I asked 4 China experts 4 questions no one is asking about tariffs

Watch snooker, go for a run, contemplate the future of our planet. Forget the noise. Take action where you can.

I’ve said many times that I won’t be writing on the current tariff news (at least not until the dust settles in about 2-3 years’ time). However, that doesn’t mean I can’t rope other, much more capable and interesting people into sharing their thoughts!

For my first collaboration post – a series that I hope will introduce you and me to a variety of other amazing Substacks – I asked 4 China experts a series of questions about tariffs to get some perspectives we may not have heard yet. Please check out their other posts and consider supporting their writing.

Thank you again to

Gabriel

(The Capital in the North, Gabriel’s Travels),

Rory Truex

(Living in Truth)

Sarah Cook

(UnderReported China), and

Whipling

[Sean] (Too Simple, Sometimes Naive) for taking the time to participate!

1. What’s the first word that pops into your head when you read about the tariff wars?

Gabriel: Self-defeating.

Even if we agree that Trump and his MAGA crew are, at some level, reacting to genuine issues (an unbalanced global trading regime, deindustrialization in the US, China’s closed domestic market and overreliance on exports), I don’t think this bizarre tariff war on the whole world is the clever way to address these problem. If the issue is with some of China’s policies, then the US should work with its allies. It would have many.

Rory: Continuity.

Early on I had questions about whether Trump would continue to pursue his policies of maximalist confrontation with China, or whether there was some “authoritarian realignment” afoot. The tariff escalation fits the broader worldview of people like Peter Navarro, who see tariffs as the only way to rejuvenate American manufacturing, and who believe China is the main driver of American decline. Navarro was a central figure the first time around, and he appears to be just as influential this term.

Sarah: Inflation.

I think about the rising costs for consumers and families that it is likely to create, which the Tax Foundation estimates at just over $1,200 per household in 2025.

Sean: Déjà vu.

We’ve been here before. My first viral video for China Daily was on tariffs, during Trump 1.0. I tired of the hype, the chest-beating, the rhetoric. I thought everyone needed a breather, some context. So, I did a real-life, to scale graph. I sellotaped some money notes together. “This is all of China-US trade. Now, compare that with the size of China’s economy…”. That line snaked all round the office. Hundreds of notes. It struck a chord, hit a million views on the first day. I’d love some of that calm, grand perspective today.

2. Can there be any winners? Or only losers? Or something in between??

Gabriel: There are winners and losers in any economic shift, but I fear losers will be the majority in the short-run, as economies contract or grow less fast across the globe. Prices will increase, and the poor as always will be the most affected in their personal lives.

We can always hope that in the long run, this shock pushes the international community to give itself new and improved rules and institutions.

Rory: I understand the argument that the American worker was effectively screwed over by globalization and the flight of manufacturing to China and places like it. But I don’t think the tariffs are going to help American workers in any meaningful way, because they are being implemented in such a haphazard and unstable manner. No company is going to make long term investment decisions based on these tariff roll outs. In the meantime, small businesses are being disrupted, inflation will rise, and the economy may enter a recession. That doesn’t help anybody.

Sarah: I am far from an expert on global trade, but I imagine there could be winners in other countries, places like Vietnam where some manufacturing has already shifted to from China. That being said, Vietnam is also led by an authoritarian Communist Party and ranked Not Free by Freedom House, though it is not as repressive as China’s ruling regime. Still, from a human rights perspective, it may only be a slight improvement.

What fascinates me, though, is thinking about how the tariffs, depending on their final level and distribution from both sides, could shift incentives for U.S. businesses and investors. U.S. investment in China or in Chinese companies carries a lot of risks—political and ethical as well as economic. This is not only for businesses operating in China but also for retirement funds or due to the dependencies created (which the Chinese Communist Party is adept at using to exercise indirect influence over U.S. policy decisions). These risks have often been underappreciated or simply overlooked and dismissed for short-term gains, contributing to questionable business decisions (see a new report on U.S. hotel chains expanding in Xinjiang, in some cases on top of demolished mosques).

So, beyond the winners and losers in terms of sectors or manufacturing, I could see knock-on benefits to reduced entanglement between the two economies due to higher bilateral tariffs emerging from the perspective of limiting how much U.S. exposure there is to complicity in CCP repression.

Sean: Tariffs are an admission of defeat. It’s saying: “our businesses can’t compete, so we’re going to artificially load the scales”. But they do and can work. Ironically, China is a good model to copy. It protected its economy, supported sectors with massive skills, infrastructure, and investment spending, and steadily built them up. Only when they could compete internationally, did the Government roll back tariffs or entry barriers. Trump is implementing tariffs, but he seems to be forgetting the investment.

3. What’s the one thing no one’s talking about when it comes to the tariff wars?

Gabriel: Climate change. Trump waging his tariff war and generally upending the global order has probably pushed decarbonisation and the transition away from fossil fuels down in the list of priorities for most countries, behind rearming and generally shoring up their economies. Of course the US pulling out of the Paris Agreement won’t help matters either. China may try and take the lead of global efforts to address climate change, but China’s own decarbonisation also needs to speed up.

