President Donald Trump has taken a hardline stance in the escalating U.S.-China trade war, refusing to lower the 145% tariffs on Chinese imports to entice Beijing to negotiate.
In a May 4, 2025, Meet the Press interview, Trump declared that China’s economy is “collapsing” under the pressure of his tariffs, insisting he won’t reduce them unless Beijing offers concessions. This move, rooted in his “America First” trade policy, tests the limits of executive power under the Constitution and raises stakes for American consumers and global markets.
A Defiant Response to China’s Demands
The trade war intensified after Trump imposed tariffs reaching 145% on Chinese goods, citing unfair trade practices and fentanyl smuggling. China retaliated with 125% tariffs on U.S. products, demanding that Trump lift his “unilateral” measures to start talks. Trump rejected this outright, telling host Kristen Welker,
“I’m not dropping the tariffs against China to get them to the negotiating table.”
He claimed China’s factories are closing and unemployment is soaring, arguing that Beijing “wants to do business” but must yield first.
Trump’s strategy hinges on economic pressure. He suggested that tariffs could eventually drop “at some point” if China negotiates, but only after they “give us something.” This standoff follows weeks of mixed signals, with Trump earlier hinting at reducing tariffs “substantially” from 145%, only for China to deny any active negotiations. The White House insists it’s “setting the stage” for a deal, but Beijing’s Ministry of Commerce has called such claims “groundless as trying to catch the wind.”
Trade Power and Checks
Trump’s tariff policy leans heavily on executive authority under Article II, which grants the president broad power over foreign affairs. The Trade Act of 1974 allows presidents to impose tariffs for national security or economic reasons, but Congress holds the ultimate authority over commerce under Article I, Section 8. Trump’s unilateral escalation, without clear legislative approval, raises concerns about overstepping constitutional bounds, especially as tariffs impact domestic prices and global trade.
The Supreme Court has upheld executive tariff powers in cases like United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936), but Congress can check this authority through legislation or funding restrictions. Trump’s refusal to negotiate unless China concedes tests this balance, potentially sidelining Congress’s role. For Americans, this could mean prolonged economic uncertainty if tariffs persist without oversight, challenging the separation of powers that ensures no single branch dominates trade policy.
Constitutional and Economic Implications
Trump’s stance prompts key constitutional and practical questions:
- Does Trump’s tariff strategy violate congressional authority? Article I gives Congress power to regulate commerce, yet Trump’s tariffs rely on executive discretion. Without legislative backing, prolonged tariffs could provoke legal challenges, testing the limits of presidential trade powers.
- Can executive actions bypass international trade norms? The Constitution’s Article VI binds the U.S. to treaties, including World Trade Organization rules. Trump’s tariffs, exceeding WTO limits, risk retaliatory measures and weaken U.S. credibility in global trade agreements.
- Who bears the economic cost? The Fifth Amendment’s due process clause protects against arbitrary economic harm. Tariffs raise consumer prices, as noted by Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, who said third-party sellers may pass costs to buyers. This could burden Americans, potentially clashing with constitutional protections.
These questions underscore the tension between Trump’s aggressive trade policy and constitutional checks. While supporters see tariffs as leveraging U.S. strength, critics argue they skirt democratic accountability and harm consumers.
The Price of the Trade War
The U.S.-China trade war hits American wallets hard.
The 145% tariffs increase costs for Chinese-made goods, from electronics to clothing. UBS analysts estimate that Apple’s high-end iPhone could rise by $350, a 30% hike, due to China’s manufacturing reliance. Consumers may face higher prices or product shortages, as retailers like Amazon struggle to absorb costs.
Businesses are also reeling. China’s 125% tariffs and non-tariff measures, like halting Boeing aircraft deliveries, hurt U.S. exporters. The Congressional Budget Office projects that tariffs could shave 0.5% off U.S. GDP by 2026, impacting jobs in agriculture, automotive, and tech sectors. For families, this means tighter budgets and fewer choices, while small businesses face supply chain disruptions. Conversely, Trump claims tariffs will bring “$9 trillion” in investments, citing commitments from Apple and Toyota, though these remain unverified.
The Broader Context: Global and Domestic Fallout
Trump’s tariff stance is part of a broader trade strategy. He paused tariffs on 75 countries, lowering them to 10% for 90 days to spur negotiations, but excluded China to isolate it economically. Over 15 countries have offered trade deals, per National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett, signaling Trump’s leverage. However, China’s charm offensive with Vietnam and Europe counters this, weakening U.S. isolation efforts.
Domestically, markets are volatile. The S&P 500 dropped 10% since Trump’s January 20, 2025, inauguration, reflecting fears of a recession. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent calls the trade war “unsustainable,” predicting a de-escalation, but Trump’s latest remarks show no immediate retreat. The IMF has downgraded global growth forecasts, warning that prolonged tariffs could cost jobs and raise living costs worldwide.
What Lies Ahead
Trump’s refusal to lower tariffs without concessions bets on China buckling under economic strain. Beijing’s defiance, backed by exemptions for U.S. pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, suggests a prolonged standoff. Constitutionally, Congress could intervene, but Republican support for Trump’s trade agenda makes this unlikely. For Americans, the trade war means higher prices and economic uncertainty, with no clear timeline for relief.
If China negotiates, tariffs could drop, benefiting consumers. If not, the U.S. risks a deeper trade embargo, harming both economies. Trump’s gamble tests his executive power and the Constitution’s checks, leaving Americans to navigate the fallout of a trade war with no end in sight.