China–United States trade war

An economic conflict between China and the United States has been ongoing since January 2018, when U.S. president Donald Trump began setting tariffs and other trade barriers on China with the goal of forcing it to make changes to what the U.S. says are longstanding unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft. The first Trump administration stated that these practices may contribute to the U.S.–China trade deficit, and that the Chinese government requires transfer of American technology to China. In response to US trade measures, CCP general secretary Xi Jinping's administration accused the Trump administration of engaging in nationalist protectionism and took retaliatory action. After the trade war escalated through 2019, in January 2020 the two sides reached a tense phase-one agreement. By the end of Trump's first presidency, the trade war was widely characterized as a failure for the United States.
The Biden administration kept the tariffs in place and added additional levies on Chinese goods such as electric vehicles and solar panels. In 2024, the Trump presidential campaign proposed a 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods. On February 1, 2025, the Trump administration increased tariffs on China by 10 percent, while on March 4, the administration raised them by another 10 percent. On March 10, China imposed a 15% tariffs on American goods, including agricultural goods. On April 2, 2025, the Trump administration brought the total import tariff on China to 54%, with the Chinese government vowing retaliation in response.
The U.S.'s domestic production is less than its domestic consumption. Its imports therefore exceed its exports and its current account is in deficit. Continuing through at least 2024, the global current account deficit is almost entirely composed of the U.S. Conversely, China's domestic production is greater than its domestic consumption. Its exports therefore exceed its imports, and its current account is in surplus. Its share of the global trade surplus increased rapidly after China's joining the World Trade Organization in 2001. As of at least 2024, the global current account surplus is largely composed of China, Europe, and the Middle East.
Since the 1980s, Trump had advocated tariffs to eliminate the U.S. trade deficit and promote domestic manufacturing, saying the country was being "ripped off" by its trading partners; imposing tariffs became a major plank of his presidential campaign. Nearly all economists who responded to surveys conducted by the Associated Press and Reuters said Trump's tariffs would do more harm than good to the American economy, and some economists advocated alternate means to address trade deficits with China.
The volume of trade in goods between the US and China has grown rapidly since the beginning of China's economic reforms in the late 1970s. The growth of trade accelerated after China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, with the US and China becoming one another's most important trading partners. The US has consistently imported more from China than it has exported to China, with the bilateral US trade deficit in goods with China rising to $375.6 billion in 2017. This trade deficit is driven by a difference in saving rates between the US and China: Chinese households save more than 30 percent of disposable income on average, compared to 7 percent in the United States.
The US government has at times criticized various aspects of the US-China trade relationship, including large bilateral trade deficits, and China's relatively inflexible exchange rates. The administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama imposed quotas and tariffs on Chinese textiles in order to shield US domestic producers, accusing China of exporting these products at dumping prices. During the Obama administration, the US additionally accused China of subsidizing aluminum and steel production, and initiated a range of anti-dumping investigations against China. During these two US administrations, US-Chinese trade continued to grow. During this time, China's economy grew to be the second largest in the world (using nominal exchange rates), second only to that of the US. Large-scale Chinese economic initiatives, such as the Belt and Road Initiative, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and "Made in China 2025" alarmed some US policymakers. More broadly, China's economic growth has been viewed by the US government as a challenge to American economic and geopolitical dominance.
During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to reduce the US trade deficit with China, which he attributed to unfair trade practices, such as intellectual property theft and lack of access by US companies to the Chinese market. American proponents of tariffs on China have argued that tariffs will bring manufacturing jobs to the US; that bilateral tariffs should be reciprocal; that the US should eliminate its trade deficit with China; and that China should change various policies governing intellectual property and investment. Most economists are skeptical of the ability of tariffs to achieve the first three of these goals. A study estimates that U.S. exports to China provide support to 1.2 million American jobs and that Chinese multinational companies directly employ 197,000 Americans, while U.S. companies invested $105 billion in China in 2019. Economists have studied the impact of trade with China and increasing labor productivity on employment in the American manufacturing sector, with mixed results. Most economists believe that the American trade deficit is the result of macroeconomic factors, rather than trade policy.
The U.S. and China held talks in Beijing between U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and CCP Foreign Affairs Commission Office Director Wang Yi to prevent competition from escalating into conflict. The meetings aimed to stabilize strained relations and maintain open communication.
Donald Trump's first noted advocacy for tariffs was prompted by Japanese economic success in the 1980s, arguing that the U.S. trade deficit was a burden and that tariffs would promote domestic manufacturing that would keep the United States from being "ripped off" by its trading partners. In early 2011, he stated that because China has manipulated their currency, "it is almost impossible for our companies to compete with Chinese companies." Imposing tariffs was subsequently a major plank of his successful 2016 presidential campaign.
In the 2016 US presidential election, Trump ran on a protectionist economic platform. As president, in August 2017, he directed the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to investigate Chinese economic practices. The resulting report, issued in March 2018, attacked many aspects of Chinese economic policy, focusing particularly on alleged technology transfer, which the report stated cost the US economy $225 billion and $600 billion annually. Following the issuing of the report, Trump ordered the imposition of tariffs on Chinese products, the filing of a WTO case against China and restrictions on Chinese investment in high-tech sectors of the US economy.
