NYT: Inside uneasy ceasefire in US-China economic cold war

A fragile economic ceasefire between the United States and China, struck after two days of heated negotiations in London. With both powers lurching from escalation to de-escalation, the agreement offers a temporary reprieve from a rapidly spiraling trade conflict. 

The agreement, made in the early hours of June 11, may temporarily halt the latest round of economic attacks between the world’s two largest economies. But officials on both sides admitted that the truce is tentative. As The New York Times writresb in its analysis, it remains unclear whether the truce will hold — or crumble like one struck in May did.

Tariffs will stay in place, while only the most recent and aggressive policies will be rolled back. China is expected to ease restrictions on rare earth mineral exports — vital for American manufacturing and military hardware — while the US will scale back export limits on sensitive technology and reconsider threats to student visas. Still, no significant progress was announced on deeper trade disputes, and “those matters would be left for future discussions,” US officials said.

For many, the deal raises more questions than it answers. 

“It seems like we’re negotiating in circles,” said Myron Brilliant of the DGA-Albright Stonebridge Group. “You escalate, you de-escalate. At the end of the day we’re not really further along.”

While the Trump administration claimed victory, highlighting US countermeasures and a resilient economy, critics pointed to the lack of clear strategic gain. 

“What exactly are we getting that we weren’t already getting before?” asked Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center. “This deal suggests there was never a real plan.”

Behind closed doors, the negotiations were reportedly fraught with distrust. Two sources told NYT that the meetings “repeatedly became heated” and came close to collapse.

Still, Trump declared the agreement a success on social media, writing in capital letters that China would provide “Full magnets, and any necessary rare earths, will be supplied, up front, by China” while the US would “provide to China what was agreed to, including Chinese students using our colleges and universities.”

Analysts, however, warned of strategic miscalculations on both sides. China’s use of rare earth export restrictions forced US industry to lobby for relief, revealing how quickly the American economy and military could be impacted. On the other hand, some US export controls backfired. 

Philip Luck of CSIS noted that ethane restrictions hurt American energy companies more than Chinese buyers: “These controls fail to clear even the lowest bar for an economic weapon.”

Experts like Ilaria Mazzocco argued that Washington had underestimated Beijing’s tolerance for economic pain.

“I think what China proved is that actually it’s in a pretty strong position and it can bear a lot of pain, and perhaps actually more pain than the United States,” she said.

Wendy Cutler of the Asia Society offered a final, sobering assessment: “The United States appears to have paid a heavy price for regaining access to Chinese critical minerals and magnets.” 

By placing national-security-related export controls on the negotiating table, she warned, the US may have opened a door “that will be difficult to close.”

By Sabina Mammadli