U.S. Treasury Signals Easing, Working-Level Dialogue Continues; China Reiterates “Fight and Talk” Stance on Tariff Dispute

Following a U.S. threat to impose a 100% tariff on Chinese goods effective November 1, U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent recently indicated that tensions have “significantly eased” and that such tariffs may not be imposed. Confronted with erratic and shifting U.S. economic measures targeting China, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Commerce reiterated on the 14th that China’s position on tariff and trade disputes remains consistent: if it leads to confrontation, China will respond resolutely; if it leads to negotiation, China’s door is open.

The Ministry of Commerce underscored that the United States cannot, on the one hand, seek talks while simultaneously threatening and implementing new restrictive measures, and on the other, expect constructive engagement with China. After the bilateral economic and trade meeting in Madrid, the two heads of state held a phone conversation on September 19 to provide strategic guidance for stabilizing the relationship, yet the U.S. proceeded to introduce additional restrictive actions, including listing numerous Chinese entities on the so‑called entity list. In response, on October 9 the Ministry of Commerce issued multiple notices implementing export controls on rare earths and related technologies and production equipment, citing the protection of national security and fulfillment of non‑proliferation obligations, after which President Trump threatened a 100% tariff on Chinese goods effective November 1.

The Commerce Ministry reiterated that export control measures on rare earths and related items are lawful steps taken to完善 China’s export control framework. As a responsible major country, China is committed to safeguarding its national security and contributing to international security; these measures do not amount to an export ban, and applications meeting regulatory requirements will continue to be approved to jointly preserve global supply‑chain security and stability. The ministry noted that China notified the United States of these measures through the bilateral export control dialogue mechanism prior to implementation and criticized U.S. practices that have broadly invoked national security and misused export controls in discriminatory ways.

The ministry emphasized that the continued imposition of U.S. restrictions following the Madrid talks has seriously harmed China’s interests and undermined the atmosphere for bilateral economic consultations, a stance China firmly opposes.

Commentary cited by international outlets observed that while bilateral relations showed signs of détente over the summer—especially after the Madrid talks and the leaders’ subsequent call—within ten days the United States significantly broadened export restrictions, a move characterized by some analysts as lacking sincerity.

U.S. media reported that the White House has been seeking signals of de‑escalation. Last Friday’s tariff threat shocked global markets and triggered sharp declines across U.S. stock indices. The Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump recently consulted with senior officials, including Secretary Bessent, on plans to signal an intent to ease U.S.‑China trade tensions. Secretary Bessent told Fox Business that a 100% tariff on Chinese goods is not necessarily certain and that negotiations in the coming weeks could avert an escalation.

International coverage highlighted the mixed messaging: initially a hardline posture was publicized, followed rapidly by conciliatory signals, revealing internal tensions within the U.S. administration over how best to manage trade relations with China. Analysts cited by The Wall Street Journal regarded the 100% tariff threat as largely posturing and difficult to implement, suggesting the U.S. objective historically has been to secure concessions rather than impose tariffs that would precipitate complete decoupling.

The Wall Street Journal further observed that while tariff threats have prompted some countries to negotiate with the U.S., China has not yielded to pressure. President Trump later remarked aboard Air Force One that he expects a deal with China, noting that “November 1 is still far off” and expressing optimism that the two sides will be fine. Market analysts at Wedbush characterized the episode as likely to be more bark than bite.

A Ministry of Commerce spokesperson confirmed that the two sides continue to communicate under the China‑U.S. economic and trade consultation mechanism and that working‑level talks occurred as recently as the previous day. The spokesperson urged the U.S. to correct its erroneous practices, demonstrate genuine willingness to negotiate, and work with China to implement the important consensus reached by the two heads of state. The spokesperson called for preservation of the progress achieved through consultations, continued use of the consultation mechanism to resolve mutual concerns through dialogue, prudent management of differences, and promotion of healthy, stable, and sustainable development of China‑U.S. economic and trade relations.