日前，特朗普在国会联席会议上发表了美国历史上时间最长的国情咨文演说，108分钟的长篇大论中，这位向来言辞犀利、爱拿中国"说事"的美国总统，展 现出罕见克制——全程几乎避谈中国，这种反常背后有什么算计？ 这场接近2小时的演讲中，特朗普用大量篇幅聚焦贸易与关税，大谈自身"贸易成就"，却始终未敢点名中国，转而将矛头指向所有国家，强调"哪怕最高法院 判定对等关税违宪，所有国家也必须遵守与美国达成的贸易协议"。 他逐一列举过去一年通过关税威胁达成的协议，涉及日本、欧盟、印度等多个国家和地区，唯独少了以往视为"主要目标"的中国。 特朗普对中国选择性沉默，核心是清楚中国是唯一面对关税压力，始终保持高度战略定力、坚持对等反制的大国，其"极限施压、速战速决"的套路在中国制 造面前彻底失灵。 但中国的坚守，让其"胜利宣言"显得苍白。与其他国家妥协不同，中国始终坚守底线，通过制度性反制、科技自主创新增强竞争力，让美国关税武器逐渐失 效。 此前，特朗普政府多次对华加征关税，涉及商品总额达数千亿美元，妄图迫使中国签署"城下之盟"，但中国从未退缩，既采取对等反制，精准打击美国农民 等特朗普"铁杆支持者"，又通过供应链调整、扩大对外开放， ...

近日，白宫高调官宣特朗普将于3月31日至4月2日访华，试图延续此前的强硬姿态，以关税大棒作为谈判筹码，为美国争取更多利益，同时为年底中期选举 积累政治资本。 但没人预料到，短短不到24小时，美国最高法院的一纸裁决，便将这份"底气"击得粉碎，让特朗普的访华之行从"主动施压"彻底陷入"被动困局"。 专机还没上，后院起火了 一场精心筹备的访华大戏，尚未拉开帷幕便遭遇致命一击。 2月20日，美国联邦最高法院以6:3的压倒性票数，裁定特朗普政府依赖的关税政策违法，彻底否定了其单方面加征关税的合法性。 裁决书明确指出，特朗普滥用了1977年颁布的《国际紧急经济权力法》，该法律从未授权总统可随意对他国加征关税，这意味着他此前挥舞的关税大棒，从 根本上失去了法律支撑。 这场裁决的影响远超想象。此前，特朗普将关税视为贸易谈判的"核武器"，不仅对中国加征最高达145%的综合关税，还将这一手段用于应对墨西哥移民、 欧盟飞机补贴等各类问题，靠着这张王牌在国际谈判中步步紧逼。 据统计，截至2026年2月，美国政府通过该违法政策强征的关税已高达1600亿美元，如今裁决生效，这些收入不仅面临返还压力，还将引发美国进口商的大 规模索赔，成为 ...

日本经济新闻社与金融时报2015年11月合并为同一家媒体集团。同样于19世纪创刊的日本和英国的两家 报社形成的同盟正以"高品质、最强大的经济新闻学"为旗帜，推进共同特辑等广泛领域的协作。此次， 作为其中的一环，两家报社的中文网之间实现文章互换。 编者荐语： 以下文章来源于FT中文网 ，作者裘菊 2025年，中美贸易关系在高关税和频繁博弈中剧烈震荡，中国制造业由此经历了一场史无前 例的"压力测试"。与此前的周期性下行不同，本轮冲击并非主要源于内生需求不足，而是高 度集中体现为外部冲击及其带来的不确定的放大效应。 本文通过梳理制造业PMI、PPI等核心宏观指标在2025年的动态变化，并将其与中美关税博 弈的关键时间节点相对照，力图还原中国制造在冲击下的真实运行轨迹，评估其对产业链不 同环节的结构性影响，并在此基础上对2026年制造业修复前景做出初步判断。 阅读更多内容请点击下方"阅读原文" （本文由FT中文网提供） 2025年贸易博弈通过反复拉锯所强化的不确定性，放大了企业决策和经营行为的顺 周期特征，进而加剧了价格下行压力与利润空间压缩。 文丨裘菊 FT中文网 . 英国《金融时报》集团旗下唯一的中文商业财经网站 ...

