US President Donald Trump’s trade policies towards China reflect a mixed approach, combining attempts to isolate the country with efforts to expand market access.

His administration aimed to decrease reliance on Chinese imports and urged allies to cut supply chain ties with Beijing.

At the same time, negotiations produced agreements like a recent 90-day tariff pause that eased some trade tensions.

Tariffs remain a key part of Trump’s strategy, with baseline rates at 10% and some Chinese goods taxed up to 30%.

In response, China has intensified diplomatic efforts with Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Europe to counter US influence and encourage open supply chains.

The resulting uncertainty has raised questions about the administration’s broader strategy, as the fragmented approach may hinder building a cohesive coalition among allies.

🔗 Source: Bloomberg

🧠 Food for thought

1️⃣ History of trade imbalances shows persistent US-China economic dynamics

The current US-China trade tensions echo historical patterns dating back recent decades.

The first formal US-China trade agreement in 1844 (Treaty of Wanghia) revealed America struggling with significant trade deficits with China, a pattern similar to today’s economic relationship1.

In early American-Chinese commerce, the US primarily imported Chinese tea while finding it difficult to identify American goods that appealed to Chinese merchants, creating a persistent imbalance that has evolved but never disappeared1.

This historical context helps explain why addressing the trade deficit has been a bipartisan American policy goal across multiple administrations, though the approaches have varied dramatically in aggressiveness.

Modern trade figures show how this imbalance has grown exponentially, with contemporary American deficits reaching approximately $54 billion, demonstrating that Trump’s policies target a long-standing economic reality rather than a recent development1.

2️⃣ The EU’s collective leverage demonstrates the weakness of bilateral approaches

The European experience offers a revealing contrast to Trump’s country-by-country negotiation strategy with significant implications for global trade dynamics.