Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Coleman, Emeritus Professor of Political Communication, University of Leeds

Beyond the high drama surrounding the Makerfield by-election and the contest to be the UK prime minister lies a more fundamental battle. It is the struggle between the incremental pragmatism of mainstream politics and the magical thinking of populism.

The great catchword of recent UK politics has been “change”. Brexit, it was said, would change the country’s declining position in the world. Boris Johnson said after his landslide electoral victory in 2019 that he was going to take on “the problems that no government has had the guts to tackle before”.

Labour’s 2024 election manifesto, entitled “Change”, declared that a Starmer-led government would “stop the chaos, turn the page, and start to rebuild our country”.

Read more:
English local elections 2026: a story of a new kind of politics

But people have different ideas of what change means and how fast it can happen.
In a world full of entrenched, unequal social structures and complex, intractable
global problems, change is inevitably a long-term project. But voters tend not to be in the business of long-term evaluation.

Similarly, they are not impressed by graphs showing that the UK economy is currently the fastest-growing in the G7 or that waiting times for NHS treatment in England are at their lowest level in more than three years.

There are undoubtedly better ways of communicating long-term change and
identifying quick wins than the current government has adopted. However, the real battle is not between rival tellers of the mainstream narrative, but between two completely different conceptions of change. Remembering this will be crucial for Andy Burnham when he takes on Reform UK in the Makerfield by-election in his bid to return to Westminster to challenge Keir Starmer for the leadership of the Labour party and his job as prime minister.

Feelings over facts

Populist leaders are successful not because they have more convincing policies for house-building, ending child poverty or realising energy security. The change they offer appeals to visceral feelings rather than material needs. “Imagine how you will feel on the day that we come to power,” they say. “Think of how shattered all of those people who have ignored you, talked down to you, taken your jobs and pushed ahead of you in the queue for services will feel.”

Populists such as Reform UK (according to current polls the most likely party to win the next UK general election) are less interested in setting out a policy programme than in connecting with voters’ raw nerves.

That is why the most crucial lesson for Labour from the 2026 local elections
was not their devastating defeat, but the unstoppable surge of Reform’s appeal to
voters that threatened to leave them in the margins in the next general election.
Labour’s reflex response was to look at deposing its leader. And possibly at least one of Starmer’s rivals for the job would be more effective at taking on this new form of political opposition.

More important, however, is to be clear what is involved in taking on
populism. A new prime minister will be faced with exactly the same challenges as
the current one and will not be able to deliver transformative change simply by force of an appealing personality.

Europe will still be involved in its longest war since 1945. The US will continue to be an unreliable partner. The climate emergency will go on wreaking havoc. Social care for an ageing population will remain a massive challenge. National debt will still limit the capacity for public investment. Regional disparities and indefensible social inequalities will still exist.

All of these challenges and more will result in sections of the electorate feeling alienated and disappointed – the very sentiments upon which populism depends.

The big question for whoever is going to be prime minister in the next three years is not just about policy and delivery (although it is also very much about that), but about offering an alternative to the psychic appeal of populism. That will entail adopting a three-point strategy.

First, politicians need to acknowledge the depth of disappointment felt by people whose parents and grandparents had once believed that the government was there to look after them in times of need. The prime minister should declare an urgent mission to build an infrastructure of cradle-to-grave care, which exists not to tell people how they should be feeling, but to be democratically accountable to their needs and priorities as individuals and communities.

Second, there is a need for a complete overhaul of political language, led by the prime minister’s example, eschewing the lexicon of technocratic cliche and adopting the conversational tone of speaking with rather than speaking at people.

Third, there is a need for boldness in calling out the ugly sentiments of populism and appealing explicitly to the more generous, positive feelings and beliefs of the majority that are too often excluded from the domain of hardheaded politics.

A new prime minister will need to be imaginative in demonstrating that populists are not the only ones who can appeal to people’s deepest apprehensions and desires. And they will have to show that politics can be more like an inclusive conversation than a PowerPoint presentation. In that case, then perhaps the recent soap opera will not be as inconsequential as many people perceive it to be.

