**
As Donald Trump continues deploying trade weapons against China, Beijing is responding with precisely targeted regulatory actions against American corporations. The recent investigation into Qualcomm and new export controls demonstrate China’s evolving strategy of using legal frameworks as economic countermeasures in the ongoing trade conflict between the world’s two largest economies.
China’s Coordinated Regulatory Offensive
On October 10th, China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) announced an antitrust investigation into Qualcomm, while simultaneously implementing new docking fees targeting American-owned vessels. This dual action followed the Ministry of Commerce’s October 9th announcement restricting exports of rare-earth minerals—materials critical to semiconductor manufacturing and defense technologies. According to industry experts note, this coordinated approach reflects Beijing’s methodical planning compared to Trump’s more impulsive trade tactics.
Officially, SAMR described the Qualcomm probe as routine, citing the company’s failure to report its $80 million acquisition of Israeli smart-transport company Autotalks. However, the timing raises strategic questions given the escalating trade tensions between United States and China. The investigation represents another chapter in China’s sophisticated use of competition law as an economic tool during diplomatic disputes.
Legal Frameworks as Trade Weapons
China has systematically strengthened its regulatory arsenal in recent years, developing mechanisms that parallel American economic defense systems. President Xi Jinping’s emphasis on “international legal struggle” has manifested in concrete tools including:
- Unreliable-entities list: Allows targeting foreign companies deemed national security threats
- Expanded export controls: Now mirror sophisticated American systems
- Broadened regulatory jurisdiction: SAMR’s authority has significantly expanded
This legal infrastructure enables China to respond to American trade actions with precision strikes against specific corporations rather than blanket tariffs. The approach reflects what according to recent analysis describes as China’s growing sophistication in economic statecraft.
Qualcomm Investigation in Broader Context
The current Qualcomm probe follows established patterns in China’s trade war tactics. During previous tensions, SAMR leveraged an investigation into Qualcomm’s acquisition of Dutch chipmaker NXP to gain negotiating leverage. Similarly, when Trump imposed tariffs in February, China responded with a probe into Google, while April trade escalations triggered an investigation into DuPont’s China operations.
These investigations consistently correlate with trade war escalations, yet their suspension often precedes diplomatic negotiations. The DuPont probe was suspended in late July ahead of trade talks, while actions against Google reportedly halted in September during TikTok negotiations. This pattern suggests regulatory actions serve as both retaliation and bargaining chips.
Beyond Trade War Tactics: China’s Tech Ambitions
China’s regulatory offensive extends beyond immediate trade disputes. SAMR has demonstrated increased willingness to confront domestic monopolies, as seen in its 2021 action against Alibaba. The regulator is also scrutinizing smaller international transactions that previously escaped notice, indicating broader ambitions to shape global technology markets.
Additional coverage of technology sector regulations shows how China is simultaneously constraining American tech firms while advancing domestic alternatives. This dual approach aligns with Beijing’s broader strategy of achieving technological self-sufficiency, particularly in semiconductors and artificial intelligence.
Implications for US-China Economic Relations
The targeted nature of China’s response—focusing on specific companies rather than entire sectors—creates new challenges for American policymakers. Unlike tariff wars that affect broad categories of goods, regulatory actions can precisely pressure individual corporations whose lobbying might influence Washington’s position.
As related analysis in technology sectors indicates, these regulatory battles are increasingly intersecting with critical infrastructure and emerging technologies. The rare-earth export controls particularly highlight China’s leverage in supply chains essential to both consumer electronics and military applications.
The evolving trade conflict demonstrates both nations’ increasing sophistication in economic warfare, with regulatory frameworks becoming primary battlegrounds. As China continues developing its legal and administrative capabilities, American firms may face growing regulatory scrutiny as collateral in geopolitical disputes.
