As per the latest announcement from the US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, the tariff cuts cover an array of products ranging from US corn to cosmetics and from Chinese household appliances to toys.

“Under the US-China Board of Trade, both countries have each recommended USD 30 billion of trade in non-sensitive goods for more favorable tariff treatment,” Greer said in a media briefing on Sunday.

“For the United States, that was unlocking improved market access for about 30% of US exports to China,” he said further.

The reciprocal tariff reduction, along with the extension of a trade truce, was among the key takeaways from the second summit this year between Xi and Trump, with the Chinese president paying his reciprocal visit to Washington last week.

One of two lists from ⁠the White House showed that China planned to trim duties on various US agricultural goods, including corn, wheat, sorghum, meat, dairy, vegetable oils, and meals.

The list, however, did not include soybeans.

The post Xi-Trump Summit: China, US agree tariff cuts on USD 60 billion of goods appeared first on International Finance.

“If China wanted to come in and open a plant to build their cars here, I’d be okay with that,” Trump said in an interview on the Fox News program “The Ingraham Angle.”

However, he put one condition: Chinese automakers should not build cars in Mexico and ship them to the United States.

“I’m not knocking Chinese cars,” Trump said further.

The US President’s statement arrived immediately after American Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, said there were “rumors that Trump is planning to allow Chinese cars to be sold in the US as part of a larger deal ‌he’s ⁠putting together. ” That would be a strategic mistake.”

Trump, however, called Slotkin’s statement a “total phony rumor” and said he had kept Chinese vehicles out of the United States.

The post Trump says China can build cars in US despite Congress policy push appeared first on International Finance.

Two sets of numbers landed in Beijing this summer, and they described what looked like two different countries.

The first came from the customs administration. Chinese exports grew 25% in August in US dollar terms, quickening from 23.9% in July. The monthly trade surplus reached USD 119.09 billion.

Over the first eight months of the year the surplus totalled USD 805.51 billion, which puts the annual figure on course to pass USD 1 trillion for a second consecutive year. No country has ever run a goods surplus on that scale.

The second came from the statistics bureau. Retail sales in July grew 0.6% from a year earlier, down from 1% in June and well short of forecasts.

Fixed asset investment fell 6.7% in the first seven months, the steepest decline since April 2020. Property development investment dropped 19.2%. Urban unemployment ticked up to 5.2%.

This is the dichotomy that now defines the world’s second largest economy. Chinese factories have rarely been more competitive abroad. Chinese households have rarely been more reluctant to spend at home.

With second quarter growth cooling to 4.3%, against an official target range of 4.5% to 5%, Beijing is leaning harder on foreign buyers than at any point in the past decade.

Why the export side is roaring
The export boom is not simply a matter of cheap goods. It is being pulled by the global build-out of artificial intelligence infrastructure, which has lifted both prices and volumes for the high-tech goods China has spent a decade learning to make.

In the first eight months of 2026 the value of high-tech exports rose 42.9%. Semiconductor export values more than doubled, although volumes grew only 4.1%, a gap that shows how much of the gain is price rather than quantity.

Vehicle exports rose by more than half in both value and volume. Electric vehicles, solar cells and lithium-ion batteries did much of the rest of the work.

There is a second, less flattering driver. Weak demand at home means Chinese manufacturers have spare capacity and thin margins, so they sell abroad at prices few rivals can match.

Industries that depend on the domestic market have been fighting brutal price wars, a phenomenon Chinese officials call involution. Deflation at home has become a competitive weapon overseas.

Imports, meanwhile, are flattered by the same AI cycle. August imports rose 28.2% but still missed forecasts, and once semiconductors and petrochemicals are stripped out, the underlying picture is much softer.

Why the home side is stuck
The core problem is household balance sheets. Property once accounted for something close to a third of Chinese growth and holds the bulk of family savings.

New home prices fell 3.4% year on year in July and second-hand prices fell 5.4%, extending an erosion of wealth that is now in its fifth year.

Families who feel poorer save more and spend less, which is exactly what the data show. Chinese households save roughly 30% of income, against about 10% in most developed economies.

Three other forces compound it. Employment insecurity is the first. Youth unemployment has hovered above 16% for much of the year, and the sectors that once absorbed graduates, construction and property services chief among them, are shrinking.

Thin social protection is the second. Healthcare, pensions and eldercare still leave households carrying risk that the state absorbs elsewhere, so precautionary saving stays high.

Fading policy support is the third. The consumer goods trade-in subsidies that propped up appliance and car sales in 2024 and 2025 have run their course, and the base effects are now working against the figures.

Local government finances sit underneath all three. Land sales to developers once funded a large share of municipal spending, and that revenue has collapsed with the property market.

Cash-strapped local authorities are slower to pay contractors, slower to hire and slower to spend, which drains demand from thousands of small cities at once.

