It’s widely reported that Trump’s regime used ChatGPT to help come up with the tariff rates for the 180+ countries to balance US trade deficit. While I have my doubt any AI assistant would be so “not intelligent” to suggest taxing Heard and McDonald Islands, I thought it would be interesting to ask AI how to respond to Trump’s tariff bullying.

I asked three questions to DeepSeek, Grok, and ChatGPT each:

– How to deal with Trump’s tariff bullying

– What is the consequence of not standing up to him

– How should China respond

Below are the answers from each AI assistant verbatim except I had to cut short some answers to meet Substack email length requirement. Each answers from a slightly different perspective. However, not a single AI assistant has suggested countries to succumb and accept Trump’s tariff without a fight.

Even more interesting, Beijing seems to be following an AI-suggested script how to respond. Clearly there are two ways to use AI – smartly and stupidly. I’ll let you decide who is doing it smartly and the other stupidly. Spoiler alert – Trump obviously forgot to ask the most important question to his AI model – should I launch an all-out tariff war against everyone?

By the way, when I asked ChatGPT, the AI assistant completely denied it had anything to do with the Trump regime’s “reciprocal” tariff calculation by suggesting it would be an insult to its intelligence:)

A side note – Grok seems to have a stronger pro-Trump bias in its analysis, casting some question about political neutrality of its algorithm.

Question 1: how to deal with Trump’s tariff bullying

Answer 1 from DeepSeek

Dealing with Trump’s tariff bullying requires a combination of strategic economic measures, diplomatic engagement, and multilateral cooperation. Here are some key approaches:

1. Retaliate with Precision

• Impose targeted tariffs on politically sensitive U.S. goods (e.g., agricultural products, automobiles, or key industrial inputs) to pressure Trump’s voter base.
• Use asymmetric retaliation—focus on sectors where the U.S. is vulnerable while minimizing domestic economic harm.

2. Strengthen Domestic Resilience

• Diversify supply chains away from U.S. dependency, boosting domestic production or sourcing from alternative markets.
• Support affected industries with subsidies, tax breaks, or export incentives to mitigate tariff impacts.

3. Leverage International Alliances

• Form coalitions with other nations affected by U.S. tariffs (e.g., EU, Canada, Mexico) to present a united front.
• Challenge tariffs at the WTO to delegitimize Trump’s protectionist policies and impose legal pressure.

4. Negotiate Strategically

• Engage in direct talks while maintaining leverage—offer concessions only if the U.S. rolls back tariffs.
• Exploit divisions within the U.S. (e.g., business lobby pressure, bipartisan opposition to trade wars).

5. Economic Countermeasures

• Devalue currency (if applicable) to offset tariff costs and maintain export competitiveness.
• Boost trade with non-U.S. markets (e.g., RCEP, ASEAN, Africa) to reduce reliance on the U.S.

6. Long-Term Strategies

• Accelerate technological self-sufficiency (e.g., semiconductor independence) to reduce U.S. leverage.
• Weaponize economic interdependence—restrict critical exports (e.g., rare earth minerals) if necessary.

Key Considerations:

• Avoid escalation that harms your economy more than the U.S.
• Use propaganda and narratives to frame Trump’s tariffs as harmful to global trade.
• Prepare for prolonged conflict

Answer 1 from Grok

Dealing with Donald Trump’s tariff policies, which have been described as aggressive and far-reaching, requires a strategic approach that considers economic, diplomatic, and legal dimensions. Below are several strategies for individuals, businesses, governments, and other stakeholders to navigate or respond to these tariffs, based on the context of Trump’s trade policies as outlined in recent analyses. These strategies aim to mitigate negative impacts, leverage opportunities, or counteract what some perceive as “tariff bullying.”

1. For Governments and Trading Partners

Governments facing Trump’s tariffs can adopt diplomatic, economic, and cooperative strategies to minimize disruption and protect national interests.

• Engage in Diplomacy and Negotiation
  Many countries have already sought trade deals to mitigate tariff impacts. For example, over 75 countries have reached out to the U.S. to discuss new trade agreements following Trump’s tariff announcements.

• Avoid Retaliation to Prevent Escalation
  Retaliatory tariffs can lead to escalation, as seen with China’s 125% tariffs in response to U.S. tariffs of up to 145%, intensifying the trade war. U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessant warned against retaliation, suggesting it could lead to harsher measures.

