The Price of Protectionism

Building upon the past US-China trade wars, both nations have once again delved into the tit-for-tat economic battle with even bigger stakes this time around. These nations indulge in it by using tariffs as weapons to harm each other’s economies. It usually starts with one nation imposing tariffs on another nation’s goods, followed by the other nation imposing retaliatory tariffs, and the cycle continues. The 2025 trade war has become a renewed symbol of protectionist economic policy, wherein the world’s two largest economies prioritize domestic industries over global cooperation. The outcome has not merely disturbed financial markets but has also disrupted the entire framework of global supply links, with repercussions on emerging economies, international investors, and multilateral trade organizations.

The article talks about how past disputes turned into more complicated fights in order to put the current US-China economic tensions in 2025 into context. It discusses the current status of the trade war and its implications on the value chain of the world, reorganization of sectors, the significance of plurilateral pacts, and regional economic development. The article further makes correlations between this conflict and the wider trends of de-dollarization, regional trade agreements, and the change in the approach of foreign investment. It finally tries to give a comprehensive insight into the reasons behind such protectionist policies and what other paths might provide sustainable world economic growth.

As of early 2025, the trade standoff has been reignited by the United States imposing a fresh set of tariffs on Chinese semiconductor components and electric vehicle (EV) batteries, citing unfair subsidies and data security risks. China retaliated by hiking tariffs on American agricultural exports and luxury items, directly affecting US exporters in politically sensitive states. The strategic targeting of sectors (like semiconductors, rare earths, AI-integrated goods) reveals the undercurrents of a technology and power rivalry rather than merely a trade imbalance issue.

The nations have justified these actions as defensive measures to ensure economic and national security. The Trump government and Washington have justified their actions by referring to excessive dependence on Chinese technology manufacturing. Beijing has explained the U.S. action as motivated by “economic containment.” As expected, neither side is willing to back down.
The ripple effects of this renewed trade battle have been huge. After Covid-19, global supply chains have already started to change shape. Large firms overdependent on Chinese manufacturing, for example, Apple, Tesla, and Intel, are now greatly investing in backup hubs in the form of Vietnam, India, and Mexico. In Thailand, foreign direct investment (FDI) registered an increase of 25.5% during 2024 due to propulsion by industries including electronics and machine-making.

In contrast, Chinese companies are expanding their presence in African and Latin American markets via Belt and Road-affiliated projects. Fragmentation of the supply chain has caused rising production costs and inefficiencies. Small economies that were passive players in the past have become key players in the growing world order, with Indonesia and Poland becoming emerging alternative manufacturing hubs.

The technology industry is still at the center of this trade war. The U.S. export restriction on advanced semiconductor equipment to China, and subsequently the Chinese restriction on rare earth minerals, have placed multinational tech firms in a vulnerable position. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has projected world merchandise trade to increase by 0.2% in 2025, a drastic revision from the previous 3.0% growth projection, mainly due to escalating trade tensions.

Agriculture is another sector caught in the crossfire. American soybean and corn farmers have once again found themselves without access to the lucrative Chinese market, just as they had begun recovering from previous trade tensions. Meanwhile, China is deepening trade ties with Brazil and Argentina, shifting its agri-import base southward.

Recently, the green energy sector has become important in this war. U.S. tariffs on Chinese EV batteries and solar panels have increased domestic prices but also led to new subsidies for American clean energy startups. In retaliation, China has limited exports of battery-grade lithium, disrupting global EV manufacturing. The long-term vision for both countries appears focused on domestic self-sufficiency in the green sector, even if at the cost of higher short-term volatility.

