Do Americans want a Mar-a-Lago Accord?
Global markets are abuzz with chatter about a so-called Mar-a-Lago Accord, the Trump administration’s supposed plan to reorient the United States’ relationship with the global economy by negotiating sweeping changes to the international financial and trading systems. The plan centers on weakening the value of the US dollar to boost US exports and cut imports with the goal of revitalizing US manufacturing. The name recalls US President Ronald Reagan’s Plaza Accord of 1985, which had similar aims. While experts debate the feasibility and merits of this plan in the public sphere, another critical question remains unanswered: Would the American public support it?
Americans are a patriotic lot, even in matters of trade and economics. One recent US-based industry poll found that 77 percent of respondents preferred to buy products that were “Made in America” compared to foreign-made products. Multiple surveys from major media organizations have found that more Americans support tariffs on China than oppose them, while another poll suggests that the public is more concerned about China’s unfair trade practices than they are about starting a trade war.
These statistics suggest that the public could get behind a plan to rebalance trade in the United States’ favor and revive its manufacturing sector, even if it brought some economic turbulence along with it.
However, before a Mar-a-Lago Accord could accomplish these goals (if it could at all) the deal would first have to achieve a sustained devaluation of the dollar. Predicting how Americans would react to a depreciating currency is more complicated.
A less-valuable dollar could trigger higher inflation, undermining US President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to bring prices down. Given how wildly unpopular rising prices are among the US public today, this would not be a public-opinion winner for the White House.
Another downside of a weaker greenback is that it would make dollar assets “less attractive in the eyes of foreign investors”—this according to the policy paper that introduced the roadmap for a Mar-a-Lago Accord. For eighty years, the US dollar has reigned as the global economy’s preeminent reserve currency—a ranking Trump has said he refuses to relinquish. Yet, if foreigners find holding dollars less appealing because the currency loses value, they could invest elsewhere, eroding the dollar’s dominance.
Just days before the 2024 US presidential election, we surveyed a large, nationally representative sample of Americans. We asked them a series of questions about the dollar’s global role with the aim of better understanding how they think about their currency. Here’s what we learned.
First, when it comes to the dollar’s value, we do not find evidence that Americans favor a devaluation. When asked if they agreed that the United States should weaken the dollar to promote exports, only 16 percent of respondents did so, compared to 42 percent who disagreed, and another 42 percent who neither agreed nor disagreed with this proposal. In sum, the public is not enthusiastic about a depreciating currency, even if that means more exports. This implies that a core component of a Mar-a-Lago Accord—a sustained weakening of the dollar—could pose political risks for Trump.
Conversely, Americans are very enthusiastic about the dollar’s international dominance. Overall, 72 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that the dollar’s global role is good for America, compared to just 6 percent who disagreed, and 22 percent who expressed neither agreement nor disagreement. Notably, this is a rare issue upon which Americans agree across the political spectrum: opinions were nearly identical among those who voted for Trump and those who did not.
Relatedly, a clear majority of Americans in our survey also expressed concern about the prospect of the dollar losing its preeminent status in the future. When asked if they are concerned that other countries are trying to shift away from the dollar, a clear majority (65 percent) agreed. Indeed, it is the president’s own supporters who are most worried about this possibility, with 76 percent of Trump voters expressing concern about a loss of status for the dollar compared to 58 percent of individuals that did not vote for Trump.
Taken together, these numbers suggest that Americans of all political persuasions like their dollar to be strong and value its prominence in the world. Thus, pursuing dollar depreciation within the framework of a Mar-a-Lago Accord is a potentially risky path for the Trump administration, especially if it triggers fears about a loss of status for the United States’ currency.
The president may already understand these risks, which would explain why he has worked to publicly defend the dollar’s reserve currency role. On two occasions, Trump has used his Truth Social platform to threaten 100 percent tariffs on any country that attempts to move away from the dollar. Similarly, one potential component of a Mar-a-Lago Accord framework is that the Trump administration could use the threat of tariffs to coerce and cajole foreign governments to hold on to their dollar assets, even as their value falls.
While most Americans are sympathetic to Trump’s preoccupation with the dollar’s global standing, this does not mean that they agree with the president’s proposed solution. On the contrary, our survey shows that there is very little support among the American public for using economic coercion to maintain dollar dominance.
When asked if the government should punish countries if they shift away from the dollar, less than 20 percent agreed. By contrast, 46 percent disagreed with this proposal, while more than one-third of our subjects neither agreed nor disagreed. Surprisingly, even Trump voters were not enthusiastic about these tactics: Only 28 percent of the president’s own voters favored the use of coercion to protect the dollar. Opposition is even higher among non-Trump voters.
Our polling raises serious questions about how Americans would react to key elements of a Mar-a-Lago Accord. Dollar dominance is popular, and a weaker greenback, or one that loses international status, raises concern among a large share of Americans—including among Trump’s own voters. The possibility of using economic threats to sustain dollar dominance does not win broad support either, suggesting that Americans are uneasy about the president’s coercive instincts in this case.
In the long run, Americans could come around to a weaker dollar if a Mar-a-Lago Accord delivered on the promises some in the White House appear to believe in. However, getting to that point could require pushing through a political minefield of stiff public resistance. The US public appears pleased with the dollar’s current value and international role, and it will need a lot of convincing to support moves to upend the status quo.
Daniel McDowell is the Maxwell Advisory Board professor of international affairs at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Geoeconomics Center.
David Steinberg is an associate professor of international political economy at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.
[#### Dollar Dominance Monitor
The Dollar Dominance Monitor analyzes the strength of the dollar relative to other major currencies across the world. The project presents interactive indicators to track China’s progress in developing an alternative financial infrastructure.](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/programs/geoeconomics-center/dollar-dominance-monitor/)
Related Experts: Daniel McDowell
Image: US President Donald Trump points as he speaks at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., February 18, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque