On October 18, China and the United States just released the signal of the imminent resumption of trade consultations, and the United States has acted relatively positively.
But the calm only lasted for less than a day, with Trump appearing on October 20 local time saying that if the next meeting of the Chinese and U.S. leaders fails to reach a “fair deal” in his mouth, Chinese goods will be charged tariffs of up to 155 percent.
The shift from “preparing to negotiate” to “preparing to raise taxes” takes only 24 hours, once again highlighting the uncertainty and repetitiveness of U.S. economic and trade policy towards China.
Trump’s remarks not only make the outside world doubtful: just sending out a peace signal and turning his head and starting to “scorp,” is this exactly from what strategic considerations?
From talk to pressure, Trump's goal is more than tariffs
Trump had previously put forward three conditions to China. This time, he didn't just play economic abacus, but packaged multiple issues into a "negotiation package".
This involves resources, drug supervision and agricultural product procurement, and behind it is his internal and external pressure.
The first requirement is that China will ease restrictions on rare earth exports, which occupy a core position in the global supply chain, while China has the vast majority of processing capacity.
Trump’s move is clearly aimed at ahead of possible future supply chain competition, by forcing the other party to make concessions to secure the supply of raw materials it needs.
The second issue mentioned is the issue of fentanyl. The United States has long blamed some domestic social problems on external imports, and this time it has once again turned its attention to China.
Although China has introduced strict regulatory measures and has repeatedly expressed its willingness to cooperate in combating illegal drug trafficking, Trump’s statement continues to reveal a tendency to “push responsibility out”, more like a gesture against voters.
Another is the agricultural issue, where he urged China to continue purchasing U.S. soybeans, which is directly linked to the interests of some agricultural states in the U.S., which have played a key role in the general election.
By binding agricultural products to trade negotiations, Trump has sought to consolidate the basics of his traditional supporters.
These three appeals refer to economic security, social issues, and voting interests, respectively.
In Trump's political language, tariffs are not only tools, but also signals. His words are not only to China, but also to China, to voters and to those interest groups that are still waiting to see.
Tactics are old-fashioned and their effectiveness is questionable: Extreme pressure is failing
Looking back at the trade between the US and China over the past few years, Trump has repeatedly used the "extreme pressure" tactic. Whenever negotiations are stuck or the choice needs to be pulled, he releases the remarks of a massive tax hike and even directly takes practical action.
This approach may bring certain negotiating initiative in the short term, but in the long term, it has not really changed the trade structure, let alone achieved the so-called "manufacturing return" or "trade balance."
The proposed 155 percent tariff, although the number is large, is questionable in terms of the feasibility of implementation.
Business operating costs are rising, supply chain adjustments are difficult, and consumers are also facing rising daily commodity prices. Higher tax rates will exacerbate this situation and may even trigger a ripple effect across multiple industries.
Moreover, the effect of this high-pressure policy has also gradually diminished.China has not made fundamental concessions because of the past few rounds of tariffs, but instead accelerated the response in terms of supply chain, market diversification, technology autonomy and so on.
China has repeatedly stated openly that trade cooperation must be built on the basis of equality and mutual respect, and that unilateral pressure cannot be exchanged for real compromise.
Even the Trump team, known for its "toughness", knows that rashly escalating the tariff war will ultimately affect the vital interests of companies and ordinary people in both countries.
High tariffs are not the "ultimate weapon" but more like a "bluff". The purpose is to gain a psychological advantage in negotiations, but if used excessively, they can easily backfire on themselves.
The “pressure” strategy is no longer fresh.
Trump's speech this time continued his consistent style, while releasing the will to cooperate, while creating an atmosphere of tension.This double-track strategy of "frontier pressure" is in his eyes a negotiation technique, but in the outside world, more of a release of unstable signals.
On the other hand, the international community will also raise doubts about the US’s repetition and uncertainty on major economic issues, affecting its image and credibility in the global trade system.
This also explains why China emphasizes “reciprocity” and “respect” in its response, rather than direct confrontation.China has gradually built up a more systematic trade response mechanism over the past few years and is no longer easily dragged away by unilateral pressure.
Even in the face of new threats, China's position remains stable, emphasizing resolving differences through dialogue, but it does not rule out countermeasures to safeguard its own interests when necessary.
This is a shift in attitude and a summary of past experience.China is clear that the way to truly benefit both countries and the global economy is negotiation based on rules and cooperation, rather than emotional and unilateral pressure.
Trump's threat of tax increase this time, although it is likely to be verbal pressure, has once again pushed the Sino-US trade issue to the forefront. This is not only a policy announcement, but also another test of the future direction of Sino-US relations.
Trump’s proposed 155% tax rate, even a mere linguistic pressure, is enough to attract widespread attention from the outside world, and it conveyed a continuation of antagonistic thinking.
If this thinking dominates the future direction of Sino-U.S. economic and trade relations, then the foundations of cooperation will be continuously weakened, and the cost of friction will be increasingly high.
Trade negotiation is not a wrestling field, but a realistic examination room
The trade differences between China and the United States have complicated backgrounds and practical conflicts of interests. However, no matter how deep the contradiction is, it still needs to be resolved through dialogue and consultation.
Trump-style "fast face change" and "high pressure play", although it has produced a lot of volume, it is difficult to fundamentally promote the solution of the problem.
From a larger perspective, the global economy is undergoing structural adjustment. The reconstruction of trade rules, the intensification of technological competition and the warming of geopolitics have all made the relations between major powers more sensitive and complicated.
In this context, any tendency to unilateralism, even if it is just a verbal provocation, may bring about a chain reaction.
China's position has always been clear: willing to talk and willing to cooperate, but on the premise of mutual respect and equal consultation.For China, the economic and trade issue is not a question of "who can hold who", but how to find a balance of interests and jointly promote the global economic recovery and stability.
Trump’s “change of face” once again shows that the game between China and the United States is far from over, but more importantly, the outcome of this game is not just about who makes who, but whether the whole world can take a path to a more stable and sustainable development.
As China has always said, there is no winner in a trade war, cooperation is the way out.
The reference information:
Trump says he is confident that he will reach a fair trade agreement with China-Russian Satellite News Agency 2025-10-21 00:51
China's Foreign Ministry responds to U.S. claims to list rare earth, phentanyl and soybeans as three major issues in China-U.S. economic and trade consultations. — Russian satellite news agency 2025-10-20 16:08