Before you read this article, try hard to click on "Attention" to facilitate your discussion and sharing, but also give you a sense of participation, thank you for your support!
Edited by^W.n
Trump had just threatened to increase taxes by 100% on China when he realized something and changed his mind eight hours later, hoping to meet with China. Recently, when U.S. President Trump woke up, he issued a long letter criticizing China for tightening its control policy on rare earths. On the one hand, he threatened to impose a 100% tariff on China, and on the other hand, he also said that at the APEC summit, it was "meaningless" to meet China again. However, as soon as the threat fell, Trump immediately changed his mind within 8 hours, saying that he still hoped to "meet" with China. It can be seen that Trump also realized something.
The Morning Threat.
On October 11, Trump posted three long posts in a row on his social media account, pointing directly to China’s introduction of new rules on rare-earth controls and China’s abduction of global industries with scarce resources, which is unacceptable.”
His wording in the article was fierce, and at the same time he threatened to shock the market: "The United States will impose an additional 100% tariff on Chinese goods exported to the United States worth $380 billion from November 1st". Superimposed on the current basic tax rate of 30%, the tariff on some commodities will reach the triple-digit level of 130%.
In response to the upcoming APEC summit in mid-November, the U.S. president said that “the meeting with China is meaningless” and that “the existing dialogue mechanisms cannot change China’s unfair trade practices.”
At this time, there are only 29 days left before the fifth round of economic and trade negotiations between China and the United States, scheduled for November 10. The consensus reached in the Stockholm negotiations at the end of July on "extending the tariff suspension period" seems to have been completely overturned.
This statement is not a sudden outbreak of sentiment.On October 9, China's Ministry of Commerce issued a new rule on rare earth exports, which became a direct source - the new rule not only included 14 heavy rare earth products such as uranium and uranium in quota management, but also for the first time implemented export controls on rare earth mining and refining technology and equipment.
According to data from the U.S. Geological Survey, 80% of the heavy rare earths needed by the U.S. semiconductor industry depends on Chinese supplies, and alternative refining technologies cannot be found in the short term. Immediately afterwards, on October 10th, China's Ministry of Communications announced the imposition of special port fees on ships involved in the United States, responding reciprocally to the ship surcharge implemented by the United States in the same period. The double counter-measures made the Trump administration feel unprecedented pressure.
8 hours reversal.
On October 11th, less than eight hours before the threat of tax increase was released, Trump's social media account updated a short but heavy content: "Regarding the APEC summit, maybe it is still necessary to meet with China, and we will see the situation".
This statement was in sharp contrast to the tough stance in the early morning and quickly attracted global market attention. The exchange rate of the US dollar against the RMB fell 0.3 basis points in the short term, the Dow Jones Industrial Average turned from decline to rise, and the technology sector's gain expanded to 1.2%.
Behind the policy shift are the pressure signals that have poured in intensively within 8 hours.
In an emergency letter to the White House at 9 a.m., President Clark clearly warned in a letter that an additional tariff of 100 percent would result in an average cost increase of 40 percent for U.S. enterprises, with the retail and manufacturing sector primarily at risk of losing 1.2 million jobs.
Among the 300 retailers attached to the letter, giants such as Wal-Mart and Target are among them. Wal-Mart emphasized in a separate statement that the prices of small home appliances and festival supplies made in China will double due to tariffs, and shelves may be vacant during the Thanksgiving stocking season.
Emergency feedback from the technology industry is even more impactful. Nvidia CEO Huang Renxun made a video call with the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, bluntly saying that rare earth controls in China have affected chip manufacturing. If tariffs are further escalated, the market share of U.S. semiconductor companies will drop by another 15%.
Nearly at the same time, Raytheon Technologies submitted a report to the Defense Ministry stating that 85% of the magnets needed for the F-35 fighter engine depend on China’s supply, and the new tariffs could lead to military-industrial production stagnation.
Republican lawmakers in shaking states such as Wisconsin and Ohio have called to the White House to remind voters of the sentiment during the midterm elections.
