Fact check: China's exports rose by 6% since the US tariffs began

1. What the claim actually says and what the evidence shows — a clear mismatch

The original statement asserts a single, cumulative 6% rise in China’s exports since US tariffs began, implying a before‑and‑after comparison covering the tariff period. The sources supplied document robust global export growth in 2025, including an 8.3% year‑on‑year rise in September, and record regional gains to India, Africa and Southeast Asia, while also reporting a 27% drop in September exports to the US ^{[1] [2]}. None of the analyses, however, present a direct time‑series calculation or official customs statistic that matches the “6% since tariffs began” figure, leaving the original numeric claim unverified by the provided material ^[3].

2. How journalists describe the export picture — boom, diversion, and concentrated pain

Reporting paints a picture of diversion rather than uniform growth: manufacturers shifted shipments toward emerging markets and non‑US buyers, producing headline export increases even as US‑destined shipments contracted sharply. Articles emphasize a record trade surplus near $1.2 trillion and “unstoppable” export momentum amid trade friction, framing China’s exporters as expanding into Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa and India ^{[2] [3]}. These narratives rely on customs totals and anecdotal trade flows, showing a mixed reality of aggregate growth coexisting with concentrated losses to the US ^[1].

3. Economic interpretations — resilience vs. lurking costs

Economic analysis in the dataset frames the situation as resilient growth but with caveats: the OECD‑style take notes that global growth has held up despite tariff shocks and that Chinese firms have absorbed costs by narrowing margins and drawing on inventories, which may mask future headwinds ^[4]. Journalistic pieces corroborate that exporters have been able to maintain volumes by redirecting sales, but they also note that surging trade isn’t necessarily boosting exporter profitability, suggesting the headline export numbers may hide margin compression and longer‑term vulnerabilities ^{[2] [5]}.

4. The missing data: why the 6% figure can’t be confirmed here

The supplied analyses repeatedly provide percentage changes for specific months and regions — such as September’s 8.3% overall rise and a 27% fall to the US — yet they omit any cumulative comparison that would establish a “since tariffs began” delta of 6% ^[1]. Because the claim requires a defined start date for the tariff regime and consistent trade flows over that window, and because none of the sources publish that precise aggregate calculation, the 6% figure remains unsubstantiated by the provided material ^{[3] [6]}.

5. Competing agendas and how they shape the coverage

Different pieces tilt emphasis depending on agenda: hard‑news outlets highlight US losses and tariff impact, framing the policy as effective against Chinese exports, while other outlets stress China’s global market penetration and export resilience, suggesting tariffs haven’t achieved broad damage ^{[1] [3] [2]}. The OECD commentary adopts a technocratic posture about longer‑run risks and policy spillovers ^[4]. Across the set, selective citation of months or routes can be used to support divergent policy narratives, which explains why a single percentage claim can be offered without common sourcing.

6. Bottom line for fact‑checking the 6% claim

Based on the supplied reporting and economic commentary, the factual landscape supports the broader proposition that China’s total exports have grown in 2025 even while US‑bound exports fell sharply, but it does not support the isolated numeric claim that exports rose exactly 6% since US tariffs began. The available sources give an 8.3% year‑on‑year September rise and a 27% drop to the US in that month, and note record surpluses and regional gains, but they do not produce the cumulative comparison needed to verify the 6% figure ^{[1] [2]}.

7. What would verify or falsify the claim decisively

A decisive check requires a transparent time range and a primary customs data series: a published customs report or official trade dataset showing aggregate export values on the date tariffs began and the most recent comparable date, with the calculation method disclosed. Absent that, aggregate monthly year‑on‑year snapshots and regional breakdowns (as in these articles) permit plausible narratives but cannot validate the specific 6% “since tariffs began” statistic. The current reporting supports the qualitative claim of growth and market diversion but not the precise quantitative assertion ^{[4] [3]}.