Stephen Coleman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Even if the UK changes prime minister, voters now expect to hear the language of populism – https://theconversation.com/even-if-the-uk-changes-prime-minister-voters-now-expect-to-hear-the-language-of-populism-283088

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sally Christine Reynolds, Associate Professor in Hominin Palaeoecology, Bournemouth University

For most of the 20th century, the model of human origins was a tree: with the trunk dividing into branches, and then twigs. Each species of human relative (hominin) was a neat, single branch.

As an undergraduate, I was taught that Homo sapiens was one of these branches that emerged in Africa, spread across the world, and displaced every archaic human it encountered.

Neanderthals, Homo erectus, and other ancient relatives were evolutionary dead ends – unfortunate cousins who left no descendants. In the 30 years since I left university, those early lessons are now radically revised.

That neat replacement story is now comprehensively wrong, largely thanks to studies like the one published in Nature this week by Qiaomei Fu from the Chinese Academy of Sciences and colleagues. The paper achieves something that would have seemed impossible a decade ago: it recovers meaningful biological information from H. erectus fossils far too old for DNA.

Instead of genetic sequences, the team extracted ancient proteins from the enamel of six teeth from three Chinese sites – Zhoukoudian (which, in the early 20th century, produced fossil remains known as “Peking Man”), Hexian and Sunjiadong – all dating to around 400,000 years ago.

Homo erectus is widely regarded as the first hominin to leave Africa; the evidence suggests this species had moved into Eurasia nearly two million years ago. It remains the most geographically widespread human ancestor that ever lived. The new study indicates that Homo erectus exchanged genes (probably through interbreeding) with Denisovans in East Asia roughly 400,000 years ago.

The study suggests that some of that genetic legacy, it now appears, was passed on to living people in the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, and across south-east Asia.

Tooth enamel is the hardest tissue in the body, and its proteins survive long after DNA has degraded beyond recovery. What the team found in those proteins is striking. All six specimens share a previously unknown amino acid variant – a tiny molecular signature, a single letter changed in the protein sequence, never seen in any other hominin alive or dead.

This variant clusters these east Asian H. erectus into a distinct group, confirming their identity and settling a long-running debate about whether the unusual Hexian fossils were H. erectus at all. A second variant they share, however, is not unique to H. erectus.

It also appears in Denisovans – a mysterious archaic (non-Homo sapiens) human group known mainly from a cave in Siberia. The corresponding genetic variant turns up in living people at frequencies of 21% in the Philippines and about 1% in India, distributed in a pattern that matches what we’d expect if it entered modern humans via Denisovan ancestry.

The most reasonable interpretation is that H. erectus populations in east Asia passed this variant to Denisovans through interbreeding, and Denisovans later passed it on to the ancestors of modern south-east Asians and Oceanians. This transfer of genetic material from one species to another is known as introgression.

The lineage we once thought was a dead end has, it turns out, left a small but detectable trace in living human genomes – a molecular thread connecting a Peking Man tooth to living people in Asia.

A pattern repeated

But the significance of today’s paper extends well beyond the specific variant or the specific populations involved. What it really shows is that interbreeding between archaic human lineages was not exceptional. It was routine.

Every major hominin lineage we have been able to examine genomically shows admixture. Modern humans outside Africa carry roughly 2% Neanderthal DNA. Papuans and Aboriginal Australians carry an additional 2–5% Denisovan ancestry.

West African populations carry genetic signatures from an unidentified archaic lineage. Even Denisovans themselves, as today’s study adds further weight to, received gene flow from something older and more diverged — likely H. erectus.

A 2019 review in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology documents at least three distinct introgression events from Denisovan-like populations into south-east Asian and Oceanic ancestors alone, some occurring as recently as 20,000 years ago. The picture is not one of clean lineages but of a tangled web of contact and exchange extending across millions of years.

The implications are far-reaching. Our genomes are not the product of a single unbroken lineage emerging from Africa. They are mosaics, assembled from contributions by multiple archaic groups, each adapted to its own regional environment.

Some of the Denisovan-derived variants in Papuan genomes, for instance, appear to influence immune function. The H. erectus-derived variant identified today has unknown functional consequences – that remains an open question – but the precedent from other gene variants that have introgressed (genes that have passed from one species into another) suggests that adaptation to new environments may have been part of the story.

