Although Trump's pause provides an opportunity for US trade partners and allies to potentially renegotiate deals and remove reciprocal tariffs, there's no guarantee that these talks will result in the kind of stable trade agreements that tech companies rely on to develop and maintain global supply chains.

Essentially, just because the US is going down to 10%, except for 125% for China, doesn't mean that that's a good thing. A Democratic strategist said the 90-day pause in tariffs showed that Trump had "caved" to the pressure of other nations as he watched the stock market tumble in real-time over the past week. That environment of unpredictability and uncertainty undermines their ability to plan, to innovate, to succeed, to source.

The stock market surged by thousands of points in real time following Donald Trump's 90-day tariff pause, yet he appears to be maintaining a policy that arbitrarily imposing tariffs is the best way to spark negotiations, to influence deals with other countries. The Nasdaq was up by nearly 10%, the biggest jump since 2008.

The benchmark S&P 500 index was up by 8% mid-week, with just under two hours of trading left at the New York Stock Exchange. Beyond any doubt, public opinion played a significant role in shaping the US trade policy during the US-China trade dispute. Several factors illustrate how public sentiment influenced trade decisions and policy directions. These trade challenges have prompted China to increasingly adopt export restrictions, and many observers agree that it is now using its economic power to disrupt supply chains and penalize foreign companies and countries. As such, the move has alarmed policymakers and analysts in America, who worry it could harm their strategic industries.

While some segments of the population in the USA supported tariffs, there was also concern about the potential for increased consumer prices resulting from these trade policies. As prices for goods began to rise due to tariffs, public opinion became more divided. Some consumers began to question the effectiveness of tariffs, especially if they felt the costs outweighed the benefits.

Many Americans expressed concerns about job losses in manufacturing and other sectors due to globalisation and trade agreements. This sentiment was particularly strong in regions that had experienced significant industrial decline. Politicians and policymakers took these concerns into account, leading to a more protectionist stance in trade policy. A portion of the American public supported the imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods, viewing them as a necessary measure to protect American jobs and industries from unfair competition.

This support was often rooted in the belief that China engaged in practices such as intellectual property theft and currency manipulation, which many Americans felt harmed US economic interests. Some sectors were more affected than others. The European Union has condemned Trump's tariffs as "unjustified" and vowed swift retaliation. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned of a "strong plan" to counter US measures, likely targeting politically sensitive American exports like bourbon, motorcycles and agricultural goods. Von der Leyen said it was a major blow to the world economy and the consequences "will be dire for millions of people".

Groceries, transport and medicines will cost more, she said, "and this is hurting, in particular, the most vulnerable citizens". However, in sectors where tariffs were applied, such as consumer goods and electronics, prices tended to rise. For example, communities reliant on agriculture, were often more critical of tariffs due to retaliatory measures from China that affected their exports.

Conversely, manufacturing regions that felt threatened by competition from Chinese imports tended to support more aggressive trade policies. China's new export-control regime ostensibly tracks items that are "dual-use", meaning they have both civilian and military applications. Chinese exporters of listed products must now tell the state who their customers are and what they are likely to use the goods for. But Mr Xi's sanctions go far beyond non-proliferation and seem to be aimed at entrenching China's economic domination of key technologies, materials and industries.

In doing so, he is deepening other countries' dependence on China in areas such as solar panels and the batteries used extensively in electric cars. Although many rare metals are found in places such as Australia, Brazil, Greenland and South Africa, about 90% of the world's capacity for refining them is in China. China produces almost all the world's germanium and manganese, three-quarters of its lithium and natural graphite and half its antimony.

Often, few good substitutes exist for such metals. When it comes to the magnets used in wind turbines, for example, only neodymium is best. Likewise, a wide range of electronics, from radars and smartphone chargers to the computer chips that will be used to train artificial intelligence, rely on a small number of rare minerals dominated by China. One example is gallium - one of several rare minerals that the United States depends on. Although America imported less than $150 million worth of the stuff last year, its impact is far bigger because it is used in high-value products.

A full embargo would trim some $3.1 billion a year from America's output. Gallium is not the only critical mineral that China now dominates. While initial support for tariffs was relatively high, concerns about rising prices and the economic impact of the trade war led to increased scepticism over time. This shifting public opinion prompted some policymakers to reconsider their positions. In summary, public opinion is a critical factor in shaping US trade policy during the US-China trade dispute. Concerns about job security, regional economic impacts and consumer prices all played a role in influencing policymakers and political discourse surrounding trade issues.

As public sentiment evolved, it contributed to the ongoing debate about the effectiveness and consequences of tariffs and trade policies. In some cases, the US government granted exemptions or delayed the implementation of certain tariffs, (for example, Canada and Mexico) which provided temporary relief for specific products. However, the uncertainty surrounding tariffs often led to volatility in pricing and can trigger higher inflation. The extent of the impact varies by product category and region, but the overall trend indicated that consumers faced increased costs as a result of the trade policies.

For Mr Trump, chaos is a source of leverage, a way to keep his options open and his adversaries guessing. What a way to go after announcing Liberation Day?

George M. Mangion is a senior partner at PKF Malta