Group 1 - The article discusses the recent resurgence of Trump's tariff threats in October, highlighting China's more composed response and increasing divisions within the U.S. regarding tariff strategies [1][6][24] - The uncertainty surrounding tariffs has been influenced by non-tariff measures taken by the U.S. since September, including the expansion of sanctions and export controls on rare earths [2][7][24] - U.S. policymakers have noted two significant changes in China's tariff strategy: the use of tactical agreements to gain strategic space and an increase in China's proactive stance compared to the previous tariff conflict [2][10][24] Group 2 - Critics from think tanks like Cato and AEI argue that Trump's tariff strategy has inherent flaws, including economic inefficiency and potential harm to domestic supply chains [3][11][25] - Recommendations from U.S. strategic circles suggest a shift away from broad high tariffs towards more targeted non-tariff barriers and conditional tariffs on critical sectors [3][14][25] - The article emphasizes that U.S. policymakers are concerned about the short-term focus of Trump's negotiations, which may overlook long-term strategic interests [4][15][26] Group 3 - There is a general consensus among U.S. policymakers that any trade agreement with China should prioritize strategic and security concerns over visible economic gains [4][15][26] - The article highlights the urgency for Trump to reach a verifiable agreement, as the lack of a formal deal has led to significant economic costs for the U.S., including a sharp decline in agricultural orders [4][18][26] - The preference for smaller, more manageable trade agreements over large-scale deals is noted, as the latter may require geopolitical concessions that do not align with U.S. interests [5][19][27]