A file image of U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi during a press conference on the sidelines of the National People’s Congress (NPC), in Beijing, China on March 8, 2026.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. File
| Photo Credit: AFP

U.S. Treasury ‍Secretary Scott Bessent will urge Group of Seven nations and others to step up their efforts to reduce reliance ​on critical minerals from China when he hosts a dozen top finance officials ‌on Monday (January 12, 2026), a senior U.S. official said.

The meeting, which kicks off with a ​dinner on Sunday (January 11) evening, will include Finance Ministers or Cabinet Ministers from the G7 advanced economies, the European Union, Australia, India, South Korea and Mexico, said the official who was not authorised to speak publicly.

Together, the grouping accounts for 60% of global demand for critical minerals.

“Urgency is the theme of the day. It’s a very big undertaking. There’s a lot of different angles, a lot of different countries involved and we really just need to move faster,” the official said.

Bessent on ​Friday (January 9) told Reuters that he had been pressing for a separate meeting on the ⁠issue since a G7 leaders summit in Canada in June, where he delivered a rare earths presentation to gathered heads of state from the U.S., Britain, Japan, Canada, Germany, France, Italy and the European Union.

​Magnetic moment: On India and rare earth elements

Leaders agreed to an action ​plan at the summit to secure their ⁠supply chains and boost their economies, but Bessent has grown frustrated about the lack of urgency demonstrated by attendees, the official said.

Aside from Japan, which took action after China abruptly cut off its critical minerals supplies in 2010, G7 members remain heavily dependent on critical minerals from ‌China, which has threatened to impose strict export controls.

China dominates the critical minerals supply ‌chain, refining between 47% and 87% of copper, lithium, cobalt, graphite and rare earths, according to the International Energy Agency. These minerals are used in defense technologies, ‍semiconductors, renewable energy components, batteries and refining processes.

The U.S. is expected to issue a statement after the meeting, but no specific joint action is likely, the official added.

U.S. urges others to follow lead

“The United States is in the posture of calling everyone together, showing leadership, sharing what we have in mind going forward,” said the official. “We’re ready to move with those who feel a similar level of urgency..and others can join as they come to the realisation of how serious this is.”

The official gave no details on what further steps were planned by the Trump administration, which is pushing forward to boost domestic production and reduce reliance on China through agreements with Australia, Ukraine and other producers.

The U.S. signed an agreement with Australia in October aimed at countering China’s dominance in ⁠critical minerals that includes an $8.5 billion project pipeline. The deal leverages Australia’s proposed strategic reserve, which will supply metals like rare earths and lithium that are vulnerable to ​disruption.

The official said there had been progress, but more work was needed. “It’s not solved,” they added.

Canberra has ⁠said it has subsequently received interest from Europe, Japan, South Korea and Singapore.

Monday’s (January 12) meeting comes days after reports that China had begun restricting exports to Japanese companies of rare earths and powerful magnets containing them, as well as banning exports of dual-use items to the Japanese military.

The meeting was planned well before that action, U.S. officials said. China was ⁠still living up to its commitments to purchase U.S. soybeans and ship critical minerals to U.S. firms.

Published – January 11, 2026 07:47 pm IST

President Donald Trump, left, shakes hands with China’s President Xi Jinping during a meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan, June 29, 2019.
| Photo Credit: AP

Donald Trump has followed through on his promise to wield the United States’s vast economic weight to hit back at China for its alleged unfair trade practices and role in America’s deadly fentanyl crisis.

The president said Saturday that Chinese exports to the United States would be subject to an additional 10 percent tariff in addition to the various rates of duties they already face.

China hit back on Sunday, saying it “firmly opposes” the move and would take “corresponding countermeasures to resolutely safeguard” its interests.

Here’s where the China-US trade relationship stands:

How much trade is at stake?

Trade between China and the United States — the world’s two largest economies — is vast, totalling more than $530 billion in the first 11 months of 2024, according to Washington.

Over that same period, sales of Chinese goods to the United States totalled more than $400 billion, second only to Mexico.

According to the Peterson Institute of International Economics (PIIE), China is the dominant supplier of goods from electronics and electrical machinery to textiles and clothing. 

