Getting somewhat back on topic, Tariffs are only designed to do one thing, and only effectively do one thing, and that is to raise prices to domestic consumers. And that is exactly what they do.
The supporting argument is that when imports cost more, the price differential between the imported good and the domestic good is narrowed, and the hope is that consumers will choose the domestic good more often.
But it never results in lower prices, because domestic providers tend to rely on the tariff to support higher prices for their own goods ... it reduces competition and if you have little competition, you exploit the profit potential.
If you're a publicly traded company, it's actually illegal not to maximize profit; your company principals can be charged or sued. If you're a private entity, you don't need to disclose any financial information, and there is even less incentive to avoid maximizing profit, since no-one can know the extent of it.
Where is harms the domestic economy is not, as one might first assume, in higher costs to produce goods. It is that you have less incentive to remain competitive, and if the tariffs should disappear, your domestic sales suffer. While they are in force, your products become more expensive on the world market, making trade fall, not rise. So in the end it harms the very companies it's intended to protect.
The other way it harms domestic producers is in the way your offshore competitors will react ... they can increase innovation to compete rather than compete on price. That too can make your products less attractive domestically and internationally and potentially harms exports.
There is still another $200 Billion worth of PRC goods that are tariff free, and those could be subject to tariffs at any time. So it's not over yet. China is likely to resort to what is referred to as "non-tariff barriers" such as refusing licenses to American companies who want to expand their footprint in the world's second largest and growing economy. The US enjoys a massive trade surplus with the rest of the world in Services, and Services have to satisfy regulators.
Chinese consumers have also been known to quickly embrace boycotts (South Korea, Japan, even some domestic Chinese companies such as restaurant chains) and that may threaten business of established American brands (Buick, Apple, McDonalds) in China. So it's not really true that China has no more arrows in their quill.
Already business has adapted it's practices to try to avoid tariffs ... already mentioned is the possibility of transferring electronics to third countries, and the US is already shipping soybeans to Brazil to re-export to China tariff-free. But agricultural goods can be identified by origin (soils differ, trace elements differ) so that is another weapon China can employ if it so desires (it may not ... it's the world's largest buyer of soybeans).
As readers have probably gleaned, I am not a supporter of tariffs. The politics to me are irrelevant ... it's not my country and not my place. But it affects me and my countrymen so I don't feel comments are inappropriate on simply a commerce basis. Some may be aware I'm trying to bring a commercial product to market ... this is raising my cost of production and I will have to eat the increase. Although the US is still Canada's largest trading partner, our dependence on American trade is falling, from about 80% of exports in 2000 to around 50% today. Canada has been aggressively seeking greater trade with the rest of the world, and will continue to do so. But I will leave you with a quote from another Prime Minister disliked by the President of the day (to the Washington Press Club):
" ...
Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.
..."
-Pierre Elliot Trudeau
