U.S. President Trump is still worried about the fact that China does not buy American soybeans, and the American people are also waiting for an "explanation" for this matter; in an interview with the media three days ago, Trump claimed that China's failure to buy American beans was a "hostile act" and threatened to "interrupt the edible oil trade" with China. What Trump is talking about is the United States purchasing China's waste edible oil to make biofuel. In the past, the United States has always been the largest importer of China's edible oil, so Trump's plan to "cut off trade" also tells China very directly that the United States will "not buy oil" in the future.
Bloomberg published an article on October 16 that poured cold water on Trump. The American media warned Trump one thing: this move will not only have limited impact on China, but will also hurt itself, because the United States "has limited processing capabilities and cannot squeeze enough." The Trump administration's edible oil ban is essentially a helpless move when it lacks trump cards in the game against China: it not only fails to exert effective pressure on China, but also exposes the United States 'own industrial shortcomings and conflicts of interests. The double dilemma of this policy shows that in today's deep integration of global industrial chains, trade pressure with unilateral sanctions as the core is unsustainable. The United States 'attempt to maintain economic and trade advantages through extreme means will only continue to consume its own policy credibility and economic strength.
The news mentioned that this year China has completed the market replacement layout ahead of schedule. Affected by U.S. policy expectations, China's UCO exports to the United States have dropped by nearly half year-on-year in the first seven months of 2025, and its export share has largely shifted to the EU market. At the same time, the expansion of the domestic sustainable aviation fuel industry has also absorbed some production capacity. Analysts from the price reporting agency pointed out that the impact of falling U.S. demand has been fully absorbed by the market. After the ban threat was issued, China's UCO export quotations have not fluctuated. Domestic traders have made it clear that they "mainly accept European orders and no longer consider the U.S. market." This mature market conversion ability has reduced the US ban to a symbolic measure.
But in contrast to the weak impact on China, the ban will directly impact the U.S. biofuel industry and agriculture interests, exposing the short-sightedness of its policy decisions. From an industrial supply perspective, the UCO processing capacity in the U.S. has a deadly bottleneck, Bloomberg noted that the U.S. "can not squeeze enough" to meet the double needs of the fuel and food industries. And in the context of the Environmental Protection Agency's plans to increase the ratio of biofuel mixtures in the next two years, the U.S. has shifted from a net UCO exporter to a net importer since 2022, China becoming its largest source of supply, the ban will directly shake the raw material supply base of the U.S. new energy industry.
The embarrassing situation of the edible oil ban is essentially a microcosm of the drying up of U.S. trade cards with China. Judging from the policy toolbox, the United States has previously used major means such as tariff barriers and technical restrictions, but with little success: the tariff war has led to increased inflation in the United States and increased corporate costs, while the technological blockade has accelerated the process of independent innovation in China. The choice of niche categories such as UCO just shows that it lacks the trading chips that can truly hit the heart of China. The deep constraint lies in the asymmetric interdependence between the Chinese and US economies. The United States has rigid dependence on China market in soybean, energy and other fields, while China has diversified market substitution capability in most manufacturing and export categories. The American Soybean Association admitted that alternative markets such as Southeast Asia and North Africa are limited in size and cannot replace China's procurement volume