership.

Finally, Trump’s decision not to send representatives to Vietnam’s 50th anniversary commemorations drew restrained mainstream reactions, emphasising the importance of maintaining the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Washington. Pro-regime social media swiftly condemned this decision as disrespectful, amplifying emotional statements by American veterans criticising Trump’s move and accusing anti-regime factions abroad of distorting history to undermine bilateral ties.

Against that backdrop, a critical question remains: How deeply did these engineered narratives resonate among ordinary Vietnamese?

Beneath this manufactured consensus, however, genuine public sentiments emerged vividly around Trump’s tariffs.

Online public reactions largely echoed the messaging of pro-regime Facebook pages, with commenters brushing off critics and exhibiting defiant patriotism. Yet clear signs emerged that this unified front was heavily orchestrated. Comment sections overflowed with repetitive language, identical slogans, and coordinated emoji use. Genuine debate or dissent – including criticism of Vietnam’s dependence on US aid or concerns about economic vulnerability – was quickly drowned out by scripted, pro-regime messaging that dismissed these concerns as unpatriotic.

Beneath this manufactured consensus, however, genuine public sentiments emerged vividly around Trump’s tariffs. Across unaffiliated forums, TikTok, and comment threads, average Vietnamese voiced alarm about job losses, factory closures, and rising prices. Unlike the choreographed posts on pro-regime pages, these spontaneous reactions often featured dark humour – including viral AI-generated memes depicting Trump labouring in dystopian factories – and calls to boycott American brands like Apple.

This backlash is especially striking given Trump’s previously favourable standing among the Vietnamese public. Initial sentiment towards Trump’s second term was strongly optimistic, rooted in the lionisation of his tough, anti-China persona. Indeed, according to the State of Southeast Asia 2025 survey (completed by mid-February), nearly 74 per cent of Vietnamese elites expected improved US–Vietnam relations, among the highest optimism levels regionwide. Yet anxiety over Trump’s tariffs reveals that tangible economic threats could swiftly erode even deeply held admiration, eclipsing symbolic or ideological appeal.

Paradoxically, this rapid shift in sentiment presents a distinct political opportunity for Vietnam’s leadership.

Research shows that propaganda – even in authoritarian settings – gains traction when it is consistent, emotionally grounded, and closely aligned with citizens’ lived realities. The spontaneous backlash against Trump’s tariffs underscores precisely what resonates most with the public: nationalist economic narratives that speak authentically to everyday anxieties. Vietnamese propagandists would be wise to strategically amplify these sentiments. At the same time, Hanoi must continue to carefully calibrate nationalist appeals, ensuring public frustration with Trump’s policies does not escalate into unchecked anti-Americanism that could jeopardise vital diplomatic and trade ties amid ongoing economic volatility.

To Lam, who is likely to retain his position as party chief after Vietnam’s 2026 leadership transition, has staked his political fortunes on delivering economic stability and growth. If he successfully weathers the “Trump storm” without allowing nationalist rhetoric to become counterproductive, the cherry on top could be a rare moment when engineered messaging and authentic sentiment converge, fortifying regime legitimacy precisely when Hanoi needs it most.

2025/167