The US-China trade war has evolved into a structural confrontation. It is not just about tariffs or technology; it is about two different philosophies of power and time. On one side is a strategy of transactional urgency. On the other, one of systemic patience. This is the contest between Trump’s “Art of the Deal” and China’s “Art of War.”
Donald Trump’s “Art of the Deal” strategy thrives on disruption, unpredictability and short-term leverage. In April 2025, Trump announced new tariffs – 10% across the board on all imports, so-called “reciprocal” tariffs of varying levels on nations with trade surpluses with the US and up to 145% on Chinese goods.
This strategy aims for immediate political and economic wins. As Trump once said, “You have to be unpredictable. That’s how you win.”
China’s “Art of War,” drawn from Sun Tzu’s ancient teachings, values patience, positioning and indirect strength. Beijing’s response is deliberate. Tariffs match US actions, but China also accelerates long-term projects: Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) trade integration, Belt and Road Initiative refinements and an expansion of the digital yuan to challenge dollar dominance.
Sun Tzu reminds us, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
Strategic Clocks: four years vs 40
The US operates on an electoral clock. Every four years, strategies recalibrate toward voter priorities. Trump’s tariffs are part of a narrative of American strength and industrial revival, as spelled out in the Project 2025 blueprint he appears to be following. Multilateral structures like the WTO are pushed aside. His new world order is built through a series of deals.
China, on the other hand, plans across decades. 2049, the centenary of the People’s Republic, remains its guiding horizon. Each move in trade, technology and finance aims at reducing vulnerability and increasing strategic autonomy. The digital yuan’s cross-border trials and rising yuan-based trade settlements, now at 20%, reflect this shift.
Trump’s “maximum pressure” approach focuses on bilateral surpluses and supply chain re-shoring. The goal is visible: American factories, American jobs, American strength. Political momentum builds around anti-China populism.
China, by contrast, frames its initiatives within the language of shared prosperity. The “Community of Shared Future” narrative seeks to rebrand Chinese power as global stewardship, even as Belt and Road projects face increasing scrutiny over debt risks.
Domestic trade-offs, strategic payoffs
The tariffs have had clear domestic impacts. In the US, manufacturing hubs nearshored supply chains to Mexico and Southeast Asia. Mexico’s auto sector annual growth is 2.7–4.8%. Yet inflation soared.
Before Trump’s 2025 escalations, tariffs already cost US consumers US$1.4 billion per month, though more recent estimates for 2025 suggest even higher costs, with one source projecting a $3.1 trillion expense over a decade (about $2,100 per household in 2025).
In China, RCEP has strengthened regional ties and shielded key industries. Semiconductor independence has advanced. By 2023, Chinese firms achieved 14nm chip mass production. However, BRI-linked debt crises and continued brain drain into US and EU tech ecosystems expose vulnerabilities.
Recent weeks brought fresh escalations. Trump’s new tariffs target not just consumer goods but critical Chinese industrial components, raising costs for American manufacturers. China’s counter-tariffs now hit US goods with 125% duties.
Yet, China’s government maintains a 5% economic growth target, signaling confidence through stimulus, infrastructure expansion and diversified export markets.
Interestingly, China has quietly exempted certain US semiconductors from retaliation, which can be viewed as an asymmetric gesture. While Trump boasts of “new negotiations,” Beijing publicly denies any formal talks are underway. This diplomatic ambiguity mirrors Sun Tzu’s advice: “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”
Fragmenting trade and tech governance
Meanwhile, trade systems are fragmenting. The US champions the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework to set new digital norms. China uses RCEP and BRICS channels to dilute Western regulatory hegemony. Currency systems follow a similar arc. The m-CBDC Bridge, involving China, Thailand and the UAE, pilots cross-border digital payments independent of SWIFT.
At the same time, technological decoupling deepens. The US CHIPS and Science Act invests $52 billion in US semiconductor revival. Meanwhile, China’s “Little Giants” program nurtures over 10,000 tech SMEs, building an ecosystem less reliant on Western imports.
Middle and small powers are adapting to the new world order. Canada and Australia supply critical minerals to both blocs. India pursues non-aligned tech development, investing in RISC-V open-source hardware. Singapore advances digital neutrality through initiatives like TradeTrust blockchain.
Taiwan leans into silicon deterrence, with TSMC’s 2nm chip dominance making it indispensable but also increasingly vulnerable. Flexibility, not loyalty, defines the survival strategy of middle powers in this bifurcating world.
