Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

Foreign Media consensus: Trump misread China, now seeking trade war exit as Beijing holds trump cards and is tipped to win

Blog

Foreign Media consensus: Trump misread China, now seeking trade war exit as Beijing holds trump cards and is tipped to win
Blog

Blog

Foreign Media consensus: Trump misread China, now seeking trade war exit as Beijing holds trump cards and is tipped to win

2025-04-26 09:00 Last Updated At:10:28

After weeks of bluster and escalating threats of so-called "reciprocal tariffs" against China, US President Donald Trump has recently been signalling a "de-escalation" in the Sino-US trade war. However, US media reveals that White House officials privately admit Trump misjudged the situation and failed to accurately predict China's reaction. He apparently assumed China would be among the first countries to "request tariff exemptions," but reality proved otherwise. Media outlets worldwide concur that China, having spent years reducing reliance on American goods, building strong supply chains, and investing in advanced technology, holds multiple "negotiating aces," including US debt holdings and control over rare earth exports. Renowned economists even predict China will emerge victorious from this trade war.

Trump initially projected arrogance both domestically and internationally, not only imposing heavy tariffs on trading partners like China but also threatening to dismiss Federal Reserve Chairman Powell. Yet, after warnings from major US retail chains like Walmart about soaring import prices and panic buying, the Trump administration conceded that the 145% tariff on China is "unsustainable" and is seeking an "exit route" to avoid intensifying the trade conflict.

The New York Times reported on April 23rd local time that Trump demonstrated the political and economic costs of pursuing the most hardline approach. He initiated a trade war in early April, fantasizing that merely imposing "punitive tariffs" would compel global companies to relocate factories back to the US. By month's end, however, he discovered the world of modern supply chains is far more complex than imagined, and whether the tariffs could achieve the desired outcome remained highly uncertain.

The report cited some Trump administration officials privately admitting their failure to accurately predict China's response. Given the vast scale of Chinese exports to the US, Trump seemingly expected China to be among the first to "request (tariff) waivers."

The NY Times noted that while the White House continually hinted China was seeking talks, in reality Beijing adopted a wait-and-see strategy. The report described there were signs of  “desperation” as the "call from China" failed to materialize, while Trump was reluctant to initiate the call himself.

Nicholas Mulder, an economic historian at Cornell University, believes "China has been preparing for a further escalation of the trade war for many years". Mulder added that China now possesses greater resilience and capacity to handle such an escalated conflict.

The BBC published an article on the 24th titled, "Five cards China holds in a trade war with the US". First, as the world's second-largest economy, China can withstand the impact of tariffs better than smaller nations; its vast domestic market can cushion some of the pressure exporters face. Second, China has consistently invested in future technologies, pouring funds into indigenous advancements like renewable energy, chips, and artificial intelligence. While US companies attempt to move supply chains out of China, they struggle to find comparable infrastructure and skilled labour elsewhere.

The third ace is the experience China gained from the "Trump 1.0" era. In recent years, it has further strengthened ties with Global South countries, expanding trade with Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Africa. The fourth card is China's awareness that the bond market can influence US decisions. The fifth is China's near-monopoly position in the extraction and refining of rare earths.

On April 22nd US local time, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned of Sino-US trade tensions in a closed-door speech, frankly telling investors the current stalemate is "unsustainable". He insisted the purpose of US tariffs on China "was not to decouple from China," but admitted that negotiations with China had not yet begun and would be a protracted battle.

On the same day, Trump also signalled from the White House his reluctance to further increase tariffs on China, claiming the rates on Chinese imports would not remain at current levels and would drop substantially, though not to zero.

However, Bessent denied on the 23rd that the US would unilaterally cut tariffs on China. He reiterated that neither the US nor China viewed the current tariff levels as sustainable, stating, "A trade disruption between the two countries is not in anyone's interest."

Also on the 23rd, The Wall Street Journal "leaked" information, citing sources familiar with the matter, that the Trump administration was considering a significant reduction in tariffs on China, possibly by more than half. The news triggered a surge in US stock markets. The report indicated that tariffs on Chinese goods might be reduced to a range of 50% to 65%. However, Trump has not made a final decision, and several options remain under consideration. Among these is a "tiered tariff" scheme, which would apply different rates depending on the type of goods imported from China.

