Experienced China hand Paul Boesen explains why this trade war is bigger than tariffs – and what the U.S. must do next. 

The trade conflict between the U.S. and China isn’t just a spat over tariffs. It has the potential to reorder the global economic and security environment. 

That was the central message from Paul Boesen, Chief of Staff at GreenPoint Group and one of the private sector’s most sought-after China experts, on No Labels’ latest call.  

Informed by decades of experience helping organizations and companies navigate China, Boesen offered his view on what this trade war will mean for American businesses, consumers, and national security. Here’s the rundown:  

A Full-Spectrum Showdown  

While tariffs remain the most visible flashpoint, Boesen emphasized that the current conflict with China goes well beyond taxes on goods. China, he said, has often used unfair trade practices – such as subsidizing its companies, stealing intellectual property and denying market access to foreign companies – violating the spirit, if not the letter, of international trade law to protect its industries. But he believes President Trump’s response may be too much, too fast. 

Boesen says that President Trump – instead of ramping up tariffs on China almost overnight – could have embraced the approach suggested by one of his chief economic advisors Stephen Miran. In a widely read paper published last year, Miran suggested America announce its intent to increase tariffs on China by 2% per month until a negotiated solution was reached. This, in Miran’s view, would have given more time for U.S. businesses to plan around trade disruptions. 

China’s Calculated Approach  

Boesen described China’s strategy as patient and deliberate. They are waiting for the right moments to apply pressure and retaliate against U.S. tariffs. Boesen speculated that China could use economic tools, regulatory moves, or targeted retaliation against U.S. firms operating in the country to get revenge. He cited recent anti-monopoly proceedings against DuPont as a sign that this phase may already be underway. 

China also holds leverage in key sectors, including critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors. Boesen warned that export controls or bureaucratic slowdowns could disrupt U.S. supply chains. In fact, China has already suspended exports of rare earth metals and rare earth magnets, which are necessary for making everything from cars to drones to missiles. 90% of these critical supplies come from China.  

While some industries have begun to shift away from Chinese sourcing, Boesen cautioned that full decoupling will take time and planning.

The Role of Congress – and What’s Missing  

Despite the high stakes, Boesen expressed concern that Congress has not been active enough. While the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party made over 100 policy recommendations last year, few have been implemented. The Committee proposed revoking China’s “Most Favored Nation” trading status, strengthening enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, and increasing scrutiny of U.S.-China academic collaborations.  

With trade decisions largely driven by emergency executive authority, a more coordinated legislative response could provide the structure and predictability that markets and American allies are looking for.  

Boesen suggested that just a few brave lawmakers could push to reassert Congress’s authority over trade and tariffs, which Congress has voluntarily given to the executive branch. That, he said, would meaningfully shift the conversation overnight. 

A Smarter Path Forward  

Rather than seeking a sweeping grand bargain, Boesen laid out a more measured approach. He recommended a phased pressure strategy: small, clear, and predictable steps that give American companies time to adjust while maintaining leverage. He said it’s not too late for the Trump administration to shift to this approach, which could include incremental tariff increases, tighter scrutiny of Chinese subsidies, and negotiating specific concessions on issues like fentanyl production or digital platform access.  

Boesen also said there are several key international events over the summer – the G7 summit in mid-June, the NATO summit in late June, and the BRICS summit in early July – that both China and U.S. may use as opportunities to negotiate or to win countries over to their side. 

Underlying all of this is a bigger challenge: the U.S. has often underestimated China’s long-term resolve, believing for decades that its system would collapse under its own weight. That hasn’t happened. And unless the U.S. adjusts its expectations and begins crafting a long-term playbook of its own, China may continue to outmaneuver Washington in this high-stakes economic chess match.