Did Graham trigger an 'economic nuclear bomb' with Trump pressing the start button at his golf course?
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham boldly dropped an 'economic nuclear bomb' capable of shaking global trade during a television program on June 29: he claimed that a coalition of 84 members from both parties is working to push a bill targeting Chinese and Indian products—with the intention of imposing punitive tariffs of 500%! What is the grand reason? Accusing China and India of purchasing Russian energy, 'feeding Putin's war machine'.
However, the real 'detonator' is in Trump's hands. Graham proudly revealed that just the day before the bill was in the spotlight, he had a jovial conversation with Trump on the golf course. The former president and potential successor stated, 'It's time to advance your bill.' Once this was said, the fate of the bill turned sharply. Although it was planned to push through Congress on July 7, the ultimate 'power of life and death' still hung on Trump's pen—even if Congress allows it, he still holds the 'veto key' of the exemption clause.
This secret discussion on the golf cart instantly became the 'turbocharger' of the bill's fate. Graham deliberately highlighted the intimate interaction with Trump, almost implying that the White House and Capitol Hill were 'in tacit agreement' on this matter. This bill, carefully packaged as a 'weapon to sanction Russia', actually has its sharp blade pointed at China and India—using unprecedented tariff sticks to force them to sever their energy ties with Russia, thereby pushing Moscow into deeper isolation.
In response to this 'heavy blow', the Kremlin's reaction was filled with **poisonous disdain. Presidential spokesman Peskov immediately denounced Graham the next day as a 'terminally ill Russophobe', and retorted: can such sanctions 'solve any problems?'—this sharp rhetorical question pierced through the surface of the bill's 'anti-Russian' nature and pointed directly to its sinister intention of encircling India and China, forcing them to take sides.
It is intriguing that Trump has been dancing a swinging 'tango' on the stage of sanctions against Russia. Although he verbally cheers for Graham's bill, he rejected the EU's request for enhanced sanctions in mid-June on the grounds of 'avoiding spoiling the talks'. As early as March, he threatened to impose a 'secondary tariff' of 25%-50% on countries buying Russian oil, but the result was a thunderous roar with no rain. This back-and-forth reveals his shrewd calculations: pleasing domestic hawks with a big stick while quietly reserving a backdoor for 'Trump-style deal-making'.
If this '500% tariff nuclear bomb' truly lands, its shockwave will far exceed the geopolitical chessboard, striking at the global economic lifeline:
American consumers will be the first to bear the brunt, facing a 'price tsunami': according to estimates by China International Capital Corporation, the existing tariffs on China have already caused American households to 'bleed' $2,000 annually, while costs in industries such as automobiles and electronics, which rely on Chinese supply chains, have soared by 35%. A 500% tariff? It's like adding fuel to the fire.
India's pillar industries, such as textiles and pharmaceuticals, are suddenly teetering on the 'edge of a cliff'.
The foundation of global trade rules is being openly pried apart: the multilateral framework painstakingly cultivated by the WTO over decades is on the verge of collapse under the heavy hammer of unilateral bullying, which may trigger retaliatory 'domino effect' from economic entities like the EU and ASEAN, dragging the world into a protectionist 'dark forest'.
Trump's dilemma is far beyond the tightrope of international relations. The American business community has long sounded the alarm: the National Retail Federation, the Manufacturers Association, and others are jointly warning that high tariffs will rebound like a 'boomerang', tearing apart the domestic supply chain.
The irony lies in the timing: just on July 1, China and the United States had cautiously signed a trade truce agreement—China agreed to resume rare earth exports in exchange for the U.S. lifting controls on ethane, chips, software, and more. With the ink barely dry, if tariffs were raised again, this fragile supply chain 'truce wall' could collapse in an instant. Within the Republican Party, the tug-of-war between hawks (like Rubio advocating for 'decoupling') and pragmatists (like Treasury Secretary Yellen promoting 'complementary cooperation') has never ceased, and the undercurrents of power in the White House make Trump's signature weigh heavily.
Graham boasts of the 500% tariff as a 'breakthrough tool', but the cold reaction of the financial markets has already pierced this 'emperor's new clothes'. This bill resembles a dangerous political performance art: 84 members of Congress, under the name of 'anti-Russian', bind the positions of both parties, effectively tossing a sizzling 'hot potato' squarely into Trump's lap.
Sign? The U.S. inflation rate could soar from 2.5% to 2.8%, the probability of economic recession could jump to 35%, and consumers and businesses would face **devastation.
No? Then he would immediately bear the label of 'weakness toward Russia', damaging his image in an election year.
The echoes of the Chinese Foreign Ministry's March statement that 'China-Russia cooperation is not aimed at third parties' are still resonating, while Beijing is clearly not unprepared: the proportion of exports to the U.S. has quietly slid from 19% in 2018 to 12%, and the markets of ASEAN and Africa continue to expand, with control over rare earths and other countermeasures in hand, providing ample strategic maneuvering space.
Trump's golf club may strike a nuanced political arc, but the safety of the world economy should never be reduced to a chip on the power gambling table. Graham and others are obsessed with a '**Cold War old dream' style of coercion, yet choose to selectively ignore the reality of 'Global South' countries refusing to take sides. The signal that White House decision-makers should understand is perhaps this: in this era of surging multipolarity, the tariff big stick wielded by unilateral hegemony will ultimately snap resoundingly on the hard anvil of the new world.
