China

A LITTLE-known car brand is preparing to launch an AI-powered luxury saloon to rival the mighty Porsche Taycan.

Chinese EV manufacturer Xpeng has unveiled the latest iteration of its P7 sports saloon that they’ve branded “more than a car”.

4

4

4

4

Said to be Xpeng’s answer to “the AI [artificial intelligence] era in form and function”, the company has identified itself as an “AI-driven mobility company”.

Indeed, they’re positioning the new flagship P7 as a showcase for how AI can redefine the luxury car experience.

Details at this stage are scarce, but the previous P7 was described as “the world’s first AI-defined vehicle” and included highly advanced autonomous driving functions, as well as a ‘smart cockpit’ that included a Knight Rider-style voice assistant.

The next-gen model is expected to build on this, as well as introduce even more advanced capabilities.

Their ultimate aim is to stand out in China‘s increasingly crowded luxury saloon market – with the likes of the Avatr 12, Nio ET9 and Luxeed S7 all hoping to be big sellers.

Regarding the upcoming P7’s new styling, Xpeng’s Exterior Design Director Rafik Ferrag told Autocar: “With this new generation, we set out to design a pure-electric sports sedan that could amaze at every angle.

“This car is our dream – refined through countless iterations.

“In my eyes, the all-new Xpeng P7 is a work of art, shaped with emotion and purpose.”

It’s currently unknown if the P7 will be sold outside of China – with more details to follow.

For now, the Porsche Taycan remains the industry leader when it comes to luxury, performance all-electric saloons.

While sales have dipped in recent times, the Taycan remains a highly sought-after electric sports car ahead of the likes of the Lucid Air, Tesla Model S, BMW i4, and Audi e-tron GT.

One other Chinese brand that’s got Porsche in its sights is Denza – headed by motoring giant BYD.

The ever-expanding car brand is one of the largest private companies in China and has already started to make waves globally – including in the UK.

But for those seeking something with more speed and luxury, their sister brand Denza and their first car in its line-up – the stunning Z9 GT – might appeal.

Clearly borrowing design cues from the Taycan and Panamera, the grand tourer – with its shooting brake estate styling – was unveiled at the recent Milan Design Week ahead of its European market release later this year.

Ties with China remain sensitive within the Catholic Church over a 2018 deal between the Holy See and Beijing.

Newly elected Pope Leo XIV has asked for prayers for China’s Catholics in his first reference to one of the most contentious issues that the Catholic Church and his papacy face in the arena of geopolitics.

Speaking on Sunday from the window of the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace, the pontiff recalled the World Day of Prayer for the Church in China, which falls each May 24 – a feast initiated by Pope Benedict XVI.

“In the churches and shrines of China and throughout the world, prayers were raised to God as a sign of concern and affection for Chinese Catholics and their communion with the universal church,” Leo said to about 35,000 faithful.

The pope hoped the prayers “obtain for them and for us the grace to be strong and joyful witnesses of the Gospel, even in the midst of trials, to always promote peace and harmony”, he said.

Pope Benedict XVI, who headed the church from 2005 until 2013, established the feast as part of his efforts to unify China’s estimated 12 million Catholics, who were divided between an official, state-controlled church that didn’t recognise papal authority, and an underground church that remained loyal to Rome through decades of persecution.

Ties with China remain a deeply sensitive issue within the church as some clergymen reject a 2018 deal between the Holy See and China that gave Beijing a say in the appointment of Catholic bishops there, since Catholics were repressed by the Communist Party. 

The agreement was aimed at uniting the flock, regularising the status of seven bishops who weren’t recognised by Rome, and thawing decades of estrangement between China and the Vatican.

While details of the agreement were never released, Pope Francis insisted he retained veto power over the ultimate choice.

Critics, particularly on the Catholic right wing, believed Francis had caved to Beijing’s demands and sold out the underground faithful in China. The Vatican has said it was the best deal it could get, and it has been renewed periodically since then.

Pope Leo will have to decide whether to continue renewing the accord. There have been some apparent violations on the Beijing side, with some unilateral appointments that occurred without papal consent.

The issue came to a head just before the conclave that elected Leo, when the Chinese church proceeded with the preliminary election of two bishops, a step that comes before official consecration.

The Vatican has been working for years to try to improve relations with China that were officially severed over seven decades ago when the Communists came to power.

Relations had long been fraught over China’s insistence on its exclusive right to name bishops as a matter of national sovereignty, while the Vatican insisted on the pope’s exclusive right to name the successors of the original Apostles.

EU official says a trade deal ‘must be guided by mutual respect, not threats’ after the US president says talks with the bloc are ‘going nowhere’.

The European Union has said it will defend its interests after United States President Donald Trump threatened to impose a 50-percent tariff on all goods from the 27-member bloc.

The EU’s top trade official, Maros Sefcovic, said in a post on X that he spoke on Friday with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on the issue.

“The EU is fully engaged, committed to securing a deal that works for both,” he said, adding that the EU Commission remains ready to work in good faith towards an agreement.

“EU-US trade is unmatched and must be guided by mutual respect, not threats. We stand ready to defend our interests.”

Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that he is “recommending” a huge 50 percent duty on the EU starting on June 1 since talks with them “are going nowhere”.

Speaking later in the Oval Office, the Republican president emphasised that he was not seeking a deal with the EU but might delay the tariffs if more European companies made major investments in the US.

“I’m not looking for a deal,” Trump told the reporters. “We’ve set the deal. It’s at 50 percent.”

European leaders warned the tariffs will hurt both sides.

German economy minister Katherina Reiche said everything must be done “to ensure that the European Commission reaches a negotiated solution with the United States” while French foreign minister Laurent Saint-Martin said the bloc prefers de-escalation but is “ready to respond”.

If implemented, the tariffs would mean that the EU will have higher import taxes on its hundreds of billions worth of exported goods compared with China, which had its tariffs cut earlier this month to allow more negotiations between Washington, DC, and Beijing.

In early April, Trump announced a 20 percent tariff on most EU goods but brought it down to 10 percent until July 8 to allow time for more negotiations.

Trump has complained that existing frameworks are “unfair” to US companies as the European bloc sells more goods to its ally than it buys from it.

Trump on Friday also warned that the US tech giant Apple could also be hit with a 25 percent import tax on all iPhones not manufactured but sold in the US.

His announcements online dealt another blow to stock markets both in the US and in the EU, with the S&P 500 down about 0.8 percent and the pan-European STOXX 600 index falling about 1.2 percent.

Islamabad, Pakistan – As Pakistan remained embroiled in a war of words with its archrival India – following a dramatic exchange of missiles and drones nearly two weeks ago – it this week advanced diplomatic efforts with two other neighbors: China and Afghanistan, which could lead to the formal resumption of diplomatic ties between Islamabad and Kabul after nearly four years.