Ghost populations

Perhaps most intriguing is what the new paper implies about all the populations we cannot yet study. H. erectus survived in Indonesia until perhaps 100,000 years ago. Homo floresiensis, the diminutive “hobbit” species, was present on Flores when modern humans arrived. Another human lineage, Homo luzonensis, occupied the Philippines.

None of these populations have yielded DNA, and until today none had yielded any molecular data at all. Were they also absorbed, at least partially, into the human populations that replaced them? The genomic evidence from living people has not, so far, detected their signal clearly – but the tools available until recently were blunt instruments.

The proteomic approach demonstrated in today’s paper offers a way forward. If proteins can be recovered from H. erectus enamel at 400,000 years, the same approach applied to floresiensis or luzonensis material might finally reveal whether those lineages, too, contributed something to the humans who came after them.

The old metaphor of a tree – a single trunk branching into distinct species – has been quietly replaced in the scientific literature. It might be better to consider the process as a braided river, with many channels running partly together and partly apart, exchanging water continuously.

This new study is one more confirmation that when ancient human populations disappeared, they left traces of themselves behind.

Sally Christine Reynolds does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Ancient tooth proteins suggest ‘Homo erectus’ may have left a genetic legacy in people today – https://theconversation.com/ancient-tooth-proteins-suggest-homo-erectus-may-have-left-a-genetic-legacy-in-people-today-282785

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lucy Bennett, Lecturer in Popular Music, Digital Culture and Fandom, Cardiff University

Scrolling through social media, it feels as though “indie sleaze” never went away. Grainy flash photography, smudged eyeliner and a soundtrack of early 2000s indie music are once again dominating feeds.

This revival is more of a reworking than a straightforward comeback. Today’s indie sleaze – exemplified in the music video for Charli XCX’s new track, Rock Music – is an algorithmically curated version of a once messy, participatory subculture. Its renewed appeal seems to lie partly in this aesthetic of imperfection, partly in its connection to earlier digital platforms and partly in what it evokes – a specific cultural moment associated with pre-social media digital life.

The original “indie sleaze” moment emerged in the early-mid 2000s, connecting with music, fashion, nightlife and online culture. It coalesced around a wide mix of genres, including electro and “indie” rock, particularly bands from New York such as The Strokes and Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and in the UK The Libertines, Long Blondes, Arctic Monkeys and Franz Ferdinand. However, it was it more than just the music – the visuals and lifestyle played a core part.

No one’s 20s and 30s look the same. You might be saving for a mortgage or just struggling to pay rent. You could be swiping dating apps, or trying to understand childcare. No matter your current challenges, our Quarter Life series has articles to share in the group chat, or just to remind you that you’re not alone.

Read more from Quarter Life:

• Why Charli XCX might be gen Z’s answer to the Romantic poets

• Let ‘performative males’ be – gender has always been a performance and our need for authenticity is bad for us

• Is today’s political climate making dating harder for young people?

Equally important were the digital platforms that enabled new forms of fan participation and visibility. Sites like MySpace, LiveJournal and later Tumblr, allowed fans, bloggers and photographers to document and curate the scene in real time.

These platforms operated differently from today’s social media environment. They were less centralised or driven by algorithm recommendation, allowing different music scenes to emerge more gradually and at times unevenly across networks of different users.

As media researcher Henry Jenkins has argued, spaces like these foster forms of participatory culture, in which audiences actively shape and circulate media, often connecting with their own personal pleasures. Indie sleaze deeply connects with this, being a scene produced as much through fan practices such as blogging, photographing and sharing, as through the music itself.

What’s changed

The current revival can be traced back to a viral TikTok trend forecast in 2021, which predicted that the scene would be returning and gave it its specific name and coherence. Nobody was describing the scene as “indie sleaze” during its original heyday.

Since then, TikTok “indie sleaze” content has circulated through recognisable formats such as “get ready with me” videos styled for nights out or themed parties, slideshows of grainy flash photography, makeup tutorials and nostalgic edits imagining early 2000s club culture.

This is supplemented by accounts such as the curated @indiesleaze on Instagram, which highlights the importance of earlier platforms such as Flickr in documenting the scene. It allows followers to contrast the media we had then and its dynamics, with what we have now.

