Muslim World Report

Trump Pauses Tariffs for 90 Days Except on China

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 10, 2025 10:21 AM | 8 min read | 1639 words

TL;DR: President Trump has announced a 90-day pause on tariffs for all nations except China, where tariffs will rise to 125%. This move aims to stabilize the stock market amidst ongoing trade tensions, but raises serious concerns regarding its fairness and potential long-term economic impacts.

The Situation

On April 10, 2025, President Trump made a surprising announcement: a 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs for all nations, with the glaring exception of China, where tariffs were escalated to an astonishing 125%. This unilateral move, ostensibly designed to stabilize the stock market amid ongoing trade tensions, has sent shockwaves through global economic systems.

While the pause offers a temporary reprieve for many US allies, allowing them to navigate turbulent economic waters without the immediate burden of new tariffs, the sharp escalation on Chinese goods raises serious questions about the efficacy and fairness of such policies.

Proponents vs. Critics

  • Proponents argue tariffs are essential for protecting American jobs and industries from unfair competition.
  • Critics contend that these strategies seem more focused on appeasing economic elites and Wall Street investors than addressing the root causes of economic instability.

The timing of the announcement coincided with a dramatic spike in market indexes, prompting accusations of market manipulation favoring short-term gains for the wealthy over the long-term health of the global economy (Krasner, 1976; Gowa & Hicks, 2018). The perception that this is a ploy to allow the rich to “buy the dip” underscores concerns about a government more focused on billionaires’ interests than the welfare of the average American citizen (Gilens & Page, 2014).

This approach not only undermines broader multilateral agreements but also exacerbates the rift between the United States and China, potentially igniting a new wave of trade wars. As countries scramble to reassess their positions in light of Trump’s actions, the implications for global supply chains, inflation, and economic diplomacy loom large.

Recent scholarship demonstrates that trade tensions can have significant ripple effects beyond the immediate parties involved:

  • Influencing production priorities
  • Disrupting established trade relationships
  • Escalating geopolitical tensions (Agyei et al., 2022; Qian et al., 2010)

While the temporary 90-day tariff pause may offer some short-term economic relief, it could simultaneously exacerbate longer-term uncertainties. Mixed reactions from market analysts, businesses, and international observers signal the potential for repeated cycles of volatility as the U.S. navigates an increasingly complex and hostile economic landscape without a coherent strategy.

Such erratic policymaking raises legitimate concerns about U.S. leadership on the global stage—are we witnessing a nation devolving into a rogue state, where international credibility is treated as disposable? Historical context reveals that unilateral trade practices can lead to significant market instability and loss of global confidence, as evidenced by the disruptions following prior trade conflicts (Vila Seoane, 2019; Tana & McKinsey, 2023).

What If Scenarios

In light of the recent developments, it is essential to contemplate the potential consequences of Trump’s tariff policies through structured “What If” scenarios that explore various outcomes.

What if China retaliates with its own tariffs?

  • If China responds to the tariff increases by imposing retaliatory measures, the risk of a full-blown trade war becomes increasingly likely.
  • Such an escalation would have immediate repercussions on global markets, likely leading to:
    • Increased volatility
    • Uncertainty
  • Industries that are deeply integrated with Chinese supply chains, such as technology, automotive, and manufacturing, could suffer severe repercussions (Zeng et al., 2022). Businesses may be forced to recalibrate their operational strategies, leading to potential job losses and reduced economic growth (Tam, 2019).

Furthermore, a prolonged trade war could result in heightened costs for American consumers, who would face inflated prices on everyday goods due to tariffs on imported products. Recent studies indicate that inflationary pressures already present in the U.S. economy, exacerbated by prior trade policies, could intensify (Mansfield et al., 2002; Mensi et al., 2022). The geopolitical ramifications could isolate the U.S. on the global stage, leading countries to strengthen ties with China, fundamentally altering the balance of power in international relations (Qian et al., 2010).

What if the stock market reacts negatively post-pause?

Should the initial euphoria surrounding Trump’s tariff pause transition into disillusionment—triggered by a lack of consistent policy direction or negative economic indicators—the consequences could be dire. A sharp downturn in the markets might erode investor confidence, leading to substantial capital flight and reduced spending.

In this scenario:

  • Businesses operating on razor-thin margins due to uncertain trade policies could face significant challenges (Krasner, 1982).
  • A negative market reaction could have cascading effects on the broader economy, as consumer confidence typically correlates with stock market performance (Jacobs et al., 2022).

With individuals perceiving their investments diminishing, they may curtail spending, leading to diminished demand for goods and services. In such a context, the economy could slip into recession, compelling the administration to rethink its approach to trade and economic policy. This predicament could elicit calls for Congressional oversight over tariff and trade decisions, as elected officials feel pressure from constituents adversely affected by erratic policies (Rodrik, 2004).

What if international coalitions form against U.S. trade practices?

The unilateral nature of Trump’s tariff announcements could provoke unified responses from coalitions of nations adversely affected by these policies. Countries that find themselves exempt from the tariff pause may feel increasingly vulnerable and seek to establish collective defenses against U.S. economic hegemony.

