Highlights

• China leveraged its control over rare earth elements to extract concessions during 2025 trade talks.
• Despite apparent victory, China's economic interdependence and global supply chain vulnerabilities remain significant.
• The 'win' was more a tactical recalibration than a strategic triumph, with ongoing global mineral competition.

---

Were there six ways China beat Trump—or six ways to spin it?

Aditya Sinha’s opinion piece (opens in a new tab) via Indian media  NDTV—_“Six Ways China Beat Trump at Trade Negotiations”_—delivers a punchy pro-Beijing narrative on rare earth geopolitics, but behind the polished prose is a heavy dose of strategic exaggeration and unexamined assumptions. While the article accurately highlights China’s rare earth leverage and export control reforms, it reads more like a victory lap than a balanced assessment of ongoing and unresolved global competition in the critical minerals space.

What’s Grounded in Reality: The Rare Earth Chokepoint

Sinha correctly underscores China’s grip on heavy rare earth elements like dysprosium and samarium—vital to EV motors, missile guidance, and next-gen electronics. Beijing has, over the past decade, cracked down on illegal mining, centralized control, and layered export licensing under its 2020 Export Control Law. These moves undeniably gave China potent leverage in the 2025 trade talks. Washington, facing urgent shortfalls, was forced to prioritize reopening rare earth flows. That’s not speculation—it’s the kind of realpolitik Rare Earth Exchanges has tracked for years.

Spin Alert: Tactical Concessions Posed as Strategic Triumph

Where the piece falters is in framing the June 2025 agreement as a Chinese triumph. The “deal” saw China resume rare earth magnet exports—after months of self-imposed restrictions that hurt its own industry—and Trump suspend select tariffs. That’s not a win so much as a recalibration. Moreover, China’s gesture of resuming supply to U.S. defense contractors came with vague commitments and no structural shift in the balance of production. As of July, over 90% of permanent magnets are still made in China. That’s not new leverage—it’s old dependency.

Hyperbole Watch: "No Longer Dependent on Imports"

The biggest red flag? Sinha’s assertion that China is now insulated from U.S. pressure because “it no longer needs to import as much.” This is deeply misleading. China imports massive quantities of copper, lithium, cobalt, and even rare earth concentrates. Its economy remains highly integrated with global supply chains—strategic insulation is a myth. The line “China’s vision of trade is exporting without importing” makes for a sharp quote, but it doesn’t reflect economic reality.

Bottom Line: Beijing’s Leverage is Real—but So Is the Risk

Sinha’s column captures how China used surgical rare earth restrictions to extract concessions. However, it overlooks the costs to its own exporters, the global backlash brewing, and the continued vulnerability of both parties to supply chain disruptions. India—and investors—should take note: the lesson isn’t that China “won,” but that critical mineral leverage is fleeting if overplayed.