In the escalating US-China trade saga, state-run Chinese media often shapes narratives to defend Beijing’s stance. A fresh Global Times article, published today, blasts the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) new probe into China’s compliance with the 2020 Phase One trade agreement as “false accusations.” Titled “China firmly opposes US false accusation and review over Phase One trade deal,” it quotes a Chinese Embassy spokesperson and a pro-Beijing expert, urging Washington to “correct its wrong practices.” As US-China talks kick off in Kuala Lumpur over rare earth exports and tariffs, is this piece a balanced rebuttal or a masterclass in propaganda?
A Quick Breakdown
The piece, sourced from the Chinese Embassy and analyst He Weiwen of the Center for China and Globalization (a Beijing-aligned think tank), makes these core assertions:
- Claim 1: The US launched a “new tariff investigation” into China’s “apparent failure” to comply with Phase One on IP protections, tech transfer, agriculture, and financial services.
- Claim 2: China has “scrupulously fulfilled” its obligations, boosting IP, imports, and market access for US firms.
- Claim 3: The US has “escalated pressure” via export controls and restrictions, violating the deal’s spirit, while pushing “false narratives” on human rights, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang, and COVID-19.
- Claim 4: The probe lacks legal basis, breaches WTO rules, and is a bargaining ploy ahead of Malaysia talks.
- Claim 5: A April 2025 Chinese white paper proves the US failed Phase One obligations.
- Claim 6: China opposes “decoupling” and prioritizes stable global supply chains.
Now, let’s fact-check each with 2025 data from USTR reports, think tanks, and neutral outlets.
Fact Check: Verifying the Claims – What’s True, What’s Stretched?
Claim 1: US Probe into Phase One Non-Compliance – Mostly Accurate, But Loaded Language
The USTR did initiate a Section 301 investigation on October 24, 2025, at President Trump’s direction, probing China’s implementation of the 2020 deal. It targets shortfalls in IP enforcement, forced tech transfers, ag exports, and financial services—echoing Trump’s first-term grievances. However, the article’s “tariff investigation” phrasing implies imminent hikes; the probe is fact-finding, with potential tariffs as a possible outcome, not a given.
Claim 2: China’s “Scrupulous” Fulfillment – Partially True, But Data Shows Shortfalls
China touts gains in IP (e.g., new patent laws) and market access (e.g., eased foreign investment rules). US exports to China hit $154 billion in 2024, up from pre-deal levels. But independent trackers paint a rosier picture from Beijing: The Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) reports China met only ~57% of its $200 billion purchase commitments for US goods (2020-2021), with agriculture at 74% but manufacturing at 40%. USTR’s 2025 review cites ongoing IP theft and tech barriers.
Claim 3: US “Escalation” and “False Narratives” – Subjective, But Rooted in Real Actions
US export controls on chips and AI tech have intensified since 2020, restricting $50+ billion in dual-use sales to China in 2024 alone. Human rights critiques (e.g., Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act) are factual US policy, not “false.” Yet, linking them to trade deal sabotage is a stretch—it’s classic deflection.
Claim 4: No Legal Basis, WTO Violation, Pre-Talks Leverage – Debatable Expertise
He Weiwen’s WTO claim aligns with Chinese views, but Section 301 is a US domestic tool, upheld in WTO disputes (e.g., DS543 ruling favored US in 2020). Talks in Kuala Lumpur are underway (Oct 25-26, 2025), focusing on rare earth curbs and Trump-era tariffs—timing suggests leverage, but US calls it routine accountability.
Claim 5: US Failed Phase One – Mirrored Accusation, Tit-for-Tat
China’s April 9, 2025, white paper—”China’s Position on Some Issues Concerning China-US Economic and Trade Relations”—does accuse the US of backsliding on tech transfers and ag commitments. It’s a direct counter to US reports.
Claim 6: Anti-Decoupling Stance – Consistent Rhetoric
Commerce Minister Wang Wentao’s quotes match official lines; China exported $500+ billion in critical minerals globally in 2024, opposing “disruptions.”.
Overall Fact Rating: 7/10 – Mostly factual, but heavy on omissions (e.g., PIIE data) that tilt toward misleading.
| Claim | Accuracy | Key Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| US Probe Launch | High | USTR announcement |
| China Compliance | Medium | PIIE: 57% met |
| US Escalation | Medium | Real controls, but linked speculatively |
| Legal/WTO Issues | Low-Medium | Contested; WTO history favors US |
| White Paper | High | Official release |
| Anti-Decoupling | High | Ministerial statements |
Propaganda Analysis:
Global Times, a tabloid arm of the People’s Daily (CCP mouthpiece), excels at “wolf warrior” diplomacy—aggressive defense of Beijing. No outright fake news here (e.g., no fabricated events), but propaganda shines through:
- State-Sourced Echo Chamber: Relies solely on Embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu and CCG’s He Weiwen—zero US or neutral voices. This creates a monologue, not dialogue.
- Victimhood Narrative: Phrases like “hard-won outcomes” and “US repudiates the spirit” portray China as the aggrieved party, ignoring its own tariff hikes (e.g., 25% on US autos in 2024).
- Holistic Attack: Bundles trade with “false narratives” on Xinjiang/Taiwan to smear US motives as imperialistic, rallying domestic nationalism ahead of Xi-Trump talks.
- Call to Action: Ends with pleas for “mutual respect,” code for US concessions—pure soft power play.
In 2025’s trade war 2.0, this fits CCP strategy: Amplify grievances to justify retaliation, like recent rare earth export tweaks.
Framing:
Framing isn’t lying—it’s choosing the lens. Global Times frames the story to influence global (and domestic) views:
- Moral High Ground: China as “responsible major country” vs. US as reckless escalator. Ignores Phase One’s origins in Trump’s 2018 tariffs, framing it as a US betrayal.
- Timing as Conspiracy: Probe = “bargaining chips” pre-Malaysia talks, implying bad faith. Reality: US views it as overdue enforcement.
- Global Stakes: Ties to “supply chain stability,” positioning China as the world’s guardian—subtly undercutting US “friendshoring” efforts.
- Omission Bias: Skips US ag wins (e.g., rice tariff cuts per WTO ) or China’s $217B import shortfall vs. 2017 baseline.
This framing fosters anti-US sentiment, especially in the Global South, where China pitches itself as an alternative to “hegemonic” America.
The Global Times article isn’t “fake news”—its core facts (probe, white paper, talks) check out. But it’s propaganda gold: One-sided sourcing, loaded terms, and selective framing amplify China’s victim card while downplaying compliance gaps. In the 2025 US-China trade war, expect more of this as tariffs loom and Xi-Trump meet
