Trump slams 104% tariff on China as Beijing defies deadline—‘We’re waiting for their call’

The United States has significantly escalated its trade confrontation with China by imposing a 104% tariff on a broad range of Chinese goods. This new duty, effective from 12:01 AM Eastern Time on Wednesday, was triggered by Beijing‘s failure to meet a U.S.-imposed deadline to withdraw retaliatory tariffs on American products. The deadline, set unilaterally by President Donald Trump for noon on Tuesday, was part of a broader strategy to pressure China into renegotiating what he has described as “unfair” trade practices.

The White House confirmed that the tariff hike is the direct result of China’s refusal to roll back duties that were increased in response to earlier U.S. tariffs. According to Trump, the retaliatory moves by Beijing amount to a 34% increase above what he called “already long-term trading abuses.” The administration had warned that if these measures were not reversed by April 8, the U.S. would respond decisively. The additional 50% tariff announced last week now brings the total levy to 104%.

This action represents one of the most aggressive tariff moves since Trump re-entered the White House in 2025, reviving trade tensions that defined much of his first term. The move has drawn strong rebuke from Chinese officials and raised questions about the long-term economic and geopolitical impact of the growing divide between the world’s two largest economies.

How has China responded to the new U.S. trade measures?

China has rejected the ultimatum, calling the U.S. pressure tactics counterproductive and a threat to global stability. Speaking to Agence France-Presse, Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for China’s embassy in Washington, stated that China “will firmly safeguard its legitimate rights and interests,” and warned that threatening or coercing China into concessions would not succeed. Liu reiterated that Beijing sees the path to engagement as one of mutual respect and not dictated timelines or threats.

The response marks a continuation of China’s approach to earlier episodes in the trade war, particularly during Trump’s first term, when similar tariff escalations were met with reciprocal duties on American agricultural, automotive, and technology products. The latest development suggests that Beijing is likely to retaliate again, potentially targeting high-profile U.S. exports or services industries where American firms dominate.

What is Trump’s broader trade strategy?

Speaking through White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, the Trump administration reaffirmed its commitment to a “custom, tailor-made” approach to trade deals. Leavitt said negotiations with each country will be designed around “America’s needs,” which may include conditions on military presence, foreign aid, and other strategic interests beyond traditional trade metrics.

According to Leavitt, approximately 70 countries have contacted the U.S. since Trump’s second term began, seeking to initiate trade talks or revise existing agreements. “Countries are falling over themselves to reform their unfair trade,” she said, framing the surge in interest as a testament to the strength of the U.S. economy and Trump’s negotiating leverage. She also characterized Trump as having a “spine of steel,” indicating the administration is prepared for further confrontation if necessary.

In messaging that echoed previous themes from the first Trump administration, Leavitt claimed that many countries had grown “filthy rich” by imposing tariffs on American-made products while benefiting from U.S. market access. Trump has made clear that he views the current global trading system as imbalanced and believes hardline tactics are required to reset the terms of international commerce.

Could this new tariff spark a broader global trade disruption?

The 104% tariff announcement has already begun to rattle global financial markets. The SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) fell 1.45%, while the iShares China Large-Cap ETF (FXI) slipped 1.3%. Technology and e-commerce firms bore the brunt, with shares of Alibaba Group Holding Ltd plunging 6.25% amid fears of heightened restrictions and deteriorating U.S.-China ties.

Dan Ives, a senior analyst at Wedbush Securities, described the tariff escalation as a “Category 5 price storm” for American consumers, especially in the electronics sector. He warned that prolonged tensions could drive up costs for imported goods and disrupt established supply chains across multiple industries.

This sentiment reflects broader concerns among economists who caution that aggressive tariffs can inadvertently hurt domestic consumers and businesses. Industries reliant on Chinese components or manufacturing—such as electronics, automotive, and pharmaceuticals—may face higher input costs, potentially leading to inflationary pressures and reduced competitiveness.

What role do geopolitical tensions and foreign policy play?

The latest tariff increase also comes amid a complex geopolitical landscape that blends trade, diplomacy, and military strategy. In a post on Truth Social, Trump disclosed that he recently spoke with South Korea‘s acting president and concluded the message with a remark directed at Beijing: “China also wants to make a deal, badly, but they don’t know how to get it started. We are waiting for their call. It will happen!”

This statement indicates that trade negotiations may be linked with broader foreign policy goals, possibly including alliance-building in Asia, defense arrangements, or restrictions on Chinese investments in U.S. critical sectors. Trump has historically framed trade imbalances not just as economic issues but as matters of national security.

The possibility of linking trade policy with military and diplomatic leverage could further complicate negotiations. China has remained steadfast in asserting its sovereignty and has pushed back against what it views as external interference in its internal affairs, especially concerning Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the South China Sea.

What historical context shapes this trade conflict?

The current tariff imposition is the latest chapter in a long-standing trade dispute between the U.S. and China that gained momentum during Trump’s first presidency. The 2018-2020 U.S.-China trade war saw hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of goods hit with reciprocal tariffs, disrupting global supply chains and prompting multinational corporations to rethink their sourcing strategies.

Although a “Phase One” trade agreement was reached in early 2020, which included commitments from China to increase purchases of U.S. agricultural and energy products, enforcement mechanisms were weak. By 2021, much of the deal’s implementation had stalled, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump’s return to power in 2025 has seen a revival of this confrontational trade stance, marked by unilateral deadlines and punitive tariffs. Unlike the previous term, the new approach appears even more aggressive, with less emphasis on negotiated settlements and more on decisive action.

Where do U.S.-China trade relations go from here?

Whether the 104% tariff leads to renewed negotiations or deeper economic decoupling remains uncertain. While Trump has signaled that he remains open to a deal, he appears committed to forcing China to initiate contact under pressure—a strategy that may not align with Beijing’s diplomatic playbook.

Industry leaders, particularly in technology and manufacturing, are closely watching for signs of retaliatory measures. Some firms have already begun diversifying supply chains to other Asian countries, such as Vietnam, India, and Malaysia, to mitigate the risks associated with U.S.-China trade volatility.

Meanwhile, the White House appears confident that other countries will view this escalation not as a deterrent, but as an opportunity. With 70 countries reportedly seeking new or revised trade talks, the administration may view these bilateral deals as a more manageable alternative to traditional multilateral agreements, like the World Trade Organization frameworks, which Trump has long criticized.

The coming weeks will likely determine whether China responds with reciprocal tariffs or chooses to re-engage in trade talks. In either case, the stakes remain high—not just for the U.S. and China, but for the global economy navigating an increasingly fragmented trade landscape.