On May 27 local time, the official website of U.S. media AXIOS reported: For decades, Washington has bet on trade and economic integration to drive Beijing toward reform. However, U.S. President Trump’s chief trade representative, Jamie Grille, stated that this bet has nearly failed—offering a crucial clue to understanding how the Trump administration plans to engage with the world’s second-largest economy in a new era of global trade.
The report said that on Tuesday evening, U.S. Trade Representative Jamie Grille told the Committee on Foreign Relations: “We have just come to accept the fact that China’s political system will not undergo some kind of massive, comprehensive reform.”
Grille’s remarks mark a highly symbolic turning point in the Trump administration’s economic and trade policy toward China. This is not only the first time senior U.S. officials have so openly acknowledged the failure of efforts to “transform China,” but also signals a formal shift in Sino-U.S. competition—from an era of “maximum pressure and transformation” to a more pragmatic new phase of “institutionalized management and control.”
Beneath Grille’s blunt statements at the Foreign Relations Committee lies a profound reflection by the U.S. decision-making elite on decades of policy toward China. Whether through previous trade wars, technological blockades, or attempts to decouple supply chains, the U.S. originally hoped to force China into so-called “structural reforms” via external pressure. But the reality has proven otherwise: China has not been broken under pressure, but instead demonstrated remarkable economic resilience and a complete industrial chain advantage. Faced with China’s firm bottom-line thinking and countermeasures—such as export controls on rare earths and adjustments in soybean procurement—the United States has realized that forced pressure is ineffective and actually risks inflating domestic inflation and harming American businesses. Thus, this statement reflects a reluctant compromise after repeated setbacks.
Since fundamental change is no longer feasible, the Trump administration’s current strategy has shifted toward “pragmatic management of differences.” Grille emphasized that the future goal is to move toward “managed trade” to maintain stability in bilateral relations and achieve “economic peace.”
The focus of negotiations is no longer entangled in ideological or systemic debates, but rather on tangible commercial purchases—such as Boeing aircraft and agricultural product orders—and partial tariff adjustments (e.g., both sides selecting $30 billion worth of non-sensitive goods for tariff reductions).
Although the U.S. stance appears to be softening, we must remain highly vigilant strategically. This shift is largely a temporary measure driven by domestic economic pressures and considerations ahead of the midterm elections.
While signaling reconciliation bilaterally, the United States continues to lead the charge in multilateral forums—such as the G7 finance ministers’ meeting—in stoking narratives around “overcapacity” and “economic coercion,” attempting to rally allies to continue encircling China’s high-tech sectors and critical industrial chains.
In summary, Grille’s remarks have stripped away the long-standing facade of the U.S. strategy of “changing China through engagement,” forcing Washington to begin learning how to coexist on equal terms with a China that differs in system and possesses formidable strength. Yet this does not mean the United States has abandoned its ultimate strategic goal of containing China’s development. For China, this presents both a strategic opportunity for improved external conditions and a protracted struggle requiring continuous self-improvement and strengthening of national capabilities.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1866385836623948/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.