• Coordinate with Allies for Collective Pressure
  A united front can exert more pressure on the U.S. to reconsider tariffs. Germany’s acting economy minister suggested that a cohesive European approach could force Trump to adjust policies.

• South-South Coordination: As suggested by an X post, Global South countries could coordinate to counter U.S. demands, such as maintaining industrial policies or resisting currency devaluation.

• Diversify Trade Partners
  Reducing reliance on the U.S. market can mitigate tariff impacts. China has increased trade with the EU, Mexico, and Vietnam to offset U.S. tariff effects.
  • Action: Strengthen trade ties with non-U.S. partners through free trade agreements or regional blocs (e.g., RCEP, CPTPP). Mexico and Canada could leverage USMCA exemptions to maintain competitive exports.

• Challenge Tariffs Legally
  Lawsuits against Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are gaining traction, arguing that tariffs lack a legitimate “emergency” basis.

2. For Businesses

Businesses, particularly those reliant on imports or exports, face higher costs and supply chain disruptions due to tariffs. Here’s how to adapt:

• Reassess Supply Chains
  Tariffs increase the cost of imported goods, with U.S. importers paying an estimated $1,300 per household in 2025. Small businesses, like kitchen gadget company Suvie, are scrambling to adjust supply chains.
  • Action: Source materials from countries with lower or no tariffs (e.g., USMCA-compliant goods from Canada and Mexico are exempt). Explore domestic suppliers to avoid import duties, aligning with Trump’s goal of reshoring manufacturing.

• Example: Automakers have been slow to reorient supply chains due to policy uncertainty, so proactive diversification is key.

• Pass Costs to Consumers Strategically
  
  READ MORE

The current Sino-US relationship is not sustainable in the long run. The US won’t give up its global hegemony. China won’t give up developing its economy and national power. US hostility is open and palpable. China is defiant and confident. There is no way to square a peg in the round role here.

A Plaza Accord type of arrangement, when Japan self-castrated, is out of the question. The balance of power between the two, at this point, is such that neither side will back down. Time is on China’s side and the US knows that. So, a delay game is unlikely to sustain.

Decoupling is inevitable. Trump’s tariff war provides both sides the perfect opportunity to unwind economic and trade relationship.

The economic ties between the two countries include –

• $440 billion Chinese goods and services export to the US and $190 billion import from US
• $500 billion US direct investment in China (Apple, Tesla, Starbucks, etc.) with $700 billion annual revenue generated in the Chinese market
• Most large US companies have significant China domestic sales in every industry from GM, Nvidia, Nike, P&G, McDonald’s, Coca-cola, to Citibank.
• Revenue from China sales for US multinationals range from 20% global sales for Apple and Du Pont to 10% for Starbucks and Johnson & Johnson to 6% for Walmart. Many count China as the second largest market after the US.
• Most US MNCs are dependent on Chinese supply chains for both sales in China and outside. Large US retailers like Amazon and Walmart source 60-70% of their merchandise from China
• 10-15% Hollywood global box office is from China, the second largest movie market in the world
• 300,000 Chinese students go to study in the US every year and roughly a million is currently enrolled in US universities. Annual tuition from Chinese students is $12 billion
• $28 billion annual China direct investment in the US, including in manufacturing, real estate and equity market. $80 billion annual revenue for Chinese companies operating in the US; largest Chinese manufacturer in the US is Fuyao Auto Glass in Ohio and Illinois with $448 million annual revenue
• Few Chinese brands count US as a large market. None of the 100 largest Chinese companies (such as PetroChina, Alibaba, Huawei, BYD) derive more than 2% of their revenue from the US.
• China holds $760 billion US Treasury; total Chinese foreign reserve is $3.2 trillion, in a mix of dollar and non-dollar assets
• There is no known US government holding of Chinese assets
• Around 280 Chinese companies are listed in US stock markets with total market cap around $1.1 trillion

A full decoupling would entail the following –

• Severe all trade, including service trade in tech, intellectual property, media and entertainment
• Cleanse supply chains that are dependent on the other side
• Liquidate financial holdings – China sells its US Treasury and other US assets, US delists Chinese companies on US stock exchanges. US could steal Chinese assets as with Russia. China could confiscate US companies’ assets in China in return.
• Expel each other’s businesses operating in the other country
• Stop flow of students and tourism

A full decoupling is good for both countries as –

• Trading with the enemy is risky business for both sides
• Dependency and vulnerability can be exploited when two countries are geared up for a showdown, including a kinetic war
• Severing economic ties remove frictions on one important dimension, negating any further quarrel on unfair trade or one side taking advantage of the other (e.g. Chinese peasants lending money to the Americans to buy stuff made by the same Chinese peasants)

