![\"Picture\"](\"https://content.ibisworld.com/media/tahb13e3/blob.png?rmode=max&width=720&height=514\")
Over the last two decades, the US-China trade relationship has morphed from a commercial rivalry into a full-blown strategic contest, impacting every aspect of global economic and geopolitical dynamics. This transformation can be traced back to 2001 when China joined the World Trade Organization. This event laid the foundation for rapid economic integration between the US and China, with American companies gaining access to low-cost manufacturing and a massive consumer market, and Chinese firms joining global supply chains and attracting significant investment. For years, this relationship benefited both nations.
\n\n
The relationship fractured in 2018, when what started as a tit-for-tat tariff war under the Trump administration—ostensibly over intellectual property theft and trade imbalances—escalated into a broader confrontation. Tariffs on both sides ballooned from low single digits to around 25%, gutting predictable trade flows and reshaping supply chains. This set the stage for the second Trump administration, which quickly reignited the tariff war. Trade tensions between the two countries have intensified to historic highs, pushing average US tariffs on Chinese goods to over 124% (as of April 2025), with China hitting back even harder.
\n\n
\n
Today's trade tensions mark a new chapter in decoupling the US and China—the deliberate separation of these deeply intertwined economies. For decades, companies globally have structured their workforce, infrastructure and supply chains on the assumption that technology, capital and logistics would allow goods and information to flow freely between them. Now, escalating trade tensions threaten to reverse decades of this economic integration.
\n\n
What sets the current tensions between the US and China apart from previous, more routine disputes, such as shipping delays or regulatory obstacles, is that they are driven by long-term strategic goals instead of short-term issues. Both the Trump and Biden administrations, and now the second Trump administration, have shown a sustained focus on fundamentally reordering the US-China relationship. Their goal has been to protect national security, secure supply chains and prevent technology from supporting a geopolitical rival. China, in turn, wants to reduce dependence on the West, achieve self-reliance in critical sectors and shield itself from what it considers US containment. Mutually, the US and China view separation as a path to resilience and global influence, but achieving these aims requires actively decoupling strategic industries.
\n\n
![\"Picture\"](\"https://content.ibisworld.com/media/d32pxm05/blob.jpg?rmode=max&width=720&height=383\")
\n
Decoupling involves the separation of critical, high-leverage industries, as control of these areas directly influences everything from a country's future economic growth to independence and military strength to global influence. Some industries – semiconductor production, biotechnology and automotive manufacturing – are critical to modern economies and tech advancement. The desire for self-sufficiency and leadership in these sectors drives nations to minimize reliance on global supply chains, reduce vulnerabilities to external disruptions and secure their position. Decoupling is a fundamental shift toward safeguarding national interests and ensuring long-term sovereignty and resilience.
\n\n
One potential outcome of the current scenario is the rapid acceleration of geoeconomic fragmentation. This is the process of an integrated economic system breaking into rival blocs, driven by political, strategic or national security concerns versus market logic. This idea isn't just a product of the current US-China environment; a report from the International Monetary Fund from 2023 outlines how the global economy has been moving toward three distinct categories or blocs: the US and its allies, China and its partners and non-aligned countries that balance relations with both the US and China.
\n\n
\n
Semiconductors are the center of economic tension between the US and China and are highly vulnerable to decoupling. Semiconductor chips power nearly every modern device – from planes to smartphones and medical equipment – and are foundational to emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing. Producing them requires a globally integrated supply chain for all aspects of production, including chip design, fabrication and assembly. For example, US companies are leaders in chip design, China performs assembly and testing and Taiwan and South Korea fabricate advanced chips.
\n\n
However, long-term trade decoupling threatens to fragment this incredibly integrated network. COVID-19 accelerated the fragmentation of chip production, as supply disruptions highlighted the risk of overreliance on China for these components. Initially, the US invested billions through the Biden administration's CHIPS Act to boost domestic research and production of these chips. A series of export controls between 2022 and 2025 followed as the US sought to block China's access to semiconductors and dismantle these supply chains.
\n\n
![\"Picture\"](\"https://content.ibisworld.com/media/pg5fccac/blob.jpg?rmode=max&width=720&height=481\")
\n
For example, a recent US rule issued by the Trump administration in April 2025, which requires licenses for American companies to export advanced chipmaking equipment to China and sharply restricts the sale of specialized AI chips, illustrates this vulnerability. Chip manufacturer Nvidia has already reported a severe financial impact, with the company anticipating a $5.5 billion loss because of the new restrictions that effectively block access to the Chinese market, a market for which certain chips were specifically engineered to meet earlier regulatory standards. This underscores the industry's dependence on cross-border trade and regulatory cooperation, which national security agendas and protectionist policies, like tariffs, erode.
\n\n
Decoupling would reshape the global semiconductor industry as the two largest economies drift into competing technology blocs. This separation would force semiconductor producers to maintain redundant, geographically dispersed supply chains and design separate products for different regulatory environments, resulting in higher operating costs and diminished economies of scale. Stringent export bans and shifting international sanctions could add substantial compliance burdens and ongoing uncertainty, pressing global chipmakers, including NVIDIA and TSMC, to duplicate production lines or relocate operations to more politically stable or \"friendly\" nations. While these strategies could insulate manufacturers from geopolitical shocks, they require years and extensive capital outlays.
\n\n
![\"Picture\"](\"https://content.ibisworld.com/media/wonpx4ml/blob.png?rmode=max&width=720&height=568\")
\n
Current trade tensions between the US and China could push the automotive and aerospace manufacturing industries into a long-term era of fragmentation. The Trump administration levied tariffs on automobiles, including Chinese-made cars, viewing the reliance on foreign-made vehicles and parts as a strategic vulnerability, not just an economic issue. This policy shift reflects a broader change in US industrial strategy toward decoupling. If current trade tensions hold, automotive and aerospace manufacturing will be less dependent on a global scale and more on strategic flexibility. Auto companies and parts suppliers dependent on global integration must adapt by reconfiguring their supply chains, investing in localized production and seeking alternative markets or suppliers. These adaptations will bring significant costs in capital expenditures and reduced economies of scale.
\n\n
Automotive production relies heavily on international supply chains. Tariffs on major auto components—engines, transmissions and powertrains—raise costs across the board. Even cars assembled in the US source about 60% of their parts from abroad. This situation pressures US factories to localize component production, source from local suppliers or absorb the increased costs. To manage these challenges, US automakers may shift more production to Mexico and Canada (as of April 2025, USMCA-compliant parts are exempt from tariffs) to stay within the trade bloc, an example of geoeconomic fragmentation where US automakers favor suppliers in politically aligned nations over those in lower-cost or more efficient countries in Asia. This will reshape investment strategies, with more capacity built in North America and reduced reliance on China.
