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
China and the United States have held four rounds of talks, but the results of the Sino-U.S. trade negotiations, but few, from the last Madrid talks, and also more than a month has passed, it was supposed that Trump proposed to hold an informal meeting with Chinese leaders at the Asia-Pacific summit, will let the Sino-U.S. trade war draw the word, not wanting before this, the United States will break the agreement reached at the Madrid talks, and can not withstand China.
Why do talks break up so quickly?
From 12 to 14 September 2025, the China-US trade negotiating team held the fourth round of talks in Madrid, Spain, for the first time since the U.S. election in 2024.
During the talks, the Chinese side proposed to "break cooperation in specific fields and gradually rebuild mutual trust", while the United States pledged to "not add new trade restrictions to China in the short term", the two sides exchanged technical views on issues such as agricultural product procurement and intellectual property protection, and agreed to "follow the progress of negotiations through a video conference in October".
Although the results of the talks at that time did not form a written document, international public opinion generally regarded it as a signal that the Sino-US trade war had entered a "truce observation period". The Chicago Mercantile Exchange even raised the trading volume of options contracts related to "easing Sino-US trade friction" by 23%.
But only a week after the talks ended, the United States broke the covenant first.
On September 21, the U.S. Department of Commerce included 23 Chinese companies in the “entity list” on the basis of “national security-sensitive technologies” covering semiconductor materials, new energy batteries and other fields. According to the list requirements, these companies will need to pass the “case-by-case approval” of the U.S. government in the future when acquiring technology or products from U.S. companies, with a approval cycle of up to 180 days.
It is worth noting that eight of the companies included in the list have previously signed long-term supply agreements with U.S. companies, involving a sum of more than $4.5 billion, and the U.S. suddenly increased the restriction, directly causing some cooperation projects to stagnate.
More controversial is the fact that Trump publicly stated at a September 25 campaign rally that “the Madrid talks were just a strategic suspension and the United States would not give in on critical interests,” while hinting “to put more stringent trade demands on China during the Asia-Pacific summit.”
This move of "putting pressure immediately after negotiations" is in sharp contrast to the statement made by the US during the Madrid talks, and also makes China question the sincerity of the US in negotiations.
On October 8, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce issued the "US Compliance Report on Trade Policy", which clearly pointed out that the United States "continuously violates the consensus of talks and undermines the basis of trade dialogue", and announced a "dynamic adjustment assessment" of U.S. agricultural import tariffs, which is seen as a direct response by China to the U.S. side's breaches.
Trump's "extreme pressure"
Looking back at the history of Sino-US trade negotiations,"extreme pressure before negotiations" has become the signature strategy of the Trump team.
During the 2024 U.S. election, Trump bluntly stated in the campaign debate that "imposing tariffs on China and listing entities is the best way to gain a negotiating advantage."
Before the Madrid talks, the United States had already released the signal of "possible expansion of sanctions against China" through various channels. On September 10th, the Office of the United States Trade Representative also specially published the "China Trade Policy Evaluation Report", listing the so-called "China's non-market behavior", paving the foundation for public opinion for the subsequent tariff increase.
The U.S. Semiconductor Industry Association immediately issued a statement warning that “restrictions will lead to U.S. semiconductor materials companies losing 12 percent of global market share” and called on the U.S. government to “re-evaluate policy impact.”
The frequent pressure from the United States actually exposed its lack of confidence in trade negotiations.
In its analysis, Goldman Sachs pointed out that the United States is currently facing a double situation of "inflation rebound pressure and increased industrial emptiness":
In August 2025, the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased by 3.7 per cent, the core CPI increased by 4.1 per cent, far above the 2% inflation target, while the increase in import commodity prices caused by trade restrictions to China directly contributed to inflation by 0.8 percentage points.
