A casual observer might have celebrated the May 14 announcement of reciprocal tariff suspensions between the United States and China. Headlines fluttered like diplomatic bunting, investors exhaled in unison, and a chorus of pundits resumed humming that tired hymn about de-escalation. But those who follow the matter with more than passing interest—particularly those with the bruises of 2018–2020 still fresh—know better than to mistake theatre for substance. What’s being described as a trade deal is neither durable nor enforceable. It is an expensive truce in a war of political egos.
And yet, this fragile arrangement is framed as progress. As if the mere act of negotiating, however performative, redeems the preceding years of disruption, confusion, and tactical vacuity.
Trump’s tariffs: Policy by provocation
The return of Donald Trump to the White House has revived what some politely call “transactionalism” and others more bluntly label economic vandalism. His use of tariffs—once a tool of last resort—resembles less a coherent economic policy and more a battering ram against reality. Imposed unilaterally, these tariffs fracture global supply chains and destabilise expectations, particularly for businesses that depend on long lead times, stable pricing, and geopolitical sanity.
The logic, if one can call it that, is that short-term pain for importers and consumers will coerce foreign governments into concessions. This belief presupposes both good faith on all sides and a shared interest in compromise. It also requires memory loss—especially of the 2019 negotiations that collapsed under the weight of irreconcilable documentation styles. The Americans insisted on legislative codification; the Chinese preferred regulatory subtlety. The result? A trade deal that died on the altar of incompatible legal traditions.
The illusion of enforcement
One might recall the much-trumpeted “phase one” agreement of January 2020, which promised $200 billion in additional Chinese purchases of American goods. Predictably, those targets were not met. Just as predictably, no enforcement followed. Why? Because the agreement lacked a neutral arbitrator and depended entirely on mutual goodwill—an emotion conspicuously absent in great power relations. A trade deal without teeth is just a handshake followed by selective amnesia.
The 2025 iteration is no different. Trust deficits remain the defining trait of U.S.-China economic diplomacy. Tariffs may have been paused, but the suspicion persists. Beijing has every reason to question Washington’s constancy, especially under an administration whose mercurial decisions oscillate between transaction and tantrum.
Bullwhip economics and retail carnage
Consider the downstream effects. Modern supply chains, especially those delivering seasonal goods like Christmas toys, depend on rhythms more predictable than election-year rhetoric. Production timelines begin in spring, shipping must commence by summer, and shelves require stocking by autumn. When tariffs fluctuate, this choreography collapses. Orders are cancelled, suppliers hedge their bets, and distributors find themselves with either too much or too little inventory at precisely the wrong time.
This dynamic, known to economists as the “bullwhip effect,” ensures that every policy jolt sends ripples through the system that amplify rather than dampen disruption. Uncertainty becomes the new baseline. Even when tariffs are rescinded, the hesitation they instilled lingers. A trade deal, however symbolic, cannot reverse months of misaligned production.
Cooperation isn’t naïve, it’s rational
At this point, a certain kind of reader—seasoned, cynical, perhaps fluent in spreadsheets and spin—will ask: What’s the alternative? If coercion fails and trust is lacking, why pursue engagement at all?
The answer, unfashionable though it may seem in Washington, lies in cooperation. And not the sentimental kind. We speak here of pragmatic cooperation, grounded in centuries of political thought, from both East and West. The Global Times, rarely accused of subtlety, recently reminded its readers that Aristotle, Rousseau, Rawls and even Adam Smith all championed forms of collaboration. Smith’s oft-quoted line about the invisible hand neglects his deeper argument: that markets require moral scaffolding and institutional trust.
Indeed, even Marx’s call for solidarity and Locke’s emphasis on consent suggest that societies thrive not when individuals pursue unilateral gain, but when they consent to shared norms. China, for its part, underscores these ideas through its repeated references to “win-win” diplomacy. Dismiss that as boilerplate if you like—but one ought not scoff at consistency, especially in contrast to Washington’s seasonal ideological rebranding.
Trade deal fatigue and the mythology of toughness
So why do American politicians persist in mythologising toughness? Why equate unpredictability with strength? Partly because the domestic audience demands performance. Trump’s electorate expects a show, and tariffs are his favourite special effect. Their costs are diffuse, their logic opaque, and their headlines punchy. What better way to appear decisive while evading accountability?
This explains why even modest agreements are framed as trade deals, not temporary cessations of hostilities. A proper trade deal involves rules, monitoring, and recourse. What we have instead is diplomacy with the consistency of a coin toss.
Yet the myth endures. Every tariff is sold as leverage. Every retaliation is rebuffed with bravado. And every collapse in talks is, somehow, evidence of resolve. If this is strategy, it is of the tragicomic variety.
The hidden costs of performative policy
What goes unsaid in official briefings is the structural toll this policy theatre exacts. Firms reconfigure supply lines at great cost. Small businesses, unable to hedge or relocate, shut down. Consumers face price hikes and product delays. And all of this unfolds under the veneer of sovereignty and economic patriotism.
Meanwhile, allies grow weary. European partners see less a trade deal and more a transatlantic sideshow. Asian neighbours interpret volatility as unreliability. The very architecture of global commerce—built over decades on predictability—is eroded by slogans masquerading as policy.
A trade deal, or a diplomatic placebo?
One must wonder: Are these announcements anything more than diplomatic placebos? Designed not to heal, but to placate? They buy time, soothe markets, and permit a temporary sense of movement—without addressing the underlying dysfunction.
If history is any guide, they will unravel with the same predictability as their predecessors. Not because diplomacy is futile, but because it is being outperformed by performativity. Trade deals require patience, legal symmetry, and shared purpose. Not television moments or Twitter applause.
And so we return to the keyword: trade deal. Used liberally, but meaning little. Repeated often, but rarely delivered. Its presence in every press release testifies less to economic progress and more to political branding. The question is not whether the U.S. and China can strike another deal. The question is whether either side remains interested in what a real trade deal demands: not just agreement, but alignment.