Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What were the key tariffs imposed by Trump on China in 2018?
Executive Summary
President Trump’s 2018 tariffs on China were anchored by three coordinated actions: Section 301 duties targeting Chinese technology and intellectual-property-linked goods, major Section 232 national-security tariffs on steel and aluminum, and a broader escalation that placed tariffs on roughly $200 billion of Chinese imports (initially at 10% then raised to 25%). These measures began in March 2018 with steel and aluminum tariffs and accelerated after the June 15 Section 301 announcement, creating multiple rounds that together covered tens of billions of dollars and focused on industries tied to China’s industrial policy [1] [2] [3].
1. How the Trump Administration Framed the Strike: “Unfair Trade” and Technology Theft
The administration presented the 2018 actions as remedies for unfair practices, forced technology transfers, and intellectual-property theft, centering the legal case on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and national-security provisions under Section 232. The June 15, 2018 announcement framed the first major China-specific tariffs — a 25% duty on about $50 billion in products deemed to involve “industrially significant technologies” — as a targeted response to China’s state-driven technology agenda [4] [5]. The White House and USTR tied later lists and rate increases to the same allegations, arguing the tariffs would pressure structural change; independent observers and economists noted the tariffs’ industry-specific targeting but warned about broader economic spillovers and retaliation risks [3] [6].
2. The Mechanics: Rounds, Rates, and Coverage—From 818 Lines to $200 Billion
The tariff campaign unfolded in distinct rounds: the first Section 301 list imposed 25% on about $50 billion of Chinese goods, followed by listings that covered an estimated $200 billion in imports—initially imposed at 10% on September 24, 2018, and slated to rise to 25% on January 1, 2019. The administration’s product-by-product approach included an 818-line list that levied 25% duties and a proposed additional 284 lines; USTR’s finalized actions crystallized these rates and schedules [4] [2]. Observers at policy institutes counted these measures as the central U.S. trade pressure in 2018, representing roughly 10% of U.S. imports at the time and concentrating on sectors linked to China’s “Made in China 2025” ambitions [3] [4].
3. The Early Shock: Steel and Aluminum Under National‑Security Claims
Before the large China‑targeted Section 301 rounds, the administration applied Section 232 tariffs—a 25% tariff on most steel and a 10% tariff on most aluminum imports—cited under national-security authority in March–April 2018. These measures affected global trade flows and included China among affected suppliers, signaling a broader protectionist turn that extended beyond the technology-focused Section 301 lists [1]. Economists and trade analysts documented that these 232 tariffs were a crucial early escalation that raised average U.S. tariff rates and complicated sectoral supply chains, even as the White House justified them on security grounds rather than IP or forced-transfer claims [6] [1].
4. Scale and Economic Effects: How Big Were the Tariffs and What Happened Next
Analysts estimate the 2018 package increased U.S. effective tariffs significantly, with headline measures covering hundreds of billions in trade when later rounds and retaliatory measures are included; the targeted Section 301 rounds themselves were the single largest component of the 2018 package [3] [2]. Research highlighted by economic commentators attributed higher average tariff rates, GDP impacts, and shifts in trade patterns to these measures, while noting the distribution of costs and benefits across firms, industries, and consumers remained uneven. Critics argued that retaliatory Chinese tariffs, especially on agricultural goods, exposed American exporters to immediate pain, while supporters argued tariffs created negotiating leverage [6] [1].
5. Political Stakes and Competing Narratives: Leverage Versus Blowback
The Trump administration cast the 2018 tariffs as hardball diplomacy to compel structural Chinese concessions; USTR releases and presidential statements emphasized leverage and reciprocity [5] [2]. Opponents and many economists characterized the strategy as risking consumer costs and unsettled markets, and some assessments concluded the overall trade war produced mixed results for U.S. objectives. Policy institutes later measured the protectionist package and its impacts, noting that Section 301 measures were central to the campaign but also that outcomes—whether behavioral change in China or economic benefits for the U.S.—remained contested and context dependent [3] [6]. These competing frames reveal clear political agendas: administration messaging sought to demonstrate toughness, while critics emphasized economic consequences and the limits of tariffs as a bargaining tool [1] [3].