When President Donald Trump launched a trade war against the world, he issued a harsh warning: "Don't retaliate, you will get rewards." China ignored the warning. Anyway, it paid off. This morning, Trump largely paused his trade war, with nothing but the promise of ongoing discussion. Here, Trump has a lesson here, whether it is a country, a business or a university.
The unveiling of Trump’s global tariff regime is accompanied by a unique dominant theater. The president and his gang assured his target that he would reimburse their compliance if they comply with his tariffs. Any country that dares to disobey him will suffer great pain.
"I don't want to be the last country to try to negotiate a deal with @realdonaldtrump," said Eric Trump. "The first negotiation will win - the last one will definitely lose. I've seen this movie all my life."
Most people in the world have accepted this suggestion, only finding difficulties in reaching global trade with a president who doesn’t seem to understand how trade works. Foreign diplomats repeatedly expressed frustration because they were not sure what Trump wanted from them, let alone the reward he was ready to provide. So far, only the UK can resolve the trade situation with the United States.
However, China retaliated against its own countermeasures and imposed huge tariffs on U.S. imports. Trump decided to take the country as an example. He announced that based on China's respect for the world market, I hereby raise the tariffs imposed by the United States on China to 125%, which will take effect immediately. (The number eventually increased to 145%.) Other countries showed proper respect and would be subject to a merciful probation. "The world is ready to work with President Trump to resolve global trade, and China has chosen the opposite direction," said Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. ”
Trump held on for a month before retreating. Under the new 90-day agreement, tariffs on Chinese goods will be reduced to 30%; China's tariffs on US goods will also be reduced to 10%. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced at a press conference in Geneva: "The consensus among both delegations is that neither side wants to uncouple." China is said to have been clearly forgotten for decades, while China is rude to retaliation and believes that the United States needs to reduce its dependence on Chinese imports. The government has not even pretended that it forced China to pay any special price for its violation. This is the whole "Do Not Revenge" plot of memory and keep moving forward, as if the whole time has been getting better with each other in Beijing.
As an exercise in trade policy, it doesn't make sense. But it’s like Trump’s behavior is tailored to the goal of reordering global trade, which misses the symbolic role it plays. Trump is performing a role, this is the presidential version of the boss he plays apprenticesitting on a plush leather chair, giving justice to the trembling pleader.
His threat of conquest against Canada, Greenland and Panama and his unilateral renaming of the Gulf of Mexico have no practical goals. Indeed, they developed resentment, weakening his leverage to these countries. For example, Trump’s best chance to add Greenland to the United States is to use a soft feeling rather than insisting that he will use it one way or another. These Gambits seem to have a purpose to establish Trump as the boss’s power over the weak target.
The original goal of this ritual was Mexico. Trump's crowd once declared "the wall was 10 feet high" to deal with any resistance. No one thinks Trump plans to literally raise the height of the wall. The key is to show that Trump is responsible and anyone who tries to stand up will be punished.
It’s an unusual management style to say the least, and even the decade of the Trump era, the president’s goals are often confused. But the evidence suggests a fairly clear pattern: Although Trump directed his target submission, doing so was done for more humiliation and abuse.
Consider a few recent cases. Columbia University agreed with the Trump administration’s invasive demands, just to get the administration back and send out more. The powerful pharmaceutical hall decided not to resist Trump's nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose weird ideology poses an existential threat. Kennedy not only refused to quit his extreme position. The government escalated the war in the industry by cutting funding for scientific research and taking steps to implement limited price controls.
By contrast, when Harvard ignored Trump's list of demands, the administration claimed its letter threatened the university had been released and complained that the prestigious university was unreasonable. Indeed, Trump has escalated through a tax-free status at Harvard, but he has little chance of winning in court, and violating court orders does not help him collect Harvard’s tax payments, not legally owe it. Similarly, after Canadians elected Mark Carney as prime minister and insisted that they could never buy or occupy their own country, Trump responded at a friendly Oval Office meeting, who seemed to accept Carney's rejection.
The real complexity in these negotiations is that a “win” with Trump is often impossible because the relationship itself is a failure. Trump seems unaware of the possibility of active participation, and he turns effective connections into exploitative attempts to cause losses to both sides. This is most evident in trade, where Trump's trade protectionist instinct spreads pain globally without producing any gains. His blackmail on domestic businesses and civil society also undermines the most admired source of innovation in the United States, with no benefit other than expanding Trump’s own power.
Trump is a classic bully who desires to surrender and fears conflict. His enthusiastic supporters want him to be Michael Corleone, but he is more like Biff Tannen. Stand up doesn't mean you win. But you guarantee you lose.