\n\n
Another possible long-term outcome is the complete exit of American automakers from China to avoid the growing complexity of operating within a fragmented trade environment. However, this would mean US automakers risk losing competitiveness and access to one of the world's largest and fastest-growing markets. In response, Chinese auto manufacturers would focus on strengthening their supply chains and increasing exports to other regions, deepening the divide between the Chinese and US automotive industries.
\n\n
![\"Picture\"](\"https://content.ibisworld.com/media/ypwmaytc/blob.jpg?rmode=max&width=720&height=481\")
\n
Geoeconomic fragmentation would also accelerate a shift from the just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing model, which has long been the standard in the automotive and aerospace industries. This model depends on global trade, efficient cross-border shipping and minimal inventory (benefit). However, rising trade barriers, geopolitical instability and regulatory uncertainty undermine this model, pushing manufacturers toward a 'just-in-case' approach. This manufacturing model forces automakers to build buffers like additional inventory stocks, local production capacity and multi-country supplier networks. This shift is a reversal of decades of lean production, introducing higher overhead costs, longer lead times and substantial increases in capital requirements. Aerospace would face challenges with long-lead or highly specialized components that are difficult to source domestically on short notice.
\n\n
The US's heavy reliance on China for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and other drug components is a pressing issue. An estimated 80% of APIs for essential medicines have no domestic manufacturing source, with roughly 25% of all APIs used in the US imported from China . This dependency, which has been built over decades of offshoring production to cut costs, now faces the immediate threat of rising geopolitical tensions, including tariffs, especially between the US and China, which could disrupt this critical supply chain.
\n\n
The US pharmaceutical sector faces ongoing operating, regulatory and reputational risks from this concentrated dependency. Only 5% of large-scale API sites globally are in the US, leaving US pharmaceutical manufacturers to supply disruptions, price fluctuations and quality control issues. COVID exposed these vulnerabilities, causing disruptions in China's API supply. COVID exposed these vulnerabilities, with disruptions in the supply of APIs from China directly contributing to drug shortages in the US. However, these shortages eased between 2023 and 2024 as supply chains stabilized post-pandemic. New trade tensions are strategic and policy-driven, not logistical, which poses the risk of escalation without a clear resolution or timeline.
\n\n
If trade relations worsen, China could restrict API exports in retaliation through sanctions or higher tariffs. These risks transform supply chain management from an economic problem to a national security issue, prompting regulatory and policy responses. Industry leaders encourage the reshoring or diversifying API production, but building and certifying new pharmaceutical production facilities can take years and significant capital investment. While drug shortages during the pandemic kickstarted efforts to bring API production to the US–the Biden administration, for instance, allocated funds to an API Innovation Center in St. Louis–the progress is slow and lacks the scale to meet US demand.
\n\n
![\"Picture\"](\"https://content.ibisworld.com/media/nilffrx2/blob.jpg?rmode=max&width=720&height=406\")
\n
The critical nature of a secure pharmaceutical supply chain will likely accelerate the movement toward two distinct blocs. US pharmaceutical producers and policymakers are pushing to rebuild or relocate pharmaceutical production for national security and preparedness. China, in turn, is investing in expanding its pharmaceutical ecosystem, partnering with countries in the Belt and Road Initiative (China's global infrastructure and economic development strategy, launched in 2013) and building alliances in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
\n\n
Renewable energy equipment production is vulnerable to US-China decoupling because it depends on China's near-monopoly of upstream materials and stringent regulatory frameworks. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), China accounts for over 90% of global polysilicon, ingot and wafer capacity; this is expected to reach 95% by 2025. Similarly, Chinese manufacturers produced 75% of the global supply of lithium-ion batteries in 2023, critical to powering electric vehicles and electrical grids. While China controls the bulk of active-materials production and cell manufacturing, the US contributes advanced cell design, manufacturing equipment and a massive end market.
\n\n
Trump's tariffs on Chinese polysilicon and battery cells will sharply raise US input costs. In response, China put seven heavy and medium rare-earth elements under strict export-licensing controls in April 2025 (the US only has one operating rare earths mine). These trade tensions push the sector toward geoeconomic fragmentation, as the US currently lacks sufficient domestic capacity in these critical industries. This dependency leaves US clean energy companies vulnerable to supply disruptions, higher costs and delayed projects. At the same time, manufacturers in both countries need to consider investing billions to build parallel supply chains.
\n\n
\n
Trade tools, specifically tariffs, are increasingly relevant to credit risk and investment ratings. Geopolitical friction–specifically the trade war between the US and China–reshapes economic forecasts and corporate credit profiles. While trade policies always influenced risk ratings, President Trump's 2025 tariff expansion (including a 125% tariff on all Chinese imports) and China's retaliatory measures underscore how intertwined trade policy is with creditworthiness and investment decisions. These volatile trade tensions between the US and China signify political risk, supply chain fragility and cost volatility, which translate directly into risk for credit agencies and investors.
\n\n
Credit analysts and rating agencies have already reassessed risk profiles: In April 2025, Fitch Ratings cut China's rating from an A-plus to an A. Fitch adjusted its outlook on the global automotive sector to deteriorating from stable and Moody's estimates tariffs will slow US growth by 1%. These ratings and forecasts reflect rising caution about the stability of the world's two largest economies, key industries (such as automotive) and the global consequences of trade disputes on credit conditions and macroeconomic growth.
\n\n
![\"Picture\"](\"https://content.ibisworld.com/media/u1anptjn/blob.jpg?rmode=max&width=720&height=481\")
\n
Fitch's downgrade of the global automotive sector to a deteriorating outlook for 2025 highlights the rising credit risk for industries closely tied to China. The move follows the US imposing a 25% tariff on imported vehicles and parts, with even higher rates on some Chinese goods. This will significantly raise costs for automakers reliant on Chinese or Asia-based supply chains. Fitch also warned that these increased costs, combined with the risk of lost sales in China because of possible retaliation, will squeeze profit and limit financial flexibility. Fitch cited that the cost and time to restructure global operations also influenced its decision. The downgrade signals that sectors dependent on China for sourcing or sales face elevated credit risk as trade tensions and barriers intensify.
