finds a way not to extend this trade war beyond China. While I just don't agree with using tariffs as a hammer, there is no question that China manipulates their domestic market in unfair ways, engages in dumping, steals technological and other intellectual property, etc. And then blames a lot of it on "cultural differences". There are similarities with Japan in the '80s IMO. I didn't favor protectionism against them either (repubs were on my side back then before they became a bunch of flaming nationalist progressives). Turned out Japan's greatest enemy was Japan, and I still think that would be true with China in the end.

But it is possible that using the hammer of tariffs against China is one way to get them to stop at least some anti-competitive (and outright dishonest) practices. I think they may have more to lose than we do, and may overestimate their own ability to control economic factors.

Thing is, if a month or so from now we are in a full blown trade war with the EU, some of Latin America, Canada, or some subset thereof, well, then it could wind up being an us against the world thing, and one way to strike back at the US would be to cooperate with China and help them weather the battle. So to me a lot depends on where he goes with these exemptions. The US against the world in a trade war is unlikely to end well for us IMO. Or the world for that matter.

Bigger problem - is there any evidence of a cohesive foreign policy? What's magical about right this minute for tariffs against China? Does it really make sense to get into bitter trade disputes with China on the eve of a potentially historic deal with NK?