What caused the change in US soybean exports to China between 2023 and 2024?
Executive summary
U.S. soybean shipments to China fell sharply between 2023 and 2024 largely because Chinese policy and market choices—rooted in tariffs and trade retaliation, buyer diversification toward Brazil and Argentina, growing Chinese domestic stocks and production, and shifting price competitiveness—reduced demand for U.S. supplies [1] [2] [3] [4]. Efforts to restart purchases via diplomatic deals and short-term purchase commitments in late 2025 reflect political remedies, not an immediate unwinding of structural market shifts that favored South American suppliers [5] [6].
1. Trade retaliation and policy disruption shifted the playing field
The most visible cause was policy: U.S.–China trade frictions and retaliatory measures since 2018 depressed bilateral agricultural trade and cut U.S. access to China, turning what had been routine purchases into politically driven stop-and-go business; research notes a dramatic collapse in U.S. soybean export flows tied directly to those tensions [1] [7]. The Phase One–style political bargains and later “Phase Two” commitments show Beijing can suspend or restart purchases as leverage, which directly translated to volatile U.S. shipments between 2023 and 2024 [5] [6].
2. China’s rapid supplier diversification favored Brazil and Argentina
While politics closed doors, Brazil and Argentina stepped through: Brazil surged to dominate shipments to China in 2024 and 2025, materially displacing U.S. market share, and Argentina expanded exports via temporary tax moves and incentives [8] [2] [7]. Analysts and trade data cited in the reporting show Brazil exported record volumes to China in 2025 and that South America’s seasonal and price advantages made it the go-to source when Chinese buying shifted away from U.S. cargos [2] [8].
3. Price competition and calendar/timing advantages mattered
U.S. soybean prices and the timing of harvests compared to Brazil’s calendar influenced buying decisions: narrowing price gaps and Brazil’s favorable seasonal availability made Brazilian beans more attractive when Beijing reduced purchases from the United States [4] [1]. Multiple reports stress that even when U.S. prices were at parity or below competitors, political uncertainty and logistical timing still discouraged consistent Chinese purchasing of U.S. cargoes during 2023–24 [1] [4].
4. Chinese domestic production and stockpiling reduced import urgency
China’s own soybean acreage expansion and elevated stocks also dulled the urgency for imports: analysts point to rising Chinese production and record or near‑record ending global stocks that together lowered immediate import needs for some seasons, reducing market share available to U.S. exporters in 2024 [3] [2]. Reports cite China’s policy aim to strengthen self-sufficiency in soy and accumulated stocks that blunt short-term demand spikes [3].
5. Political fixes and partial rebounds are real but limited
By late 2025 the U.S. and China negotiated purchase commitments—e.g., a reported 12 million metric ton short‑season buy—that can raise U.S. exports from the lows seen in 2025, but analysts warn these deals do not immediately erase the structural reorientation of Chinese sourcing toward Brazil and Argentina nor the stock and price dynamics that arose since 2023 [5] [6] [2]. Farm groups and U.S. officials tout such deals as relief for growers, while critics note they may be temporary political band‑aids for deeper competitiveness and policy problems facing U.S. soy [5] [7].
6. Stakes and conflicting incentives behind the numbers
The narrative in trade and farm reporting carries clear vested interests: farm advocacy groups and U.S. policymakers emphasize lost market access and push for restored purchases, while Chinese choices reflect geopolitical leverage and food-security objectives; South American exporters have commercial incentives to hold onto new market share [5] [7] [8]. Public data confirm the shift—U.S. exports to China were materially lower in 2024 versus previous years and market structure explains much of the change—though precise attribution among policy, price, timing, and stock effects varies across sources and seasons [2] [1].