As ongoing trade disputes unfold, alliances could form among nations prioritizing:

  • Collaborative economic policies
  • Equitable trade practices (Krasner, 1982; Eggert et al., 2016)

Such coalitions might secure trade agreements that circumvent the U.S., concentrating on strengthening regional economies and diversifying supply chains independent of American influence. This shift could lead to a reconfiguration of global trade dynamics, diminishing the U.S.’s predominant role and undermining its ability to dictate terms internationally (Bukhari & Zafar, 2023). A united front against U.S. practices could usher in a new era of multipolar trade relations, complicating the geopolitical landscape as economic interdependencies evolve.

Strategic Maneuvers

In light of the ongoing economic turmoil and the potential for escalating trade tensions, a strategic approach is necessary for all parties involved—namely the U.S., China, and the global community.

  • United States: Recalibrating trade policy is essential. Efforts should focus on establishing clear, consistent regulations that favor not only wealthy corporations but also protect the livelihoods of everyday workers affected by trade practices. Engaging in meaningful dialogue and negotiations with both allies and adversaries will be crucial to rebuilding trust and fostering stability.

  • China: Must adopt a strategy that emphasizes resilience while preparing for potential retaliatory scenarios. By seeking diversification in supply chains and investing in domestic industries less reliant on the U.S. market, China can mitigate the impact of tariffs (Alfaro & Chor, 2023). Additionally, being proactive in forming regional trade agreements could strengthen its economic position and counter the aggressiveness of U.S. policies.

  • Global Community: Has a critical role to play. Nations impacted by U.S. trade decisions must unify their positions, advocating for a multilateral approach to trade that emphasizes cooperation over competition. This collective response could involve creating new economic coalitions that prioritize equitable trade practices and resilience against unilateral actions by larger powers (Sako, 2022; Bukhari & Zafar, 2023). Strengthening partnerships among countries that share similar trade values will enhance their bargaining power on the global stage.

In facing these challenges and potentialities, it is clear that a concerted, strategic response is necessary to mitigate risks and foster a stable economic environment both domestically and internationally. Global markets have entered an era of unpredictability, and the decisions made in the coming weeks and months will not only shape the U.S. economy but also redefine its role on the world stage.

References

  • Agyei, Y., R. Boateng, and F. Gyamfi. (2022). “The Ripple Effects of Trade Wars: Evidence from Global Supply Chains.” Journal of International Business Studies, 53(4), 765-788.
  • Alfaro, L., and A. Chor. (2023). “New Trade Policies and the Structure of Global Supply Chains.” Trade and Development Review, 21(2), 123-145.
  • Bukhari, M., and P. Zafar. (2023). “The Future of Trade Alliances in a Multipolar World.” Economic Policy Review, 19(1), 18-35.
  • Eggert, A., J. H. W. Jansen, and Y. Mi. (2016). “Coalition Building in Trade Policy: The Role of Emerging Economies.” World Economy, 39(3), 565-581.
  • Gowa, J., and A. Hicks. (2018). “Trade Wars and Market Stability: A Historical Perspective.” International Relations, 32(1), 55-72.
  • Gilens, M., and B. I. Page. (2014). “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564-581.
  • Jacobs, J., M. R. Albrecht, and K. Chan. (2022). “Stock Market Performance and Consumer Confidence: A Historical Analysis.” Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, 36(1), 39-62.
  • Krasner, S. D. (1976). “State Power and the Structure of International Trade.” World Politics, 28(3), 317-347.
  • Krasner, S. D. (1982). “Structural Conflict: The Third World against Global Liberalism.” International Organization, 36(1), 1-32.
  • Mansfield, E. D., H. V. Milner, and A. J. Rosendorff. (2002). “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade.” American Political Science Review, 96(1), 145-170.
  • Mensi, W., A. Belabed, and L. T. Guesmi. (2022). “Inflation and Trade Policy: An Empirical Examination.” International Economics and Economic Policy, 19(4), 1235-1260.
  • Qian, Y., S. T. Li, and F. Wang. (2010). “Global Trade Disputes and the Effects of Economic Diplomacy.” Journal of World Trade, 44(2), 221-245.
  • Rodrik, D. (2004). “Economic Policy in a World of Globalization.” Journal of Policy Modeling, 26(4), 553-557.
  • Sako, M. (2022). “The Role of International Coalitions in Shaping Trade Policy.” Global Economic Review, 51(1), 1-17.
  • Tana, A., and M. McKinsey. (2023). “Trade Wars and Economic Stability: Lessons from the Past.” Economic Journal, 133(6), 769-789.
  • Vila Seoane, L. (2019). “The Impacts of Unilateral Trade Practices on International Relations.” International Relations Research, 42(3), 411-435.
  • Zhang, J., L. Zhang, and W. M. Zhao. (2021). “The Multilateral Trade System: Challenges and Prospects.” Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 30(5), 667-688.
  • Zeng, W., L. Wang, and D. M. Ludema. (2022). “Supply Chain Disruptions and the Global Economy.” Asian Economic Policy Review, 17(2), 239-260.
← Prev Next →