Chinese analysts flagged exactly this in July, noting that a pullback in broad fiscal spending and tighter local government rules pushed almost every domestic indicator in the same direction in the same month.

The one genuine bright spot is services. Travel, leisure and transport spending has held up better than goods, and there are signs of a gradual shift in how Chinese households allocate what they do spend.

Officials expect per capita services spending to move towards half of total household consumption over the next five years. It is a real change, but it is starting from a low base and it is not yet large enough to offset a shrinking appetite for cars, appliances and homes.

Prices tell the story. Consumer inflation was 0.5% in July, and core inflation, once gold and trade-in effects are removed, was about 0.8%.

Producer prices fell 0.7% on the month. Firms facing falling prices cut wages and delay investment, which weakens demand further.

That loop is the reason economists describe the slowdown as structural rather than cyclical.

What Xi’s government is doing
Beijing is not ignoring the problem, and its response has broadened considerably in 2026.

The most significant move is institutional. In July the State Council approved the 15th Five-Year Plan for Expanding Consumption, the first time expanding consumption has been given a dedicated national plan of its own.

It targets total retail sales of around 60trn yuan by 2030 and, more importantly, sets out to raise the household consumption rate rather than simply the volume of sales.

Services take priority, with elderly care, childcare, culture, tourism, health, sport and education singled out.

The plan also promises to relax market access in services and revise the rules on paid annual leave, a quiet acknowledgement that people cannot spend on leisure they never get.

The fiscal arm is doing the near-term lifting. The finance ministry says 12.4 trillion yuan has been allocated to education, social security, healthcare and housing, and that childcare subsidies reached more than 25 million infants and toddlers and their families in 2026.

Three new measures took effect on August 1, extending consumption loan interest subsidies to working capital loans and credit card instalments and raising the number of participating lenders from roughly 100 to about 400.

On the investment side, Beijing has deployed an 800 billion yuan new-type policy finance tool, paired for the first time with a central government interest subsidy of 1.5 percentage points for up to two years on eligible loans to smaller private firms.

A 500 billion yuan private investment guarantee programme is being rolled out over two years.

Monetary policy remains what the central bank calls appropriately loose. The People’s Bank of China cut rates on structural tools in January and has signalled room for further reserve requirement and rate reductions, while pledging to keep the yuan broadly stable.

Running alongside all of this is the anti-involution campaign, an effort to curb wasteful capacity, local government subsidy races and destructive price wars. If it works, it should stop deflation feeding on itself.

Why the gap is not closing
The obvious criticism is one Chinese economists make themselves. Most of the money still flows to supply rather than demand. Policy finance tools, guarantees and industrial upgrading strengthen the export side of the ledger that is already strong, while direct transfers to households remain modest and highly targeted.

There is also a timing trap. Strong exports reduce the urgency to fix the weaker half of the economy. Growth targets can be met on the back of foreign orders, which allows the harder decisions on property, land finance and the social safety net to slip.

Scale is the third issue. The consumption plan is a five-year document, and its most powerful levers, pension top-ups, hukou reform and a broader safety net, are the slowest and most expensive to pull.

Childcare payments and loan interest subsidies help at the margin, but they do not change the calculation of a family that has watched the value of its flat fall for four years running.

That is a risky bet, because the export boom is politically fragile.

A surplus heading past USD 1 trillion a year invites tariffs, quotas and anti-dumping cases across Europe, Asia and Latin America, not only the United States.

Washington and Beijing have been exploring reciprocal tariff reductions on about USD 30 billion of goods each ahead of a summit this month, but the wider pressure to rebalance trade is not going away.

For the rest of 2026, the indicator to watch is not the export headline. It is retail sales, core inflation and whether the new consumption plan converts into cash in household hands rather than credit lines for firms.

Until Chinese families feel secure enough to stop saving, the country will keep exporting the demand it cannot generate at home, and the world will keep pushing back.

The post China’s two-speed economy, record exports and a consumer who will not spend appeared first on International Finance.

As per the Chinese customs data, exports from the Asian giant surged 25% year-on-year in August in US dollar terms, matching forecasts and accelerating from the 23.9% growth seen in July.

However, the Xi Jinping administration still needs to address the dichotomy between resilient exports and weak domestic activity, as policymakers struggle to revive consumption and investment as they pursue a 4.5%-5% GDP growth target for 2026.

Imports, on the other hand, jumped 28.2%, compared with a 27.5% year-on-year increase in July and a forecast of a 30% rise.

In the first eight months of 2026, exports of high-tech products have gone up 42.9% in US dollar value terms. Semiconductor export ⁠values more than doubled even as volumes edged up just 4.1%, while car exports rose more than 50% in both value and volume.

As per Zhaopeng Xing, ANZ’s senior China strategist, strong demand for AI products as well as electric vehicles, solar cells, and lithium-ion batteries has offset the impact from weather events. Companies, however, are rushing to send goods to the United States due to tariff uncertainties from the Donald Trump administration.

