President Trump wants to get tough on China. Where is this stance coming from? It is based on what is laid out in “Project 2025,” a political initiative that aims to reshape the U.S. federal government with a strong right-wing agenda.
This Project includes policies that have significantly impacted U.S.-China relations, particularly in trade, national security, and immigration.
Project 2025, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and supported by over 100 conservative groups, outlines a hardline approach to China, viewing it as a major threat. The plan proposes aggressive measures to “take on China.” This includes expanding tariffs to block Chinese products, worsening trade relations and potentially driving inflation and job losses in the U.S.
There is a clear connection between President Trump’s stance on China and the policy ideas outlined in Project 2025, particularly regarding trade and tariffs. Project 2025, which includes contributions from Trump’s former advisor Peter Navarro, emphasizes a tough, transactional approach to trade, advocating for “fair trade” policies that counteract what are seen as unfair practices by China and other countries.
Since Trump’s second inauguration in 2025, his administration has aggressively pursued higher tariffs on Chinese imports, including raising tariffs to as high as 125% or more on many Chinese goods through so-called “reciprocal tariffs” designed to penalize countries with non-reciprocal trade barriers against the US. This approach aligns with Project 2025’s framework of using tariffs and trade restrictions as tools to protect American industries and national security interests.
Trump’s policies also include restricting Chinese investment in strategic sectors of the US economy and limiting Chinese ownership of farmland and real estate near sensitive sites, further reflecting a hardline stance against China’s economic influence1. The administration’s strategy is described as transactional and focused on short-term leverage rather than long-term diplomatic engagement, consistent with Project 2025’s emphasis on reshoring production and protecting sovereignty.
Here, it is instructive to compare Trump’s approach in his first term to what is he now doing. Basically, in his first term, he wanted to start a trade war with China. He still seems to want that war in his second term and is using a more aggressive, multi-pronged strategy, marked by higher tariffs and expanded geopolitical confrontation.
In his first administration (2017–2020), sanctions and tariffs on China significantly reshaped bilateral relations, with detrimental economic and geopolitical outcomes for the United States.
First, there were Section 301 tariffs. Starting in March 2018, Trump imposed tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese goods, citing intellectual property theft. By September 2019, tariffs expanded to cover $550 billion of imports, reaching up to 25% on most goods.
China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. agricultural and industrial products, including soybeans and pork. The trade war contributed to China’s Q2 2019 GDP growth slowing to a 27-year low.
But the economic impact on the United States was far worse. Sectors like agriculture (soybeans) and manufacturing faced severe disruption due to reduced Chinese purchases. By 2021, China had purchased only 58% of the $200 billion in additional U.S. exports promised in the Phase One trade deal.
Next, China reduced its U.S. Treasury holdings by targeting a 25% cut from its $1.1 trillion portfolio in July 2019. The yuan also depreciated sharply in August 2019, prompting the U.S. to label China a “currency manipulator.”
Then, Trump brought in technology and security sanctions. In May 2019, the U.S. blacklisted Huawei and restricted its access to critical technologies, citing national security risks.
Also, over 90 Chinese entities and individuals faced sanctions by 2020, targeting sectors like defense, AI, and surveillance.
Geopolitical tensions soon arose. Trump signed the Hong Kong Human Rights Act in 2019, authorizing sanctions on officials involved in suppressing protests. China retaliated by suspending U.S. warship visits to Hong Kong;
Vice President Mike Pence’s 2018 speech framed China as a strategic competitor, criticizing its trade practices, South China Sea militarization, and human rights record.
The result was a grand failure for Trump.
Trump’s tariffs boomeranged, costing the U.S. nearly 250,000 jobs according to a Carnegie Endowment study, while failing to reverse the trade deficit. U.S. exports to China in 2020–21 fell $11.6 billion short of even pre-trade-war levels.
Trump assumed China’s export dependency (then 20% of Chinese exports to the U.S.) would force concessions, but China reduced reliance to 13% by 2024. Retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods matched Trump’s hikes.
Trump abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership, weakened alliances with the EU and Asia, and pursued unilateralism, leaving the U.S. utterly isolated.
And, as now, Trump flipflopped and sent out mixed messages. He vacillated between praising Xi Jinping as a “very good friend” and escalating rhetoric, creating policy incoherence. By mid-2020, Trump became less engaged in China policy amid domestic crises.
Trump’s first trade war with China entrenched economic decoupling, disrupted supply chains, and failed to address core issues like China’s state capitalism. By 2021, U.S.-China relations remained adversarial, with Trump’s policies accelerating a shift toward great-power competition rather than constructive engagement.
