In a bold move that could reshape the global trade landscape, former U.S. President Donald Trump has triggered a new phase of the U.S.-China trade war by imposing tariffs of up to 245% on imports from China. This drastic action comes in response to Beijing’s retaliatory trade practices and export restrictions on key minerals crucial for national defense and high-tech industries.
According to a document released by the White House, Trump signed an executive order to initiate a federal investigation into the national security risks posed by the United States’ heavy reliance on imported minerals and related products. The order specifically targets critical minerals that are essential to the production of defense systems, infrastructure development, and technological innovation.
The White House emphasized that “foreign critical mineral dependency”—particularly on China—poses a direct threat to U.S. defense readiness and industrial growth. In response, a uniform 10% tariff has been applied to all countries, with significantly higher tariffs imposed on nations with which the U.S. has the highest trade deficits. China, being the primary focus of this shift, is now facing import duties as high as 245%.
“America will no longer be held hostage by unfair trade practices and foreign supply chain manipulation,” the statement from the White House read, citing Trump’s assertion that protecting U.S. technological sovereignty and security is paramount.
China’s Retaliation and Mineral Restrictions
The U.S. government justified the extraordinary tariff rates on China by citing a series of retaliatory steps taken by Beijing. In recent months, China has strategically restricted exports of key high-tech minerals to the United States. These include gallium, germanium, antimony, and six heavy rare earth elements, all of which are vital for military-grade electronics, renewable energy infrastructure, and advanced manufacturing.
Just this week, China also suspended the export of rare earth magnets—another critical component in defense systems, electric vehicles, and aerospace technology.
The document notes that these restrictions are not just retaliatory but part of a calculated strategy to “disrupt the supply of essential components to automakers, aerospace manufacturers, semiconductor firms, and defense contractors worldwide.”
Global Response and Trade Negotiations
Interestingly, the aggressive stance has spurred a flurry of diplomatic activity. The White House claims that over 75 countries have already reached out to discuss new trade agreements in light of the changing U.S. tariff landscape. While the U.S. is open to negotiations, it has temporarily suspended individual tariff increases during ongoing discussions with these nations.
The 245% tariff on Chinese imports, however, remains firm—marking it as the most significant punitive trade measure taken against any country since the initial U.S.-China trade standoff under Trump’s presidency.
The Bigger Picture
The resurgence of aggressive trade measures comes amid rising tensions between the world’s two largest economies, with implications stretching far beyond just tariffs. As both countries grapple for technological dominance, the global supply chain—already fragile from years of disruption—faces further instability.
By targeting China’s monopolistic hold on critical minerals, the U.S. aims to force diversification of supply chains and bolster domestic production. Trump’s administration has repeatedly emphasized that relying on a single foreign power—particularly one viewed as a strategic rival—undermines long-term national security and economic resilience.
Economists are split on the long-term impact. While some argue that the tariffs could lead to increased costs for U.S. consumers and businesses, others see this as a necessary step toward industrial independence and strategic stability.
As the global economy watches closely, this latest escalation in U.S.-China trade tensions signals that the battle over critical resources is just beginning. With national security, economic policy, and geopolitical strategy now tightly interwoven, the outcomes of these high-stakes decisions could shape international trade for years to come.