\n\n
Rising compliance costs, fragmented regulations and constrained access to global capital could also make some industries less attractive to investors over the long term. Realigning the global economy into trade blocs introduces higher costs and tighter operating conditions, as companies must navigate a patchwork of export controls, tariffs and ESG rules that differ widely by country. This extends due diligence and legal processes and requires greater investment in compliance resources. Companies that must restructure their supply chains or exit specific markets to remain compliant would face higher costs.
\n\n
Adapting to this environment poses the most challenges for high-tech industries like tech hardware, renewable energy, pharmaceuticals or automotive manufacturing, where cross-border trade of goods, parts and technology is vital. Regulatory fragmentation means companies must follow different or conflicting standards across regions like the US and China, adding risk and complexity. For investors, rising costs and regulatory unpredictability push capital toward more stable markets and industries less exposed to these global pressures.
\n\n
![\"Picture\"](\"https://content.ibisworld.com/media/s2wjiarp/blob.jpg?rmode=max&width=720&height=480\")
\n
Tariffs and trade volatility are making capital harder to access and investment riskier. Uncertainty around regulatory shifts and escalating costs weakens business credit profiles and deters investors from committing long-term capital. As financing becomes more expensive or limited, sectors exposed to global trade—especially those requiring large, upfront investments—face growing underinvestment. Investors are increasingly cautious, avoiding ventures that could be derailed by future trade disputes or supply chain disruptions.
\n\n
Investments in new supply chains and evolving trade patterns will fundamentally reshape global competition by redistributing where production, innovation and market power are concentrated. Diversification away from China redesigns supply networks to prioritize resilience, political stability and regional market access over cost efficiency. This shift favors countries like Vietnam, India, Canada and Mexico, which will absorb manufacturing investment and strengthen as hubs of industrial activity. The outcome is a more fragmented economy, where different regions have more autonomous economies instead of a global, interconnected one.
\n\n
Competition will increasingly favor businesses that proactively diversify their supply bases and align with politically stable, strategically supportive markets. These companies will be better positioned to absorb rising costs from tariffs, regulatory changes and potential disruptions. This approach controls expenses and creates opportunities to access new consumer markets, benefit from local incentives and build more agile operations. In contrast, companies that fail to adapt risk being trapped in costly, vulnerable supply networks, facing higher production expenses, frequent disruptions and barriers to market entry.
\n\n
\n
As geopolitical tensions make the Chinese market more unpredictable, companies with significant exposure must reevaluate long-term planning. Access to China's market and manufacturing capacity will remain indispensable for market scale and cost-effective production. Still, business leaders need to prepare for risks, including tariffs, stricter regulations, data controls and exit restrictions. Supply chain agility will be critical to absorb shocks from unexpected tariffs or export curbs. Expanding into other manufacturing hubs—like Vietnam, India and Mexico—companies can hedge risk, create fallback options and ensure continuity.
\n\n
The uncertainty of trade tensions will make accelerating investments in a resilient supply chain critical. This includes supplier diversification and advanced software solutions for supply chain visibility and risk management. For example, new digital tools enable unprecedented real-time visibility, predictive insights and automated response capabilities that allow companies to monitor disruptions, optimize inventories and reroute shipments as needed.
\n\n
Business leaders, regulators and investors should consider heightened geopolitical volatility as a fixture of business planning today. Policy shifts, including sudden tariffs, sanctions or market closures, can emerge with little notice and cause financial and operational damage. Strategic initiatives could become unviable for companies without political risk analysis and scenario modeling (trade disputes, export controls, regulatory overhauls). Embedding these considerations into risk frameworks enables organizations to quantify potential disruptions, diversify supply chains and prepare protocols. The volatility of the current environment will also increasingly make this an expectation from investors and shareholders who need assurance that risks are proactively managed and that the company can protect its value, earnings and long-term viability.
","TimeToRead":15,"FinalWord":null,"KeyTakeaways":null,"DatePublished":"2025-05-06T00:00:00Z","DatePublishedTimestamp":0,"DateFormatted":"May 06, 2025","UrlSlug":"/us-china-trade/","SeoTitle":"Fault Lines: Trump’s Tariffs and the Fracturing of US-China Trade","SeoDescription":"The Trump administration's unprecedented tariffs are accelerating US-China decoupling, compelling business leaders to rethink strategies after decades of established trade norms.","SeoImageUrl":"/media/iwxophe1/socialmedia-logo.png","Tags":["Tariffs","Trump","China","Trade","International Trade","Semiconductor","Automotive","Pharmaceuticals","Renewable Energy"],"Sectors":null,"Toc":null,"Culture":"en","IsFeatured":false,"IsHidden":false},"Item2": {"Id":6700,"Key":"d6a5f105-5497-4f4f-a80b-c73b0a1079f6","Title":"Fault Lines: Trump’s Tariffs and the Fracturing of US-China Trade","Country":"United States","CountryId":1,"AuthorId":5371,"AuthorName":"Marley Brocker","AuthorTitle":"Industry Analyst","AuthorPhoto":"/media/1nelcwt3/marley-b-headshot-1-1.png","AuthorBio":"Marley is an Industry Analyst working out of IBISWorld's New York office.\n","Image":null,"CategoryId":1126,"CategoryName":"Analyst Insights","Persona":null,"Content":"Over the last two decades, the US-China trade relationship has morphed from a commercial rivalry into a full-blown strategic contest, impacting every aspect of global economic and geopolitical dynamics. This transformation can be traced back to 2001 when China joined the World Trade Organization. This event laid the foundation for rapid economic integration between the US and China, with American companies gaining access to low-cost manufacturing and a massive consumer market, and Chinese firms joining global supply chains and attracting significant investment. For years, this relationship benefited both nations.
\n\n
The relationship fractured in 2018, when what started as a tit-for-tat tariff war under the Trump administration—ostensibly over intellectual property theft and trade imbalances—escalated into a broader confrontation. Tariffs on both sides ballooned from low single digits to around 25%, gutting predictable trade flows and reshaping supply chains. This set the stage for the second Trump administration, which quickly reignited the tariff war. Trade tensions between the two countries have intensified to historic highs, pushing average US tariffs on Chinese goods to over 124% (as of April 2025), with China hitting back even harder.
\n\n
\n
Today's trade tensions mark a new chapter in decoupling the US and China—the deliberate separation of these deeply intertwined economies. For decades, companies globally have structured their workforce, infrastructure and supply chains on the assumption that technology, capital and logistics would allow goods and information to flow freely between them. Now, escalating trade tensions threaten to reverse decades of this economic integration.