What stands out about this revival is its relationship to nostalgia. Many of the TikTok users producing indie sleaze content now were too young to have experienced the original scene. Instead, they engage with it through fragments such as archived images, music playlists and viral videos that reconstruct the past as a particular aesthetic and feeling. As a result, what circulates is not the lived reality of mid 2000s nightlife, but a stylised and selective memory of it.

For some music fans, this nostalgia is about a different experience of digital culture – one that feels less dominated by platforms, filters, AI and algorithms. For those who lived through indie sleaze, this revival may also produce a different kind of nostalgia that rests on memory.

On platforms like TikTok, “indie sleaze” has become a template that others can engage in through a set of visual cues and references that can be easily reproduced and widely circulated. This suggests that it is precisely indie sleaze’s messiness that makes it appealing and draws some people in. Its grain, blur and imperfection offer such a stark contrast to the polished, filter heavy and increasingly AI-mediated environments that characterise much of our contemporary social media.

There is also a sense of irony here. While indie sleaze is often appealing because of its rawness and imperfection, some of these visuals are now recreated through the very technologies they seem to resist. Filters and editing apps can add effects to smartphone images, digitally reproducing the look of older cameras and online photography. In this sense, the messiness associated with indie sleaze is no longer entirely spontaneous, but increasingly stylised for social media platforms.

Similar dynamics were at play in the reception of Charli XCX’s Brat album in 2025, which also resonated with audiences through its deliberately bold, messy, self aware aesthetic.

Read more:
Brat by Charli XCX is a work of contemporary imagist poetry – and a reclamation of ‘bratty’ women’s art

Music is often used by fans to connect to another time, whether through memory, or imagined pasts, bringing a sense of these moments into the present. In this sense, the return of indie sleaze is not simply a revival of a past musical movement, but a nostalgic reworking of it in the present.

As I have explored in previous research with Rafal Zaborowski on the resurgence of Kate Bush on TikTok, such revivals are often shaped by the logics of the platforms through which they circulate, connecting with forms of affect or nostalgia. What emerges then is not a faithful reconstruction or revival, but instead a version of the past that is made visible, shareable and open to reinterpretation in new ways and to new generations.

Ultimately this revival tells us as much about the present as it does about the past, raising broader insights about how digital platforms are reshaping not just what music fans remember, but the ways in which those memories are formed and shared.

Lucy Bennett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why indie sleaze feels nostalgic – even for people who never lived it – https://theconversation.com/why-indie-sleaze-feels-nostalgic-even-for-people-who-never-lived-it-282542

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emilia Vann Yaroson, Assistant Professor in Operations and Supply Chain Management, University of Sheffield

The UK continues to experience shortages of many common prescription drugs, despite efforts to strengthen supply chains.

Drugs for ADHD, epilepsy, GLP-1s for type 2 diabetes and weight loss, as well as ramipril (which is used to treat high blood pressure and heart failure), have all faced supply shortages since the end of last year or beginning of this year.

As products become unavailable, pressure increases across the system to secure alternatives. If patients do not receive treatment promptly and consistently, their quality of life can suffer.

Medicine supply shortages pose a significant threat to the UK’s public health. And, as a recent government inquiry revealed, the UK’s current medicine supply chain is very vulnerable to disruptions.

Making supply chains more resilient would normally have been the best strategy for ensuring the UK can maintain supplies of medicine and recover quickly when problems do occur. But growing global and supply chain pressures mean medicine shortages are likely to continue unless deeper system weaknesses are addressed.

Why shortages keep happening

Medicine supply chains are global, highly regulated and complex. Challenges such as factory maintenance, transport delays or rising demand in other countries can quickly affect medicine supplies in the UK.

Recent disruptions, such as the Iran conflict, have raised concerns about future medicines security. The war has already driven up the cost of some prescription drugs by 30%. This is largely due to the jump in gas and diesel prices, making manufacturing and shipping more costly.

The rising cost of raw materials and energy can also contribute to increasing drug costs for patients and healthcare systems.

The supply and demand for medicines can fluctuate as well depending on disease prevalence, access to diagnosis, market pricing and people’s ability to pay. For instance, ongoing HRT shortages have partly been blamed on increased demand for the drug following GP consultations.

It can therefore be challenging to ensure a constant supply of medication. But this is not just a UK issue – it’s a worldwide problem.

