Trump Hails 'Good Relationship' With China Amid Tariff Talks
US President Trump stated that Washington has good relations with Beijing and hopes China will open its markets.
US President Donald Trump on Monday said that Washington has good relations with Beijing, adding that he would like to see China open up its markets to the rest of the world.
While speaking to reporters in Scotland alongside UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump said, 'We have a good relationship with China. We're all tough, yes, but we're going to see what happens … I'd love to see China open up their country… We just concluded our deal with Japan. It was very good — good for everybody. We're making great deals."
. @POTUS on trade talks with China: 'We have a good relationship with China… We're going to see what happens. We just concluded our deal with Japan. It was very good — good for everybody. We're making great deals." pic.twitter.com/NUIyoQnn0d — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 28, 2025
The US President's response came after top US and Chinese officials met in Stockholm on Monday to resume talks to resolve longstanding economic disputes at the centre of a trade war between the world's top two economies.
The fresh round of talks aimed to extend the truce deal by another three months. The current 90-day truce between the US and China – which saw the two countries temporarily lowering tariffs on each other – is set to end on 12 August.
The meetings in Sweden – led on Washington's side by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and for Beijing by Vice Premier He Lifeng – came hours after Trump announced a framework tariffs deal with the European Union.
Last week, Bessent said talks with China were in 'a very good place" and suggested the new round of talks could result in a second truce.
On Monday, South China Morning Post reported that the US and China are expected to extend the truce by another three months.
Meanwhile, the Financial Times reported that the US has frozen restrictions on technology exports to China to avoid hurting trade talks and help Trump secure a meeting with President Xi Jinping this year.
The US president, in May 2025, had clarified his intentions behind striking a deal with China when he said that Beijing is in a trade surplus with Washington, and according to him, these are not good signs for America. 'China, as you know, has a tremendous trade surplus with us, and we can't, you know, we just can't have that," he had said back then, as quoted by The Telegraph.
Without an agreement, global supply chains could face renewed turmoil from U.S. duties snapping back to triple-digit levels that would amount to a bilateral trade embargo.
Previous US-China trade talks in Geneva and London in May and June focused on bringing the US and Chinese retaliatory tariffs down from triple-digit levels and restoring the flow of rare earth minerals halted by China and Nvidia's H20 AI chips and other goods halted by the United States.
'Geneva and London were really just about trying to get the relationship back on track so that they could, at some point, actually negotiate about the issues which animate the disagreement between the countries in the first place," Scott Kennedy, a China economics expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington told news agency Reuters.
view comments
First Published:
July 28, 2025, 21:03 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
2 minutes ago
- India Today
Despite war and warnings, US traded more with Russia than ally Ukraine
United States President Donald Trump on August 6 announced an additional tariff of 25 per cent on India, taking the total to 50 per cent, making tariffs on India one of the highest in the tariffs, as per Trump, are a sanction against India for importing fuel from Russia. Trump alleges that India, by doing this, has been financing the Russian invasion of data by the US Census Bureau presents a different picture.A deep dive into the monthly trade data of the US with Russia and Ukraine reveals that the US has been doing more trade with Russia than it is with since the war began in February 2022, the US-Russia total trade has stood at USD 25.233 billion, while the trade with Ukraine stands at a mere USD 9.69 we merely look at import data for the two nations, as Trump's major concern is India financing Russia through imports, we see a trend that exposes US hypocrisy. In 2022, US imports from Russia stood at USD 14.43 billion, while imports from Ukraine stood at $1.503 billion In 2023, US imports from Russia stood at USD 4.57 billion, while imports from Ukraine fell to USD 1.39 billion In 2024, US imports from Russia stood at USD 3 billion, while imports from Ukraine stood at USD 1.17 billion In 2025, till June, US imports from Russia stood at USD 2billion while imports from Ukraine stood at merely USD 769 trend is clear, in terms of imports. Even though substantially reduced, the US continues to buy from Russia more than it does from all, the US has imported goods worth over USD 22 billion from Russia, ever since Ukraine was attacked, while has only imported goods worth USD 4 billion in the same time period from we take a look at the percentage increase in Indian trade cooperation with Ukraine, when it comes to Ukrainian imports to India, since the the war began during FY 2021-22, India imported USD 3.38 billion worth of goods from Ukraine, as per data published by the Indian Embassy in Kyiv, while in 2024-25 this data stood at USD 1.2 billion, which stands more than what the US buys from the war-torn the data is clear: While the US has accused India of arming and financing the Russian war, it is the US which is financing Russia more than it is financing Ukraine through trade, while India is balancing its partnership without taking a side and without financing any one side.- EndsTune InMust Watch
New Indian Express
2 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Trump delivers a steady stream of wins for his conservative Christian base
In his first half-year in office — amid his tariff campaign, government-slashing moves and immigration crackdown — President Donald Trump has also repeatedly delivered for conservative Christians, who form the bedrock of his Republican support. While he has made overtures to Jewish, Muslim and other religious groups, his Christian supporters have been among his most high-profile surrogates and appointees. The Trump administration has green-lit political endorsements from the pulpit and encouraged religion in the federal workplace. Trump has established faith-focused entities with numerous influential Christian appointees. He's energised supporters with assaults on cultural and academic targets long seen as liberal bastions. His administration and his Supreme Court appointees have expanded areas for religious exemptions and expression in the public square. "We're bringing back religion in our country," Trump contended at a Rose Garden event on the National Day of Prayer in May. His faith adviser, pastor Paula White-Cain, proclaimed that in his administration, faith "has been brought back to where it always belongs, and that is centre." Critics say he's eroding the separation of church and state. "The ones celebrating this are the ones leaning toward this Christian nationalist bent, this ideology that Christians should have dominion over the United States government," said the Rev. Shannon Fleck, executive director of Faithful America, a progressive Christian group. "A president with a true Christian agenda would be most concerned with uplifting those in our country who have been cast aside," she said. "The most vulnerable among us are not billionaires. Those most vulnerable among us are not these manipulators of Christianity that are seeking nothing but power."
