Trump’s breaking-the-china strategy isn’t working: Despite the global collateral damage, only modest progress has been made with China

Constructive engagement, however minor, represents a positive advancement. On Fox Business, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon made this point. He emphasized the significance of leaders from the two most significant economies engaging in direct discussions to achieve “a more constructive place than we’ve been over the course of the last couple of months.” Solomon stated that he doesn't He believes a separation will happen, but he correctly stated that the U.S. A new policy is required to tackle persistent market manipulations originating from China.

Conversely, China has seen virtually no advancements since Trump's inauguration, notwithstanding all the commotion. Derek Scissors, an Asia Economist at the American Enterprise Institute, expressed a more pessimistic view on CNBC. He strongly asserted argued that “the meeting itself was a waste of time,” proceeded to elaborate on how “US policy is pretty much where it was when President Trump took office.”

Both options are acceptable. However, the gathering proved significantly more important than these two perspectives suggest, and not solely due to the U.S. The threat of a 100% tariff and China's rare earth export controls were both avoided. The crucial takeaway from The Trump-Xi Summit is that it highlighted the constraints of Trump's tariff strategy and demonstrated that a lasting resolution remains out of reach.

Knowing his penchant for intimidation, Trump is well aware that the only effective response to a bully is unified action. The U.S., as frequently asserted by The Trump administration, As the world's largest consumer, it wields considerable power in international commerce. However, it's frequently overlooked that the globe relies more heavily on products from China than it does on American shoppers. Leveraging this power, Xi has compelled nations to accept China's subsidized goods, pressured companies to surrender intellectual property, and forced out unwelcome foreign rivals.

Although Trump excels at thwarting group efforts, he's demonstrated less skill in fostering them. His heated rhetoric on tariffs has prevented him from forging a solid agreement to counter China's exploitative trade tactics. So, who is the aggressor and who is the victim?

Abuse of Tariffs for Personal Crusades

Trump has misused the power of tariffs, ostensibly to boost economic security, but actually employing them as a tool for personal vendettas or to exploit less powerful countries. 

This past week, the president levied an incremental 10% tariff on Canada after the friendly neighbor to the north aired a controversial but accurate and costly TV ad during the widely watched World Series. Last week, the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial board strongly criticized Trump's conduct, labeling it a “tantrum” and asserting he was guilty of “taking Reagan’s trade beliefs in vain.” The Journal editorial staff, in a sarcastic tone towards Trump, presented the accurate information: The gentleman Trump is mistaken regarding Reagan's stance on tariffs; he was incorrect to assert on social media that 'Ronald Reagan LOVED tariffs for purposes of National Security and the Economy.' Reagan was, in fact, a proponent of free trade. 

In July, Trump imposed an additional 40% tariff on all exports from Brazil unless it dropped the “witch hunt” prosecution of former President and Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro. South Africa received steep tariffs over what Trump considers a mistreatment of white farmers and discriminatory land reform policies. Similarly, earlier this fall, at our September Yale Washington CEO Caucus, 82% condemned the Trump administration using tariff policies to interfere in the peaceful, domestic political events of foreign countries, such As seen in the Brazilian Supreme Court's ruling concerning Jair Bolsonaro. Furthermore, small, vulnerable countries like Lesotho and Laos have suffered from harmful, unselective, and predatory tariffs. 

Using tariffs minimally influences prospective global allies to tolerate financial strain against China's market strategies. The risk of abandonment by a self-serving ally, especially when coupled with an unpredictable president, now seems more significant than the danger of relying on a nation with which no unusual trade conflict is presently occurring. Approximately 60% of respondents indicated that their capital investments in domestic manufacturing and infrastructure would not be stimulated, either in the short or long term, by President Trump's tariff policies. Furthermore, 71% observed that Tariffs are detrimental.  

Businesses and consumers can expect continued uncertainty.

The economic expansion has been hampered by tariff-related uncertainty, negatively impacting the industrial sector within the United States. This situation leaves partners and allies more susceptible to potential Chinese coercion. Attendees seeking greater clarity following the summit departed disappointed. 

