Commentary: Trump’s Tariff Strategy Sows Doubt in Washington

The article examines renewed trade tensions between the U.S. and China, especially as they relate to Donald Trump’s approach since his return to the U.S. presidency following the 2024 election, and the evolving strategies and concerns from both sides. It provides a chronological and analytical view of recent events, policy shifts, and expert opinions on the effectiveness and implications of tariff-centric trade policy. [para. 1]

In October, Trump revived his aggressive tariff threats. While his rhetoric remains intense, Beijing’s response has been notably measured compared to previous years. The new escalation was triggered by both U.S. non-tariff measures—specifically tightened export controls by the Commerce Department’s BIS—and China’s retaliatory export controls on rare-earth elements. Trump, initially threatening harsher tariffs and canceling a key summit with Chinese leadership, quickly softened his position, exemplifying his tactical, negotiation-based style. [para. 2]

Analysts in U.S. political circles observe that China has adapted its tariff strategy in two key ways in 2024. First, China exchanges tactical, easily reversible concessions (such as deals on TikTok and agricultural purchases) to secure strategic benefits, minimizing real compromises to their core interests. Second, China is now more proactive, e.g., suspending U.S. soybean purchases and leveraging rare-earth controls as negotiation tools. These steps reflect a more assertive posture than during the initial trade war. [para. 3][para. 4]

China’s recent export-controls have moved from domestic exporter management to include extraterritorial application, marking a significant escalation. This shift has raised bipartisan alarm in the U.S., with policymakers urging action to reinforce American supply chains in response to China’s new tactics. [para. 5]

Trump’s negotiating style focuses on deploying harsh rhetoric as a means of gaining leverage, as seen in previous summits. Historically, he has used public threats ahead of meetings to pressure counterparts, followed by partial concessions post-meeting—an approach now met by a more calculating Chinese response. [para. 6]

Major U.S. think tanks (Cato, AEI, PIIE) sharply criticize the reciprocal tariff model for causing market distortions and delaying business investment. Studies show that tariffs incentivize companies to delay imports, rely on loopholes, and hope for policy reversals. High tariffs are viewed as unsustainable and damaging to U.S. supply chains. Experts recommend distinguishing between goods types and caution against using tariffs as mere negotiation chips, as they bring domestic economic harm with limited strategic gain. [para. 7]

Current U.S. strategic thinking increasingly favors narrow, targeted export controls over broad tariffs, expansion of positive incentives (like trade preferences and R&D support), and enhanced anti-circumvention enforcement. This is seen as a more effective, sustainable, and less self-damaging path forward, emphasizing precision tools (Sections 301/232) instead of universal tariffs. [para. 8]

A core divide persists between Trump, who values quick, tangible economic wins to demonstrate negotiating prowess, and the Washington establishment, which focuses on long-term security and strategic interests, resisting transactional exchanges (especially technology or security concessions) merely for temporary gains. This has led to bipartisan pushback against Trump’s attempts to trade investment or security relaxations for agricultural purchases or tariff cuts. [para. 9][para. 10]

The ongoing lack of a major deal is viewed as disadvantageous for the U.S., creating pressure on the Trump administration as U.S. agricultural exports and investment activity sag. Nevertheless, smaller, more enforceable agreements are seen as more probable and appropriate given current dynamics, with a “grand bargain” considered both unlikely and undesirable by experts like those at CSIS. [para. 11][para. 12]

The article concludes by noting that while differing perspectives persist, the consensus in expert and official circles leans toward more focused, sustainable, and strategically grounded trade tools rather than the confrontational, one-off transactional tactics of high tariffs and headline-driven negotiations. [para. 13][para. 14]