Trump cried out that he imposed a 100% tariff on Chinese goods, but the U.S. trade representative immediately changed his mouth and said he did not intend to fight a trade war.

Is the outer mist a threat or is it real?

Trump turns over old scores, 100% tariffs throw new thunder

The slogan for tax increases was louder than before, 100% of this number, and it is not randomly screaming, it is to raise a layer higher in the word.

Trump once again stared at tariffs against China, not by chance, but for the old rehearsal.

He has always regarded tariffs as a political tool, and economic means are just packaging. The goal behind it is more to create an atmosphere of confrontation, win votes and oppress China to make concessions.

The moment that happened was delicate, and it was getting closer and closer to an important national election.

He needed an issue that could quickly raise emotions.

Calling China and playing the trade card are strategies he has used and tasted sweet in the past.

This time, a 100% tariff is called out. Regardless of whether it can be implemented or not, it will first occupy the high ground of public opinion.

This is not the first time I scream, nor will it be the last time.

In recent years, the U.S. has never stopped raising tariffs on Chinese goods.

The policy is sometimes tight and sometimes loose, depending entirely on their internal political arrangements and interests.

The statement of overweight this time seems violent, but it is actually the usual old way.

Using tariffs as weapons to force opponents at the negotiating table to give in has become a standard process in Trump's team.

This time, the 100% is a clear threat, it is to increase the area, overlap the previous tariffs on a hundred percentage points basis, and directly see trade as a war.

This kind of operation is a great uncertainty for the global market.

At the same time, while shouting about the economic disconnection, and hoping that enterprises will not run the way, the contradiction between reality and policy is becoming increasingly evident.

The United States is actually in chaos.

Many manufacturers and import and export companies have long suffered.

These tariffs are likely to ultimately be borne by U.S. consumers and.

Trump may be aware that he doesn¡¯t care.

What is important is that both external pressures and internal emotions are focused on the symbol of ¡°China.¡±

To package the ¡°China threat¡± as the cause of the American economic downturn, so that you have a reason to save the United States.

This so-called ¡°100% tariff plan¡± is not to protect the industry, nor to reverse the deficit, much less because China breaches the rules.

The essence is to use Sino-US relations as an election resource to shape China into a target and pretend to be a fighter.

This kind of routine may not work if you play too much.

What we should really be wary of is this operation of constantly testing the bottom line.

If China doesn't respond, the other side may think that it can push its luck.

If the response is excessive, you may be stuck in the "escalating tension" hat.

The U.S. side says that to "increase taxes", in fact, does not necessarily really want to collect taxes, rather it is in the making of a bureau, forcing China to express.

The problem is that such overweight does not only affect both sides.

Once the action is implemented, problems will also arise in the global supply chain.

Some transit economies in Asia, Europe, and Latin America that are highly bound to China will also suffer.

This bomb blasted not only China, but also the world.

Trump¡¯s approach has not allowed the U.S. industry to flow back, let alone the manufacturing industry to recover.

It will only make the entire foreign trade environment worse.

Calling for tax increase is actually telling the world that he is willing to exchange "destructive" methods for short-term political gains again.

This kind of play, no one believes it for a long time, and no one wants to accompany it.

Or does the trade representative have another plot to "put out the fire"?

Just as the outside world was one-sided to interpret this round of tariff increase as a new round of offensive against China, the U.S. Trade Representative suddenly stood up and spoke.

He said that the United States has no intention of fighting a trade war with China.

If the situation requires it, the United States is also ready.

This statement seems to be "putting out the fire", and its real purpose is to stay behind.

The U.S. has consistently used this vague attitude to deal with the media: in the mouth, it does not want to conflict, but the actual action is constantly escalating.

The trade representative's statement is not to sing counter to Trump, but to sing "springs".

Trump made a high-pressure confrontation, and Grill immediately added a phrase, ¡°We don¡¯t intend to fight,¡± which is a typical strategic match.

Hard with one hand, soft with the other.

It is necessary not only to give off the momentum, but also to push the responsibility cleanly.

If the situation is out of control, Grill's phrase "I don't want to fight" is the guarantee of life.

