On May 30, US President Donald Trump accused China of breaching a trade agreement, stating he will no longer act in a conciliatory manner.

On social media, he claimed, “China HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US,” though he didn’t specify which agreement.

In the Oval Office, he expressed hope for a resolution and mentioned plans to speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Trump’s tone marks a shift from recent cooperation.

Earlier, he had reduced tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30% for 90 days. China responded by lowering tariffs on US goods from 125% to 10%.

Trump said this move stabilized China’s economy and helped US companies.

.source-ref{font-size:0.85em;color:#666;display:block;margin-top:1em;}a.ask-tia-citation-link:hover{color:#11628d !important;background:#e9f6f5 !important;border-color:#11628d !important;text-decoration:none !important;}@media only screen and (min-width:768px){a.ask-tia-citation-link{font-size:11px !important;}}

🔗 Source: Associated Press

🧠 Food for thought

1️⃣ Historical patterns show trade agreements as tactical maneuvers rather than lasting solutions

The current conflict follows a recurring pattern in U.S.-China trade relations where periods of cooperation are followed by accusations of non-compliance and renewed tensions.

This pattern was evident in previous agreements like the 2017 trade deal that expanded access for U.S. beef exports and financial services but later faced implementation challenges 1.

The temporary reduction of tariffs from 145% to 30% represents a tactical pause rather than a strategic reset, similar to previous short-term arrangements that failed to address underlying structural issues 2.

Economic data shows the significant scale of what’s at stake, with bilateral trade reaching approximately $585 billion in 2024 and the U.S. running a $295 billion deficit 3.

These cycles of negotiation and confrontation reflect the fundamental challenge of reconciling two different economic systems with competing strategic interests, a tension that has defined the relationship since formal trade began in 1784 4.

2️⃣ Critical minerals have emerged as a new front in the economic competition

The dispute over critical minerals represents a strategic evolution in U.S.-China economic competition, moving beyond traditional trade imbalances to resource security.

China’s export controls on rare earth minerals and materials like gallium, germanium, and antimony directly target U.S. technology manufacturing capabilities, as noted by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer 5.

These minerals are essential components for advanced technologies including semiconductors, electric vehicles, and defense systems, making them leverage points in broader technological competition 6.

China’s dominance in processing these minerals gives it significant leverage, as demonstrated by the specific mention of critical minerals flows in the recent agreement 7.

3️⃣ Tariff volatility creates measurable economic ripple effects beyond bilateral relations

The rapid fluctuations in tariff rates, from 145% down to 30% and potentially back up again, create economic uncertainties that extend far beyond just U.S. and Chinese companies.

J.P. Morgan’s analysis shows that the temporary tariff reduction had immediately boosted China’s growth forecast to 4.8% for 2025, demonstrating the direct economic impact of these policy decisions 2.

The trade conflict has already altered global supply chains, with Chinese manufacturers rerouting exports through Southeast Asian countries to circumvent U.S. tariffs, a pattern documented in trade flow data 3.

Market reactions to Trump’s announcement demonstrate the real-time economic impact, with stock markets experiencing volatility as investors recalibrate expectations 8.

The conflict affects specific industries asymmetrically, with U.S. agricultural exports and Chinese electronics manufacturing particularly vulnerable to disruption, creating concentrated economic pain in certain sectors and regions 9.

……