Trump teases major tariff rollback on China—Could this end the trade war?

Why is Donald Trump Signalling a Shift on China Tariffs Now?

In a marked departure from his previously combative stance, U.S. President Donald Trump has hinted at a potential reduction in the punitive tariffs imposed on Chinese imports, raising hopes for a possible resolution to one of the most prolonged and destabilising trade conflicts of the modern era. Speaking publicly about the tariff regime, Trump acknowledged that the current rates—reaching up to 145% on certain Chinese goods—could be reduced “substantially,” though he was quick to add that they would not be completely eliminated. This suggestion has prompted fresh speculation about a thaw in U.S.-China economic relations and renewed diplomatic overtures behind closed doors.

Trump’s remarks come against the backdrop of escalating inflationary pressure in the United States, ongoing supply chain disruptions, and a broader realignment of global trade. The public sentiment appears to be shifting, with key economic stakeholders advocating for a recalibration of trade policy. While no definitive policy blueprint has been presented, the strategic shift signals recognition that current trade frictions may be causing more harm than leverage.

What Was the Original Purpose of the Tariffs on China?

The tariffs were first introduced under the Trump administration in 2018 as part of a broader economic strategy to address long-standing grievances related to China’s trade practices. At the heart of the dispute were allegations of intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers, and unfair subsidies provided by the Chinese government to domestic industries. These practices, according to U.S. policymakers, created an uneven playing field for American businesses and undermined global standards of fair competition.

The U.S.-China trade war quickly escalated into one of the most consequential geopolitical and economic stand-offs in recent history. Tariffs were levied in waves, covering hundreds of billions of dollars in bilateral trade. While Trump repeatedly touted the tariffs as a tool for economic rebalancing and national strength, critics noted that the brunt of the cost was being passed on to American importers and consumers. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank both cautioned that the tariff escalation was slowing global growth.

How Have the Tariffs Affected the U.S. and Global Economy?

The effects of the U.S.-China tariffs have rippled far beyond bilateral trade. Initially envisioned as a tactical measure to curb China’s economic rise and protect domestic manufacturing, the tariffs ended up contributing to supply shortages and price inflation, particularly in sectors reliant on Chinese inputs such as electronics, machinery, and consumer goods. Multinational corporations scrambled to diversify their sourcing networks, resulting in production shifts to countries like Vietnam, India, and Mexico—but not without cost or complexity.

Within the United States, small and medium enterprises bore the brunt of tariff pass-through costs, while farmers suffered from retaliatory tariffs imposed by Beijing on U.S. agricultural exports. Federal relief packages and subsidies were required to buffer the impact, underscoring the wide-reaching economic consequences of the policy. On a global level, the trade war also pressured export-led economies and created uncertainty in global markets, with stock indices swinging in response to each new tariff announcement or diplomatic development.

What Are the Political and Strategic Implications of Trump’s Statement?

By signalling a willingness to reduce tariffs, Trump appears to be acknowledging the economic downsides of prolonged trade hostilities, particularly in an election context where economic performance will again be under intense scrutiny. The statement also aligns with broader geopolitical recalibrations, as the U.S. seeks to strengthen alliances and rebuild economic partnerships that were strained during the trade war years.

Importantly, Trump’s statement was carefully worded to preserve leverage while extending an olive branch. He stressed that the tariffs would not be eliminated outright and suggested any reduction would depend on reciprocal concessions from Beijing. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent echoed these sentiments, describing the current tariff structure as a “de facto trade embargo” that was no longer sustainable. However, he cautioned that no unilateral tariff reductions would be offered without meaningful steps from China, reiterating that any resolution would require mutual accommodation.

How Has China Responded to the Possibility of Tariff Reduction?

While the Chinese government has not issued an official response to Trump’s recent statement, prior reactions to similar overtures have been cautious and pragmatic. Beijing has consistently insisted that any agreement must be based on mutual respect and equality, and it has resisted negotiations under perceived coercion. The Chinese side has also maintained that U.S. tariffs were a form of economic bullying that violated World Trade Organization norms.

Even so, China has indicated in the past that it is open to dialogue, particularly if it leads to greater market access for its exporters and a more predictable trade framework. However, sticking points such as technology transfers, digital trade governance, and state support for strategic sectors remain contentious. Whether the two countries can bridge these divides remains to be seen.

Could This Lead to a New U.S.-China Trade Agreement?

Any movement toward a new U.S.-China trade agreement would face significant hurdles. Previous efforts, including the Phase One trade deal signed in January 2020, ultimately failed to address the core structural issues in the relationship. While that agreement included commitments on agricultural purchases, intellectual property enforcement, and currency transparency, it lacked mechanisms for deeper reforms in areas such as state subsidies or cybersecurity standards.

A fresh agreement would likely need to address these issues more comprehensively to garner bipartisan support in the U.S. and be deemed credible by international observers. That said, the mere prospect of renewed negotiations and tariff reductions could stabilise financial markets and improve business sentiment globally.

What Does This Mean for the Business and Investment Community?

From the perspective of global business leaders and institutional investors, Trump’s openness to easing tariffs could represent a pivotal turning point. Reduced tariffs would not only lower input costs for manufacturers and retailers but also mitigate the geopolitical risk premium currently factored into global supply chain planning. Moreover, trade stability would likely translate into improved equity valuations, especially for firms with deep exposure to U.S.-China trade.

Investors will be closely watching for tangible developments, such as the initiation of formal negotiations or draft frameworks for a new trade pact. In the interim, any signals of progress—such as bilateral visits, business forums, or diplomatic exchanges—are expected to influence market sentiment.