Un funzionario Usa attacca Cina e... Washington:

In a series of remarks delivered in mid-2026, US Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade William Kimmitt delivered a strikingly dual-edged critique of global trade dynamics. Without directly naming China, he accused foreign competitors of a suite of unfair trade practices that have long been central to US-China trade tensions. But just as pointedly, Kimmitt turned his fire inward, faulting Washington's own leaders for years of inaction and denial that allowed American industrial capacity to atrophy.

Criticisms of China's Trade Practices

Drawing on official remarks and related US trade-policy materials, Kimmitt leveled several specific accusations against what he described as state-supported, anti-competitive foreign trading partners — widely understood to be China:

• Subsidization — Kimmitt said foreign competitors had subsidized domestic industries to gain an artificial competitive advantage in global markets.
• Dumping — He accused them of dumping products into the US market at below-market prices, undercutting American producers.
• Regulatory barriers — He argued these countries erected regulatory barriers specifically designed to block foreign competition from entering their own markets.
• State-owned enterprise support — Kimmitt criticized the use of state-owned enterprises as instruments of industrial policy, consistent with long-running US concerns about China's state-led, non-market, anti-competitive approach.
• Capturing US market share — The overarching charge was that these competitors used every tool available to build their industries and capture an ever-larger share of the American market.

News reports covering the speech noted that Kimmitt's remarks were a "veiled swipe" at Beijing, echoing decades of US government testimony describing China's trade practices as fundamentally distorting to global markets.

Criticisms of US Industrial Policy and Inaction

Kimmitt was equally blunt about Washington's own failures, arguing that the problem was not just foreign behavior but US officials' response to it:

• Government inaction — "Too often, the US government stood by as American factories closed, production moved overseas, and workers were overlooked," Kimmitt said.
• Leadership denial — He argued that US leaders too often refused to recognize the reality of deindustrialization or actively allowed it to happen through policy neglect.

This self-criticism marked a notable departure from the usual one-sided critique of China. As one analysis put it, Kimmitt "faulted US leaders for allowing industrial decline" by being "asleep at the wheel for far too long."

The 'Trade Over Aid' Framework

Kimmitt delivered these criticisms as part of a broader argument for a new approach to US economic statecraft he called "Trade Over Aid." He emphasized that nations do not become prosperous through permanent aid dependency but through production, trade, building, investment, innovation, and competition. However, he was careful to reject the notion that simply expanding market access would solve the problem — arguing that the old faith in free trade alone had proven "insufficient and ill-advised" in the face of trading partners who systematically distort markets.

Context and Implications

Kimmitt's speech reflects a persistent bipartisan frustration within Washington. Congressional hearings over the past two decades have repeatedly highlighted the same concerns: the Chinese government's state-led approach, the failure of WTO mechanisms to curb unfair practices, and the erosion of US manufacturing capacity. What made Kimmitt's remarks notable was the explicit acknowledgment that US policy failures — not just Chinese behavior — are part of the problem.

The speech positions the Biden (or post-Biden) administration's trade policy as charting a middle course: confront trade distortions directly, but also take responsibility for rebuilding America's own industrial base. The question that remains is whether this dual critique will translate into concrete policy changes, or remain rhetorical recognition of problems that have been diagnosed for decades.