Indian Express
2 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Is India stepping in to China's maritime backyard? The answer is complex
Last week, India and the Philippines undertook a joint naval exercise in the West Philippine Sea — waters that fall within the broader South China Sea and are claimed by China. Though widely reported as a first, this wasn't the maiden India-Philippines patrol in the region; the two navies last conducted joint drills in the West Philippine Sea in 2021. Extensively covered in the international press, the latest exercise came on the eve of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr's state visit to India, lending the event added political weight. To some observers, the move suggests a meaningful evolution of India's maritime posture. New Delhi has long avoided entanglement in Southeast Asia's territorial disputes. Despite its support for freedom of navigation in the regional littorals, India's naval engagement there has remained measured and largely symbolic. But as proponents of Indian force projection in the Indo-Pacific see it, last week's engagement suggests more than a subtle shift in Indian strategy — an indication of growing resolve in New Delhi to operate in Beijing's strategic backyard. Yet, it is plausible that this is not a geopolitical escalation by India. The exercise could well have been part of a routine overseas deployment to the Western Pacific — a gesture of solidarity rather than a major recalibration of maritime strategy. To start, the initiative appears driven not by India but by the Philippines. Facing mounting pressure from Beijing in its maritime backyard, Manila has, in recent years, deepened security ties with the United States, Japan, Australia, and France. Bringing India into the fold appears intended not so much to challenge China frontally, but rather as part of a broader hedging strategy to deter growing Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea. This interpretation aligns with the official Philippine framing of the exercise. In an interaction with the press last week, Philippine Armed Forces Chief General Romeo Brawner described the joint sail as a step toward deterrence, citing the need for coalition-building with friendly nations to uphold the maritime order. While Manila has ramped up joint patrols with the United States and other partners, its rationale for naval engagement with India seems somewhat different. India is not a treaty ally; it neither stations forces in Southeast Asia nor seeks to contain China in the Western Pacific. For Manila, cooperation with India is valuable because it signals support for Philippine sovereignty beyond its traditional alliances. While China's maritime disagreements extend across the region — from Vietnam and Malaysia to Brunei and Taiwan — its friction with the Philippines is particularly fraught. Beijing views Manila's efforts to internationalise the South China Sea dispute, particularly its hosting of US forces under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, as deliberately provocative. Even Manila's recent decision to sign a defence pact with Lithuania, ostensibly to 'build a coalition against aggression,' was viewed in Beijing as an affront. Not surprisingly, Chinese ships reportedly shadowed Indian and Philippine warships last week, although no untoward incident occurred. Crucially, India approaches the region with a different calculus. As a proponent of a rules-based maritime order, New Delhi has consistently advocated freedom of navigation and peaceful resolution of disputes in the South China Sea. Indian planners recognise the importance of presence, but deployments are still carefully calibrated, emphasising partnership over provocation. This reflects a clear strain of geopolitical pragmatism. New Delhi realises it is not a party to the regional disputes and avoids involvement in matters that do not directly affect its strategic interests. While Indian policymakers acknowledge China's propensity for coercive behaviour, they also recognise its significant military edge in the region. Indian naval strategists understand that the People's Liberation Army Navy has developed formidable infrastructure on artificial islands and exercises effective control over key waterways. They know Beijing retains the capacity to impose costs on foreign navies operating in contested spaces. Importantly, India and China have long sought to preserve a delicate balance in the Indo-Pacific. While rivalry persists — particularly along the Himalayan frontier and in the Indian Ocean — the two Asian powers have steered clear of actions in the maritime commons that could be construed as overt containment. The calculus is straightforward: by avoiding military posturing in each other's near seas, both sides aim to keep their red lines intact. That logic has broadly held for the past decade, even as Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean has steadily expanded. Beijing's growing footprint west of Malacca is a concern, but not yet a crisis. Crucially, China has refrained from challenging India in South Asia, where New Delhi's strategic equities are strongest and its deterrent posture most credible. Meanwhile, India's defence relationship with the Philippines has grown significantly — most visibly through the sale of BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles — even as New Delhi has been careful to project itself as a credible security partner, not a China antagonist. With a substantial share of Indian trade passing through the Malacca Strait, New Delhi has largely framed its presence in terms of economics, connectivity, and regional goodwill. To be sure, should China cross certain thresholds — say, by militarising the Andaman Sea or establishing permanent military facilities in the Indian Ocean — India would almost certainly revisit its South China Sea posture. Until then, however, a strategic shift east of Malacca remains unlikely. The recent sail with the Philippines is best seen as a gesture: One that signals India's interest in regional stability and support for a partner under pressure, without upending its longstanding policy of cautious engagement in the South China Sea. It is a diplomatic message wrapped in maritime symbolism — a demonstration of solidarity, not a sabre rattled in warning. The writer is a retired naval officer and former Head of the maritime policy initiative at ORF, New Delhi