Trump himself stated that day he might announce new tariff amounts for some trading partners, "possibly including China," within the "next two to three weeks." Yet, White House spokesperson Leavitt claimed the US would not unilaterally lower tariffs on China before a new trade agreement was reached.

As The New York Times described it, the White House sent yet another "ambiguous message" regarding the status of negotiations.

On the afternoon of April 24th, addressing recent US messages suggesting ongoing trade talks and even an impending agreement, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Guo Jiakun stated this was false information. He clarified that China and the US had not held consultations or negotiations on tariffs, let alone reaching any agreement. Guo asserted that the tariff war was initiated by the US, and China's stance remains consistent and clear: “We will fight, if fight we must.” He also said, if the US wants to talk, the doors are open, but dialogue must be based on equality, respect, and mutual benefit.

That same day, Ministry of Commerce Spokesperson He Yadong responded to the US narrative of "tariff cooling," stating that the US's arbitrary imposition of tariffs violates basic economic and market principles. He argued that it not only fails to solve America's own problems but also severely disrupts the international economic and trade order, interferes with normal business operations and consumer life, and has faced strong opposition internationally and within the US. He invoked the saying, "Whoever tied the bell must untie it," implying the unilateral tariffs were initiated by the US, and if the US genuinely wants resolution, it should heed the rational voices internationally and domestically, completely abolish all unilateral tariffs against China, and find ways to resolve differences through equal dialogue.

He Yadong stated that China urges the US to correct its erroneous practices. If talks are desired, the US must show sincerity and return to the correct path of equal dialogue and consultation to jointly promote the stable, healthy, and sustainable development of Sino-US economic and trade cooperation.

Numerous foreign media outlets covering the globally watched Sino-US trade war have cast a vote of confidence in China. The Times of India reported on the 23rd that signs indicate the US is seeking an exit, with the White House seemingly softening its previously tough stance on tariffs. While some see Washington's recent rhetoric as strategic, many experts and investors perceive it more as anxiety.

William Yang, Senior Analyst for Northeast Asia at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that China will firmly maintain its current position and will only consider starting negotiations after seeing credible actions from the US government. He believes China views the outcome of this tariff standoff as a precursor to how bilateral relations will unfold over the next four years.

Singapore's Lianhe Zaobao commented that the US tariff war against China struggles to achieve its objectives primarily because the US overestimated its leverage and underestimated China's resilience and capacity for countermeasures.

Germany's Stern magazine interviewed Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz on the 23rd. He stated that China did not back down in the face of US tariff actions, nor did it proactively push for a deal. China concluded it holds the initiative. "If the US reduces purchases of German and Chinese goods, it will face supply problems and higher inflation levels." When asked if China would win the trade dispute with the US, Stiglitz replied, "I think so. China's economic position is solid, while the US is weakening. The Chinese want to be the most reliable trading partner internationally."

The UK's Financial Times reported on the 24th that US companies are calculating the costs of the White House's tariff war. Executives in transportation, energy, telecommunications, and construction have warned about the consequences of the comprehensive tariff actions. Data showed that as of Tuesday, less than one-fifth of the S&P 500 blue-chip companies had held their Q1 financial conference calls,.  Over 90% of these calls mentioned tariffs, and 44% mentioned the word "recession."

Domestically in the US, a Pew Research Center poll released on the 23rd showed 59% of American respondents disapproved of the US government raising tariffs, while 39% approved. Another recent Reuters/Ipsos poll indicated only 37% of US respondents were satisfied with the government's handling of economic issues. Concurrently, attorneys general from 12 US states filed a lawsuit demanding that courts declare the federal government's "reciprocal tariffs" illegal and block their implementation.




Deep Throat

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Trump wasted not one second after US forces grabbed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. He made it clear that he was eyeing the country's oil riches. But here's the catch: America's biggest oil companies aren't biting. Industry analysts confirm what the companies won't say publicly—even if these firms wanted back in, Venezuela's crumbling infrastructure and chaos on the ground mean Trump's fantasy of quick oil profits is far from easy to come true.

