MOFCOM's Q&A today on Bessent, Greer, APEC talks, Nexperia, etc.

China's Ministry of Commerce addresses hot button issues of the day

China’s Ministry of Commerce just filed a series of tweets, which are essentially the transcript of its press briefing today/Thursday/October 16, 2025.

They timely address key issues from the past several days, including direct name-calling of Li Chenggang, Vice Minister of Commerce and China International Trade Representative, by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and provide substantial answers.

So I’ve pasted them here.

Q: Bloomberg reported that, in remarks delivered this week in Washington, D.C., U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent described comments made by Chinese Vice Minister of Commerce Li Chenggang on August 28 as “inflammatory,” claimed that Mr. Li appeared uninvited in Washington and behaved disrespectfully, and further alleged that Mr. Li had stated, “China would unleash chaos on the global system if the U.S. went ahead with our docking fees for Chinese ships.” What is China’s response to these claims? Will Vice Minister Li Chenggang issue a response?

A: The U.S. remarks seriously distort the facts. From August 27 to 29 local time, Mr. Li Chenggang, Vice Minister of Commerce and China International Trade Representative, visited the United States and engaged in exchanges and communications on China-U.S. economic and trade relations and implementing the consensuses of China-U.S. economic and trade meetings to deliver the consensuses reached by the two heads of state on their phone calls, and conveyed China’s serious concerns regarding the restrictions of U.S. Section 301 investigation targeting China’s shipbuilding and related sectors. In recent weeks, in line with the consensuses reached on the presidents’ phone calls and during the China-U.S. economic and trade meetings, China has proactively engaged the U.S. side in consultations on the Section 301 measures, consistently adopting a constructive posture and putting forward related cooperation proposals. However, the U.S. has responded with a negative attitude and insisted on implementing restrictive measures. As a result, China was left with no choice but to adopt countermeasures, including the imposition of special port fees on U.S.-related vessels in accordance with laws and regulations. The U.S. Section 301 investigation and restrictions targeting China’s shipbuilding and other sectors are textbook examples of unilateralism and protectionism. They not only severely harm the interests of relevant Chinese industries but will also fuel inflation in the United States, weaken the competitiveness of U.S. ports, and damage American jobs. I want to point out specially that the implementation of U.S. measures has indeed affected the stability of global supply chains and caused significant turmoil in the global shipping industry. China’s related countermeasures are defensive and reactive, taken solely out of necessity to uphold a level playing field in international shipping and shipbuilding markets. China hopes that the United States will recognize the erroneous nature of its actions, work with China in the same direction, and return to the right track of dialogue and consultation.

Q: Some media reports quoted U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer as saying at a press briefing on October 15 that China’s recent measures would have broad impact across multiple sectors globally, including semiconductors, artificial intelligence, smartphones, automobiles, household appliances, and defense. What is China’s comment on that claim?

A: China’s recent export control measures on rare earths are legitimate actions taken in accordance with laws and regulations to further improve its export control system. The objective is to prevent rare earths from being illicitly diverted to improper end-uses, such as weapons of mass destruction, thereby better safeguarding China’s national security and global common security. The foreign-made rare earth products now subject to control are strictly limited to rare earth magnets and related components and rare earth sputtering targets, among others, that are already listed on China’s export control list. Prior to announcing these measures, China had notified the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other countries and regions. We are continuing friendly communications with related countries and regions on facilitation as far as the export control measures are concerned. The U.S. interpretation seriously distorts and deliberately exaggerates China’s measures, aiming to provoke unwarranted misunderstanding and panic. In fact, the United States has long employed extraterritorial jurisdiction dating back several decades. Since 2022, the U.S. has repeatedly imposed semiconductor-related export controls targeting China, abusing globally applicable extraterritorial mechanisms such as the “0% de minimis rule” and the “foreign direct product rule” to coerce other countries into jointly containing and suppressing China. The U.S. remarks reflect a classic case of judging others by one’s own standards and precisely reveal how the United States itself has kept overstretching the concept of “national security.” The security and stability of global supply chains require the joint efforts of all countries, including the United States.

Q: U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated that whether the United States would impose additional 100% tariffs on Chinese products depended on China, and he expressed his belief that there was still a chance to resolve the dispute over restrictions on critical minerals. What is China’s response? Have other countries sought clarification regarding China’s new rare earth export control measures?

