Sometimes, one wonders if the White House kitchen has replaced its spices with political fumes. The recent maneuvers labeled as "China strategy" by Donald Trump's team seem less like calculated geopolitics and more like a Texan BBQ binge with an extra dose of hot sauce. At the center of this fiery concoction is "TACO"—Trump's Anti-China Operations unit, as it's reportedly dubbed internally. An acronym that shares more with a tortilla than with traditional diplomacy.
First came the tariffs. Overnight, Chinese exports faced punitive duties soaring up to 145% - as if someone decided, after watching a late-night thriller, to pull the plug on the world's second-largest economy. Trump termed it "cold turkey." China's response? Surprisingly muted. No missiles, no cyberattacks - just some factory closures, localized protests, and a hefty dose of silent indignation.
Then came the "deal." A trade agreement negotiated with the speed of a clearance sale, hailed by Trump as a masterstroke to rescue China's economy. In reality, it was a temporary tariff truce . Now, two weeks later, the narrative flips: China, it seems, has "completely violated" the agreement. Specifics? Vague. Evidence? Sparse. But the exclamation points are abundant. Mr. NICE GUY appears to be back on the campaign trail.
The climax? The revocation of visas for Chinese students—ostensibly for national security. Controversy escalated when reports emerged that even the daughter of China's president might be affected . Such a move transcends policy; it's a calculated affront. It's as if TACO, in testing the hot sauce, forgot to replace the lid and got a faceful of fire.
This isn't happenstance. The Trump administration is acutely aware of the symbolic weight in severing not just trade but educational ties. It's no longer about markets; it's about faces. About deterrence through humiliation. The message is clear: Partnership with the U.S. is conditional on submission. Defiance? Even your diplomat's child isn't exempt.
China is unlikely to let this slide. The question is: How will they respond? Diplomatic retaliation? Academic isolation? Trade agreements with Europe, excluding the U.S.? Or perhaps a strategic withdrawal from institutions like Harvard and Yale, repatriating investments, and crafting their own version of a hot sauce policy - one that says, "Don't sniff - act."
When international relations are driven by impulse, resentment, and theatrics, reliability becomes a casualty. Believing that a superpower can be schooled through exclusion and border control suggests someone has been inhaling too deeply from the bottle labeled "Make America Grate Again."
English 
German 