In an “informal” trilateral meeting held in Beijing on May 21, the foreign ministers of China, Pakistan and Afghanistan convened under a forum first launched in 2017, and which last met in May 2023.

This time, a key outcome from the meeting, according to Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, was a renewed willingness by both Pakistan and Afghanistan to restore diplomatic relations after heightened tensions in recent years.

“Afghanistan and Pakistan expressed clear willingness to elevate diplomatic relations and agreed in principle to exchange ambassadors as soon as possible. China welcomed this and will continue to provideassistance for the improvement of Afghanistan-Pakistan relations,” Wang said.

He added that the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) – a $62bn mega project under China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – will now be extended into Afghanistan.

A Pakistani diplomat with direct knowledge of the talks told Al Jazeera that the next round of the trilateral meetings will be held “very soon”, within a few weeks, to build on the momentum from the Beijing conclave.

“I am reasonably optimistic about the outcomes. It was a great confidence- and trust-building exercise between the three countries,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity about the Beijing meeting.

Trilateral diplomacy amid Indo-Pakistan tensions

The meeting came after a four-day standoff between Pakistan and India, with both countries claiming “victory” and launching diplomatic offensives to assert dominance.

The conflict, from May 7 to May 10, followed Indian strikes on what it called “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan, in retaliation for the Pahalgam attack in Indian-administered Kashmir last month that left 26 civilians dead. India blamed the attack on Pakistan-based armed groups, an allegation Islamabad denies.

While China urged restraint on both sides, its support for Pakistan was evident on the front lines of the conflict, with the Pakistani military using Chinese fighter jets, missiles, and air defence systems.

On the other hand, Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar said on May 15 that he appreciated Afghan acting Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi’s “condemnation” of the Pahalgam attack, in a conversation between the two. Indian media also reported a visit to New Delhi by senior Taliban figure and deputy interior minister, Ibrahim Sadr, in early May.

Mustafa Hyder Sayed, executive director of the Islamabad-based Pakistan-China Institute, called the Beijing meeting “very significant”, given Afghanistan’s geopolitical sensitivity.

For Pakistan and China, the “conflict with India has reinforced strategic clarity” on the need to work closely with Afghanistan,  Sayed said.

Kabul-based political analyst Tameem Bahiss agreed.

“This [the call between Muttaqi and Jaishankar] signals a major shift in India-Afghanistan relations, one that could raise concerns in Islamabad amid an already volatile regional climate,” he said. “The timing of this trilateral meeting, not just its content, reflects an urgent need for coordination among these three countries as new geopolitical dynamics take shape in South and Central Asia.”

Deputy Prime Minister/Foreign Minister, Senator Mohammad Ishaq Dar @MIshaqDar50, Member of the CPC Political Bureau & Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China, Wang Yi, and Acting Foreign Minister of Afghanistan, Amir Khan Muttaqi, held an informal trilateral meeting in… pic.twitter.com/xbVcmUDijD

— Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Pakistan (@ForeignOfficePk) May 21, 2025

A rocky relationship

When the Afghan Taliban returned to power in August 2021, many saw it as a win for Pakistan, given its historical ties to the group. From 1996 through 2021, Pakistan was one of the Taliban’s key allies. India, meanwhile, viewed the Taliban as a proxy of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies and refused to engage with it.

However, relations between Pakistan and the Taliban have deteriorated.

Pakistan has accused the Afghan Taliban of allowing groups like Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) to launch attacks across the border, an allegation the Taliban vehemently deny. The TTP, formed in 2007, shares ideological roots with the Afghan Taliban but operates independently.

According to the Pak Institute for Peace Studies, Pakistan suffered 521 attacks in 2024 – a 70 percent increase from the previous year – resulting in nearly 1,000 civilian and security personnel deaths.

But in a trip that was seen as a potential breakthrough in strained ties, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar visited Kabul on April 19, just days before the Pahalgam attack.

Ihsanullah Tipu, an Islamabad-based security analyst, says Pakistan’s renewed diplomatic outreach to Afghanistan prioritises key concerns, with security taking precedence over trade, border disputes, and border closures, a sentiment he said China also shares.

“To foster meaningful trade ties, Pakistan’s security concerns must be addressed first,” Tipu told Al Jazeera, warning that failure to do so could escalate tensions to armed conflict.

“But given China’s global influence and close ties with both Pakistan and Afghanistan, Beijing can play a pivotal role as a guarantor of any commitments made,” added Tipu, who co-founded the security research portal The Khorasan Diary.

Common security threats

While Pakistan continues to accuse the Afghan Taliban of harbouring fighters who attack targets in Pakistan, many of these assaults have been directed at Chinese nationals working on CPEC projects.

Pakistani government figures estimate that about 20,000 Chinese nationals live in the country. At least 20 have been killed in attacks since 2021 in provinces like Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Groups including the TTP have claimed responsibility.

China has also expressed concern over the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), alleging that its fighters use Afghan territory to stage attacks against China.

Sayed of PCI stressed that both Pakistan and China see security as their “core interest” in Afghanistan.

“This is a shared threat, and in the past the ETIM has also had a significance presence in Afghanistan. And these militant networks are connected with each other as well. So that is a pre-requisite for any cooperation to move forward, to first neutralise these terrorist outfits, which seem to be operating freely and comfortably in Afghanistan,” he said.

However, Bahiss noted that since the Taliban’s return to power, most regional countries, including China, have found the security situation inside Afghanistan acceptable, enabling ongoing economic engagement.

“The key exception is Pakistan, which continues to face serious threats from Afghan soil. While Pakistan prioritises eliminating or containing the TTP, Kabul is focused on trade, transit, and regional integration,” he said.

This is where China’s pivotal role could come into the picture, the Kabul-based analyst said, adding that the country is uniquely positioned to mediate by encouraging security cooperation while also advancing trade and transit initiatives that benefit all three countries.

India-Afghanistan ties and Pakistan’s concerns

During the civilian governments in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021, India and Afghanistan developed close ties, despite several attacks on Indian diplomatic missions by the Taliban and its allies.

In recent months, there has been increased interaction between officials from New Delhi and Kabul, including the recent Jaishankar-Muttaqi conversation.

Does this warming of ties raise alarm in Islamabad? Sayed doesn’t think so.

“Pakistan doesn’t mistrust Kabul. But Pakistan has asked for action. The rulers there need to walk the talk regarding TTP and other terrorist outfits. I don’t think either Beijing or Islamabad opposes Kabul having positive relations with India, as long as it doesn’t compromise the interests of Pakistan and China,” he said.

However, Bahis said New Delhi’s rapprochement with the Taliban could lead to worries in Pakistan and China, both of which have historically had tense ties with India.

“While recent India-Afghanistan contacts are still in early stages, their timing may raise concerns in Islamabad,” he said.

