Toward a 'Fair Deal'? U.S.–China Trade Talks Hang in the Balance Amid Soaring Tariffs
GerikSummary:
President Trump has expressed optimism about a “fair trade deal” with China, but current dialogue remains stalled amid retaliatory tariffs that have raised U.S.-China import duties to historic levels, fueling prolonged trade tensions....
Optimism from the White House meets stalled negotiations
On April 23, 2025, President Donald Trump reiterated his ambition for a “fair deal” with China during a press briefing in Washington. While affirming that progress was being made, he stopped short of confirming active negotiations, stating only that “everything is moving along.” Trump also clarified that any reduction in tariffs would depend on concrete actions by the Chinese leadership—highlighting the conditional nature of potential de-escalation.
Despite this rhetoric, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent contradicted the president's tone just hours later, confirming that no formal tariff negotiations had yet taken place. Speaking on the sidelines of the Spring Meetings of the IMF and the World Bank, Bessent emphasized that both countries appear to be waiting for the other to initiate dialogue. This discrepancy between public optimism and behind-the-scenes inaction underscores the fragility of the current diplomatic landscape.
Escalating tariffs threaten economic stability
The numbers tell a more severe story. The U.S. has now raised tariffs on Chinese goods from 84% to 125%, with an additional 20% levy on fentanyl-related imports bringing the total to 145%. In retaliation, China has imposed import tariffs of up to 125% on American goods. The latest figures from the U.S. government suggest that some Chinese imports now face effective duties of up to 245%.
These increases mark some of the highest bilateral tariff levels in recent history and signal a dramatic intensification of the trade conflict. The escalation demonstrates a clear causal relationship: as one side raises tariffs, the other responds in kind, creating a reinforcing cycle of economic strain and political brinkmanship. While framed as negotiation leverage, these measures are simultaneously undercutting the global trade framework that has long supported stable commercial exchange between the two powers.
Structural obstacles to a quick resolution
Treasury Secretary Bessent’s remarks hint at a broader range of issues beyond tariffs. Washington is increasingly concerned with non-tariff barriers and state subsidies in China, which complicate the trade equation. This multipronged challenge means that even if tariff issues are addressed, underlying structural disagreements—such as state-led industrial policy and intellectual property enforcement—may prolong the standoff.
Bessent also warned that any real rebalancing of U.S.–China trade could take two to three years. This timeline reflects a recognition that the current conflict is not merely tactical, but symptomatic of deeper, systemic dissonance in economic policy and global power alignment.
Beijing’s response: Mutual respect or no dialogue
From Beijing, the message remains firm. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun responded that the U.S. must end threats and commit to equal-footing dialogue if it genuinely seeks resolution. The emphasis on “mutual respect and mutual benefit” echoes a long-standing Chinese diplomatic position, yet also reflects Beijing’s growing reluctance to negotiate under duress.
This divergence in negotiation frameworks further clouds the outlook. While the U.S. appears focused on extracting unilateral concessions, China is demanding a return to more balanced diplomatic engagement. The correlation between rising tariffs and diminishing mutual trust is evident, pushing both sides further from compromise.
Fragile optimism amid entrenched positions
While President Trump’s public statements about a “fair deal” offer a glimmer of hope, the fundamental dynamics of the U.S.–China trade relationship remain deeply adversarial. With historic tariff levels in place and official talks still in limbo, any breakthrough will likely require strategic concessions and a reframing of expectations on both sides.
For now, the global economy watches warily as the world’s two largest economies edge closer to a prolonged trade cold war—one where economic friction, rather than diplomacy, continues to define the tone of engagement. The costs of this deadlock will not be confined to bilateral ties but will ripple across global markets already strained by uncertainty.
Source: Global Times
To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar
Risk Warnings and Disclaimers
You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.
