Podcast Summary: "How Should Trump Approach China? A Debate"

The Opinions – The New York Times Opinion
Date: November 5, 2025
Host: Arielle Kaminer
Guests: Oren Kass (American Compass), Jason Furman (Harvard University)

Overview

This episode explores the current state and future of U.S.-China trade relations in the wake of President Trump’s recent trade deal with China. Two leading economic thinkers—Oren Kass, a skeptic of free trade with China, and Jason Furman, a champion of its benefits—debate whether the United States should continue to engage economically with China, the consequences of past policy, and what comes next.

Key Topics & Discussion Points

1. The New Trump-China Trade Deal – Symbolic or Substantial?

[01:41–03:44]

• Jason Furman’s Take: The new agreements amount to a “ceasefire.” The U.S. and China are mainly calling off new escalations: the U.S. won’t double tariffs, and China will continue exports of crucial rare earths and buy farm goods.

  • “Basically nothing new gained, nothing new lost, you know, broadly meh. But better than the alternatives.” [01:58]

• Oren Kass’s Perspective: The deal maintains a high level of conflict and moves both sides toward economic decoupling, rather than meaningful reduction of tensions.

2. The Evolution of U.S.–China Trade Policy

[03:44–11:43]

• Background:

  • In 2000, Congress granted China permanent normal trade relations, signaling bipartisan enthusiasm for free trade.
  • The expectation was mutual economic benefit and that trade would liberalize China.

• Kass: The optimistic consensus was wrong; American workers lost out, and assumptions about China’s convergence proved false.

  • “Every single assumption that this was built on…was all wrong. And we have seen the fallout over the past couple of decades.” [04:07]

• Furman: The process began in 1979; the 2000 change mostly locked in business confidence and won concessions from China without the U.S. opening up further.

  • Argues consumer benefits (“cheap stuff” meaning real wage increases) were significant and trade is always about winners and losers.
  • “When you have cheaper products, that's like giving a raise to every single worker in America.” [05:18]
  • The negative effects (layoffs) attributed to China were smaller than overall job changes, and employment and inequality levels actually improved over the following decades.

3. The 2000s: Catastrophe or Inevitable Transition?

[07:33–12:44]

• Kaminer: Was everyone wrong to lower barriers, or was it just mismanaged?

• Kass: The move was a fundamental shift; making trade relations permanent increased offshoring and lost leverage over China.

  • “It did fundamentally change everything when you have an annual renewal process... it lost our leverage over China.” [07:47]
  • Claims the WTO offers no tools to confront China’s tactics.

• Furman: Disputes the scale of the change or business certainty argument. Points to positive U.S. economic metrics after deeper integration with China.

  • “We had an unemployment rate that was lower than in the 25 years that came before it. We had inequality that went up less than it did in the 25 years before it.” [10:18]

• Deindustrialization Debate:

  • Furman: Primarily driven by technology, not trade. Even China is losing manufacturing jobs (by headcount) as output remains steady.
  • Kass: Economic resilience and security, not just employment, should guide trade strategy.

4. What’s the Right Relationship With China Now?

[12:44–17:37]

• Kass: Advocates "a break"—mostly ending U.S. investment in China and Chinese investment in the U.S. He argues that importing goods from China comes with importing market distortions due to China’s state intervention, which crushes American competitors and undermines resilience.

  • “...if you say, well, therefore we need to have free trade with China, you are importing not just a lot of goods, but you're importing every one of those distortions...” [13:02]

• Furman: Supports confronting China’s abuses but faults Trump's approach for being bilateral and failing to coordinate with U.S. allies. He argues that U.S. leverage is greater with global allies united.

  • “We put a little bit too much weight on tariffs and trade as a solution...” [15:22]
  • “We are nowhere nearly as important and powerful as we think. The majority of countries in the world trade more with China than with the United States.” [17:37]

5. National Security vs. Economic Gains

[17:37–22:20]

• Furman: National security and resilience justify blocking some imports—rare earths or microchips—but warns against “mercantilist” policy focused solely on raising U.S. exports.

• Kass: Highlights how American tech leadership was lost through trade, citing Tesla’s Shanghai move as an example, and worries that continued openness will mean Chinese firms coming to dominate critical industries in the U.S.

  • “It's very frustrating... when economists simultaneously say, no, no, free trade is good and it doesn't matter which things we make here or don't, except for maybe some small national security exceptions.” [19:32]

• Furman: Notes rising problems within China—youth unemployment, slowing growth—and contends the U.S. model has outperformed in generating wage growth and reducing unemployment.

6. Trump’s Goals and the Limits of Negotiation

[22:20–27:54]

• Kaminer: Asks: Is Trump’s approach about balanced trade, U.S. dominance, or simply the art of the deal?

• Kass: Trump’s stance has always been about getting a “better deal,” but the fundamentals of the U.S.–China relationship may make such a deal impossible. “Both sides want [the relationship] to come apart at as low a cost as possible.” [22:51]

• Furman: Criticizes the broader Trump tariff policy as “arbitrary and capricious,” applying not just to China but to countries like Canada and Brazil, often for reasons unrelated to trade.

• Kass: Argues broad-based tariffs are preferable to line-by-line political decisions, but acknowledges responding to a television ad with tariffs (as with Canada) “is not a good way to do tariffs.” [26:27]

7. Reshoring and the Future of U.S. Jobs

[29:11–34:07]

• Kaminer: Can reshoring factories really bring back good jobs for American workers, or will automation negate those gains?

• Kass: Reindustrialization won’t revert the U.S. to the 1950s, but highly automated factories create high-wage, high-productivity jobs and can stimulate struggling regions.

  • Cites a recent example of Sharpie's reshoring: “They massively increased output and they were able to raise wages by 50%. That's what we should be looking for.” [30:03]

• Furman: The manufacturing wage premium is gone; factory jobs now pay less than the national average (excluding managers). The key is not manufacturing per se, but securing “productive” jobs across a diversified economy.

  • “Even if you thought there used to be [a manufacturing wage premium], that premium has just gone away.” [32:23]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Jason Furman: “When you have cheaper products, that's like giving a raise to every single worker in America.” [05:18]
• Oren Kass: “We gave it all away. And that has been a world historical tragedy.” [09:10]
• Jason Furman: “We are nowhere nearly as important and powerful as we think. The majority of countries in the world trade more with China than with the United States.” [17:37]
• Oren Kass: “Both sides want [the relationship] to come apart at as low a cost as possible." [24:51]
• Jason Furman: “Do you want to have a job or not have a job? Generally, the answer...would be yes. The issue is...what types of jobs do you want to have?” [32:23]

Exchange of Perspectives: Final Thoughts

[34:07–35:18]

• Kaminer: Asks if either participant’s views have shifted.
  • Furman: Appreciated Kass's framing as more about geopolitics than just workers and living standards.
  • Kass: Plans to revisit the historical evidence on trade relations in light of Furman’s arguments about the 2000 policy’s real-world impact.

Conclusion

This episode presents a nuanced, sometimes contentious discussion about the legacy and future of U.S.–China trade policy, contrasting a call for managed disengagement and increased national resilience (Kass) with a defense of global integration for the sake of American consumers and workers (Furman). Both speakers agree on the need for U.S. policy to adapt in an era of Chinese economic ascendancy, even as they disagree sharply over the methods and priorities that should guide that adaptation.