US tariffs: Repeated delays and lost momentum dim Trump's manufacturing revival

Editor's note: The article was written by Ge Lin, a CGTN economic commentator. It reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On July 9, the day US President Donald Trump's new global tariff plan was expected to take effect, it didn't. The deadline was pushed to August 1. Trump insisted it was the final delay. But by then, something more important had already been lost.

In economic decision-making, consistency is not a peripheral concern—it underpins how expectations are formed and acted upon. Announcements matter, but follow-through matters more. Investors, producers, and trade partners operate on expectations. When a policy's execution becomes unpredictable, its impact—however aggressive in its goal—begins to shrink in practice.

When time inconsistency undermines long-term planning

Economic research has long explored how policy uncertainty affects expectations and decision-making. In the influential line of work on time inconsistency, the theory suggests that when policy intentions are perceived as unstable or subject to change, the private sector begins to hedge against potential reversals, diluting the policy's intended effects before implementation even begins.

While these dynamics are well-researched in areas like monetary policy and inflation targeting, they are even more relevant for trade and industrial strategy.

The underlying mechanism is straightforward: Markets don't respond to action alone, but to patterns. This is especially true when signals appear provisional. The US government can shift deadlines, adjust language, or recalibrate its message rapidly, sometimes in a matter of days.

But for businesses making capital investments, decisions are measured in decades. If policy direction appears reactive or likely to change, it becomes harder to treat any single announcement as a basis for strategic planning. In such an environment, international firms adopt a wait-and-see posture out of caution.

In all cases, sustained expectations—not one-time announcements—shape real decisions. Frequent adjustments to policies can disrupt the foundations of long-term investment. When signals shift, deadlines slide, and decisions appear contingent, the strategic value of policy begins to erode.

The risk of losing momentum when a delay repeats

Within Chinese cultural tradition, there is a well-known story and proverb that captures an enduring principle: "The first drum invigorates the spirit, the second weakens it, and the third exhausts it." In simpler terms, it can be understood as: "Strike with full force the first time; hesitate, and you weaken; delay again, and you risk losing momentum."

This principle is reflected in a battle told across centuries of Chinese history. The challengers rushed in at the first sound of drums—confident, focused, and full of force—while the opposing side held their ground without responding. A second drumbeat followed. The charge resumed, but the pace had slackened, the edge already dulled, yet still the defenders held back. By the third drumbeat, the momentum had noticeably waned—the unity began to scatter.

Put into the US tariff context, repeated postponements disrupt the expected rhythm of decision-making, creating uncertainty that reverberates through both domestic and international stakeholders. Each delay also heightens the perception of internal disagreement and instability.

Faced with repeated delays, actors begin to second-guess both the timeline and the commitment behind the policy. This hesitation spreads: each player holds back, waiting for others to move first. What was meant to build leverage ends up dissolving coordination, and the policy's intended pressure loses its weight.

Trump's delay of the tariffs was not due to his lack of intention. In fact, he continues to signal resolve. But execution has become difficult. In a system shaped by competing lobbies and fragmented agendas, the deeper challenge lies in sustaining momentum across time, not just in making bold declarations.

What's missing is not force, but rhythm — a steady momentum that keeps collective efforts aligned and effective over time. This kind of wisdom is not written into legal codes or institutional procedures. Instead, it resides in pattern recognition, in the cadence of collective response, and in the discipline to maintain consistency.

Manufacturing reshoring: Slogan or reality?

The ambition to bring manufacturing back to the United States has become Trump's prominent political theme, but the reality reveals significant structural challenges that cannot be addressed by tariffs or rhetoric. The US manufacturing sector struggles with inherent disadvantages: elevated production costs, a strong dollar that dampens export competitiveness, and a workforce that lacks the specialized skills required for advanced manufacturing. From the perspective of multinational corporations—including those originally founded in the United States—the country's manufacturing base currently offers little economic appeal as a location for production.

There is also a structural tension between the type of manufacturing the US seeks to attract and the kind of employment it hopes to generate. Advanced manufacturing—often the centerpiece of reshoring strategies—relies heavily on automation and requires far fewer workers. If the goal is to restore mass employment, it remains unclear whether high-tech production alone can deliver that outcome.

If large-scale job creation remains out of reach, the rationale for bringing manufacturing back may rest instead on the ambition to rebuild domestic supply chains. Yet this task is far more demanding than relocating a handful of factories. Industrial ecosystems take decades to form, shaped by dense supplier networks and accumulated production know-how. It requires long-term, coordinated commitment across the entire value chain. Against this backdrop, tariff-based reshoring appears fundamentally misaligned with the structural scale and complexity of what it seeks to achieve.

For global actors: Navigating uncertainty with vigilance and flexibility

On the global stage, trade partners and multinational corporations watch carefully for signs of resolve and consistency. When deadlines slip again, counterparts may perceive US indecision or internal discord. Such perceptions can influence the dynamics of bargaining and the tone of international responses, though the exact effects remain uncertain.

Moreover, tariff negotiations depend heavily on reciprocal commitments. A fragmented or inconsistent approach presents challenges for crafting durable agreements. In this fluid situation, global actors should balance vigilance with flexibility, navigating between uncertainty and opportunity as they respond to shifting US trade signals.