China blocks its firms from investing in US ahead of trade war escalation

New York Post - Apr 2nd, 2025

China is tightening its grip on domestic firms looking to invest in the United States, as tensions between the two economic giants mount. In a strategic move to gain leverage in upcoming trade negotiations with the Trump administration, Chinese regulators have been instructed to delay approvals for new US investments. This action comes as President Trump plans to announce extensive tariffs from the White House. Despite these restrictions, existing commitments from Chinese firms and their financial holdings in the US are not expected to be affected. However, the decision signals a significant shift in China's approach to its economic relationship with the US.

The current climate of escalating trade hostilities is underscored by recent events like the stalled $23 billion sale of global port facilities by CK Hutchison, a Hong Kong-based conglomerate. China's State Administration for Market Regulation has launched an investigation, citing potential anti-monopoly law violations, which effectively suspends the deal. This comes amidst President Xi Jinping's reported displeasure over the sale of strategic ports without Beijing's prior consultation. As both nations continue to impose tariffs and trade restrictions, this development highlights the deepening geopolitical and economic rift, with both sides preparing for a prolonged confrontation.

Xi Jinping Trump Administration Panama Canal Trade War Ck Hutchison China Us Trade Relations Chinese Investments

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant overview of the strategic economic tensions between the US and China, focusing on investment restrictions and geopolitical implications. It uses reputable sources like Bloomberg News and the Wall Street Journal, but lacks direct quotes from primary sources, which affects its accuracy and balance. The narrative is clear and accessible, making complex geopolitical issues understandable to a general audience. However, the story could benefit from more diverse perspectives and greater transparency in sourcing and methodology. Overall, the article effectively highlights significant public interest issues, though it could be strengthened by deeper analysis and direct official commentary.

Accuracy

The story makes several claims about China's economic strategies and their implications on US-China relations. It accurately reports on the strategic pause by China on US investments as a negotiation tactic. However, the article lacks direct citations from official Chinese government sources confirming these strategic moves. The report on the $6.9 billion investment figure in 2023 needs verification from reliable economic data sources. The mention of the Chinese regulators delaying the port sale due to anti-monopoly investigations is plausible but requires confirmation from Chinese regulatory announcements. The geopolitical context provided, such as tensions over the Panama Canal, aligns with known narratives but lacks direct evidence from involved parties.

Balance

The article predominantly presents a viewpoint that suggests China is strategically leveraging economic tools against the US in trade negotiations. While it provides insights into China's actions, it does not equally explore the US perspective or the potential rationale behind China's decisions beyond strategic leverage. The story could be more balanced by including comments or analyses from US economic or political experts, which would provide a more comprehensive view of the situation. The lack of direct quotes from Chinese officials also contributes to an imbalanced narrative, as the article relies heavily on secondary sources like Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, providing a coherent narrative about the tensions between the US and China. The language is straightforward, and the progression from China's investment strategies to the geopolitical implications is logical. However, the article could benefit from more explicit explanations of complex economic terms and processes for readers who may not be familiar with trade negotiations or investment dynamics. Despite this, the overall tone remains neutral, and the information is presented in a manner that is accessible to a general audience.

Source quality

The article cites reputable sources such as Bloomberg News and the Wall Street Journal, which are known for their journalistic standards. However, the lack of direct quotes or statements from primary sources, such as Chinese government officials or US trade representatives, limits the source quality. The reliance on unnamed sources for some of the claims about strategic intentions and economic figures requires cautious interpretation. The story would benefit from more diverse sourcing, including academic or think tank analyses, to bolster its credibility.

Transparency

The article provides limited transparency regarding its sources and the methodology behind its claims. It references Bloomberg News and the Wall Street Journal but does not offer detailed attributions or direct links to the original reports. The lack of explanation about how the investment figures were derived or how the strategic motives were assessed leaves readers without a clear understanding of the basis for these claims. Greater transparency in sourcing and methodology would enhance the article's credibility and allow readers to better evaluate the information presented.