Trump's trade policy: pushing back against China
Although not akin to the protectionist policies practiced by the United States through the 1930s, the trade war launched by the Trump administration since early 2018 challenges the principles and institutions of free trade.
The taxes and barriers currently put in place correspond to certain exceptional legal provisions in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) texts and rely on US trade laws predating the WTO. Trump’s trade policy enjoys a level of bipartisan consensus in the country today, centered around the idea of improving the conditions of trade with partners while hampering the growing power of China.
The "optimal tariff" theory explains the benefits for great economic powers such as the US of high customs duties, as a lever to compel trade partners to open their domestic markets or to renounce economic policies considered harmful to US interests. President Trump thus imposed the renegotiation of regional agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS). He also favors the negotiation of bilateral or regional agreements rather than the global mechanisms of the WTO, which he denounces.
Despite the hype, the consequences of this American-led return of protectionism could in fact remain modest for the World economy and even for international trade. In the case of the European Union (EU), where trade negotiators seem to be holding their ground in the face of Trump’s demands, the reduction of US-China trade could allow an increase of exports to the US. Above all, sorting out China’s fraudulent commercial practices and reforming WTO rules, as required by president Trump, would ultimately be a very positive step forward.
The return of tariffs and the proliferation of non-WTO trade agreements, however, remain contrary to the philosophy of openness that presided over international economic relations from 1945 to this day. Ultimately, two parallel trading systems – an American one and a Chinese one – could emerge.
Taken by surprise, China has yet to elaborate a clear response to what is certainly a challenge to its desire to expand its economic and commercial power around the world. China’s reaction will be decisive.
This content is available in French : "La politique commerciale de Trump : faire reculer la Chine"
Related centers and programs
Discover our other research centers and programsFind out more
Discover all our analysesJapan’s Takaichi Landslide: A New Face of Power
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has turned her exceptional popularity into a historic political victory. The snap elections of February 8 delivered an overwhelming majority for the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), driven by strong support from young voters, drawn to her iconoclastic and dynamic image, and from conservative voters reassured by her vision of national assertiveness. This popularity lays the foundation for an ambitious strategy on both the domestic and international fronts.
The U.S. Policy Toward Taiwan Beyond Donald Trump: Mapping the American Stakeholders of U.S.-Taiwan Relations
Donald Trump’s return to the White House reintroduced acute uncertainty into the security commitment of the United States (U.S.) to Taiwan. Unlike President Joe Biden, who repeatedly stated the determination to defend Taiwan, President Trump refrains from commenting on the hypothetical U.S. response in the context of a cross-Strait crisis.
China’s Strategy Toward Pacific Island countries: Countering Taiwan and Western Influence
Over the past decade, China has deployed a diplomatic strategy toward the Pacific Island Countries (PICs). This strategy pursues two main objectives: countering Taiwan's diplomatic influence in the region and countering the influence of liberal democracies in what Beijing refers to as the "Global South."
Opening up the G7 to South Korea to Address Contemporary Global Challenges
The G7’s global influence has diminished as powers like China reshape international governance through initiatives such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). With the G7 now representing just 10 per cent of the world’s population and 28 per cent of global GDP, its relevance is increasingly questioned.