But a yawning trade imbalance — $270.4 billion for January to November last year — has long raised hackles in Washington.

So has China’s vast state support for its industries, sparking accusations of dumping, as well as its perceived mistreatment of US firms operating in its territory.

But China’s economy remains heavily reliant on exports to drive growth despite official efforts to raise domestic consumption — making its leaders reluctant to change the status quo.

What happened during Trump’s first term?

Trump stormed into the White House in 2016 vowing to get even with China, launching a trade war that slapped significant tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese goods.

China responded with retaliatory tariffs on US products — particularly affecting American farmers.

Key US demands were greater access to China’s markets, broad reform of a business playing field that heavily favours Chinese firms, and a loosening of heavy state control by Beijing.

After long, fraught negotiations the two sides agreed what became known as the “phase one” trade deal — a ceasefire in the nearly two-year-old trade war.

Under that agreement, Beijing agreed to import $200 billion worth of US goods, including $32 billion in farm products and seafood.

But in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic and a US recession, analysts say Beijing fell well short of that commitment.

“In the end, China bought only 58 percent of the US exports it had committed to purchase under the agreement, not even enough to reach its import levels from before the trade war,” PIIE’S Chad P Brown wrote.

“Put differently, China bought none of the additional $200 billion of exports Trump’s deal had promised.”

How did things change under Biden?

Trump’s successor Joe Biden did not roll back increases imposed by his predecessor, but took a more targeted approach when it came to tariff hikes.

Under Biden, Washington expanded efforts to curb exports of state-of-the-art chips to China — part of a broader effort to prevent sensitive US technologies being used in Beijing’s military arsenal.

His administration also used tariffs to take aim at what it called China’s “industrial overcapacity” — fears the country’s industrial subsidies for green energy, cars and batteries could flood global markets with cheap goods.

Last May, Biden ordered tariffs on $18 billion worth of imports from China, accusing Beijing of “cheating” rather than competing.

Under the hikes, tariffs on electric vehicles quadrupled to 100 percent, while the tariff for semiconductors surged from 25 percent to 50 percent.

The measures also targeted strategic sectors such as batteries, critical minerals and medical products.

Both sides have also launched investigations into the others’ alleged unfair trade practices with probes into dumping and state subsidies.

What happens next?

Trump’s announcement on Saturday showed his long-threatened tariff hikes were serious and not an opening gambit in negotiations.

The mercurial magnate has also tied tariffs to the fate of Chinese-owned social media app TikTok — warning of retaliation if a deal cannot be struck to sell it.

But Beijing’s strong riposte has left little doubt that it will push back against measures it has long viewed as unfair.

The Chinese commerce ministry has vowed “corresponding countermeasures to resolutely safeguard our own rights and interests”, without saying what form they will take.

It has also said it will take its case against Trump’s tariffs to the World Trade Organization, though that is unlikely to bring change in the short term.

More immediate is the threat by Beijing’s foreign ministry that the duties “will inevitably affect and damage future bilateral cooperation on drug control”.

That casts a new shadow over counternarcotics talks that resumed after Biden met Chinese President Xi Jinping in San Francisco in 2023.

A US-China working group later said it would step up regulation of three key fentanyl precursors, though it is not clear how much success has been achieved.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Donald Trump has a knack of antagonising and confusing China. During his first presidential campaign, he accused China of “raping” the US through unfair trade practices. But later in his first term as US president, Trump also called Chinese president Xi Jinping a “good friend”.

Throughout the 2024 presidential campaign Trump suggested he would be tough on China in a second term, and days away from becoming president nothing looks likely to change.

Trump has suggested he could raise tariffs on all Chinese goods up to 60%, and is likely to appoint Marco Rubio as secretary of state and Mark Waltz as national security adviser. Both are “China hawks” who believe that Washington should toughen its stance against Beijing, and view China as a national security threat to the US.

Beijing has tried preparing for a tougher US climate, which may explain why it has increased trade with south-east Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East in recent years. Therefore, China may be looking to engage the west, at least the non-US part of it, for a range of economic, political and security reasons.

