President Donald Trump has signaled that his administration is pursuing a “fair trade deal” with China, even as the legacy of a protracted trade war—with mutual tariffs of up to 145 percent on Chinese goods and 125 percent on U.S. exports—casts a long shadow over negotiations. Trump’s recent comments aboard Air Force One and in media interviews underscore his belief that Beijing is now eager for an agreement, but analysts and industry insiders warn that entrenched disputes over intellectual property, market access and enforcement mechanisms will make truly equitable terms difficult to achieve.
Cold Turkey” and a Livelihood in Limbo
During a press briefing en route to a domestic campaign event, Trump asserted that his administration has “gone cold turkey” on Chinese imports by imposing sweeping levies designed to curb the \$400 billion annual trade deficit. “We’re not losing a trillion dollars because we’re not doing business with them right now,” he said, adding that China “wants to make a deal very badly.” Yet despite Trump’s claim that negotiations are underway, he conceded there were no immediate plans for a face-to-face meeting with President Xi Jinping, leaving high-level talks to his trade representatives.
Since early April’s 10 percent tariffs on \$200 billion of Chinese goods—slated to rise to 25 percent unless an agreement is reached—the administration has also slapped 25 percent duties on steel and aluminum and 145 percent on a broad list of Chinese imports. Beijing retaliated on April 10 with its own duties on \$60 billion of U.S. products, targeting American agriculture and manufacturing. These tit-for-tat measures have disrupted supply chains, raised costs for U.S. businesses and consumers, and fueled uncertainty in global markets.
The current standoff is the culmination of a dispute that began in mid-2018, when Trump first imposed 25 percent tariffs on \$50 billion of Chinese technology goods, citing unfair intellectual property practices. China responded with matching tariffs, and over the next two years both sides expanded levies to cover more than half of their bilateral trade. In January 2020, the Phase One agreement temporarily eased tensions: China committed to boost U.S. imports by \$200 billion over two years and strengthen intellectual property protections, while the U.S. paused further tariff increases and cut some existing rates. However, many of the deal’s enforcement mechanisms have failed to resolve core grievances, and both sides accuse each other of backsliding on commitments.
Since taking office for a second term, Trump has re-energized his protectionist agenda, viewing a harsher stance as leverage to secure deeper concessions. But experts warn that the punitive approach could backfire. “Tariffs are a blunt instrument—they hurt consumers, businesses, and farmers,” said Susan McLaughlin, a trade economist in Washington. “China may signal willingness to talk, but fundamental issues such as forced technology transfer, state subsidies, and access for U.S. firms remain unresolved.”
Negotiation Hurdles and Strategic Distrust
Negotiators on both sides face a trust deficit. Trump has repeatedly accused China of “ripping us off” for years, even castigating former President Nixon’s 1972 opening to Beijing as “the worst thing” he ever did. Beijing, in turn, views U.S. demands on technology licensing and industrial policy as encroaching on its economic sovereignty. Chinese officials have expressed frustration with what they see as shifting U.S. targets and lack of tangible progress since the Phase One deal.
Moreover, the U.S. has broadened its trade focus beyond tariffs. The Export Control Act and sanctions on Chinese tech giants like Huawei have introduced restrictions that go beyond import duties, complicating any comprehensive trade pact. “Trade isn’t just about goods anymore; it’s about data, technology, and national security,” noted Michael Tan, a former Commerce Department official. “Any fair deal must address these dimensions, but that introduces more complexity and more potential sticking points.”
Trump’s push for a “fair deal” also carries significant domestic political stakes. With the U.S. facing rising inflation, supply-chain bottlenecks and consumer price pressures, any breakthrough with Beijing could bolster the president’s economic narrative ahead of election season. Yet hardliners in Congress demand tougher measures—some propose a complete ban on critical Chinese imports or labeling China as a currency manipulator, moves that China would likely counter with new tariffs or non-tariff barriers.