“Afghanistan has the sovereign right to engage with any country, including India. But it must tread carefully. Clear messaging is essential to ensure that its growing ties with New Delhi aren’t misinterpreted as threats by other regional players,” Bahiss said. “Balancing these complex relationships will require diplomacy, transparency, and mutual respect.”

United States debt has long been considered the safest of all safe havens.
But, Washington has just lost its pristine reputation as a borrower.
Moody’s has downgraded the nation from its top-notch AAA rating, becoming the last of the big three agencies to do so.
The ratings agency has cited the United States’s growing debt – now at $36 trillion, almost 120 percent of gross domestic product – and rising debt service costs.
Against this backdrop, President Donald Trump is pushing what he calls the “one big, beautiful bill”.
Critics warn his tax cut package could add trillions more to the already ballooning deficit.

Economists echo Dimon’s concerns as US credit downgrade and tariff-driven uncertainty continue.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has warned that he can’t rule out the possibility that the United States will fall into what is called stagflation— an economic term that refers to a period when inflation and unemployment are high as economic growth is slow.

In an interview with Bloomberg Television on Thursday, Dimon said, “I don’t agree that we’re in a sweet spot” in response to a question about some US Federal Reserve officials saying that the US economy was in a sweet spot.

Dimon made his comments while at JPMorgan’s Global China Summit in Shanghai. His comments come against the backdrop of the US facing increasing geopolitical tensions, rising deficits and pressure on consumer prices from changing government policies on tariffs that have led retailers to announce a need to raise prices and left businesses in a wait-and-watch mode over all the economic uncertainties.

Economists like Stuart Mackintosh, executive director of the financial think tank Group of Thirty, echoed Dimon’s concerns to Al Jazeera.

“Stagflation is a real risk we cannot rule out. We’re in a circumstance where we have uncertainty on tariffs, uncertainty on many policies that increase the downward pressure on growth in America.”

Last week Moody’s Ratings downgraded the US economy’s credit rating. The firm lowered its gold-standard Aaa to an Aa1 credit rating for the US, citing its growing national debt.

Dimon’s Thursday comments were underscored by his remarks at the company’s investor day on Monday.

“Credit today is a bad risk,” Dimon said.

While at the summit, Dimon also offered comments on US President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill”, the tax and spending bill passed by the US House of Representatives that includes key parts of the Trump administration agenda including tax cuts, slashes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), increased funding for immigration enforcement, and new taxes on colleges and universities.

“I think they should do the tax bill. I do think it’ll stabilise things a little bit, but it’ll probably add to the deficit,” Dimon said in a record first obtained by the Reuters news agency.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that the tax bill would add $3.8 trillion to the national debt.

‘Inflation going up’

In the Bloomberg interview, Dimon added that the US Federal Reserve is doing the right thing to wait and see before it decides on monetary policy. The central bank opted to hold rates steady at its last policy meeting, which was largely in line with economists’ expectations.

Policymakers weighed a stable labour market at the time, even as they acknowledged that could be short-lived.

“This is unsustainable. We might get into a much worse economic picture almost immediately,” Mackintosh said.

More information on the state of the US labour market is expected in the next couple of weeks as both the US Department of Labor and the payroll and human resources firm ADP are slated to release their monthly report on the rate of job growth.

Dimon has also long warned that inflation and stagflation will continue to increase.

“I think the chance of inflation going up and stagflation is a little bit higher than other people think,” he noted.

On Wall Street, JPMorgan Chase’s stock has trended up following Dimon’s remarks. As of noon in New York (16:00 GMT), it was 0.2 percent higher than yesterday’s market close after opening lower this morning.

A Chinese coast guard vessel collided with a Philippines government ship near a disputed reef in the South China Sea. The Philippines accused China of “aggressive interference,” while China said the other vessel was “illegally intruding.”

TAIPEI, Taiwan  — Liu Jia-yen had been living in Taiwan for more than two decades when she received notice that she was suddenly at risk of being deported.

In April, the National Immigration Agency told Liu, a 51-year-old Chinese immigrant, she had three months to provide evidence that she gave up her household registration — an official record of residence that grants benefits such as healthcare and education — in Guangxi, China. If she couldn’t find the right documents, she’d have to leave.

Liu thought she’d submitted the files long ago and called her 26-year-old daughter, Ariel Ko, in tears.

Ko, who was born and raised in Taiwan, called the immigration agency dozens of times over the next few days, unable to reach an operator. Meanwhile in China, Liu’s 80-year-old grandfather began visiting his local police station in search of old records, and her brother scoured his government contacts for anyone who could help.

Taiwanese military cadets holding Taiwan flags pose for selfies after attending the New Year’s Day flag-raising ceremony outside the Presidential Palace in Taipei, Taiwan, on Jan. 1. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has warned that no one can prevent China’s reunification with Taiwan.

(Daniel Ceng / Anadolu via Getty Images)

There are tens of thousands of Chinese-born people in Taiwan, which has been increasing scrutiny of them over the past year, citing concerns about infiltration and espionage. The immigration agency says the vast majority of Chinese living in Taiwan have filed the appropriate paperwork showing that they have canceled household registration in China, but about 12,000 people are facing a scramble — similar to Liu’s — for documents.

“I understand that the government has its policies, and we can respect that,” Ko said. “But what makes us upset is that we’re just ordinary citizens. If you’re going to ask us to do something this difficult, have you considered things from our perspective?”

China considers Taiwan to be part of its territory and has threatened to take it by force, stepping up simulated attacks in recent years. Beijing has taken a particularly harsh stance against President Lai Ching-te, whom Chinese officials have called a “dangerous separatist” because he has promoted Taiwanese independence.

Concerns about spying in Taiwan and China date back to the Chinese civil war, after which the defeated Chinese Nationalist Party, or the Kuomintang, fled to Taiwan in 1949. Eventually, tensions began to ease as the two governments slowly resumed dialogue and cooperation over the next several decades. But in recent years, both China and Taiwan have been taking unprecedented actions in the name of national security.

Last year, China said it would ratchet up the punishment for advocates of Taiwanese independence, including imposing the death penalty. Lai, who took office a year ago and has called China a “foreign hostile force,” has proposed reinstating military trials for some espionage cases, criminalizing expressions of loyalty to China within the armed forces and tightening oversight of people traveling between China and Taiwan.

In March, three members of the Taiwanese presidential security team were convicted of spying for China. Taiwan also deported three Chinese immigrants for voicing their support online for unification through military action. Taiwan’s National Immigration Agency said this is the first time that spouses of Taiwanese citizens have had their residency revoked for such reasons. More than 140,000 Chinese immigrants hold residency in Taiwan because they are married to Taiwanese citizens.

Chinese influencer YAYA (Liu Zhenya) with a white hat and members of a NGO assisting her case hold a news conference, as she complies with Taiwan’s order to leave Taiwan after her residency was revoked for posting videos advocating “One China” and “Unification with China by Force” at Songshan Airport in Taipei, Taiwan, on March 25, 2025.