Despite the sluggish domestic demand, China’s push to dominate key technologies has driven investor appetite for tech stocks, while surging AI-related demand has lifted a new generation of manufacturers.

Chipmaker CXMT has emerged as the biggest success story, with the business swinging to a first-half profit in its maiden earnings report since listing, as soaring semiconductor prices and strong demand for AI-driven computing lifted sales.

However, industries in the non-tech sectors have been grappling with producer price inflation and soft demand. While exports have emerged as the favorite option for Beijing to offset industrial overcapacity, both the United States and the European Union (EU) are now asking the Jinping administration to lower its trade surpluses.

China’s trade surplus rose to USD 119.09 billion in August, from July’s tally of USD 112.5 billion. The surplus in the first eight ‌months of this year has reached USD 805.51 ⁠billion, putting the annual number on track to top USD 1 trillion for the second year.

Trade surplus with the United States rose to USD 29.18 billion from USD 28 billion in July, with China’s exports to the world’s largest economy jumping 34.4% year-on-year, outstripping the 17.8% growth in imports.

The post Tech boom props up China’s export fortunes amid weak domestic demand appeared first on International Finance.

In what seems to be another setback for American manufacturing activities, a section of Chinese rare earth suppliers have reportedly declined to ship their commodities to the world’s largest economy for fear of repercussions from Beijing.

The latest development comes just ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Washington visit, during which he will meet his American counterpart Donald Trump at the White House.

While the Trump administration has repeatedly reminded Beijing to stick to commitments made in Busan ‌and Beijing over 2025 to ensure the smooth flow of rare earth export licences, the ongoing issue will make the topic feature at the top of the White House’s agenda when Xi arrives at the American shores on September 24.

As per a report from Reuters, a handful of Chinese suppliers have refused to ship rare earths to American companies since early August, when China imposed sanctions on the Responsible Business Alliance (RBA), a US supply chain monitor.

“With China deploying its own trade compliance weapons, the companies were wary of punishment from Beijing for complying with the due diligence framework of the Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI), a global mineral supply chain audit programme connected with the RBA,” the report further stated.

Other Chinese rare earth companies had already stopped shipments to the United States to avoid entanglement in geopolitics in recent months, with a source even sighting about four instances where Chinese firms declined to send material for fear it could be resold to banned users.

The post China rare earth firms halt US shipments ahead of Xi-Trump summit appeared first on International Finance.

According to the latest China Beige Book, an independent survey of 1,321 businesses conducted between June 1 and June 22, manufacturing activity strengthened markedly during the month while consumer spending also recovered. The survey found luxury goods sales rose sharply, although tourism-related spending remained weak, highlighting uneven confidence among Chinese consumers.

“The second quarter is ending on a more positive note than it began, but this performance will need to repeat itself in July and August for there to be legitimate cause for celebration,” the report said.

The findings indicate that the world’s second-largest economy has regained some traction after losing momentum in April and May of 2026. Earlier official data showed retail sales weakening while manufacturing investment slowed, particularly in the metals, chemicals, and automotive sectors.

The recovery was driven largely by the export sector. Factory activity accelerated during June, with the survey reporting a strong increase in orders from the United States as exporters rushed shipments ahead of the possibility of higher American tariffs later this year.

China’s exports to the United States have rebounded in recent months after a prolonged downturn in 2025, while freight rates on Asia-US shipping routes have climbed to their highest levels in nearly two years as importers bring forward orders before potential tariff increases.

The ratio reached nearly 90% of levels seen in 2024, according to official data. In contrast, May 2025 figures showed China’s exports to the world’s largest economy had dropped to 70% of their 2024 levels.

Republican Donald Trump’s recent meeting with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, as per analysts, signaled possibilities of lower tariffs as of now, while Washington has yet to impose additional duties that could emerge from its Section 301 probes targeting countries identified for overcapacity and forced labor practices. The 10% duty on goods from most major trading partners that the Trump administration imposed under Section 122 is set to expire on July 24.

However, the China Beige Book found that export growth to other Asian economies slowed during June, while demand from Europe remained broadly unchanged, suggesting the recent improvement is concentrated in the US market.

Tianchen Xu, senior economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, said June’s recovery was “first and foremost led by the external sector,” reflecting businesses’ efforts to front-load exports before trade policy becomes more restrictive.

China is scheduled to release retail sales and industrial data for June, as well as Q2 GDP, on July 15. It is expected to report June 2026 trade data on July 14.

Investors will now focus on a series of key economic indicators due in mid-July, including trade figures, industrial production, retail sales, and second-quarter GDP data. Economists also expect China’s official manufacturing purchasing managers’ index to return to expansion territory, signaling that factory activity may be stabilizing.