The restrictions on rare earth exports lasted just one year, or until the alliance showed signs of strain again, which appears probable considering that the availability of these crucial minerals hinges on China's access to U.S. Resources. Semiconductors. Trump has, however, already dismissed the idea of China acquiring the most sophisticated chips. However, he continues to assert that the U.S. Will act solely as a mediator in the dialogues between Nvidia and China.

The United States port fees on China’s maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding industries were also temporarily lifted, despite the initial idea that those charges were to be part of a broader strategy to revitalize the U.S. Shipbuilding industry.

On the plus side, China agreed to buy “large amounts” of US soybean meal and other farm goods and to cooperate in efforts to stop the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that Beijing has only agreed to buy the same number of soybeans as it has on average over the past five years. Similarly, many may recall that Xi had promised to buy more soybeans and reduce the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. While Trump was in office for his first term. But those promises, alongwith most other terms in the “Phase One Agreement,” never came to pass.

In reality, the U.S. Office of the Days before last week's summit, the Trade Representative launched an inquiry into China's apparent non-compliance with its 2020 pledges. China seems to have failed to meet its obligations within the Phase One Agreement concerning non-tariff obstacles, market entry challenges, and the acquisition of U.S. Goods. Goods and services,” according to the press release. Five years on, the most recent negotiation attempts didn't resolve any of these problems, nor did they manage to secure a broad trade pact.

Derek Scissor of AEI was partially correct. The United States It has reverted to its condition before the Trump administration. Manufacturing goods domestically and internationally is considerably more costly, and the financial situations of overseas partners are notably less robust now compared to January. 

The Canadian economy is weakening due to a “structural transition” from U.S. Tariffs that has “destroyed some of the capacity” in the country, according to Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem. To the south, Mexico’s GDP contracted in the third quarter, sparking fears of a recession, as the industrial sector, ranging from mining to construction to manufacturing, has been severely impacted by trade tensions. Meanwhile, German manufacturing orders have come to a standstill amid tariff uncertainty, even outpacing the precipitous decline experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, narrowly avoiding a recession. The Eurozone, more broadly, has not fared much better. 

Surrendering the Perception of Power to China

The Trump tariffs have given Xi opportunities to publicly emphasize new areas of power balance between China and the U.S. Via counter-measures. While discussions about China's ascent have persisted since the Obama era, the power that was inadvertently relinquished through the policies of both Trump administrations shouldn't be ignored. 

The trade war under Trump 1.0 sparked a surge in China’s pursuit of economic self-sufficiency and strategic positioning along critical supply lines. Since that time, Xi has worked to strengthen major Chinese companies, such as Huawei, China RareEarths Group, and EV maker BYD. While Trump has waged economic warfare against the world, Xi has intensified his charm offensive, presenting the Asian nation as a stable, multilateral partner in contrast to an unpredictable, unilateral, and oppressive regime. As Trump has dismantled institutions meant to project American soft power, Xi has expanded efforts to boost China’s reputation—from investments in major rail projects in Southeast Asia and large ports in South think tanks will debut in America, influencing discussions among political, business, and academic figures in Africa and Latin America, even as he continues to undermine the U.S.'s reputation.

The Trump-Xi Summit ultimately revealed a fundamental flaw in the administration’s strategy: Trump has started a trade war that the U.S. Cannot win alone. Tackling China’s market manipulations requires the collective action that Trump has systematically undermined through his indiscriminate use of tariffs. Paradoxically, the market distortions that the tariff “stick” most aspires to eliminate in China—the subsidies, intellectual property theft, and forced technology transfers that are the most justified targets—are the least likely to be remedied due to the collateral damage inflicted on America’s allies through Trump’s protectionism. Without carrots to complement the stick, the U.S. Risks becoming isolated as its leverage diminishes. The problem is, when you overuse a stick, it tends to break—even if it is an American stick.

The commentary featured on Fortune.com represents the exclusive perspectives of its contributors and doesn't always align with the viewpoints and convictions of  Fortune .