The international trade landscape has reached a critical juncture, with geopolitical tensions increasingly overshadowing economic logic. The relationship between the United States, China, and the European Union, once defined primarily by the flow of goods, is now revealing deeper fractures that challenge global stability. In July 2026, the International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES) in Ljubljana published an analysis titled “ZDA-Kitajska-EU: Med sodelovanjem in razdrobljenostjo v svetovni trgovini”, which explores how escalating geopolitical rivalries have led to growing protectionism, tariff conflicts, and regulatory fragmentation. Despite deep global interdependence, the world trading system is gradually shifting toward a more fragmented and politically conditioned order, undermining long-term stability and efficiency. In 2025, the absence of new tariff increases marked a brief reprieve, though this was soon followed by renewed tensions under the second Trump administration. Tariffs were raised to levels threatening bilateral trade, prompting a 90-day ceasefire in May. However, the agreement was extended until November 2026 during the Davos forum. Analysts emphasize that stable economic ties among China, the U.S., and the EU remain crucial for protecting global supply chains. Yet data from the first quarter of 2026 reveals clear shifts: U.S.-China trade fell by 16.6% to $128.68 billion, while China’s trade with ASEAN rose by 18.4%, and with the EU by 17.6%. Despite these disruptions, fundamental complementarity among economies remains unchanged. Former U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez suggested that a cooperation framework between both sides could serve as a model for a global system. Chinese companies, however, face mounting challenges due to tariffs, geopolitical pressures, and long-term commitments to the American market. According to a report by China's Economic Research Bureau regarding the U.S. in 2026, 79% of Chinese firms operating in the U.S. reported negative impacts from tariffs. Common consequences included rising import costs (39%), reduced profit margins (27%), and disruptions in supply chains (24%). Tariff uncertainty affected investment decisions, with 12% of firms delaying or reducing expansion plans. Notably, a surprising trend emerged: “position preservation,” with 73% of firms reporting no changes in investments compared to 53% in the previous year. Practical examples illustrate continued collaboration. For instance, Fujian Zhongjing Petrochemical imported 308,000 metric tons of propane from the U.S., accounting for 34.8% of its total imports, in the first four months of 2026. Similarly, JAC Auto Parts saw a 30% year-on-year increase in exports to the U.S., reaching 40 million yuan. Yang Weiguo of JAC emphasized that automotive markets in China and the U.S. remain complementary, and stable relations are essential for development. A significant portion of Chinese enterprises reported worsening conditions in 2025, with 21% noting substantial deterioration. Nevertheless, many demonstrated adaptability: 33% achieved revenue growth, and 81% remained profitable. Positive assessments of the business environment dropped to 9%, the lowest since 2018–2020. Particularly notable was the growth among high-margin firms. Companies with EBIT margins exceeding 15% increased from 7% in 2024 to 21% in 2025, the highest level in the survey’s history. This highlights operational resilience among firms leveraging competitive advantages. At the same time, 27% of businesses experienced declining profits, indicating polarization. Despite these difficulties, readiness for reinvestment reached record levels at 79%. Half of the surveyed firms planned to invest in new projects.
3 reports
+Portal (Portal Plus)IndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 757 days agoThe article discusses the evolving tensions between the US, China, and the EU in the global trade landscape, highlighting both cooperation efforts and growing geopolitical fragmentation. It notes that while there were periods of reduced tariffs and temporary agreements, data from early 2026 shows a significant decline in US-China trade (-16.6%) alongside growth in Chinese trade with ASEAN and the EU. Despite these shifts, analysts argue that fundamental economic complementarity remains. The piece also highlights negative impacts of tariffs on US-based Chinese companies, including rising import costs and supply chain disruptions. Concerns over geopolitical uncertainty affecting brand-building efforts and market competition are emphasized, with many firms struggling against dominant American brands. The article references ongoing trade disputes, such as Trump’s proposed increase in EU auto tariffs, which some view as attempts at forced reindustrialization.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the US-China trade conflict through a lens that emphasizes the negative impacts of Trump-era policies and geopolitical instability, portraying them as threats to economic stability and growth. While it acknowledges the complexity of international relations, it leans toward critiqu
Why factuality (85): This article provides detailed statistics from 2026, including trade figures between the US, China, and EU, as well as quotes from analysts like Carlos Gutierrez. These details align with the cross-source consensus regarding trade tensions and economic impacts. The data appears consistent with broad
Why objectivity (75): While the article presents a balanced view of trade tensions and economic impacts, it leans slightly towards highlighting the negative effects of tariffs on businesses, which could be seen as a subtle bias. The overall tone remains professional but has some editorial emphasis on the challenges faced
Si21IndependentCenterFactual 80Objective 7012 days agoThe article discusses the growing geopolitical tensions between the United States, China, and the European Union, which are increasingly overshadowing economic logic in global trade. It highlights how these tensions have led to rising protectionism, tariff conflicts, and regulatory fragmentation, undermining long-term stability and efficiency in the global trading system. The piece references data from early 2026 showing a 16.6% decline in U.S.-China trade to $128.68 billion, while trade with ASEAN and the EU increased by 18.4% and 17.6%, respectively. Despite these shifts, analysts note that fundamental complementarity among the economies remains intact. The report also cites a survey indicating that 79% of Chinese companies operating in the U.S. reported negative impacts from tariffs, including rising import costs, reduced margins, and supply chain disruptions.
Bias read (Center): While the article covers a politically charged topic involving major global powers, it presents a balanced analysis of both the challenges posed by geopolitical tensions and the continued economic interdependence among the involved parties. There is no clear ideological slant in the framing or word-
Why factuality (80): This article continues the analysis from the previous one, providing similar statistical data and referencing geopolitical tensions. It cites IFIMES as a source and includes quotes about the shift toward political conditioning in trade systems. The content aligns with the cross-source consensus on t
Why objectivity (70): The article maintains an analytical tone but subtly frames the situation as moving toward a more politically influenced trade system, which could be interpreted as a slight editorial stance favoring the idea of increased geopolitical control over economics.
FinanceIndependent🔒CenterFactual 65Objective 709 days agoThe article discusses increasing uncertainty, suggesting that a new wave of tariffs imposed by Donald Trump is expected on Friday. The focus is on potential economic impacts due to these anticipated trade measures.
Bias read (Center): The headline mentions 'Trumpovih carin' (Trump's tariffs), which is a politically charged subject related to international trade policies. However, there is no explicit framing or slant evident in the limited information provided. The mention of uncertainty and anticipation does not indicate a clear
Why factuality (65): The article mentions increasing uncertainty and suggests a new wave of Trump tariffs is expected on Friday. While this aligns with historical patterns of Trump's trade policies, there is no specific data or source cited to confirm the exact timing or magnitude of the proposed tariffs. It lacks detai
Why objectivity (70): The tone remains relatively neutral, focusing on potential economic impacts rather than taking sides. However, the phrasing 'expected' and 'anticipated' may imply a certain level of certainty not supported by concrete information, which slightly affects objectivity.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
Slovenia
