NextFin news, On December 10, 2025, President Donald J. Trump of the United States will meet with General Secretary Xi Jinping of the Communist Party of China, in an eagerly anticipated summit set to take place in a currently undisclosed location. This high-stakes encounter aims to finalize a new trade deal intended to address long-standing economic frictions between the two global superpowers. According to the White House fact sheet released shortly after Trump’s recent visit to Asia on November 3, the planned agreement reportedly includes Chinese commitments to curb fentanyl exports, increase purchases of American soybeans, and grant general licenses facilitating metals exports to the U.S. The Trump administration portrays this deal as a significant step toward improved economic relations, with possible tariff adjustments and supply chain stabilization measures in the spotlight.
Despite official enthusiasm, the factual landscape remains complex. The deal echoes prior agreements in its recurring promises from China, such as curbing illegal fentanyl and boosting agricultural imports, commitments historically undermined by enforcement weaknesses. The general metal export licenses reportedly introduced do not fully lift Beijing’s ability to regulate shipments, allowing it to continue exerting economic coercion. Tariffs, aimed by President Trump principally at reducing America’s trade deficit through making Chinese goods less competitive, remain largely unaltered, with top tariffs still reportedly at 47 percent on key items like fentanyl-related products. Moreover, even as fleeting tariff cuts have been proposed or enacted, effective tariff rates vary widely due to complex exclusions, particularly in electronics—an area critical to supply chain fragility.
Chinese efforts to dominate global supply chains continue unabated. As noted by authoritative sources, China’s strategic control over intermediate goods like rare earth elements and semiconductor components enables it to wield disproportionate leverage, often weaponizing export controls, evidenced by tightened rare earth element restrictions in October 2025. The one-year export control pause that followed appears designed to enhance China's monitoring and enforcement capacity, rather than signify genuine liberalization. This dynamic exposes the vulnerability of U.S. supply chains, where dependency on Chinese raw materials and intermediate goods persists at strategic chokepoints.
Trade tensions and tariff policies are further complicated by Trump’s domestic economic strategies aiming to spur American demand, a driver of the US trade deficit. According to market analyses, this duality weakens the efficacy of tariffs as tools for deficit reduction. Tariffs aimed predominantly at deficit shrinkage may fail conceptually when internal consumption remains buoyant and imported goods still find ample demand. Strategically, tariffs would better serve as instruments to differentiate China from alternative producers by imposing higher barriers on Chinese imports, thus incentivizing supply chain diversification away from Beijing’s influence.
This nuanced approach is hampered by the U.S. government’s mixed policy signals and underwhelming legislative follow-through on supply chain resilience. Despite bipartisan acknowledgment of China’s economic coercion risks, Congress remains reluctant to endorse costlier imports from alternative suppliers, prioritizing short-term price considerations over long-term strategic security. Previous U.S. administrations, including the Biden administration before 2025, published supply chain vulnerability reports but took limited concrete actions beyond targeted semiconductor support.
President Trump has shifted towards forming partnerships with select supply chain companies, including nascent quantum computing firms, intending to bolster domestic capabilities. However, direct government involvement in picking industrial winners inherently limits scale and innovation incentives, as such interventions cannot fully offset unprofitable risks associated with reshoring critical manufacturing. The more robust strategy lies in improving the broader operating environment—through regulatory reform, tax incentives, and environmental policy adjustments tailored to critical industries vulnerable to Chinese coercion, such as fine chemicals and metals refining.
The persistent overreliance of the private sector on low-cost, China-centric supply chains exacerbates vulnerabilities. Automotive manufacturers, despite enduring a semiconductor shortage triggered by COVID-19, remain dependent on a single Chinese chip supplier, leading to production disruptions as recently reported. The pharmaceutical sector’s decision to deepen China partnerships post-pandemic reflects a similar pattern of risk tolerance that contradicts national security imperatives. Furthermore, tech industry leaders like Nvidia demonstrate complacency in acknowledging Beijing’s advancing semiconductor capabilities and competitive threat.
Cost arguments against supply diversification are increasingly less compelling. Recent semiconductor price surges for automotive components average only 40 cents more per unit, a small premium relative to disruptions avoided. Investment in alternatives, such as a $106 million rare earth processing refinery in Malaysia, presents scalable and cost-effective methods to erode China's global dominance in critical materials. Strategically applied tariffs, combined with targeted industrial policy, can catalyze this shift, countering China’s entrenched supply chain grip.
Looking forward, the Trump-Xi meeting may produce a narrowly tailored trade deal, signaling incremental progress but falling short of addressing foundational structural challenges. The continuing willingness of Beijing to deploy economic coercion, coupled with U.S. domestic policy inertia and risk-averse corporate behavior, suggests a prolonged period of economic competition with intermittent cooperation. Absent decisive shifts towards supply chain diversification, regulatory reform, and strategic tariff application focused on China, the United States risks perpetuating vulnerabilities that could be exploited amid escalating geopolitical tensions.
According to the American Enterprise Institute’s analysis, the administration’s choice to cut the fentanyl-related tariff in Seoul yet maintain broader high tariffs reflects a conflicted stance, potentially increasing China’s competitiveness rather than reducing dependency. The upcoming deal, while capturing headlines, appears more symbolic than substantive. Its success hinges on whether Washington can realign economic incentives to lessen China’s leverage in critical industries and adopt coherent industrial policies supporting resilient, diversified supply chains—steps essential for securing long-term U.S. economic and national security interests.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
