
For US and China, a risky game of chicken with no off-ramp in sight
Advertisement
China's new tariffs, which will take effect Thursday, mean all American goods shipped to China will face an additional 84 percent import tax. On Wednesday afternoon, Trump retaliated, raising tariffs on Chinese exports to 125 percent. Both figures would have been unimaginable a few weeks ago.
With China's top leader, Xi Jinping, and Trump locked in a game of chicken -- each unwilling to risk looking weak by making a concession -- the trade fight could spiral even further out of control, inflaming tensions over other areas of competition such as technology and the fate of Taiwan, the self-governing island claimed by Beijing.
Trump's bare-knuckle tactics make him a singular force in US politics. But in Xi, he faces a hardened opponent who survived the turmoil of China's late-20th-century political purges, and who views the United States' competitive tactics as ultimately aimed at subverting the ruling Communist Party's legitimacy.
Advertisement
'Trump has never gone into a back-alley brawl where the other side is willing to brawl and use the same kind of tactics as him,' said Scott Kennedy, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. 'For China, this is about their sovereignty. This is about the Communist Party's hold on power. For Trump, it might just be a political campaign.'
China's economy, which was already in a vulnerable state because of a property crisis, now faces the specter of a global recession and a devastating slowdown in trade, its defining industry and main driver of growth. In a sign of Beijing's growing unease, Chinese censors appeared to be blocking social media searches of hashtags that referred to the number 104, as in the size of the US tariffs before Trump's latest announcement.
'This is a huge shock to the China-US economic relationship, like an earthquake,' Wu Xinbo, dean of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, said of the tariffs imposed Wednesday. 'It remains to be seen if this is temporary turmoil or a long-term unavoidable trend.'
To be sure, a US-China decoupling is still far from becoming reality. Chinese and American companies such as TikTok and Starbucks are both still entrenched in each other's countries. And Chinese banks remain hitched to the US dollar-dominated financial system.
China and the United States are still at the brinkmanship stage, Kennedy said, each trying to force the other to offer a deal on bended knee. But the spat could become more dangerous if the Trump administration goes after Chinese financial institutions -- for instance, by rescinding the licenses of Chinese banks in the United States or booting them off the international payments system SWIFT.
Advertisement
In pushing back against Trump's moves, Beijing has cast itself as a victim of unfair US trade practices and protectionism. The irony is that China has done the same, if not worse, over the decades by limiting foreign investment and subsidizing Chinese firms.
Xi himself has made no direct comment about the latest US tariffs. On Wednesday afternoon, though, shortly after they took effect, Chinese state media announced that he gave a speech in a meeting with the other six members of the Politburo Standing Committee, the apex of power in China, as well as other top officials. In it, Xi called on officials to bolster ties with China's neighbors and 'strengthen industrial and supply chain cooperation.'
A spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, Lin Jian, did address the new tariffs, saying Wednesday that China would 'never accept such arrogant and bullying behavior' and would 'definitely retaliate.' The new tariffs were announced hours later.
Any fracture between the Chinese and American economies will be felt across the world. Business was the bedrock of the bilateral relationship for nearly five decades. Without it, their engagement on other global issues, such as security, climate change, and future pandemics and financial crises, would likely stall.
China has tried to downplay its vulnerability to the economic chaos unleashed by the Trump administration. It says it has reduced its reliance on US markets for its exports and that its economy is getting more self-sufficient, especially when it comes to developing homegrown technologies.
Advertisement
But that papers over serious problems in the Chinese economy, which has been largely stagnant because of a collapse in the property market. Moreover, Trump's assault on the global trading system, which includes targeting countries such as Vietnam where Chinese companies had opened factories to circumvent earlier US tariffs, strikes at the core of one of China's only current economic bright spots.
The fallout from the trade disruption will hurt the United States, which relies on China for all sorts of manufactured goods, but will do more damage to China, said Wang Yuesheng, director of the Institute of International Economics at Peking University.
'The impact on China is mainly that Chinese products have nowhere to go,' Wang said. That will ravage export-oriented companies making things such as furniture, clothing, toys, and home appliances along China's eastern seaboard, which largely exist to serve American consumers.
Beijing's strategy now is to push back at the United States and hope Trump succumbs to domestic pressure to reverse course, said Evan Medeiros, a professor of Asian studies at Georgetown University who served as an Asia adviser to former president Barack Obama.
'They know that if they give in to pressure they will get more pressure,' he said. 'They will resist it with the belief that China can withstand more pain than they can.'