\n\n
What sets the current tensions between the US and China apart from previous, more routine disputes, such as shipping delays or regulatory obstacles, is that they are driven by long-term strategic goals instead of short-term issues. Both the Trump and Biden administrations, and now the second Trump administration, have shown a sustained focus on fundamentally reordering the US-China relationship. Their goal has been to protect national security, secure supply chains and prevent technology from supporting a geopolitical rival. China, in turn, wants to reduce dependence on the West, achieve self-reliance in critical sectors and shield itself from what it considers US containment. Mutually, the US and China view separation as a path to resilience and global influence, but achieving these aims requires actively decoupling strategic industries.
\n\n
\n
Decoupling involves the separation of critical, high-leverage industries, as control of these areas directly influences everything from a country's future economic growth to independence and military strength to global influence. Some industries – semiconductor production, biotechnology and automotive manufacturing – are critical to modern economies and tech advancement. The desire for self-sufficiency and leadership in these sectors drives nations to minimize reliance on global supply chains, reduce vulnerabilities to external disruptions and secure their position. Decoupling is a fundamental shift toward safeguarding national interests and ensuring long-term sovereignty and resilience.
\n\n
One potential outcome of the current scenario is the rapid acceleration of geoeconomic fragmentation. This is the process of an integrated economic system breaking into rival blocs, driven by political, strategic or national security concerns versus market logic. This idea isn't just a product of the current US-China environment; a report from the International Monetary Fund from 2023 outlines how the global economy has been moving toward three distinct categories or blocs: the US and its allies, China and its partners and non-aligned countries that balance relations with both the US and China.
\n\n
\n
Semiconductors are the center of economic tension between the US and China and are highly vulnerable to decoupling. Semiconductor chips power nearly every modern device – from planes to smartphones and medical equipment – and are foundational to emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing. Producing them requires a globally integrated supply chain for all aspects of production, including chip design, fabrication and assembly. For example, US companies are leaders in chip design, China performs assembly and testing and Taiwan and South Korea fabricate advanced chips.
\n\n
However, long-term trade decoupling threatens to fragment this incredibly integrated network. COVID-19 accelerated the fragmentation of chip production, as supply disruptions highlighted the risk of overreliance on China for these components. Initially, the US invested billions through the Biden administration's CHIPS Act to boost domestic research and production of these chips. A series of export controls between 2022 and 2025 followed as the US sought to block China's access to semiconductors and dismantle these supply chains.
\n\n
\n
For example, a recent US rule issued by the Trump administration in April 2025, which requires licenses for American companies to export advanced chipmaking equipment to China and sharply restricts the sale of specialized AI chips, illustrates this vulnerability. Chip manufacturer Nvidia has already reported a severe financial impact, with the company anticipating a $5.5 billion loss because of the new restrictions that effectively block access to the Chinese market, a market for which certain chips were specifically engineered to meet earlier regulatory standards. This underscores the industry's dependence on cross-border trade and regulatory cooperation, which national security agendas and protectionist policies, like tariffs, erode.
\n\n
Decoupling would reshape the global semiconductor industry as the two largest economies drift into competing technology blocs. This separation would force semiconductor producers to maintain redundant, geographically dispersed supply chains and design separate products for different regulatory environments, resulting in higher operating costs and diminished economies of scale. Stringent export bans and shifting international sanctions could add substantial compliance burdens and ongoing uncertainty, pressing global chipmakers, including NVIDIA and TSMC, to duplicate production lines or relocate operations to more politically stable or \"friendly\" nations. While these strategies could insulate manufacturers from geopolitical shocks, they require years and extensive capital outlays.
\n\n
\n
Current trade tensions between the US and China could push the automotive and aerospace manufacturing industries into a long-term era of fragmentation. The Trump administration levied tariffs on automobiles, including Chinese-made cars, viewing the reliance on foreign-made vehicles and parts as a strategic vulnerability, not just an economic issue. This policy shift reflects a broader change in US industrial strategy toward decoupling. If current trade tensions hold, automotive and aerospace manufacturing will be less dependent on a global scale and more on strategic flexibility. Auto companies and parts suppliers dependent on global integration must adapt by reconfiguring their supply chains, investing in localized production and seeking alternative markets or suppliers. These adaptations will bring significant costs in capital expenditures and reduced economies of scale.
\n\n
Automotive production relies heavily on international supply chains. Tariffs on major auto components—engines, transmissions and powertrains—raise costs across the board. Even cars assembled in the US source about 60% of their parts from abroad. This situation pressures US factories to localize component production, source from local suppliers or absorb the increased costs. To manage these challenges, US automakers may shift more production to Mexico and Canada (as of April 2025, USMCA-compliant parts are exempt from tariffs) to stay within the trade bloc, an example of geoeconomic fragmentation where US automakers favor suppliers in politically aligned nations over those in lower-cost or more efficient countries in Asia. This will reshape investment strategies, with more capacity built in North America and reduced reliance on China.
\n\n
Another possible long-term outcome is the complete exit of American automakers from China to avoid the growing complexity of operating within a fragmented trade environment. However, this would mean US automakers risk losing competitiveness and access to one of the world's largest and fastest-growing markets. In response, Chinese auto manufacturers would focus on strengthening their supply chains and increasing exports to other regions, deepening the divide between the Chinese and US automotive industries.
\n\n
\n
Geoeconomic fragmentation would also accelerate a shift from the just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing model, which has long been the standard in the automotive and aerospace industries. This model depends on global trade, efficient cross-border shipping and minimal inventory (benefit). However, rising trade barriers, geopolitical instability and regulatory uncertainty undermine this model, pushing manufacturers toward a 'just-in-case' approach. This manufacturing model forces automakers to build buffers like additional inventory stocks, local production capacity and multi-country supplier networks. This shift is a reversal of decades of lean production, introducing higher overhead costs, longer lead times and substantial increases in capital requirements. Aerospace would face challenges with long-lead or highly specialized components that are difficult to source domestically on short notice.
\n\n
The US's heavy reliance on China for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and other drug components is a pressing issue. An estimated 80% of APIs for essential medicines have no domestic manufacturing source, with roughly 25% of all APIs used in the US imported from China . This dependency, which has been built over decades of offshoring production to cut costs, now faces the immediate threat of rising geopolitical tensions, including tariffs, especially between the US and China, which could disrupt this critical supply chain.