(Daniel Ceng / Anadolu via Getty Images)

Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council said the records requirement has existed since 2004, and the recent notices were sent to ensure that those who want to stay in Taiwan can do so. But critics say that the sudden enforcement is unfair.

“It’s like our government has been asleep, like Sleeping Beauty, for 21 years. And now, all of a sudden, it wakes up and demands that Chinese spouses who’ve been living in Taiwan for so many years provide an important document from two decades ago,” said Chang Chi-kai, an opposition party legislator who is urging the administration to give Chinese spouses and their children more time.

After the public backlash, Taiwan announced additional exemptions for individuals with extenuating circumstances such as financial hardship, medical needs or safety concerns about traveling to China to search for records.

In Taiwan, people born in China are subject to different immigration laws than other nationalities. Milo Hsieh, founder of the consulting firm Safe Spaces in Taipei, says that distinction makes them more susceptible to discriminatory legal treatment, particularly in times of extreme political polarization.

“It resembles what I’m observing in the U.S. right now in Trump’s immigration crackdown, particularly on international students,” said Hsieh, referring to the hundreds of student protesters who have had their visas revoked. “They are deliberately targeting this class of individuals that are associated with a national security threat.”

Some frustrated residents say the bureaucratic bind is emblematic of long-standing discrimination.

Ko, who was born and raised in Taiwan, still remembers how her classmates used to tease her for having a mother from China, and would tell her to go back to the mainland. On social media, some were sympathetic to her mother’s struggle, while others told her to “save your fake tears,” or “if you want to be Taiwanese then follow our rules.”

Taiwan’s government has said that, according to its own polls conducted in March, more than 70% of respondents in Taiwan want officials to more thoroughly investigate whether Chinese immigrants here still hold residency or household registration in China, especially those who work in the military or public sector.

In this photo released by the Taiwan Presidential Office in July 2022, Tsai Ing-wen, president at the time, is seen through glass on board a ship during military exercises.

(Shioro Lee / Associated Press)

“If China decides to start a war, then Taiwan needs to determine what to do in that situation,” said Fan Hsin-yu, an associate professor at National Taiwan University who specializes in immigration law. “First, it has to clarify who belongs to which side, who is the enemy, and who is one of us. That’s why this process is something they feel must be finalized soon.”

Fan said legal experts are divided on whether the government is justified in its recent documentation demands. She added that the measures may even be counterproductive, since China could simply issue certification to its spies or collaborators, while those who support Taiwanese sovereignty could put themselves at risk by going to China, or otherwise be forced to leave.

“The issue is not about legality, it’s about whether this is a smart move,” she said.

Chang and his family in China

(Courtesy of Chang Chih-yuan)

Chang Chih-yuan moved to Taichung, a city in central Taiwan, at age 4 and served in Taiwan’s military. He needs to secure documents to remain here but said he feels uneasy about providing all of his personal information — including his household registration history, physical ID card and travel permit — to the police station in Guangdong, China, where his family once lived.

Ultimately, he decided that he didn’t have much choice. His Chinese mother had received the immigration notice in April, and after many sleepless nights, she decided to take a month off from her cleaning job to obtain the certificate. When Chang, 34, inquired about his own paperwork, the immigration agency told him he would probably get a similar notice later this year.

“It just made me feel like I’m still not considered a real Taiwanese person,” he said.

A man walks past a hoisted Taiwanese flag at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall in Taipei on Oct. 15, 2024. The day before, China insisted it would never renounce the “use of force” to take control of Taiwan, after ending a day of military drills around the island.

(I-Hwa Cheng / AFP via Getty Images)

Another resident who immigrated from China as a child said he has been considering emigrating to Singapore since he received his notice. His father traveled to China’s Fujian province to seek household documentation on his behalf, but he still worries that his mainland roots could put his status at risk again in the future.

“The situation now feels like they assume if you were born in China, you’re an ally of the Chinese Communist Party and you have to prove your innocence,” the 33-year-old said, requesting anonymity for fear that speaking publicly could affect his case. “I feel like I’ve been completely betrayed by my country.”

Times staff writer Yang and special correspondent Wu reported from Taipei, Taiwan.

The United States and China are locked in a standoff with no resolution in sight. The U.S. wants to reshore manufacturing, and China wants to sell its manufactured products into the American market. It will take a creative solution to overcome this impasse, but it’s very possible.

President Trump himself has already previewed what a winning formula could look like. During his 2024 campaign, he repeatedly pledged to lure other countries’ factories to the United States. At a rally in Michigan, he said: “China has to build plants here and hire our workers. When I’m back in the White House, the way they will sell their product in America is to build it in America. They have to build it in America, and they have to use you people to build it.”

When China began embracing a market economy in the 1970s, its leaders made a similar demand to American companies. In order to get access to the Chinese market, American firms would have to manufacture in China, hire Chinese workers and teach the Chinese the underlying technology. But times have changed. China is no longer America’s pupil. When it comes to automobile and battery manufacturing, Chinese companies are years ahead of their American competition. It’s time for us to learn from them.

Gotion Inc., an advanced Chinese battery manufacturer, is currently building two plants in the United States. The Gotion plants in Michigan and Illinois together will employ 5,000 American workers and also train American engineers in the latest lithium battery technology. CATL, another Chinese battery company, is looking to build factories in partnership with American automakers. Their proposed factory in Michigan, a joint venture with Ford, would employ 2,500 Americans.

These companies are attempting to build here because they want access to the U.S. market. By building in the U.S., they can avoid tariffs and more easily sell their batteries to American companies. In return, the U.S. gets good-paying jobs, the best batteries in the world and a more advanced manufacturing sector.

But instead of embracing this as a victory, Republicans have brutally attacked both Gotion and CATL because they’re Chinese. For them, every company from China is a national security threat, even if there’s no specific evidence against them. According to the hawks, merely being Chinese-owned means the company is part of a covert operation directed by the Chinese government. Evidence to the contrary is simply ignored.

In Gotion’s case, they’re a global company whose largest shareholder is Volkswagen; the U.S. operations are run by American executives; and the U.S. plants will be staffed by American workers. In CATL’s case, it won’t own the U.S. plant it helps build, but instead will be licensing technology to Ford, which will own the plant. But when it comes to China, such inconvenient facts are thrown out the window because politicians need to score political points.

The China bashing has become so prevalent that Trump has had to clarify his position. At a recent Cabinet meeting, Trump said that he welcomes Chinese investment in the United States, and that he doesn’t understand why some people have the impression that he doesn’t. Of course, people have that impression because his underlings have been working overtime to prevent Chinese companies from investing here. Not only has Trump not slapped them down, but also he contradicted his own position by signing an executive order that makes it harder for the U.S. and China to invest in each other.

