The trade war with China has spooked investors but also has its supporters among business leaders who feel ripped off by the world’s second-largest economy.

Business leaders for years have decried intellectual property theft, unequal treatment of U.S. companies and cyberattacks. “Shark Tank” star and investor Kevin O’Leary said he would like tariffs of 400% on China.

Still, the trade war has its critics. The Wall Street Journal editorial page argued a trade war is likely not the best tool to combat Chinese business practices. It said a better strategy would have been to rally allies to the cause. It argued that tariffs would hurt Americans as much it does Chinese exporters.

Question: Was a trade war with China necessary?

Economists

James Hamilton, University of California-San Diego

NO: No one wins a trade war. Everybody will get hurt. If the goal was to isolate China, the opening salvo should not have been a shotgun blast at our closest allies. If the goal was to promote more investment in the U.S., the chaotic uncertainty of the present situation is counterproductive. If the goal was to reduce imports from China, a series of more measured options were available.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: Ramping up U.S. production of critical industries like chip production or lithium mining prior to a trade war makes more sense. If security is the concern, then provide incentives to U.S. companies and give the Chinese a timetable for terminating imports, but don’t punish consumers or farmers for the lack of IP theft control or our product-based trade imbalance. Diplomacy based on clear and realistic goals would have been far better than capricious tariffs.

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

NO: Working with U.S. allies to pressure China would have been more effective and less costly. “Liberation Day” tariffs offended our trade partners, putting China in a better position to negotiate with them and putting us at risk of isolation. They also added extraordinary uncertainty, which is deterring investment and endangering financial stability. The U.S. accounts for 11% of global goods trade, so while we do have some power, we are by no means the only game in town.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

YES: China has waged predatory trade practices on the U.S. for decades. The Trump administration merely attempts to counter effects. China steals intellectual property, appropriates U.S. technology and products, while waging cyberattacks on U.S. companies and government, and grossly imposing unequal and unfair reciprocal trade conditions. Shifting low-end manufacturing to other developing nations, while reshoring mid-range and high-end manufacturing to the U.S. will generalize prosperous benefits. The objective should be to eliminate all unfair trade practices.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

NO: The U.S. imports so much from China that this will have a huge impact on U.S. consumers. The Budget Lab at Yale estimates that the tariffs will add 2.9% to the national inflation rate in the short-term. There is no guarantee that manufacturers will relocate their operations back to the U.S., which is one of the stated goals of the tariffs. The problems of trade with China are unfair business practices as opposed to tariffs, so increasing tariffs is not the best response.

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: For a healthy global economy, it is critical that the two largest economies trade with each other. A trade war will harm both the U.S. and China economies along with their trading partners. The Trans-Pacific Partnership offered an opportunity to form a partnership with 11 other countries, excluding China, and to establish global trading rules aligned with U.S. strategic interests. However, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the process in 2017.

Ray Major, economist

YES: The decline of middle-class jobs in the past 40 years can be directly traced back to when China entered the World Trade Organization and started selling to the West while enacting policies that make it nearly impossible for the West to sell into China. Coupled with the theft of intellectual property from the U.S. and others, and overt threats to Taiwan and other countries supplying the world with critical manufactured goods, it’s high time that something was done.

Executives

Phil Blair, Manpower

NO: Why poke a sleeping bear? Former state Sen. Larry Sterling told me years ago that government at all levels owes it to their constituencies to be thoughtful, pragmatic and even plodding when making changes. Fast knee-jerk reactions are very unsettling to businesses and citizens. While I do think the topic of tariffs deserves to be reviewed, impulsive, vindictive changes are destructive long and short term.

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

NO: Certainly the U.S. should seek a more equitable approach to global trade, particularly toward China. But with this “shoot first and aim later” negotiating tactic, China appears to have the upper hand. U.S. consumers will be penalized. A special thanks to the contribution of tariff hawk Peter Navarro. This is the same “no growth” Navarro who ran for local office five times, losing each time by an electorate suspicious of his similarly hardline approach to public policy. Stupid advice contributes to stupid results.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

NO: Targeting China based on theft of intellectual property, cybercrime, failure to control illegal drug exportation and trade issues makes sense. But tariffs should be used modestly to support negotiations and change, not to start a trade war. It’s clear to China – and the rest of the world – that’s what this is – a trade war squarely targeted at China with astronomical tariffs, while those against other countries have been rolled back to 10%, at least temporarily.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

YES: China’s history of intellectual property theft, cybersecurity breaches and unfair trade practices has gone unchecked for years to the detriment of the U.S. economy. This trade war should reset negotiations to restructure fair trade policies for both countries. While necessary for long-term stability, it has significant unintended consequences — American businesses, especially small ones, face supply chain disruptions, higher costs and lost sales. Still, addressing China’s unfair practices is crucial to securing a fair, sustainable economic future for the U.S.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

NO: Addressing issues like intellectual property theft, currency manipulation, and unfair trade practices by China was essential; however, diplomacy could and should have avoided a tariff war. The U.S. aimed to protect domestic industries and reduce reliance on Chinese goods while firmly challenging China’s growing global influence. Economic repercussions for both nations include inflation, disrupted supply chains and lost exports. The trade war also strained international relations and created considerable uncertainty in global markets.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

NO: Confronting China’s unfair trade practices is necessary, but a trade war is not the right approach. Tariffs escalate tensions, trigger retaliation, and raise costs for businesses and consumers. China, with tighter control over its population, can likely outlast American political resolve. A better strategy would have been rallying allies to enforce international trade rules. Isolating the U.S. weakens our leverage and risks long-term economic harm without achieving meaningful structural reform.

©2025 The San Diego Union-Tribune. Visit sandiegouniontribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.