\n\n
The US pharmaceutical sector faces ongoing operating, regulatory and reputational risks from this concentrated dependency. Only 5% of large-scale API sites globally are in the US, leaving US pharmaceutical manufacturers to supply disruptions, price fluctuations and quality control issues. COVID exposed these vulnerabilities, causing disruptions in China's API supply. COVID exposed these vulnerabilities, with disruptions in the supply of APIs from China directly contributing to drug shortages in the US. However, these shortages eased between 2023 and 2024 as supply chains stabilized post-pandemic. New trade tensions are strategic and policy-driven, not logistical, which poses the risk of escalation without a clear resolution or timeline.
\n\n
If trade relations worsen, China could restrict API exports in retaliation through sanctions or higher tariffs. These risks transform supply chain management from an economic problem to a national security issue, prompting regulatory and policy responses. Industry leaders encourage the reshoring or diversifying API production, but building and certifying new pharmaceutical production facilities can take years and significant capital investment. While drug shortages during the pandemic kickstarted efforts to bring API production to the US–the Biden administration, for instance, allocated funds to an API Innovation Center in St. Louis–the progress is slow and lacks the scale to meet US demand.
\n\n
\n
The critical nature of a secure pharmaceutical supply chain will likely accelerate the movement toward two distinct blocs. US pharmaceutical producers and policymakers are pushing to rebuild or relocate pharmaceutical production for national security and preparedness. China, in turn, is investing in expanding its pharmaceutical ecosystem, partnering with countries in the Belt and Road Initiative (China's global infrastructure and economic development strategy, launched in 2013) and building alliances in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
\n\n
Renewable energy equipment production is vulnerable to US-China decoupling because it depends on China's near-monopoly of upstream materials and stringent regulatory frameworks. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), China accounts for over 90% of global polysilicon, ingot and wafer capacity; this is expected to reach 95% by 2025. Similarly, Chinese manufacturers produced 75% of the global supply of lithium-ion batteries in 2023, critical to powering electric vehicles and electrical grids. While China controls the bulk of active-materials production and cell manufacturing, the US contributes advanced cell design, manufacturing equipment and a massive end market.
\n\n
Trump's tariffs on Chinese polysilicon and battery cells will sharply raise US input costs. In response, China put seven heavy and medium rare-earth elements under strict export-licensing controls in April 2025 (the US only has one operating rare earths mine). These trade tensions push the sector toward geoeconomic fragmentation, as the US currently lacks sufficient domestic capacity in these critical industries. This dependency leaves US clean energy companies vulnerable to supply disruptions, higher costs and delayed projects. At the same time, manufacturers in both countries need to consider investing billions to build parallel supply chains.
\n\n
\n
Trade tools, specifically tariffs, are increasingly relevant to credit risk and investment ratings. Geopolitical friction–specifically the trade war between the US and China–reshapes economic forecasts and corporate credit profiles. While trade policies always influenced risk ratings, President Trump's 2025 tariff expansion (including a 125% tariff on all Chinese imports) and China's retaliatory measures underscore how intertwined trade policy is with creditworthiness and investment decisions. These volatile trade tensions between the US and China signify political risk, supply chain fragility and cost volatility, which translate directly into risk for credit agencies and investors.
\n\n
Credit analysts and rating agencies have already reassessed risk profiles: In April 2025, Fitch Ratings cut China's rating from an A-plus to an A. Fitch adjusted its outlook on the global automotive sector to deteriorating from stable and Moody's estimates tariffs will slow US growth by 1%. These ratings and forecasts reflect rising caution about the stability of the world's two largest economies, key industries (such as automotive) and the global consequences of trade disputes on credit conditions and macroeconomic growth.
\n\n
\n
Fitch's downgrade of the global automotive sector to a deteriorating outlook for 2025 highlights the rising credit risk for industries closely tied to China. The move follows the US imposing a 25% tariff on imported vehicles and parts, with even higher rates on some Chinese goods. This will significantly raise costs for automakers reliant on Chinese or Asia-based supply chains. Fitch also warned that these increased costs, combined with the risk of lost sales in China because of possible retaliation, will squeeze profit and limit financial flexibility. Fitch cited that the cost and time to restructure global operations also influenced its decision. The downgrade signals that sectors dependent on China for sourcing or sales face elevated credit risk as trade tensions and barriers intensify.
\n\n
Rising compliance costs, fragmented regulations and constrained access to global capital could also make some industries less attractive to investors over the long term. Realigning the global economy into trade blocs introduces higher costs and tighter operating conditions, as companies must navigate a patchwork of export controls, tariffs and ESG rules that differ widely by country. This extends due diligence and legal processes and requires greater investment in compliance resources. Companies that must restructure their supply chains or exit specific markets to remain compliant would face higher costs.
\n\n
Adapting to this environment poses the most challenges for high-tech industries like tech hardware, renewable energy, pharmaceuticals or automotive manufacturing, where cross-border trade of goods, parts and technology is vital. Regulatory fragmentation means companies must follow different or conflicting standards across regions like the US and China, adding risk and complexity. For investors, rising costs and regulatory unpredictability push capital toward more stable markets and industries less exposed to these global pressures.
\n\n
\n
Tariffs and trade volatility are making capital harder to access and investment riskier. Uncertainty around regulatory shifts and escalating costs weakens business credit profiles and deters investors from committing long-term capital. As financing becomes more expensive or limited, sectors exposed to global trade—especially those requiring large, upfront investments—face growing underinvestment. Investors are increasingly cautious, avoiding ventures that could be derailed by future trade disputes or supply chain disruptions.
\n\n
Investments in new supply chains and evolving trade patterns will fundamentally reshape global competition by redistributing where production, innovation and market power are concentrated. Diversification away from China redesigns supply networks to prioritize resilience, political stability and regional market access over cost efficiency. This shift favors countries like Vietnam, India, Canada and Mexico, which will absorb manufacturing investment and strengthen as hubs of industrial activity. The outcome is a more fragmented economy, where different regions have more autonomous economies instead of a global, interconnected one.
\n\n
Competition will increasingly favor businesses that proactively diversify their supply bases and align with politically stable, strategically supportive markets. These companies will be better positioned to absorb rising costs from tariffs, regulatory changes and potential disruptions. This approach controls expenses and creates opportunities to access new consumer markets, benefit from local incentives and build more agile operations. In contrast, companies that fail to adapt risk being trapped in costly, vulnerable supply networks, facing higher production expenses, frequent disruptions and barriers to market entry.
