The US-China trade war began in earnest in 2018 when President Donald Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on Chinese goods in his first term, citing unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers. By 2019 the two sides had imposed hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs on each other, with the US targeting more than $550bn worth of Chinese products and China responding with tariffs on $185bn of US goods. The Trump administration’s initial focus was economic: correcting trade deficits and protecting US industries.
Covid-19 turning point
The emergence of Covid-19 in late 2019 and its global spread in early 2020 fundamentally fractured relations between the US and China. As the pandemic devastated economies and public health systems worldwide, the Trump administration began to explicitly link trade policy to China’s handling of the outbreak. Trump repeatedly blamed China for the pandemic, accusing Beijing of “secrecy, deception and cover up” that allowed the virus to spread globally. This narrative laid the foundation for the implementation of trade restrictions as a form of punishment.
Throughout 2020 and beyond Trump’s statements increasingly tied trade actions to China’s perceived culpability for Covid-19. On May 13 2020 Trump indicated that any potential benefits derived from concessions on trade had been negated by “the plague from China”, signalling that punitive measures would supersede previous economic agreements. He further stated that “100 trade deals” could not compensate for the damage caused by China.
At the time, Trump threatened new tariffs on China, explicitly citing the coronavirus crisis as justification. When asked if he had seen evidence linking the Wuhan Institute of Virology to the outbreak, Trump replied, “Yes, I have,” though he declined to provide details, reinforcing his administration’s narrative of Chinese responsibility for what he referred to as the “China virus”.
The pandemic undermined the “phase one” trade deal signed by China and the US in January 2020, which had aimed to de-escalate tension and set targets for Chinese purchases of US goods. As the pandemic worsened, both sides struggled to meet these targets and Trump’s escalating rhetoric and actions signalled a shift towards open hostility.
The 2025 escalation
Following his return to the White House, in April 2025 Trump raised tariffs on Chinese goods to an unprecedented 145%, prompting China to respond with its own increases to 125%. Trump’s exclusion of China from a global tariff pause, while blaming Beijing for retaliatory tariffs, underscores the punitive intent behind these measures. For their part, Chinese officials have vowed to “fight to the end”.
These tariff increases have significant implications:
- For China: Chinese exporters, especially small manufacturers, face severe challenges in maintaining competitiveness in the US market. The tariffs threaten to reduce Chinese exports and force companies to seek alternative markets, which may not be feasible in the short term.
- For the US: Higher tariffs are likely to raise prices for US consumers, contribute to inflation and dampen consumer demand, with potential spillover effects on global economic growth.
- For global trade: The escalation signals persistent uncertainty and the potential for further disruptions in global supply chains.
Accountability and geopolitical rivalry
On April 18 the White House replaced its main Covid-19 information websites with a new page focused on the lab leak theory, prominently featuring an image of Trump superimposed over giant text of the words “Lab Leak”, criticising the Biden administration’s pandemic response.
This new site claims public health officials misled the public, vilified alternative treatments and dismissed the lab leak theory to manipulate health choices. Trump and his allies have demanded greater co-operation from China regarding the origins of Covid-19, calling for independent investigations and the disclosure of research data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The administration has also scrutinised US funding for research collaboration with Chinese institutions, suggesting that punitive trade measures are only one part of a broader strategy to pressure China into compliance with stricter standards of research transparency.
In an email to NPR, White House spokesperson Kaelan Dorr stated: “The Trump administration has been very clear that, in contrast to the previous administration, we WILL be the most transparent administration in US history. Nothing will stop us from innovating and finding creative ways to uphold our end of the bargain.”
The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in about 7.1-million deaths worldwide and caused global life expectancy to fall by 1.6 years between 2019 and 2021. It severely disrupted economies, destroyed jobs and strained social cohesion across many nations. Despite this immense toll, no individuals or governments have been formally held responsible for the crisis.
The trade war, now intertwined with pandemic blame, reflects a deepening geopolitical rivalry. Trump’s hardline stance is not only about economic leverage but also about asserting US leadership and deterring what he characterises as Chinese misconduct on the world stage. The use of trade policy as punishment for Covid-19 is thus both a practical and symbolic tool in this broader contest.
Through escalating tariffs, targeted restrictions and pointed rhetoric, the Trump administration has sought to hold China accountable in the absence of international consensus or legal mechanisms for pandemic reparations. While these measures have imposed significant costs on both economies, they reflect a deliberate policy choice: to use the levers of trade as instruments of retribution.
Unlike previous reparations that involved formal acknowledgment and restitution, the US-China trade war functions as ongoing punitive diplomacy without resolution — whether such measures can truly lead to accountability and reconciliation, or merely deepen mistrust and prolong conflict, remains an open question.
• Kajee is a lecturer at Southern Utah University, a non-resident research fellow at the Korea Institute for Maritime Strategy and a researcher for the SeaLight maritime transparency initiative at Stanford University’s Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.