The UK competes globally for access to medicines and critical ingredients. Approximately 80% of the medicines used to treat UK patients are non-branded or “generics”. These are mainly manufactured in China and India. Generics are clinically effective but less expensive than branded drugs, so there’s a heavy reliance on them internationally.

China and India are also the primary manufacturers of many basic pharmaceutical ingredients. This increases global reliance on these countries. Manufacturing problems or transport delays in these countries can quickly reduce worldwide access to medicines.

Community pharmacies, which buy the medicines dispensed to patients in the UK, are directly affected by drug shortages. When medicines are not available and demand exceeds supply, market prices can rise quickly. These independent businesses may therefore be financially challenged by drug prices.

Although the Department of Health & Social Care (DHSC) has agreed prices and will refund pharmacies for the medicines they buy, the pharmacies can still make a loss on the purchases – and DHSC payments are always in arrears.

Patients usually access their medications through their local community pharmacy. But in the past five years, more than 1,000 community pharmacies have closed in the UK. Some of the causes of these closures are directly related to drug supplies, including medicine reimbursement and pressure due to shortages. Closing local community pharmacies puts pressure on the remaining pharmacies to maintain stock.

If patients cannot access their medicines, it can trigger panic orders and stockpiling, which may place even greater pressure on already fragile supply chains and waste. In some cases, these shortages also create opportunities for counterfeit medicines to infiltrate the market, as desperate patients seek alternative sources to meet their needs.

Low medicine prices have also been cited as a key reason for suppliers leaving the market or companies such as AstraZeneca reducing UK investment.

A lack of timely and informative communication about prescription drug shortages can lead to patient concerns, providers panicking and trading opportunism. Patients do not know why they can’t access their medicines or how long the situation will last.

What can we do?

There are calls from within the sector for earlier signalling of supply issues and changes in demand. This would give UK suppliers more time to find alternative medicines, plan production schedules, reduce delays and disruption and hopefully better prevent medicine shortages.

Effective and timely communication is also needed to support providers in doing their jobs and allay patient concerns.

Focusing on the pricing of medicines and its wider impact on our healthcare system is another important factor. The UK Life Sciences Sector Plan aims to support the sector and attract investors to strengthen local medicine production and reduce the impact of medicine shortages.

Educating stakeholders can help reduce medicine shortages by improving awareness, coordination and responsible behaviour across the supply chain. Educating community pharmacists and patients of the causes and impact of medicine shortages is also key. This can reduce panic orders, unnecessary stockpiling of medicines and prevent counterfeit or unregulated products entering the market.

The UK government should also collaborate more extensively with European partners by sourcing products from trusted or geographically close countries. This would not only promote stronger relationships but also create direct access to alternate medicine supply sources.

The current market leaders benefit from economies of scale and scope, however. More local and distributed manufacture may be stable but expensive. Key ingredients still often have single (or few) sources.

Improving supply resilience is essential for maintaining the availability of prescription drugs and reducing service pressures. But it isn’t the only strategy the UK government should rely on. Appreciation of the role of the patient and the provider as recipients is important in managing the impact and continuity of supply issues.

For patients experiencing shortages, it’s important you don’t panic buy and stockpile items, and continue ordering your prescription only when needed. Your pharmacist can also give you advice on what to do if your usual medicine is not in stock.

Liz Breen is affiliated with the House of Lords Public Select Committee Medicines Security Inquiry as a Specialist Advisor. She received funding from the House of Lords.

Emilia Vann Yaroson and Jonathan Silcock do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Drug shortages continue to be a problem in the UK – yet strengthening supply chains alone won’t solve this issue – https://theconversation.com/drug-shortages-continue-to-be-a-problem-in-the-uk-yet-strengthening-supply-chains-alone-wont-solve-this-issue-282682

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maria Ryan, Associate Professor in US History, University of Nottingham

Donald Trump’s appraisal of his recent state visit to China was, typically, positive and self-regarding. At the end of the trip, the US president told reporters that it had achieved “a lot of good” and “fantastic trade deals” had been signed. He concluded that a lot of different problems were settled “that other people wouldn’t have been able to solve”.

As usual, the US president appeared to enjoy the pageantry of a state visit. He likes meeting other “great” leaders – strongmen who lead powerful countries.