In supporting tariffs as president, he said that China was costing the American economy hundreds of billions of dollars a year because of unfair trade practices. After imposing tariffs, he denied entering into a trade war, saying the "trade war was lost many years ago by the foolish, or incompetent, people who represented the U.S." He said that the U.S. has a trade deficit of $500 billion a year, with intellectual property (IP) theft costing an additional $300 billion. "We cannot let this continue," he said. Former White House Counsel, Jim Schultz, said that "through multiple presidential administrations – Clinton, Bush and Obama – the United States has naively looked the other way while China cheated its way to an unfair advantage in the international trade market."
According to the administration, the Chinese government's reforms have been minimal and have not been fair and reciprocal: "After years of U.S.-China dialogues that produced minimal results and commitments that China did not honor, the United States is taking action to confront China over its state-led, market-distorting forced technology transfers, intellectual property practices, and cyber intrusions of U.S. commercial networks."
Technology is considered the most important part of the U.S. economy. According to U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer, China maintains a policy of "forced technology transfer," along with practicing "state capitalism," including buying U.S. technology companies and using cybertheft to gain technology. As a result, officials in the Trump administration were, by early 2018, taking steps to prevent Chinese state-controlled companies from buying American technology companies and were trying to stop American companies from handing over their key technologies to China as a cost of entering their market. According to political analyst Josh Rogin: "There was a belief that China would develop a private economy that would prove compatible with the WTO system. Chinese leadership has made a political decision to do the opposite. So now we have to respond."
Lighthizer said that the value of the tariffs imposed was based on U.S. estimates of the actual economic damage caused by alleged theft of intellectual property and foreign-ownership restrictions that require foreign companies to transfer technology.
Over half of the members of the American Chamber of Commerce in the People's Republic of China thought that leakage of intellectual property was an important concern when doing business there.
In August 2017, Robert Lighthizer investigated China's alleged unfair trade practices.
Initiating steel and aluminium tariff actions in March 2018, Trump said "trade wars are good, and easy to win," but as the conflict continued to escalate through August 2019, Trump stated, "I never said China was going to be easy."
Peter Navarro, White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Director, explained that the tariffs are "purely defensive measures" to reduce the trade deficit. He says that the cumulative trillions of dollars that Americans transfer overseas as a result of yearly deficits are then used by those countries to buy America's assets, as opposed to investing that money in the U.S. "If we do as we're doing . . . those trillions of dollars are in the hands of foreigners that they can then use to buy up America."
The Chinese government argues that the US government's real goal is to stifle China's growth, and that the trade war has had a negative global effect. The Chinese government has blamed the American government for starting the conflict and said that US actions were making negotiations difficult. Zhang Xiangchen, China's ambassador to the World Trade Organization, said the U.S. Trade Representative was operating with a "presumption of guilt", making claims without evidence and based on speculation.
The Chinese government has denied forced transfer of IP is a mandatory practice, and acknowledged the impact of domestic R&D performed in China. Former U.S. treasury secretary Larry Summers assessed that Chinese leadership in some technological fields was the result of "huge government investment in basic science" and not "theft" of U.S. properties. In March 2019, the National People's Congress endorsed a new foreign investment bill, to take effect in 2020, which explicitly prohibits the forced transfer of IP from foreign companies, and grants stronger protection to foreign intellectual property and trade secrets. China had also planned to lift restrictions on foreign investment in the automotive industry in 2022. AmCham China policy committee chair Lester Ross criticized the bill, saying the text of the bill was "rushed" and "broad", and also criticized a portion of the bill that granted the country power to retaliate against countries that impose restrictions on Chinese companies.
On 20 January 2021, China imposed sanctions against outgoing US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former secretary of health and human services Alex Azar, former under secretary of state Keith J. Krach, outgoing US ambassador to the United Nations Kelly Craft, and 24 other former Trump officials. Biden's National Security Council called the sanctions "unproductive and cynical."
The Biden administration had not withdrawn Trump-era tariffs on Chinese imports. The Democratic administration introduced a number of new export limits and US investment bans for Chinese companies to protect US economic and military interests. In October 2022, the US Department of Commerce expanded sanctions after implicating 50 Chinese companies, including telecoms equipment maker Huawei in June 2021. Export controls were also introduced for chip maker Nvidia, Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) and ChangXin Memory Technologies. Sanctions were expanded to include Chinese companies such as drone maker DJI and genomics company BGI Genomics, among others. South Korean telecom companies trading with the PRC were partially excluded from the new restrictions.
On 29 March 2024, the Biden administration revised rules aimed at restricting China's access to U.S. artificial intelligence (AI) chips and chipmaking tools, including those from Nvidia, as part of efforts to address national security concerns over Beijing's tech advancements potentially aiding its military. Following Washington's announcement of restrictions on China's ability to manufacture advanced chips, the Chinese government has notified the US of its intention to ban exports to the US of certain key components used in semiconductor manufacturing. China and the US are competing for high-tech markets, each establishing its sphere of influence within the global high-tech landscape. The US is pursuing a decoupling from China to restrict its access to Western advanced technologies.
