Trump crumbles and accuses China’s betrayal

In a new digital onslaught, Trump accuses China to violate the tariff truce and rekindles a climate of confrontation between the two largest economic powers on the planet

The fragile truce in the trade war between the United States and China seems to have come to an abrupt end, at least in the assessment of President Donald Trump. In a striking and characteristic demonstration on his social Truth platform, Trump launched a verbal offensive against Beijing, claiming that the Asian nation would have “totally violated” an emergency commercial pact sealed two weeks ago in Geneva. The statement rekindles the flames of a conflict that has shaken the two largest economies on the planet, after a brief interlude of tense negotiations that produced modest advances.

Read also: Trump rekindles trade war in attack against China

The agent spared no words to express his frustration by painting a unilateral betrayal of China. “I made a quick deal with China to save them from what I thought would be a very bad situation, and I didn’t want to see it happen,” Trump wrote on Friday, in a tone that mixes self-deemed threat with veiled threat. “China, perhaps unlike some, totally guitar, his agreement with us. So much to be the cool guy!” He concluded, signaling his willingness to abandon diplomacy and return to a direct confrontation stance.

The understanding in question, signed on Swiss soil, provided for a temporary bass in retaliatory tariffs that both countries had been imposing on each other, which had already reached the alarming level of 145% over certain products.

According to the Financial Times, by the agreement, the United States pledged to reduce its rates to 30%, while China would alleviate its overcutments to 10%. A crucial component of the pact was Beijing’s commitment to “suspend or cancel” a series of non -tariff measures that have been affecting American companies, although the details and schedule for such dismantling have never been clearly explained by the Chinese government.

American dissatisfaction is not limited to the words of the president. The US commercial representative, Jamieson Greer, in later statements, specified that China has shown a worrying slowness in removing non -tariff barriers. Among the most sensitive measures are the ban on rare land magnet exports-vital components for the high-tech industry, including electric vehicles, wind turbines and advanced electronics-and maintaining black lists that restrict the performance of US companies in the Chinese market.

“When they agreed in Geneva to remove their tariffs and contracted, they removed the fares as we did, but in some contracted they are taking,” Greer said in an interview with CNBC television network. The commercial representative was emphatic in pointing out the lack of progress in critical areas: “We did not see the flow of some of these critical minerals as it should be happening.”

While rhetoric is intended, Trump’s own ability to impose tariffs broadly and unilaterally face legal questions at home. Recently, a US commercial court issued a decision indicating that the then president did not have a legal authority to apply certain retaliatory taxes. However, this determination was temporarily suspended by a higher instance, allowing the government to resort, but adding a layer of legal uncertainty about future protectionist actions.

Amid the growing impasse, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has publicly acknowledged that trade conversations with China are currently “a little paralyzed.” Seeking a way to unlock dialogue, Bessent suggested that direct communication between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping could be the catalyst needed to reactivate negotiations.

“I believe we will have more conversations in the coming weeks and I believe that at some point there may be a connection between President and President XI,” Bessent said in an interview with Fox News. He stressed the importance of direct involvement of the maximum leaders: “Given the magnitude of these discussions… this will require both leaders to share their preferences directly.”

On the Chinese side, however, the answer has been of caution and calculated silence. The China Ministry of Foreign Affairs chose not to directly comment on Bessent’s statements. Previously, after the conclusion of the Geneva Agreement, the Chinese Ministry of Trade had issued a statement mentioning the intention to establish a “economic and commercial consultation mechanism between China and the USA.” This forum provided for regular meetings, alternating headquarters between the two countries or occurring in neutral, mutually agreed locations.

Despite this initial signaling of a structured dialogue channel, little concrete information about the operation or progress of this mechanism has been publicly disclosed by either party since then. At the same time, Trump management has continued to impose new restrictions on American technology access and use by Chinese companies, maintaining pressure on strategic sectors of the Chinese economy.

In China state communication vehicles, influential Voices linked to the Communist Party have sounded a warning to the population and political stablishment about the need for resilience and preparation for a period of continuous friction with the United States. Huo Jianguo, a respected figure and vice president of the Chinese Society of Studies of the World Trade Organization (WTO), published an analytical article on the China Economic Net portal, a party-affiliated vehicle. In his analysis, huo jianguo outlined the Chinese perspective:

“Given the long and complex nature of the struggle with the US, we must be fully prepared for negotiations, but also ready for a prolonged confrontation.” This statement reflects a strategic vision that commercial tensions are part of a broader and more lasting rivalry, requiring a posture that combines a willingness to dialogue with firmness to resist external pressures.

Donald Trump’s recent escalation of statements unequivocally demonstrates that the United States and China trade war is far from a definitive resolution. On the contrary, it remains a powerful letter in the former Republican President’s political deck, especially in a context of electoral movements.

While Washington utters, sometimes generic accusations, and strives to maintain pressure on Beijing, international trade experts point out that the absence of transparency and a genuine commitment to reciprocity under the signed agreements makes it difficult to build any sustainable and lasting solution.

In contrast, it is observed that China seems to adopt a more defensive and calculating strategy, focused on gaining time to strengthen its domestic industry, foster internal technological innovation and crucially reduce its dependence on US technologies and markets.

With the figure of Trump again emerging prominently in the American electoral scenario, analysts express the fear that commercial instability and geopolitical tensions continue to be used as a bargaining chip in an increasingly globalized, polarized and unpredictable political game, whose consequences extend far beyond the boundaries of the two superpowers.

With information from Financial Times*