US President Donald Trump has adopted a less confrontational approach toward China ahead of his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping this week, reflecting the growing importance of Beijing’s control over critical minerals, according to China and trade policy experts.
Unlike previous summits, the Trump administration has so far avoided threatening major new tariffs on Chinese imports or sweeping restrictions on US technology exports.
Experts say China’s dominance of rare earth supply chains is an important reason.
China controls much of the global supply of rare earth minerals and has demonstrated its willingness to use that position as leverage in its economic and technological competition with the United States. Last year, Beijing restricted rare earth exports in response to US tariffs, disrupting global supply chains and exposing Washington’s dependence on Chinese processing and manufacturing capacity.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
The episode showed that US pressure on China could also generate significant costs for American companies.
“The US and the Trump administration are just fundamentally in a different position with China where they can’t use that overly coercive, over-reaching approach,” said Emily Kilcrease, a former US trade official who is now at the Center for a New American Security.
She said the administration’s approach had been shaped by what happened during the previous rare earth confrontation and by the possibility that Washington would ultimately have to reverse some measures.
China controls as much as 70% of global rare earth mining, around 85% of refining capacity and approximately 90% of rare earth metal alloy and magnet production, according to consultancy AlixPartners.
The materials include elements such as yttrium and dysprosium, which are used across strategic industries including automobiles, semiconductors and defense.
That concentration gives Beijing influence over supply chains that are difficult to replace quickly.
Washington keeps pressure measured
The Trump administration has continued taking measures against Chinese companies, but experts say the recent actions have been more limited than some of the threats that preceded earlier US China summits.
In June, the Pentagon accused Alibaba, BYD and other Chinese companies of supporting the Chinese military.
In July, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that Chinese artificial intelligence companies could face sanctions if they copied US AI models.
Washington also restricted imports from 43 Chinese companies over alleged human rights abuses and imposed restrictions involving new foreign robots and power inverters.
But many of these measures were announced months before Trump’s meeting with Xi.
Peter Harrell, a former White House official under President Joe Biden, said Washington appeared to be keeping tensions below a level that could trigger severe Chinese retaliation.
After the previous confrontation over rare earths, he said, the Trump administration “feels vulnerable to Chinese coercion” and is seeking greater stability and secure access to critical minerals.
The White House, Commerce Department, US Trade Representative and Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A history of summit diplomacy
The current restraint reflects a broader pattern in US China relations, where trade and technology tensions have frequently intensified before high level meetings before easing through negotiations.
During Trump’s 2019 meeting with Xi in Osaka, Japan, the US president backed away from plans to impose tariffs on another $300 billion of Chinese goods and eased some restrictions affecting Huawei after Beijing agreed to increase purchases of US agricultural products.
A similar pattern emerged at the October 2025 meeting in Busan.
Trump reduced tariffs by 10% and postponed export controls affecting thousands of Chinese companies after Xi agreed to suspend rare earth restrictions and resume purchases of US soybeans.
Both governments subsequently described the meeting as a success.
Trump took a more aggressive position ahead of his May summit with Xi in Beijing, however. He threatened a new 50% tariff on China following reports that Beijing was considering supplying air defense systems to Iran.
The contrast with the current approach suggests that Washington is now placing greater emphasis on avoiding a confrontation that could again expose vulnerabilities in critical mineral supply chains.
The race for alternative supplies
Not everyone in Washington sees the current approach as evidence of reduced US leverage.
Republican Representative John Moolenaar, chairman of the House China Select Committee, said recent US measures showed Trump was approaching the summit “from a position of strength.”
Other analysts expect the current period of relative restraint to continue until the United States develops alternative sources of critical minerals.
Dmitri Alperovitch, cofounder of CrowdStrike and the Silverado Policy Accelerator, said an uneasy truce that began after the previous rare earth confrontation was likely to continue.
The challenge for Washington is that developing alternative supply chains will take time.
Rare earth mining, refining and magnet production require substantial investment, specialized technology and processing capacity. Even if the United States and its allies expand domestic and alternative supplies, reducing dependence on China cannot happen immediately.
What comes next?
Trump and Xi are scheduled to meet at the White House on Thursday, followed by a state dinner attended by senior officials and business leaders.
The summit will cover trade, technology and broader economic relations, but critical minerals are likely to remain an important underlying issue.
China’s control of rare earth supply chains does not eliminate US economic leverage. Washington retains significant influence through technology, investment restrictions, financial measures and access to the US market.
But Beijing’s ability to restrict critical mineral supplies creates a constraint on how aggressively that leverage can be used.
The immediate objective for both sides may therefore be to prevent another cycle of escalation while maintaining their respective bargaining positions.
For Washington, the longer term challenge is reducing its dependence on Chinese critical mineral supply chains. Until that happens, rare earths will remain an important factor shaping how far the United States can push Beijing without risking disruption to its own strategic industries.
With information from Reuters.