\n\n
\n
As geopolitical tensions make the Chinese market more unpredictable, companies with significant exposure must reevaluate long-term planning. Access to China's market and manufacturing capacity will remain indispensable for market scale and cost-effective production. Still, business leaders need to prepare for risks, including tariffs, stricter regulations, data controls and exit restrictions. Supply chain agility will be critical to absorb shocks from unexpected tariffs or export curbs. Expanding into other manufacturing hubs—like Vietnam, India and Mexico—companies can hedge risk, create fallback options and ensure continuity.
\n\n
The uncertainty of trade tensions will make accelerating investments in a resilient supply chain critical. This includes supplier diversification and advanced software solutions for supply chain visibility and risk management. For example, new digital tools enable unprecedented real-time visibility, predictive insights and automated response capabilities that allow companies to monitor disruptions, optimize inventories and reroute shipments as needed.
\n\n
Business leaders, regulators and investors should consider heightened geopolitical volatility as a fixture of business planning today. Policy shifts, including sudden tariffs, sanctions or market closures, can emerge with little notice and cause financial and operational damage. Strategic initiatives could become unviable for companies without political risk analysis and scenario modeling (trade disputes, export controls, regulatory overhauls). Embedding these considerations into risk frameworks enables organizations to quantify potential disruptions, diversify supply chains and prepare protocols. The volatility of the current environment will also increasingly make this an expectation from investors and shareholders who need assurance that risks are proactively managed and that the company can protect its value, earnings and long-term viability.
","TimeToRead":15,"FinalWord":null,"KeyTakeaways":null,"DatePublished":"2025-05-06T00:00:00Z","DatePublishedTimestamp":0,"DateFormatted":"May 06, 2025","UrlSlug":"/us-china-trade/","SeoTitle":"Fault Lines: Trump’s Tariffs and the Fracturing of US-China Trade","SeoDescription":"The Trump administration's unprecedented tariffs are accelerating US-China decoupling, compelling business leaders to rethink strategies after decades of established trade norms.","SeoImageUrl":"/media/iwxophe1/socialmedia-logo.png","Tags":["Tariffs","Trump","China","Trade","International Trade","Semiconductor","Automotive","Pharmaceuticals","Renewable Energy"],"Sectors":null,"Toc":null,"Culture":"en","IsFeatured":false,"IsHidden":false},"Item3": {"Id":6700,"Key":"d6a5f105-5497-4f4f-a80b-c73b0a1079f6","Title":"Fault Lines: Trump’s Tariffs and the Fracturing of US-China Trade","Country":"United States","CountryId":1,"AuthorId":5371,"AuthorName":"Marley Brocker","AuthorTitle":"Industry Analyst","AuthorPhoto":"/media/1nelcwt3/marley-b-headshot-1-1.png","AuthorBio":"Marley is an Industry Analyst working out of IBISWorld's New York office.\n","Image":null,"CategoryId":1126,"CategoryName":"Analyst Insights","Persona":null,"Content":"Over the last two decades, the US-China trade relationship has morphed from a commercial rivalry into a full-blown strategic contest, impacting every aspect of global economic and geopolitical dynamics. This transformation can be traced back to 2001 when China joined the World Trade Organization. This event laid the foundation for rapid economic integration between the US and China, with American companies gaining access to low-cost manufacturing and a massive consumer market, and Chinese firms joining global supply chains and attracting significant investment. For years, this relationship benefited both nations.
\n\n
The relationship fractured in 2018, when what started as a tit-for-tat tariff war under the Trump administration—ostensibly over intellectual property theft and trade imbalances—escalated into a broader confrontation. Tariffs on both sides ballooned from low single digits to around 25%, gutting predictable trade flows and reshaping supply chains. This set the stage for the second Trump administration, which quickly reignited the tariff war. Trade tensions between the two countries have intensified to historic highs, pushing average US tariffs on Chinese goods to over 124% (as of April 2025), with China hitting back even harder.
\n\n
\n
Today's trade tensions mark a new chapter in decoupling the US and China—the deliberate separation of these deeply intertwined economies. For decades, companies globally have structured their workforce, infrastructure and supply chains on the assumption that technology, capital and logistics would allow goods and information to flow freely between them. Now, escalating trade tensions threaten to reverse decades of this economic integration.
\n\n
What sets the current tensions between the US and China apart from previous, more routine disputes, such as shipping delays or regulatory obstacles, is that they are driven by long-term strategic goals instead of short-term issues. Both the Trump and Biden administrations, and now the second Trump administration, have shown a sustained focus on fundamentally reordering the US-China relationship. Their goal has been to protect national security, secure supply chains and prevent technology from supporting a geopolitical rival. China, in turn, wants to reduce dependence on the West, achieve self-reliance in critical sectors and shield itself from what it considers US containment. Mutually, the US and China view separation as a path to resilience and global influence, but achieving these aims requires actively decoupling strategic industries.
\n\n
\n
Decoupling involves the separation of critical, high-leverage industries, as control of these areas directly influences everything from a country's future economic growth to independence and military strength to global influence. Some industries – semiconductor production, biotechnology and automotive manufacturing – are critical to modern economies and tech advancement. The desire for self-sufficiency and leadership in these sectors drives nations to minimize reliance on global supply chains, reduce vulnerabilities to external disruptions and secure their position. Decoupling is a fundamental shift toward safeguarding national interests and ensuring long-term sovereignty and resilience.
\n\n
One potential outcome of the current scenario is the rapid acceleration of geoeconomic fragmentation. This is the process of an integrated economic system breaking into rival blocs, driven by political, strategic or national security concerns versus market logic. This idea isn't just a product of the current US-China environment; a report from the International Monetary Fund from 2023 outlines how the global economy has been moving toward three distinct categories or blocs: the US and its allies, China and its partners and non-aligned countries that balance relations with both the US and China.
\n\n
\n
Semiconductors are the center of economic tension between the US and China and are highly vulnerable to decoupling. Semiconductor chips power nearly every modern device – from planes to smartphones and medical equipment – and are foundational to emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing. Producing them requires a globally integrated supply chain for all aspects of production, including chip design, fabrication and assembly. For example, US companies are leaders in chip design, China performs assembly and testing and Taiwan and South Korea fabricate advanced chips.
\n\n
However, long-term trade decoupling threatens to fragment this incredibly integrated network. COVID-19 accelerated the fragmentation of chip production, as supply disruptions highlighted the risk of overreliance on China for these components. Initially, the US invested billions through the Biden administration's CHIPS Act to boost domestic research and production of these chips. A series of export controls between 2022 and 2025 followed as the US sought to block China's access to semiconductors and dismantle these supply chains.
