Beijing now claims it’s “evaluating” the possibility of trade negotiations with the United States, but Americans should take this overture not as a step toward peace, but as a calculated move by a strategic rival. Beneath the polite language of diplomacy lies a deeper game: China is managing public optics while entrenching its long-term ambition to undermine American economic leadership.
According to a statement released by China’s Ministry of Commerce, senior U.S. officials have made repeated attempts through “relevant parties” to initiate talks, especially around the issue of steep tariffs. President Donald Trump’s administration has imposed tariffs as high as 145% on Chinese goods, prompting Beijing to respond with 125% retaliatory duties. Now, Beijing is calling on the U.S. to remove all “unilateral tariffs” as a precondition to any negotiation, accusing Washington of “a lack of sincerity” and “undermining mutual trust.”
While Wall Street cheered the news—Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index jumped 1.6%—and the offshore yuan strengthened slightly, Americans must not mistake these market movements for meaningful progress. The truth is, China is not backing down. It’s simply playing for time.
Analysts have already warned that Beijing is unlikely to make real concessions. Trump administration insiders, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and economic adviser Kevin Hassett, have acknowledged that while discussions are happening at various levels, there is no firm path toward a comprehensive deal. “First, we need to de-escalate,” said Bessent, adding that “everything is on the table.” But that’s exactly the risk—putting everything on the table without recognizing that China only takes, and rarely gives.
Eurasia Group’s Dan Wang noted the key danger: China wants a truce it can control, not a fair agreement. “Trump is chaotic,” Wang said. “China will not risk losing control of the situation just for the negotiation’s sake.” In other words, Beijing may entertain talks, but only if the terms allow them to dictate the outcome.
Meanwhile, China has made no secret of its red lines. Beijing insists that all U.S. tariffs must be rolled back—not partially, but entirely—before it will even consider serious negotiation. That’s not diplomacy; that’s blackmail. It’s a tactical maneuver designed to erode U.S. leverage, while appearing cooperative in the eyes of the international community.
At the same time, China continues to aggressively pursue technological self-sufficiency, expand its influence through Belt and Road investments, and weaponize supply chains, especially in critical sectors like semiconductors, rare earth minerals, and pharmaceuticals. It is granting select tariff waivers on imports not to appease Washington, but to stabilize its own economy under strain. These moves are not goodwill gestures—they are self-preservation.
Let’s be clear: China is not interested in restoring balanced trade. It is interested in reducing its vulnerability while preserving the economic benefits it still enjoys from the global system. This includes maintaining access to U.S. markets, technology, and capital—even as it builds parallel systems and cultivates alternatives through BRICS and regional trade alliances.
What makes this moment particularly dangerous is that China understands America’s political divisions, and it’s using them to its advantage. While U.S. officials debate over tariffs and trade deficits, Beijing is thinking decades ahead—about economic dominance, information control, and ideological influence.
The trade war is only one front in a much larger competition. From cyberattacks on U.S. infrastructure to influence operations on American campuses and social media platforms, China has repeatedly shown that it does not respect the rules-based order. It uses international systems when convenient, and discards them when inconvenient. Its participation in talks should not be seen as a return to normalcy, but as a temporary tactical retreat.
So what should the U.S. do?
First, stay the course on strategic tariffs, especially those targeting high-tech and defense-relevant industries. Second, demand reciprocal commitments, not vague language, in any future talks. Third, invest in domestic resilience—including reshoring key industries, strengthening export controls, and building robust alliances with like-minded democracies.
Above all, Americans must resist the temptation to view China through the lens of short-term markets or political cycles. This is a generational contest. China’s latest statements are not olive branches—they’re carefully calculated moves in a long game of attrition.
We must not confuse talk with trust. And we must never let engagement become appeasement. The future of American economic leadership depends on it.
