The U.S.-China trade war has moved beyond headline tariffs into a battle over leverage, supply chains and rare resources, and Beijing is nudging the pace while Washington responds. President Trump will face Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in Busan, with both sides juggling economic pressure and political theater. This standoff will test whether the United States can reset the terms of engagement or continue reacting to Chinese moves.
Trump has made economic muscle a centerpiece of his return to the White House, and he’s using tariffs and trade policy to force a reset. That strategy is meant to protect American industry and send a clear signal that the U.S. will not accept unfair practices or compromised technology leadership. The Busan meeting is a moment to translate rhetoric into practical pressure that strengthens U.S. leverage.
Beijing, meanwhile, isn’t standing still; it is refining non-tariff measures like export controls, limits on critical minerals, and tighter control over supply chains. Those tools are designed to shape global markets quietly and to exploit areas where the U.S. depends on foreign inputs. The result is a chess match where Beijing chooses tempo and Washington often ends up moving in response.
Experts warn Beijing has more unilateral levers than many realize. “There are a lot of arrows in the Chinese quiver,” Bryan Burack, a senior policy advisor for China and the Indo-Pacific at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital. “The fact of the matter is that they can literally make more moves than we can. They have more coercive tools to use against us, and they can deploy them easier,” Burack added, pointing to U.S. industrial dependencies.
“China has been decoupling from us for a long time,” Burack said. “So a lot of these moves that look like retaliation are really part of Xi Jinping’s long-standing effort to sever dependence on the United States and build self-reliance on critical technologies. Unfortunately, the only way for us to respond is to do the same and that process is painful and excruciating,” he added.
Not everyone buys the narrative that China holds a decisive advantage, and some conservative analysts caution against underestimating American resilience. “It is the most important bilateral relationship. It’s the most important geopolitical relationship,” Packard said. “But policymakers in the United States are overestimating China’s economic strength. Beijing believes global power is tilting its way, but that kind of defeatism in Washington is overdone. China’s economy isn’t nearly as strong as many people think.”
There are real fault lines in Beijing’s economic model that Washington should exploit rather than ignore. Heavy reliance on export-driven manufacturing and underperforming domestic consumption make China vulnerable to coordinated pressure, and allies across Asia and beyond are receptive to alternatives that reduce dependence. A strategy that pairs targeted domestic investment with diplomatic unity will have more bite than unilateral measures alone.
Experienced watchers expect both leaders to pursue a temporary de-escalation aimed at stability rather than sweeping concessions. “Both sides are seeking a period of stability in the relationship,” said Levin, a former deputy China coordinator at the State Department. “They may reach a limited arrangement, but on whose terms remain to be seen. China is confident it has the upper hand in the trade war and the broader relationship, so Beijing will be reluctant to make meaningful concessions without getting much more in return.”
Levin highlights a key Republican priority: build stronger, clearer alliances in the region to amplify U.S. bargaining power. “What would really strengthen the U.S. hand is deepening partnerships, especially in Asia. Creating a common front against Chinese aggression and unfair trade practices, rather than trying to confront China and its allies at the same time.”
Beyond alliances, Washington must reclaim the narrative and the initiative in trade policy. “The U.S. would be better off setting the terms of the relationship rather than merely reacting,” she said. “It feels like we may have lost the plot in our diplomacy with China and have lost sight of the structural economic issues the trade war was originally meant to address.”
That line of thinking should inform practical steps: accelerate domestic manufacturing, secure critical mineral supplies with partner nations, and keep the pressure on bad actors through coordinated sanctions and export rules. If the U.S. can align policy, industry and diplomacy, it can force China to bargain on terms that safeguard American interests and technology leadership without ceding the initiative.