American industries feel the pinch. Automakers depend on Chinese-made parts for electric vehicles; consumer electronics firms rely on semiconductors and components manufactured in China; and agricultural exporters await certainty on market access for soybeans and pork. “Every week without clarity chips away at our competitiveness,” said Elaine Wu, CEO of a U.S. manufacturing coalition. “We need a stable framework, not sporadic announcements.”
Opportunities and Risk Mitigation
Despite the challenges, some businesses see potential openings. U.S. negotiators have floated the idea of phased tariff rollbacks tied to specific benchmarks—such as adjudicated patent disputes or verified increases in U.S. energy exports. Similarly, China’s recent diplomatic engagements with the European Union and ASEAN indicate it may be willing to compartmentalize certain trade issues, providing a template for incremental progress.
Companies are also exploring diversification. From reshoring efforts in Mexico and Southeast Asia to sourcing alternatives from India and Vietnam, supply chains are undergoing realignment. “The wish to reduce dependence on China was there before the tariffs,” said trade consultant Robert Ellis. “Now it’s become a strategic imperative, with or without a deal.”
Ultimately, the notion of a “fair trade deal” hinges on mutual concessions and enforceable commitments—an elusive combination given the scale and scope of U.S.-China economic ties. Historical grievances, compounded by national security concerns and ideological divides, suggest any comprehensive agreement will require sustained diplomacy well beyond a single presidential term.
Trump’s administration has made clear its preference for hard bargaining, yet the president’s recent tone of optimism—“they want to make a deal very badly”—belies a complex reality. If past is prologue, negotiations may stall over technicalities while broader economic and strategic competition continues. For non-U.S. observers and global markets alike, the question remains whether a genuine reset is possible, or whether U.S.-China trade relations will remain mired in cycles of escalation and uneasy truces.
As Trump’s trade envoys prepare to reconvene with their Chinese counterparts, all eyes will be on the specifics: which tariffs might be rolled back, what guarantees China will provide on intellectual property, and how enforcement will be monitored. For now, America and China appear on a familiar path—a turbulent negotiation punctuated by high-stakes rhetoric, temporary reprieves, and enduring skepticism about the prospects for a truly level playing field.
(Source:www.euters.com)
Cold Turkey” and a Livelihood in Limbo
During a press briefing en route to a domestic campaign event, Trump asserted that his administration has “gone cold turkey” on Chinese imports by imposing sweeping levies designed to curb the \$400 billion annual trade deficit. “We’re not losing a trillion dollars because we’re not doing business with them right now,” he said, adding that China “wants to make a deal very badly.” Yet despite Trump’s claim that negotiations are underway, he conceded there were no immediate plans for a face-to-face meeting with President Xi Jinping, leaving high-level talks to his trade representatives.
Since early April’s 10 percent tariffs on \$200 billion of Chinese goods—slated to rise to 25 percent unless an agreement is reached—the administration has also slapped 25 percent duties on steel and aluminum and 145 percent on a broad list of Chinese imports. Beijing retaliated on April 10 with its own duties on \$60 billion of U.S. products, targeting American agriculture and manufacturing. These tit-for-tat measures have disrupted supply chains, raised costs for U.S. businesses and consumers, and fueled uncertainty in global markets.
The current standoff is the culmination of a dispute that began in mid-2018, when Trump first imposed 25 percent tariffs on \$50 billion of Chinese technology goods, citing unfair intellectual property practices. China responded with matching tariffs, and over the next two years both sides expanded levies to cover more than half of their bilateral trade. In January 2020, the Phase One agreement temporarily eased tensions: China committed to boost U.S. imports by \$200 billion over two years and strengthen intellectual property protections, while the U.S. paused further tariff increases and cut some existing rates. However, many of the deal’s enforcement mechanisms have failed to resolve core grievances, and both sides accuse each other of backsliding on commitments.