This operation is well known.

Since the trade friction of the past few years, the United States has been playing the game of "fight first and talk after".

The trade representative is responsible for sending flexible signals, the White House is responsible for shouting malicious words, the business community is responsible for lobbying, and the media is responsible for following suit.

This has become a complete set of public opinion and policy processes.

This time there was more hesitation than ever.

Gregor said it carefully, not sure or denying it.

He didn't announce the list of specific commodities, nor did he tell the implementation path, nor did he clarify the legal procedures for tariffs to take effect.

These vague attitudes show that the United States is not at ease.

If you really want to raise taxes, there is no need to explain too much.

Speaking in advance, more is to test the water, see the market reaction, see the Chinese move, see if there are internal differences.

Greer¡¯s ¡°no intention¡± is like looking for a ladder for the future.

Once China's stance is tough, the United States can withdraw or adjust it at any time. This is not a statement, but a test.

Feedback from the business community is also critical.

The U.S. retail, manufacturing and logistics industries are very cautious of this ¡°politically fuzzy¡± trade policy.

They know that such an operation can't last long.

Increased taxes will raise costs, undermine employment, and weaken competitiveness ¨C real issues that are worse than any slogan.

The Trump team doesn't seem to be listening.

From Greer¡¯s point of view, they do not intend to impose a 100% tariff right away, but rather use this card to squeeze the pace of negotiations.

They hope that China will thus give up some space, such as loosening in terms of chips, export controls, subsidies and so on.

China cannot agree easily. China and the United States are not simply price bargaining.

Tariffs are no longer just tariffs, but pawns of competition among great powers.

Greer says ¡°prepare¡± doesn¡¯t mean that you¡¯ve started, but it¡¯s not that you have no bottom line.

The United States has always been creating the illusion that if China does not compromise, the United States "will have to fight."

This is actually pushing the responsibility to China.

This statement sounds logical, but actually confuses right and wrong.

Obviously the United States is the first to shout for tax increases, obviously Trump is the first to threaten, but also wants to play a rational side of "not wanting to escalate the conflict".

This position is unfair, it is just a trick in the public opinion war.

Everything the trade representative says is not for China, but for the United States.

What is told to the capital market and what is told to voters.

Tariffs have become a political show, and Sino-US economic and trade relations have been forced to become props on the show.

Behind the tariffs, the U.S. calculates.

The slogan of this round of tax increase in the United States is not an economic consideration, but a political operation.

Trump needs an opponent in the election.

At that time, talking about China was the most economical choice for him.

Economic weakness can be blamed on the outside, but it can also allow voters to see a leader¡¯s image that is ¡°hard-to-hard¡±.

The 100% tariff is called out to stabilize the right-wing fundamentals.

The real purpose is not to increase taxes and take money, nor to subsidize enterprises, but to create a strong attitude.

In the final analysis, this policy uses external games as the material of internal propaganda.

Such practices may stimulate public opinion in the short term, but destroy stability in the long term.

On the one hand, to return the manufacturing industry, and on the other hand to use high tariffs to lower imports, it sounds logical, and it is all contradictory.

Many local American companies have long been disgusted with this model.

They have experienced past rounds of tariff shocks that not only didn¡¯t bring back capacity, but instead doubled costs.

The production didn't come back, but the money was spent more.

It's not that the Trump administration is unaware of this, but when votes conflict with reality, they always choose the former.

This time the ¡°100%¡± is added to make the slogan more shocking.

When American voters hear such figures, it is easy to have the illusion of "finally getting real".

In fact, many goods have already been taxed.

Adding new numbers does not mean new substantive actions.

This is a performance, a public opinion output on a tactical level.

For China, the most important thing is to understand the real intentions of each other, not to be taken away by the screams, and not to take every threat as real.

If the Chinese side responds strongly every time, it is easy to be bitten back and say "breaking the rules."

If silence is too long, it is easy to be misjudged as weakness.

So for China, it is more important to maintain a strategic rhythm and not to rush to react with the other side¡¯s gunfire.

This situation between China and the United States cannot be solved in the short term.

Trade friction is merely an indication of the changes that are rooted in the pattern of competition.