2016
A November 2019 United Nations analysis reported that "the U.S. tariffs on China are economically hurting both countries". In the United States, it has led to higher costs for manufacturers, higher prices for consumers and financial difficulties for farmers. In China, the trade war contributed to a slowdown in the rate of economic and industrial output growth, which had already been declining. Many American companies have shifted supply chains to elsewhere in Asia, bringing fears that the trade war would lead to a US-China economic 'decoupling'. The trade war has also caused economic damage in other countries, though some benefited from increased manufacturing as production was shifted to them. It also led to stock market instability. Governments around the world have taken steps to address some of the damage caused by the economic conflict.
By late 2019, the United States had imposed approximately US$350 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports, while China had imposed approximately US$100 billion on US exports.
In April 2018, China announced that it would eliminate laws that required global automakers and shipbuilders to work through state-owned partners. President of China and CCP general secretary Xi Jinping reiterated those pledges, affirming a desire to increase imports, lower foreign-ownership limits on manufacturing and expand protection to intellectual property, all central issues in Trump's complaints about their trade imbalance. Trump thanked Xi for his "kind words on tariffs and automobile barriers" and "his enlightenment" on intellectual property and technology transfers. "We will make great progress together!" the president added.
As a response to the trade war, China increased the personal income tax threshold from CN¥3,500 to CN¥5,000 (US$705) in January 2019, and reduced the top tier of value added tax from 16% to 13% in April 2019. Income tax deductions were also allowed for family care, medical and educational expenses, as well as for mortgage interest. The tax cuts were worth around CN¥2.3 trillion (US$324 billion).
In May 2019, China's industrial output growth fell to 5.0%, which was the lowest rate in 17 years. Exports fell by 1.3% in June compared to the previous year; imports declined 8.5% in May and 7.3% in June. According to an analysis by Peterson Institute for International Economics published in June 2019, China had lowered tariffs on imports from countries other than the U.S. from an average of 8.0% to 6.7%, while average tariffs on U.S. imports rose from 8.0% to 20.7%.
In December 2019, the South China Morning Post reported that, due to the trade war and the Chinese government's crackdown on shadow banking, Chinese manufacturing investments were expanding at the lowest rate since records began. Economic growth rate for 2019 was 6.1%, the slowest since 1990.
The trade war resulted in a significant growth of economic ties between China and the European Union, primarily as a result of the redistribution of commodity flows.
The trade war contributed to a rise in Chinese nationalism; the South China Morning Post reported that the conflict helped the Chinese Communist Party "shore up much-needed domestic support". The external pressure of the trade war allowed Chinese leader Xi Jinping to point to the United States' actions as a reason for China's economic slowdown.
Many companies passed the costs of the Trump tariffs on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Following impositions of the tariffs on Chinese goods, the prices of U.S. intermediate goods rose by 10% to 30%, an amount generally equivalent to the size of the tariffs.
Analysis conducted by the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that China imposed uniform tariffs averaging 8% on all its importers in January 2018, before the trade war began. By June 2019, tariffs on American imports had increased to 20.7%, while tariffs on other nations declined to 6.7%. The analysis also found that average American tariffs on Chinese goods increased from 3.1% in 2017 to 24.3% by August 2019.
American importers were allowed to apply for exclusions from the tariffs. The Wall Street Journal reported in February 2020 that the USTR was granting fewer tariff waivers to American firms, down from 35% of requests for the first two tranches of tariffs in 2018 to 3% for the third tranche in 2019. The mechanism for applying for exclusions expired in 2020.
The Phase I agreement failed to address any structural aspects of the structural conflicts between the United States and China. The overall U.S. trade deficit worsened, with supply trade diverted from China to higher-cost foreign producers rather than being supplied domestically. Tariffs imposed by the U.S. increased costs of Chinese imports for U.S. consumers and business.
Analysis by Goldman Sachs in May 2019 found that the consumer price index for nine categories of tariffed goods had increased much more than goods not impacted by tariffs. The CPI for tariffed goods increased, while it declined for all other core goods.
Surveys of consumer sentiment and small business confidence showed sharp declines in August 2019 on uncertainty caused by the trade war. The closely followed Purchasing Managers' Index for manufacturing from the Institute for Supply Management showed contraction in August, for the first time since January 2016; the ISM quoted several executives expressing anxiety about the continuing trade war, citing shrinking export orders and the challenges of shifting their supply chains out of China. The IHS Markit manufacturing purchasing managers' index also showed contraction in August, for the first time since September 2009. The day the ISM report was released, Trump tweeted, "China's Supply Chain will crumble and businesses, jobs and money will be gone!"
According to the Consumer Technology Association, a 60 percent tariff on Chinese imports could increase the price of laptops and tablets by up to 46 percent and smartphones by up to 26 percent. It is estimated by the National Retail Federation that consumers will have to pay an extra $6.4–$10.9 billion for appliances with tariffs.
Analysis conducted by Moody's Analytics estimated that through August 2019 300,000 American jobs had either been lost or not created due to the trade war, especially affecting manufacturing, warehousing, distribution and retail.
By September 2019, American manufacturers were reducing their capital investments and delaying hiring due to uncertainty caused by the trade war.
A 2021 study by Oxford Economics and the U.S.-China Business Council concluded that the United States lost 245,000 jobs as a direct result of the Trump tariffs.
