The Global Times article claims that renewed US trade war threats, particularly under a potential second Trump administration, would lead to economic decoupling, harming the US more than China. It cites “experts” who argue that US tariffs and export controls would damage American consumers, businesses, and global supply chains while strengthening China’s economic resilience.
Fact-Checking Key Claims
Claim 1: US Trade War Threats Will Lead to Economic Decoupling
-
Article’s Assertion: The article states that US tariffs and export controls, especially under a second Trump administration, would accelerate economic decoupling between the US and China.
-
Fact Check: Economic decoupling refers to the reduction of interdependence between the US and Chinese economies, often through tariffs, export controls, or supply chain diversification. During Trump’s first term (2017–2021), the US imposed tariffs on over $360 billion of Chinese goods, prompting retaliatory tariffs from China. These actions led to partial decoupling, with some companies diversifying supply chains to countries like Vietnam and Mexico. However, complete decoupling is challenging due to the deep integration of global supply chains. The article’s claim is plausible, as further tariffs could intensify decoupling, but it oversimplifies the complexity of global trade networks.
-
Analysis: The term “decoupling” is framed to suggest a deliberate US strategy that backfires. While decoupling is occurring, the article omits that China also pursues self-reliance policies (e.g., “Dual Circulation”), which contribute to decoupling independently of US actions.
Claim 2: The US Will Be Hurt More Than China
-
Article’s Assertion: Experts cited in the article argue that US tariffs and trade restrictions will harm American consumers and businesses more than China, citing higher prices and supply chain disruptions.
-
Fact Check: Tariffs increase the cost of imported goods, which can raise prices for US consumers. A 2019 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimated that US consumers bore over 90% of the cost of Trump-era tariffs on Chinese goods, adding approximately $1,000 annually to household expenses. US businesses also faced higher input costs and retaliatory tariffs, which reduced exports (e.g., agricultural goods like soybeans). However, China faced economic challenges too, including reduced export growth and supply chain disruptions. The article’s claim that the US will be hurt more is partially accurate but one-sided, as it downplays China’s vulnerabilities, such as reliance on US technology and markets.
-
Analysis: The article employs selective framing by emphasizing US losses while ignoring China’s economic challenges. This aligns with the Global Times’ nationalistic perspective, which often portrays China as resilient and the US as self-damaging.
Claim 3: China’s Economic Resilience Mitigates Trade War Impacts
-
Article’s Assertion: The article cites experts claiming that China’s focus on self-reliance, domestic consumption, and partnerships with BRICS and Global South countries reduces its vulnerability to US trade measures.
-
Fact Check: China has invested heavily in self-reliance, particularly in technology (e.g., semiconductors) and domestic consumption through policies like the 14th Five-Year Plan. The Global Times itself reported on July 1, 2025, that Chinese cities allocated $79.56 million in subsidies to boost domestic consumption, supporting this strategy. Additionally, China’s trade with BRICS countries and the Global South has grown, with BRICS accounting for 51% of global solar electricity generation in 2024, indicating strengthened partnerships. However, China remains dependent on Western markets and technology, and US export controls on semiconductors have disrupted its tech sector. The claim is partially accurate but overstates China’s immunity to trade war effects.
-
Analysis: The article uses propaganda to emphasize China’s strength and downplay weaknesses. By highlighting BRICS and Global South ties, it frames China as a global leader, aligning with the Chinese Communist Party’s narrative of resilience and global influence.
Claim 4: US Actions Are Driven by Political Motives
-
Article’s Assertion: The article suggests that US trade war threats, particularly under Trump, are politically motivated to appeal to domestic voters rather than based on economic rationale.
-
Fact Check: Trade policies often blend economic and political motives. Trump’s first-term tariffs were partly driven by campaign promises to protect US manufacturing and appeal to blue-collar voters in swing states. The article’s reference to a “second Trump administration” aligns with reports of Trump’s 2025 campaign rhetoric on escalating tariffs. However, US trade measures also address strategic concerns, such as reducing reliance on China for critical technologies. The claim is partially true but oversimplifies by framing US actions as purely political, ignoring national security and economic diversification goals.
-
Analysis: The article employs framing to portray the US as irrational and politically driven, contrasting with China’s supposed pragmatism. This aligns with the Global Times’ tendency to criticize Western policies while promoting China’s strategic foresight.
Propaganda and Framing Elements
Propaganda
-
Nationalistic Tone: The Global Times, under the People’s Daily and the Chinese Communist Party, is known for its nationalistic perspective. The article promotes China’s resilience and global leadership while depicting the US as self-destructive, a common tactic in Chinese state media to bolster domestic confidence and international influence.
-
Selective Expert Citations: The article relies on unnamed “experts” to support its claims, a tactic often used to lend credibility without transparency. The lack of specific sources makes it difficult to verify the expertise or neutrality of these voices.
-
Omission of China’s Challenges: The article minimizes China’s economic vulnerabilities, such as its reliance on US technology or the impact of global supply chain shifts, to project strength.
Framing
-
US as Aggressor: The article frames the US as the primary instigator of the trade war, ignoring China’s retaliatory tariffs and policies like export controls on rare earths, which have raised European concerns.
-
China as Resilient Leader: By emphasizing China’s self-reliance and global partnerships, the article frames China as a proactive, forward-thinking power, contrasting with a reactive and misguided US.
-
Economic Doom for the US: The article uses hyperbolic language to suggest catastrophic consequences for the US, such as “hurting US more,” to amplify the perceived costs of US policies.
Fake or Misleading Elements
-
No Overt Fabrications: The article does not contain outright false information, as its claims align with known trade war dynamics and China’s policy goals. However, it exaggerates the asymmetry of harm (US suffering more) and omits critical context about China’s challenges.
-
Misleading Emphasis: By focusing solely on US losses and China’s strengths, the article presents a skewed narrative that could mislead readers about the mutual costs of the trade war.
-
Unverified Experts: The reliance on unnamed experts risks introducing bias, as their affiliations or objectivity cannot be assessed.
Broader Context and Verification
-
Global Times’ Reliability: The Global Times is part of China’s state-controlled media and has been criticized for spreading disinformation and conspiracy theories. Its reporting often aligns with the Chinese government’s agenda, necessitating skepticism when evaluating its claims.
-
Trade War Impacts: Independent analyses, such as those from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, confirm that tariffs harm both US and Chinese economies, contradicting the article’s claim of disproportionate US losses. Both countries face higher costs, reduced trade, and supply chain disruptions.
-
China’s Global Strategy: The article’s emphasis on BRICS and Global South partnerships is consistent with China’s broader diplomatic efforts, such as the China-CELAC Forum and Shanghai Pilot Free Trade Zone initiatives. These efforts lend some credibility to claims of China’s growing global influence.
The Global Times article contains a mix of factual and exaggerated claims, framed to promote China’s resilience and criticize US trade policies. While it accurately describes the potential for economic decoupling and US consumer costs, it overstates the asymmetry of harm and omits China’s vulnerabilities. The article employs propaganda through its nationalistic tone and selective framing, portraying the US as an irrational aggressor and China as a resilient leader. No overt fabrications were identified, but the reliance on unnamed experts and one-sided narrative introduces bias. Readers should cross-reference claims with independent sources, such as academic studies or Western media, to gain a balanced understanding of the US-China trade war.
