After the China-U.S.-Paris talks, Trump remained silent for more than ten days and suddenly announced that China would buy an additional 20 million tons of soybeans.

(Source: Times Oriental Viewpoint)

The Paris negotiations had just ended not long ago. The situation was once calm. But more than 10 days later, Trump suddenly released a message to the outside world, saying that China would buy an additional 20 million tons of U.S. soybeans. The moment the news was announced, the atmosphere immediately changed. Whether it is worth trusting or not ultimately is not about the numbers, but about the motives behind it and the realities on the ground.

First, let’s sort out the timeline. From the 15th to the 16th of this month, the U.S. and China held a round of trade talks in Paris, France, and the scope did not involve sensitive areas. The negotiations were proposed by the U.S. first, and China agreed to push them forward. After the talks, an important U.S. private trade organization visited China, and China provided a high-spec reception. The market therefore expected some easing in relations. But the real change did not appear right away. At the official level, there was no substantive breakthrough, and at the data level, there was no clear improvement. In this relatively calm window period, Trump at the White House, in front of farmers and agricultural businesses, suddenly announced that China would, on top of the existing basis, place an additional order for 20 million tons of soybeans—and he even directly took credit for it.

The question is straightforward: there is no authoritative channel that confirmed this matter in parallel. China did not release any message, and the U.S. trade system also has not made any public data to support it. More importantly, in the first two months, the scale of China’s imports of U.S. soybeans was not high. There is a clear gap between that and the so-called “additional 20 million tons.” Under these circumstances, this message looks more like a targeted release than an already-delivered trade result.

If we put the scene back into the White House event at that time, it becomes even clearer. Trump was, on one hand, talking about orders, while on the other hand encouraging farmers to expand investment and buy bigger agricultural machinery. Even on-site, he displayed a symbolic exhibit. This tempo does not look like announcing trade progress—it looks more like emotional mobilization, and the target audience is the American agricultural community.

Why say these things to farmers? The core reason is that the real pressure is simply too great. In the past few years, U.S.-China economic and trade frictions have directly hit U.S. agricultural product exports, and soybeans are the most typical example. China was originally the most important buyer of U.S. soybeans. Once the procurement pace changes, U.S. domestic inventories pile up immediately, prices come under pressure, and farmers’ incomes decline. The U.S. government has indeed provided subsidies, and the scale is not small, but subsidies can only buffer cash flow; they cannot solve the market problem. If soybeans cannot be sold, inventories keep building up. As the next season comes, whether to plant or not, farmers have no bottom line. If this condition continues for a long time, political risk will rise.

What’s even more troublesome is that China has already been adjusting its supply structure, and countries such as Brazil are increasing their share of soybeans. A substitution effect is gradually forming. Once the supply chain is fully restructured, it will be very difficult for the U.S. to return to its original share. This is not a matter of short-term price fluctuations, but a change in the long-term landscape. So Trump needs a “good news” story—at least something verbal. For farmers, as long as expectations are lifted, planting and investment will not shrink immediately. For the government, this can stabilize a key supporting voter group. The problem is that markets do not run on slogans. Orders have to be landed, ships have to set sail, and the data has to match.

Many people focus on whether the order is real or fake. But a more important issue is this: to restore stable China-U.S. economic and trade relations, what actions does the U.S. need to take? Based on current indications, the most essential step has never appeared—namely, adjusting the unfair trade measures toward China. Trade relations are not about one-way concessions, nor can they be maintained by political pressure alone. China’s adjustment in soybean procurement is, in essence, risk management, resulting from supply diversification. Since uncertainty comes from policy, you need to hedge it by diversification. This is a normal choice for any country.

If the U.S. does not change its original approach—maintaining restrictions and pressure while hoping China will resume large-scale purchasing—then the logic itself cannot hold. Markets will look at costs, stability, and long-term expectations, not political statements. Whoever can provide more stable supply will be able to secure market share. There is also a reality that cannot be ignored: today’s China-U.S. relationship is no longer the kind of one-way structure it used to be. The U.S. can no longer force China to change its procurement direction using simple means. With both sides’ relative strength getting closer, the way they play the game has changed, and relying on calls and speeches cannot solve the problem.

Let’s look at the timing again. After the Paris negotiations ended, neither side rushed to release results, which shows that the talks were more about contact and testing the waters. More than 10 days later, suddenly throwing out a big order message is inherently unnatural. From the outside, it is to create the impression of progress in the negotiations; from the inside, it is to stabilize agricultural voters’ confidence. When these two goals overlap, it forms this “heavyweight message.” But the more it is like this, the more it shows one issue: real progress has not yet reached a level that can be publicly disclosed.

The American agricultural community is not blind to this. Inventory pressure, export structure, and international competition are all obvious realities in front of them. Relying on only a single unconfirmed order message makes it hard to change their judgment. In the short term, it may boost sentiment, but in the long run it still comes down to actual transactions. Trade has never been something you can shout into existence. It is something you load ship by ship. You can say words first, but the market will not go along with your performance. The real leverage is not in press conferences, but in rules and actions.

Part of the source material: Observer Network

Endless information and precise insights—now on the Sina Finance APP