Analysis published by The Wall Street Journal in October 2020 found the trade war did not achieve the primary objective of reviving American manufacturing nor did it result in the reshoring of factory production. Though the trade war led to higher employment in certain industries, tariffs led to a net loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs.
The United States' overall trade deficit increased. American businesses shifted their imports to other countries to avoid the Trump tariffs and the deficit in goods increased 21% from 2016 to a record high. American exports – notably farm goods – were also weakened by retaliatory actions from China, the European Union, and other countries. Economist Stephen Roach writes that by replacing the Chinese portion of the United States' trade gap with deficits from other nations that produce goods at higher cost, the diversion of trade to non-Chinese sources has resulted in the functional equivalent of a tax hike on United States companies and consumers.
In 2021, the US trade deficit with China increased.
Analysis published by Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that if there was no trade war initiated by Trump and if the US share of the Chinese market had just stayed consistent, then US exports to China would have been $119 billion bigger than what was actually recorded during Trump's administration during 2018 to 2021. Additionally, the trade war had incurred further costs of $30 billion in taxpayers funds that Trump used to subsidise the country's farmers to compensate for their lost sales to China from 2018 to 2020. Bown concluded that Trump's trade policies were not worth it for US exporters and that they would have likely have been better off without Trump's trade war.
Investor uncertainty due to the trade war caused turbulence in the stock market.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 724 points, or 2.9%, after the tariffs were announced due to concerns over a trade war. Corporations that traded with China, such as Caterpillar Inc. and Boeing, suffered large losses in their stock price.
On December 4, 2018, the Dow Jones Industrial Average logged its worst day in nearly a month as it declined nearly 600 points, to which some argue is in part due to the trade war.
On August 23, 2019, the Dow dropped 623 points on the day that Trump informally ordered American companies to immediately seek alternatives to doing business in China. By the end of 2019, stock markets reached record highs, having risen due to the agreement between the United States and China to sign the first phase of a trade deal.
American farmers faced significant challenges due to China's retaliatory trade actions. From 2010 to 2016, China was the largest market for U.S. agricultural products, with exports peaking at $25.5 billion in 2015. Although U.S. agricultural exports to China totaled $19.4 billion in 2017, making it the second-largest market behind Canada, the trade war drastically reduced these figures. By 2018, exports had plummeted to $9.1 billion. A partial recovery followed in 2019, with exports reaching $13.8 billion; however, by then, China had fallen to the fourth-largest market for U.S. agricultural goods, trailing Canada, Mexico, and Japan, respectively.
Soybean exports accounted for the largest annualized losses with China, totaling $9.4 billion. Sorghum followed in second, losing $854 million, and pork third, losing $646 million. Relative to exports in 2017 as a percent change, by 2018, the most impacted agricultural commodities by total losses were soybeans, wheat, corn, coarse grains, hides and skins, fresh fruit, pork, dairy products, processed fruit, and cotton.
The United States is the world's second-largest producer of soybeans, behind Brazil. China is the world's largest soybean importer, importing about 60% of the global market in 2024. Between 2017 and 2018, China's share of U.S. soybean exports dropped from 62% to 18%. It recovered to 55% by 2020. Soybean farmers were some of the most impacted by Chinese tariffs. Soybean farmers lost an estimated $24 billion in exports and accounted for the predominant number of increasing farm bankruptcies in 2018. By 2019, soybean farmers had planted 15% less acreage than in 2018. Trade represents 50% of soybean farmers income, as compared to the national average of 20%.
Other massive agricultural disruptions included products like cranberries, hay, and ethanol. Cranberry exports to China rose nearly 77% from 2007 to 2016 when a barrel of fruit would sell for $58.60. By 2018, the price had fallen 62% to only $22.30 per barrel. Hay exports to China dropped 36%, resulting in an estimated $300 million in the first two years compared to the anticipated $400 million. Ethanol, a corn-based biofuel, had emerged as an important agricultural byproduct commodity to China, exporting for a total of $300 million in 2017. By 2018, total exports dropped 86%.
Regionally, the Midwest was most impacted by the agricultural tariffs by China. For example, Iowa, Illinois, and Kansas represented the largest share of annualized losses in agriculture revenue in 2018. Losing $1.46 billion, $1.41 billion, and $955 million, respectively, Iowa, Illinois, and Kansas accounted for 11, 11, and 7 percent of all total agricultural losses in 2018.
Agricultural tariffs against the U.S. by China began in April of 2018 when retaliatory tariffs between 15% and 25% on U.S. imports included 94 different lines on U.S. agricultural goods. These first tariffs predominantly focused on pork, fruit, and tree nuts. Then, in July 2018, China expanded agricultural tariffs of 25% to a total of 697 different lines. On September 1, 2019, Chinese agricultural tariffs had increased to 1053 different lines. Although most agricultural tariffs on U.S. goods by China began at 25%, some goods like pork, fruits and nuts, grains, sugar, and soybeans reached tariffs as high as 80% to 100%.
