[ Ripi Bagra ]
In a dramatic escalation of the ongoing US-China trade war, the Trump administration announced on Tuesday evening that China now faces tariffs as high as 245% on all United States imports. This latest measure follows a series of tariff increases that have pushed US duties on Chinese products to levels not seen in decades. The administration’s fact sheet explains that while previous actions had already imposed a 145% tariff on certain Chinese goods – combining a new 125% “reciprocal” tariff with an existing 20% levy – the current policy boosts that number to 245% as a direct response to Chinese retaliatory measures.
The White House’ statement noted that on ‘Liberation Day’, President Donald Trump initially imposed a 10% tariff on goods from all nations that levied high tariffs on the United States. However, as negotiations progressed with more than 75 countries to negotiate new trade deals, those tariffs were paused for all except China. According to the fact sheet, “The individualised higher tariffs are currently paused amid these discussions, except for China, which retaliated. China now faces up to a 245% tariff on imports to the United States as a result of its retaliatory actions.” This decision underscores the administration’s intention to isolate China economically from other nations that are willing to negotiate and to use tariffs as a coercive tool for compelling Beijing to alter its trade practices.
Chinese officials have not shied away from attacking this approach. A spokesperson for China’s ministry of commerce, He Yadong, publicly demanded that Washington “completely cancel” its policy of reciprocal tariffs, calling the measures misguided and a form of economic bullying. Meanwhile, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian responded sharply during press briefings, stating, “The trade war was initiated by the US,” and when pressed about the new tax rate, he remarked, “You can ask the US side for the specific tax rate figures.” Such statements signal Beijing’s determination to contest the US measures and to shift the narrative by blaming Washington for the escalating conflict.
Analysts view these developments as reflective of a deeper geopolitical struggle between two global power centres. For Washington, using tariffs is intended to force China into concessions over issues like intellectual property theft, market restrictions, and opaque state subsidies. The Trump administration has argued that China’s unfair practices have contributed to the US trade deficit, which has reached figures exceeding $382 billion in recent years. US officials claim that by making Chinese products prohibitively expensive they can pressure Beijing into negotiating a more balanced and reciprocal trade relationship.
On the other side, Beijing’s response underscores a transformation in its strategy. In earlier stages of the trade dispute, Chinese diplomats had pursued high-level dialogues with Washington, promoting what state media described as a “win-win” trading relationship. Optimistic observers had even held out hope for a grand bargain over trade, TikTok, and, perhaps indirectly, even issues related to Taiwan. However, faced with what it deemed as persistent US aggression, China has shifted to a policy of resolute defiance. Retaliating, Chinese authorities raised their own tariffs on US goods to 125% and banned the export of certain critical materials used by aerospace manufacturers and military contractors. This move not only acts as a countermeasure but also serves to project Chinese determination to resist what it perceives as unjustified interference.
The escalating tariff numbers and blunt rhetoric have now turned trade policy into a potent instrument of geopolitical signalling. The Trump administration’s use of numbers illustrates an aggressive strategy designed to compel China to change its economic conduct. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has insisted that such measures are necessary to protect American industry. His stance, encapsulated by his repeated call for “making things in America,” is supported by those who argue that lowering China’s market access will force domestic manufacturers to re-shore production.
Yet the practical impact of these policies remains hotly debated. Economic experts warn that while extremely high tariffs might force renegotiation of trade terms, they could also backfire by disrupting long-established global supply chains. US importers, facing suddenly heavy duties on goods produced in China, may eventually transfer the extra costs to American consumers. This could lead to higher prices for electronics, textiles, and myriad other products that have long been part of everyday life in the United States. With many US companies heavily dependent on Chinese inputs, the far-reaching consequences of such tariffs might extend well beyond the immediate trade deficit.
Beyond pure economics, these actions carry significant ideological weight. Chinese propaganda officials have played a prominent role in shaping public perception of the dispute. State media outlets have circulated defiant clips featuring former leader Mao Zedong declaring, “We will never yield. We’ll fight until we completely triumph.” Such imagery is a deliberate effort to invoke national pride and resistance, framing the trade war as not just an economic battle but as a fight for China’s sovereignty on the global stage. This hardline rhetoric has resonated domestically, reinforcing the narrative that Beijing is prepared to defend its interests at all costs.
At the same time, Chinese diplomats have extended their outreach beyond Beijing. Sources indicate that officials have engaged in discussions with governments in Europe, Japan, and South Korea – countries also affected by US tariffs – in an effort to build a coalition that opposes Washington’s unilateral measures. Foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian was quoted as saying, “If the US puts its own interests over the public good of the international community and sacrifices all countries’ legitimate interests for its own hegemony, it will for sure meet stronger opposition from the international community.” This diplomatic push is designed to portray the US not as a partner in global stability, but as a bully forcing its policies on other nations.
The heightened tariff regime thus serves multiple functions. It is a punitive economic measure, a bargaining chip, and, importantly, a symbol of China’s refusal to bend to American pressure. As both sides double down on their positions, the broader international community faces a dilemma: whether to support the US’ protectionist policies or to rally around China in defence of a multilateral and egalitarian trade order.
Looking ahead, the outcome of this escalating dispute remains uncertain. In the short term, the new tariffs are likely to worsen supply-chain disruptions and contribute to higher consumer prices in the United States. In the longer term, if diplomatic channels remain stalled, the conflict could trigger a realignment of global trade networks. Countries that have traditionally aligned with the United States may begin to reconsider their positions, seeking instead to accommodate Beijing’s rising influence.
For China, the current posture is as much about domestic consumption of national pride as it is about economic strategy. The aggressive measures and forceful public statements underscore the determination of Chinese leaders to counterbalance US actions not only with tariffs but also with robust political messaging. Beijing is demonstrating that it is no longer prepared to seek a negotiated settlement at any cost; it is willing to use every tool at its disposal to assert its interests.
In this evolving battle for global influence, the numbers and rhetoric from both Washington and Beijing illustrate a profound shift in the international economic order. The imposition of 245% tariffs on Chinese imports is a stark indicator of the high stakes involved – a power move with the potential to redraw the rules of global trade and reshape longstanding alliances in the years ahead. (The contributor is an independent researcher)
