White House Adviser’s “Vampire” Remark Sowing Discord in UK–China Relations

LONDON - As the United Kingdom and the United States navigate fraught tariff negotiations, a senior White House official has injected a new note of discord into transatlantic relations.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Peter Navarro, President Trump’s trade adviser and an architect of the administration’s combative tariff strategy, accused Britain of acting as a “compliant servant” to Beijing in its efforts to attract Chinese investment. He went so far as to liken China to a “vampire,” warning that deepening economic ties with Beijing could leave Britain exposed and vulnerable.

“If the Chinese vampire can’t suck the American blood, it’s going to suck the UK blood and the EU blood,” Navarro said, casting China’s global economic ambitions as a threat to Western prosperity. “This is a very dangerous time for the world economies with respect to exposure to China”

Navarro’s remarks arrive at a delicate moment for British officials, who are seeking to balance closer economic ties with both the European Union and China, even as they court a new trade agreement with Washington. Since Labour’s victory in last July’s general election, the government has promoted what it calls a “balanced” and “pragmatic” approach to China, insisting that isolating Beijing is neither realistic nor in Britain’s interest. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves and Foreign Secretary David Lammy have both traveled to China in recent months, emphasizing the need for stable, mutually beneficial relations. Reeves has described London as the “natural home” for Chinese capital.

The British government, for its part, responded with a measured statement. “This administration will always approach UK–China relations with clear-eyed vigilance and a coherent strategy,” a spokesperson said, adding that Britain’s trade policy remains focused on long-term prosperity without compromising economic or national security.

Navarro’s comments have not gone unnoticed in the British press. A recent commentary in iNews, headlined “The UK is no ‘servant of China,’ but the US is not the only game in town,” argued that the White House adviser’s broadside signals growing American hostility toward Britain and its European allies. The article noted that Navarro’s rhetoric reflects deep-seated anxieties in Washington about China’s substantial and growing investments in the UK. According to a report by Grant Thornton, by 2023, nearly a thousand British companies were effectively Chinese-owned, supporting more than 59,000 jobs and generating over £116 billion in revenue - a “significant contribution” to the UK economy.

The iNews commentary went further, suggesting that Navarro’s hardline stance, while consistent with the Trump administration’s approach, also reveals American vulnerabilities in the ongoing trade war. The aggressive tariff policies championed by Trump and Navarro have destabilized global trade relations, the article argued, and Navarro may be hoping to pressure Britain into adopting a tougher line on China to secure a favorable US–UK deal - even if such tactics risk backlash at home.

Britain has not escaped the fallout from Washington’s tariff escalation. While facing a baseline US tariff of 10 percent, the UK remains subject to the 25 percent duties imposed by Trump on automobiles and steel and aluminum products. Despite his criticism of London’s China policy, Navarro acknowledged that UK–US trade talks are progressing, with US Vice President Vance recently expressing optimism about a swift agreement.

Meanwhile, the UK and EU are preparing for a summit on May 19, with both sides signaling plans to deepen cooperation on trade and security, including harmonizing food standards and carbon trading. Trump has previously accused the EU of deliberately obstructing US imports.

British officials have repeatedly emphasized that the UK need not choose between the EU and the US, as both are vital partners. Food safety standards remain a sticking point in UK–US trade talks; like the EU, the UK currently bans hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken. Navarro has warned that if Britain refuses to relax these standards, it will have to bear the costs.

Navarro, a fixture in Trump’s economic team, is known for his hardline views and his belief in tariffs as a primary policy tool. He has advocated for economic decoupling from China and that the world should isolate China. He has held senior roles throughout Trump’s presidency, describing his guiding principle as “wholeheartedly helping President Trump realize his vision,” while always being willing to “take the blame” but never seeking credit.

The Labour government of UK, in contrast, maintains a pragmatic, balanced approach toward China.

Chinese officials have pushed back forcefully. At a public event on May 3, Xie Feng, China’s ambassador to the United States, insisted that economic and trade relations are not a zero-sum game and warned that escalating tariffs would disrupt business, daily life, and global financial stability. “We do not want a tariff war, but we are not afraid of one,” Xie said. “We are determined to defend not only our legitimate rights, but also the international economic and trade order.”

