Chinese state media responded critically late Tuesday to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to impose additional tariffs on Chinese goods, calling his justification of fentanyl trafficking a diversionary tactic. Trump, set to assume office on January 20, has pledged a 10% tariff increase on Chinese imports, which would come on top of previously proposed duties exceeding 60%.
The move has sent shockwaves through China’s industrial sector, which relies heavily on exports to the United States. With over $400 billion in annual goods shipped to the U.S. and hundreds of billions in components for global products, Trump’s threat could significantly disrupt trade flows.
Chinese state-controlled outlets like China Daily and the Global Times focused their editorials on Trump’s linking of tariffs to the fentanyl crisis in the United States, a narrative they dismissed as baseless.
In an editorial titled “Scapegoating Others Can’t End U.S.’ Drug Crisis,” China Daily asserted that blaming China for the opioid epidemic ignores the root causes of the crisis within the U.S. system.
“The excuse the president-elect has given to justify his threat of additional tariffs on imports from China is farfetched,” the editorial stated. “The world sees clearly that the root cause of the fentanyl crisis in the U.S. lies with the U.S. itself.”
The Global Times took a more combative tone, warning against undermining the cooperative efforts between the two nations in combating drug trafficking. It criticized Trump’s rhetoric as unproductive and damaging to bilateral relations.
“Weaponizing tariffs and politicizing economic issues serve no constructive purpose,” the Global Times said. “Such actions erode goodwill in areas where collaboration is essential, including the fight against narcotics.”
Trump’s team has long claimed that China’s supply of chemical precursors fuels the fentanyl crisis, with Mexican cartels using these inputs to produce the deadly opioid for the U.S. market. The crisis has ravaged American communities, claiming tens of thousands of lives annually.
While China has acknowledged its role as a source of chemical precursors, it has also made efforts to curb the flow of these substances. Beijing has implemented tighter regulations on fentanyl analogs and precursor chemicals, though critics argue enforcement remains inconsistent.
Trump’s proposal to introduce tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada, unless these nations take stricter measures on drug trafficking and immigration, further intensifies the international dimension of the issue.
Trump’s tariff threats have rattled China’s economic planners and business leaders. With tariffs already ranging from 7.5% to 25% on Chinese goods during his previous administration, the potential for even steeper duties raises concerns about prolonged trade disruptions.
Economists are revising their projections for China’s economic growth, reflecting the anticipated impact of these trade policies. S&P Global recently reduced its 2025 and 2026 growth forecasts for China to 4.1% and 3.8%, respectively, citing the potential tariff increases.
“An across-the-board increase from around 14% now to 25% is a serious scenario we’re considering,” said Louis Kuijs, Chief Asia Economist at S&P Global Ratings. “The risks in this area are high, and the ripple effects will be felt beyond China.”
China’s $19 trillion economy, already facing structural challenges, would likely experience further strain if subjected to prolonged tariff escalations. Industries reliant on exports to the U.S., such as electronics, machinery, and textiles, are particularly vulnerable.
Trump’s stance reflects a broader shift in U.S.-China relations, with economic and geopolitical competition taking center stage. His first term was marked by a trade war that saw tariffs imposed on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of goods.
If Trump’s latest threats materialize, tariffs on Chinese imports could far exceed the levels seen during the previous trade war, raising the stakes for both economies.
“The tariff strategy aims to reduce America’s dependence on Chinese manufacturing, but it risks inflicting widespread damage on global supply chains,” said Mei Xinyu, a trade analyst with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.
The potential for retaliatory measures from Beijing also looms large. China could impose counter-tariffs, restrict access to critical raw materials like rare earth metals, or leverage its vast market to pressure U.S. businesses operating in the country.
Analysts argue that the proposed tariffs could backfire on both sides. Higher costs for imported goods would likely be passed on to U.S. consumers, exacerbating inflationary pressures. Meanwhile, reduced exports to the U.S. could stifle China’s industrial output, leading to job losses and slower economic growth.
“There are no winners in tariff wars,” China Daily emphasized. “If the U.S. continues to politicize economic and trade issues by weaponizing tariffs, it will leave no party unscathed.”
As Trump prepares to take office, his hardline approach to trade and narcotics trafficking will likely test the resilience of U.S.-China relations. Beijing appears poised to resist external pressure while continuing to advocate for dialogue and mutual cooperation.
However, the gap between the two nations’ perspectives remains vast. While Trump’s administration frames tariffs as a tool to address both economic imbalances and social issues like drug abuse, China views such measures as unwarranted provocations. The coming months will reveal whether Trump’s aggressive stance will yield concessions or further deepen the rift between the world’s two largest economies.
