INTRODUCTION
2025 U.S.-China Trade Framework: On June 11, 2025, the United States and China unveiled a preliminary framework aimed at resolving some of the long-standing trade frictions that have characterized bilateral relations over the past decade. The framework, discussed in closed-door sessions held in London, marks a tentative thaw following years of tit-for-tat tariffs, retaliatory measures, and strained diplomatic exchanges. Among the central features of the proposed arrangement are China’s agreement to lift certain export controls on rare earth minerals and the United States’ partial rollback of export restrictions on semiconductor-related software and aviation technologies.
The trade dispute between these two global powers has evolved into a multifaceted confrontation encompassing not just economic competition but also national security, technological dominance, and geopolitical rivalry. The new framework is not a definitive agreement, but a signal that both parties are prepared to engage in deeper economic dialogue. This development is especially notable given the recent stalling of trade talks in late 2024 and the intensifying rhetoric in both capitals.
“This framework, while modest in its scope, could serve as the scaffolding for a more robust and durable trade agreement. The real question is whether it can be insulated from broader strategic frictions,” said Dr. Min-Jae Lee, Senior Fellow at the Asia Trade Policy Institute.
The legal and policy implications of this framework are significant. It raises questions about executive authority in trade negotiations, the role of Congress, and the application of international trade laws under the WTO framework. Moreover, it tests the limits of how much trade liberalization can occur amid simultaneous national security concerns and decoupling pressures.
“The agreement exists in a legal gray area where economic policy collides with foreign policy. That makes oversight and enforcement particularly challenging,” noted Professor Ellen Hartley, a trade law expert at Yale Law School.
At its core, this trade framework invites broader reflection on how the U.S. and China might coexist economically while competing strategically. The road ahead is uncertain, but the stakes are indisputably high.
LEGAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The evolution of U.S.-China trade relations has been marked by a series of legal benchmarks and policy shifts that have shaped the current geopolitical and economic terrain. Central to understanding the 2025 framework is a recognition of the relevant statutory and institutional foundations underpinning international trade law.
The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3). Yet in recent decades, Congress has delegated significant discretion to the executive branch. For instance, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 empowers the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate and respond to unfair trade practices. This provision became instrumental during the Trump administration, which levied billions in tariffs on Chinese goods without congressional authorization.
“Section 301 was designed as a targeted response mechanism, not a comprehensive trade strategy. Its expanded use has blurred the lines between remedy and retaliation,” stated Professor Lila Kumar, University of Chicago Law School.
In parallel, the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA) of 2018 provides the statutory basis for restricting sensitive technologies on national security grounds. This has been used extensively to limit China’s access to semiconductor design software and aviation components, measures partially eased under the new framework.
On the Chinese side, the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law (2021) allows Beijing to impose countersanctions on entities that comply with foreign sanctions regimes. This legal tool has become central to China’s strategic posture in resisting perceived economic coercion.
Historically, the 2001 accession of China to the World Trade Organization (WTO) was a pivotal moment, heralding increased market access and integration. However, repeated complaints about compliance, intellectual property theft, and state subsidies have undermined confidence in multilateral mechanisms. The WTO has ruled against both the U.S. and China in various disputes, yet enforcement remains weak.
“WTO adjudication lacks teeth when major economies refuse to comply with unfavorable rulings. This erodes the credibility of the entire system,” argued Dr. Laura Schmidt of the Institute for International Economic Law.
Additionally, landmark cases such as United States v. Yoshida International (526 F.2d 560) and more recently, Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States (4 F.4th 1306) have tested the boundaries of executive authority in imposing tariffs. These judicial precedents shape the legal architecture within which the new trade framework must operate.
As such, the 2025 framework is more than a diplomatic overture; it is an inflection point in a legal continuum defined by overlapping domestic and international norms.
CASE STATUS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The 2025 trade framework, while not yet codified as a binding treaty or statutory agreement, has entered a phase of intergovernmental review. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has issued a memorandum outlining the procedural roadmap for formalizing the arrangement, which includes stakeholder consultations, public comment periods, and possible congressional briefings.
Though the Biden administration has not explicitly invoked the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), often referred to as “fast track” authority, its use remains a possibility. TPA, when granted, allows the executive to negotiate trade agreements subject to an up-or-down vote in Congress without amendments.
“The absence of fast track authority complicates the timeline. Without it, any deal faces potential dilution or derailment in Congress,” remarked Jonathan Reyes, legislative counsel at the Congressional Research Service.
In parallel, legal scholars and industry associations are preparing amici curiae briefs in anticipation of litigation that may arise. These legal filings are expected to address issues ranging from administrative procedure violations to the constitutionality of executive trade actions.
The Chinese Ministry of Commerce, meanwhile, has issued a white paper affirming its intent to comply with the export relaxation terms but emphasized that compliance is contingent on “reciprocal goodwill and non-interference in domestic governance.”
Public legal commentary has been split. Some experts see the framework as a step toward re-anchoring trade in predictable legal processes, while others view it as a tactical pause with minimal enforceability.
“Without dispute resolution mechanisms and transparency obligations, the agreement risks becoming symbolic rather than structural,” cautioned Meredith Ng, a former appellate attorney at the WTO.
The next phases will likely include legislative hearings, regulatory adjustments by the Departments of Commerce and Treasury, and possible judicial reviews depending on the scope of executive discretion exercised.