A full decoupling is good for the US –

• Removes China as the economic bogeyman and a distraction from real economic problems in its system like inequality of wealth distribution
• We can find out how successful the US will be to restore trade balance and eliminate deficit with others
• We can find out how successful the US will be to reshore manufacturing and get factory jobs for Americans
• We can find out how the US will improve its inflation and standard of living
• We will find out how successful the US will be to establish alternative supply chains, source critical materials, and develop skilled labor to reindustrialize

Decoupling is also good for China –

• Accelerate the push to achieve technological self-reliance and fireproof its economy
• Reduce risk exposure to US financial assets
• Chinese companies can take over the domestic market share of US companies once they exit from China
• Stimulate domestic consumption and expand trade with others, especially countries not aligned with the US
• Internationalize RMB and accelerate alternative financial sytems (CIPS vs SWIFT, digital RMB vs. US dollar)

Decoupling is a win-win proposition. With an even playground, let’s find out who will succeed in the ensuing economic and technological competition.

Regardless what we think of Trump’s tariff war, the trade imbalance between China and the US is indeed substantial and unsustainable in the long term.

In typical Trump fashion, when he talks about trade, he chooses to cherry pick and talk only about the merchandise trade where the US runs a trillion dollar trade deficit with nearly all major economies.

He conveniently neglects to mention the equally massive service trade SURPLUS the US runs with the rest of the world, including China. This includes digital trade, intellectual property rights, financial services, business services, media and entertainment, tourism, education, and more.

Of course, it is easier to paint the US as a “victim” of global trade if the focus is solely on merchandise trade. The case against global trade gets diluted, even entirely negated, when one looks at the full spectrum of trade and how the US benefits disproportionately from the service trade and runs the world’s largest service trade surplus. But fairness is never the goal here.

The intellectual dishonesty is not limited to the skewered view of trade but also extends to the avoidance of a deeper discussion of the structural reason behind US merchandise trade deficit.

As is well known, the US has been deindustrializing since 1950s as its manufacturing job peaked in late 40s (37% of total employment) and the economy started to move towards a consumption and service based economy.

By 1971, less than 25% of US employment was in manufacturing. By 2000, it fell to 13% and today manufacturing employment hovers around 9% (more or less so for a decade).

Although NAFTA (1994) and China’s entry into WTO (2001) are regularly invoked as key events driving deindustrialization, the US manufacturing employment and GDP contribution has been on a smooth downward trend since 1945. By the time China ramped up manufacturing in mid 2000s, deindustrialization was completed and the US was already a service-based economy. You can refer to the many books on the subject published before 2010. A short list here –

• America’s Rustbelt: The Economic and Social Effects of Deindustrialization (1987)
• Beyond Rust: Metropolitan Pittsburgh and the Fate of Industrial America (1989)
• The End of Detroit: How the Big Three Lost Their Grip on the American Car Market (2003)
• The Betrayal of Work: How Low-Wage Jobs Fail 30 Million Americans (2005)
• The Great Divergence: America’s Growing Inequality Crisis (2007)

There are many reasons behind the deindustrialization of the US economy –

• Finance, tech, and healthcare have risen. The FIRE sector (finance, insurance, and real estate) is an ever bigger part of the economy; tech sector has boomed; and healthcare industry has ballooned (now accounting for 18% total GDP). Together with retail, media, entertainment, business services, education, the US economy has moved away from production to become a consumption and service based economy, i.e. the New Economy.
• High costs in the US have made manufacturing uncompetitive. The financialization of the economy has driven costs of factors of production to such a high level that makes local manufacturing simply not competitive.

This includes high labor costs (necessary to cover the overhead costs of healthcare, housing, education, etc.), high regulatory costs, high land costs, essentially all critical input costs.

At this point, the US simply cannot produce competitive goods and merchandise even for the highly paid American workers to buy, let alone export to foreign countries. Note that the US has the highest GDP per capita among major developed economies and enjoys much higher income. If the Americans cannot afford to buy local, how can consumers in Vietnam or Cambodia or even Portugal afford such?

• Technology and automation is another big factor behind the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US. Although redistribution of factory jobs to lower cost countries is often cited as the victimization of American workers, studies have shown more job losses are attributed to improved productivity and automation than offshoring.