The Trump administration responded to decreasing agricultural exports through a series of acts and bailouts. Between 2018 and 2020, the United States Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency administered and oversaw the distribution of $23 billion in the form of direct payments to farmers for losses caused by international trade disputes through the Market Facilitation Program. Specifically, in 2019 the USDA's Market Facilitation Program paid $14.4 billion across 644,000 farming operations. The average payment per operation was $22,312 and focused on three types of eligible commodities: (1) non-specialty crops (such as corn and soybeans); (2) specialty crops (such as fruits and nuts); (3) dairy and pork products. Of the $14.4 billion in farmer assistance in 2019, 90% went to farmers of specialty crops, totaling $12.9 billion.
Another form of agricultural assistance was the Food Purchase and Distribution Program by the United States Department of Agriculture. Specifically designed to offset already produced agricultural commodities in the form of surplus, USDA purchased roughly $2.3 billion in U.S. agriculture impacted by trade tariffs. The most significant commodities purchased were pork, dairy, and apples.
Finally, the third program introduced by USDA was the Agricultural Trade Promotion Program. Designed to assist American agricultural exporters in identifying and accessing new markets to mitigate the impacts of agricultural tariffs by China, the program accepted applications beginning in November 2018 to access the $200 million federal budget and promote their products abroad.
For soybean farmers impacted by the trade tariffs with China, these agricultural mitigation programs helped lessen losses to U.S. soybean farmers. For example, soybean farmers began exporting to new markets in 2018 to markets like Mexico, Egypt, and the European Union. These new markets accounted for $4.7 billion, partially offsetting the $9.4 billion loss with China in 2018.
In 2020, the U.S. and China agreed on new agricultural tariffs through the Phase One Agreement which created a new trade agreement that required structural reforms and changes to China's economic and trade regime. The agreement included a commitment by China to make substantial purchases of U.S. goods and services, of which agricultural products were included in the Agriculture Chapter. The first part of the agreement included a commitment by China to purchase and import an average of at least $40 billion U.S. agricultural products across two years between 2020 and 2022 totaling $80 billion. Additionally, specific agricultural products that had been the recipient of tariffs by China were addressed. Most notable were U.S. exports of beef, pork, poultry, processed meat, dairy, rice, seafood, fruits, and feed products. However, between 2020 and 2022, only 73% of the agreed-upon $40 billion was spent on U.S. agricultural products by China. In 2020, U.S. exports to China totaled $26.4 billion, and in 2021 totaled $32.7 billion. This amounted to a total two-year export value by the U.S. to China of $59.5 billion. Essential commodities like soybeans grew from a total export value of $15.1 billion in 2020, to $17.9 billion by the end of 2022.
Analysts speculated that the trade war could affect the 2020 United States presidential election, as tariffs have negatively affected farmers, an important constituency for Trump. Analysts also speculated on how the trade war affected Xi Jinping in relation to the domestic pressures that he faced.
In 2021, following the transition to the Biden administration, the Financial Times reported that "rushing to remove the tariffs could prove risky" for the Democrats in the 2022 United States elections.
Economic growth has slowed worldwide amid the trade war. The International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook report released in April 2019 lowered the global economic growth forecast for 2019 from 3.6% expected in 2018 to 3.3%, and said that economic and trade frictions may further curb global economic growth and continue weaken the investment. U.S. economic growth has also slowed.
Globally, foreign direct investment has slowed. The trade war has hurt the European economy, particularly Germany, even though trade relations between Germany and China and between Germany and the U.S. remain good. Germany and the EU have had high levels of trade with China, and the German government and public want to maintain these trade ties. The Canadian economy has seen negative effects as well. Like the U.S., Britain, Germany, Japan, and South Korea were all showing "a weak manufacturing performance" as of 2019. Several Asian governments have instituted stimulus measures to address damage from the trade war, though economists said this may not be effective.
Some countries have benefited economically from the trade war, at least in some sectors, due to increasing exports to the United States and China to fill the gaps left by decreasing trade between these two economies. Beneficiaries include Vietnam, Chile, India, Malaysia, and Argentina. Vietnam is the biggest beneficiary, with technology companies moving manufacturing there. South Korea has also benefited from increased electronics exports, Malaysia from semiconductor exports, Mexico from motor vehicles, and Brazil from soybeans. Trade diversion effects have also had an impact on countries in East and Southeast Asia with Taiwan getting the largest boost. US-ASEAN Business Council CEO Alex Feldman said these countries may not benefit for long: "It's in everyone's interest to see this spat get resolved and go back to normal trade relations between the US and China." Several Taiwanese companies have been expanding production domestically, including Quanta Computer, Sercomm and Wistron, creating over 21,000 jobs. This investment led to a significant strengthening of the New Taiwan Dollar which had not been expected pre-Trade War. Nintendo has reportedly moved some Nintendo Switch production from China to Southeast Asia.
The trade war has indirectly caused some companies to go bankrupt. One of them, Taiwanese LCD panel manufacturer Chunghwa Picture Tubes (CPT), went bankrupt as a result of an excess supply of panels and a subsequent collapse in prices, which was aided by vulnerability to the trade war, a slowing Taiwanese and global economy and a slowdown in the electronics sector.
Through practices of trade re-routing and re-labeling, the trade war has redirected Chinese trade to the United States via ASEAN.
The Chinese public was generally surprised by the beginning of the trade war, according to academic Lin Mao.
