Understanding the Claims: Who’s Winning the US-China Trade War?
The US-China trade war has resurfaced in headlines after a temporary truce. With high-stakes tariffs, diplomatic exchanges, and political posturing, it’s challenging to understand which country truly has the upper hand economically. A CNN article assessing recent tariff rollbacks and political messaging from both governments sparked a wave of commentary—and questions. DBUNK users asked us: who is really coming out ahead financially?
Historical Context
Tensions between the United States and China over trade extend back decades, but the latest phase intensified during Donald Trump’s first term as US president. His administration imposed a series of escalating tariffs starting in 2018, targeting hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods in an effort to rebalance the trade deficit and reduce intellectual property theft. China responded with its own retaliatory tariffs. These moves disrupted global markets, hurt exporters and importers on both sides, and led to a cycle of economic pain and political brinkmanship. The article reviews a new temporary 90-day cooling period—a much-needed truce for fatigued economies.
Claim #1: “There are no winners in tariff wars or trade wars.”
This claim was directly stated by Xi Jinping as a broader commentary about the state of global competition. While it’s largely rhetorical, economic data supports the view that both sides have suffered in the ongoing tariff war. Research from the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the Congressional Budget Office shows that the costs of tariffs have largely been borne by American consumers and producers, with higher prices and reduced imports. Similarly, China’s economy experienced slowed growth, suppressed demand, and disrupted supply chains. Both Wall Street and the Chinese stock markets reacted negatively during high-tariff periods. So while Xi’s message serves a diplomatic function, the assertion that trade wars yield no winners is backed by economic consequences experienced by both nations.
Claim #2: “Trump’s second-term tariffs on Chinese imports remained at a staggering 145%, while China’s retaliatory levies on US goods held at 125%.”
This numerical claim appears exaggerated and lacks corroboration from official government documentation. According to official US Trade Representative (USTR) data and Chinese Ministry of Commerce announcements, the average tariff rates imposed never reached 145% or 125%. For comparison, by late 2020, average US tariffs on Chinese goods were about 19.3%, and Chinese tariffs on US goods were around 20.7%, based on data compiled by the Peterson Institute. No major tariff announcements since then have indicated a leap to the extreme levels cited in the article. Therefore, the 145% and 125% figures are misleading and not supported by verifiable customs data.
Claim #3: “The temporary reduction lowers US tariffs from 145% to 30%, and China’s tariffs from 125% to 10%.”
Again, these numbers appear inflated and inconsistent with publicly available trade records. If we assume they are symbolic figures representing total weighted averages across product categories, there is still no evidence from either government or neutral trade monitoring bodies to support such a drastic change within this 90-day period. Instead, reported changes suggest moderate rollbacks designed to encourage future talks. According to Bloomberg, the most impactful reduction concerns specific consumer electronics and machinery parts, not overall tariffs of this magnitude. The exaggerated figures serve a political narrative rather than reflecting trade reality. Verdict: False.
Claim #4: “Chinese state media portrays the deal as a ‘huge victory,’ signaling China won the confrontation.”
This claim is true but requires important context. Chinese state-run media, including CCTV and the Global Times, did indeed celebrate the truce as a diplomatic win. Reports highlighted China’s resilience and the US stepping back from earlier positions. However, this framing is standard practice in state media and reflects domestic propaganda objectives. It does not necessarily indicate who “won” the trade war in economic terms. Analysts at the Brookings Institution and The Economist point out that both sides were motivated by slowing growth and market pressures. While both governments are seeking to appear victorious at home, the truce is a tactical move rather than a sign of strategic triumph.
Conclusion
The CNN article blends verified facts, political messaging, and exaggerated statistics. While the framing presents both the U.S. and China as claiming victory, several key figures—especially regarding tariff rates—are misleading or unsubstantiated. Propaganda from both nations is used to rally domestic support, with each side selectively interpreting the deal’s significance. Economically, no clear “winner” has emerged; both sides have suffered and are now retreating from maximalist positions. The article could be more precise in detailing the actual economic effects versus simply offering political narratives.
Want to Fact-Check More Stories Like This?
Download the free DBUNK app today and never get misled again. You can also follow us on social media to stay updated on breaking misinformation.
Read the Original Article for Yourself
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/12/business/china-xi-comments-us-tariff-war-intl-hnk