If this current trajectory continues, there won’t be more Gotions or CATLs announcing investments in America. Trump needs to make it clear that victory in the trade war includes Chinese manufacturers setting up shop here. If he doesn’t, his staff may continue to sabotage what could be openings to defuse tensions with China.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has wisely called for an economic rebalancing with China. That will require adopting a rational approach, not one based on paranoia. It’s time to turn this standoff into a victory.

James Bacon was a special assistant to the president during the first Trump administration.

Power is the ability to get others to do what you want. That can be accomplished by coercion (“sticks”), payment (“carrots”) or attraction (“honey”). The first two methods are forms of hard power; attraction is soft power. Soft power grows out of a country’s culture, its political values and its foreign policies. In the short term, hard power usually trumps soft power. But over the long term, soft power often prevails. Joseph Stalin once mockingly asked, “How many divisions does the pope have?” But the papacy continues today, while Stalin’s Soviet Union is long gone.

When a nation is attractive, it can economize on carrots and sticks. If allies see the United States as benign and trustworthy, they are more likely to be open to persuasion and to following our lead. If they see us as an unreliable bully, they are more likely to drag their feet and reduce their interdependence when they can. Cold War Europe is a good example. A Norwegian historian described Europe as divided into a Soviet and an American empire. But there was a crucial difference: The American side was “an empire by invitation” rather than coercion. The Soviets had to deploy troops to Budapest in 1956, and to Prague in 1968. In contrast, NATO has voluntarily increased its membership.

Nations need both hard and soft power. Machiavelli said it was better for a prince to be feared than to be loved. But it is best to be both.

Because soft power is rarely sufficient by itself, and because its effects take longer to realize, political leaders are often tempted to resort to the hard power of coercion or payment. When wielded alone, however, hard power is an unnecessarily high-cost proposition. The Berlin Wall did not succumb to an artillery barrage; it was felled by hammers and bulldozers wielded by people who had lost faith in communism and were drawn to Western values.

After World War II, the United States was by far the most powerful country because of its hard and soft power. It attempted to enshrine its values in what became known as the liberal international order — a soft power framework made up of the United Nations, economic and trade institutions, and other multilateral bodies. Of course, the U.S. did not always live up to its liberal values, and Cold War bipolarity limited the order it led to only half the world’s people.

Donald Trump is the first American president to reject the idea that soft power has any value in foreign policy. Among his first actions upon returning to office were withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization, despite the obvious threats that global warming and pandemics pose.

The effects of the Trump administration’s surrendering soft power are all too predictable. Trying to coerce democratic allies such as Denmark or Canada weakens trust in the U.S. among all our alliances. Threatening Panama reawakens fears of imperialism throughout Latin America. Crippling the U.S. Agency for International Development — created by President Kennedy in 1961 — undercuts our reputation for benevolence. Silencing Voice of America is a gift to authoritarian rivals. Slapping tariffs on friends makes us appear unreliable. Trying to chill free speech at home undermines our credibility. This list could go on.

China, which Trump defines as America’s great challenge, itself has been investing in soft power since 2007, when then-Chinese President Hu Jintao told the Chinese Communist Party that the country needed to make itself more attractive to others. But China has long faced two major obstacles in this respect. First, it maintains territorial disputes with multiple neighbors. Second, the communists insist on maintaining tight control over civil society. When public opinion polls ask people around the world which countries they find attractive, China doesn’t shine. But one can only wonder what these surveys will show in future years if Trump keeps undercutting American soft power.

Of course American soft power has had its ups and downs. The U.S. was unpopular in many countries during the Vietnam and Iraq wars. But soft power derives from a country’s society and culture as well as from government actions. When crowds marched through streets around the world in freedom protests, they sang the American civil rights anthem “We Shall Overcome.” An open society that allows protest can be a soft-power asset.

But will America’s cultural soft power survive a downturn in the government’s soft power over the next four years?

American democracy is likely to survive the next four years of Trump. The country has a resilient political culture and the Constitution encourages checks and balances, whatever their weaknesses. In 2026, there is a reasonable chance that Democrats will regain control of the House of Representatives. Moreover, American civil society remains strong, and the courts independent. Many organizations have launched lawsuits to challenge Trump’s actions, and markets have signaled dissatisfaction with his economic policies.

American soft power recovered after low points during the Vietnam and Iraq wars, as well as during Trump’s first term. But once trust is lost, it is not easily restored. After the invasion of Ukraine, Russia lost most of what soft power it had. Right now, China is striving to fill any soft power gaps that Trump creates. The way Chinese President Xi Jinping tells it, the East is rising over the West.

If Trump thinks he can compete with China while weakening trust among American allies, asserting imperial aspirations, destroying USAID, silencing Voice of America, challenging laws at home and withdrawing from U.N. agencies, he is likely to fail. Restoring what he has destroyed will not be impossible, but it will be costly.

Joseph S. Nye Jr. was dean of the Harvard Kennedy School and a U.S. assistant secretary of Defense. His memoir “A Life in the American Century” was published last year. Nye died earlier this month.

The intricate and multifaceted matters of normative relations among the nations of the Northeast Asian countries, even though they are entangled in specific issues stemming from territorial disputes, challenge a well-established norm and order of diplomatic relations. One of the problems is the matter of Dokdo Island’s ownership, which was disputed by the authorities of South Korea and Japan. With its significant historical and geopolitical implications, this dispute is a key factor in the region’s diplomatic landscape. On the other hand, with another matter of dispute, China and South Korea still have an issue with the overlapping territory of the exclusive economic zone. The problem is currently exacerbated by China’s installation of aquaculture facilities in the Provisional Measures Zone (PMZ), a move that has significantly heightened the tension in the region and underscores the need for resolution. This territory is located off the west coast of the Korean Peninsula, making it a complex challenge to maintain Korea-China’s diplomatic relations.

At the same time, China and Japan confronted another issue similar to the South Korean dispute. Both of them claim the Diaoyu or Senkaku Islands. The controversy also concerns the island’s ownership and reflects each country’s historical and cultural perspectives. Japan’s government called the island the Senkaku Islands, while China’s authority named the islands the Diaoyu Islands.

Amid the tariff oppression, which refers to the imposition of high tariffs on Chinese goods by the Trump administration, China has to face two different challenges. In one position, China has to stand against the high-handed Donald Trump’s ruling, which is seen as aggressive and unfair, but in the other position, China also struggles to bring a solution with its nearest neighbor countries in Northeast Asia, where the territorial disputes add a layer of complexity to the already well-established relations.