Trump has identified deindustrialization and loss of manufacturing jobs as a national emergency. But he fails to understand the deeper underlying reasons and therefore is destined to come up with the wrong solutions.

Simply put, tariff will not make US manufacturing competitive. The inherent high cost of producing in the US means few low income foreigners can afford US manufactured goods even if the country has the production capacity and can export at zero tariff.

The world won’t buy from the US and balance its merchandise trade deficit even if it wants to.

The flip side is the US is very competitive in the services industry and therefore runs a large surplus there.

Global economy works on market-based principles, not the whim of a low intelligence reality show personality.

That said, for entertainment, let me hypothesize a few ways the US can balance its merchandise trade with China. Though unlikely to ever transpire, they are more grounded to economic reality than Trump’s fantasy.

• China can stop exporting goods made by US companies in China. Between 30 to 40% Chinese exports to the US are by US companies like Apple, Tesla, GM, Pfizer, Dow Chemical. These companies manufacture in China to sell to the Chinese market and they also export to their home market and other countries, taking advantage of the lower production costs, superior supply chains and infrastructure in China.
• China can stop the export of goods made by European, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese companies in China to the US. This accounts for another 30% of US-bound Chinese exports. This would affect companies such as VW, IKEA, Toyota, Panasonic, SK Hynix, Samsung, TSMC, etc.
• China can stop all export of critical minerals to the US, including rare earth, cobalt, lithium, aluminum, copper. China can also stop the export of batteries, solar panels, drones, legacy semiconductor chips, mining and processing equipment, tooling machines, etc.
• China will mainly focus to export toys, apparel, shoes, furniture, luggage, plastics, home electronics, Christmas decors, etc. for Walmart and Amazon.
• China can increase US imports such as F-35 fighter jets, Patriot missiles, Virginia class submarines, M1-A1 tanks, bunker buster bombs, depleted uranium munitions, etc. After all, the US is the world leader in arms manufacturing and has an unassailable competitive advantage in this field. It should be open to sell to China to balance its trade deficit.
• China can import more Nvidia chips, Palantir surveillance software, SpaceX communication satellites, another field the US has market-competitive offerings.
• China can import more corn, beef, chicken, soybean from the US peasants – of course, eggs are off limit. The US needs them…

The optics may be bad for the American peasants to sell agricultural goods to the Chinese peasants who make manufactured stuff and lend money to the US government. But optics be damned since we are trying to balance the trade deficit.

Question 1—What are Trump’s tariffs on China supposed to achieve, and will they succeed?

Hua Bin— I don’t think Trump has a clear idea himself because many of the supposed goals are contradictory and historically he is a shoot-from-the-hip type guy – no deep thinking, always swinging, and never ashamed of his own blatant lies.

That said, he has referred to several objectives:

1. Tariffs as a revenue source to offset his intended tax cuts for the donor class
2. Using tariffs to reshore manufacturing and reindustrialize
3. Tariffs as a way to embargo trade with China
4. Tariffs as a negotiation tool to get concessions from trading partners (to buy more US goods, invest in the US, buy 100-year interest free US Treasuries, purchase US weapons, etc.)

In Trump’s mind, numbers 2, 3 and 4 are all linked to China. China is the main perpetrator of manufacturing job-loss in the US. So, reindustrialization is largely about bringing jobs back from China. Imposing trade sanctions on China—even a full embargo—has long been in the cards as part of the decoupling of the two economies and preparation for an eventual military conflict. In fact, both sides want to reduce or eliminate dependencies on each other, although Trump is much less patient and strategic.

Lastly, I have no doubt that the concessions Trump wants from other trading partners are aimed at reducing their economic ties with China. The goal is to isolate China economically. (as explicitly articulated by Bessent and Lutnick.) This is essentially what the West did to Russia after the Ukraine war broke out, but Trump is ready to push the schedule ahead on China in the absence of a more credible pretext.

Trump may think he is playing 3D chess, but his plan has not been well-thought out, which is obvious now that China has refused to back down. After stocks, bonds and the Dollar went into free fall, he panicked and rolled back part of his program, which is a clear sign of poor preparation and faulty assumptions. Of course, he didn’t hesitate to help his family and friends profit from the market turmoil through insider trading (similar to the way Hunter Biden used his father’s influence for self-enrichment).

Other indications that his tariff strategy is half-baked, include the laughable math behind the “reciprocal” tariff calculation and the many contradictions of what he was trying to accomplish. For example, why did he choose to humiliate the trading partners who came to negotiate (Trump says, “Kiss my ass”)? If he was serious about enlisting their help to embargo China, how did he expect them to do that without inputs from the largest manufacturing power in the world (China) who controls many of the critical supply chains?