Goldman Sachs has raised its Q3 growth forecast for the world’s second-largest economy to 5% from 4.5%, citing lower oil prices and faster government spending, after a tepid Q2 for which it predicted a growth ratio of 3.5%. Nevertheless, analysts warn that China will need a sustained revival in domestic consumption, rather than relying primarily on exports, if the economic recovery is to prove durable.

The post China’s economic momentum picks up in June, finds Beige Book appeared first on International Finance.

China’s Ministry of Commerce added MP Materials and USA Rare Earth to its export control list, effectively prohibiting Chinese suppliers from providing them with dual-use products, including critical rare-earth materials used in magnets, defence systems, electric vehicles, and advanced technologies. Eight other US entities, including aerospace motor manufacturer Aveox, were also placed on the list.

The move comes at a time when, despite Trump going gaga over the “G2”, his administration is still intensifying efforts to rebuild a domestic rare-earth supply chain and reduce its dependence on China, which dominates the global production and processing of the strategic minerals.

In a statement, China said the measures were taken in response to what it described as the Trump administration’s “malicious practice” of imposing restrictions on Chinese companies, apart from being “necessary” to safeguard national security and fulfil international non-proliferation obligations.

The restrictions amount to a full ban on exports of dual-use items to the targeted firms, going beyond previous rules that merely required export licences. Both MP Materials and USA Rare Earth are involved in the global mine-to-magnet supply chain.

“Organisations and individuals in any country or region are prohibited from transferring or supplying dual-use items originating in China to those entities,” the Jinping government said, adding that export activities should be stopped immediately.

MP Materials, which operates the Mountain Pass mine in California, the only active rare-earth mine in the United States, and USA Rare Earth are central to Washington’s efforts to establish a mine-to-magnet supply chain and are, however, free from Chinese dependence. Both companies have received substantial backing from the US government, including Pentagon support, to expand domestic production of rare-earth magnets.

The latest action adds another obstacle to American efforts to secure supplies of heavy rare earths such as dysprosium and terbium, key ingredients in heat-resistant magnets used in automotive systems, military equipment, artificial intelligence (AI) chips, and other advanced technologies.

China already imposed strict export controls on seven rare-earth elements and related magnets in April 2025, citing their dual military and civilian applications. The restrictions disrupted production across industries ranging from automobiles and robotics to defence manufacturing.

Chinese customs data show exports of dysprosium to the United States have been halted since April 2025, while shipments of terbium have largely ceased since late 2025. Industry executives say supplies outside China remain limited and insufficient to meet expected demand from large-scale US magnet manufacturers.

The move also follows a recent update to the Pentagon’s so-called 1260H list of Chinese companies allegedly linked to the Chinese military. Newly added firms included major Chinese technology and automotive companies such as Alibaba Group, Baidu, BYD, and NIO.

Analysts said Beijing’s response was largely symbolic because many of the affected American companies have limited commercial exposure to China. However, the restrictions underscore China’s continued leverage over a sector in which it controls roughly 90% of the global light rare-earth supply and more than 98% of heavy rare-earth refining capacity, a capability that Beijing is trying to use as a geopolitical tactic to get the better of its rivals.

“Most of the companies are US defence industry players, or they have close connections with the US government… Those companies are not going to do business in China, so the impact will be quite symbolic. Beijing’s move today is a proportional response to the Department of War’s 1260H list,” said George ⁠Chen, partner for Greater China at the Asia Group, a geopolitical advisory firm, while interacting with Reuters.

The dispute is likely to remain a major source of friction as both countries seek to secure control over critical mineral supply chains that underpin future industrial and military competitiveness. In fact, escalating things further, China’s finance ministry would take measures against 46 American companies by barring domestic buyers from procuring any products manufactured by them.

The post Setback for Trump’s G2? China tightens export controls against US rare-earth firms appeared first on International Finance.

While better-than-expected exports, along with the Xi Jinping administration’s domestic fuel-pricing controls, ‌helped Beijing weather the energy shock, higher input costs threaten to squeeze already weak factory margins, apart from further dampening consumer spending if the Middle East conflict drags on.

As per the data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), factory output grew 4.1% from a year earlier (slowest growth since July 2023), compared with a 5.7% rise in March.

“The strong performance of the exporters helped to mitigate the weaknesses in domestic demand, but not enough to fully offset it,” said Zhiwei Zhang, president and chief economist at Pinpoint Asset Management, while interacting with Reuters.

Exports gathered pace in April as factories raced to meet a wave of orders from AI-related industries, while other buyers sought to stockpile components amid fears of the Iran war potentially pushing global input costs even higher.

Zhang didn’t expect ⁠the Xi Jinping administration to change its policy stance on just one month of weak data, stating that Beijing would likely reassess its policy stance in July when the Q2 GDP data comes out.

