The Trade Storm is Back

In 2025, just as the world was settling into a new rhythm after pandemic-induced supply chain disruptions, another shockwave jolted global markets: Donald Trump, the President of the United States and a leading Republican candidate for the 2024 elections, reignited his fierce trade rhetoric. This time, he didn’t just point fingers at China, his favorite economic adversary during his first presidency—he included India in his firing line too.

Illustration showing U.S. President Donald Trump against the backdrop of India and China flags, symbolizing the global impact of his tariff war policies. Protest imagery reflects trade tensions and economic consequences.

“India and China are taking our jobs,” Trump declared at a fiery rally in Ohio. “We will impose massive tariffs until we bring our factories back!”

With those words, Trump triggered what economists now call “Tariff War 2.0” — a potential escalation of duties and trade restrictions that could upend global supply chains and dent economic partnerships built over the past decade.

But why is Trump targeting India now? What’s the bigger picture? Is this just political theater, or are there deeper economic strategies behind the headlines?

This opinion article unpacks the what, why, and how of Trump’s tariff war—its historical roots, the new twist in 2025, and the potential impact on India, China, and the broader global economy. We explore facts, question motives, and offer insights on what this means for the future of jobs, technology, and international diplomacy.

2. A History of Tariffs: Trump’s Longstanding Battle Plan

To understand Trump’s tariff war, we need to first go back in time and examine his economic strategy from his 2016 presidential campaign days. Donald Trump has always been a vocal critic of global trade deals. He argued that America was being “taken advantage of” by countries like China and India, which he claimed benefited from trade imbalances that hurt American workers and industries.

When Trump took office in 2017, one of his first major moves was to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive trade agreement meant to counter China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region. This signaled a shift toward protectionism—a policy focused on shielding domestic industries from foreign competition.

In 2018, Trump launched a full-scale tariff war, starting with China. He imposed steep duties on Chinese imports, citing intellectual property theft and unfair trade practices. China retaliated with tariffs of its own, sparking a tit-for-tat exchange that shook global markets.

But China wasn’t the only target. Trump also turned his attention to India, a country he accused of placing “unacceptable” tariffs on American goods. By mid-2019, Trump revoked India’s special trade status under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), which had allowed many Indian exports to enter the U.S. duty-free. India responded with tariffs on American almonds, apples, and other products.

While these moves were framed as efforts to protect American jobs and reduce trade deficits, they had ripple effects across global supply chains. For India and China, the impact was both economic and political.

Now, in his 2024 campaign and beyond, Trump is doubling down. His recent comments on reintroducing high tariffs if re-elected have reignited fears in both New Delhi and Beijing. And with global trade already under stress from inflation, wars, and supply chain disruptions, Trump’s tariff rhetoric is more than just political theater—it’s a real threat with serious consequences.

How India and China Became Tariff Targets

Donald Trump’s “America First” policy wasn’t just a campaign slogan—it became the foundation of a global economic battle, with tariffs as his weapon of choice. While China was always the primary focus of his trade war, India too found itself in the crosshairs.

The Roots of the Trade Tensions

The U.S. trade deficit was a constant thorn in Trump’s side. Year after year, America was importing far more than it exported, particularly from countries like China and India. Trump saw this imbalance as a sign of “unfair” trade practices and claimed that U.S. industries were being taken advantage of by foreign competitors using low wages, subsidies, and weak regulations.

China’s role as the “world’s factory” was seen as a threat to American manufacturing. Trump accused Beijing of intellectual property theft, currency manipulation, and forced technology transfers. In retaliation, he launched a sweeping range of tariffs, affecting over $360 billion worth of Chinese goods.

India, although not as large a trade partner as China, still came under fire. The U.S. accused India of imposing high tariffs on American products such as motorcycles, medical devices, and dairy. Trump also criticized India for not giving American companies “equitable access” to its markets.