China’s authority realizes the crucial role of Japan and South Korea, which act as part of the US’s allies in Asia. Their relationship is strategic for the US and makes sense for China, as their connections become part of the US’s long history. This is in stark contrast to China’s past, when it was the US’s opponent during the Korean War. However, China might be letting Japan and Korea connect to the US as allies because they were China’s nearest neighbors in Northeast Asia, which could share and maintain a partnership without causing overwhelming disruptions. The mutual respect and relationship between China, Japan, and South Korea is a beacon of hope, offering a promising and positive outlook for the region’s future.

China and the US, as two economic powerhouses, often find themselves at odds. However, it’s important to note that their relationship is not solely defined by geopolitical tensions. The two countries are deeply intertwined economically, with significant trade and investment ties. This economic interdependence, which is further underscored by their influence in the G20 forum and their status as major trading partners with Korea and Japan, is a complex web that cannot be easily untangled. Despite China’s efforts to diversify its economic relationships, it continues to value the US’ political, legal, and justice systems and its socio-economic structure. The significance of these financial ties cannot be overstated, as they play a crucial role in shaping the geopolitical landscape of Northeast Asia.

Despite the unfortunate geopolitical situation, the Chinese government’s steadfast commitment to resolving the interrelations crisis is unwavering. China’s Foreign Minister Spokesperson, Guo Jiakun, clarified that the construction of the aquaculture facilities, a point of contention, did not violate any previous agreements. The Chinese government’s decision to send its delegation, led by Hong Liang, Director-General of the Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for in-person dialogue with a South Korean representative is a clear demonstration of this commitment. The recent meeting between Hong Liang and Kang Young-Shin, Director-General for Northeast and Central Asian Affairs at the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on 23 April 2025, is a promising step towards potential progress. This progress in the dialogue instills optimism for the future and underscores the potential for a peaceful resolution, providing a ray of hope in an otherwise complex situation.

The dialogue of top government officials presents a pivotal platform for resolving the prolonged standoff initiated by both countries in 2019. The potential for a mutually accepted agreement in the Yellow Sea dispute dialogue is not just a beacon of hope but a realistic possibility that should inspire optimism. However, it’s essential to acknowledge that the outcome of this dialogue may not necessarily mirror the outcome of the Dokdo or Takeshima Island dispute. The Yellow Sea dispute dialogue, which encompasses territorial claims and maritime rights, remains crucial in Northeast Asian geopolitics.

Nevertheless, the Yellow Sea dialogue’s resolution couldn’t significantly affect how the Japan-South Korean government resolves the entire Dokdo or Takeshima Island dispute. Beyond territorial claims, this dispute symbolizes the intricate historical and cultural relations between Japan and South Korea. Diplomatically, South Korea and Japan have made substantial progress in finding a solution, presenting various evidence and approaches to ensure a fair judgment for both. However, as of the end of 2024, the problem remains in a stalemate without a final resolution. This situation underscores the critical need for a nuanced approach in international relations, where tact and understanding can pave the way for resolution, highlighting the importance of understanding the complexities.

The past geopolitical landscape in Northeast Asia is deeply entrenched in a long and complex history, notably Japan’s occupation of Chinese territory, South Korea, and some Southeast Asian countries. This historical context, with its layers of complexity and depth, is an undeniable part of the current geopolitical landscape. The Chinese can never forget this dark period, even though Japan and China have officially tightened diplomatic relations to construct a prospective and reliable Asia. Similarly, South Korea may never forget what Japan did in the past. Indeed, Koreans have not entirely forgiven what Japan did. This historical backdrop underscores the depth of the issues and the need for a nuanced approach to diplomatic relations in Northeast Asia. It’s not a matter of simple solutions but of understanding the intricate web of history, culture, and politics that shapes these relations. This complexity and depth of the problems in the region necessitate a nuanced approach, making the audience feel the weight of the issues at hand and the importance of understanding the historical and cultural context. Only by understanding this context can we hope to navigate the complexities of Northeast Asian geopolitics.

South Korea is also determined not to be left behind in economic and diplomatic relations with others. Therefore, today, Korea actively seeks intense cooperation with China and Japan regarding global security, trade, and cultural exchange, and fosters candid cultural and financial enhancement. This intense cooperation includes regular high-level diplomatic dialogues, joint security exercises, and collaborative economic initiatives. South Korea recognizes it cannot stand alone without China and Japan, as they are pivotal neighbors in Northeast Asia.

The governments of Northeast Asian countries are acutely aware that the US-China trade war significantly impacts the global economic landscape. This trade war, which has led to economic uncertainties and geopolitical tensions, has also influenced the diplomatic relations and security strategies of countries in the region. Despite the region’s bleak history, it is becoming increasingly clear that the countries in Northeast Asia are not isolated entities but deeply interconnected and interdependent. South Korea’s sustainable diplomatic relations with China and Japan are crucial for its global standing and security. By collaborating with these countries, South Korea can strengthen its position in the international community and ensure its protection in the face of global challenges, including those arising from the US-China trade war. The trade war has forced countries in the region to reassess their economic and security strategies, leading to a more interconnected and interdependent Northeast Asia. This reassessment includes a shift towards diversifying trade partners and strengthening regional security alliances, highlighting the region’s adaptability and resilience in the face of global challenges.

Northeast Asian interdependence underscores the need for peaceful and constructive relations among these countries and their collective influence on the worldwide community. The economic and diplomatic ties between South Korea, China, and Japan are not just about mutual benefits and shared security and prosperity in the region but also about the potential for increased economic growth and enhanced security. This collaboration offers reassurance about the potential benefits of these ties and the collective strength they can bring, reassuring the audience about the future and the positive outcomes that can be achieved through such cooperation.

Disclaimer: The Author wishes to reiterate that this article reflects his views and does not represent any institution. He also wants to emphasize that he takes personal responsibility for the content and accuracy of the information in this article, and any decision made based on this information is the reader’s responsibility.

Naomi Girma was called up to the women’s national soccer team Tuesday for the first time this year, joining 23 others for friendlies with China and Jamaica.

Girma, who was named to FIFA’s global Best XI last year, has been sidelined with calf injuries but recently returned to fitness, going 90 minutes in two of Chelsea’s last three games in the Women’s Super League. Her last appearance for the U.S. came in the gold medal final of the Paris Olympics in August.

Sisters Alyssa and Gisele Thompson, who started their second senior national team match together last month, were also called up but this time with Gisele, a defender, making the roster as a winger. Alyssa has four goals and two assists this season for Angel City, for whom her sister also plays.

“Everyone always earns their call-ups but there are some much-deserved call-ups in this camp for players who have shown consistency in league play,” USWNT coach Emma Hayes said in a statement. “We have two different types of opponents ahead of us so we’ll have to be creative in breaking down those teams in different ways.”

In addition to Girma, seven other players from the Olympic championship team were called up. But Hayes also summoned three uncapped players in Orlando Pride defender Kerry Abello, Kansas City Current midfielder Lo’eau LaBonta and Seattle Reign goalkeeper Claudia Dickey. Canyon Country teenager Olivia Moultrie, who hasn’t played for the U.S. since Hayes took over last May, is also on the roster.