Core Insights - The article discusses China's fulfillment of its commitment to purchase 12 million tons of U.S. soybeans within three months after the phase one trade truce agreement reached in October 2025, highlighting the strategic significance of this transaction [1][3][6] Group 1: Trade Relations - China has actively lowered soybean import tariffs and lifted restrictions on certain U.S. suppliers to facilitate the soybean imports, demonstrating a calculated approach to international trade [1][3] - The U.S. soybean market share in China dropped from 21% in 2024 to 15% due to China's temporary shift to sourcing from Brazil and Argentina, indicating a strategic pivot in China's agricultural imports [1] - The 12 million tons of soybean procurement is not merely a commercial transaction but serves as a strategic buffer in the global economic landscape, reinforcing China's commitment to international cooperation [3][6] Group 2: Political Context - U.S. Senator Mullin's comments on China's compliance being a result of U.S. pressure reflect a misunderstanding of China's energy security and are seen as political posturing rather than a factual analysis [1][3] - The article critiques the U.S. strategy of linking economic issues with geopolitical maneuvers, suggesting that military threats are being used to compensate for economic disadvantages [3][6] - The narrative of U.S. encirclement of China is portrayed as a self-soothing mechanism within U.S. political circles, lacking a basis in the realities of trade dynamics [3][6] Group 3: Strategic Implications - China's actions in fulfilling its soybean purchase commitment are framed as a rational exercise of power, maintaining its credibility in international trade while diversifying its food sources [3][6] - The article emphasizes that the future of U.S.-China relations should focus on equality, respect, and mutual benefit, rather than being influenced by political rhetoric [6]

Group 1 - The U.S. has imposed a 25% tariff on advanced AI chips, including the newly approved Nvidia H200 chip, as part of a strategy to leverage its technological advantage over China [3] - The U.S. Customs data indicates that tariff revenue reached a record high of $264 billion in fiscal year 2025, an increase of $185 billion from 2024, suggesting a significant financial benefit for the U.S. government [4] - Trump's administration aims to pressure China through tariffs while simultaneously relaxing chip export restrictions, indicating a dual strategy of coercion and incentive [6][9] Group 2 - China has responded to U.S. pressures by accelerating its self-reliance initiatives, including significant sales of U.S. Treasury bonds to reduce dependency on American financial markets [8] - The Chinese government is focusing on developing domestic AI chip technology and diversifying energy import channels to enhance its economic security and resilience against external pressures [8] - The ongoing U.S.-China tensions highlight a strategic adjustment by China, which is determined to maintain its development trajectory despite U.S. attempts to influence its policies [9]