Key Flashpoints with China

• 2018: U.S. imposes a 25% tariff on $34 billion worth of Chinese goods. China hits back with equal tariffs.
• 2019: Tariffs expanded to cover nearly all Chinese exports to the U.S.
• Technology Cold War: Huawei was banned; Chinese tech companies were scrutinized for security reasons.
• Phase One Deal (2020): Trump claimed a win after China agreed to buy more U.S. products, but most tariffs remained in place.

Key Flashpoints with India

• GSP Withdrawal (2019): Trump revoked India’s preferential trade status under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), affecting $5.6 billion in Indian exports.
• Tariff Disputes: Trump repeatedly targeted India for high import duties, particularly calling out the 100% tariff on Harley-Davidson bikes.
• Medical Devices and Dairy: U.S. firms faced hurdles due to India’s price caps and restrictions, prompting trade tensions.

While China responded aggressively with counter-tariffs, India took a more cautious route—offering dialogue and limited retaliation. But both nations realized one thing: the rules of global trade were being rewritten.

Trump's "America First" Strategy and Its Global Impact

Trump’s economic nationalism wasn’t subtle—it was loud, aggressive, and confrontational. The former U.S. President believed that the post-WWII free trade system had turned against American workers. He wanted to bring back manufacturing jobs to U.S. soil, even if it meant breaking decades-old trade alliances and treaties.

Tariffs as a Weapon

Unlike past presidents who used diplomacy to address trade disputes, Trump used tariffs like a sledgehammer. The World Trade Organization (WTO) was sidelined. Instead, bilateral deals and threats of sanctions became his go-to tools.

Trump’s tariffs were not just limited to China and India. He targeted allies too—like Canada, Mexico, and the European Union—on steel and aluminum imports. His message was clear: “If you’re running a trade surplus with the U.S., you’re a threat.”

Supply Chains Disrupted

This tariff war reshaped global supply chains. U.S. companies that relied on Chinese components scrambled to move operations elsewhere—Vietnam, Mexico, even India. Some succeeded; many struggled. Prices of consumer goods increased in the U.S., from washing machines to electronics.

India saw a temporary opportunity to attract firms leaving China. But poor infrastructure, regulatory hurdles, and inconsistent policies limited the country’s ability to capitalize on the “China+1” strategy.

The Global Economic Fallout

Economists warned that Trump’s trade wars were hurting global GDP. The IMF downgraded global growth forecasts multiple times during his presidency. The uncertainty surrounding tariffs, combined with slower growth in China and a volatile U.S. economy, sent shockwaves through markets.

India and China both saw exports hit, investor confidence waver, and trade policy uncertainty rise. And when COVID-19 struck in 2020, it only accelerated the shift toward economic protectionism.

India’s Strategic Missteps in the Tariff War

While China fought Trump’s tariff fire with fire, India chose a more cautious, often reactive approach. But this restraint came at a cost. India neither received a trade deal nor gained significant strategic concessions from the United States. In hindsight, India’s diplomatic playbook was overly defensive.

Lack of Assertiveness

After the GSP withdrawal in 2019, Indian policymakers focused more on minimizing the damage than negotiating from a position of strength. India responded by imposing retaliatory tariffs on 28 American products, including almonds and apples. However, these were largely symbolic, lacking the economic weight to influence U.S. decision-making.

The Missed Opportunity

India had an opening to position itself as a credible alternative to China for U.S. manufacturing and investment. But poor ease-of-doing-business rankings, bureaucratic red tape, and weak infrastructure held it back. Trump’s visit to India in 2020, filled with stadium rallies and photo ops, did not translate into substantive trade gains.

Confused Signals

The Modi government also sent mixed signals. While promoting "Make in India" and "Atmanirbhar Bharat," India simultaneously raised import duties on electronics and other goods, scaring away potential investors who saw it as economic nationalism veiled in protectionism. Instead of appearing as a pro-business destination, India came across as unpredictable.

China’s Technological Edge and Political Pushback

China took a radically different path in response to Trump's tariffs. Instead of folding or simply retaliating, Beijing doubled down on technology and innovation. The Chinese government ramped up investments in semiconductors, AI, electric vehicles, and 5G. Tariffs became a wake-up call, not a wall.

