Trade War: China Didn't Have to Do Anything to Make Trump Give In

As he declared his trade war on the world, President Trump issued a stern warning: “Don’t retaliate and you will be rewarded.” China paid no heed. Yet it was rewarded. On Monday, May 12, Trump largely retreated in exchange for… nothing, except the promise of future talks. For anyone the American president threatens—country, company, or university—there is a lesson to be learned from this episode.

The announcement of the new US tariffs was staged with great pomposity. If they complied, the targeted countries would be thanked for their obedience, President Trump and his cronies assured them. Anyone who dared to defy them would be severely punished.

“I wouldn’t want to be the last country trying to negotiate a trade deal with @realDonaldTrump ,” his son Eric posted [on X]. “First one willing to negotiate wins – last one loses. I know that movie by heart . ”

Most countries followed this advice, which simply made them realize how difficult it is to reach a trade agreement with a president whose understanding of trade mechanics leaves more than something to be desired. Several foreign diplomats have expressed frustration at the president's inability to clearly articulate what he expects from them—let alone what he would be willing to offer in return. Currently, only the United Kingdom has reached an agreement in its trade relations with the United States.

China, for its part, took retaliatory measures and decreed imposing customs duties on American imports. President Trump then decided to make an example of it: “Faced with China’s lack of respect for global markets, I have decided to increase customs duties from China to the United States to 125%, effective immediately,” he trumpeted on his Truth Social network ( before subsequently increasing this figure to 145% ). The countries that had shown respect would be spared.

Trump held out for a month before backtracking. Under a new 90-day agreement, tariffs on Chinese goods will be reduced to 30%, and 10% for US goods imported into China. “There was a consensus on both sides to avoid decoupling,” US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent summarized at a press conference in Geneva. As if the whole thing had been a huge misunderstanding.

Gone are the decades of China allegedly “ripping off” the United States, gone are Beijing’s insolence, and gone are the supposed need for the United States to reduce its dependence on Chinese imports. The Trump administration isn’t even trying to pretend that it has made China pay for its impertinence. It simply erases the “no retaliatory measures” chapter altogether, and moves on, as if the ultimate goal had always been simply to improve relations with Beijing.

In terms of trade policy, this episode makes absolutely no sense. But it would be wrong to analyze Trump's behavior as if his sole objective were to reorganize the global market: the American president is playing a role, that of a fictional character. He embodies the presidential version of the boss on The Apprentice . Sunk in his big leather armchair, he delivers his judgment in front of stammering suitors.

His imperialist threats against Canada , Greenland , and Panama , as well as his unilateral decision to rename the Gulf of Mexico , serve no concrete purpose. On the contrary, they breed resentment that weakens his leverage. If Trump had really wanted to annex Greenland, the surest way to do so would have been to play it smart, rather than claiming that he would somehow achieve his goal. The goal of this game of deception seems rather to be to reinforce Trump's role as a petty leader who preys on the weak.

To say the least, this style of governing is highly unusual, even though the Trump era began almost a decade ago. While the American president's targets often react in panic, a classic pattern seems to be emerging: Trump urges his targets to submit, but accepting his terms opens the door to further threats and humiliations.

Consider some recent examples. When Columbia University complied with federal demands , all it got was for the government to come back and demand even more. Similarly, the powerful American pharmaceutical lobby chose not to resist the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the Department of Health, even though his conspiracy-theorizing and anti-vaxxer ideology directly contradicted the position. This was a bad move, since far from renouncing his extremist positions, he toughened the war on the pharmaceutical industry, cut funding for scientific research , and took steps to regulate drug prices.

Conversely, when Harvard defied Donald Trump's authority , the government claimed the threatening letter was sent in error and complained that the university was overreacting. While it's true that the US president raised his voice and attacked the US university's tax-exempt status, he has little chance of winning his case in court. Challenging a court ruling won't help him force Harvard to pay taxes it isn't legally obligated to pay. Another example: when Mark Carney, the newly elected Prime Minister of Canada, said his country would never be for sale or for taking, Trump invited him to a cordial exchange in the Oval Office , during which he appeared to be comfortable with his refusal.

The only real difficulty in these negotiations is that it is almost impossible to “win” against Trump, because his relationships are based on a lose-lose model. He does not seem to accept the possibility of a positive-sum game, and his attempts to turn a successful relationship into an exploitative one are detrimental to both sides.

This is all the more glaring in the trade sphere: its protectionist instincts have created a climate of distrust throughout the world, without producing any benefits. The extortion of funds from American businesses and civil society has only served to weaken one of the sources of innovation for which the United States is most renowned, with the sole benefit of expanding Donald Trump's power.

Trump is just a petty thug, eager for submission and terrified of conflict. Standing up to him doesn't guarantee you victory, but laying down your arms means defeat.