“Retail sales, a gauge of consumption, rose just 0.2% in April, cooling sharply from 1.7% in March and sliding to their weakest gain since December 2022. The figures were also well below forecasts centred on a 2% increase. The fragility of household consumption was underscored in April domestic car sales, which dropped 21.6% in April from a year earlier for their seventh straight month of decline, even as automakers ramped up efforts to expand in overseas markets to offset weakness at home,” reuters reported further.

“Retail sales growth in the first four months of 2026 points to still-weak household demand, with consumers concentrating spending on selective discretionary and upgrade categories rather than broad-based consumption,” said Yuhan Zhang, principal economist at the Conference Board’s China Center.

Zhang further added that the split highlights a two-speed recovery: steady spending on small lifestyle and tech upgrades, but weak appetite for big-ticket, credit-driven purchases tied to housing and income.

While the jobless rate reportedly nudged down to 5.2% in April from 5.4% in March, fixed-asset investment (FAI) contracted 1.6% in the first four months of 2026, compared with a 1.7% rise in the January-March period and a ‌1.6% expansion ⁠forecast. Domestic crude steel output also echoed the weak investment data, falling 2.8% from a year earlier.

“We believe weaker credit demand and heavy rainfall in southern China may have contributed to the April FAI decline compared with the first quarter,” said Lisheng Wang, economist at Goldman Sachs in a note, while cautioning that the occasional NBS “statistical correction” of previously reported data may have amplified the volatility.

As the Iran war and the stalemate at the Strait of Hormuz continued to disrupt the global supply chains, the Chinese leadership have already pledged to strengthen the country’s energy security, accelerate technological self-sufficiency and seek greater control of supply chains, while dealing with external shocks.

The world’s second-largest economy expanded 5.0% in the first three months of 2026, just touching the Beijing’s full-year target range of 4.5% to 5.0%. However, as per analysts, the recovery is running on uneven ground, with industrial output continuing to outstrip domestic demand.

“While a protracted downturn in the property market remains a drag on growth, the Middle East conflict has exposed the economy to external risks at a time of fragile consumption at home. China’s property investment contraction widened in April year-on-year, ⁠but new home prices fell at their slowest monthly pace in a year, offering some signs of stabilisation as local governments deploy measures to boost sales and shore up sentiment,” Reuters noted.

Also Read:

The post China witnesses growth loss due to Iran war disruptions appeared first on International Finance.

While China will make the purchases through 2028, with the 2026 target applying to the remainder of the year on a proportionate basis, the deal came along with Beijing’s commitment to buy at least 87 million metric tonnes of American soya beans, which was made at the bilateral between Trump and Xi in South Korea in October 2025.

The White House further stated the Xi Jinping administration’s commitment to restore market access for American meat products by renewing the expired listings for more than 400 production facilities. Additionally, China will resume imports of poultry from states determined by the US Department of Agriculture to be free of avian influenza.

“Trump and Xi also agreed to establish two new bodies – the US-China Board of Trade and the US-China Board of Investment – to manage trade and investment between the sides,” the White House said.

The summit between Trump and Xi, which lasted between May 14 and 15, didn’t result in substantial understandings. However, as per the reports, both the heads of state sought greater alignment on economic issues and trade while avoiding sensitive issues like Taiwan and the Iran war. As per the White House, “The two sides had discussed ways to enhance economic cooperation, and they agreed on the need to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.”

Talking about the economic cooperation between the countries, Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore, told Al Jazeera that Washington’s statements on the summit should be treated with caution until they are confirmed by the Chinese side.

“On agriculture purchases, I’m sceptical of any announcements that have been made by one side and not confirmed by the other. This is sometimes an issue in many relationships, but it’s acute under Trump 2.0, especially with China. An additional USD 17 billion in agricultural purchases annually would only provide a minor, albeit welcome, boost to the US economy. But the US is a USD 30 trillion economy. Even if these buys materialise, the net effect is going to be tiny,” the senior analyst remarked.

The ongoing salvos between Washington and Beijing have resulted in US-Chinese trade going down sharply from its peak. The figures, in 2025, stood at some USD 415 billion, down from more than USD 690 billion in 2022.

Another talking point in the White House’s fact sheet has been American access to rare earths. While the Trump administration said that Beijing would address Uncle Sam’s rare earth shortages, particularly the ones like yttrium, scandium, neodymium and indium, the Chinese side didn’t talk about it.

It is to be noted that Beijing controls the supply chain for these rare earths that serve as the backbone of the manufacturing of smartphones and electric vehicles, along with the American and Western weapon industries. The Xi Jinping administration, in the past, had used the export control of these minerals to gain leverage over the West during moments of economic and geopolitical upheavals.

Last but not the least, the United States has also specified Chinese plans to buy 200 Boeing aeroplanes, despite the world’s second-largest economy having the distinction of developing its own civilian jetliner called the Comac C919 (often touted as a direct rival to Airbus’s and Boeing’s narrow-body families).