Group 1 - The core issue of the US-China trade friction is whether the US will continue to impose tariffs until China concedes, especially with Trump's potential return to power in 2025 [1] - Trump's administration initially implemented tariffs on multiple countries, including China, claiming it was to protect domestic industries, with tariffs on China reaching a total of 20% by March 2025 [3] - Despite the US imposing tariffs, American companies faced rising costs and inflation, while China's export structure adapted, leading to a trade surplus exceeding one trillion dollars by November 2025 [4] Group 2 - The EU, particularly France, has warned about the sustainability of China's trade surplus model and is considering imposing tariffs, yet China's exports remain robust, impacting global logistics [6] - Trump's plans to impose high tariffs on Chinese semiconductors were postponed due to concerns over the global chip supply chain, while tariffs on other countries were raised to as high as 50% [6] - The US labor market showed signs of weakness, with non-farm employment growth significantly below expectations, contrasting with China's strong manufacturing sector [8] Group 3 - The tightening of rare earth export controls has exacerbated supply chain issues for US companies, particularly in defense, highlighting the dependency on Chinese components [10] - The ongoing tariff war has pushed the US economy towards recession, with stagnant consumer spending and declining employment, while China's trade surplus continues to grow [12] - Mexico has begun to impose tariffs on Chinese goods, following Trump's strategy, but the global trade model remains difficult to establish [12] Group 4 - The current situation indicates that China is unwilling to concede, while the US is hesitant to escalate tariffs further, reflecting the complexities of the trade relationship [14] - Trump's initial goal of curbing China's influence to revive US manufacturing faces challenges, including supply chain issues and a lack of skilled labor [14]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing trade dynamics between China and the United States regarding rare earth elements, highlighting that while China has resumed exports of processed rare earth products to the U.S., it continues to restrict the export of key rare earth elements essential for high-end manufacturing and defense applications [1][19]. Group 1: Rare Earth Elements vs. Processed Products - Rare earth elements are a group of 17 unique elements known for their scarcity and difficulty in extraction, while processed rare earth products are the end or semi-finished materials created through various refining and synthesis processes [3][5]. - High-performance rare earth permanent magnets, which are critical in modern industrial applications, particularly in defense and high-end manufacturing, rely on specific rare earth elements like neodymium and praseodymium [7][11]. Group 2: Impact on U.S. Defense Industry - The U.S. defense sector heavily relies on high-performance rare earth permanent magnets for various applications, including advanced military equipment like the F-35 fighter jet, where the absence of these materials could hinder production [9][19]. - The U.S. Department of Defense has previously indicated that shortages of rare earth elements pose potential risks to missile production, with current stockpiles only sufficient for a few months [17][19]. Group 3: China's Strategic Export Restrictions - China's decision to maintain export restrictions on key rare earth elements is a targeted strategy aimed at the vulnerabilities within the U.S. industrial chain, particularly affecting the production of high-performance, high-temperature magnets used in advanced military equipment [13][15]. - Despite the resumption of processed rare earth product exports, U.S. companies that depend on elements like dysprosium find themselves unable to meet core production needs for high-end equipment [21][29]. Group 4: U.S. Efforts to Rebuild Supply Chain - The U.S. has attempted to restructure its rare earth supply chain by forming partnerships with countries like Australia and Malaysia, but these efforts have yet to yield tangible results [24]. - The U.S. Geological Survey has identified China's dominance in the rare earth sector as a potential threat to U.S. national security, prompting the government to support domestic rare earth companies through tax incentives and direct investments [26][28]. Group 5: Conclusion on Trade Dynamics - China's approach in this trade scenario serves as a new model for global mineral trade negotiations, balancing its core interests while leaving room for cooperation, complicating the U.S. position in the ongoing trade conflict [30].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the recent incidents involving smuggling of antimony ingots and the cancellation of a significant wheat order from the U.S. to China, indicating a shift in China's approach to resource management and trade relations with the U.S. [1][9] Group 1: Smuggling Incident - A total of 166 tons of antimony ingots were identified in a smuggling case at the Shenzhen port, with 96 tons recovered and 27 individuals facing legal consequences [3][5] - The smuggling operation involved a network that exploited loopholes in export regulations, indicating a well-organized effort rather than isolated incidents [3][5] - The case serves as a warning to foreign entities attempting to bypass China's resource controls, emphasizing that illegal routes for obtaining rare metals are not sustainable [7][18] Group 2: Trade Relations with the U.S. - The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported the cancellation of a 132,000-ton wheat order to China, reflecting the economic repercussions of U.S. military sales to Taiwan [9][11] - The military sales, including a recent $7 billion deal, are seen as a destabilizing factor in U.S.-China relations, with potential long-term costs for U.S. agricultural exports [11][12] - China's response to U.S. actions indicates a strategic approach to trade, where military provocations may lead to economic consequences, such as reduced agricultural orders [14][20] Group 3: Resource Management Strategy - China's management of rare metals has evolved, with a focus on balancing export controls and allowing certain companies to participate in international trade under regulated conditions [18][20] - The recent smuggling case and the recovery of antimony highlight China's commitment to maintaining control over strategic resources while addressing internal violations [5][18] - The article suggests that China's approach to trade and resource management is becoming more nuanced, with a focus on leveraging specific incidents to communicate its stance to the U.S. [22]

