On April 9, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a significant escalation in the ongoing trade conflict with China, raising tariffs on Chinese imports to 125 percent. Merely hours earlier, Beijing had declared its own retaliatory measure – raising tariffs on a range of U.S. goods to 84 percent, effective April 10 at 12:00 p.m. This tit-for-tat dynamic has become increasingly emblematic of the current state of China-U.S. relations, marked by rising tensions and shrinking avenues for compromise.
China’s response was swift and assertive. Beyond economic retaliation, Beijing filed a formal complaint against the United States through the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement mechanism, signaling a willingness to utilize both legal and institutional tools.
Public messaging from Chinese state entities has also grown notably firm. The People’s Daily, the official mouthpiece of the Communist Party, echoed a long-standing narrative: “China does not want to fight, but is not afraid to fight.” This sentiment was reinforced by Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning, who shared a historical video of Chairman Mao Zedong’s 1953 speech during the Korean War on social media, quoting: “Not afraid of provocation.” The invocation of wartime rhetoric is symbolically powerful – it not only signals Beijing’s psychological readiness for confrontation but also taps into national memory and patriotic legitimacy.
In parallel, China’s Ministry of Education issued its first official overseas study warning of 2025, advising students to carefully assess risks before considering study in the United States. Similarly, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism released a travel advisory citing rising bilateral tensions and concerns about domestic safety conditions in the U.S. These coordinated moves point to a broader strategic messaging campaign aimed at reducing bilateral people-to-people exchanges, in line with a growing trend of decoupling.
What stands out is not only the strength of the official response, but the intensity of domestic public opinion within China. On Chinese social media platforms, netizens have echoed and even exceeded the government’s rhetoric in their expressions of support. Popular comments include references to the United States as a “paper tiger” – a metaphor famously used by Mao Zedong – framing Washington as blusterous but ultimately weak.
The surge in online nationalism is not confined to political commentators. Figures in non-political spheres, such as finance and lifestyle influencers, have increasingly voiced support for Beijing’s hardline position. One financial blogger with nearly 1 million followers suggested further tariff hikes: “Raise another 21 percent – let’s hit back hard.” A travel photographer with over 8 million followers claimed that “China’s orders are soaring, while the U.S. is entering self-destruct mode.” Such sentiments have gained significant traction, with tens of thousands of likes, indicating that nationalist discourse has permeated far beyond traditional political boundaries.
This assertiveness among both officials and citizens comes despite mounting domestic economic challenges. According to World Bank data, China’s GDP growth slowed to 4.9 percent in 2024 and is projected to fall further to 4.5 percent in 2025. Youth unemployment remains high at 16.9 percent. Yet, economic hardship has not dampened public confidence. On the contrary, many citizens appear to see these challenges as temporary sacrifices in the pursuit of long-term sovereignty and national pride.
This public resilience, whether genuine or curated through media control, serves as a political buffer for Beijing. It enables the government to adopt a confrontational stance without facing immediate internal backlash. However, the longer-term implications of sustained decoupling – including technological isolation, capital flight, and supply chain realignments – remain to be seen.
What is clear is that both Washington and Beijing have entered a phase of hardened rhetoric, reciprocal sanctions, and reduced people-to-people engagement. The absence of trust, coupled with limited institutional frameworks for de-escalation, increases the risk of miscalculation. If the current trajectory continues unchecked, the prospect of a long-term strategic rivalry – akin to a new Cold War – may no longer be speculative.
The intensifying tariff confrontation between the United States and China raises a fundamental question: Is this merely the next phase of the long-running trade war, or are we witnessing the early signs of a new Cold War – or even the prelude to a potential hot conflict? From the perspective of international relations theory, if both sides continue to adopt uncompromising positions with little room for negotiation, the zero-sum nature of their engagement risks dismantling existing frameworks of cooperation and deepening mutual distrust.
Realist theory posits that states operate in an anarchic international system where the pursuit of national interest and security leads to inevitable competition. If both Washington and Beijing prioritize national security and economic sovereignty above all else, each is likely to interpret the other’s actions as threats or attempts at containment, triggering a spiral of actions and countermeasures that could evolve into structural confrontation.
Conversely, institutionalist theory emphasizes the importance of frameworks and norms that facilitate cooperation even among rival states. For decades, China-U.S. relations were buffered by institutional ties – such as the World Trade Organization, bilateral dialogue mechanisms, and robust people-to-people exchanges. These channels provided critical space for negotiation and de-escalation, helping to prevent a slide into Cold War-style antagonism.
Reflecting on the original trade war that began in 2018, despite deep disagreements, trade and educational exchanges between the two nations persisted, allowing a degree of strategic ambiguity and potential for reconciliation. Today, however, the landscape has changed significantly. Citing rising visa denials and revoked student visas by the United States, China has recently issued travel warnings for its students and citizens planning to visit the United States, resulting in a sharp reduction in educational and tourism-related exchanges. On the economic front, the accumulation of non-tariff barriers and expanded technology restrictions has pushed bilateral trade toward historic lows. The concept of “comprehensive decoupling” – across trade, investment, technology, and human mobility – is no longer a distant possibility, but a tangible and accelerating process.
Against this backdrop, the label “new Cold War” is becoming increasingly plausible. The China-U.S. relationship appears to be shifting from strategic competition to systemic rivalry. Without robust communication channels and crisis management mechanisms, the risk of miscalculation and escalation rises sharply. In a global environment already destabilized by the COVID-19 pandemic and regional conflicts, full-scale decoupling between the world’s two largest economies could have profound implications – disrupting global supply chains, undermining investment confidence, and hampering technological innovation.
In light of these challenges, a return to dialogue-based diplomacy is not merely preferable, but essential. Whether through the reactivation of bilateral diplomatic exchanges or engagement within multilateral platforms, both sides must rebuild a framework for structured negotiation. Any unilateral hardline actions or withdrawal from diplomatic processes will not only worsen bilateral ties but also jeopardize the fragile recovery of the global economy and the stability of the international order. In an era of heightened uncertainty, rational engagement and open communication are more critical than ever.
