The U.S.-China trade conflict has escalated into a full-blown war of narratives, with each side attempting to frame the dispute in a way that legitimizes its own actions while demonizing the other. At the heart of this war are two irreconcilable phrases: China’s defense of its “legitimate rights” and the U.S.’s condemnation of China’s “hostile acts.”
China is building its narrative around the principle of sovereignty and self-defense. By describing its promise to retaliate as a move to “protect its legitimate rights and interests,” Beijing portrays itself as a nation acting reasonably to defend itself against foreign aggression. Its export controls on rare earths are framed as a standard regulatory tool.
The United States, in contrast, is crafting a narrative of victimhood and justified response. By labeling China’s rare-earth policy a “very hostile” act, the Trump administration casts China as the initial aggressor. This framing is then used to justify its own extreme response—the 100% tariff threat—as a necessary and proportional measure to counter Chinese hostility.
These competing narratives are designed for different audiences. China’s message is aimed at its domestic population and the global south, emphasizing sovereignty. The U.S. message is tailored for a domestic audience and Western allies, emphasizing unfair competition and national security threats.
This war of narratives makes a resolution incredibly difficult. When one side’s “legitimate right” is the other side’s “hostile act,” there is no common ground for negotiation. The financial markets have crashed precisely because they can see that this narrative gap is widening, making a peaceful settlement seem more and more unlikely.