\n\n
\n
For example, a recent US rule issued by the Trump administration in April 2025, which requires licenses for American companies to export advanced chipmaking equipment to China and sharply restricts the sale of specialized AI chips, illustrates this vulnerability. Chip manufacturer Nvidia has already reported a severe financial impact, with the company anticipating a $5.5 billion loss because of the new restrictions that effectively block access to the Chinese market, a market for which certain chips were specifically engineered to meet earlier regulatory standards. This underscores the industry's dependence on cross-border trade and regulatory cooperation, which national security agendas and protectionist policies, like tariffs, erode.
\n\n
Decoupling would reshape the global semiconductor industry as the two largest economies drift into competing technology blocs. This separation would force semiconductor producers to maintain redundant, geographically dispersed supply chains and design separate products for different regulatory environments, resulting in higher operating costs and diminished economies of scale. Stringent export bans and shifting international sanctions could add substantial compliance burdens and ongoing uncertainty, pressing global chipmakers, including NVIDIA and TSMC, to duplicate production lines or relocate operations to more politically stable or \"friendly\" nations. While these strategies could insulate manufacturers from geopolitical shocks, they require years and extensive capital outlays.
\n\n
\n
Current trade tensions between the US and China could push the automotive and aerospace manufacturing industries into a long-term era of fragmentation. The Trump administration levied tariffs on automobiles, including Chinese-made cars, viewing the reliance on foreign-made vehicles and parts as a strategic vulnerability, not just an economic issue. This policy shift reflects a broader change in US industrial strategy toward decoupling. If current trade tensions hold, automotive and aerospace manufacturing will be less dependent on a global scale and more on strategic flexibility. Auto companies and parts suppliers dependent on global integration must adapt by reconfiguring their supply chains, investing in localized production and seeking alternative markets or suppliers. These adaptations will bring significant costs in capital expenditures and reduced economies of scale.
\n\n
Automotive production relies heavily on international supply chains. Tariffs on major auto components—engines, transmissions and powertrains—raise costs across the board. Even cars assembled in the US source about 60% of their parts from abroad. This situation pressures US factories to localize component production, source from local suppliers or absorb the increased costs. To manage these challenges, US automakers may shift more production to Mexico and Canada (as of April 2025, USMCA-compliant parts are exempt from tariffs) to stay within the trade bloc, an example of geoeconomic fragmentation where US automakers favor suppliers in politically aligned nations over those in lower-cost or more efficient countries in Asia. This will reshape investment strategies, with more capacity built in North America and reduced reliance on China.
\n\n
Another possible long-term outcome is the complete exit of American automakers from China to avoid the growing complexity of operating within a fragmented trade environment. However, this would mean US automakers risk losing competitiveness and access to one of the world's largest and fastest-growing markets. In response, Chinese auto manufacturers would focus on strengthening their supply chains and increasing exports to other regions, deepening the divide between the Chinese and US automotive industries.
\n\n
\n
Geoeconomic fragmentation would also accelerate a shift from the just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing model, which has long been the standard in the automotive and aerospace industries. This model depends on global trade, efficient cross-border shipping and minimal inventory (benefit). However, rising trade barriers, geopolitical instability and regulatory uncertainty undermine this model, pushing manufacturers toward a 'just-in-case' approach. This manufacturing model forces automakers to build buffers like additional inventory stocks, local production capacity and multi-country supplier networks. This shift is a reversal of decades of lean production, introducing higher overhead costs, longer lead times and substantial increases in capital requirements. Aerospace would face challenges with long-lead or highly specialized components that are difficult to source domestically on short notice.
\n\n
The US's heavy reliance on China for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and other drug components is a pressing issue. An estimated 80% of APIs for essential medicines have no domestic manufacturing source, with roughly 25% of all APIs used in the US imported from China . This dependency, which has been built over decades of offshoring production to cut costs, now faces the immediate threat of rising geopolitical tensions, including tariffs, especially between the US and China, which could disrupt this critical supply chain.
\n\n
The US pharmaceutical sector faces ongoing operating, regulatory and reputational risks from this concentrated dependency. Only 5% of large-scale API sites globally are in the US, leaving US pharmaceutical manufacturers to supply disruptions, price fluctuations and quality control issues. COVID exposed these vulnerabilities, causing disruptions in China's API supply. COVID exposed these vulnerabilities, with disruptions in the supply of APIs from China directly contributing to drug shortages in the US. However, these shortages eased between 2023 and 2024 as supply chains stabilized post-pandemic. New trade tensions are strategic and policy-driven, not logistical, which poses the risk of escalation without a clear resolution or timeline.
\n\n
If trade relations worsen, China could restrict API exports in retaliation through sanctions or higher tariffs. These risks transform supply chain management from an economic problem to a national security issue, prompting regulatory and policy responses. Industry leaders encourage the reshoring or diversifying API production, but building and certifying new pharmaceutical production facilities can take years and significant capital investment. While drug shortages during the pandemic kickstarted efforts to bring API production to the US–the Biden administration, for instance, allocated funds to an API Innovation Center in St. Louis–the progress is slow and lacks the scale to meet US demand.
\n\n
\n
The critical nature of a secure pharmaceutical supply chain will likely accelerate the movement toward two distinct blocs. US pharmaceutical producers and policymakers are pushing to rebuild or relocate pharmaceutical production for national security and preparedness. China, in turn, is investing in expanding its pharmaceutical ecosystem, partnering with countries in the Belt and Road Initiative (China's global infrastructure and economic development strategy, launched in 2013) and building alliances in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
\n\n
Renewable energy equipment production is vulnerable to US-China decoupling because it depends on China's near-monopoly of upstream materials and stringent regulatory frameworks. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), China accounts for over 90% of global polysilicon, ingot and wafer capacity; this is expected to reach 95% by 2025. Similarly, Chinese manufacturers produced 75% of the global supply of lithium-ion batteries in 2023, critical to powering electric vehicles and electrical grids. While China controls the bulk of active-materials production and cell manufacturing, the US contributes advanced cell design, manufacturing equipment and a massive end market.
