On May 11, 2025, the US and China held high-level trade talks in Geneva, reaching a preliminary agreement. Scott Bessent, Greer, and He Lifeng established a regular consultation mechanism to address tariff barriers, paving the way for potential tariff reductions. The talks were hyped as a “thaw” in relations, but strategically, they mark a shift in tempo—a pause in the opening movement of a symphony, not a true reconciliation.
The backdrop to this agreement is Trump’s renewed tariff offensive. Bolstered by public support and growing bipartisan consensus, the US has ramped up comprehensive tariffs on Chinese exports, expanding their scope and raising rates, explicitly tied to rebuilding domestic supply chains. This isn’t mere trade friction; it’s the opening salvo in a structural re-confrontation.
Reversing the Tide: The Core Value of the New Tariff War
For years, US-China economic relations have been stuck in a “delay-and-imbalance” pattern: China held the initiative, while the US reacted passively. China infiltrated global supply chains and industry standards through subsidies and strategic penetration, while the US steadily lost ground in critical technologies and strategic sectors.
Trump’s 2025 tariff war, relaunched with vigor, isn’t about forcing immediate Chinese concessions. Its true aim is to reshape the trajectory and reclaim dominance:
- Disrupt China’s economic momentum, forcing it to retool its export-driven model and resource allocation;
- Reassert control over supply chains, bolstering US domestic industries and high-tech strategies;
- Cement a long-term, institutionalized “tough-on-China” policy consensus.
This strategic overhaul matters because it flips the structural dynamic of US-China relations from “the US weakens with time, China strengthens” to “the US strengthens with time, China weakens.”
Geneva: A US-Led Tactical Pause, Not a Structural Concession
The Geneva agreement doesn’t tackle core systemic issues, but it does ease short-term pressures and reduce the risk of escalation. Amid rising tensions in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, Washington flexes military deterrence while steering economic dynamics. It’s not seeking an all-out showdown but aims to dominate the game.
For China, the talks were about damage control; for the US, they were about “controlling the temperature.” The side that sets the pace is the true leader. This is proof the strategic momentum has shifted.
Looking back, the US-China dynamic used to be: the longer the US delayed, the more passive it became; the longer China delayed, the bolder it grew. Now, with supply chain restructuring and capital repatriation and tech blockades taking shape, the tide has turned: the US grows stronger with time, China weaker. This lets the US play the long game without rushing, using tactical “cooling” to lock in its edge.
That said, a full-scale conflict isn’t in the US’s favor yet, as its strategic focus hasn’t fully shifted to the Indo-Pacific. Despite gradual realignment, US military and economic priorities remain anchored in Eurasia and the Middle East, making all-out confrontation or war costly in the near term. As the US pivots toward the Indo-Pacific, escalation will face increasingly complex diplomatic and military hurdles.
Thus, the Geneva agreement shouldn’t be misread as a return to “US-China cooperation.” It’s a US-driven tactical pivot, a calculated move to consolidate gains in phases.
Conclusion: Just the First Movement
The Geneva talks mark the early payoff of Trump’s strategy. The US has shifted the tempo to dominate the contest, while China is left reacting. Plenty of challenges lie ahead. The game is far from over, but Trump has wrested the initiative from Beijing. That’s the core significance of the 2025 tariff war.