Mainland Chinese politicians and economists have been divided over the trade war. An August 2019 article in NPR said that while some in the PRC leadership argued for a quick resolution to the trade war in order to save China's economy, others said that the country should push back against the United States and avoid an agreement at all costs. The Chinese government characterizes the U.S. side as infringing on Chinese national sovereignty through demanding structural changes to China's economic system.
In July 2018, academic Xu Zhangrun said that the trade war revealed underlying weaknesses in the Chinese political system and criticized Chinese leader Xi Jinping for his "overweening pride" and "vanity politics."
In August 2018, Hong Kong-based academic Willy Lam said that the trade war had galvanized all the previous misgivings which different countries in the West had toward China and undermined Chinese leader Xi Jinping's authority. Zhang Baohui, a political science professor at Lingnan University in Hong Kong, similarly said that the trade war had been effective in challenging the myth of Chinese invincibility, saying that the tariffs "really hurt China at a very bad time, when the economy is experiencing serious trouble."
Economist Sheng Hong, director of the defunct think tank Unirule Institute of Economics, said that it would be good if China yielded to America's request for fair trade, arguing that the "China model" of state capitalism was incompatible with its policies of market reforms and damaging China's economy. Amidst the closure Unirule after Hong was accused of threatening of state security, Hong likened Beijing's inability to brook internal criticism to "riding in a car with a filthy windshield."
A December 2018 journal article published by two Chinese academics said that in the worst-case scenario of the trade war, China would suffer a 1.1% decrease in employment and a 1% GDP loss, which they said were not negligible, but manageable for China. Another paper published in February 2018 by Chinese academics similarly concluded that whereas the United States would experience large social welfare losses as a result of the trade war, China may lose or gain slightly depending on the effect of trade war on the U.S.–China trade balance.
In September 2019, Lu Xiang, an analyst at the state-backed Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, expressed pessimism about the outcome of upcoming talks, called Trump "unpredictable", and said, "We can only try to find sensible clues in his nonsense."
Domestic reporting on the trade war is censored in China. While news outlets are permitted to report on the conflict, their coverage is subject to restrictions; the South China Morning Post said that employees for Chinese media were told not to "over-report" the trade war while an article in The New York Times said that state news outlets had sought to promote the official line, with the authorities restricting the use of the phrase "trade war." Social media posts about the conflict are subject to censorship as well.
The trade war is a common subject on Chinese social media, with one popular Internet meme referencing Thanos, a villain from Marvel Comics and the Marvel Cinematic Universe who wipes out half of all life in the universe using the Infinity Gauntlet, joking that Trump will similarly wipe out half of China's investors.
Hong Kong economics professor Lawrence J. Lau argues that a major cause of the trade war is the growing battle between China and the U.S. for global economic and technological dominance. He argues, "It is also a reflection of the rise of populism, isolationism, nationalism and protectionism almost everywhere in the world, including in the US."
In mid-2021, Taoran Notes, a social media account associated with the state-run Economic Daily, advised Chinese decision-makers to remain calm and recommended that both sides develop a deeper understanding of each other's perspectives. Taoran Notes said that the two countries had chosen "the path of cooperation that seeks common ground while reserving differences".
People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, has stated that China will be able to withstand the trade war, and that Trump's policies are affecting American consumers.
After the signing of the Phase One agreement, the Global Times published a series of articles reflecting on the trade war. According to the Global Times, the trade war had made Chinese people more mature and confident and the country proved it had political and economic institutions strong enough to defend its interests. In the view of the Global Times, China had not made too many concessions as part of the Phase One agreement. While China agreed to buy more from the United States, these were not forced purchases and China could make purchases based on its own needs. The structural changes China agreed to regarding intellectual property protections and opening more economic sectors to foreign investment would, according to the Global Times, ultimately serve China's needs to further deepen its reforms.
Some Democrats opposed the trade war for putting a burden on American consumers and causing inflation, while other Democrats thought action against China was necessary, although not all such Democrats thought the trade war initiated by Trump was the right means of action.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer praised President Trump's higher tariffs against China's alleged taking advantage of the U.S. and said "Democrats, Republicans, Americans of every political ideology, every region in the country should support these actions." Other Democratic senators who supported Trump's actions include Bob Menendez, Sherrod Brown and Ron Wyden. Bipartisan support from the House of Representatives for Trump's actions came from Nancy Pelosi. Brad Sherman, Kevin Brady, and Ted Yoho. Democratic representative Tim Ryan, said, "What China has been doing is bullshit. They're cheating, they're subsidizing their product." Senator Marco Rubio has also supported the tariffs, which he referred to as a "theft tax".
Other Republican senators have given more divided statements. Mitch McConnell said that "nobody wins a trade war" but that there was hope the tactics would "get us into a better position, vis-à-vis China." John Cornyn said, "If this is what it takes to get a good deal, I think people will hang in there, but at some point we've got to get it resolved. If this goes on for a long time, everybody realizes it's playing with a live hand grenade." Joni Ernst said in May 2019 that the "tariffs are hurtful" to farmers, but that they "do want us to find a path forward with China" and said, "We hope that we can get a deal soon".
Other senators from both parties have criticized Trump for the trade war, including Chuck Grassley, Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, Elizabeth Warren, and Ron Wyden.