The Chinese government could see Ottawa as a solution to help meet China’s energy needs, as Canada is rich in oil, coal and iron. It could even warm up to Canberra, as Australia has abundant lithium, which is crucial for making electric vehicles.

Ultimately though, China might need to maintain ties and improve its relationship with the EU. The EU holds the distinction of being China’s second largest trading partner, and exports to the EU have soared in the past few years. This occurred as Beijing pivoted away from manufacturing the “old three” exports –- household appliances, furniture and clothing – to the tech-intensive “new three”, in electric vehicles, lithium-ion batteries and solar cells.

CHINA’S NEW PRODUCTS

Since the “new three” represent an important component in China’s economic growth, the EU, as a significant consumer of such products, represents a crucial market for China. Nonetheless, the EU is not an easy win for China.

Brussels has accused Beijing of unfairly subsidising Chinese electric vehicle firms and has imposed tariffs of up to 45.3% on these goods since late October 2024. But China may have substantial room to smooth relations with the European bloc, and there are signs that this is happening. However, the recent row over China’s potential involvement with anchor dragging in the Baltic Sea to damage communication cables will not have helped matters.

Fortunately for China, the EU is not a united front. Voting patterns on tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles in 2024 reveal an interesting fact: ten nations supported them, five were against and 12 abstained.

Potentially, Beijing could sway detractors and fence-sitters in Brussels by lowering barriers to entry for EU firms coming into the Chinese market, and reduce subsidies for Chinese firms competing in Europe.

China has a partnership of “no limits” with Russia, and this has proven to be a concern for the west, and particularly Europe. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Nato declared that: “The People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values.”

Growing concerns over China’s activities in Europe and Asia may have prompted Nato to invite Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea (known as the Asia Pacific 4 or AP4), to Nato’s June 2022 summit. While European officials have dismissed a formal alliance between Nato and Asian states, there are increasingly frequent discussions and meetings between both sides.

Beijing could help alleviate western fears that China is a security threat by resolving one of Europe’s thorniest geopolitical issues: the Ukraine-Russia war, although that is looking unlikely. However, an attempt to help create a peace deal could lessen western perception of the “Chinese threat”.

ENGAGING WITH THE US

China will continue to engage with the US. Aside from being the third largest trading partner with China after the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) and the EU, the western superpower remains a technological, economic and military powerhouse.

Former US president John F. Kennedy once wrote: “When written in Chinese, the word “crisis” is composed of two characters – one represents danger and one represents opportunity.“ If China plays its cards right, the danger that Trump appears to represent to its economy might not be as significant as first thought. Trump, after all, is not always predictable.

(Author: Chee Meng Tan, Assistant Professor of Business Economics, University of Nottingham)

(Disclosure Statement: Chee Meng Tan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment)

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington DC:

The United States’ incoming Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who keeps a hawkish eye on Beijing, has used the choicest of adjectives to describe China’s ascent to global superpower status. Without mincing his words, Mr Rubio, who will give new direction to the US’ foreign policy outlook, called China a liar, a cheat, and a thief, while blaming it for cyber-crimes and espionage.

Speaking about the goodwill extended by the US to China in a repenting tone, Mr Rubio said, “We welcomed the Chinese Communist Party into this global order. And they took advantage of all its benefits. But they ignored all its obligations and responsibilities,” adding that “Instead, they have lied, cheated, hacked, and stolen their way to global superpower status, at our expense.”

Indicating an abrupt foreign policy shift under Donald Trump, Mr Rubio highlighted that “The postwar global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us.” He went on to reject Joe Biden’s foreign policy stance of having a US-led “liberal world order” which prioritises a rules-based system. Instead he advocated an aggressive US stance under Trump’s leadership, revolving around its core obejective – ‘America First’.

Keeping China at its epicenter, Mr Rubio warned of the dangers of a coming-together of “dictatorships” around the world, saying that besides Beijing, “the dictators of Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang sow chaos and instability” in the world.

Speaking about the Russia-Ukraine war, Mr Rubio said that Donald Trump’s incoming administration will take “decisive decisions” and act on “bold diplomacy” in order to end the war in Ukraine on priority.