Strategic Resilience

China’s long-term industrial policies like "Made in China 2025" laid the groundwork for technological self-sufficiency. Even with tariffs and sanctions, Chinese companies like Huawei, BYD, and SMIC began developing homegrown alternatives to American technology. The state-backed ecosystem, despite being criticized for its lack of transparency, proved resilient.

Global Diplomacy

China also played the diplomatic game better. While relations with the U.S. soured, Beijing solidified its influence in Asia, Africa, and parts of Europe through the Belt and Road Initiative. It also formed trade alliances like RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) to diversify its economic dependencies.

Authoritarian Agility

Critics point out that China’s one-party system allows it to implement long-term industrial strategies without political gridlock. Unlike the U.S., where administrations change and policies shift, China maintained consistency. While India juggled state-level red tape and federal coordination issues, China pushed national goals with streamlined precision.

What the U.S. Wants: Leverage, Not Friendship

Trump’s trade policy made one thing abundantly clear: America wants leverage. Not partnership, not camaraderie, but hard-nosed bargaining power. India’s democratic values or shared geopolitical interests were not enough to soften Trump’s stance.

Transactional Diplomacy

Under Trump, diplomacy became transactional. Every interaction was judged by a singular question: "What’s in it for America?" Military cooperation, diaspora support, or shared values were sidelined. If India wanted a deal, it had to offer something concrete—and fast.

The Cold Math of Trade

India’s trade surplus with the U.S., around $20 billion annually, was viewed as a negative. This was despite the fact that much of India’s exports (like pharmaceuticals) served vital American needs. In Trump’s calculus, deficits were always bad, regardless of context.

Lessons for India

India learned the hard way that symbolic gestures and cultural diplomacy have limited value in an era of aggressive economic nationalism. What matters now is capacity—the ability to produce, to innovate, and to negotiate.

The road ahead requires a recalibration of India’s trade policy, one that is assertive, data-driven, and strategically aligned with global economic shifts.

Final Thoughts Protectionism Has a Price — And the Bill Is Global

As the dust settles on Trump's tariff war — now being reconsidered and restructured by current U.S. policymakers — the lessons are stark and unavoidable.

The trade war was never just about tariffs, steel, or silicon chips. It was about power, leverage, and economic nationalism in a hyperconnected world. It revealed how easily global trade norms can be rewritten when the world's most powerful country chooses protectionism over partnership.

For India, the message is double-edged. On one hand, it must defend its economic interests with confidence, resisting any narrative that reduces it to a pawn between global giants. On the other hand, India must also do the hard work of internal reform — cutting red tape, boosting infrastructure, investing in innovation, and protecting homegrown industries without falling into isolationist traps.

For China, the trade war accelerated a long-overdue reckoning. It forced Chinese firms to innovate more independently and explore new markets beyond the West. While painful, it also fueled their push for self-reliance in critical tech sectors.

For the United States, Trump’s tariffs may have looked tough on paper but fell short of achieving their goals. Manufacturing jobs didn’t return in droves. Consumers paid more, not less. And allies were alienated just as much as rivals.

Most importantly, for the global economy, this tariff war signaled a retreat from the post-war liberal trade order. In its place emerged a more fragmented, politically charged economic landscape where rules bend depending on who’s in power.

Yet in all this uncertainty lies opportunity. Countries like India can — and must — rise above the binary trap of being “with China or with the U.S.”. Instead, India must stand for a third path: one of balanced diplomacy, strategic autonomy, and bold economic transformation.

Because at the end of the day, real sovereignty isn’t just about resisting foreign pressure — it’s about building a system so strong, so innovative, and so resilient that no tariff war can shake its foundations.

Disclaimer: This article is an opinion piece intended for informational and educational purposes only. The views expressed are based on public data, news reports, and independent analysis. Thetrendingpeople.com does not endorse any political party, leader, or government policy.