And in his second term, Trump is doing it all again, this time backed up by the blueprint of Project 2025.
But this time, there is escalation and expansion of the anti-China policy. Thus, reciprocal tariffs surged to 84% (April 2025) and up to 145% on select goods, targeting sectors like steel, solar panels, and EVs. New 10–25% tariffs on Chinese imports were implemented swiftly in early 2025.
Trump also brought in structural measures, with de minimis exemption removal, thus Halting duty-free imports for parcels under $800 to curb illicit goods.
In retaliation, China imposed export controls on critical minerals, mirroring Trump’s restrictions.
As in his first term, the result is the same—a geopolitical hardening, with alliance skepticism. Trump’s transactional approach continues, undermining multilateral pressure on China (e.g., reduced coordination with allies).
China’s response to Trump’s tariffs has involved a nuanced mix of assertive rhetoric and calibrated actions, reflecting both the legacy of “wolf warrior” diplomacy and recent strategic adjustments.
First, there is the gradual evolution of “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy. The term originates from China’s aggressive diplomatic style (2013–2021), marked by confrontational rhetoric, public threats, and nationalist posturing. During Trump’s first-term trade war, this approach intensified, with Chinese diplomats like Zhao Lijian using provocative social media tactics and officials adopting combative language. However, now in 2025, Beijing has largely shifted away from overt “wolf warrior” tactics, reassigning or retiring its most aggressive diplomats.
Foreign Minister Wang Yi has emphasized China’s “restraint,” framing U.S. tariffs as “evil” and accusing Trump of “two-faced acts” while avoiding direct threats. Beijing has focused on defending its sovereignty and economic policies, stressing resilience and self-reliance.
China has also matched U.S. tariff hikes (up to 145% on some goods) but has avoided sweeping escalations, instead targeting specific industries. Officials have leveraged multilateral forums to position China as a “respectful” alternative to U.S. “bullying” in regions like Latin America.
China has also very deftly amplified nationalist sentiment, framing the trade war as a struggle against U.S. hegemony. Xi Jinping has emphasized China’s ability to “manage internal affairs effectively,” projecting confidence amid external pressures.
Of course, Republicans love to hate China, and Project 2025 draws its energy from this hatred.
Thus, China has been framed as America’s primary adversary, blaming it for America’s economic decline, cultural corruption, and elite collusion. For example, Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts has accused China of conspiring with a “woke Left” to undermine U.S. sovereignty through trade, technology, and cultural influence.
Project 2025 also dishes out economic blame. Manufacturing job losses and outsourcing are attributed to China’s “totalitarian” policies and U.S. elite complicity.
This is followed by charges of cultural infiltration. TikTok and Confucius Institutes are framed as tools for subverting American youth and academia.
In effect, it is domestic authoritarianism under the guise of an anti-China policy. Project 2025 leverages anti-China sentiment to advance its own priorities. Thus, there is now, in America, the centralizing control over federal agencies to bypass institutional checks.
Plus, MAGA propaganda is busy scapegoating China, blaming China for domestic issues (e.g., economic inequality) to justify radical deregulation and militarization.
Nothing unites Americans more quickly than having an external enemy to hate. And so, anti-China rhetoric very bridges divisions between Trump loyalists and traditional conservatives, and even Democrats who do not like China.
There are unexpected global implications. For example, the EU and China are exploring cooperation to counter U.S. tariffs, which means that Project 2025’s vision will accelerate economic fragmentation by way of decoupling, that is, investment bans and export controls that will ever U.S.-China tech and supply-chain ties.
And let us not forget that anti-China fearmongering bolsters defense spending and anti-immigrant policies, which often animate MAGA.
The results for average Americans will be dire.
Household spending will rise by 2.5% due to higher import prices, disproportionately affecting low-income households.
Small businesses face “irreversible damage” from tariffs, with canceled shipments and halted orders across sectors like furniture, toys, and apparel1. Supply chain executives report a near-total freeze on China-related transactions.
Forecasters have lowered U.S. GDP projections, anticipating Fed rate cuts and prolonged economic uncertainty. There are fears of a recession setting in.
Apple’s market value dropped 20% due to tariffs on Chinese-made iPhones, despite temporary exemptions.
This shows that Project 2025’s anti-China agenda is less about strategic competition and more about enabling domestic authoritarianism. By framing China as an all-encompassing threat, Project 2025 justifies sweeping executive actions, corporate deregulation, and cultural policing under the banner of national security. The true aim is to transform the United States into a nationalist, theocratic state. China is a tool in that process.