He also made it clear that from January 20, all foreign policy decisions will be made solely on the basis of one foremost criteria – “Whether decisions make the United States safer, stronger and more prosperous.”

“While America far too often continued to prioritise the ‘global order’ above our core national interests, other nations continued to act the way countries always have and always will, in what they perceive to be in their best interest,” he said, adding that America will now do the same.

Marco Rubio, the son of working-class Cuban immigrants, will become the first Hispanic and first fluent Spanish speaker to become the US Secretary of State.
 

Amid heightened tensions between the United States and China, the two countries signed a bilateral science and technology agreement on Dec. 13, 2024. The event was billed as a “renewal” of a 45-year-old pact to encourage cooperation, but that may be misleading.

The revised agreement drastically narrows the scope of the original agreement, limits the topics allowed to be jointly studied, closes opportunities for collaboration and inserts a new dispute resolution mechanism.

This shift is in line with growing global concern about research security. Governments are worried about international rivals gaining military or trade advantages or security secrets via cross-border scientific collaborations.

The European Union, Canada, Japan and the United States unveiled sweeping new measures within months of each other to protect sensitive research from foreign interference. But there’s a catch: Too much security could strangle the international collaboration that drives scientific progress.

As a policy analyst and public affairs professor, I research international collaboration in science and technology and its implications for public and foreign policy. I have tracked the increasingly close relationship in science and technology between the U.S. and China. The relationship evolved from one of knowledge transfer to genuine collaboration and competition.

Now, as security provisions change this formerly open relationship, a crucial question emerges: Can nations tighten research security without undermining the very openness that makes science work?

CHINA’S ASCENT CHANGES THE GLOBAL LANDSCAPE

China’s rise in scientific publishing marks a dramatic shift in global research. In 1980, Chinese authors produced less than 2% of research articles included in the Web of Science, a curated database of scholarly output. By my count, they claimed 25% of Web of Science articles by 2023, overtaking the United States and ending its 75-year reign at the top, which had begun in 1948 when it surpassed the United Kingdom.

In 1980, China had no patented inventions. By 2022, Chinese companies led in U.S. patents issued to foreign companies, receiving 40,000 patents compared with fewer than 2,000 for U.K. companies. In the many advanced fields of science and technology, China is at the world frontier, if not in the lead.

Since 2013, China has been the top collaborator in science with the United States. Thousands of Chinese students and scholars have conducted joint research with U.S. counterparts.

Most American policymakers who championed the signing of the 1979 bilateral agreement thought science would liberalize China. Instead, China has used technology to shore up autocratic controls and to build a strong military with an eye toward regional power and global influence.

Leadership in science and technology wins wars and builds successful economies. China’s growing strength, backed by a state-controlled government, is shifting global power. Unlike open societies where research is public and shared, China often keeps its researchers’ work secret while also taking Western technology through hacking, forced technology transfers and industrial espionage. These practices are why many governments are now implementing strict security measures.

NATIONS RESPOND

The FBI claims China has stolen sensitive technologies and research data to build up its defense capabilities. The China Initiative under the Trump administration sought to root out thieves and spies. The Biden administration did not let up the pressure. The 2022 Chips and Science Act requires the National Science Foundation to establish SECURE – a center to aid universities and small businesses in helping the research community make security-informed decisions. I am working with SECURE to evaluate the effectiveness of its mission.

Other advanced nations are on alert, too. The European Union is advising member states to boost security measures. Japan joined the United States in unveiling sweeping new measures to protect sensitive research from foreign interference and exploitation. European nations increasingly talk about technological sovereignty as a way to protect against exploitation by China. Similarly, Asian nations are wary of China’s intentions when it seeks to cooperate.

Australia has been especially vocal about the threat posed by China’s rise, but others, too, have issued warnings. The Netherlands issued a policy for secure international collaboration. Sweden raised the alarm after a study showed how spies had exploited its universities.