Personally, I would have fired anyone who presented me with such a poorly thought-out business plan. But the US is now a state that is ruled by one man alone, so there’s no accountability and Trump can do whatever he wants.

China Foreign Minister Wang Yi: “We will uphold the basic rules of free trade. We will not bow to power politics or bullying. “video (2 minutes)

China Foreign Minister: “South East Asia achieved a consensus: we will stand united and say no to these backward, regressive actions.” pic.twitter.com/hdefzdpiny

— COMBATE |🇵🇷 (@upholdreality) April 20, 2025

Question 2—Which country will be hurt more by the tariffs: US or China?

Hua Bin—As China has repeatedly said, there are no winners in a trade war. But in the absence of a negotiated settlement, China will likely suffer more short-term pain from loss of the US consumer market. This is going to impact GDP and employment. Clearly, the country needs to stimulate more domestic consumption, which is now more urgent than ever. It also needs to redirect some trade to other countries. There could be deflationary pressures domestically, but China has plenty of ways to fiscally stimulate consumption to mitigate the impact, especially since the state controls the flow of credit via state-owned banks. Longer term, the current trade war will likely pave the way for a complete decoupling between the world’s two economic superpowers. (similar to the separation between Russia and the West.)

On the US side, the short-term impact means the loss of the Chinese market for its agricultural and energy products (which represent 70% of Chinese imports from the US). Inflation is inevitable. There will be shortages of certain goods for consumers, businesses, and for many US manufacturers that rely on imported parts, components and critical minerals from China for their production. (such as machine tools, rare earth, battery, and active pharmaceutical ingredients.) The main thing to remember is that China sits at the very top of the global supply chain whereas, the US is at the bottom. So, any disruptions to the supply chain will cascade downward amplifying the damage to the US economy.

Given China’s pole position in many high-tech manufacturing supply chains, these impacts are likely to become long term problems. US businesses will need to invest more in CAPEX to strengthen domestic supply chains, factories, and skilled labor, etc, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. Unfortunately, these new American industries will face stiff competition in international markets and are unlikely to be profitable for quite some time. Also, there aren’t many corporate executives who will want to invest the capital required to reindustrialize without explicit assurances from the government that their investment will be protected. (Trump’s flip-flop on these matters is certainly no help.)

In my opinion, the US will find the transition (back to a “country that produces things”) extremely painful and, perhaps, impossible. I suspect that’s why China is taking a hard line and made it clear that it will fight to the end if the US insists on imposing an unfair deal. In short, Trump has no cards vis-a-vis China.

Question 3– In your opinion, should Trump seek greater economic integration with China or continue along the current path of economic isolation, sanctions and conflict?

Hua Bin—There’s no doubt that economic cooperation is mutually beneficial and, frankly, the US could use China’s help to reindustrialize if that is the real goal. And the two economies are complimentary in many ways. The US actually runs a multi-billion surplus with China in services although the Trump regime chose to focus entirely on the trading of merchandise where it runs a structural deficit with most of the world. (Note—In 2024, the U.S. trade deficit with China was approximately $295 billion for goods alone, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. When including both goods and services, the deficit was around $263 billion, as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.) The US exports far more tech, IP, financial services, business services, education, and tourism to China than the other way around. The two economies have many synergies. However, given the current US political consensus to treat China as the new bogeyman, any compromise is highly unlikely. And, even if a deal is struck, I don’t think there’s enough trust on either side to sustain an agreement for very long.

As the world is spellbound by the zigzagging tariff war drama launched by reality TV star Donnie Trump and people marvel at the sheer destructiveness of a stupid mad man, a truly momentous event just happened in China.

In early April, Chinese scientists achieved a milestone in clean energy technology by successfully adding fresh fuel to an operational thorium molten salt reactor, the first of its kind in the world. The breakthrough signals the arrival of commercially viable thorium nuclear reactor in China’s future energy mix.

Thorium is much safer and more abundant alternative to uranium for nuclear power as it is widely available, cheaper to extract, has higher energy density, and produces far less long-lasting nuclear waste.

It is far safer than uranium as it is not fissile on its own so cannot be weaponized. Nuclear industry experts see thorium as the holy grail for future energy revolution next to nuclear fusion, which I’ll touch on briefly at the end.

