Washington and Beijing have entered a phase of hardened rhetoric, reciprocal sanctions, and reduced people-to-people engagement. The risk of miscalculation is now dangerously high.
U.S. President Donald Trump announced a significant escalation in the ongoing trade conflict with China, raising tariffs on Chinese imports to 125 percent. Merely hours earlier, Beijing had declared its own retaliatory measure – raising tariffs on a range of U.S. goods to 84 percent, effective April 10 at 12:00 p.m. This tit-for-tat dynamic has become increasingly emblematic of the current state of China-U.S. relations, marked by rising tensions and shrinking avenues for compromise.
China’s response was swift and assertive. Beyond economic retaliation, Beijing filed a formal complaint against the United States through the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement mechanism, signaling a willingness to utilize both legal and institutional tools.
What stands out is not only the strength of the official response, but the intensity of domestic public opinion within China. On Chinese social media platforms, netizens have echoed and even exceeded the government’s rhetoric in their expressions of support. Popular comments include references to the United States as a “paper tiger” – a metaphor famously used by Mao Zedong – framing Washington as blusterous but ultimately weak.
The surge in online nationalism is not confined to political commentators. Figures in non-political spheres, such as finance and lifestyle influencers, have increasingly voiced support for Beijing’s hardline position. One financial blogger with nearly 1 million followers suggested further tariff hikes: “Raise another 21 percent – let’s hit back hard.” A travel photographer with over 8 million followers claimed that “China’s orders are soaring, while the U.S. is entering self-destruct mode.” Such sentiments have gained significant traction, with tens of thousands of likes, indicating that nationalist discourse has permeated far beyond traditional political boundaries.
This assertiveness among both officials and citizens comes despite mounting domestic economic challenges. According to World Bank data, China’s GDP growth slowed to 4.9 percent in 2024 and is projected to fall further to 4.5 percent in 2025. Youth unemployment remains high at 16.9 percent. Yet, economic hardship has not dampened public confidence. On the contrary, many citizens appear to see these challenges as temporary sacrifices in the pursuit of long-term sovereignty and national pride.
This public resilience, whether genuine or curated through media control, serves as a political buffer for Beijing. It enables the government to adopt a confrontational stance without facing immediate internal backlash. However, the longer-term implications of sustained decoupling – including technological isolation, capital flight, and supply chain realignments – remain to be seen.
What is clear is that both Washington and Beijing have entered a phase of hardened rhetoric, reciprocal sanctions, and reduced people-to-people engagement. The absence of trust, coupled with limited institutional frameworks for de-escalation, increases the risk of miscalculation. If the current trajectory continues unchecked, the prospect of a long-term strategic rivalry – akin to a new Cold War – may no longer be speculative.
The intensifying tariff confrontation between the United States and China raises a fundamental question: Is this merely the next phase of the long-running trade war, or are we witnessing the early signs of a new Cold War – or even the prelude to a potential hot conflict? From the perspective of international relations theory, if both sides continue to adopt uncompromising positions with little room for negotiation, the zero-sum nature of their engagement risks dismantling existing frameworks of cooperation and deepening mutual distrust.
Realist theory posits that states operate in an anarchic international system where the pursuit of national interest and security leads to inevitable competition. If both Washington and Beijing prioritize national security and economic sovereignty above all else, each is likely to interpret the other’s actions as threats or attempts at containment, triggering a spiral of actions and countermeasures that could evolve into structural confrontation.
Conversely, institutionalist theory emphasizes the importance of frameworks and norms that facilitate cooperation even among rival states. For decades, China-U.S. relations were buffered by institutional ties – such as the World Trade Organization, bilateral dialogue mechanisms, and robust people-to-people exchanges. These channels provided critical space for negotiation and de-escalation, helping to prevent a slide into Cold War-style antagonism.
