In the first days of this week, negotiators in Geneva announced a surprise 90‑day pause in the tariff hostilities between Washington and Beijing. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters they would roll back the extraordinary levies imposed in April to lower levels, emphasizing that neither side sought full economic decoupling. The accord slashed U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports from the unprecedented highs imposed by President Trump, and China matched those cuts with corresponding reductions on U.S. goods.  In their joint statement, both governments stressed the value of a sustainable, long-term, and mutually beneficial trade relationship and agreed to establish talks to work out remaining issues.

This truce reflected a sudden shift in tactics by Washington.  Just weeks earlier, President Trump had unleashed broad new tariffs on multiple partners, reserving his harshest measures for China.  Those duties, as high as 145% on Chinese goods, had jolted global markets and fueled worries of a recession.  Domestically, American businesses and consumers began to feel the pain.  Analysts noted looming shortages and price spikes: U.S. stores risked empty shelves, and consumer bills were rising sharply, whereas China’s economy mainly coped with lost export jobs and could “eat bitterness” under strain.  In this light, U.S. officials began to dampen expectations of a major breakthrough.  “We’ve got to de‑escalate before we can move forward,” Secretary Bessent told Fox News before Geneva. The tariff rollback was in part a response to mounting domestic pressure, as President Trump’s advisers and Republican legislators fretted about inflation, supply chains and stock-market volatility.

Internationally, too, Washington’s strategy looked increasingly isolated.  The sweeping Trump tariffs had drawn swift criticism from many trading partners and global institutions, anxious about supply disruptions.  U.S. allies grumbled privately that unilateral tariffs were bad policy; others worried the dispute could spill over into currency or technology arenas.  China, meanwhile, took to global media and diplomatic channels to frame America’s campaign as coercion.  Commerce Ministry spokesmen labeled the U.S. tariffs “extortion and blackmail” and bluntly warned that Beijing “will never agree” to outcomes achieved by pressure.  State media railed against “bullying” tactics and highlighted worldwide unease, portraying China’s stance as principled resistance.  Such messaging won some sympathy internationally, at least in tone, if not immediate concessions.  In practical terms, Beijing quietly pushed other markets to absorb some of its surplus exports, and vowed to shield its own firms, signaling a willingness to endure losses while the broader conflict played out.

From the Chinese perspective, the pause in tariffs was a vindication of a long game.  Officials in Beijing entered the talks with a unified message and what observers called “greater strategic patience”.  China’s demand was simple: rollbacks first, negotiations second.  This red line was backed by public statements that the U.S. must face the “serious negative impact” of its unilateral levies, on itself and on the world.  In effect, China showed it could absorb hard economic blows without folding.  By significantly narrowing the scope of its own retaliatory duties, Beijing demonstrated flexibility without abandoning its core position.  Analysts note that this approach drew on deep diplomatic confidence. China was prepared to wait out the U.S., rather than split over lesser gains.  As a result, Greer and Bessent found China willing to meet but only on terms that at least partially mirrored U.S. steps.

The episode illustrates a larger contest in global trade diplomacy.  It pitted the United States’ aggressive unilateralism against the reality of a more multipolar order.  On one side was a superpower testing the limits of coercion: imposing draconian tariffs at short notice, willy‑nilly, on a broad range of countries in hopes of leveraging political aims.  On the other was China’s more patient playbook: endure domestic pain, cultivate international sympathy or neutrality, and bargain from a position of minimal concessions.  The 90-day truce highlights that the unilateral trade blitzkrieg had met its match.  Beijing “held its ground,” in the words of one analyst, forcing the U.S. to reverse course.  That suggests limits to “grandstanding and unilateralism in a deeply interconnected global economy”.  In short, the White House’s tariff rollback looked less like magnanimous compromise than recognition that even the world’s largest economy cannot easily decouple without bruising itself.

Both sides named high‑level envoys to continue discussions, implicitly admitting that ad hoc tariffs alone cannot settle systemic issues.  Yet the deal was explicitly only temporary, a “tactical pause, not a strategic realignment”.  Markets did breathe a sigh of relief, jumping in the wake of the announcement, but analysts warned the underlying differences remain.  China’s tariffs on U.S. goods may also stay higher than pre-crisis levels if this is extended.  Crucially, critics ask: will President Trump now find enough common ground to replace tariffs with a more structured agreement, or will the confrontation snap back when the 90 days end?

For now, the truce does little to close the rivalry that sparked it.  It does, however, reveal that even Trump sees the need of negotiations and patience to press his economic agenda.  The U.S. concession could be read as a tacit admission that pushing alone did not pay off.  By contrast, China’s ability to endure and negotiate from strength may shape broader expectations about how global economic power balances operate.  In the end, this episode shows that in a multipolar economic order the blunt hammer of tariffs is not always decisive, and that resilience and diplomacy can blunt even the sharpest blows.

By Mahder Nesibu,Researcher,Horn Review