VIEWPOINTS AND COMMENTARY
Progressive / Liberal Perspectives
Progressive policymakers and analysts generally support the framework as a step toward de-escalation, but caution against sacrificing labor, environmental, and human rights standards in the name of market access. They argue for embedding enforceable provisions that reflect democratic values and equitable development.
“Trade cannot be disentangled from labor justice. Any deal that neglects these dimensions is incomplete,” said Representative Karen Mendoza (D-CA), a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Progressive think tanks such as the Roosevelt Institute and the Economic Policy Institute have issued position papers advocating for conditional liberalization—where access to U.S. technology markets is contingent upon verifiable reforms in Chinese labor practices and intellectual property protections.
They also call for increased congressional oversight and the establishment of an independent Trade Equity Commission to monitor implementation.
“We need systemic guardrails, not episodic diplomacy. That requires new institutions, not just new intentions,” argued Dr. Aisha Banerjee, a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.
There is also concern that lifting restrictions on dual-use technologies without robust export control updates could undermine national security and empower authoritarian surveillance capabilities.
Overall, liberal stakeholders favor a holistic approach that integrates trade with values-based diplomacy.
Conservative / Right-Leaning Perspectives
Conservative perspectives are marked by skepticism and strategic caution. While many welcome the economic potential of renewed trade, there is considerable apprehension about compromising national security for economic expediency.
“We should not barter away our technological edge for temporary trade peace,” warned Senator Rick Thomas (R-TX), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Organizations like the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute argue that any rollback of export controls must be paired with stricter verification mechanisms and mandatory disclosures from Chinese firms operating in the U.S.
The dominant conservative view is that the U.S. should continue decoupling from sectors where China poses a security threat, especially in quantum computing, 5G, and aviation.
“Strategic autonomy is not isolationism; it’s prudence in an era of geopolitical competition,” said Elaine Carter, senior analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
Moreover, there is criticism that the framework lacks clear metrics, timelines, and enforcement tools, making it vulnerable to manipulation.
The consensus among conservative voices is that the framework must not become a substitute for resilience-building and domestic industrial investment.
COMPARABLE OR HISTORICAL CASES
The 1985 Plaza Accord provides a notable historical parallel. That agreement between the U.S., Japan, and several Western nations aimed to correct trade imbalances through currency realignment. While it temporarily alleviated U.S. trade deficits, it also accelerated Japan’s asset bubble and did not resolve structural tensions.
“The Plaza Accord teaches us that currency and trade adjustments without institutional reform are inherently unstable,” noted Dr. Hiroshi Tanaka, Professor of International Finance at Keio University.
Another relevant case is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which the U.S. withdrew from in 2017. That multilateral agreement incorporated labor, environmental, and digital trade standards that many see as a model for future deals. Although China was not a party, its exclusion and the vacuum created by U.S. withdrawal reshaped regional alliances.
“TPP was our best shot at setting the rules of the road in Asia. Its abandonment weakened our normative influence,” argued Richard Fontaine, CEO of the Center for a New American Security.
The Uruguay Round negotiations, culminating in the creation of the WTO, also provide lessons. These talks demonstrated that broad-based consensus is achievable, but only through binding commitments and dispute resolution mechanisms.
In contrast, the 2025 framework lacks institutional support and thus may mirror the short-lived outcomes of earlier bilateral accords.
These historical precedents reveal that unless rooted in enforceable legal structures, trade frameworks risk becoming ephemeral responses to deep-rooted structural issues.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND FORECASTING
The short-term implications of the trade framework include the easing of market volatility, resumption of some cross-border supply chains, and improved investor sentiment. However, these gains are conditional on follow-through measures.
In the medium term, the agreement may catalyze new rounds of bilateral dialogues on digital trade, climate cooperation, and dispute settlement. Agencies such as the U.S. International Trade Commission and China’s National Development and Reform Commission are expected to conduct impact assessments.
“Policy stability breeds market confidence, but it must be earned through transparency and enforcement,” said Dr. Elena Markov, research director at the Atlantic Council.
In the long term, the framework’s success or failure will influence global governance models. A successful accord could restore faith in cooperative multilateralism. Conversely, its breakdown could embolden unilateralism and strategic bifurcation.
There is also a risk that domestic backlash—from industries, labor unions, or national security agencies—could derail implementation.
Think tanks such as Brookings and the Peterson Institute advocate for embedding the framework within a broader Indo-Pacific economic strategy that includes allies and partners.
Ultimately, the agreement must be integrated into a durable legal and institutional architecture to endure the political and economic cycles ahead.
CONCLUSION
The 2025 U.S.-China trade framework is emblematic of the tensions that characterize 21st-century globalization: interdependence coexists with competition, and cooperation is conditioned by ideology and security.
It raises enduring constitutional questions about the balance of power in trade policy, underscores the limitations of international adjudication, and highlights the need for institutional innovation.
“Trade is no longer a purely economic domain; it is the frontline of geopolitical rivalry,” reflected Dr. Samuel Price, a political economist at the London School of Economics.
Moving forward, policymakers must ask: Can trade agreements be both flexible and enforceable? And how can they be designed to reflect the evolving realities of national security, technological change, and global governance?
The answers to these questions will shape not only U.S.-China relations but the future of the global economic order.
For Further Reading
- US, China agree on ‘framework’ on trade after talks in London
- US, China reach deal to ease rare earths export curbs, keep tariff truce alive
- Recalibrate Your Strategy in China with This Framework
- Navigating trade-offs in the global economy: A framework for a world between orders
- Navigating Geopolitical Divides: What Global Businesses Need to Know in 2025
