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.
How has the US-China trade war affected US trade agreements with other countries since 2020?
Executive Summary
The US–China trade war since 2020 reshaped US trade policy and negotiations with other countries by both reinforcing protective tariffs and accelerating efforts to diversify supply chains and secure alternative markets. Analysts describe a mix of persistent tariffs, selective easing in bilateral arrangements, and broader shifts in import patterns that pushed the United States to negotiate trade arrangements and security-linked commitments with partners while other nations reoriented their export strategies [1] [2] [3]. These developments produced a contested policy landscape in which tariff retention, partial tariff rollbacks, and supply‑chain substitution coexisted, creating winners and losers among US trading partners and complicating the narrative that any single trade agreement fully compensated for frictions with China [4] [5].
1. Why tariffs stuck and when they loosened — the story of policy continuity and tactical change
US policy after 2020 kept many of the tariffs introduced earlier, with observers noting high effective US duties on Chinese goods that continued to influence US negotiating posture toward other partners. Some accounts put average US tariffs on Chinese exports at elevated levels and covering broad product sets [1]. At the same time, episodic moves toward tariff relief or partial suspension—described in analyses as tactical adjustments or bilateral arrangements—appear aimed at managing economic costs or extracting commitments from China rather than a wholesale rollback [3] [5]. Analysts emphasize this combination of enduring protection and selective easing: tariffs remained leverage in US diplomacy, but administrations used temporary or conditional reductions to secure specific concessions, altering how the US framed new trade talks and regional agreements [3].
2. Trade diversion and supply‑chain rewiring — who gained when the US moved away from China
The trade war prompted measurable shifts in import shares and supply chains, with China’s share of US imports falling and other developing countries capturing displaced trade, a pattern documented in import-share analyses [2]. Evidence shows US import dependence on China declined from about 22% to 16% in one noted period, while imports from countries with comparative advantages or integrated supply chains increased [2]. That substitution produced complex second‑order effects: some countries directly benefitted as alternative suppliers, while others that were deeply integrated with China saw increases in imports from China routed through them, producing indirect reliance that muted the strategic goal of decoupling [6]. This trade diversion shaped US negotiating priorities, as Washington balanced incentives for reshoring with the realities of global supply interdependence.
3. Agriculture, commodity losers and new market winners — granular winners and losers
Sectoral data highlight sharp declines in US agricultural exports to China, notably soybeans and beef, with China turning to Brazil, Argentina, and Australia as alternative suppliers [4]. These commodity shifts pressured US agricultural constituencies and influenced US trade diplomacy: the US sought new market access and export commitments through bilateral or multilateral dialogues to compensate for lost Chinese demand [4] [3]. The redistribution of demand reshaped bargaining positions in trade talks—countries that benefited from increased Chinese purchases faced competing incentives, while the US attempted to leverage agricultural diplomacy as part of broader arrangements tied to tariffs and national‑security considerations, illustrating how sectoral pain points fed into larger trade agreement designs [4] [3].
4. The partial deals and “freeze” narratives — easing without rollback
Multiple accounts describe recent agreements as partial freezes or minor rollbacks rather than comprehensive reversals of the trade conflict, where headline entreaties—such as tariff reductions or suspension of threatened measures—did not eliminate most existing barriers [5] [7]. Analysts note instances where headline tariff cuts were smaller than initial coverage figures suggested, leaving an elevated effective duty rate and retaining substantial protection [7] [5]. These partial arrangements affected US negotiations with other countries by altering relative competitiveness: a maintained tariff wedge could keep Chinese goods disadvantaged relative to regional suppliers, while limited easing reduced immediate inflationary pressure and diplomatic friction without restoring pre‑trade‑war openness [5].
5. Conflicting forecasts and strategic implications — what analysts disagree on and why it matters
Forecasts vary on the medium‑term macroeconomic impacts and the extent to which trade agreements with other countries substitute for China. Some modeling projects material GDP and trade volume losses for China and altered growth paths [8], while trade‑pattern studies emphasize continued complexity and incomplete decoupling, where substitution is both direct and indirect [6] [2]. These divergent perspectives reflect differing assumptions about policy permanence, corporate relocation costs, and geopolitical signaling. The practical implication for US trade agreements is clear: agreements since 2020 have been shaped by both economic compensation strategies and strategic security concerns, producing a patchwork of deals that reflect short‑term mitigation and longer‑term attempts to reconfigure supply routes rather than a singular coherent replacement for ties with China [8] [3].