This article originally appeared in
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Large crowds demonstrate, march at anti-Trump 'No Kings' protest in Denver
Large crowds peacefully gathered in front of the Colorado State Capitol in Denver Saturday to take part in one of several anti-Trump 'No Kings' rallies in Colorado and across the country.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals panel scrutinizes judge's block on Trump National Guard deployment
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) got a frosty reception at a federal appeals court Tuesday afternoon as it scrutinized a lower judge's ruling blocking President Trump's federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appeared inclined to let Trump maintain control of the guardsmen, weighing the scope of the president's discretion in times of conflict and whether the courts have the authority to intervene at all. The judges seemed to believe Supreme Court precedent provides the president with broad authority to declare emergencies that can trigger the ability for him to deploy the troops. 'Those are maybe good arguments for the Supreme Court to reconsider those cases,' Judge Eric Miller, one of Trump appointees on the panel, told California's lawyer. 'But they've told us repeatedly that when there is a case that is directly applicable to an issue, even if we think it's been undercut by later developments…we're supposed to follow the applicable case and leave it to them to overrule it,' Miller added. The judges repeatedly stressed an 1827 Supreme Court decision, Martin v. Mott, that gives the president exclusive authority to decide whether an exigency justifying the use of military power has arisen. Samuel Harbourt, California's attorney, insisted 'it was a very different case.' 'If we were writing on a blank slate, I would tend to agree with you,' Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Obama, told him. 'But the problem that I see for you is that Mott seem to be dealing with very similar phrasing about whenever there is an invasion, then the President has discretion, and it seemingly rejected the exact argument that you're making.' Judge Mark Bennett, the other Trump appointee, questioned whether the courts could intervene in the Los Angeles deployment even if there was some limited role for judicial review. 'With the facts here and the language in Martin v. Mott, how can that test be met here?' he asked. Trump deployed the National Guard over a week ago as protests erupted in Los Angeles over the administration's immigration raids, devolving at times into violence. He cited a statute that allows the guard to be federalized when there is a rebellion or when the president can't execute federal law with regular forces. Tuesday's arguments followed a district judge's order directing Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of former President Clinton and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, called Trump's takeover illegal and said it exceeded the scope of the statute. The Justice Department appealed the ruling within minutes of its release, and the 9th Circuit panel granted the government's request to temporarily halt the ruling as its request for a longer pause is considered. Brett Shumate, who represented the government at Tuesday's arguments, said Breyer 'improperly second-guessed' Trump's judgment about the need to call up the guard, interfering with his commander-in-chief powers. 'It upends the military chain of command. It gives state governors veto power over the President's military orders. It puts article three judges on a collision course with the commander in chief. And it endangers lives,' Shumate said. California also argues that regardless of whether the triggering conditions were met, Trump did not follow the statute's mandate to issue his order 'through' the state's governor. California says that requires Newsom to consent, which he did not. But at least some of the judges appeared skeptical of that argument, too. 'It's a very roundabout way, I mean, of imposing a consultation requirement,' said Miller. The appeals court could now rule at any time. Before adjourning, the panel noted Breyer is moving quickly to a Friday hearing on whether to grant a longer injunction. His ruling would moot the current appeal. And if the administration loses, they asked for the deployment to remain intact until they have an opportunity to file an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court. Updated on June 18 at 5:58 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard deployed, for now
A federal appeals court panel late Thursday allowed President Trump to keep the National Guard deployed in Los Angeles, for now. The three-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously extended its pause of a judge's order finding Trump's deployment illegal and forcing him to return control of the troops to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). 'We emphasize, however, that our decision addresses only the facts before us. And although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,' the appeals panel wrote in its unsigned, 38-page decision. The panel said it disagreed with the administration that Trump's decision isn't reviewable by the courts, but the judges acknowledged they must be 'highly deferential.' 'Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,' the opinion reads. Trump has sent in thousands of National Guard troops to protect immigration officers in the wake of recent protests in Los Angeles, which at times have devolved into violence. The move quickly sparked a lawsuit from Newsom and the state's attorney general. Though the 9th Circuit's decision marks a victory for Trump in the legal battle, it may be short-lived. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who issued last week's decision invalidating the deployment, is set to hold a hearing Friday on whether to issue an indefinite injunction. Breyer is an appointee of former President Clinton and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. In deploying the troops, Trump cited a statute that allows him to federalize the National Guard whenever there is a rebellion or when he cannot execute federal laws with regular forces. The appeals panel said Thursday it agreed the latter trigger was likely met, so it didn't need to reach the question of whether there was a rebellion. 'Plaintiffs' own submissions state that some protesters threw objects, including Molotov cocktails, and vandalized property. According to the declarations submitted by Defendants, those activities significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute the laws,' the opinion reads. The three-judge appeals panel comprised two Trump-nominated judges, Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, and Judge Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Biden. The 9th Circuit also rejected Newsom's argument Trump failed a statutory requirement to issue his deployment order 'through' the governor. Newsom contended it established a requirement that he consent, but the appeals panel said notifying the adjutant general of the California National Guard was likely sufficient. The panel stressed the statute 'does not give governors any veto power over the President's federalization decision.' 'The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court. The president is not a king and not above the law,' Newsom said in a statement. 'We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,' he continued. Updated June 20 at 8:30 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.