Before the so-called deadline of August 1, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly all trading partners, with rates ranging from 10 percent to 41 percent. That order took effect on August 7.

In April, the Trump administration launched a new global tariff offensive, introducing a 10-percent “minimum baseline tariff” and higher rates for some trading partners. Days later, Trump granted these countries a 90-day suspension of “reciprocal tariffs” for negotiations, which was later extended to August 1, while the 10-percent levy remained. The imposition of tariffs drew fierce resistance, with U.S. allies such as the EU, Japan and Canada vowing no compromise.

Now, the tide is turning, with formerly defiant allies quietly accepting “unequal treaties.” In a deal touted by the White House as a model, the U.S. cut “reciprocal tariffs” on Japanese goods from 25 to 15 percent, including on autos, while maintaining its 50-percent levy on steel and aluminum. In return, Japan pledged to invest $550?billion in U.S. industries—over 10 percent of its GDP—along with orders for 100 Boeing jets and a 75-percent increase in its U.S. rice imports.

The EU’s concession resembled a humiliation ritual. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen struck a trade deal with Trump on a golf course in Ayrshire, Scotland—an event many European media outlets described as an “economic surrender.” The EU accepted a 15-percent baseline tariff, with steel and aluminum duties remaining at 50 percent, while granting U.S. goods zero tariffs and fully opening up its market. It also pledged to purchase $750?billion worth of American energy and add $600?billion in investments into the U.S., focusing on technology and manufacturing. French Prime Minister Fran?ois Bayrou denounced the deal on X as a dark day for Europe, while Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán said in an interview that the agreement was no agreement at all—Trump “ate” the EU chief “for breakfast.”

At this moment, the situation can be summed up by the remark of French Marshal Ferdinand Foch after signing the Treaty of Versailles in 1919: “This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years.” Whether it is the EU, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Indonesia or Mexico, their deals with the U.S. are little more than unwritten “gentlemen’s agreements” lacking concrete terms. Their strategy has been one of delay—offering illusory figures to flatter Trump’s vanity and avert immediate U.S. retaliation. By wielding tariffs as a weapon, Washington may in the short term compel some countries to sign deals and secure superficial economic gains. But in the long run, this approach risks fragmenting the global trading system, undermining multilateral mechanisms, and eroding trust in the U.S. To reduce reliance on the U.S. market, other nations may be driven to deepen regional integration and seek alternatives beyond America.

Notably, not all countries chose to surrender. Confronted with the threat of U.S. tariffs as high as 50 percent, Brazil took a hard-line stance, citing its trade surplus and the inviolability of national sovereignty, while openly calling for the de-dollarization of trade.

China has also stood its ground. Following talks in Geneva and London, the two sides held a third round of trade negotiations in Stockholm from July 28 to 29, agreeing to extend for 90 days a suspension of a 24-percent U.S. “reciprocal tariff” and China’s corresponding countermeasures—a move widely seen as a positive signal internationally.

The agreement provided China and the U.S. with a buffer for further talks, and the international community widely expects that a possible meeting between their top leaders in the coming months could help stabilize the global economy. Nevertheless, China’s stance has been consistent since 2018: It does not seek a trade war but is not afraid of one either. If the U.S. initiates or escalates the trade war, China will not back down and will respond head-on.

The trade war launched by Washington has not ended in a U.S. victory, but has marked the start of a restructuring of the global trading system. After all, the vitality of global commerce lies in mutual benefit, not zero-sum competition; the foundation of the international order rests on adherence to rules, not raw power.