The Associated Press reported in 2018 that "Dave Warner, a spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council, said pork producers have already seen the value of their pigs fall after a previous Chinese tariff. Warner said pig producers will likely feel the effect of the new tariff, though it's not yet clear exactly how."
Iowa soybean farmer and president of the American Soybean Association John Heisdorffer called the use of tariffs a "scorched-earth approach", warning that U.S. industries could permanently lose global market share as a result.
The mayors of Davenport and St. Gabriel, which represented towns with a heavy reliance on the farming sector, expressed their concerns of impacts that the trade war would have on their cities.
In August 2019, Roger Johnson of the National Farmers Union – representing about 200,000 family farmers, ranchers and fishers – stated that the trade war was creating problems for American farmers, specifically highlighting the fall in soybean exports from the U.S. to China. In the same month, the American Farm Bureau Federation – representing large agribusiness – said that the announcement of new tariffs "signals more trouble for American agriculture."
More than 3,500 American businesses sued the Trump administration over the tariffs.
In September 2018, a business coalition announced a lobbying campaign called "Tariffs Hurt the Heartland" to protest the proposed tariffs; the tariffs on Chinese steel, aluminium, and certain chemicals contributed to rising fertilizer and agricultural equipment costs in the United States.
In February 2019, a survey released by the American Chamber of Commerce in China showed that a majority of member U.S. companies supported increasing or maintaining tariffs on Chinese goods, and nearly twice as many respondents compared to the year before wanted the U.S. government to push Beijing harder to create a level playing field. A further 19 percent of its companies said they were adjusting supply chains or seeking to source components and assembly outside of China as a result of tariffs and 28% were delaying or cancelling investment decisions in China.
Over 600 companies and trade associations, including manufacturers, retailers, and tech companies, wrote to Trump in mid-2019 to ask him to remove tariffs and end the trade war, saying that increased tariffs would have "a significant, negative, and long-term impact on American businesses, farmers, families, and the US economy".
On May 20, 2019, the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, an industry trade association for footwear, issued an open letter to President Trump, part of which read: "On behalf of our hundreds of millions of footwear consumers and hundreds of thousands of employees, we ask that you immediately stop this action", referring to the trade war.
Americans for Free Trade, a coalition of over 160 business organizations, wrote a letter to Trump in August 2019 requesting that he postpone all tariff rate increases on Chinese goods, citing concerns about cost increases for U.S. manufacturers and farmers. The coalition includes the National Retail Federation, the Consumer Technology Association, Association of Equipment Manufacturers, the Toy Association and American Petroleum Institute, among others.
In September 2019, Matthew Shay, president and CEO of the National Retail Federation, said that the trade war had "gone on far too long" and had harmful effects on American businesses and consumers. He urged the Trump administration to end the trade war and find an agreement to remove all the tariffs.
Hun Quach, vice president of international trade for the Retail Industry Leaders Association has claimed that the tariffs will impact American family budgets by raising the prices of everyday items.
A spokesperson for the US–China Business Council said that the tariffs were "deeply unpopular with American consumers and businesses who bear the cost".
The CEOs of American steelmakers Nucor Corp, United States Steel Corp, ArcelorMittal SA and Commercial Metals Co have all supported Trump's steel tariffs against China as has the United Steelworkers Union. Scott Paul, president of the associated Alliance for American Manufacturing, has also supported tariffs, and opposed proposals to reverse them in light of the coronavirus pandemic. In 2019, he criticized the stagnation of trade talks saying "Trump would have ripped any Democrat for that outcome".
James Hoffa Jr., president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, has been a proponent of U.S. tariffs against China as has Richard Trumka, president of AFL–CIO.
A 2019 statement by the National Association of Manufacturers stated their opposition to the trade war, calling for a new structure for the U.S.–China commercial relationship that would eliminate China's unfair trade practices and level the playing field for manufacturers in the United States. A 2018 Politico article documented the close partnership between the president of NAM Jay Timmons and President Trump and said that Timmons was fighting against Trump's trade war from within.
The vice president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association criticized the tariffs, saying they were "hurting American manufacturers."
According to articles in PolitiFact, most mainstream economists said that "consumers are the primary victims of tariffs" and most economists said that they carry "more risks than benefits". Nearly all economists who responded to surveys conducted by the Associated Press and Reuters said that Trump's tariffs would do more harm than good to the economy of the United States, and some economists advocated for alternate means for the United States to address its trade deficit with China.
NYU Economics Professor Lawrence J. White has said that import tariffs are equivalent to a tax, and contribute to a higher cost of living.
Economic analyst Zachary Karabell has argued that the administration's tariff-based approach would not work as it would not "reverse what has already been transferred and will not do much to address the challenge of China today, which is no longer a manufacturing neophyte" and also argued that the assertion that more rigorous intellectual property protections would "level the playing field" was problematic. He recommended instead that the U.S. focus on its relative advantages of economic openness and a culture of independence.
James Andrew Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said that what the United States needed from China was a commitment to observe the rules and norms of international trade and to extend reciprocal treatment to U.S. companies in China.
