Diminishing returns from Trump's bully-boy foreign policy
Trump returns from China largely empty-handed.
President Donald Trump appears to have returned from his China summit largely empty-handed.
As usual in these events, the Trump administration telegraphed the results it expected from the parley. And, as usual with the Trump administration, these were mostly transactional. Among the anticipated outcomes were the establishment of a Board of Trade to regulate cross-border commerce in goods, preliminary steps in setting up a Board of Investment to do the same for capital, a Chinese commitment to buy U.S. agricultural products, and one to buy Boeing airplanes.
There really weren’t hard Chinese commitments offered, at least publicly so far, on any of this. The Board of Trade comes the closest.
A Board of Trade would implement Trump’s preference for managed trade, in which the cross-boarder flow of goods is decided by politicians and bureaucrats rather than markets. On the U.S. side, this is a recipe and platform for crony capitalism on steroids. It would be worse than tariffs. Tariffs disadvantage Chinese goods but still leave where the dust ultimately settles up to markets.
The Chinese communique acknowledges a decision to explore a Board of Trade and a Board of Investment, but said the details remain to be worked out. My sense is that China might be amenable to such government-to-government dealmaking if it thought that would create some stability and predictability for its exports to the U.S. However, I also suspect that China now regards, along with the rest of the world, stability and predictability in trade a futile quest from a Trump presidency. So, a nod to the concept and a deferral on the details.
China has tacitly agreed to purchase 200 airplanes from Boeing. That was such an underwhelming commitment that Boeing’s stock actually went down, rather than up, on the news. Despite claims from the Trump administration, so far there has been no acknowledgement from China of any specific commitment to the purchase of U.S. agricultural products, such as soybeans. Instead, the Chinese communique emphasizes a mutual commitment to reducing barriers to trade, including tariffs, in agricultural products.
The most consequential thing Trump brought back from China was a stern lecture from Chinese strongman Xi Jinping regarding Taiwan.
This is part of a larger pattern of diminishing returns from Trump’s bully-boy approach to foreign policy. Given the last year and a half, why would China agree to Trump’s transactional concessions? What could China possibly think it was getting in return?
For Trump, everything is regarded as leverage. Nothing is ever settled. No agreement is binding. And Trump has run out of things to threaten China with.
The tariff threat has been fully run. After China responded to Trump’s mislabeled reciprocal tariffs, Trump escalated them to 145%. Then China started to cut off critical minerals to American manufacturers, and Trump sued for peace.
The U.S. tariff on Chinese goods remains high, but China has adjusted. Its exports to the U.S. are down, but overall they are up. And any Trump threat to further cut off China from the American market would be regarded by the Chinese as hollow. That game has already been played.
China still needs to import airplanes and agricultural products such as soybeans. However, since Trump regards everything as leverage, it will be cautious about increasing its dependency on American suppliers.
Right now, the Chinese are playing a finesse game with Trump. What they want most from him is a military retreat from the Indo-Pacific and an abandonment of Taiwan. Sad to say, but Trump might make an implicit bargain for that in exchange for the purchase of more airplanes and soybeans.
Diminishing results from a bully-boy foreign policy can also be seen in Europe. After Trump got himself into a standoff with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz, he got angry that NATO allies didn’t rush to join the muddle – even though it was outside the territory covered by the NATO treaty and there wasn’t really anything European allies could do to untangle the knot.
Trump got really angry when German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that Iran was humiliating Trump. So, Trump ordered U.S. troops to withdraw from Germany and cancelled a rotational deployment to Poland.
What Merz said was dumb and inaccurate. Iran has Trump stalemated, but that’s not the same as humiliated. Although I opposed the Iran bombing campaign, Iran’s military capabilities have been significantly degraded. The question is whether the gain was worth the cost from the perspective of U.S. strategic interests. As the cost to the international and domestic economies continues to mount, I’d argue that the answer is clearly no. But that doesn’t amount to Trump, or the U.S., being humiliated.
I’ve long advocated for a significant reduction in the U.S. military presence in Europe. But Trump’s troop reductions aren’t part of an orderly transition of responsibility. It was intended to punish Merz for his remarks, and Europe generally for keeping a distance from Trump’s Iranian miscalculation.
To what end? European leaders have largely taken the troop reductions in stride. There is a growing consensus on the continent that the United States is no longer a reliable ally. Instead, it is an arbitrary force in world and continental affairs. It’s like the weather. You can’t escape it, but there’s also not much you can do about it.
European leaders have also largely taken in stride Trump’s most recent threat to increase the tariff on EU autos.The panic that ensued after the initial announcement of the reciprocal tariffs just isn’t there. A new Trump tariff threat is now just business as usual.
Small countries in our hemisphere, such as Venezuela and Cuba, still have to pay attention to Trump’s bully-boy inclinations and tactics. Having seemingly failed at regime change in Iran, the Trump administration appears committed to executing it in Cuba.
However, for much of the world, Trump’s threats no longer trigger the alarm bells as much as they used to. They have become, to some extent, just part of the geopolitical backdrop.
Will there be a domestic political consequence to all of this?
While economic issues will be first tier in the 2026 election, the perception that Trump’s tariffs and Iranian miscalculation have contributed to persistent inflation and sluggish economic conditions make his bully-boy foreign policy at least part of the first-tier considerations.
The American people overwhelmingly oppose Trump’s bully-boy foreign policy approach. It will be a second-tier issue in its own right.
Right now, these are motivations for Democratic turnout and considerations for swing voters. Election results so far indicate that Trump still has firm support from Republican base voters, or at least those who participate in GOP primary elections.
At some point, even that might show some cracks not presently visible. After all, America First was supposed to mean less involvement in foreign affairs and conflicts. It wasn’t supposed to mean hyperactive interventions to advance imperialist and mercantilist interests through the brutal deployment of American military and economic power.
Trump’s political isolation could conceivably get even worse.
Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.