2030: coexistence or collision
Two futures remain plausible. Competitive coexistence would see limited de-escalation. The US and China could find collaboration niches in climate tech, AI governance and pandemic response. Yet Cold War 2.0 looms as a darker path, with potential complete tech and financial decoupling, SWIFT-CIPS fracture and rival digital infrastructures.
Black swans lurk. GPT-7-level AI weaponization, ungoverned, could destabilize financial and political systems. Competition over green tech supremacy, between America’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) incentives and China’s Green Belt projects, may trigger new conflict vectors.
The US must modernize multilateral systems. A WTO 2.0 featuring digital trade and AI dispute resolution protocols is critical. Simultaneously, crisis communication channels with China’s PLA are urgent to prevent algorithm-driven escalation.
China must also rethink its Belt and Road model. Debt relief, particularly linked to climate vulnerabilities, could rebuild diplomatic goodwill. A narrative shift from “global leadership” to “cooperative gradualism” would also soften resistance.
Third powers should seize agency. ASEAN must finalize a South China Sea Code of Conduct to avoid conflict with China. The EU needs to operationalize its 100 billion euro Tech Sovereignty Fund before strategic dependency hardens.
Endurance over dominance
The contest between the “Art of the Deal” and the “Art of War” is shaping a new world order. Trump’s vision is one of disruption and swift gains. China’s is of structure, patience and adaptation.
Yet, in this new reality, dominance may matter less than resilience. Adaptability—not size—could define success. Nations like Singapore and the UAE, fluent in dual engagement, already show how neutrality and strategic agility are forms of power.
As Sun Tzu teaches, “In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity.” And as Trump reminds, “If you’re going to be thinking, you may as well think big.”
The gameboard has changed. The next winners will be those who master the arts of both the deal and war.
Tang Meng Kit is a graduate of the MSc in International Relations program at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. His research interests encompass cross-Strait relations, Taiwanese politics and policy issues, as well as aerospace technology. He currently works as an aerospace engineer.
“…The US must modernize multilateral systems. A WTO 2.0 featuring digital trade and AI dispute resolution protocols is critical. …”
WTO was set up by the West but the US has basically put paid to it. Why would most of the world want to sign up for a new deal for financial/IT services and AI rules of the road dictated once more by the West when that could, at a later stage, be dispensed with. India might as it plays to their few good industries which are financial payment systems, backoffice/IT services, and apps fror ordering food delivery but I’m not sure how much they can carve out of such an agreement. As for the BRICS they are already looking at other payment systems outside of the USD network and Swift. No other nations besides China and the US have such a combination of capital markets, fintech, tech/AI industry, space program, etc. And with the US trying to contain China’s near-peer AI and tech development I can’t see them allowing China to contribute to the terms for such an agreement. A WTO 2.0 led by the US would once more want to contain China.
To our western audience. Trust in Trump. He’s china’s man in the WH. He knows what he’s doing. The bad economy is Bidens Fault. The shelves will not be empty. Okay, maybe a little. Don’t go out and panic Buy. A trade deal is imminent and prices will come down, cause china is paying the tariffs. The continued rape and pillage of american industries will continue as per regular programming. You’re life will not change much. Short term pain for long term pain.
If Winnie Xi Pooh was really smart, he’d had behaved like Deng, slow buildup not waving his small todger about in the SCS. By 2030 Chine would be able to walk over the Ph, Taiwan, Japan.
But no, the bear with very little brain starts strutting his (very small) stuff and now he faces a US alliance that will starve China in months.
Don’t mess with Sunzi.
That’s the problem with China. All your glories are in the past.
Maybe this time (as there is no Summer Palace) we should burn the Forbidden City.
I bring the Art of the Deal book with me when I’m using the toilet. Its as good as Kleenex. Most westerners use the Art of the Deal in their daily business lives. Thats how china skrews them.
So you used up all of Mao’s Little Red Book (it has to be little, like the population)
Art of the steal, art of the squeal, art of the spiel. Take your pick.
If you’ve read the art of the deal, you’d know how trump operates. Its his bible. Its fake it till you make it, but often than not, you won’t make it but fake it anyway and if they call you out for the fakery, just believe in your fake until they had enough.
Trump’s MO is: never admit you are wrong, never apologize, and most importantly always claim victory regardless of reality.
While Xi’s MO is put your enemies under house arrest and then eliminate them.