After six weeks of market speculation on global economic realignment, the situation in tariff rates and markets remains unchanged. Deutsche Bank questions the purpose of recent developments, particularly concerning declining Chinese exports to the US, with April 2025 imports at their lowest since 2009.

Expectations of a continued US-China decoupling, driven by national security concerns and manufacturing imbalances, were put into question. Observations point to pragmatic voices within the US administration prioritising the near-term economy over long-term security. This shift reflects a need to sustain trade, possibly misjudging the effectiveness of high tariffs in securing trade concessions.

Unpredictability Of Us Policy

The unpredictability of US policy raises questions about future directions, yet some positives emerge. US policy may have strengthened Europe, encouraged China to focus on consumption, and highlighted how the American trade deficit aligns with its fiscal deficit. These outcomes suggest that recent US policies might be beneficial in certain aspects.

We’ve seen six weeks pass with anticipation building around a realignment of trade and tariffs. But as it stands, tariff levels have barely budged, and markets have largely followed their own course. Deutsche Bank is tapping on the brakes, asking whether all of the moves we’re seeing—including the downturn in Chinese exports to the US—are actually producing the effects they’re meant to. Take April 2025, for example: the drop in imports from China brought numbers to their lowest level since the aftermath of the financial crisis. That’s not a linear path—it’s a warning light.

What’s more telling is that despite years of rhetoric around detaching two of the world’s largest economies, clear threads of interdependence remain. For a while now, we thought the national security framework would dominate economic decisions, especially in trade. But that assumption seems to be softening. From what we can observe, within the US, there’s growing acknowledgment that economic needs today—particularly around inflation and economic growth—might matter more than longer-term ambitions. The idea seems to be: we cannot afford to isolate ourselves when input costs remain high for manufacturers and households alike.

We noticed this hesitation in tariff renewal strategies. There might be a recognition that high import costs aren’t forcing negotiations—they’re just feeding prices at home. If that’s the case, there’s every reason to consider not just where rates sit currently, but what sort of trading activity those rates encourage or dissuade. Investors and market watchers should not assume that stated policy aims will align with future outcomes. Instead, timeframes are stretching, and what once felt certain now feels provisional.

Emerging Policy Tension

While the direction remains unclear, not everything has gone awry. Ironically, American trade pressure might have sparked adaptive behaviours elsewhere. Europe’s role in global trade looks more resilient, with manufacturing spreading more evenly and currency stability allowing their output to remain competitive. China, meanwhile, appears to be preparing for demand led at home rather than export-focused. That’s no quick sprint—it’s a shift in commercial objective. And for all the criticism, the US’s own trade gap aligns increasingly with its fiscal position. That connection provides more clarity on where trade deficits may be tolerated—so long as borrowing at home remains aggressively expansionary.

In the coming weeks, what we’re watching is real policy tension: rhetoric suggesting divergence between major economies, versus a clear reliance on ongoing supply structures. For us, that opens the door to asymmetry in both hedging costs and short-term volatility. Options markets, already pricing in policy uncertainty, might see widening spreads if participants start to hedge more actively against future renegotiations or sudden changes in diplomatic tone.

We’re no longer in a regime where one announcement moves pricing dramatically—but we are in one where patterns of behaviour might finally be shifting. That means we should avoid assuming symmetry, not just in exposure, but in outcomes. Chinese policy, fiscal control in Washington, and European production metrics each throw their weight into the realm of risk.

Pricing models built with static assumptions could quickly become out of date. Instead, we might lean more heavily on volume swings, capital flows, and demand resilience as forward indicators. In this environment, clear signals may be scarce, but the weight of each data point—particularly monthly trade positions or renewed fiscal outlooks—could move pricing models faster than before.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.