Trump's Costly Gamble With Tariffs on China
- Bridget Craig
- 12 minutes ago
- 3 min read
When former President Donald Trump first imposed sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports in 2018, he broke with decades of bipartisan consensus on free trade. To supporters, it was a bold strike against China’s economic aggression—a long-overdue correction to a deeply imbalanced relationship. While Trump was right to confront China’s unfair trade practices, his approach lacked the precision and long-term vision necessary to produce meaningful change.
Instead of bolstering American resilience, Trump’s tariffs placed new burdens on consumers, strained international alliances, and left the core structural issues with China’s trade behavior largely unresolved. The United States needed a coordinated, forward-looking response to China’s rise. The result, instead, was a trade war with unclear terms and uncertain gains.
Trump, a businessman by background, launched his tariff campaign during his first term by taxing a wide range of Chinese goods. Beijing responded with its tariffs, targeting U.S. products such as fruit and automotive parts. The result: tit-for-tat escalation that disrupted supply chains and hurt American farmers and small businesses.
Upon returning to office in January 2025, Trump revived his aggressive trade agenda. While early threats targeted Canada and Mexico, China quickly became the primary focus. On Feb. 1, he signed an executive order imposing a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports, citing national security concerns related to drug trafficking and undocumented immigration. China retaliated within days, announcing tariffs on U.S. goods such as coal, crude oil, agricultural machinery, and cars.
By March 4, Trump had doubled the tariff rate to 20%. In early April, he unveiled a “reciprocal tariff” policy, raising duties further on countries running trade surpluses with the United States. Chinese import rates surged to 34%, then 104%, and ultimately 125%, in what became one of the most dramatic trade escalations in modern U.S.-China relations. Beijing responded in kind, imposing tariffs as high as 84% and restricting exports of rare earth elements critical to U.S. manufacturing and defense.
These moves reflect a broader embrace of economic nationalism. However, Trump’s tariff-first approach overlooked the reality that the global economy is deeply interconnected and that the United States has long benefited from trade, including with China.
Since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, trade between the two countries has grown exponentially. That trade supported U.S. consumers with lower-cost goods and gave American firms access to a massive market. At the same time, it’s true that globalization exposed weaknesses in the U.S. labor market and industrial base. But the solution isn’t to retreat—it’s to compete smarter.
Trump’s tariffs may have been rooted in real concerns, but they often acted like a hammer where a scalpel was needed. Rather than applying targeted pressure on sectors involved in intellectual property theft or forced labor, the administration imposed broad duties that raised prices on everything from washing machines to smartphones. American agriculture and manufacturing bore the costs. Consumers paid more at checkout. And yet, China’s underlying practices—from state subsidies to industrial overcapacity—largely continued.
So, what would a better strategy look like?
First, the United States should have worked with its allies further. Partnering with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and others would have created a stronger, unified front to pressure Beijing while reducing the risks of retaliation aimed solely at the U.S. Multilateral efforts also reinforce the rules-based global trade system the United States helped build after World War II.
Second, the U.S. should focus on targeted, strategic tools. That means sanctions and trade restrictions aimed specifically at harmful practices such as IP theft, forced labor, or threats to national security—not sweeping tariffs that punish U.S. businesses and consumers alike.
Third, the U.S. must invest in itself. Reshoring critical industries like semiconductors, expanding research and development, and upskilling the workforce are all essential to competing in a global economy. Trade policy should strengthen America’s position—not merely penalize its competitors.
Finally, Washington must re-engage with and reform international institutions such as the World Trade Organization. The WTO needs modernization, particularly in areas like digital commerce, industrial subsidies, and state-owned enterprises. But abandoning it only creates a vacuum that others—namely China—are eager to fill.
Trade with China will remain complex and contentious. But complexity is not an excuse for blunt instruments. If the United States wants to lead in a globalized world, it must move beyond tariffs and toward a smarter, more sustainable strategy—one that protects American values without sacrificing economic vitality.
Photo Credit:
[Header]: Newsweek/Getty Images
[Embedded 1]- Reuters
[Embedded 2]- Reuters
Sources:
Comments