President Trump recently expressed a strong stance on trade with China, threatening to apply 100% tariffs on Chinese goods starting November 1, 2025. This declaration came via a social media post, where he cited China’s forthcoming export restrictions on a wide array of products as the trigger.

“China has taken a very aggressive position on trade,” Trump noted in his post, indicating that the restrictions would encompass products produced both in and outside of China. He stated that this would prompt the U.S. to enhance its tariffs on Chinese imports, building on existing levies.

Additionally, Trump mentioned plans to impose export controls on sensitive software, expressing disbelief at China’s actions. “I can’t believe China took such an action,” he remarked, acknowledging the gravity of the situation.

As for the upcoming tariffs, he suggested that adjustments could still happen by November, adding a note of uncertainty. “We’ll have to wait and see what happens,” he said during a conversation in the Oval Office, emphasizing the date of November 1 as a pivot point.

Despite concerns about a scheduled meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping at this week’s International Economic Conference in South Korea, Trump indicated he had not canceled. “I don’t know if that’s going to happen,” he admitted, but expressed optimism he might still meet Xi.

Tariffs as a Cornerstone of Trump’s Strategy

Tariffs have been a significant aspect of Trump’s trade policy, applied broadly across both allies and adversaries, with particular attention to China. Since he announced extensive tariffs earlier in the year, both nations have continued to raise trade barriers against each other. At one point, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods reached an astonishing 145%, although negotiations later eased the trade conflict.

The current basic tariff rate on Chinese products sits at 30%. Trump has invoked emergency powers to elevate these tariffs, justifying the move as necessary to address China’s handling of fentanyl supplies to the U.S.; however, the legality of this move is still under scrutiny by a federal court.