In an April 2018 article in Forbes, Harry G. Broadman, a former U.S. trade negotiator, said that while he agreed with the Trump administration's basic position that the Chinese did not abide by fair, transparent and market-based rules for global trade, he disagreed with its means of unilaterally employing tariffs and said that the administration should instead pursue a coalition-based approach.
In a 2018 speech on the trade war, former World Bank Chief Economist Priya Basu stated, "I'm from India. Over my entire career, I saw many developed countries try many approaches to open up the markets in developing countries. I never thought I would see the opposite happening."
In a November 2018 testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, Jennifer Hillman, a professor of practice at Georgetown University Law School, said that United States "ought to be bringing a big and bold case, based on a coalition of countries working together to take on China."
Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics said that while it made sense for other countries to get more involved in confronting China, the problem was that they did not know how serious Trump was on reforming the larger, systemic issues.
Michael Wessel described plans to allow foreign companies a greater role in the Chinese technology program "an influence operation at its best" and also questioned whether changes in relevant Chinese laws would mean much so long as the courts remained under the control of the Chinese Communist Party.
A May 2019 article written by Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center argued that the impact of the trade war would eliminate "most or all" of the benefits from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for low- and middle-income households.
Economists at financial firm Morgan Stanley expressed uncertainty about how the trade war would end, but warned in June 2019 that it could lead to a recession.
Economist Panos Mourdoukoutas states that China's elites were fighting the trade war under the wrong assumption that China had reached "power parity" with the U.S. and that although an economic divorce between the two countries would have some consequences for the US, it would on the other hand be devastating for China.
In November 2019, Jim Cramer said that unless China purchased a considerable amount of American goods as a way to prove the validity of the arguments proffered by the free-trade contingent in the Trump administration, the U.S.–China trade war would continue on for a significant period of time.
After the first phase of a trade deal was agreed upon in December 2019, Mary E. Lovely of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and professor at Syracuse University said the ceasefire was "good news" for the American economy while expressing optimism that the talks would help address China's "unfair" intellectual property practices.
Economist Paul Krugman said in September 2020 that if Democratic candidate Joe Biden won the U.S. presidential election, he should maintain a tough stance against China, but focus more on industrial policy than trade tariffs.
Economist C. Fred Bergsten concluded in 2021 that "China's economy is too large and too powerful to be suppressed. It fended off the Trump attacks with little damage, and indeed with renewed confidence in its prospects."
In study on the trade-effects of regulation in 2023, economists Knut Blind and Moritz Böhmecke-Schwafert concluded that tariff hikes by the US are expected to have an opposite effect in the mid- and long-term "and exports from China to the US might actually increase" based on trade data of OECD and BRICS countries in the last two decades.
Minxin Pei, a scholar of Chinese politics at California's Claremont McKenna College, argued that Xi Jinping's ambition for China's revival as a worldpower had been revealed as hollow through the continuing trade dispute.
The former Vice President Joe Biden said: "While Trump is pursuing a damaging and erratic trade war, without any real strategy, China is positioning itself to lead the world in renewable energy."
An August 2019 Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll found that 67% of registered voters wanted the U.S. to confront Beijing over its trade policies despite the fact that 74% said American consumers were shouldering most of the burden of tariffs. Mark Penn, the co-director of the Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll, said the poll showed strong support amongst the American public for Trump's trade policies against China, saying, "They realize that the tariffs may have negative impacts on jobs and prices, but they believe the fight here is the right one."
Tariffs on medical supplies have become politically complicated due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Wall Street Journal, citing Trade Data Monitor to show that China is the leading source of many key medical supplies, raised concerns that US tariffs on imports from China threaten imports of medical supplies into the United States.
The Harvard CAPS/Harris poll conducted in January 2025 indicated that 52% of Americans approve of placing new tariffs on China, with 74% of Republicans agreeing, but only 34% of Democrats.
A September 2018 article by Brahma Chellaney said that America's trade war with China should not obscure a broader pushback against China's mercantilist trade, investment, and lending practices.
At the 2018 G20 summit, the trade war was on the agenda for discussion.
In December 2018 Jorge Guajardo, former Mexican ambassador to China, said in an article in The Washington Post that "One thing the Chinese have had to acknowledge is that it wasn't a Trump issue; it was a world issue. Everybody's tired of the way China games the trading system and makes promises that never amount to anything."
A March 2019 Reuters article said that the European Union shared many of the Trump administration's same complaints with regards to China's technology transfer policies and market access constraints and also reported that European diplomats and officials acknowledged support for Trump's goals, even if they disagreed with his tactics.
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that the trade war was negatively affecting Singapore and described it as "very worrying". He urged both the U.S. and Chinese governments to change their approaches.
At the 45th G7 summit, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said, "We don't like tariffs on the whole." An article in ABC said that U.S. allies warned Trump during the summit about his trade war with China, but that Trump said he wasn't facing any pressure from his allies over the trade war. European Council President Donald Tusk said the trade war risked causing a global recession.
The Chilean vice minister for trade, Rodrigo Yanez, told CNBC that "It's very important for Chile that a trade deal between the U.S. and China is signed soon".
In the wake of the 2020 Galwan Valley skirmish, Indian commentators made references to the US–China trade war as part of their overall analysis of the effect that the skirmish would have on the future relations between India and China.