Deep Throat

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

Trump has just signed an executive order on Monday (July 7) locally, sending letters to 14 countries extending the so-called "reciprocal tariffs" 90-day grace period, postponing the original July 9 deadline to August 1. With Trump's tariff threats looming over global commerce, a bold Canadian academic is making waves by suggesting the unthinkable: kick the United States out of the World Trade Organization entirely. It's a radical idea that's got people talking; frankly, it might not be as crazy as it sounds.

The Case for Calling America's Bluff

Professor Kristen Hopewell from the University of British Columbia (UBC) isn't mincing words. Writing in Politico Europe just as Trump was threatening to slap 50% tariffs on EU goods, she's arguing that the US has essentially become a "rogue state on trade" that's making a mockery of the entire global trading system.

Professor Kristen Hopewell from the University of British Columbia, Canada, published an article calling on member countries to kick the US out of the WTO to save the global economy.

The timing couldn't be more dramatic. Trump’s grace period to August 1 is nothing more than classic Trump theater, really. But Hopewell's point stands: this isn't just about one president's trade tantrums anymore. It's about whether the international trading system can survive when its most powerful member basically ignores all the rules.

The article notes that as early as Trump's first term, he vigorously promoted unilateral and trade protectionist policies, and his criticism of international organizations including the WTO and WHO has never ceased. As an organization that arbitrates trade disputes, the WTO has long been bound and constrained by the US.

Her argument is pretty straightforward when you think about it. The US has already paralyzed the WTO's appeals mechanism by blocking appointments to the Appellate Body. They've been trampling on international trade rules left and right. Remember the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act? So, no wonder why countries and scholars are bringing up the question: why should they get to keep enjoying all the benefits of WTO membership while acting like a bull in a china shop?

According to Article 10 of the Marrakesh Agreement regarding amendment provisions, if two-thirds of members vote to amend the agreement, the US can be expelled.

How You Actually Kick Someone Out of the WTO

Lets take another closer look from the legal perspective. The WTO doesn't exactly have a "you're expelled" button, but Hopewell points out there's a workaround through Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement. Basically, if two-thirds of WTO members vote to amend the agreement, they could theoretically boot the US out. If America refuses to accept the amendment, it would take a three-quarters majority.

It's never been done before, but then again, we've never had a situation quite like this either. We're talking about a complete abandonment of the post-war trading order that America itself helped create.

WTO members must unite to clearly reject Trump's trade aggression and indicate that this is intolerable, and the only way to maintain the system is to expel or suspend the US's WTO membership.

The Economic Reality Check

Now, you might think losing the US would kill the WTO, but Hopewell makes a compelling counterargument. American trade only accounts for about one-tenth of global trade, and the system could actually function better without a member that's constantly breaking the rules and encouraging others to do the same.

Think about it this way: if Trump can impose massive tariffs with impunity, why should anyone else follow WTO rules? The real danger isn't just America's protectionism - it's the contagion effect where other countries start thinking they can break the rules too.

Without WTO membership, the US would lose access to preferential tariffs, face unlimited punitive measures from other countries, and lose the intellectual property protections that underpin much of its high-tech dominance. That's some serious economic leverage right there.

The Bigger Picture: A World Without America?

Hopewell's proposal isn't just about punishment - it's about calling Trump's bluff. The president has repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the WTO anyway, so why not beat him to the punch? Strip away the membership benefits, make America an "international pariah" on trade, and suddenly those tariff threats might not look so appealing to American businesses.

The scholar argues that supporters of multilateral trade need to fight back and defend the system rather than just hoping Trump will eventually come around. With the WTO's dispute resolution mechanism already crippled by US obstruction, maybe it's time for the rest of the world to move forward without America.

It's a bold gambit, and there's no guarantee it would work. But as global trade teeters on the edge of a cliff, perhaps extraordinary times really do call for extraordinary measures.