One of the less obvious but more potent side effects of the current economic war is de-dollarization pressure. In response to bilateral tensions, both nations have doubled down on multilateral agreements with other nations. The U.S. has accelerated trade negotiations with partners under the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), as well as further cooperation under the USMCA and TTIP agreements. China, for its part, is pursuing the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), actively pushing together with ASEAN, Japan, and South Korea, an Asia-driven trade bloc. Increasing regionalization of trade means a shift away from China, which has been promoting the use of the Chinese yuan for foreign trade, inking pacts with countries like Russia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Japan to settle trade directly in Chinese yuan. This is a bid to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar and diversify the impact of dollar-denominated sanctions. BRICS countries have also launched a shared payment system as an alternative to SWIFT, further disrupting dollar supremacy. Although the dollar is still the global reserve currency, the long-term effects of a diversified currency regime could vary from inflationary pressures in emerging economies to remodeled international lending schemes. As supply chains rebalance, various countries are being forced to take sides, balancing trade relationships with both powers without alienating either.

But there are also supporters of protectionism who argue that these measures are necessary for national security and industrial rejuvenation. The pandemic revealed profound weaknesses in excessive dependence on international manufacturing, encouraging governments to onshore strategic industries. In addition, domestic industries are protected by tariffs that enable them to grow without being instantaneously replaced by foreign giants. In the United States, the rhetoric of “economic patriotism” appeals to voters, particularly in manufacturing states.

Even with these explanations, the toll of extended trade wars is accumulating, from inflation and lower world growth to greater geopolitical tension. The World Economic Forum (WEF) cautions that mounting geo-economic fragmentation can lower world GDP by as much as $5.7 trillion, more than the economic shock caused by the 2008 financial crisis or the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a strong need for organized negotiations under the umbrella of the World Trade Organization (WTO) or by way of impartial third-party mediation. Confidence-building exercises like technology-sharing pacts, green energy cooperation, and industry-specific free trade corridors might reduce tensions. Economic history indicates that zero-sum thinking tends to result in lose-lose situations. Rather, emphasizing strategic interdependence, where both countries acknowledge the other’s contribution to world prosperity, can reset relations.

In summary, the continual 2025 US-China trade war is more than a mere rehash of previous clashes, but a profound ideological conflict in an evolving new global order. Though protectionism provides short-term security and political capital, its long-term price far exceeds its cost. As the trade routes change, industries restructure, and new protagonists appear on the scene, the world is at a tipping point. It takes more than tariff talks to restore stability; it takes visionary leadership, trust, and an understanding of multilateralism. The stakes are greater than they have ever been before, and the way the US and China handle this will determine the shape of global commerce for decades ahead.

Citations
Asian Development Bank. (2025). Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership: 2025 outlook. https://www.adb.org

BRICS Secretariat. (2025). BRICS launch of payment platform: Towards a multipolar financial system. https://brics-info.org

Council on Foreign Relations. (2023). The case for economic nationalism post-COVID. https://www.cfr.org

Food and Agriculture Organization. (2025). Global agri-trade shifts: China, Brazil, and Argentina. https://www.fao.org

Harvard Business Review. (2023). How COVID-19 reshaped global supply chains. https://hbr.org

International Energy Agency. (2025). Global EV and solar policy update. https://www.iea.org

International Monetary Fund. (2025). The future of global currency regimes. https://www.imf.org

OECD. (2024). The role of small economies in global manufacturing. https://www.oecd.org

Office of the United States Trade Representative. (2025). Fact sheet: US-China technology tariffs. https://ustr.gov

People’s Bank of China. (2025). Yuan trade settlement pacts signed with 10 nations. http://www.pbc.gov.cn

Pew Research Center. (2024). Public views on tariffs and economic nationalism. https://www.pewresearch.org

Semiconductor Industry Association. (2025). Semiconductor supply chain outlook: 2025. https://www.semiconductors.org

United States Department of Agriculture. (2025). U.S. export market report: Agriculture and China. https://www.usda.gov

U.S. Department of State. (2024). Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and future cooperation. https://www.state.gov

World Bank. (2024). Thailand FDI rises amid regional shift. https://www.worldbank.org

World Economic Forum. (2025). The cost of geo-economic fragmentation. https://www.weforum.org

World Trade Organization. (2025). World trade report 2025: Global trade outlook. https://www.wto.org