The U.S. trade war bluster meets reality

Editor's note: Xin Ping is a commentator on international affairs, writing regularly for Xinhua News Agency, CGTN, Global Times, China Daily, etc. The article reflects the author's views and not necessarily those of CGTN.

The White House continues to issue bold-sounding statements insisting China must "cut a deal" with the U.S. – even threatening to "unilaterally set the deal" if negotiations fail. But does Washington indeed hold the leverage it claims?

The myth of American indispensability

While the United States remains the world's largest economy with substantial global influence, this does not mean the world economy cannot function without it, nor must countries submit to Washington's demands. International trade predates the U.S. by centuries and will continue regardless of its policies.

Many are awakening to the erosion of U.S. economic centrality. Even before the recent tariff escalations, the Financial Times noted that America's global trade dominance has been overstated. U.S. imports now account for just 13 percent of global trade, down from nearly 20 percent two decades ago, meaning 87 percent of the world's market lies elsewhere.

If the U.S. were to sever ties with the global economy abruptly, the consequences would be far from apocalyptic. Simon Evenett, a professor at Switzerland's IMD Business School, modeled this worst-case scenario: 70 U.S. trading partners could offset losses within a year by redirecting exports, while 115 others could recover within five years. Those peddling fears of U.S. "decoupling" are grossly miscalculating.

The reality is simple: Global trade will endure, with or without the U.S.

Who really holds the cards?

Recent trends reveal who truly holds the advantage. DHgate, a Chinese B2B e-commerce platform, has surged in popularity across the U.S., skyrocketing from below 300th place to the second most downloaded free app on Apple's App Store, with monthly downloads jumping 940 percent as of April 12.

The reason is apparent: as tariffs and inflation squeeze American wallets, shoppers are flocking to the platform for affordable, high-quality Chinese goods – from $1.90 handbags to $9.98 sunglasses (with free shipping and a $2 coupon).

DHgate's explosive growth lays bare a harsh truth: U.S. reliance on Chinese goods runs deeper than many imagined. Electronics, apparel, home furnishings, toys, and even components for European luxury brands are overwhelmingly "Made in China." With few viable alternatives, American consumers will remain locked in dependence.

One American social media user wryly commented: "The U.S. boasts about holding all the cards in this trade war – but China printed the deck."

The bluster behind Washington's threats

As the 90-day tariff pause expires, anxiety is growing across American business circles. Yet this anxiety starkly contrasts with Washington's escalating rhetoric – a dissonance that reveals the emptiness of its threats. In fact, the U.S. is backtracking. What began as sweeping "reciprocal tariffs" has since narrowed to temporary pauses and selective exemptions, particularly for electronics vital to American consumers. Now, officials cling to increasingly erratic soundbites like "They need to make a deal, not us." or "They had a meeting this morning … it doesn't matter who 'they' is." – even as China clarifies no negotiations are taking place.

Why the bluster? America's economic foundations are shaking. Since April, Wall Street has swung violently, erasing $6.6 trillon in market value in two days. BNY Mellon's iFlow data reveals foreign capital fleeing U.S. bonds, while over $6 trillion in Treasury debt matures in June.

Under such pressure, Washington's vague hints and lies about "talks" with China betray a simple truth: The U.S. scrambles to soothe markets as its leverage evaporates.

A clear choice ahead

China, standing firm against bullying, has already forced U.S. partial retreats. The world now faces a defining choice: Should nations succumb to short-term pressure and accept unstable, zero-sum arrangements? Or should they uphold multilateralism by resisting the primary source of global economic disruption?

The answer matters, and it is obvious.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)