Trump on US-China dispute: Is the American way the right way?

Resuello Aristhea Anne Mendoza | Buenos Aires Herald

---

Amidst the ongoing US-China trade dispute and mixed reactions to President Trump’s high tariffs imposed on the great economic superpower, China, President Trump claims that such high tariffs are needed to protect local American businesses, going as far as to seeing tariffs as a way toward “making America great”. He also noted that these tariffs are essential as a shield from being exploited by “loser countries”, aiming such an offensive categorisation towards Middle-Eastern states, especially those suffering with unstable economies.

Such derogatory language, dismissive and combative, reflects his long-held framing of trade as a battle between winners and losers rather than a web of interdependence and negotiated compromise. To him, tariffs yielded not only political leverage but fiscal bounty; he boasted of “trillions in revenue”, despite economists repeatedly noting that tariff burdens fall largely on domestic consumers and importers.

President Trump had also criticised the administration led by former American President, Joe Biden, and stated that the US would like to review the administration’s trade policies and monetary funding to countries with struggling economies. With Trump’s current economic policies, such as the implementation of tariffs and economic deals with other nations, he stated

that these efforts have boosted, and will keep boosting, the American economy.

President Trump asserted that “so many jobs have been created” and “great deals” have been forged, thanks to the efforts under his administration.

Despite China being a global trade superpower and being able to export local goods to many respectable nations, President Trump had his doubts on the quality of Chinese products, stating that Chinese products were of low grade despite such products being exported largely to other nations.

President Trump further contrasted the claim on China manufacturing “low-quality goods” to the high quality of local American goods produced, even going on further to praise the efforts by various American states in producing high-quality products.

US-China tensions

On the issue of the US-China trade dispute, President Trump condemned China’s way of moving forward during such tense times alongside the US, and again further expressed his support for the American way of dealing with US-China tensions.

With his constant expressions of disapproval and disgust towards China and in Chinese efforts regarding the ongoing US-China dispute, it is obvious that relations between the US and China are still heavily strained despite previous efforts to reach a beneficial and constructive relationship between both superpowers.

China, in Trump’s telling, represented not just competition but a fundamentally flawed path forward. With an economy heavily reliant on mass production of low-quality goods, China lacked the ingenuity and discipline which Trump stated that American firms have. He hinted that trade relations could improve only if Beijing acquiesced to US demands, insisting he would revisit tariffs only on those terms. The subtext was unmistakable: compromise is weakness, and confrontation is the default.

Notably, Trump contrasted this antagonism toward China with what he depicted as a warm and functional relationship with Japan. Japan, he said, “likes to trade with the US,” and thus remains a reliable partner. The simplicity of this formulation, where good countries trade fairly while bad ones exploit, fits neatly into Trump’s transactional worldview, even if it overlooks the complex realities of Asian regional dynamics and the strategic calculations behind Tokyo’s diplomacy.

Moving forward

Beneath the bluster, however, lay a core belief: that America must be insulated from a global economy he views as predatory. If China were to respond “violently” to economic pressure, a hypothetical he raised without elaboration, he admitted the US “would not know what to do,” a surprisingly candid acknowledgment of the volatility inherent in escalating economic brinkmanship.

Yet Trump concluded with characteristic confidence: the United States “continues to beat China everywhere,” he said, and therefore the tariff regime should remain firmly in place. What he left unaddressed was the cost of perpetual confrontation: higher consumer prices, supply chain disruptions, and strained diplomatic ties. Such strains would not only be for the US, but for the

broader international community navigating the fallout of the world’s two largest economies locked in rivalry.

From Buenos Aires to Beijing, governments watch these pronouncements closely. Latin American economies that are deeply connected to Chinese markets and increasingly entangled in US strategic considerations have learnt that great-power tensions have ripple effects far beyond their origin. Trump’s interview is a reminder that the world may once again find itself adjusting to an American trade policy driven by instinct, grievance, and a deeply personal sense of mission.

In the end, Trump’s latest comments reveal not a departure from his earlier positions but a doubling down. The US-China trade dispute, in his framing, is not a negotiation, but a crusade, and one in which he envisions himself, again, at the centre.