Trump left Busan declaring “total success,” but Xi left with the leverage. Behind the smiles and tariff pauses, China quietly turned the trade truce into a long game of strategic control.
Main Economic Outcomes
According to China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), both sides reached a package of reciprocal, one-year suspensions and tariff adjustments designed to calm the trade relationship and create space for further negotiation:
- U.S. tariff relief: Washington agreed to cancel the 10 percent “fentanyl tariffs”—duties imposed on Chinese chemical and pharmaceutical exports linked to the synthetic opioid crisis—and to suspend for one year the 24 percent reciprocal tariffs on a wide range of Chinese imports, including products from Hong Kong and Macao.
- Chinese response: Beijing pledged to adjust or suspend its counter-tariffs accordingly and to continue certain tariff exclusion measures, a gesture interpreted as a limited goodwill signal to American exporters.
- Technology and export controls: The U.S. will suspend for one year implementation of a rule announced on 29 September 2025, which expanded its “entity-list” restrictions to any company at least 50 percent owned by a sanctioned entity. China, in parallel, will freeze for one year its October 9 export-control measures on rare rearths, pending review.
- Industrial investigations: The U.S. will also pause enforcement of Section 301 investigations targeting China’s maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding industries. Beijing will suspend matching countermeasures once the U.S. moratorium formally takes effect.
- Other accords: Both sides agreed to cooperate on anti-drug enforcement (fentanyl), agricultural trade expansion (buying again American soybeans), and resolution of individual corporate disputes. Beijing also confirmed progress on TikTok’s regulatory treatment, while Washington acknowledged earlier investment commitments made in the Madrid economic and trade talks.
The Immediate Optics
From the U.S. perspective, Trump portrayed the Busan meeting as a triumph. Speaking aboard Air Force One, he declared a “12-out-of-10” success, highlighting tariff cuts, a “soybean breakthrough,” and what he described as “a solution on rare earths.” The White House messaging framed the summit as proof of Trump’s negotiating prowess—restoring fairness while keeping China “in check.”
Beijing’s reaction could not have been more different. The official statements were sparse and calm: “China and the U.S. are ready to prosper together,” read the brief line from Xinhua. There was no confirmation of any rare-earth concession. Xi Jinping’s tone suggested deliberation, patience, and the pursuit of stability rather than concession.
The Hidden Core: Rare Earths and Strategic Minerals
Behind the diplomatic choreography lies the real battlefield: strategic minerals.
China refines over 90 percent of the world’s rare earth elements, essential for high-tech manufacturing—from smartphones and wind turbines to missile guidance systems. In September 2025, shortly before the summit, Beijing introduced new licensing rules that require export authorisation for all processed and enriched rare earth materials on “national security” grounds.
This rule effectively gives Beijing the ability to turn the global supply chain into a “pressure chain.” Even if rare earths are mined in Australia or Africa, they are almost always refined in China. The U.S. defence industry is especially exposed: each F-35 fighter jet requires roughly 450 kilograms of rare earth components. Without Chinese supply, production costs and timelines would soar.
Trump’s claim that the rare-earth issue was “resolved” is therefore viewed as politically useful but factually a groundless claim. The Chinese export-licensing decree remains intact, and no U.S. confirmation of concessions has been issued. Beijing’s leverage endures.
Political Timing and Domestic Calculus
From Beijing’s perspective, the one-year suspension period buys time. China understands that the U.S. political calendar, with midterm elections and early campaign moves, creates pressure for visible economic relief.
Tariff suspensions reduce U.S. import prices and ease inflationary concerns, helping Trump politically. For China, these are reversible concessions that can be reinstated if relations sour again.
The calculus reflects an asymmetry of pace: Trump needs a headline; Xi needs strategic continuity.
Thus, the summit resembles a temporary armistice: tactical relief for both economies without altering the structural rivalry.
Broader Economic and Geopolitical Implications
- Trade stabilisation: The suspension of tariffs and export controls offers short-term predictability to firms in logistics, maritime, and high-tech sectors. Markets responded cautiously but positively.
- Global South outreach: Analysts note that Beijing will simultaneously deepen trade ties with ASEAN, Africa, and Latin America, expanding Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) to reduce U.S. pressure.
- Technological self-reliance: China’s new Five-Year Plan (2026–2030) emphasises self-sufficiency in technology and “high-quality development,” signalling further reduction of U.S. tech imports and accelerated domestic innovation.
- Strategic ambiguity: Xi Jinping’s careful rhetoric (mutual prosperity, cooperation, respect) projects calm leadership and positions China as a responsible stabiliser amid Western volatility.
- Rare-earth dominance as leverage: The supply-chain “valve” remains in Beijing’s hands, underlining China’s capacity to transform trade interdependence into strategic influence.
A Summit of Contrasts
The Busan meeting revealed two distinct political cultures:
-The American theatrical presidency, eager for fast, quantifiable wins and televised success.
-The Chinese civilizational statecraft is quiet, incremental, and decades-long in perspective.
Trump’s performative diplomacy generated attention but few irreversible achievements. Xi’s silence, by contrast, achieved the opposite: he conceded little yet appeared cooperative.
Strategic Assessment
In essence, the Busan Summit produced a one-year tactical cease-fire in the trade war, not a peace treaty. It restored dialogue, reduced tariff tension, and improved short-term business sentiment but left core disputes unresolved: (i) Technology decoupling and export controls; (ii) U.S. alliance-building around critical minerals (with Australia, Japan, and India); and (iii) Security issues over Taiwan, the South China Sea, and cyber espionage.
As one analyst summarised, Trump left with applause; Xi left with leverage.
As broader consequences of the summit, I would point out three points:
-The U.S. remains heavily dependent on Chinese industrial inputs, while China continues to dominate mid-stream manufacturing.
-Beijing has shown it can modulate global markets without open confrontation.
-The brief détente may help both leaders at home, Trump to claim victory, Xi to secure stability, but the underlying rivalry persists.
Conclusion
The Trump–Xi Summit in Busan stands as a study in diplomatic asymmetry. Trump declared victory; Xi quietly consolidated control. The United States gains a pause in tariff escalation, modest trade relief, and domestic political optics. China gains time, leverage, and continued dominance in strategic minerals.
If 2018 marked the opening of the trade war, 2025 may mark the start of its managed coexistence: a truce dictated not by trust, but by necessity.
Ricardo Martins—Doctor of Sociology, specialist in European and international politics as well as geopolitics
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