Rory: I think there are folks in DC are surprised that China hasn’t caved and sought to cut some deal with Trump. Perhaps some “grand deal” will be reached after all, but it seems more and more like the Trump team has systematically underestimated China’s resolve. There is a lot of “collapsism” floating around the China watching community, especially in the GOP. There are some that believe China’s whole political and economic system is just one squeeze from breaking down completely, and even that regime change is possible in the short term.

The CCP has been preparing the Chinese people for this moment cognitively for many years, and it plays into broader regime narratives about enduring sacrifice and hardship for the nation. I do not foresee any meaningful domestic political instability from the trade war.

Sarah: What the effects of tariffs might be on the forced labor dimensions of U.S.-China trade. On the one hand, higher tariffs and reduced bilateral trade could lower the amount of goods coming from regions like Xinjiang—where ethnic minorities are forced into labor and transfer programs—into the United States, making enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act (which prohibits the entry of such goods) easier.

On the other hand, if Chinese factories close or face tighter margins due to reduced export demand, those remaining may be more tempted to use forced labor to cut costs. Also, the tariffs could increase schemes that obscure the actual origin of goods being from China, while trying to get them into U.S. supply chains, serving at the same time to hide whether items are coming from a known factory or from a murkier source like a prison.

One underappreciated dimension of forced labor in China is the extent to which workers and prisoners in parts of China other than Xinjiang have been used for this purpose. This includes Uyghurs forcibly relocated to other provinces, foreigners, and political or religious prisoners like practitioners of the Falun Gong meditation practice. Even after the closure of the re-education through labor system in 2013, this has continued, though it is not as well-documented as the forced labor schemes within Xinjiang. Reduced levels of U.S.-China trade could have the effect of lowering how many of these goods reach U.S. shores.

Nevertheless, if Chinese exporters simply shift to other foreign markets, it wouldn’t necessarily provide respite to the prisoners.

Sean: It’s minor, but I’ve been raising an eyebrow at how Chinese state media and some online nationalists keep glorifying “how cheap Chinese goods are”. Yes. They’re primarily cheap because someone, somewhere in the production chain, is living a miserable, underpaid, and at times dangerous existence. Too often, China’s working poor are its forgotten millions. These propagandists would do well to visit some farms or factory bunkhouses, or perhaps read their Marxist textbooks again.

4. What would you like people to spend their time doing instead of incessantly reading, writing and talking about tariffs all the time?

Gabriel: Well, in line with my answer above, I think climate change should continue taking up a lot of our attention. Not all of it, but much of it.

Some progress on decarbonisation and renewables has been made, but the reality is countries are not cutting emissions fast enough, they are insufficiently prepared for extreme climate events, and rich countries are not providing enough support for poor countries to address the situation. Out of humanity’s many problems, this may well be the biggest.

Rory: I would like to see a more sustained focus on the corruption inherent in the Trump administration. The tariff announcements alone create insane opportunities for insider trading, and the inevitable exemptions process will allow Trump to tip the economic playing field in favor of his cronies. The stated goal of the tariffs—to bring back manufacturing—will fail, but the real political purpose will succeed. Trump’s economic policies are a graft machine.

Sarah: Get outside - go for a walk, hike, jog, or bike ride in the lovely spring weather. My daughter and I are going to run a 5k on Sunday!

Seriously, though, I think it’s helpful to talk to people and communities within and from China who could be affected, especially voices that are suppressed or silenced by CCP censors, rather than focusing almost entirely on the high-level dialogues or latest statement from the White House or Chinese Foreign Ministry. The tariffs are causing anxiety for many ordinary families and workers in China and not only in the United States, especially given the already weakened state of the Chinese economy. Meanwhile, for many in the diaspora and activist community—be they Chinese, Uyghur or Tibetan—the prospective shuttering of Radio Free Asia and Voice of America, foreign aid cuts, and ongoing transnational repression driven by the CCP and its proxies have been more impactful on their daily lives.

These shifting realities could even have life or death implications if exiled journalists lose work visas and are forced to return home to face potential arrest, families lose valuable sources of information on the well-being of relatives in China, organizations dissolve programs that support at-risk journalists and activists (or document abuses like forced labor), while a rising number of anonymous death threats target CCP critics and religious believers outside China. It would be great to see more private philanthropists step forward, even temporarily, to fill funding gaps and more Members of Congress support journalists and others in their districts facing risks to their safety.

Sean: The Snooker World Championships are just starting – that’s pretty zen. And there’s a record ten (!) Chinese players involved this year. My money’s on Si Jiahui. Jia you!

Want more from these writers? Don’t forget to visit their Substacks and check out their most recent posts.

Gabriel: Prioritisation or isolationism?

Rory: The Fear Tariff

Sarah: How Shutting Down VOA and RFA Also Leaves U.S. Policymakers in the Dark

Sean: After two hours talking to me, China's Deepseek had sold out its Government and was keen to move abroad

For next month’s collab post I’m looking for writers on SE Asia to comment on perceptions of China in the region. Can be personal blogs or IR focused. Drop a comment or tag someone you think may be interested!