A: I would like to emphasize that since the China-U.S. economic and trade talks in Madrid, and despite China’s repeated dissuasion, the United States has, in just over 20 days, rolled out 20 measures to suppress China. These measures have seriously harmed China’s interests and undermined the atmosphere of the bilateral trade discussions. In particular, at the end of September, the U.S. introduced a so-called Affiliates Rule for its Entity List under export controls, effectively expanding the list to cover thousands of Chinese enterprises. Moreover, on October 1, disregarding China’s sincere efforts to engage in consultations, the U.S. persisted with the implementation of port fees on Chinese shipbuilders under its Section 301 investigation—causing significant harm to China’s interests and producing extremely negative repercussions. China expresses strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition to this series of U.S. actions. We hope the United States value the outcomes achieved in the economic and trade talks, immediately rectify its wrong practices. China stands ready to work with the U.S. on the basis of mutual respect to properly address each side’s concerns through equal-footed dialogue. Prior to announcing its export control measures, China had already notified relevant countries and regions—including the United States—through bilateral export control dialogue mechanisms, clarifying the policy’s objectives to minimize misunderstandings or misjudgments. Some countries and regions have expressed understanding and their willingness to engage actively in communication and cooperation with China on this matter, as they are doing currently.

Q: U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent recently stated that he expected to meet with Vice Premier of the State Council He Lifeng before the APEC meetings. Will the two sides hold a new round of economic and trade talks in the near future?

A: China has always held an open attitude toward equal-footed consultations based on mutual respect.

Q: The China Semiconductor Industry Association has issued a statement opposing the intervention by Dutch local authorities in the normal operations of Nexperia, a subsidiary of Wingtech Technology. What is MOFCOM’s comment on this? Will China consider taking countermeasures?

A: China has taken note of the relevant developments. The Chinese side firmly opposes the Dutch authorities’ overstretching of the “national security” concept and direct administrative interference in the internal affairs of enterprises. The Dutch move not only violates the spirit of contract and the principles of market economy, but will also seriously undermine the Netherlands’ own business environment, to the detriment of both others and itself. China has also noted that, according to court documents made public by a Dutch court on October 14, the Netherlands and the United States had previously communicated and coordinated on the so-called Affiliates Rule. The U.S. urged the Netherlands to replace Nexperia’s Chinese CEO and “adjust its governance structure” in an attempt to avoid sanctions under this rule. China has already clearly expressed its position on the U.S. Affiliates Rule. I would like to reiterate that this U.S. measure severely disrupts the international economic and trade order and gravely undermines the security and stability of global industrial and supply chains. The Dutch action is a clear example of how the U.S. Affiliates Rule is being used to infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises. Indeed, it is the United States that originated this harmful practice targeting Chinese companies. It is hoped that the Dutch side will act independently and autonomously, uphold the broader interests of Sino-Dutch economic and trade relations, safeguard the stability of the global semiconductor supply chain, respect objective facts, adhere to the spirit of contract and market principles, rectify its erroneous actions, and effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese investors by fostering a fair, transparent, and predictable business environment. China will take all necessary measures to resolutely safeguard the lawful rights and interests of its enterprises.

Q: We have noted that MOFCOM has emphasized that China’s export controls on rare earths are not export bans—compliant export applications for civil use can be approved, and relevant enterprises have no need to worry. However, some European companies have expressed worries that they may have to halt production while waiting for approval of their rare earth export applications from MOFCOM. Will MOFCOM consider establishing a “green channel” to alleviate the pressure on these enterprises?

A: Rare earths and related items possess clear dual-use attributes for both civil and military purposes. China’s imposition of export controls on these items in accordance with the law is a legitimate measure aimed at improving its export control system, safeguarding national security and interests, and fulfilling non-proliferation and other international obligations. The recent export control measures on rare earths represent a normal act by the Chinese government to refine its export control system in accordance with laws and regulations, and are not targeted at any specific country or region. All compliant export applications for civil uses will be approved. Regarding the “green channel” you mentioned, I would like to clarify that, during the implementation of these measures, China will continuously optimize the licensing process, shorten review timelines, and actively consider introducing facilitation measures such as general licenses or license exemption, so as to effectively promote compliant trade.

Q: It is understood that China’s WTO dispute against the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act is currently under review by a panel. The U.S. terminated the new energy vehicle (NEV) subsidy measure at issue on September 30 under its recently enacted “One Big Beautiful Bill”. What is China’s comment on this development?

A: We have noted that, on September 30, the United States terminated the new energy vehicle subsidies under its Inflation Reduction Act. These subsidies conditioned eligibility on the use of products from the U.S. and certain designated regions, thereby discriminating against products from China and other WTO members. This practice constitutes a serious violation of WTO rules and represents a clear case of trade protectionism through the abuse of subsidy policies. China had previously challenged this measure by filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization. With regard to the U.S. decision to terminate this specific subsidy program, China views it as a correct step for the U.S. to rectify its own wrongful practice. However, we have also taken note that the United States has not terminated other challenged measures in China’s WTO dispute concerning the Inflation Reduction Act—particularly subsidies related to clean energy, which remain inconsistent with WTO rules. On this basis, China will continue to pursue the dispute settlement proceedings in accordance with WTO rules, firmly safeguard the legitimate interests of its domestic industries and resolutely uphold the rules-based multilateral trading system. We look forward to a fair and impartial ruling from the WTO panel.