\n\n
Trump's tariffs on Chinese polysilicon and battery cells will sharply raise US input costs. In response, China put seven heavy and medium rare-earth elements under strict export-licensing controls in April 2025 (the US only has one operating rare earths mine). These trade tensions push the sector toward geoeconomic fragmentation, as the US currently lacks sufficient domestic capacity in these critical industries. This dependency leaves US clean energy companies vulnerable to supply disruptions, higher costs and delayed projects. At the same time, manufacturers in both countries need to consider investing billions to build parallel supply chains.
\n\n
\n
Trade tools, specifically tariffs, are increasingly relevant to credit risk and investment ratings. Geopolitical friction–specifically the trade war between the US and China–reshapes economic forecasts and corporate credit profiles. While trade policies always influenced risk ratings, President Trump's 2025 tariff expansion (including a 125% tariff on all Chinese imports) and China's retaliatory measures underscore how intertwined trade policy is with creditworthiness and investment decisions. These volatile trade tensions between the US and China signify political risk, supply chain fragility and cost volatility, which translate directly into risk for credit agencies and investors.
\n\n
Credit analysts and rating agencies have already reassessed risk profiles: In April 2025, Fitch Ratings cut China's rating from an A-plus to an A. Fitch adjusted its outlook on the global automotive sector to deteriorating from stable and Moody's estimates tariffs will slow US growth by 1%. These ratings and forecasts reflect rising caution about the stability of the world's two largest economies, key industries (such as automotive) and the global consequences of trade disputes on credit conditions and macroeconomic growth.
\n\n
\n
Fitch's downgrade of the global automotive sector to a deteriorating outlook for 2025 highlights the rising credit risk for industries closely tied to China. The move follows the US imposing a 25% tariff on imported vehicles and parts, with even higher rates on some Chinese goods. This will significantly raise costs for automakers reliant on Chinese or Asia-based supply chains. Fitch also warned that these increased costs, combined with the risk of lost sales in China because of possible retaliation, will squeeze profit and limit financial flexibility. Fitch cited that the cost and time to restructure global operations also influenced its decision. The downgrade signals that sectors dependent on China for sourcing or sales face elevated credit risk as trade tensions and barriers intensify.
\n\n
Rising compliance costs, fragmented regulations and constrained access to global capital could also make some industries less attractive to investors over the long term. Realigning the global economy into trade blocs introduces higher costs and tighter operating conditions, as companies must navigate a patchwork of export controls, tariffs and ESG rules that differ widely by country. This extends due diligence and legal processes and requires greater investment in compliance resources. Companies that must restructure their supply chains or exit specific markets to remain compliant would face higher costs.
\n\n
Adapting to this environment poses the most challenges for high-tech industries like tech hardware, renewable energy, pharmaceuticals or automotive manufacturing, where cross-border trade of goods, parts and technology is vital. Regulatory fragmentation means companies must follow different or conflicting standards across regions like the US and China, adding risk and complexity. For investors, rising costs and regulatory unpredictability push capital toward more stable markets and industries less exposed to these global pressures.
\n\n
\n
Tariffs and trade volatility are making capital harder to access and investment riskier. Uncertainty around regulatory shifts and escalating costs weakens business credit profiles and deters investors from committing long-term capital. As financing becomes more expensive or limited, sectors exposed to global trade—especially those requiring large, upfront investments—face growing underinvestment. Investors are increasingly cautious, avoiding ventures that could be derailed by future trade disputes or supply chain disruptions.
\n\n
Investments in new supply chains and evolving trade patterns will fundamentally reshape global competition by redistributing where production, innovation and market power are concentrated. Diversification away from China redesigns supply networks to prioritize resilience, political stability and regional market access over cost efficiency. This shift favors countries like Vietnam, India, Canada and Mexico, which will absorb manufacturing investment and strengthen as hubs of industrial activity. The outcome is a more fragmented economy, where different regions have more autonomous economies instead of a global, interconnected one.
\n\n
Competition will increasingly favor businesses that proactively diversify their supply bases and align with politically stable, strategically supportive markets. These companies will be better positioned to absorb rising costs from tariffs, regulatory changes and potential disruptions. This approach controls expenses and creates opportunities to access new consumer markets, benefit from local incentives and build more agile operations. In contrast, companies that fail to adapt risk being trapped in costly, vulnerable supply networks, facing higher production expenses, frequent disruptions and barriers to market entry.
\n\n
\n
As geopolitical tensions make the Chinese market more unpredictable, companies with significant exposure must reevaluate long-term planning. Access to China's market and manufacturing capacity will remain indispensable for market scale and cost-effective production. Still, business leaders need to prepare for risks, including tariffs, stricter regulations, data controls and exit restrictions. Supply chain agility will be critical to absorb shocks from unexpected tariffs or export curbs. Expanding into other manufacturing hubs—like Vietnam, India and Mexico—companies can hedge risk, create fallback options and ensure continuity.
\n\n
The uncertainty of trade tensions will make accelerating investments in a resilient supply chain critical. This includes supplier diversification and advanced software solutions for supply chain visibility and risk management. For example, new digital tools enable unprecedented real-time visibility, predictive insights and automated response capabilities that allow companies to monitor disruptions, optimize inventories and reroute shipments as needed.
\n\n
Business leaders, regulators and investors should consider heightened geopolitical volatility as a fixture of business planning today. Policy shifts, including sudden tariffs, sanctions or market closures, can emerge with little notice and cause financial and operational damage. Strategic initiatives could become unviable for companies without political risk analysis and scenario modeling (trade disputes, export controls, regulatory overhauls). Embedding these considerations into risk frameworks enables organizations to quantify potential disruptions, diversify supply chains and prepare protocols. The volatility of the current environment will also increasingly make this an expectation from investors and shareholders who need assurance that risks are proactively managed and that the company can protect its value, earnings and long-term viability.
","TimeToRead":15,"FinalWord":null,"KeyTakeaways":null,"DatePublished":"2025-05-06T00:00:00Z","DatePublishedTimestamp":0,"DateFormatted":"May 06, 2025","UrlSlug":"/us-china-trade/","SeoTitle":"Fault Lines: Trump’s Tariffs and the Fracturing of US-China Trade","SeoDescription":"The Trump administration's unprecedented tariffs are accelerating US-China decoupling, compelling business leaders to rethink strategies after decades of established trade norms.","SeoImageUrl":"/media/iwxophe1/socialmedia-logo.png","Tags":["Tariffs","Trump","China","Trade","International Trade","Semiconductor","Automotive","Pharmaceuticals","Renewable Energy"],"Sectors":null,"Toc":null,"Culture":"en","IsFeatured":false,"IsHidden":false}}}