Canada has created the Research Security Centre for public safety and, like the U.S., has established regionally dispersed advisers to provide direct support to universities and researchers. Canada now requires mandatory risk assessment for research partnerships involving sensitive technologies. Similar approaches are underway in Australia and the U.K.

Germany’s 2023 provisions establish compliance units and ethics committees to oversee security-relevant research. They are tasked with advising researchers, mediating disputes and evaluating the ethical and security implications of research projects. The committees emphasize implementing safeguards, controlling access to sensitive data and assessing potential misuse.

Japan’s 2021 policy requires researchers to disclose and regularly update information regarding their affiliations, funding sources – both domestic and international – and potential conflicts of interest. A cross-ministerial R&D management system is unrolling seminars and briefings to educate researchers and institutions on emerging risks and best practices for maintaining research security.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development keeps a running database with more than 206 research security policy statements issued since 2022.

OPENNESS WANING

Emphasis on security can strangle the international collaboration that drives scientific progress. As much as 25% of all U.S. scientific articles result from international collaboration. Evidence shows that international engagement and openness produce higher-impact research. The most elite scientists work across national borders.

Even more critically, science depends on the free flow of ideas and talent across borders. After the Cold War, scientific advancement accelerated as borders opened. While national research output remained flat in recent years, international collaborations showed significant growth, revealing science’s increasingly global nature.

The challenge for research institutions will be implementing these new requirements without creating a climate of suspicion or isolation. Retrenchment to national borders could slow progress. Some degree of risk is inherent in scientific openness, but we may be coming to the end of a global, collaborative era in science.

(Author: Caroline Wagner, Professor of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University)

(Disclosure Statement: Caroline Wagner receives funding from SECURE, a research security service funded by the National Science Foundation. SECURE is administered by the University of Washington)

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington:

China has escalated its counter-offensive against the United States by intensifying its sanctions on American defence firms. In less than a week, Beijing today announced a second round of sanctions on ten US companies. The reason – sale of arms to Taiwan.

With this, China has, in total, sanctioned or penalised 45 US entities – 17 firms and 28 entities – over varying degrees of penalties. While 17 firms have been sanctioned, 28 others have been penalised by adding them to an export ban list.

Among those sanctioned today are some of the biggest defence manufacturers globally – subsidiaries of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics.

In a statement issued by China’s Ministry of Commerce, all ten US firms have been added to Beijing’s “Unreliable entities list” for “participating in selling of arms to Taiwan”. It further stated that these companies will henceforth “be prohibited from all import and export activities” in the country. Neither will they be allowed to invest in China.

Their senior management has been banned from entering the country too, the Chinese government said. The latest action against US corporations come just six days after seven other companies were sanctioned in a similar manner. Among those were a subsidiary of Boeing Defense named Insitu.

Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China, is a flashpoint between Beijing and Washington. Beijing claims the entire island-nation as a part of China. Taiwan considers itself an independent nations. While China is a communist country, Taiwan is a democracy.

China has not ruled out the use of force to take over the country. Even in his New Year’s eve address to the nation, Chinese President Xi Jinping issued threat over Taiwan and cautioned anyone who tries to stop that.

China has also carried out three rounds of major military drills since Taiwan’s democratic election saw President Lai Ching-te come to power in May.

ALSO READ: XI JINPING’S THREAT AND A BRIEF HISTORY OF CHINA AND TAIWAN

For Washington, Taiwan is a strategic ally in Asia and United States is Taipei’s largest supplier of weapons too. Defending democracy over communism has also been a principled decision of the United States – the Cold War with Russia was entirely based on this principled stand.

Showing its commitment towards defending Taiwan, US President Joe Biden had given his nod for a $571 million defence aid to Taiwan less than a month ago.

While both China and Taiwan claim sovereignty over the island nation, Beijing has said “such actions (by US firms) interfere in China’s internal affairs, and undermine China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”.

Besides the sanctions, China has also penalised 28 US entities, mostly defence companies, by adding them to its Export Control List, banning the export of dual-use items to them permanently.

General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin Corporation, and Boeing Defense, Space & Security were among those added “to safeguard national security and interests, and fulfil international obligations such as non-proliferation”, the ministry said.

(Inputs from AFP)