News is knowledge, Knowledge is news /
//Trump Faces Growing Pressure from China to End Tariffs Amid Escalating Trade Tensions and Boeing Retaliation//
In a sharp rebuke to ongoing U.S. tariff policies, China has issued a direct and unequivocal demand to President Donald Trump: if he truly wants to restart trade talks and ease rising economic tensions between the world's two largest economies, he must first cancel the sweeping tariffs that Washington has imposed on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods—a move that has ignited one of the most prolonged and economically damaging trade wars in modern history, drawing in industries from aviation to agriculture and threatening global financial stability. Speaking just hours after speculation surfaced that the two nations were engaged in active negotiations, Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesman He Yadong dismissed such reports as completely inaccurate, emphasizing that no consultations or negotiations had taken place between Beijing and Washington, contrary to what President Trump and other U.S. officials had previously suggested in press conferences and social media statements. He Yadong further underscored Beijing's firm stance, stating that if the U.S. “truly wanted” to solve the trade conflict, it should “remove all unilateral tariff measures,” a demand rooted in China’s belief that Washington, not Beijing, triggered the dispute by unilaterally imposing tariffs on a wide range of Chinese products without mutual consent or multilateral agreement, thereby violating what China considers the basic norms of international trade. In one of the most symbolic diplomatic lines of the day, He declared, “The person who tied the bell must untie it,” a traditional Chinese idiom implying that the responsibility to fix a problem lies with the one who created it—a clear message to Trump that only he holds the key to resolving the economic standoff. At the same time, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun reinforced the point, stating categorically that not only had no negotiations occurred, but also that reports indicating the opposite were “false,” casting doubt on Trump’s repeated claims that talks were underway and possibly nearing a breakthrough. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent further complicated the narrative by publicly confirming on Wednesday that trade negotiations had not yet started, contradicting Trump’s earlier statements and creating confusion about the real status of diplomatic efforts. The standoff has already begun to show real-world consequences, particularly in the aerospace sector where Boeing—one of America’s largest exporters—has become collateral damage in the tariff war. Kelly Ortberg, CEO of Boeing, revealed that China had returned two aircraft that were part of previous multi-billion-dollar purchase agreements and warned that a third plane would soon be rejected as well, indicating that Beijing was using targeted retaliation against American industries to increase pressure on Washington and signal its unwillingness to proceed with business as usual while tariffs remain in place. Trump, not one to back down from confrontation, responded on his Truth Social platform by lashing out at China, writing that “Boeing should default China for not taking the beautifully finished planes that China committed to purchase,” and framing the incident as a betrayal that reflects a pattern of behavior he believes China has followed “for years” to undermine U.S. economic interests. He escalated his rhetoric further by tying the dispute to another longstanding grievance—China’s alleged role in the spread of synthetic opioid fentanyl into the United States, a substance Trump says is killing “hundreds of thousands” of Americans via trafficking routes through Mexico and Canada, and which has become a central theme in his broader campaign to label China as a bad actor on the world stage. These statements come at a time when Trump appears to be softening his public stance on tariffs, stating that while the import taxes would “come down substantially,” they would “not be zero,” suggesting that he is open to compromise but not full surrender—a diplomatic maneuver aimed at preserving leverage while possibly signaling openness to de-escalation. However, from Beijing’s point of view, partial tariff reductions are not enough; they demand a complete rollback as a condition for any serious talks, creating a standoff in which neither side appears willing to make the first move. This clash over tariffs has exposed major divisions not only between the U.S. and China but also within the Trump administration itself, with contradictory messaging from the president, his Treasury secretary, and other officials creating uncertainty in global markets, supply chains, and policy circles, where investors and governments alike are anxiously watching for clarity. The latest development in the trade war follows years of tit-for-tat tariffs that began during Trump’s first term in office and have since escalated to include over $550 billion in goods, affecting industries like technology, farming, retail, and now, increasingly, commercial aviation. Trump has long argued that the tariffs are necessary to correct what he views as decades of unfair trade practices by China, including intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers, and currency manipulation, but critics at home and abroad say that the tariffs have backfired by raising prices for American consumers and damaging key industries that rely on international trade. The growing dispute with China is not only about tariffs and planes—it has become a microcosm of the broader struggle between two global powers vying for economic dominance, technological leadership, and geopolitical influence in a post-pandemic world marked by uncertainty, inflation, and shifting alliances. Terms like “trade imbalance,” “unilateral sanctions,” “export retaliation,” “economic decoupling,” and “supply chain resilience” have become everyday vocabulary for economists and policymakers trying to navigate the new reality where globalization is being reshaped by nationalism, protectionism, and great-power rivalry. While the Trump administration maintains that its approach is about securing better deals and protecting American workers, China sees the tariffs as a hostile provocation meant to contain its rise and curb its economic autonomy—an interpretation that fuels nationalist sentiment inside China and makes compromise politically difficult for its leadership as well. The Boeing retaliation is especially symbolic because the aviation sector has long been one of the few areas where U.S.-China cooperation flourished, with billions of dollars at stake and thousands of jobs dependent on stable commercial relationships, and now, even that pillar appears to be crumbling under the weight of mutual distrust and policy rigidity. Trump's critics argue that the tariff war has failed to achieve its stated goals, pointing to the fact that the trade deficit with China remains high and that many U.S. manufacturers have suffered due to higher input costs and disrupted global supply chains, while supporters say the pressure is necessary to realign trade priorities and force China to play by fair rules. As tensions mount and aircraft are returned, many in Washington and Beijing wonder whether the situation will deteriorate into a full-blown economic decoupling—where the two economies separate entirely, leading to a world divided into rival trading blocs—or whether cooler heads will prevail and find a path forward through negotiation, compromise, and strategic engagement. For now, the message from China is clear: trade talks will not resume until the tariffs are canceled, and any attempt to mislead the public about the status of negotiations will be firmly rejected. Trump, however, is unlikely to remove all tariffs without significant concessions, as doing so could be seen as political weakness and might undercut his core message of strength, sovereignty, and America-first economics. The coming weeks may bring more twists as both sides consider their next moves, but the road to resolution appears fraught with challenges, including political risk, public perception, and the economic impact of continued standoff. Meanwhile, the world watches as two global giants spar not only over planes and tariffs but also over the future of global trade itself.
Tags:
ONOFFTODAYNEWS