Tariff tiff: President Donald Trump in a bilateral meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Photo: The Whitehouse
The economic relationship between the US and China has entered a new and more dangerous phase. What began as a trade war has hardened into deliberate separation. Washington insists that decoupling is necessary to protect national security and reduce dependence on Beijing. Yet the evidence now suggests that this strategy is inflicting greater damage on American industry than on China’s economy.
The second Trump administration has intensified tariffs and restrictions, presenting them as a patriotic defence of American jobs. But the reality is more complex. The decoupling has exposed structural weaknesses in US industry, while China has adapted with surprising speed. The result is a widening gap between political rhetoric and economic outcomes.
China’s decision in October to require government approval for exports of products containing more than 0.1 percent rare earth content was a turning point. Rare earths are critical for defence manufacturing, renewable energy and consumer electronics. American firms suddenly faced higher costs and uncertainty in sectors that Washington had hoped to shield from Chinese influence.
The policy was not a dramatic embargo. It was a subtle but effective reminder of China’s leverage. Beijing showed that it could weaponise its dominance in rare earths without resorting to outright bans. For US companies, the impact was immediate. Defence contractors reported delays, while renewable energy firms warned of rising costs. The American push to build domestic rare earth capacity remains years away from maturity. In the meantime, China retains the upper hand.
The renewed tariff regime has also backfired. Tariffs were meant to punish Chinese exporters and encourage American manufacturing. Instead, they have raised prices for US consumers and squeezed American firms that rely on Chinese inputs. Inflationary pressures have been exacerbated by supply chain disruptions.
The administration argues that these short-term costs are necessary for long-term independence. Yet the political consequences are already visible. Farmers in the Midwest complain that retaliatory tariffs have cut their access to Chinese markets. Manufacturers in the South and Midwest face higher input costs, eroding competitiveness. The promise of reshoring has not materialised at scale. Instead, companies are caught between political directives and economic realities.
China has not stood still. Far from collapsing under the weight of American pressure, Beijing has diversified its trade relationships. It has deepened ties with Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership has given China a platform to expand trade within Asia. Meanwhile, Chinese firms have accelerated investment in Africa and South America, securing new markets and resources.
This adaptation has blunted the impact of US tariffs. Chinese exports to the United States have declined but overall trade volumes have remained resilient. More importantly, China has strengthened its position in industries that Washington hoped to dominate, such as electric vehicles and renewable energy.
The irony is striking: while Washington talks of decoupling, Beijing is embedding itself more deeply in global supply chains.
Recent research highlights another dimension of the problem. Decoupling is only effective when American firms can shift production to countries that are both economically viable and politically aligned with the United States. Simply having alternative suppliers is not enough. Without political alignment, companies hesitate to move production.
This finding explains why decoupling has been uneven. In sectors where allies such as Japan or South Korea can provide alternatives, US firms have reduced reliance on China. But in industries where alternatives are limited or politically uncertain, dependence on China persists. The result is a patchwork decoupling that leaves American industry exposed.
The domestic consequences are becoming harder to ignore. American industry is bearing the brunt of higher costs, disrupted supply chains and lost markets. The rhetoric of protectionism has not translated into a revival of manufacturing. Instead, it has produced frustration among business leaders and workers alike.
The political narrative emphasises sovereignty and security. Yet the economic reality is one of diminished competitiveness. American firms are struggling to match the scale and efficiency of Chinese production. The promise of independence has turned into a burden of higher costs and reduced access to global markets.
The decoupling also carries global consequences. International trade flows have been destabilised. Inflationary pressures have spread beyond the United States. Financial markets have absorbed the shock of uncertainty, with investors wary of escalating tensions. Allies are caught in the middle, pressured to align with Washington while maintaining economic ties with Beijing.
The broader risk is that decoupling undermines the stability of the global economy. The integration of US and Chinese markets was a cornerstone of globalisation. Its unraveling threatens to fragment the international system. For countries outside the US-China rivalry, the consequences are unpredictable and potentially severe.
The evidence points to a failing strategy. Protectionism has not delivered the promised benefits. Decoupling has hurt American industry more than Beijing’s. China has adapted, diversified and strengthened its position. The United States has absorbed higher costs and lost competitiveness.
The political appeal of decoupling is clear. It offers a narrative of strength and independence. But the economic reality is stark. American industry is paying the price for a strategy that prioritises political symbolism over economic pragmatism.
The path forward is uncertain. Washington is unlikely to abandon decoupling, given its political resonance. Yet the pressure from industry and consumers will grow. The challenge is to reconcile national security concerns with economic realities. A more nuanced approach may be necessary, one that balances strategic independence with economic integration.
For now, the lesson is clear. Protectionism is failing. The attempt to decouple from China has hurt the United States more than Beijing. The rhetoric of independence has collided with the reality of interdependence. The cost is being borne not by Beijing but by American industry and consumers.
Tariffs were meant to punish Chinese exporters and encourage American manufacturing; instead, they have raised prices for US consumers.
Dr Imran Khalid is a freelance columnist on international affairs based in Karachi, Pakistan. He qualified as a physician from Dow Medical University in 1991 and has a master’s degree in international relations from Karachi University.