Key US-China trade talks set for Monday in London
LONDON (Reuters) -Top U.S. and Chinese officials will sit down in London on Monday for talks aimed at defusing the high-stakes trade dispute between the two superpowers that has widened in recent weeks beyond tit-for-tat tariffs to export controls over goods and components critical to global supply chains.
At a still-undisclosed venue in London, the two sides will try to get back on track with a preliminary agreement struck last month in Geneva that had briefly lowered the temperature between Washington and Beijing and fostered relief among investors battered for months by U.S. President Donald Trump's cascade of tariff orders since his return to the White House in January.
"The next round of trade talks between the U.S. and China will be held in the UK on Monday," a UK government spokesperson said on Sunday. "We are a nation that champions free trade and have always been clear that a trade war is in nobody's interests, so we welcome these talks."
Gathering there will be a U.S. delegation led by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and a Chinese contingent helmed by Vice Premier He Lifeng.
The second-round of meetings comes four days after Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping spoke by phone, their first direct interaction since Trump's January 20 inauguration.
During the more than one-hour-long call, Xi told Trump to back down from trade measures that roiled the global economy and warned him against threatening steps on Taiwan, according to a Chinese government summary.
But Trump said on social media the talks focused primarily on trade led to "a very positive conclusion," setting the stage for Monday's meeting in London.
The next day, Trump said Xi had agreed to resume shipments to the U.S. of rare earths minerals and magnets. China's decision in April to suspend exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets upended the supply chains central to automakers, aerospace manufacturers, semiconductor companies and military contractors around the world.
That had become a particular pain point for the U.S. in the weeks after the two sides had struck a preliminary rapprochement in talks held in Switzerland.
There, both had agreed to reduce steep import taxes on each other's goods that had had the effect of erecting a trade embargo between the world's No. 1 and 2 economies, but U.S. officials in recent weeks accused China of slow-walking on its commitments, particularly around rare earths shipments.
"We want China and the United States to continue moving forward with the agreement that was struck in Geneva," White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told the Fox News program "Sunday Morning Futures' on Sunday. "The administration has been monitoring China's compliance with the deal, and we hope that this will move forward to have more comprehensive trade talks."
The inclusion at the London talks of Lutnick, whose agency oversees export controls for the U.S., is one indication of how central the issue has become for both sides. Lutnick did not attend the Geneva talks, at which the countries struck a 90-day deal to roll back some of the triple-digit tariffs they had placed on each other since Trump's inauguration.
That preliminary deal sparked a global relief rally in stock markets, and U.S. indexes that had been in or near bear market levels have recouped the lion's share of their losses.
The S&P 500 Index, which at its lowest point in early April was down nearly 18% after Trump unveiled his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs on goods from across the globe, is now only about 2% below its record high from mid-February. The final third of that rally followed the U.S.-China truce struck in Geneva.
Still, that temporary deal did not address broader concerns that strain the bilateral relationship, from the illicit fentanyl trade to the status of democratically governed Taiwan and U.S. complaints about China's state-dominated, export-driven economic model.
