Trump’s Tariff Gambit
Photo by Michał Parzuchowski
In another characteristically brash maneuver, Donald Trump has intensified his economic confrontation with Beijing, announcing an unprecedented 125 percent tariff on Chinese imports while granting a 90-day tariff reprieve to every other major trading nation. Far from being a calculated economic strategy, the move appears tailor-made for campaign optics, an attempt to project toughness against China while mollifying allies and partners he had antagonized on April 2.
But behind the performance lies a dangerous gamble. Trump’s decision to selectively isolate China is more than a tactical jab. It’s a provocation aimed at economically cornering Beijing while reshaping the global trade order around a self-serving American center of gravity. The problem? This approach is shortsighted, economically risky, and geopolitically counterproductive.
Beijing views these tariffs not simply as economic pressure, but as strategic coercion. In response, China has already imposed retaliatory duties on American imports, but this is likely just the beginning. Expect a two-tiered response from China: short-term countermeasures aimed at immediate damage control and long-term systemic shifts designed to reduce vulnerability to American economic power. In the short term, China will target key U.S. exports, especially agricultural goods and high-value manufactured components from politically sensitive states. It will also double down on efforts to court the very countries Trump has temporarily exempted from tariffs, expanding bilateral trade and investment deals to create a buffer zone against Washington’s hostility.
In the longer view, Beijing is likely to accelerate its campaign to “de-Americanize” its economic dependencies. This includes ramping up domestic innovation, strengthening regional trade agreements like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and deepening engagement with the BRICS bloc to build an alternative economic ecosystem not beholden to U.S. policies or the dollar. The real prize for Beijing is to position itself not as the adversary, but as the stabilizing force in global trade.
Trump’s likely next step will be to continue escalating until he forces a theatrical “deal” or standoff that he can sell as a political win. In the past, this pattern involved punishing tariffs, bombastic threats, and then a sudden pivot to negotiations where even minor concessions from the other side are hailed as triumphs of “Art of the Deal” diplomacy. If history is a guide, Trump may seek to extract symbolic wins from U.S. companies relocating supply chains or commitments from allies to curb imports from China. His focus will not be on structural reform or meaningful trade rebalancing but on political messaging, painting himself as the only one willing to confront the “China threat.”
This approach, however, will only further destabilize the rules-based trading system that the United States helped build, driving more countries toward hedging strategies and regional blocs. Trump’s selective tariff pause opens up a strategic window for countries like the EU, Mexico, Brazil, and India. These nations are not mere bystanders. They are crucial players who will shape the contours of this brewing trade realignment.
The European Union is likely to tread carefully. Although European leaders are wary of China’s growing technological prowess, they are equally distrustful of Trump’s impulsive leadership. Brussels may use this moment to solidify its strategic autonomy, balancing trade ties with China while reinforcing its commitment to multilateral institutions that Trump has routinely disparaged. The EU could also push for a stronger role at the World Trade Organization, seeking reforms that restrain U.S. unilateralism.
Mexico, one of the biggest beneficiaries of nearshoring trends, will likely capitalize on the U.S.-China spat by expanding its role in American supply chains. But Mexico’s leaders will be cautious, recognizing that dependence on a volatile U.S. trade partner comes with its own risks. The country might seek to deepen trade ties with both China and the EU to hedge against future U.S. protectionism.
Brazil, under President Lula, has signaled an ambition to play a larger role in global trade realignment. With strong agricultural exports to China and a growing relationship with BRICS economies, Brazil could emerge as a pivotal swing state in the global trade order, willing to engage both Washington and Beijing but unwilling to pick sides unless the economic benefits are overwhelming.
India, often projected as the natural counterweight to China in Asia, now finds itself in a delicate position. Although it shares U.S. concerns about China’s rise, it is unlikely to follow Trump into an all-out trade war. India is pursuing its own industrialization and digital economy goals, and may use this moment to expand exports to both China and the United States, while strengthening South-South cooperation through its own bilateral and regional trade deals.
Trump’s new tariff war does not simply revive U.S.-China tensions. It accelerates the fragmentation of the global economic order. As countries maneuver between two increasingly adversarial superpowers, the once-clear lines of economic alignment are blurring. For developing economies, this means more choices—but also more pressure. The world is drifting toward a bifurcated system, one led by the United States and another centered around China, each with its own trade rules, tech standards, and financial systems.
Trump’s approach, grounded in grievance and zero-sum thinking, threatens to collapse the fragile architecture of globalization. Trump’s tariffs are not a clever negotiation tool. They are the opening shots of a broader geopolitical contest where trade, technology, and ideology intersect. China will not blink; it will recalibrate. And the rest of the world—far from falling in line—will chart its own course, seeking flexibility, resilience, and a degree of strategic autonomy. Trump’s aggressive economic nationalism may well hasten the rise of the very multipolar world he seeks to suppress. In doing so, he risks isolating the United States from a global trading system that is increasingly prepared to move forward without it.
This first appeared on FPIF.