“This camp and the following camp are going to be two amazing opportunities to develop squad depth,” Hayes said.

Still missing from the team are forwards Sophia Wilson (née Smith), Trinity Rodman and Mallory Swanson. Smith and Swanson are on maternity leave while Rodman is injured. The trio combined for 10 of the 12 U.S. goals in last summer’s Olympics.

The U.S. will play China at Allianz Field in St. Paul, Minn., on May 31 and Jamaica on June 3 at Energizer Park in St. Louis. Here’s the roster:

Goalkeepers: Claudia Dickey (Seattle Reign FC), Mandy McGlynn (Utah Royals), Phallon Tullis-Joyce (Manchester United).

Defenders: Kerry Abello (Orlando Pride), Crystal Dunn (Paris Saint-Germain), Emily Fox (Arsenal FC), Naomi Girma (Chelsea FC), Tara McKeown (Washington Spirit), Avery Patterson (Houston Dash), Emily Sams (Orlando Pride), Emily Sonnett (Gotham FC).

Midfielders: Sam Coffey (Portland Thorns FC), Lindsey Heaps (OL Lyonnes), Claire Hutton (Kansas City Current), Lo’eau LaBonta (Kansas City Current), Olivia Moultrie (Portland Thorns FC), Lily Yohannes (Ajax).

Forwards: Lynn Biyendolo (Seattle Reign FC), Michelle Cooper (Kansas City Current), Catarina Macario (Chelsea FC), Emma Sears (Racing Louisville), Ally Sentnor (Utah Royals), Alyssa Thompson (Angel City FC), Gisele Thompson (Angel City FC).

Zhajiangmian was one of the first dishes my mother taught me how to make. I’d stand beside her in the kitchen, watching her stir fermented soybean paste into sizzling ground pork, the smell sharp, earthy and instantly familiar. A pot of noodles boiled nearby as I carefully julienned cucumbers, proud to contribute to one of my favorite comfort meals. When the ingredients were ready, we’d build our bowls with noodles, sauce and a handful of crisp veggies. Then came the best part — mixing it together until every noodle was slick with sauce. It wasn’t fancy, but it was fast, filling and always hit the spot.

According to Tian Yong, head chef of Bistro Na in Temple City, humble zhajiangmian may date back to the Qing Dynasty, when minced meat noodles became popular in Beijing for its affordability and ease of storage. Another origin story tells of an empress dowager who, fleeing an invasion, encountered a zhajiangmian-like dish in Xi’an.

However it came to be, zhajiangmian, or “fried sauce noodles,” is everyday comfort food in China and a staple of northern Chinese cuisine. “It carries cultural nostalgia and a sense of regional identity, particularly for Beijing natives,” says chef and cookbook author Katie Chin, founder of Wok Star Catering in Los Angeles. At its core, the dish is built on a simple foundation of wheat noodles (often thick, chewy and hand-pulled or knife-cut), ground pork and a deeply savory sauce made from doubanjiang, fermented soybean paste.

Like many regional Chinese dishes, zhajiangmian is fluid, shaped by geography, ingredients and personal taste. “It doesn’t just vary between regions of China — it even varies between households in different parts of Beijing,” Yong explains.

Chin uses several types of soybean paste in her zhajiangmian, each bringing its own personality to the bowl. Traditional Beijing-style relies on pungent yellow soybean paste for its salty, umami-rich depth. Tianjin-style leans on sweet bean sauce for a milder, more balanced flavor, while some versions use broad bean paste to add heat and complexity.

Then there’s the Korean-Chinese adaptation, jjajangmyeon, introduced to Korea by Chinese immigrants in the early 20th century. It swaps fermented soybean paste for chunjang, a Korean black bean paste that’s sweeter and less salty. “The dish is served over softer noodles and typically mixed together before eating, unlike the Chinese version where toppings are placed separately,” Chin says.

The vegetable toppings are essential to the dish’s character. “They can vary according to Beijing’s four seasons and traditional agricultural calendar,” says Yong. In spring, you might see spinach shoots, mung bean sprouts or radish greens; summer brings julienned cucumber, lotus root and edamame; fall offers carrots, garlic chives and bok choy; winter, Napa cabbage and wood ear mushrooms. While zhajiangmian is one of China’s most beloved noodle dishes, in the U.S., the spotlight tends to shine on familiar favorites like chow mein, lo mein or dan dan mian. But zhajiangmian has a deserved place alongside those staples in the canon of Chinese noodles.

I set out to find the best versions in Los Angeles and discovered dozens of interpretations. Some stayed true to tradition, others took creative liberties. But each bowl shared the same sense of comfort I remembered from my childhood — that salty, savory, soul-satisfying mix of noodles and sauce. Here are 11 of the best places to try zhajiangmian and jjajangmyeon in L.A.

Despite slowdown, data points to reliance of Chinese economy in the face of Donald Trump’s tariffs.

China’s industrial output and retail sales growth have slowed amid trade tensions with the United States.

Factory output grew 6.1 percent year-on-year in April, down from a 7.7 percent rise in March, data released by China’s National Bureau of Statistics showed on Monday.

While down compared with the previous month, the figure beat analysts’ expectations.

Analysts polled by the Reuters and Bloomberg news agencies had respectively forecast growth of 5.5 percent and 5.7 percent.

Retail sales grew 5.1 percent year-on-year, slower than the 5.9 percent growth recorded in March and below analysts’ forecasts.

Fixed-asset investment, which includes property and infrastructure investment, rose 4 percent.

Unemployment fell slightly, from 5.2 percent to 5.1 percent.

The latest data is likely to bolster hopes of China’s economy remaining resilient in the face of US President Donald Trump’s tariffs, after gross domestic product expanded a better-than-expected 5.4 percent in the January-March period.

The National Bureau of Statistics said the economy maintained “new and positive development momentum” due to Beijing’s economic policies, despite the “increasing impact of external shocks”.

“However, we should be aware that there are still many unstable and uncertain factors in external environment, and the foundation for sustained economic recovery needs to be further consolidated,” the statistics agency said in a statement.

The economic figures are the first to be released since Washington and Beijing last week agreed to dramatically reduce tariffs on each other’s goods for 90 days.

Under the deal reached in Geneva, the US lowered its tariff on Chinese goods from 145 percent to 30 percent, while China slashed its rate from 125 percent to 10 percent.

“The risk is that tariffs remain in place for a long time, and eventually, we see production offshored,” Lynn Song, chief economist for Greater China at ING, said in a note on Monday.

“But amid tariff unpredictability, not just for China but across the world, few companies will be rushing to commit resources to set up offshore manufacturing facilities. This could mean that a decent portion of China’s manufacturing and exports will be less impacted than originally feared.”