Trump promises Big Oil will pour billions into Venezuela. The oil giants say they never got the memo. AP Photo

Trump promises Big Oil will pour billions into Venezuela. The oil giants say they never got the memo. AP Photo

Minutes after the military operation wrapped, Trump stood at a press conference making promises. Major American oil companies would pour into Venezuela, he declared, investing billions to fix the country's shattered oil infrastructure "and start making money for the country". Meanwhile, he reiterated that the US embargo on all Venezuelan oil remains in full effect.

Those sanctions have crushed Venezuelan exports into paralysis. Documents from Venezuela's state oil company and sources close to the situation confirm storage tanks and floating facilities filled up fast over recent weeks. Multiple oil fields now face forced production cuts.

White House Courts Reluctant Executives

Reuters revealed the Trump administration plans meetings this week with executives from major US oil companies. The agenda: pushing these firms to restore and grow oil production in Venezuela following the military action. The White House sees this as a critical step toward getting American oil giants back into the country to tap the world's largest proven oil reserves.

But Trump's eagerness hasn't translated into corporate enthusiasm. Several major US oil companies are taking a wait-and-see approach, watching Venezuela closely. ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron all denied any prior communication with the White House about Venezuela. This directly contradicts Trump's claim over the weekend that he had already met with "all" US oil firms both before and after Maduro's capture.

Venezuela sits on roughly 17% of the world's proven oil reserves—first place globally. Yet US sanctions and other pressures have gutted its production capacity. Current output runs around 1 million barrels daily, barely 0.8% of global crude production.

World's largest oil reserves, strangled by US sanctions. Trump's quick-profit scheme hits a hard reality. AP Photo

World's largest oil reserves, strangled by US sanctions. Trump's quick-profit scheme hits a hard reality. AP Photo

Only One Company Stays Put

Chevron remains the sole major US oil company still operating Venezuelan fields. The firm has worked in Venezuela for over a century, producing heavy crude that feeds refineries along the Gulf Coast and beyond. A company spokesperson said on the 3rd that the current priority centers on "ensuring employee safety, well-being, and asset integrity," adding they "will continue to operate in accordance with laws and regulations."

ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips previously invested in Venezuela. In the 1970s, the Venezuelan government nationalized the oil industry, reopened to foreign investment by century's end, then demanded in 2007 that Western companies developing oil fields form joint ventures with Venezuelan firms under Venezuelan control. ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips pulled out. Neither company has responded to Trump's latest remarks about US capital entering Venezuela.

One oil industry executive told Reuters that companies fear discussing potential Venezuelan business at White House-organized meetings due to antitrust concerns.

Benefits Flow to First Mover

Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin America Energy Program at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, expects Chevron would likely benefit first if Venezuela opens oil projects to the US. Other oil companies, he notes, will watch Venezuela's political situation closely and observe the operating environment and contract compliance before making moves.

Mark Christian, business director at an Oklahoma energy consulting firm, lays out the baseline: US companies will only return to Venezuela if they're certain of investment returns and receive at least minimal security guarantees. Lifting sanctions on Venezuela stands as a prerequisite for US companies re-entering that market.

Reality Check on Oil Profits

Even with sanctions lifted, the Trump administration won't find making money from invasion-acquired oil that easy.

 Industry insiders admit large-scale restoration of Venezuelan oil production demands years of time and billions in investment, while confronting major obstacles: dilapidated infrastructure, uncertain political prospects, legal risks, and long-term US policy uncertainty.

Peter McNally, global head of industry analysis at Third Bridge, said, "There are still many questions that need to be answered about the state of the Venezuelan oil industry, but it is clear that it will take tens of billions of dollars to turn that industry around." He then added that it could take at least a decade of Western oil majors committing to the country.

Ed Hirs, an energy expert at the University of Houston, pointed to a pattern: US military invasions of other countries in recent years haven't delivered substantial returns to American companies. The history of Iraq and Libya may repeat itself in Venezuela.

Recommended Articles