Data from the American Soybean Association shows that from January to September 2025, U.S. soybean exports to China were only 5.9 million tons, a year-on-year decline of 78%. Farmers 'dissatisfaction with the subsidy policy continues to ferment. These realistic pressures intertwined and eventually led to a reversal of positions within eight hours.
Unbearable cost of countermeasures
Trump's rapid change of mouth is essentially a forced face-to-face of the reality of the Sino-U.S. economic and trade game. China's recent rare-earth control measures have precisely hit the U.S. industrial chain's "doors".
China not only controls more than 90% of the world's rare-earth processing capacity, but also occupies an absolute advantage in the field of terminal products such as rare-earth permanent magnets, and such materials are core components of high-end manufacturing such as electric vehicles, aircraft engines, military radars.
The U.S. Geological Survey admitted in private that even if Australia and Canada jointly develop new mines, it will not break the technological barriers of refining in the short term, and it will take at least five to eight years to form independent supply chains.
Data from the U.S. Automobile Manufacturers Alliance show that due to tension in the supply of rare earth, General Motors’ Ohio plant has cut electric pickup capacity by 30 percent; Boeing’s 787 passenger aircraft production line in Seattle plant has been forced to slow down due to a lack of rare earth permanent magnetic material.
What is more serious is that China's countermeasures are not a single field effort. The collection of special port fees for ships has increased the cost of shipping to China by 12%, further squeezing corporate profit margins.
In September, Philip Swagger, director of the Congressional Budget Office, publicly pointed out that current taxes have resulted in an average additional annual expenditure of $3,200 for middle-income households, and that if the new tariffs fall, the annual GDP growth rate could drop by 0.8 percentage points, and the middle-income households could lose up to $2,2 million.
This dual threat of inflationary pressure and employment risk makes the Trump administration wary of its tough policy towards China.
The attitude of international allies has also weakened the US's confidence in exerting pressure. European Commission President Von der Leyen made it clear during his previous visit to China that he opposed trade protectionism and was willing to strengthen cooperation with China in the field of rare earths.
Allies such as Japan and South Korea are also highly dependent on China's industrial chain and are unwilling to follow the United States in imposing tariffs, resulting in the existence of the "United Front against China" that the Trump administration is trying to build in name only.
Meeting expectations: new variables in the economic and trade game
After Trump's change of mouth, the possibility of China-US economic and trade negotiations has rebounded significantly, but the game pattern has not fundamentally changed.
China's Ministry of Commerce continued its previous position at a regular press conference on October 11. The spokesman clearly pointed out that the United States generalizes national security and abuses export controls. There are more than 3,000 items on the control list, while China only has more than 900 items. This "double standard" seriously undermines the stability of the global supply chain.
At the same time, the spokesman stressed that China "is not willing to fight, but is not afraid to fight", and if the United States is alone, it will take corresponding measures.
The market remains cautious about its expectations for the outcome of the meeting. Kennedy, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, pointed out that China's control measures are a response to long-standing U.S. tariffs and export restrictions and will not be completely lifted in the short term.
The demands of American companies focus on rare earth supply guarantee and tariff reduction, which forms the focus of the game with China's request to cancel unreasonable restrictions.
From the timeline, more than 20 days before the APEC summit will become a critical window period. The Office of the United States Trade Representative has begun to sort out the demands of enterprises, trying to find a breakthrough for negotiations; China's Ministry of Commerce continues to promote the diversified layout of foreign trade. In the first half of 2025, exports to Africa increased by 34% year-on-year, and markets along the "Belt and Road" contributed 62% of export growth, providing a strategic buffer for the game.
conclusion
This eight-hour reversal of policy exposes the deep contradiction of the United States in its economic and trade game against China: both seeking to obtain profits through extreme pressure and being unable to withstand the industrial shocks and domestic costs of counter-regulation.
Whether the next meeting can break the deadlock depends not only on the negotiating wisdom of both sides, but also tests the rational choices of the two countries in the context of deep integration of industrial chains.