Introduction
This article caught attention after US President Donald Trump claimed that Chinese President Xi Jinping had agreed to restart the flow of rare earth materials crucial for American industries. However, China’s official statement on the call made no reference to rare earths — leading to confusion. Many readers want to know: If such a significant agreement was reached, why didn’t China mention it?
Historical Context
Rare earth elements have long been a linchpin in US-China trade tensions. China controls over 80% of global rare earth processing and has, in the past, used this leverage strategically. Most notably in the 2010s, China restricted exports to Japan over geopolitical disputes. With growing US dependency on these materials for electronics, defense systems, and renewable technologies, their supply has become a highly politicized and strategic issue. Recent US efforts to curb China’s semiconductor access have further intensified these trade dynamics.
Claim #1: “Trump said Xi agreed to restart the flow of rare earth materials.”
This claim relies solely on Trump’s assertion to reporters aboard Air Force One: “Yes, he did,” in response to a question about whether Xi had agreed to resume rare earth shipments. However, there is no documented agreement, timeline, or commitment shared publicly. The Chinese readout of the call made no mention of rare earths. According to reporting by Reuters and The Financial Times, Chinese ministries have not issued statements confirming any change in policy.
While Chinese suppliers have reportedly resumed licensed shipments to select US companies, this is not equivalent to a systemic policy shift or a full “restart of flow.” Analysts quoted in the CNN article also caution that Beijing would not relinquish such key leverage without significant concessions. The lack of any detail or supporting confirmation from Chinese officials makes this claim unsubstantiated.
Claim #2: “China has resumed some shipments of rare earths to the US.”
This claim is partially accurate. As reported in the CNN article and confirmed by the American Chamber of Commerce in China, some Chinese suppliers recently received six-month export licenses. Additionally, China’s Commerce Ministry announced a “green channel” for expedited EU-related requests. However, these shipments remain subject to the existing export approval system, which can take up to 45 business days.
Thus, while individual shipments are being approved, the system still enforces case-by-case licensing. Shipments may resume selectively, but this is nowhere near an unrestricted or systematic flow. The characterization should be that limited exports have resumed for some companies, not a general revival of rare earth trade.
South China Morning Post Source
Claim #3: “China is unlikely to fully ease restrictions without US concessions on technology exports.”
This claim is mostly accurate and supported by several expert opinions included in the article. Chinese scholars like Jin Canrong and Cui Fan indicate clearly that China sees rare earths as strategic leverage in broader trade negotiations. The current stance aligns with China’s long-term position—they maintain that export control policies are legal and not discriminatory, while leveraging those policies in negotiations.
Statements from the Chinese Commerce Ministry emphasize dual-use regulations for both civilian and military applications. Therefore, any large-scale policy shifts will likely tie into discussions over US export restrictions on chips and other technologies. This points to a closely strategized tit-for-tat relationship in negotiating leverage. This claim is credible and substantiated by academic and government-linked sources.
Claim #4: “China’s export control system is being used in a politically selective manner.”
The article quotes Chinese academic Wu Xinbo stating, “If the bilateral relationship is good, then I’ll go a bit faster; if not, I’ll slow down… you can’t say I’m violating the agreement – I’m still following the standard procedures.” This indicates at least an informal flexibility built into the system. Technically, since the system requires individual application reviews over 45 working days, delays can be framed as bureaucratic rather than punitive.
But this also reveals a loophole through which trade dynamics can influence timing, making the controls effectively political even if legally defensible. While China says it abides by global trade regulations, the selective implementation falls into what analysts call “weaponized bureaucracy.” This claim is accurate based on expert insights and recent trade behavior patterns.
Conclusion
The CNN article provides a generally balanced overview but presents Trump’s claim with insufficient skepticism. The most notable inaccuracy arises from presenting Trump’s statement as a definitive breakthrough without clearly highlighting that China’s official communication omitted any mention of rare earths. The article is stronger in relaying expert perspectives that contradict Trump’s interpretation, particularly those from Chinese academics and trade observers. While the reporting itself includes crucial context, the headline and lead might mislead casual readers into believing a firm agreement was reached, when in reality, evidence suggests considerable ambiguity remains.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
Want more clarity in today’s news chaos? Download the DBUNK app and get instant, unbiased analysis. Share articles, request fact-checks, and take a stand against misinformation today. Follow us on social media to join the fight for factual truth in global news.
