After the leadership meeting between the United States and China in Busan, South Korea, both sides publicly claimed progress on trade issues. However, more than a month after the meeting, there has been no official announcement of the agreement text, and no signing schedule has been arranged. According to sources in China’s foreign economic and trade system who spoke to Epoch Times, uncertainties have arisen as the agreement progresses from framework to signing stage, indicating that multiple rounds of negotiations are still needed. It may be difficult to sign the agreement in the short term, and negotiations continue to face challenges.
Throughout this year, the United States and China have been in continuous communication regarding tariffs, supply chains, and technology exports. On November 16th, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bensett stated that arrangements on rare earth minerals between the U.S. and China were “expected” to be completed before Thanksgiving. Bensett mentioned that the U.S. agreed not to impose a 100% tariff on Chinese imports, while China would temporarily delay the implementation of export licensing for key rare earth minerals and magnets.
In response to these developments, a source within Beijing’s foreign economic and trade system told Epoch Times reporters that while a working framework was established after the Busan meeting, there are increasing detailed differences, particularly on issues related to rare earths, raw material management, digital trade rules, and industrial subsidies. Chinese state media characterized the interaction between the two sides as “maintaining communication,” while industry insiders noted significant differences in positions, with conditions for reaching the signing stage of the agreement yet to emerge.
On October 9th, China’s Ministry of Commerce issued Notice No. 61, implementing export controls on certain rare earth items, requiring overseas use to apply for permits. Following the announcement, the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated in multiple press conferences that the export management of rare earths is conducted “in accordance with the law and regulations.” During a routine press conference on November 6th, the Ministry of Commerce mentioned streamlining the permit process but did not address expanding the export scope.
Another source close to the foreign economic and trade system mentioned that rare earths belong to a sensitive industry, and the current framework does not include concessions in this round of trade negotiations. “The U.S. demands are very broad, asking China to completely lift restrictions on sensitive products like rare earths. Will China do it? I think it’s impossible.”
Prior to this, during a routine press conference on October 16th, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs publicly stated that there was no mention of expanding exports or increasing supplies to the U.S.
The individual from the foreign economic and trade department mentioned that during the meeting, the U.S. proposed that China provide “predictability” in the semiconductor upstream materials, rare earth supply, and permit rules, a request with which China disagreed. He stated that China believes the U.S. did not offer synchronized arrangements on tariffs and investment restrictions. “Now they don’t even want to buy U.S. soybeans. The soybean market in Guangdong is already dropping in price.”
On November 1st, the White House released the agreement framework reached at the Busan meeting between the U.S. and China. The first and second articles state:
1. China will temporarily suspend the large-scale new export control measures concerning rare earths announced on October 9, 2025.
2. China will issue general export licenses for rare earths, gallium, germanium, antimony, and graphite to end-users in the United States and global suppliers. This general license effectively cancels the control measures implemented by China since 2023.
On the contrary, China has not publicly disclosed its obligations to fulfill after the meeting, only releasing a Department of Commerce briefing on October 30th mentioning some relaxation of economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. on China.
Historically, China has had many instances of non-compliance or partial compliance after reaching agreements with the U.S.
In order to join the World Trade Organization, China agreed to open its markets, eliminate trade barriers, and protect intellectual property rights. Many years later, most of these commitments turned out to be empty promises. Supported by massive state subsidies, Chinese companies flooded the market with goods at extremely low prices. In terms of counterfeit products, China took a leading position in the world.
During President Trump’s first term, efforts to address Beijing’s unfair trade practices and the substantial U.S.-China trade deficit through a trade war were made.
After multiple rounds of tariff wars, the two sides eventually reached the Phase One trade agreement in January 2020. U.S. officials hoped the agreement would rebalance U.S.-China trade relations. However, Beijing ultimately failed to fulfill its commitment to purchasing $200 billion worth of U.S. goods and services and blamed the disruption on the COVID-19 pandemic.
During President Biden’s administration, a four-hour long meeting in 2023 also led China to agree to crack down on fentanyl. Despite multiple meetings and bilateral working group sessions, the fentanyl issue continues to plague the U.S.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bensett stated on CNN’s “State of the Union” program on November 2nd: “They have proven themselves as an unreliable partner in many areas.”
The White House had previously stated that China agreed to purchase approximately 120 million metric tons of American soybeans in November and December, with an annual purchase of at least 25 million metric tons for the next three years. However, according to Bloomberg sources, following a concentrated purchase of the first batch of soybeans at the end of last month, China’s imports of U.S. soybeans seem to have stalled.
Kang Yu, a scholar at Tsinghua University in Beijing who focuses on U.S.-China relations, expressed that there are still “very challenging” negotiations ahead for both sides. He stated, “If there is a lack of mutual guarantees in sensitive areas, the agreement might remain at the framework stage. Bensett previously said an agreement could be reached quickly, but the negotiations have proven to be difficult.” Some analysts suggested that China might use delaying tactics to continue monitoring domestic political developments in the U.S.
A scholar in Shandong specializing in international political economy remarked that in the coming months, the two sides may continue discussions at the technical level, but whether the agreement can materialize requires further observation.