Chinese and American national flags.
Editor’s Note: Sun Taiyi is an associate professor of political science at Christopher Newport University in the United States. He is also the executive editor of the Global Forum of Chinese Political Scientists’ main publication, Global China. The article reflects the author’s opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.
After about two weeks of delay in making the announcement, White House officials confirmed on Monday that U.S. President Donald Trump had signed an executive order to extend the suspension of higher U.S. tariffs on China for another 90 days. The decision was hardly a surprise.
It followed the July 28-29 China-U.S. economic and trade talks in Stockholm, where both sides reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining the suspension of the 24-percent reciprocal tariffs, along with China’s corresponding countermeasures. This marks the third such extension since the Geneva talks in May 2025, reflecting the shared goal of giving negotiators more time to bridge their differences.
The continuation of the suspension is the expected result after over four months of intense negotiations. Through repeated rounds of talks and strategic moves, each side has gained a clear understanding of the other’s options and likely outcomes.
They have realized that cooperation brings shared benefits, while confrontation causes damage to both. However, despite this common understanding, political and structural limitations still exist.
The Trump administration has long relied on tariffs as its main bargaining tool, and domestic political pressures are increasingly making it difficult for Washington to implement significant, large-scale tariff cuts on Chinese products. Aside from maintaining the current tariff ceiling and assuming the 24 percent additional tariff can be avoided, the only notable concession the U.S. might consider is a targeted 20-percent reduction specifically related to the fentanyl issue. However, the Trump administration’s demands on this matter are even more demanding than during his first term. As a result, the current negotiations are deadlocked, with both tariff hikes and cuts facing major obstacles.
In this context, extending the suspension appears to be the most practical and mutually advantageous option. If the two sides do not reach a comprehensive agreement by mid-November, another 90-day extension could easily happen — a scenario that U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has already hinted at.
While sweeping changes to the overall tariff system are still unlikely, more targeted measures remain possible. This could involve exemptions for specific sectors or, alternatively, the addition of tariffs on certain industries. These sector-specific actions could be the next opportunities — or flashpoints — for breakthroughs in the upcoming phase of negotiations.
However, the outlook remains unstable. The wider economic effects of tariff hikes on most countries are only now starting to appear in the U.S. market. Additionally, some economies that have signed so-called “framework agreements” with Washington may not see real benefits anytime soon. Countries like Japan and the European Union, for instance, are still largely making empty promises — offering vague, aspirational commitments in exchange for temporary relief from U.S. tariffs, hoping that by the time they need to take real action, it is already close to the end of Trump’s term. These tactics buy them time but provide the U.S. with little immediate economic gain.
This means the inflation trend in the third and fourth quarters will be crucial. If consumer prices in the U.S. rise sharply — especially during the key Christmas shopping season after Thanksgiving — ordinary Americans might start feeling the impact of Trump’s tariff policies. If the political cost becomes too high, Trump could be forced to change his approach or at least find a face-saving way to soften his stance.
Another potential “game-changer” lies in high-level diplomacy. On June 5, in the phone talks initiated by President Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping welcomed him to visit China again. Trump places considerable emphasis on leader-to-leader diplomacy and the cultivation of personal rapport with China’s top leadership. Should such a meeting take place and go smoothly, the potential for a significant breakthrough cannot be dismissed.
Nevertheless, experience from Trump’s first term tempers such optimism. Even if the two countries were to reach a meaningful, phased agreement, Washington could reverse course shortly afterward and resume applying pressure. The pattern of negotiating, reaching partial deals, and then escalating demands has been a hallmark of Trump’s approach.
Given these dynamics, the future of China-U.S. trade relations remains uncertain. Until there are significant changes in the political environment or the economic fundamentals in the United States, a full resolution seems unlikely. In the meantime, maintaining stability through continued extensions may be the most practical and beneficial approach for both sides — a fragile yet necessary pause in a relationship characterized by competition, negotiation, and mutual dependence.