The post Trump-Xi summit: China to buy USD 17 billion agricultural goods from US appeared first on International Finance.

The recent defeat is reflected in the significant decline of US diplomatic expectations. Wendy Cutler, a former US trade negotiator, confirmed to the Wall Street Journal that current trade negotiations have entirely set aside structural matters.

The objective is no longer advancing the relationship through fundamental change but achieving mere de-escalation and stability. Uncle Sam’s strategy has devolved from demanding systemic change, such as forcing a shift to domestic consumption or ending industrial subsidies, to simply managing crisis stability, confirming that years of tariff warfare yielded nothing but tactical adjustments and an exhausted diplomatic corps.

The US trade war’s unintended primary achievement was proving that China could withstand external economic pressure. By lowering expectations from achieving profound structural reform to settling for simple relationship stabilisation, the United States has signalled to Beijing that its state-led economic model, driven by the Chinese Communist Party, is unassailable.

This undermines the US’ credibility in future negotiations globally, a geopolitical price that far outweighs any temporary trade concessions. The US deployed its greatest economic weapon, access to its immense market, to demand change.

When Beijing retaliated by weaponising its dominance over rare-earth metals and disrupting the US’ agricultural sector, the cost of sustained friction became politically prohibitive for the American system, forcing this abandonment of structural goals. This tactical surrender is a direct, quantifiable measure of the effectiveness of China’s counter-coercion tactics.

The decades-long faith in engagement, pursued through successive US administrations, was a profound political delusion, an act of intellectual self-comforting that ignored the clear warning signs.

The historical premise of this policy rested on the belief that drawing China into the global trading system, notably through its accession to the World Trade Organisation in 2001, would inevitably lead to political liberalisation.

That hope has been comprehensively dashed. The ensuing decades saw not political openness, but the reverse. Chinese leader Xi Jinping, who consolidated power in 2012, has systematically tightened his control over the domestic political system and civil society more broadly.

This failure was inherently ensured by Beijing’s rigid political identity. Evidence suggests that the Chinese Communist Party fundamentally rejects the idea that the rule of law should take precedence over the Party’s leadership role in governing the state. This stance creates significant obstacles to any transition toward a true, open market economy.

Furthermore, the failure of engagement was significantly exacerbated by the failure of global enforcement. The US and the international community failed to utilise the tools available under the WTO to hold China rigorously accountable for its commitments, providing Beijing the space to pivot sharply toward a state-centric, CCP-run economy.

This political tragedy confirms that the US supported China’s entry on terms that proved wholly ineffective in securing Beijing’s embrace of an open, market-oriented trade regime. China weaponised the benefits of global integration to strengthen its state apparatus and industrial planning. The policy of engagement was a Trojan horse that ceded geopolitical advantage and accelerated CCP power.

Predictable collapse of tariff warfare

The Donald Trump administration, armed with tariffs and rhetorical fury, thought its economic might could intimidate history and force a fundamental shift in Beijing’s economic DNA. They were tragically, predictably wrong. The flawed strategy sought to move China away from what was correctly identified as a mercantilist policy of subsidised manufacturing and export focus.

The mechanism was based purely on market mechanics, imagining that tariffs would squeeze exports and compel Beijing to initiate painful social reforms, specifically overhauling health and social welfare systems, which would allow China’s 1.4 billion consumers to spend more and save less. The idea was that by pressuring exports, China would be forced to find new sources of growth at home, boosting global consumption and shrinking its massive trade surplus.

This strategy failed catastrophically because it entirely ignored China’s ideological commitment to its state model. Oliver Melton, a director at Rhodium Group, states plainly that Washington has very little ability to influence China’s macroeconomic strategy because the two nations hold fundamentally different ideological understandings of what drives economic growth and development.

China’s commitment to manufacturing and industrial production as the wellspring of national prosperity is absolute. Beijing viewed the trade war not as a simple economic negotiation over market access, but as a severe test of national will and security.

The failure of tariffs to achieve structural change confirms that Beijing is willing to absorb immense short-term economic pain and dislocation to defend its foundational industrial state model, a resolve the US completely underestimated.

Why Beijing refuses to spend

The weak level of household consumption in China is a deliberate political choice essential for funding the industrial state apparatus. Analysis confirms that China’s long-term economic stability absolutely requires a transition to household consumption as its investment-led model yields diminishing returns. Even some Chinese officials grudgingly acknowledge that the country’s consumption is far too weak and express a desire for some rebalancing.

However, the necessary structural reforms are gargantuan, requiring a fiscal overhaul that Beijing views as politically unacceptable. Meaningfully boosting consumption requires structural reforms to address issues like the rural-urban divide, the precarious position of migrant workers, and the deep misallocation of capital currently controlled by state-owned enterprises and banks.