It is doomed to failure for the United States to suppress China's economic development through tariffs.

China¡¯s export capacity is not based on price warfare, but on technology, scale and supply chain efficiency.

Tax increases can only disrupt the superficial rhythm and cannot change the structural advantages.

Many third countries are also observing.

This type of tariff volatility has already disrupted global trade.

Enterprises in Southeast Asia, South Asia and even Europe are worried about the instability of trade routes.

Once China is blocked, problems will arise in the global intermediate product supply chain.

Many are not on which side, but are more concerned about whether there are alternative markets and logistics paths.

Therefore, every collision between China and the United States not only affects the two countries, but also affects the global confidence in the whole trading system.

Trump's move not only undermines rules, but also shakes the system.

Tariff arms are a disruption to global economic stability.

The harder you shout, the faster the backlash.

Following the move, the initiative is still in Chinese hands

After Trump shouted, the official American statement began to turn.

Trade representatives relented, and the corporate community was also lobbying frequently.

Many voices believe that it is unlikely that such a high tax rate will actually be implemented.

From an operational perspective, the United States has not initiated actual procedures.

There is still time before the so-called "effective date", and this period is more about testing the waters.

This is a common pattern in the United States: shout first, observe the movements of all parties, and then decide whether to move on depending on the situation.

The question is how China will respond.

If China overreacts, it will fall into the trap set by the other party.

If you react properly, you may let the other party shut up.

This is not the first time China has faced such pressure.

From the beginning of the trade war to the scientific and technological war to export control, China's response experience is becoming more and more mature.

On the one hand, strengthen the resilience of its own industrial chain, and on the other hand, do not stop opening up and global layout.

This double-track strategy avoids being held by the opponent.

In this context, there is almost no chance for the United States to shake the foundation of China's foreign trade by tariffs.

At the international level, China has also gained more understanding.

Many countries are increasingly disgusted with the unilateralism of the United States.

Not one country has the final say in the global industrial chain, and trade rules should not be rewritten at will by a single country.

Some countries that work closely with China have even begun to proactively adjust their policies to circumvent the risks of U.S. policy.

The initiative is moving.

Trump's call for tax increase this time is more of an internal mobilization and does not have the basis for long-term operation.

Once it enters the implementation stage, internal resistance will be greater and market feedback will be more intense.

Everyone knows that this is not a way to solve the problem, but to create more problems.

In the next few weeks, whether some kind of communication between China and the United States will be resumed will be the focus of observation.

If we can return to the negotiating table, then this propaganda is likely to become a smokescreen with a high-profile ending.

If it breaks down completely, it could enter a new round of trade friction cycle.

At present, China is neither in a hurry nor in a panic.

The response will be given, and the foreign talks will continue.

The U.S. screamed louder, and if in the end there was no real action, it was just a self-directed propaganda show.

For China, the key is to maintain a steady pace of development and not be interfered by external sources.

As long as you walk steadily, no matter how others change, they can't afford to turn big waves.

The reference information:

Trump says he will impose 100% tariffs on China goods. China responds: Resolutely oppose trade bullying¡¤Xinhuanet¡¤ 2025-10-11
U.S. Trade Representative Says ¡°No Plans to Fight a Trade War With China¡± Expert: Fake Combination Attempts to Seek Negotiating Codes ¡¤ Global Times ¡¤ 2025-10-12

China's response to U.S. tariff threat: Don't take trade as an election tool ¡¤ People's Network ¡¤ 2025-10-12

U.S. trade representative says prepared to deal with China but stresses "not wanting to fight a trade war" ¡¤ Central News ¡¤ 2025-10-11

Commerce Ministry responds to U.S. new tariffs statement: China will take all necessary measures to resolutely defend its interests ¡¤ Xinhua customer ¡¤ 2025-10-11

U.S. imposing 100% tariffs is challenged by multiple parties U.S. business community: the ultimate payer is the Americans ¡¤ Reference news ¡¤ 2025-10-12

China-US economic and trade relations are under pressure again, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs responds to tariff escalation trend¡¤China Daily Online¡¤ 2025-10-11