How Trump’s tariff war dismantled US trade credibility

Dr Imran Khalid

President Donald Trump’s erratic dance with tariffs continues to confound not just global markets but even his own team. On April 22, in a move that underscored the White House’s habitual policy incoherence, Trump declared that the “very high” tariffs on Chinese goods would soon be “substantially reduced.” This comes after days of raising them dramatically at the start of the month, then selectively exempting key electronics sectors – moves that reflect both strategic confusion and political expediency. There was no solemn excuse for this U-turn, of course. There never is. But Trump’s tone, uncharacteristically tempered, spoke volumes. For an administration that has long relished the adversarial theatre of economic brinkmanship, the shift reads like a quiet concession: the strategy has failed to yield the wins it promised. The tariffs – which at one point soared to 145% on some Chinese imports – have not yet coerced Beijing into concessions, nor they appear rescuing American manufacturing from its decades-long decline in the near future.

The timing of Trump’s admission is no coincidence – it aligns with growing signals from Treasury Scott Bessent that the tariff war with China is “unsustainable.” In a private summit on the same day as Trump’s public reversal, Bessent attempted to soften the edges of the administration’s rhetoric, suggesting that the trade war would “de-escalate” even though no formal negotiations with Beijing were underway. It was a diplomatic smokescreen for a fundamental truth: the American tariff regime, under Trump’s watch, has become a parody of strategic statecraft. Perhaps the most telling detail in this week’s series of developments is not what was said in Washington, but what hasn’t been heard from Beijing. Unlike other nations caught in Trump’s tariff dragnet – countries that have eagerly sought exemptions, side deals, or at least a seat at the negotiating table – China has so far refrained from requesting any meetings. It is a calculated silence. In Beijing’s reading, Trump’s inconsistencies speak louder than his tariffs.

China’s Ministry of Commerce minced no words in its response. Pointing out that tariffs on certain Chinese exports to the U.S. had ballooned to an eye-watering 245%, the ministry accused Washington of weaponizing trade in a manner devoid of strategic logic. It characterized Trump’s numbers game as little more than performative populism – an apt description for an administration that confuses spectacle for strategy. This entire saga reveals a deeper malaise at the heart of U.S. trade policy: the abandonment of long-term thinking in favor of erratic theatrics. There was a time when American economic diplomacy, for all its flaws, followed discernible objectives – liberalization, multilateralism, strategic containment. Now, under Trump, it is driven more by press cycles and poll numbers than by principled engagement or economic logic.

The irony here is particularly bitter. Trump campaigned – and governs -as the self-styled defender of American workers. Yet his tariff policies have imposed higher costs on the very people he claims to champion. American manufacturers dependent on foreign components have seen their production costs steadily climb. Farmers, caught in retaliatory crossfire from Beijing, have been forced into dependency on government bailouts. And consumers have felt the sting of higher prices across retail sectors. What we’re witnessing isn’t collateral damage from a coherent strategy – it’s the signature chaos of economic self-sabotage.

Worse still, Trump’s exemptions for electronics – devices that constitute a significant portion of U.S.-China trade – only add to the incoherence. Why carve out Apple’s supply chain while leaving steel and solar panels to twist in the wind? If the goal is national economic security, why selectively protect the tech sector, which is perhaps the most vulnerable to intellectual property theft and geopolitical dependency? These contradictions betray the transactional instincts that guide Trump’s approach: punitive where it is politically safe, lenient where corporate interests overlap with electoral math.

All this would be merely chaotic if it weren’t also dangerous. Trade, after all, is not a zero-sum game. It is a mechanism of interdependence that, for better or worse, shapes geopolitical alliances and economic ecosystems. The U.S.-China trade war has already sent ripples across global markets, strained ties with long-standing allies, and eroded American credibility in trade diplomacy. And now, with Trump signaling retreat under the guise of recalibration, it is hard not to see the entire episode as a self-inflicted wound.

Yet this, too, is classic Trump: to sow conflict and confusion only to emerge, eventually, as the “great negotiator” who ends the very crisis he created. We saw it with North Korea. We saw it with NAFTA. And now, we see it again with tariffs. t there’s a palpable fatigue around the world with this familiar routine. The damage to America’s international image cannot be reversed with a speech and a smile. Consistency, reliability, and respect for the rules of engagement – these are the currencies of global leadership. In their absence, even the most powerful economy can find itself isolated. One wonders, too, what comes next. China, for all its provocations, has shown strategic patience. It has not panicked in response to Trump’s volatility. It has not begged for relief. It has waited, calculating that chaos is its own kind of leverage. In that, Beijing may have read the game better than Washington.

This moment, then, is not just a turning point for Trump’s trade agenda – it is a referendum on American governance in a globalized world. A world where power is no longer measured solely in economic volume or military might, but in strategic coherence, institutional memory, and the ability to negotiate without bullying. For now, the Trump administration’s tariff whiplash serves as a cautionary tale. It is a reminder that power, when wielded without purpose, invites decay. That policy, when driven by impulse, devolves into farce. And that leadership, when hollowed out by ego, ceases to lead at all.