Group 1 - The core viewpoint is that Trump's approach to China has failed due to its blind, emotional, and strategically deficient nature, as highlighted by former National Security Advisor Sullivan [1] - Trump's imposition of a 145% tariff on Chinese goods is seen as an irrational move that ignored the reality of China's precise countermeasures [3][5] - China's response to U.S. tariffs included export controls on rare earth elements and listing U.S. companies as unreliable, effectively targeting U.S. vulnerabilities [5][11] Group 2 - The U.S. stock market reacted negatively to the initial tariff increase, with the Dow Jones index dropping nearly 1,800 points over three days [5] - The U.S. government had to make concessions, agreeing to reduce tariffs by 115% in a framework agreement, indicating a recognition of the reality of the situation [7] - Sullivan criticized Trump's willingness to relax semiconductor export controls, viewing it as a significant weakening of U.S. technological advantages [7][9] Group 3 - The article emphasizes that the U.S. can no longer rely on outdated tactics of intimidation and negotiation, as China has evolved into a formidable competitor [11][15] - The narrative suggests that China's strategic preparation and ability to counteract U.S. moves have positioned it as a key player in global governance and supply chains [15] - Trump's failure is attributed to a miscalculation of China's resilience and an overreliance on his negotiation style, which is no longer effective against a major power like China [15]

Group 1: Overview of the Procurement Agreement - A significant trade agreement was reached post the October 2025 summit between the US and China, where China committed to purchasing 12 million tons of US soybeans by the end of 2025 and a guaranteed annual purchase of 25 million tons over the next three years, totaling 87 million tons [1] - The procurement actions commenced from November 17 to 19, 2025, with Chinese buyers purchasing approximately 1.6 million tons of US soybeans, marking the highest weekly purchase since November 2023 [1] Group 2: Adjustments and Logistics Challenges - By the end of November, China had only procured about 2 million tons of US soybeans, achieving only 16% of the target, leading to a decision to postpone part of the 12 million tons target to 2026 [2] - The adjustment reflects a pragmatic approach from both sides to avoid supply chain disruptions while fulfilling political commitments [2] Group 3: Price Disparities and Market Mechanisms - US soybeans face a significant price disadvantage, with costs around 4,419-4,465 RMB/ton compared to Brazilian soybeans at approximately 3,817 RMB/ton, creating a price gap of 600-650 RMB/ton [3] - The price disadvantage is primarily due to the 13% import tariff on US soybeans, while Brazilian soybeans incur only a 3% tariff, impacting the speed of commercial procurement [3] Group 4: Geopolitical Dynamics - The US government's push for the soybean agreement is driven by domestic political considerations, as agricultural states are crucial for Trump's electoral prospects [4] - China is using soybean procurement as a diplomatic tool, recently suspending imports from five Brazilian exporters due to quality issues, signaling flexibility in supplier choices [5] Group 5: Global Supply Chain Restructuring - Despite recent purchases from the US, Brazil remains China's primary soybean supplier, with exports to China expected to exceed 100 million tons in 2025 [7] - China's soybean import structure has fundamentally changed, with imports reaching 95.67 million tons from January to September 2025, where Brazil accounted for about 70% [8] Group 6: Future Outlook - The implementation of the 87 million tons procurement agreement faces challenges, including price disparities and logistical bottlenecks, with only 2 million tons confirmed by late November [9] - The soybean trade will reflect the broader US-China trade relationship, with potential tariff reductions influencing commercial procurement dynamics [10] Group 7: Conclusion - The soybean procurement agreement represents a strategic negotiation between the two economic powers, ensuring short-term supply chain stability while enhancing China's international image [11] - The normalization of soybean trade indicates a new state of US-China relations, characterized by seeking cooperation amidst competition [12]