The United States imposed tariffs on Chinese goods during President Donald Trump’s administration, marking a significant development in International Political Economy. Starting in 2018, the U.S. levied tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese imports, citing unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft, and a growing trade deficit. China responded by imposing tariffs on American products, starting the U.S.-China trade war. This trade dispute prompted debate in International Political Economy about the relationship between economics and politics. Some scholars viewed the tariffs as a means for the U.S. to maintain power, while others argued they undermined economic interdependence and the benefits of free trade. This article analyzes U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods through both Realist and Liberal perspectives. This article contends that while both Realism and Liberalism offer explanations for U.S. tariff policy toward China, the Realist perspective is more persuasive. The tariffs were primarily motivated by concerns over national power, strategic competition, and economic security rather than international economic cooperation.

For many years, China and the United States maintained close economic ties and mutual trade reliance. However, increasing U.S. concerns about China’s rapid economic growth, industrial policies, technological advancements, and trade surplus heightened tensions. In 2018, the U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese imports under Section 301 of the Trade Act, citing unfair trade practices and intellectual property violations. China responded by imposing tariffs on American exports, including agricultural products, automobiles, and industrial goods. This dispute disrupted global supply chains, increased costs for businesses and consumers, and created uncertainty in the international trading system. The trade war evolved beyond an economic dispute, exposing broader geopolitical competition. Realists view international politics as a power struggle among states in an anarchic system. States prioritise survival, security, and self-interest over economic cooperation. Realists argue economic policies often serve strategic objectives. From a Realist perspective, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods aimed to constrain China’s growing power, not just address economic concerns. As China’s economy expanded, it increased military spending, advanced technology, and extended its global influence. U.S. policymakers saw China’s rise as a potential threat to American dominance.
Realists emphasize relative gains, noting that states are concerned not only with their own economic benefits but also with their rivals’ gains. Even if both countries benefit from free trade, the U.S. may perceive China’s greater gains as a threat. Tariffs, therefore, serve to slow China’s economic growth and protect U.S. strategic interests. Realists also argue that dependence on foreign supply chains increases vulnerability. The U.S. became increasingly concerned about its reliance on foreign manufacturing in technology, information, and critical infrastructure sectors. Tariffs were part of a broader strategy to enhance economic security and reduce strategic dependence. Realism effectively explains why the United States accepted significant economic costs to achieve broader strategic objectives, highlighting the link between economic policy and geopolitical competition. Realism explains why security concerns may outweigh economic efficiency. Despite the benefits of free trade, U.S. policymakers prioritized technological leadership, industrial strength, and national security. However, Realism often underestimates the significance of economic interdependence and domestic interests. Not all tariff decisions are driven solely by power politics; domestic political pressures, interest groups, and economic factors also shaped U.S. trade policy. Realism may also overemphasize conflict and overlook opportunities for states to cooperate for mutual benefit.

Liberalism offers a different perspective on international economic relations. Liberals argue that trade provides mutual benefits, promotes peace, and encourages cooperation among states. Economic interdependence reduces the likelihood of conflict, as countries depend on each other for prosperity. From a Liberal perspective, the U.S.-China trade relationship exemplifies mutually beneficial exchange. Both countries gained: American consumers enjoyed lower prices, while Chinese industries gained access to international markets. Liberals argue that tariffs eliminated these benefits by increasing costs for businesses and consumers. Instead of resolving economic issues, tariffs reduced efficiency and hindered global growth. Many economists noted that American companies and consumers bore much of the cost through higher prices. Liberalism also stresses the importance of international institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO). Liberals contend trade disputes should be resolved through established rules and legal mechanisms, not unilateral tariffs. The U.S. decision to impose tariffs outside standard WTO dispute-settlement procedures raised concerns about undermining rules-based international trade. The liberal approach clearly outlines the economic costs of the trade war and shows the benefits of cooperation. It highlights the significance of interdependence, global supply chains, and international institutions.

Liberalism also explains why businesses, multinational corporations, and many economists opposed the tariffs. They benefited from open markets and viewed protectionist policies as detrimental to the economy. Despite its strengths, Liberalism struggles to explain why states sometimes forgo economic benefits for strategic objectives. If economic interdependence always led to cooperation, the trade war likely would not have occurred. The theory assumes economic cooperation naturally fosters stability, yet the U.S.-China case shows that significant interdependence can coexist with strategic rivalry. Each theory explains important aspects of U.S. tariff policy. Liberalism describes the economic effects of tariffs and their disruption of global trade while highlighting the value of cooperation and the costs of protectionism. However, Realism provides a stronger explanation for the policy’s rationale. The primary motivation for the American tariffs was not economic efficiency, but the challenge posed by China’s rise. Concerns over technology competition, industrial leadership, supply-chain security, and geopolitical influence were central to the decision.

The trade war formed part of a broader strategic competition, where economic measures were used to achieve political and security objectives.

In this context, Realism better explains why policymakers accepted short-term economic losses to pursue long-term strategic goals. The U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods are an important example in International Political Economy. Liberalism highlights the benefits of free trade, economic interdependence, and international institutions, while Realism focuses on power, security, and strategic competition. Both theories offer useful insights, but Realism provides a stronger explanation for the tariffs because the policy was primarily driven by concerns about China’s growing economic and geopolitical influence. This case demonstrates that international economic relations involve more than markets and cooperation. Economic policies are frequently linked to national power and security. As the U.S. and China continue to compete globally, the connection between economic interests and strategic rivalry will remain central to International Political Economy.

About the author: The author is an undergraduate student of International Relations at the National Defence University, Islamabad, Pakistan. Her area of interest is political economy and theories of IR