At face value, the trip appeared largely successful. The Trump-Xi relationship appeared cordial. There were no undiplomatic comments by Trump. Xi described it as “a milestone visit” of “historic” proportions. Trump said that his relationship with Xi is “a very strong one”. China pledged to buy 200 Boeing aircraft and also committed to buying billions of dollars of soybeans and other agricultural goods. These are all things Trump can present as wins, even if their significance is disputed.

The cordiality of the visit was a contrast to the Biden years, when “extreme competition” with China – in Biden’s words – was the central organising principle of US foreign policy. The Biden administration viewed China as a once-in-a-generation challenger to US power: politically, economically, militarily and ideologically. It believed Beijing was aggressively trying to displace the US as the world’s dominant power and actively sought to prevent this.

Over the past year, the second Trump administration has shifted attention away from great power conflict with China and focused on other things. These have included regime change in Venezuela (and, all the signs suggest, Cuba is now in his sights). He has changed America’s relationship with Europe, introduced an at-times erratic regime of tariffs in an attempt to address US trade deficits. And, above all, he has started a war with Iran.

Ely Ratner, a China hawk from the Biden administration has accused Trump of “strategic deference” towards Beijing. And there can be little doubt that the Trump administration has dialled down the Cold War-style ideological rhetoric about China.

Its 2025 national security strategy stresses that: “We seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions or histories.” This much was evident from Trump’s visit. Unlike Biden, Trump did not publicly raises human rights issues on his trip to China. This removed a persistent irritant in the relationship.

That said, the US Congress – and many of those around the president – still see the relationship with China as fundamentally competitive and adversarial. They want the US to remain the world’s primary power, militarily, economically and technologically. The desire to out-compete China is likely to drive policy in the longer-term.

The 2026 national defense strategy, published in January, states that Washington will be “clear-eyed and realistic about the speed, scale, and quality of China’s historic military buildup” and will “prevent anyone, including China, from being able to dominate us or our allies”. The strategy commits the US to deterring a Chinese invasion of Taiwan by keeping “a strong denial defense along the First Island Chain” north and south of Taiwan. The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who accompanied Trump to Beijing, confirmed that US policy on Taiwan has not changed as a result of the leaders’ meeting.

The Trump administration’s approach is driven primarily by economic interests. This is because it believes that “the Indo-Pacific will soon make up more than half of the global economy” and, according to the defense strategy: “Were China… to dominate this broad and crucial region, it would be able to effectively veto Americans’ access to the world’s economic center of gravity.”

This means the Trump administration will try to preserve the giant US military presence in Asia Pacific that the Chinese see as encirclement.

‘Conscious de-coupling’

The US president remains a mercurial character who can make unpredictable decisions. He likes to tout his prowess as a dealmaker and it is always possible that he could undermine the consensus view within his own government. But the US Congress is also firmly behind the drive to out-compete China and to “decouple” in advanced technology.

In July 2025, the bipartisan “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act (OBBBA) included US$58 billion (£43.5 billion) of federal investments in, and tax incentives for, AI production inside the US. These measures barred “prohibited foreign entities” from US supply chains. In 2018, Congress passed strict new export controls and investment restrictions into law to try to decouple from China in emerging new technologies. The House Select Committee on China is pushing for more of this.

Over the past year, the Trump administration launched a new strategy for rare earth metals. China’s dominance of the mining and processing of these metals is a huge advantage – they are critical to modern weapons systems and widely used in electronics, from smartphones to EVs.

In April 2025, Beijing began to impose export controls on rare earths in response to US tariffs. Since then, the US has launched a US$7.3 billion global effort to secure supplies of rare earths outside China and invest in domestic mining and processing capabilities. While this will take years to come to fruition, the goal is to speed up decoupling from China in rare earths – hardly a sign of trust.

Finally, Trump reportedly refused to extend the trade truce signed in October 2025 until the end of his administration as he believed he would lose leverage over China in future. It’s a clear sign that even he expects tension in future.

The Trump administration says that, unlike its predecessors, it is not looking for conflict with China. But its insistence on US dominance of Asia Pacific is likely to drive competition with China in the long-term.

Maria Ryan has received funding from the British Academy.

– ref. Trump’s ‘cordial’ Beijing trip has not changed superpower rivalry – https://theconversation.com/trumps-cordial-beijing-trip-has-not-changed-superpower-rivalry-283107