Bit of a cope title, but the article itself is surprisingly “realistic” considering it’s coming from a publication that usually puts out articles full of ass-kissing praise for the US and pure hatred for China.
In fact it’s precisely knowing the bias of this paper that makes this article interesting: it’s a view into how even some of the US’s staunchest international supporters are looking at this whole tariff debacle.
"In a surprising shift, US President Donald Trump has hit the brakes on a broad wave of new tariffs, opting instead for a 90-day pause that has sparked both celebration and scepticism across global markets.
The move, which comes after days of strong rhetoric promising sweeping economic confrontation, raises an important question: Is this a calculated manoeuver in the art of negotiation or a reluctant retreat in the face of mounting resistance? Mr Trump’s leadership has always hinged on unpredictability and bravado, a strategy that has served him both as a disruptor and a divider. This recent tariff manoeuver is no exception.
After weeks of firm posturing, with threats of harsh penalties for trading partners, the sudden shift to negotiation signals either a strategic pause for leverage or a reactive course correction amid political and economic pressure. Regardless of the motive, the decision has tangible consequences. Markets rebounded almost instantly ~ a clear indicator that investors feared the fallout of an all-out trade war.
Treasury yields had been slipping, and corporate leaders were increasingly vocal about the uncertainty such tariffs were injecting into supply chains. Even Republican allies began questioning the wisdom of escalating trade conflicts without clear objectives or timelines. The pressure was not just international; it was coming from within. The administration insists this was always part of the plan: escalate tensions, create leverage, and then open the door to bilateral negotiations. That narrative may appeal to loyalists, but it overlooks the chaos that preceded the announcement. Trading partners were left scrambling, unsure of who was included in the pause, what sectors would be affected, and how to interpret a policy change communicated via social media posts rather than formal statements.
This approach may serve short-term political optics, but it undermines the predictability that global trade relies on. Allies and adversaries alike need consistency in order to engage in meaningful negotiations. When policy feels more like performance, long-term strategic partnerships risk being sacrificed for momentary applause. Critics have long accused Mr Trump of governing through crisis ~ a cycle of provocation followed by partial retraction, all while claiming victory. In this case, that pattern appears intact. While the pause might look like a step back, it leaves in place a 10 per cent blanket tariff and an even harsher 125 per cent levy targeting China.
These measures alone are substantial, yet they’ve been overshadowed by the larger retreat, suggesting that shock remains a favoured tactic. What remains unclear is whether this approach is sustainable. By alarming allies and unsettling markets, Mr Trump risks making future cooperation harder to secure. Trust, once eroded, is difficult to rebuild, especially when trade partners feel like pawns in a political game. As the 90-day window ticks down, the world will be watching not only the outcomes of negotiations but also whether this moment of restraint signals a new direction ~ or simply a pause before the next storm."