In recent days, various U.S. officials and media outlets have expressed growing concerns regarding the rare-earth situation, particularly citing a June 5 article in The Wall Street Journal. This article suggested that while China was expected to ease its export controls on rare-earth magnets during the 90-day tariff truce between the U.S. and China, it has allegedly "slow-walked license approvals for magnets," although substantial evidence has not been provided to back this claim. Concurrently, The New York Times posited that China's motivations behind the export controls were not driven by military considerations but rather retaliation against the U.S. government's significant tariff hikes on imports from China and other countries.

These assertions from U.S. media appear to be strategically aimed at influencing public perception ahead of an impending round of trade talks in London, intentionally creating a climate of confusion. In response, a spokesperson from the Chinese Foreign Ministry clarified that China’s export control measures align with international protocols, asserting they are non-discriminatory and not targeted at any specific nation.

Export controls are essential instruments that nations implement to protect their national security interests. China enacted the Export Control Law in 2020 to address the changing global context, establishing a comprehensive framework that governs dual-use items, military products, nuclear materials, and other technologies essential for national security and international non-proliferation obligations. This legal structure emphasizes transparency and accountability, distinguishing China's approach from the U.S. method, which often resorts to unilateral sanctions based on a broad interpretation of national security.

Under this framework, rare-earth items exhibit dual-use traits for military and civilian applications, justifying the enforcement of export controls on such materials. By legally imposing these controls, China aims to safeguard its national security while honoring its international commitments, countering narratives from some U.S. media that sensationalize the rare-earth issue to pressure China during economic negotiations.

The perception from the U.S. suggests a tendency to politicize and weaponize economic and technological matters, with certain U.S. factions seemingly addicted to these strategies. Questions arise regarding who is truly misusing export controls. On April 9, China issued a document highlighting that the U.S. has expanded the definition of national security to impose broad sanctions, disrupting global trade and supply chains, thus hindering normal trade exchanges.

Since the Geneva agreement on economic and trade relations, the U.S. has continued to misapply export control measures. For example, following an agreement reached by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, the U.S. Department of Commerce swiftly intensified controls on Huawei's chip technology the very next day.

Additionally, numerous reports indicate that due to U.S. export limitations, over six American ethane cargo ships bound for China have become stranded near the U.S. Gulf Coast. U.S. regulations now mandate exporters to secure licenses before sending ethane, a crucial component for producing ethylene, a fundamental raw material for plastics, to China. The U.S. Department of Commerce argues that ethane poses 'an unacceptable risk of military end-use in China'; however, industry experts generally view such military applications as largely unrealistic.

The U.S. is attempting to deliver a decisive blow against China in the ongoing trade war while simultaneously hoping that China refrains from retaliating by limiting essential resources the U.S. is dependent upon. This creates a situation wherein the U.S. seeks to inflict economic damage on China without undermining its own military, aerospace, and civilian sectors—an embodiment of typical American diplomatic tactics.

China will understandably enhance its compliance review processes, ensuring that strategic exports are carefully vetted so they do not compromise national security. The Chinese government will not bend to U.S. hegemonic pressures to expand approvals, regardless of the urgency expressed by Washington.

While rare earths play a significant role in the China-U.S. trading relationship, the overall economic interactions between the two nations extend far beyond this sector. A stable trade framework is vital for the global economy, where both nations exhibit strong economic complementarities. If the U.S. fosters a spirit of mutual respect, engage in continued dialogue, and pursue cooperative endeavors, a healthier trajectory in trade negotiations will naturally arise, promoting ongoing development in rare earth collaboration under respectful and rational frameworks.