
As Trump courts a more assertive Beijing, China hawks are losing out
China's decision to cut off access to those materials upended the dynamic between the world's largest economies. The Trump administration, which came into office determined to bully China into changing its trade behavior with punishing tariffs, appeared to realize the perils of that approach. Now, the administration has resorted to trying to woo China instead.
Officials throughout the government say the Trump administration is putting more aggressive actions against China on hold, while pushing forward with moves that the Chinese will perceive positively. That includes the reversal on the H20 chip.
Advertisement
The H20 decision was primarily motivated by top Trump officials who agreed with Nvidia's arguments that selling the chip would be better for American technology leadership than withholding it, people familiar with the move say.
But Trump officials have also claimed that it was part of the trade talks. After telling Congress in June that there was 'no quid pro quo in terms of chips for rare earths,' Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary, reversed those comments Tuesday, saying that the H20 move was 'all part of a mosaic' of talks with China. 'They had things we wanted, we had things they wanted, and we're in a very good place,' he said.
Advertisement
A Chinese Ministry of Commerce official seemed to reject that Friday, saying that the United States had 'taken the initiative' to approve the H20 sales. China believes the United States should continue to remove its trade and economic restrictions, the official said.
A person familiar with the talks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said that the H20 chip was not specifically discussed in meetings between Chinese and US officials in Geneva and London this spring. But the reversal was part of a more recent cadence of warmer actions the United States and China have taken toward each other. For instance, Beijing agreed in recent weeks to block the export of several chemicals used to make fentanyl, an issue Trump has been concerned about.
Recent events have underscored the influence that China has over the US economy. When Trump raised tariffs on Chinese exports in April, some top Trump officials thought Beijing would quickly fold, given its recent economic weakness. Instead, Beijing called Trump's bluff by restricting rare earths needed by American makers of cars, military equipment, medical devices, and electronics.
As the flow of those materials stopped, Trump and other officials began receiving calls from CEOs saying their factories would soon shut down. Ford, Suzuki, and other companies shuttered factories because of the lack of supply.
Advertisement
Trump and his top advisers were surprised by the threat that Beijing's countermove posed, people familiar with the matter say. That brought the United States back to the negotiating table this spring to strike a fragile trade truce, which Trump officials are now wary of upsetting. That agreement dropped tariffs from a minimum 145 percent to 30 percent, with the Chinese agreeing to allow rare earths to flow as freely as before.
The administration's caution when it comes to China has been amplified by Trump's desire for an invitation to Beijing later this year. The president, who has been feted on other foreign trips, wants to engage in face-to-face trade negotiations with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, has begun recruiting chief executives for a potential delegation, setting off a competition over who will get to ride in Air Force One, according to people familiar with the plans.
The Commerce Department declined to comment. The White House, the Treasury Department, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative did not respond to a request for comment.
'The government understands that forcing the world to use foreign competition would only hurt America's economic and national security,' said John Rizzo, a spokesperson for Nvidia.
Opposition to China has fueled bipartisan action for the past decade. Now, Trump's more hawkish supporters are quietly watching as the president remakes the party's China strategy.
Though few are willing to speak out publicly, officials in the Trump administration and in Congress have privately expressed concern that the trade war has given China an opening to finally bring US technology controls onto the negotiating table.
Advertisement
Christopher Padilla, a former export control official in the George W. Bush administration, said the fact that the United States was now negotiating over what were supposed to be security restrictions was 'a significant accomplishment for the Chinese.'
'They've been after this for decades, and now they've succeeded,' he said. 'I assume the Chinese are going to demand more concessions on export controls in return for whatever we want next.'
This article originally appeared in
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

NBC Sports
15 minutes ago
- NBC Sports
AAC rebrands as American Conference in move designed to fuel growth in changing college landscape
The American Athletic Conference is rebranding itself as, simply, the American Conference as part of a wide-ranging effort it says is designed to fuel growth and elevate its position in a quickly changing college-sports landscape. The 15-team football conference also on Monday unveiled a new slogan — 'Built To Rise' — and introduced Soar the Eagle as a new mascot. Both will be featured in promotions and public service announcements that air during games involving its teams. By changing names, the conference will get rid of the 'AAC' nickname that often got confused with the Power Four's ACC — Atlantic Coast Conference. It wants to be known as the 'American Conference,' or the 'American.' American's commissioner, Tim Pernetti, has been aggressive about positioning the conference in the name, image and likeness era, announcing earlier this year that all members except Army and Navy would be required to revenue share at least $10 million over the next three seasons; it was the first league to set such a minimum standard. Under the new NIL rules, schools are allowed to share up to $20.5 million in revenue in the 2025-26 season. 'This modernization is rooted in who we are and where we're headed,' Pernetti said. 'It prioritizes clarity, momentum, and the competitive advantage driving every part of our conference forward.' These are fraught days for the Group of Five conferences, which includes the American, and whose teams have been constant targets in an era of realignment. Since 2023, the American has lost Cincinnati, UCF and SMU but has added seven teams: Charlotte, FAU, North Texas, Rice, UAB, UT-San Antonio and Army (for football). It now has 15 teams. Army and Tulane stayed on the fringe of the race for a spot in the College Football Playoff race last season.


