Dean Jun Qian Accepts Interview Regarding U.S. Threats of 100% Tariffs Targeting Chinese Imports | Info

Release time：2025-10-16    

On October 12^th, the 5^th Shanghai International Financial Forum was held at Fudan University. During the forum, Jun Qian, Executive Dean of Fudan International School of Finance and Professor in Finance, accepted an interview regarding Trump’s threat of 100% tariffs targeting Chinese imports.

On October 10^th local time, U.S. President Donald Trump announced via social media that an additional 100% tariff would be imposed on Chinese goods imported into the U.S. as of November 1^st (on top of existing tariffs). Trump stated that this tax rate was “far higher than any tariff level China had paid so far”. On the very day, he further declared that the U.S. would impose export controls on “all critical software”. Affected by these statements, on October 10^th, both European and U.S. stock markets plummeted collectively, with the NASDAQ and S&P 500 indices recording their largest single-day declines since April.

For this, Jun Qian stated that Trump’s announcement at this time to impose additional tariffs on Chinese goods on top of existing rates was not a policy officially communicated and should be considered in combination with conditions in various aspects: the current situation is different from those in 2018 and in April 2024, as many Chinese enterprises have been cutting back on their reliance on the U.S. market since 2018 (the first round of trade war); and thus are by no means in a situation of being entirely “strangled by the neck” whether in technology or export; meanwhile, China also possesses multiple substantive and credible countermeasures (i.e. ones that can bring costs and inflict damage on the other side).

Judging from the dynamics of multiple rounds of negotiations, tariff talks between the two sides are still advancing, and it is quite possible that the leaders of both countries will meet while attending an international conference. Therefore, Trump’s move is  actually an act of “showcasing leverage” within the multi-round negotiation process, rather than a signal that the talks have broken down. As the largest economies in the world, both countries have been deeply bound together structurally, and a complete “decoupling” is neither consistent with their respective benefits nor realistic; the essence of trade is mutual benefit and win-win outcomes, and it is impossible for either party to accept a result of “one side winning unilaterally (while the other losing completely)”, which in turn shall not sustain in practice.

Overall, we believe both sides participating in the negotiation have sufficient experience and wisdom and will quite possibly reach a stable trade agreement acceptable for both sides in the end.