On October 19, 2025, US President Trump, who was still threatening to impose a 100% tariff on all Chinese goods from November 1, suddenly changed his previous tough gesture.
In an interview, he for the first time publicly acknowledged that “high tariffs against China are unsustainable.”
You know, since Trump returned to the White House in early 2025, wielding a tariff stick has become his signature move in handling relations with China.
Today, the president, who shows the image of “never retreating,” is proactive, suggesting that he hopes to resolve trade differences by renegotiating, and possibly even lower tariffs.
When people are still guessing the motives behind them, Trump then threw out his "olive branch"-with three specific preconditions.
Why are the tariffs not moving?
Trump's sudden turn is not a whim. Behind it is the huge pressure that the U.S. economy is under.
After months of waving the tariff stick he was most proud of, not only failed to break open the door to China's market, but instead hit him hard like a boomerang.
The most typical example is American soybeans.
In 2018, when Sino-US trade frictions broke out for the first time, Trump once confidently believed that China's huge market could not be separated from American agricultural products, especially soybeans.
They are trying to use soybeans as a “trigger” to force China to make concessions in other areas.
However, the reality has given Washington a loud eye.
According to the latest data, As of 2025, China has not imported any U.S. soybeans since May.
From January to July this year, U.S. soybean exports to China amounted to only 5.9 million tons, down 80% compared to 27 million tons in the same period last year.
This means that in the vast farmland of the Midwest of the United States, the harvest of soybeans piles up like mountains, but no one cares about it.
These agricultural states are precisely the traditional voting positions of the Republican Party and key swing states in the presidential election.
Farmers' warehouses are full, but their pockets are empty. Their dissatisfaction is eroding Trump's political fundamentals at an unprecedented speed.
Trump clearly misjudged the situation. He did not expect that China's determination and ability to deal with trade pressures far exceeded his imagination.
In the past few years, China has already taken precautions and actively promoted the diversification of its supply chain.
While the doors of the United States try to close, cargo ships from South America are steadily heading for Chinese ports.
The data showed that Brazilian soybeans have already held more than 71% of the Chinese market, successfully filling the gap left by the United States.
More far-reaching is that China is building a 4,900-kilometer strategic railway across the South American continent.
The railway will connect the soybean region in the interior of Brazil directly to the port of Chancai in Peru.
Once completed, it will open up a more stable, safer and geopolitically uninterrupted food transport artery for China.
This shows that China is not just looking for alternatives, but is building a new global supply chain that is independent of U.S. influence.
Faced with this reality, the "soybean card" in Trump's hands has completely failed.
The inflation caused by high tariffs has kept the cost of living for American people rising; the difficulty of moving the industrial chain has made the slogan of "bringing manufacturing back to the United States" seem pale and powerless.
The strategy of extreme pressure not only failed to crush China, but accelerated China's economic transformation and diversification of trading partners.
It can be said that Trump's "transactional diplomacy" hit the wall in the face of reality, and he had to return to the negotiating table, but at this time, he had very little chips in his hands.
In a popular phrase, for the Chinese market, the American soybeans are “cold”.
Three conditions for Trump.
In the context of the failure of the tariffs, the three conditions proposed by Trump appear to be appealing.
These three conditions point to agriculture, public health and strategic resources respectively, and each of them accurately pokes the pain points of the Trump administration.
These three "medicines" he issued, called the settlement of the differences between China and the United States, are actually the crisis of transferring to the home of the United States.
The first condition is to demand that China restore and increase purchases of U.S. soybeans.
This is undoubtedly a “political check” issued by Trump to reassure the farm-state box office in the Midwest.
He urgently needs a large purchase order from China to prove to farmers whose interests have been damaged by the trade war that his tough strategy can ultimately pay off.
This is more like a political performance, the purpose is to consolidate his ruling foundation and accumulate capital for the next round of elections.
But the problem is that the market has its own rules. China has established a stable and reliable South American supply chain. Why should it give up its existing stable channels and take over a "political order" full of uncertainty?
China's position is clear that the root of the trade barriers lies in the unilateral unreasonable tariffs imposed by the United States, and the ringtone must also be ringtone.
The second condition requires China to effectively prevent the flow of fentanyl to the United States.
This is a classic reproduction of Trump's "throwing the pot" strategy.
The increasingly out-of-control opioid crisis in the United States, especially the proliferation of fentanyl, has morphed into a profound social disaster.
Its root lies in the huge domestic market demand, dereliction of duty drug supervision, and complex social governance problems in the United States.
The Trump administration, however, has sought to simplify and externalize this complex internal issue, depicting China as Fentanyl’s “main source” to shift the view of the domestic people and pressure of public opinion.
In fact, China has long strictly controlled fentanyl substances and has signed relevant cooperation agreements with the United States.
China is willing to jointly tackle the global drug problem on the basis of equal cooperation, but will never accept such unilateral accusations and "droppoints".
Politizing the public health crisis and using it as a code for trade negotiations itself exposes its lack of resolution.
The third condition, which is also one of the most central and most reflective of Trump’s anxiety, is that China must not “play the trick” with rare-earth exports, i.e. let go of control over rare-earth exports.
If the first two conditions still have the color of political performance and diversion of contradictions, then this third condition directly points to the "life gate" of American national security.
Rare earths, known as "industrial vitamins", are indispensable core materials for the manufacture of high-tech and military equipment such as smartphones, new energy vehicles, wind turbines and even F-35 fighter jets.
In this field, China has a complete industrial chain and absolute technological advantages from mining, separation, refining to application, and occupies a global dominant position.
Earlier, as a countermeasure to the escalating technology sanctions and export controls of the United States, China announced stricter export controls on rare earths.
This move, precisely hit on the American “seven centimeters.”
The U.S. high-tech industries and defense industries are highly dependent on China's rare earth supply, and it is impossible to establish an independent alternative supply chain in the short term.
Trump knows that once China uses rare earths as a countermeasure, the impact on the United States will be disastrous.
Therefore, he urgently hopes to force China to give up this powerful strategic "trump card" through negotiations to safeguard the industrial security of the United States and weaken China's strategic advantages.
Looking at these three conditions, it is not difficult to find that Trump's abacus is very shrewd.
He sought to use an already unattractive “dumping tariff” as a temptation in exchange for a huge concession on China’s three core interests, the failure to stabilize its political stockpile, the failure to “backpot” for domestic governance, and the removal of its industrial security threats.
This is not an equal deal at all, but an unequal claim.
In the face of this list thrown by Trump, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun gave China's rules in six words at the press conference on October 20th: "equality, respect and reciprocity".
These six words are loud and clearly reflect China’s position: The door to dialogue is open, but any negotiation must be based on equality and mutual respect, and any “chantage” conditions are unacceptable.
From the terms set by Trump and the Chinese response, there is a huge gap between the perceptions and demands of both sides.
Trump is still immersed in his “trade-style diplomacy” thinking that everything is negotiable, while China has shown stronger strategic strength and economic resilience after years of trade friction, with a greater focus on principles and long-term layout.
This negotiation is not destined to be easy.
References:
Trump lists rare earths, fentanyl and soybeans as the three major issues in Sino-US economic and trade consultations, and China responds
2025-10-20 15:38·Observer Network