The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Linda McMahon's answer on Holocaust denialism should scare us
Questioner: 'Madam Secretary, does refusing to hire a Holocaust denier as a member of Harvard's history department faculty count as an 'ideological litmus test?'' Witness: ' I believe that there should be diversity of viewpoints relative to teachings and opinions on campuses.' Had I just heard that correctly? Had Education Secretary Linda McMahon really just said Holocaust denialism was just a diverse view point? I was shocked. But just recently, this exchange really happened. I sat across the dais from McMahon in the House Education and Workforce Committee room. On the desk before me was the April 11 letter sent to Harvard by the Trump administration, laying out their outrageous demands of the university in order to retain their federal funding. Contained in that letter is the phrase which has become a rallying cry for the Trump administration in their crusade against Harvard: 'viewpoint diversity.' This is the one diversity program that the administration has deemed not only important, but imperative to future of higher education. But although McMahon has been beating the drum loudly on the lack of 'diverse viewpoints' on colleges campuses, she's been vague on what that means and whether the administration has the authority to enforce viewpoint diversity on campus. In her hearing before the Senate the previous day, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) pressed the secretary on this very question. Beyond saying that college faculties need more conservative voices, she wasn't able to clearly articulate the powers that the federal government has in that realm, nor was she able to clearly define what viewpoint diversity means, nor the limits that should be recognized. So I asked. I asked if, under the demands listed in the letter, the Harvard government department would be compelled to hire faculty that believe the 2020 election was stolen. I asked if Harvard Medical School would be required to hire immunologists that adhere to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's view on vaccine efficacy. McMahon's response was to bluster about free speech and multiple viewpoints on college campuses. She obfuscated and I pressed. It was at this point I asked, 'Madam Secretary, does refusing to hire a Holocaust denier as a member of Harvard's history department faculty count as an 'ideological litmus test?'' She responded: 'I believe that there should be diversity of viewpoints relative to teachings and opinions on campuses.' There are a number of deeply disturbing aspects to that answer. I could write at length about the implications that widely discredited and — in the case of the third example, deeply offensive and dangerously ignorant — conspiracy theories should have a place in academic institutions that are at the global forefront of research. There is also much to be said about that fact that an administration which claims to be fighting against antisemitism does not immediately condemn Holocaust denial and insist that it does not have a place or a platform in higher education. But the pressing issue at stake here is that the administration cannot identify a limit to such viewpoint diversity. If a candidate for a position in the government department has a sincere political belief that the 2020 election was stolen, should they be hired in the interest of 'viewpoint diversity' although they would not meet the academic standards required for a serious candidate in political science? If they are not hired by the school, does the federal government have the power to punish the university? What does this mean for current faculty who disagree with the administration? 'Ideological vetting' is already happening to the school's prospective international students; it is not a stretch to imagine that that vetting might extend to faculty and domestic students too. Freedom of speech and freedom of dissent are among the most sacred and fundamental tenets of our democracy, enshrined in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights. Universities are the arenas where those freedoms are exercised; places where ideas are tested and debated and critical thought is encouraged. History teaches us that government interference in and crackdown on colleges and universities is a tactic used by authoritarian governments to quash dissent. That is not to say that there aren't problems on college campuses today, and there should always be an unwavering commitment to student safety and wellbeing. But political dissent is not a crime. Dissent is a function of a healthy and vibrant democracy, and higher education is there to teach students how to think, not what to think. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, all Americans must understand what is at stake in the administration's battle with Harvard. We should all be concerned about the federal government's attempt to force compliance from an independent institution, particularly one tasked with educating our young people and producing the world's preeminent research. If you love what makes this country great — freedom of speech, the right to dissent, the defense of civil rights — then you must know: we have a lot to lose if we do not fight for it.


Axios
16 minutes ago
- Axios
Colorado's economy delivers mixed results in mid-2025
Colorado's latest economic data is sending mixed signals at the halfway mark of 2025. By the numbers: Metro Denver's inflation rate through June ticked up to 2.3% year-over-year, nudging past May's 2.2%, per a new report from the University of Colorado Boulder's Leeds School of Business and the Secretary of State's office. That's still below the national average of 2.7% in June, which marked the swiftest pace since February as Trump-era tariffs began taking a bigger bite out of the economy. Stunning stat: New business filings statewide surged to 51,200 in the second quarter of 2025, up 19% year-over-year — marking Colorado's strongest second quarter on record, according to Brian Lewandowski with the Leeds School of Business. The intrigue: It's unclear what's behind the spike or which sectors are seeing the most new ventures. But Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold floated a theory: a mix of entrepreneurial spirit and financial pressure. Some Coloradans may be looking to supplement income "after noticing that their money at the grocery store isn't going as far as it used to," Griswold told reporters Monday. Zoom out: Job growth across Colorado rose to 0.4% last month, the state's fourth-highest rate on record. Labor force participation held strong at 67.7% — sixth-highest nationally. Yes, but: Home prices in Colorado continued to climb last month — up 2.3% year-over-year. What they're saying: The state's economy "has remained resilient," Griswold said in a statement. "But many Coloradans struggle with the cost of living, and Trump's new law will increase the cost of energy, health care and more," the Democrat warned, referring to the president's " big, beautiful bill." What we're watching: Colorado's resilience could soon face a tougher test.