Thorium is found in abundant quantity in earth’s crust all over the world. One single mine in China’s Inner Mongolia, the Bayan Obo mine, has enough thorium deposits to theoretically meet China’s energy needs for the next 20,000 years, while producing minimal radioactive waste.

The most promising technological direction is to use thorium in molten salt reactors. While multiple nations are developing the technology, China is the first to build an experimental thorium molten salt reactor.

The latest breakthrough to add fresh fuel to an operational reactor indicates such technology is ready for sustained commercial deployment.

It marks the first long-term, stable operation of the technology, putting China at the forefront of a global race to harness thorium for nuclear power.

The experimental reactor, located in the Gobi Desert in China’s west, uses molten salt as the fuel carrier and coolant, and thorium as the fuel source. The reactor is designed to sustainably generate 2 megawatts of thermal power.

The development was announced by the project’s chief scientist, Xu Hongjie, at the Chinese Academy of Sciences on April 8. Xu said China “now leads the global frontier for thorium nuclear technology”.

China’s thorium molten salt reactor project began with theoretical research in the 1970s, and in 2009 the CAS leadership tasked Xu with making the next-generation nuclear energy technology a reality.

The project team expanded from dozens of members to more than 400 researchers within two years.

“We learned by doing, and did by learning,” Xu said. The challenges were immense – designing new materials, troubleshooting for extreme temperatures, and dealing with engineering components that had never been built before.

After construction of the experimental reactor started in 2018, most of the scientists involved in the project gave up their holidays – they worked day and night, and some stayed on site for more than 300 days in a year. The Gobi Desert is thousands of kilometres away from the major coastal cities.

By October 2023 it was built and achieved criticality – a sustained nuclear chain reaction. And by June 2024 it had reached full-power operation.

Earlier this year the process of thorium fuel reloading was completed while the reactor was running – making it the only operational thorium reactor in the world.

“We chose the hardest path, but the right one,” Xu was quoted as saying, referring to the drive for a real-world application rather than a purely academic pursuit.

A much bigger thorium molten salt reactor is already being built in China and is slated to achieve criticality by 2030. That research reactor is designed to produce 10 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 10,000 homes for a year.

China’s state-owned shipbuilding industry has also unveiled a design for thorium powered container ship that could potentially achieve emission-free maritime transport.

Meanwhile, US efforts to develop a molten salt reactor remain on paper, despite bipartisan congressional support and Department of Energy initiatives.

Xu said, “in the nuclear game, there are no quick wins. You need to have strategic stamina, focusing on doing just one thing for 20, 30 years.”

In addition to thorium reactors, China is on the leading edge of developing nuclear fusion technology (as opposed to current fission technology) that could lead to carbon-free, almost limitless, and clean energy. Fusion is the way sun powers itself and generates 4 times the amount of energy as fission.

At the heart of this fusion revolution lies the tokamak, a donut-shaped device designed to contain superheated plasma using powerful magnetic fields. By mimicking the sun’s conditions—where hydrogen atoms fuse into helium—tokamaks enable the release of tremendous amounts of energy.

China is at the leading edge in global nuclear fusion development. Most recently, China achieved several key milestones in fusion research, including –

– Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST), dubbed as “artificial sun” in China, has set new record in January 2025. The project is based Hefei and run by the China Academy of Sciences (CAS), the world’s leading scientific research institute.

EAST maintained a high-confinement plasma for 1,066 seconds, surpassing previous world record of 403 seconds – a crucial step towards sustained fusion reactions necessary for practical energy generation.

– HL-2M Tokamak, located in Chengdu, is China’s largest and most advanced tokamak. It has achieved first plasma discharge and high plasma parameters, capable of producing plasma temperatures exceeding 200 million degrees Celsius and plasma currents over 2.5 million amperes, essential for efficient fusion reactions.

– HH70 Tokamak, developed by Shanghai-based private company Energy Singularity, stands out for integrating high temperature superconducting magnets made from REBCO (rare earth barium copper oxide). This cutting edge technology dramatically reduces the size and cost of conventional tokamaks, paving the way for more accessible and commercial fusion energy.

Energy Singularity plans to construct a next-gen tokamak by 2027 and a full scale technological demonstrator for fusion nuclear reaction by 2030.

Although commercial viability remains the final frontier, breakthroughs like EAST and HH70 showcase the significant strides towards turning nuclear fusion into a practical energy solution.

All the noises around tariffs and trade wars aside, technology is ultimately the path to human development and prosperity. Let’s keep our eyes on the ball.