The total fiscal resources required to fund social infrastructure, public services, and ongoing social transfers needed for a durable shift would amount to tens of trillions of RMB, approximately 30% of China’s GDP.

Such a massive fiscal commitment is an existential threat to the powerful nexus of state-owned enterprises, local governments, and central planners that currently control the flow of capital. The efforts seen so far have been piecemeal, stymied by ideological attachment to industrial production and wariness of politically painful reforms in taxation, healthcare, and social welfare.

For Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party, redistributing 30% of the nation’s capital to the populace to boost consumption is perceived as an act of weakness that would destabilise the existing political system and threaten the Party’s command over the economy, hence the resolute refusal to change the growth model.

Beijing’s response to the American tariff assault was immediate, disciplined, and ruthlessly strategic, a calibrated move that forced the United States onto the defensive and rapidly exposed the limitations of American economic coercion.

Rather than capitulating, Beijing retaliated with stiff countermeasures, using its leverage over critical supply chains and strategically targeting politically sensitive US sectors, such as halting purchases of soybeans to punish America’s agricultural ecosystem.

This counter-coercion was built upon decades of deliberate industrial policy aimed at securing dominance in strategic materials. China weaponised its near-monopoly position on rare-earth elements, critical minerals essential for defence, electric vehicles, advanced semiconductors, and green energy technology.

China established its leverage through decades of concerted industrial policy and now accounts for approximately 91% of global rare-earth refining. When the trade war heated up, Beijing imposed stringent export controls on these critical materials, establishing an economic weapon that allows it to inflict targeted pain directly on American companies reliant on these inputs.

The American assumption that high tariffs alone would secure surrender proved far less damaging than China’s targeted, chokepoint-based retaliation, cementing China as an economic peer rival capable of defying the world’s longstanding superpower.

The systematic failure of the United States to achieve its stated goals is laid bare by key economic metrics, which confirm the persistence of China’s export-driven imbalance and the scale of the necessary, yet politically impossible, consumption reforms.

Xi’s chokepoint strategy

Henry Farrell, a professor of international affairs, argues that the trade war taught Xi Jinping the necessity of reducing reliance on the United States in critical areas such as semiconductors, confirming that Washington’s pressure was entirely counterproductive.

In response, Beijing strategically hardened its system. China systematically identified perceived “chokepoints,” sectors where it was reliant on foreign inputs, and launched a determined, whole-of-nation strategy to achieve self-sufficiency, rapidly building up domestic industries, developing alternative sources for inputs, and carefully husbanding its strengths.

The ultimate geopolitical goal articulated by this strategy is not improved trade balance, but political autonomy. Beijing seeks to maximise its freedom to pursue its own national interests without the United States being capable of determining its destiny through technological or economic coercion. This shift elevates industrial policy from a matter of economic efficiency to a core mandate of national security and geopolitical warfare.

Beijing’s official policy response to American pressure, the “Dual Circulation Strategy,” is a fortress doctrine designed for resilience and siege, not for peace or global integration. The blueprint for China’s future was made clear in its latest five-year plan, which confirmed Beijing’s absolute intention to double down on this path. The plan reemphasised its commitment to technological self-sufficiency, pledging to pour more investment into advanced manufacturing and boosting exports.

The “Dual Circulation Strategy” aims to insulate the domestic market from external shocks by vertically integrating production and eliminating bottlenecks in technology and natural resources. This involves focusing heavily on the internal market while leveraging the Belt and Road Initiative to secure reliable external demand and open markets in the emerging world.

This inward pivot, born from the pressures of the trade war, is a powerful dual threat to the global economy. By aggressively seeking self-sufficiency in high-end inputs, China deliberately cuts off major high-tech exporters like the United States, Japan, and Germany.

Simultaneously, the external circulation component ensures China will use its growing geopolitical reach to export its industrial overcapacity and deflationary pressures globally, creating new and pervasive structural trade friction worldwide.

Controlling the global component chain

While Washington obsessed over tariffs and finished goods, Beijing executed a strategic masterstroke by weaving itself so deeply into the core machinery of global production that true decoupling became an impossibility. China has strategically shifted its focus from being merely the final assembler of finished products to dominating intermediate goods and core components.

Dinny McMahon, head of markets research at Trivium China, told the Wall Street Journal that the consequence is pervasive; virtually any manufactured goods purchased globally, no matter origin, now carries some exposure to Chinese supply chains.

This dominance is structural and non-replicable in the short term. China holds dominant positions in multiple critical electronic products and raw materials. Mainland China hosts over 50% of global manufacturing for Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs), the fundamental backbone of all electronics.

Furthermore, China’s chemical industry alone contributes over 40% of global chemical production, a critical input for countless industrial processes.

Experts confirm that relocating final assembly processes is relatively straightforward, but the real obstacle, the “difficult middle stages,” lies in replicating China’s established infrastructure and expertise in complex component production, such as metal moulding and speciality chemicals.