On May 12, the United States and China announced that they are putting reciprocal tariffs on pause for 90 days. Some tariffs will be retained while trade negotiations continue, a joint statement said.

This is yet another reversal of the sweeping tariffs US President Donald Trump imposed in early April that destabilised the global economy and sent stock markets into freefall.

Although he claimed that his measures would make the US economy “boom”, it was clear from the start that they would not work. A trade war cannot improve the lot of American workers, nor bring back manufacturing into the country.

Now spooked by corporations slashing profit targets and reports of the US gross domestic product (GDP) shrinking, the Trump administration appears to be walking back on its strategy. But going back to economic liberalism under the guise of “stability” is not the right course of action.

The current global economic system, distorted by policies favouring the rich sustained over decades, has proven itself to be unsustainable. That is why we need a new world economic order that promotes inclusive and sustainable development across both the Global North and South and addresses global socioeconomic challenges.

The crisis of liberal globalisation

The troubles that economies around the world currently face are the result of policies the elites of the Global North imposed over the past 80 years.

In its original Keynesian vision, the economic order put forward by the Allied Powers after World War II aimed to combine trade, labour, and development best practices to foster inclusive growth. However, over the following few decades, corporate opposition in the US and Britain derailed this order, replacing it with a skewed system centred around the Global North’s chief economic instruments, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, both created in 1944.

In the 1970s, economic elites blamed rising inflation and stagnation not on temporary shocks like the oil crisis but on what they saw as excessive concessions to organised labour: government overspending, strong unions, and heavy regulation. Subsequently, they launched an institutional counter-revolution against the Keynesian model of power sharing and social compromise.

This counter-revolution took shape in the 1980s under US President Ronald Reagan and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who aggressively pursued policies to restore corporate profitability. They slashed taxes on the wealthy, liberalised international capital flows that made it easier to relocate production to low-cost economies, deregulated the financial sector, weakened labour unions, and privatised public services. As a result, outsourcing of labour, tax evasion, real estate speculation, financialisation, and credit-fuelled bubbles became US corporations’ dominant ways of making profit.

In developing countries, the IMF, the World Bank and regional development banks pushed governments to cut public spending, privatise state-owned enterprises, remove trade barriers, and deregulate markets rapidly and with little regard for social consequences.

As a result, the 1980s and 90s became lost decades for many countries embracing globalisation through radical liberalisation. These policies triggered massive employment shocks, rising inequalities, skyrocketing debt and persistent financial turbulence from Mexico to Russia.

East Asian economies were the exceptions, as they learned to circumvent the straitjacket of liberal globalisation and joined the global economy on their own terms.

The biggest beneficiaries of this system were Western economic elites, as corporations profited from low-cost production abroad and domestic deregulation at home. The same cannot be said for Western workers, who faced stagnating real wages, eroded labour protections, and increasing economic insecurity under the pressure of competitiveness, relocation, and automation.

Illiberal economic policy is doomed to fail

For those of us who studied the post-war economic order, it was apparent that without correcting the pitfalls of liberal globalism, a nationalist, illiberal counter-revolution was coming. We saw its signs early on in Europe, where illiberal populists rose to prominence, gaining a foothold first in the periphery and then gradually scaling up to become Europe’s most disruptive force.

In the countries where they gained power, they pursued policies superficially resembling developmentalism. Yet, instead of achieving genuine structural transformation, they fostered oligarchies dominated by politically connected elites. Instead of development, they delivered rent-seeking and resource extraction without boosting productivity or innovation.

Trump’s economic policies follow a similar path of economic populism and nationalistic rhetoric. Just like illiberal economic policies failed in Europe, his tariffs were never going to magically reindustrialise the US or end working-class suffering.

If anything, tariffs – or now the threat of imposing them – will accelerate China’s competitive edge by pushing it to deepen domestic supply chains, foster regional cooperation, and reduce reliance on Western markets. In the US, the illiberal response will drag labour standards down, eroding real wages through inflation and propping up elites with artificial protections.

Furthermore, Trump has no real industrial policy, which renders his reactive trade measures completely ineffective. A genuine industrial policy would coordinate public investment, support targeted sectors, enforce labour standards, and channel technological change towards good jobs.

His predecessor, President Joe Biden, laid the foundations of such an industrial policy agenda in the Inflation Reduction and CHIPS acts. However, these programmes are now under attack from the Trump administration, and their remaining vestiges will not have a meaningful effect.

Without these pillars, workers are left exposed to economic shocks and excluded from the gains of growth, while the rhetoric of reindustrialisation becomes little more than a political performance.

The way forward

While Trump’s economic policies are unlikely to work, returning to economic liberalism will not resolve socioeconomic grievances either. Let us remember that past efforts to maintain this deeply flawed system at any cost backfired.

Following the 2008 global financial crisis, Western governments rescued big banks and allowed financial markets to return to business as usual. Meaningful reforms of the global economic architecture never materialised. Meanwhile, the living standards of working- and middle-class families from Germany to the US stagnated or declined as wages flatlined, housing prices soared, and economic insecurity deepened.

We cannot return to this dysfunction again. We need a new global economic order focused on multilateral governance, ecological sustainability, and human-centric development. Such progressive global multilateralism would mean governments coordinating not only on taxing multinational corporations and curbing tax havens but also on regulating capital flows, setting minimum labour and environmental standards, sharing green technologies, and jointly financing global public goods.

In this new economic order, the institutions of global economic governance would make space for developing and emerging countries to implement industrial policies and build stronger ties with public finance bodies to mobilise patient, sustainable capital. This cooperative approach would offer a practical alternative to liberal globalism by promoting accountable public investment and development-focused financial collaboration.

Parallel to the eco-social developmentalism in emerging economies, wealthy nations need to embrace a post-growth model gradually. This strategy prioritises wellbeing, ecological stability, and social equity over endless GDP expansion.

This means investing in care work, green infrastructure, and public services rather than chasing short-term profits or extractive growth. For mature economies, the goal should be shifting from growing more to distributing better and living within planetary limits. This would also allow more space for low- and middle-income countries to improve their living standards without overexploiting our limited shared natural resources.

With stronger cooperation between national and multilateral public finance institutions and better tools to tax and regulate corporations, governments could regain the capacity to create stable, well-paying jobs, strengthen organised labour, and tackle inequalities. This is the only way for American workers to regain the quality of life they aspire to.

Such progressive multilateralism would be a powerful long-term antidote against illiberal populism. Achieving this shift, however, requires building robust global and regional political coalitions to challenge entrenched corporate interests and counterbalance the existing liberal, capital-driven global framework.

The challenge is clear: not only to critique Trump’s destructive policies but to present a bold, coherent vision of industrial renewal, ecological sustainability, and global justice. The coming months will show whether anyone is prepared to lead that transformation.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.