On the other hand, the effect of the US manufacturing rebound policy is less than expected, the U.S. manufacturing investment ratio grew only 2.3%, below the average level of the world's major economies, while China's manufacturing added value share has risen to 31%, and the competitiveness of high-end manufacturing continues to improve.
In this context, Trump has sought to force China to make concessions through “extreme pressure” to seek voter support for the mid-term elections in 2026 rather than based on objective economic interest considerations.
Goldman Sachs Warning
Goldman Sachs Group predicts that if China and the United States are unable to rebuild the trade dialogue mechanism in the next three months, the "truce observation period" formed between the two sides since September 2025 will face a "permanent freeze", that is, Sino-US trade frictions in the next 2-3 years will maintain a "high-frequency, multi-field" confrontation state, and it will be difficult to achieve substantial relief through negotiations. To support this forecast, Goldman Sachs provided three core bases:
Goldman Sachs, analyzing China-US trade negotiations records over the past four years, found that the number of U.S. parties “violating consensus” in negotiations has reached 17 times, while China’s “policy consistency index” has always remained at more than 85%.
The U.S. midterm elections in 2026 are approaching, Trump's Republican party has put "strong against China" as the core campaign issue, and recently the U.S. Congress passed the "2025 Trade Competition Act", which requires the government to "quarterly assess the effectiveness of the implementation of trade restrictions against China" and "increase the pressure on China's high-tech industry".
According to Goldman Sachs, “Politically-led trade policies will make it harder for the U.S. to compromise in negotiations, and may even actively escalate friction for voting votes.”
In the past five years, the trade dependence between China and the United States has declined significantly: the proportion of China's exports to the United States in total exports has dropped from 17.2% in 2020 to 12.3% from January to September 2025, and the proportion of U.S. exports to China has dropped from 8.3% to 5.1%.
At the same time, the average annual growth rate of trade volume between China and ASEAN, the Middle East and other regions reached 15.6% and 21.4% respectively, while the United States accelerated the integration of industrial chains with Mexico and Canada. Goldman Sachs pointed out that "the regional diversion of the industrial chain has reduced the urgency for China and the United States to resolve differences through trade negotiations, and also provided objective conditions for the long-term trade war".
If the “permanent freeze” becomes a reality, the global economy will face multiple shocks.
Goldman Sachs predicts that the long-term trade friction between China and the United States will cause the average annual growth rate of global GDP to drop by 0.3-0.5 percentage points, with semiconductors, automobiles, agricultural products and other industries being the most affected.
Taking the semiconductor industry as an example, China and the United States in the equipment, materials, design and other aspects of mutual restriction, has resulted in the global semiconductor industry chain investment costs increased by 18%, and the global semiconductor market size is expected to decrease by 4.2% in 2025.
For emerging market countries, the spillover effect of the Sino-US trade war will lead to the differentiation of their export markets, and some countries that rely on the Sino-US markets may face the pressure of "choosing sides", further exacerbating the fragmentation risk of the global economy.
conclusion
Although the current Sino-US trade relations are facing severe challenges, the international community still generally believes that "dialogue and consultation" is the only feasible way to break the situation.
There are currently less than two weeks left before the Asia-Pacific Summit. Whether the "informal meeting" proposed by Trump can take place has become a key window for observing the direction of Sino-US trade relations.
At a time when the global economy is facing multiple uncertainties, China and the United States, as the world's top two economies, both shoulder the responsibility of maintaining the stability of the global trade order. There is no winner in confrontation and escalation, and win-win cooperation is the only correct choice.
Official sources and links
Goldman Sachs: Global Trade Risk Report (October 2025)
https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/pages/global-trade-risk-report-october-2025.htmlMinistry of Commerce of China: "U.S. Trade Policy Compliance Report (Third Quarter 2025),"
https://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/ztbg/usa/gxyb/202510/2025100000000000795.shtmlChina's Ministry of Commerce: China's Position Document of the APEC Trade Ministers' Meeting
https://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/ztbg/apec/202510/2025100000000000789.shtml