Since taking office for a second term, Trump has re-energized his protectionist agenda, viewing a harsher stance as leverage to secure deeper concessions. But experts warn that the punitive approach could backfire. “Tariffs are a blunt instrument—they hurt consumers, businesses, and farmers,” said Susan McLaughlin, a trade economist in Washington. “China may signal willingness to talk, but fundamental issues such as forced technology transfer, state subsidies, and access for U.S. firms remain unresolved.”
Negotiation Hurdles and Strategic Distrust
Negotiators on both sides face a trust deficit. Trump has repeatedly accused China of “ripping us off” for years, even castigating former President Nixon’s 1972 opening to Beijing as “the worst thing” he ever did. Beijing, in turn, views U.S. demands on technology licensing and industrial policy as encroaching on its economic sovereignty. Chinese officials have expressed frustration with what they see as shifting U.S. targets and lack of tangible progress since the Phase One deal.
Moreover, the U.S. has broadened its trade focus beyond tariffs. The Export Control Act and sanctions on Chinese tech giants like Huawei have introduced restrictions that go beyond import duties, complicating any comprehensive trade pact. “Trade isn’t just about goods anymore; it’s about data, technology, and national security,” noted Michael Tan, a former Commerce Department official. “Any fair deal must address these dimensions, but that introduces more complexity and more potential sticking points.”
Trump’s push for a “fair deal” also carries significant domestic political stakes. With the U.S. facing rising inflation, supply-chain bottlenecks and consumer price pressures, any breakthrough with Beijing could bolster the president’s economic narrative ahead of election season. Yet hardliners in Congress demand tougher measures—some propose a complete ban on critical Chinese imports or labeling China as a currency manipulator, moves that China would likely counter with new tariffs or non-tariff barriers.
American industries feel the pinch. Automakers depend on Chinese-made parts for electric vehicles; consumer electronics firms rely on semiconductors and components manufactured in China; and agricultural exporters await certainty on market access for soybeans and pork. “Every week without clarity chips away at our competitiveness,” said Elaine Wu, CEO of a U.S. manufacturing coalition. “We need a stable framework, not sporadic announcements.”
Opportunities and Risk Mitigation
Despite the challenges, some businesses see potential openings. U.S. negotiators have floated the idea of phased tariff rollbacks tied to specific benchmarks—such as adjudicated patent disputes or verified increases in U.S. energy exports. Similarly, China’s recent diplomatic engagements with the European Union and ASEAN indicate it may be willing to compartmentalize certain trade issues, providing a template for incremental progress.
Companies are also exploring diversification. From reshoring efforts in Mexico and Southeast Asia to sourcing alternatives from India and Vietnam, supply chains are undergoing realignment. “The wish to reduce dependence on China was there before the tariffs,” said trade consultant Robert Ellis. “Now it’s become a strategic imperative, with or without a deal.”
Ultimately, the notion of a “fair trade deal” hinges on mutual concessions and enforceable commitments—an elusive combination given the scale and scope of U.S.-China economic ties. Historical grievances, compounded by national security concerns and ideological divides, suggest any comprehensive agreement will require sustained diplomacy well beyond a single presidential term.
Trump’s administration has made clear its preference for hard bargaining, yet the president’s recent tone of optimism—“they want to make a deal very badly”—belies a complex reality. If past is prologue, negotiations may stall over technicalities while broader economic and strategic competition continues. For non-U.S. observers and global markets alike, the question remains whether a genuine reset is possible, or whether U.S.-China trade relations will remain mired in cycles of escalation and uneasy truces.
As Trump’s trade envoys prepare to reconvene with their Chinese counterparts, all eyes will be on the specifics: which tariffs might be rolled back, what guarantees China will provide on intellectual property, and how enforcement will be monitored. For now, America and China appear on a familiar path—a turbulent negotiation punctuated by high-stakes rhetoric, temporary reprieves, and enduring skepticism about the prospects for a truly level playing field.
(Source:www.euters.com)
