I fully expect the United States to eventually cut a deal with China. I'm not anticipating a quick process, but sooner or later, Trump and Xi will come together and agree on a deal that ends the conflict. What it takes to get us there is another question. Simply put, the United States could hit China in ways that trigger mass unrest.

In a piece that can only be called ludicrous, Nichols Kristof in the New York Times claims that China holds the cards in this trade war and that Trump will be forced to back down first. At this point, it's clear Kristof isn't even reading the hardreporting of his own paper.

He claims, "The most heated trade war is with China, and it's there that I fear Trump has particularly miscalculated. He seems to be waiting for President Xi Jinping to cry uncle and demand relief, but that's unlikely; instead, it may be the United States that will be most desperate to end the trade conflict."

He goes on to claim that China was better prepared for this trade war than the last one. After brushing aside what China buys from the United States, he goes on to talk about the bond market and rare earth minerals. Make no mistake, both of these things are important. But he misses something critical: China is weaker now than it has been in decades.

China may be more "prepared" this round, but its economy is in the toilet. After five years of languishing, China may be hitting the lowest point of its real estate crisis. Of course, whatever bounce back is occurring in a country where the state is pumping billions into stabilizing a housing market where entire cities sit empty.

But what Kristof ignores, to his detriment, is what China really fears in this trade war: food.

Since 2004, China has depended increasingly on importing food to feed its citizens. Climate change and environmental destruction have ravaged China's farmlands. Scholars from the United States and China estimate that climate change and ozone pollution together reduced China's national average crop yields by 10 percent (fifty-five million tons per year) from 1981 to 2010.

Who supports the food supply of China? The United States.

In 2024, the U.S. exported $176 billion in agricultural products to a total of 189 countries and territories. However, 75% of our total exports went to only 10 markets and nearly half (47%) of our agricultural exports went to only three countries: Mexico, Canada and China. Mexico became the top destination for U.S. agricultural products for the first time in 2024. Between 2003 and 2023, the top spot alternated between China (2012-2014, 2016, 2020-2023) and Canada (2003-2011, 2015, 2017-2019).

After the 2018 trade wars, China scrambled to find a more diversified trade path to import food. They've focused on Brazil, which recently became China's top food supplier.

But note here that despite all the statements and government programs to boost food production, China is dependent on the world. China's communists cannot find a way to produce food cheaper and better than the United States. Their focus on undercutting everyone else on factory goods has left them vulnerable.

The Chinese communists, like every communist regime before them, can't feed its own people.

Kristof and others might point to the Brazil deal as an escape hatch. But Brazil can't take over all of the United States' food production. Even more importantly, Brazil is in trade negotiations with the Trump administration. They have refused to retaliate so far against Trump's tariffs, seeking instead a deal.

In short, Trump has double leverage over China, pushing Brazil to the negotiating table. China is sweating this part of the trade war because it does not have an answer for it. And China's leadership is deathly afraid of a populace that no longer believes the communists can feed them.

The United States has rare earth minerals underneath it—arguably more than China. What has harmed the United States on this front is China selling rare earths at a loss to drive out all other competition and make the world dependent on it for critical components of technology.

However, suppose the United States chooses to stop that. In that case, it can build an industry by blocking China's trade in this area and building its own. This is not a free market for minerals - it's heavily manipulated to flex international power.

In other words, The U.S. can fix its rare earth problem, but China cannot fix its food problem. And this is just one area where China is at a distinct disadvantage against the United States. There are other areas.

The Trump administration could choose to starve the Chinese and force a deal. China believes the threat is real and is trying to avoid it. Tariffs are one thing. Cutting off the food supply is another.

We're in a moment of realpolitik. What matters most is power and leverage. The United States can experience real harm in this trade war. However, whereas we face economic harm, China faces an existential threat. There's a reason the Chinese have already backed off higher tariffs.

These things no longer matter. If Trump answers China's non-tariff threats, all he has to do is halt some food shipments to get China's attention. They don't have an economic answer. Emergency orders only go so far. America controls the food and the oceans.

That's real power, and we'll find out how far Trump is willing to go to squeeze the Chinese.