The US strategy fundamentally failed to comprehend that the centre of global manufacturing gravity had moved. China has successfully forced the world into a state of strategic interdependence where Beijing holds the most essential chokepoints, allowing it to overcome decoupling efforts and export restrictions by leveraging its deep local supply chains.

China is suffering from domestic economic malaise and is actively weaponising its internal crisis, exporting deflation and systemic instability to the world. The rampant, state-subsidised production in China continues to far outstrip weak domestic consumption, leading to menacing domestic deflationary pressures. China is an exceptional case, the first G20 economy to report a year-on-year decline in consumer prices since August 2021.

This crisis is now a global problem. China’s export prices are collapsing, pushing inflation rates down globally. Between April and December 2023, Chinese export prices fell by 6%. Crucially, prices for machinery and electrical equipment, inputs essential for Western industry and technology, dropped 8.4%.

This overproduction, particularly in sectors like steel, aluminium, and advanced clean energy technology, is now flooding global markets and aggressively suppressing prices. The systematic undercutting of global prices in key strategic future industries, such as electric vehicles and solar panels, is an effective extension of China’s mercantilist industrial policy.

This forces foreign firms into unhealthy, unsustainable competition, capturing global market share by systematically destroying the profitability of rival industries in advanced economies. This is economic warfare waged with weaponised low prices, supported by state funding, subsidies, and cheap financing.

Perhaps the most profound moral indictment of China’s rigid, export-focused system is its detrimental effect on the development pathways of poorer nations.

Eswar Prasad, a professor of trade policy, notes that China’s ballooning goods surplus and resolute refusal to rebalance its model actively stifles manufacturing in other countries.

This specifically targets poorer economies trying to nurture a domestic factory sector, as China refuses to cede significant ground in lower-value manufacturing, even as it achieves dominance in high-value goods like aircraft and chips.

The historical promise that China’s rise up the value chain would create growing markets for labour-intensive manufactured goods from other emerging markets has been systematically dashed. Developing economies are being crowded out of manufacturing by Chinese overcapacity, blocking their essential path up the value chain.

China increasingly competes head-on with these nations in the low-tech and mid-tech space. The consequence is a global South dilemma, where China remains primarily a source of supply, not a reliable source of demand, creating profound structural imbalances and mounting trade friction even with its supposed developing partners. Beijing must undertake aggressive reforms, including allowing the renminbi to strengthen and boosting imports, to ease the intense pressures these trade flows are creating.

The trade war was doomed before the first tariff was levied because Washington and Beijing are locked in a conflict between two mutually exclusive economic ideologies. The US insists on painful reforms toward consumption-led growth, but Beijing’s leadership reemphasises its absolute commitment to industry-led technological self-sufficiency and boosting exports. This is the unmovable object meeting the unstoppable force.

The structural reality is clear: without aggressive, politically traumatic reforms to restructure the economy, China’s growth trajectory will inevitably slow while trade friction with every trade partner, both in the North and the South, will increase dramatically.

The world must now prepare for a future defined by China’s chronic structural imbalances, a reality created by the failure of the United States to understand the ideological foundations of its rival. The quantitative evidence for China’s systematic export of its industrial surplus and deflationary pressure is overwhelming.

Necessity of a new strategy

The US trade war achieved nothing of its stated goals, confirming only the profound political and ideological resilience of China. The American effort resulted in the confirmation of China’s resolve, cementing its status as an unyielding peer rival fully capable of determining its own destiny.

Uncle Sam’s objective was inverted. Washington now accepts tactical de-escalation, having squandered years on a flawed, unilateral campaign that only taught Beijing how to harden its system and solidified its commitment to industry-led growth.

The comprehensive failure of unilateral American tariffs against a centrally controlled, cohesive state apparatus demands a multilateral reckoning. The only viable path forward in response to China’s entrenched industrial model and its resulting weaponised deflation requires coordinated, unified action. This unified front must encompass Europe, Japan, and other critical partners globally.

The strategy should go beyond simply applying tariffs. It must focus on systematically neutralising China’s leverage at critical points, countering the systemic instability caused by its enforced overcapacity, and offering alternative development paths for emerging economies that are currently being overwhelmed by Chinese overproduction.

This is the final verdict on the grand delusion, the profound political naïveté that defined decades of US-China engagement. The geopolitical tragedy is that China leveraged that era of hope to construct a state fully immune to American economic coercion. The trade war showed Xi Jinping how essential it is for China to reduce reliance on the US and develop economic weapons to strike back.

China, having successfully defied the world’s superpower on the matter of structural reform, now moves forward along an unchangeable path of technological autonomy and industrial dominance. The world must now adapt to China’s reality, a geopolitical shift that ensures escalating global friction and will redefine the structure of the 21st-century economy.

The post China’s defiance exposes US failures appeared first on International Finance.