Photo from CNBC
For a lot of people, US–China relations feel abstract. They sound like something that only matters to diplomats, economists, or people sitting in conference rooms halfway across the world. But when the United States and China clash, the effects tend to spill into everyday life very quickly—higher prices, supply shortages, unstable markets. It rarely stays “just politics” for long.
That’s why President Donald Trump’s comments last month stood out. He claimed that talks with China had made “significant progress,” pointing to discussions on trade, technology restrictions, and fentanyl trafficking. Coming from a president whose second term has largely been defined by pressure tactics, the statement suggested something different—maybe even a turning point.
However, that expectation didn’t last.
Only weeks later, tensions have risen again, and both sides are now scrambling to save a bilateral summit scheduled for next week. The tone has hardened, trust is thin, and even if Trump meets Chinese President Xi Jinping as planned, few people believe the outcome will be meaningful. Any deal that comes out of the meeting is expected to be small, carefully controlled, and easy to reverse.
From Beijing’s point of view, the issue is no longer about conversation—it’s about leverage.
“China believes that just talking isn’t enough; there need to be effective measures to stop the US from continuing to put pressure on us,” said Wu Xinbo, Director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University. His comment matters because it reflects a broader change. China no longer seems interested in dialogue for the sake of stability. Instead, talks are treated as one part of a wider strategic contest with Washington.
That shift became obvious in early October 2025, when China expanded export restrictions on rare earth minerals after the US placed several Chinese companies on a technology blacklist. Rare earths are not obscure resources. They are essential to electric vehicles, renewable energy systems, military equipment, and everyday electronics. China controls more than 90% of the world’s refined supply, which makes these restrictions especially powerful.
According to reports, the Trump administration did not expect the response to come so quickly. White House officials were reportedly caught off guard and rushed to consult American businesses about potential fallout. While Chinese officials later described the restrictions as “targeted and limited,” the structure behind them appears long-term. This was not an impulsive move—it looked planned.
US officials have since accused China of engaging in “economic warfare.” Trump warned that the summit itself could be canceled if tensions continue to rise. This stands in sharp contrast to the optimism he expressed just weeks earlier, after talks in Madrid and a direct phone call with Xi in September.
Despite all of this, Trump still plans to meet Xi at the APEC summit in South Korea later this month. At the same time, he has threatened a 100% tariff on Chinese goods if no concrete progress is made. The message is mixed: negotiate, but under pressure.
In a last attempt to cool things down, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng are scheduled to meet in Malaysia days before APEC. These talks follow months of tense negotiations across Europe, from Geneva to Stockholm. Each round has ended the same way—limited progress, followed by accusations that the other side failed to honor commitments.
US policy has also been inconsistent. Washington has expanded sanctions and trade controls, yet eased some semiconductor restrictions and kept agreements related to TikTok. This patchwork approach may create flexibility, but it also creates confusion. Businesses are left guessing. Markets are left reacting.
Both sides now appear to be preparing for a longer confrontation. The US has signed deals with allies such as Australia to secure critical minerals and reduce reliance on China. China, meanwhile, is expected to enforce rare earth restrictions more aggressively and consider regulatory pressure on US firms.
So why does this matter?
Because economic confrontation does not stay contained. Trump’s aggressive approach may project strength, but prolonged trade pressure often leads to higher consumer prices, disrupted supply chains, and slower growth. Even if the summit produces a limited agreement—perhaps reviving parts of the 2020 Phase One trade deal—it would likely delay conflict rather than resolve it.
At this point, the summit is less about solving disputes and more about preventing further damage. And that alone says a lot about where the US–China relationship stands.
Be First to Comment