While the UK government will provide a venue for Monday's discussions, it will not be party to them but will have separate talks later in the week with the Chinese delegation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
17 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Live updates: Los Angeles reels after three days of immigration protests
Tensions in Los Angeles escalated Sunday night as thousands of protesters took to the streets in response to President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard, blocking off a major freeway and setting self-driving cars on fire as law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets and flash bangs to control the crowd. Update: Date: 2025-06-09 13:10:36 Title: Trump was awake past midnight raging against the protests in LA and calling for a crackdown Content: 'Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!' he wrote on Truth Social at 12:16 a.m. ET. Trump has already deployed 2,000 members of the National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The military said 500 Marines were on standby. 'ARREST THE PEOPLE IN FACE MASKS, NOW!' Trump wrote at 12:19 cited Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell's recent comments to defend his response to the protests. 'Don't let these thugs get away with this. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!' Trump wrote at 12:14 a.m. 'This thing has gotten out of control,' McDonell said Sunday. 'We have great cops in Southern California here that work together all the time,' he said. But he added that 'looking at the violence tonight, I think we gotta make a reassessment.' Update: Date: 2025-06-09 13:02:48 Title: PHOTOS: Protesters clash with law enforcement in Los Angeles Content: Update: Date: 2025-06-09 12:56:19 Title: Australian reporter hit by nonlethal round during live report from the protests Content: An Australian television journalist was hit in the leg by a nonlethal round Sunday while reporting live from downtown Los Angeles. Video of the incident released by 9News shows correspondent Lauren Tomasi reporting live when an officer behind her suddenly raises their firearm and fires a nonlethal round at close range. Tomasi, who doesn't appear to be wearing personal protective equipment, cries out in pain and clutches her lower leg as she and her cameraman quickly move away from the police line. 'You just (expletive) shot the reporter,' a voice off-camera can be heard shouting. The shooting came after a tense afternoon in which Tomasi and her crew were caught between riot police and protesters. At one point, she struggled to speak over the sound of clashes, while a protester grabbed the camera mid-broadcast. 'They've told people to get out of this area, and protesters have been refusing,' she reported. 'We are safe here. It's just noisy. But you can see the volatility.' Speaking later Monday to 9News, Tomasi confirmed she was safe and unharmed. Update: Date: 2025-06-09 12:54:00 Title: Clashes escalated Sunday as National Guard troops arrived downtown Content: Starting Sunday morning, the troops stood shoulder to shoulder, carrying long guns and riot shields as protesters shouted 'shame' and 'go home.' After some closely approached the guard members, another set of uniformed officers advanced on the group, shooting smoke-filled canisters into the street. Minutes later, the Los Angeles Police Department fired rounds of crowd-control munitions to disperse the protesters, who they said were assembled unlawfully. Much of the group then moved to block traffic on the 101 freeway until state patrol officers cleared them from the roadway by late afternoon. Nearby, at least four self-driving Waymo cars were set on fire, sending large plumes of black smoke into the sky and exploding intermittently as the electric vehicles burned. By evening, police had issued an unlawful assembly order shutting down several blocks of downtown Los Angeles. Flash bangs echoed out every few seconds into the evening. Update: Date: 2025-06-09 12:50:52 Title: Protests intensified on Sunday night in Los Angeles after Trump deployed National Guard troops Content: Sunday's protests in Los Angeles were centered in several blocks of downtown. It was the third and most intense day of demonstrations against Trump's immigration crackdown in the region, as the arrival of around 300 Guard troops spurred anger and fear among many residents. Many protesters dispersed as evening fell and police declared an unlawful assembly, a precursor to officers moving in and making arrests of people who don't leave. Some of those remaining threw objects at police from behind a makeshift barrier that spanned the width of a street and others hurled chunks of concrete, rocks, electric scooters and fireworks at California Highway Patrol officers and their vehicles. Officers ran under an overpass to take cover. The Guard was deployed specifically to protect federal buildings, including the downtown detention center where protesters concentrated. Several dozen people were arrested throughout the weekend of protest. One was detained Sunday for throwing a Molotov cocktail at police, and another for ramming a motorcycle into a line of officers. ▶ Read more about the weekend's protests
Entrepreneur
19 minutes ago
- Entrepreneur
IonQ to Acquire Oxford Ionics in $1.075 Billion Deal to Push Quantum Boundaries
You're reading Entrepreneur India, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media. IonQ has announced it will acquire Oxford Ionics in a deal valued at $1.075 billion, combining two leaders in quantum computing technology to accelerate the race toward large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum systems. The agreement, which includes $1.065 billion in IonQ common stock and roughly $10 million in cash, is expected to bolster IonQ's roadmap to 2 million physical qubits by 2030. The acquisition brings together IonQ's end-to-end quantum computing and networking stack with Oxford Ionics' precision ion-trap technology built on standard semiconductor chips. Oxford Ionics currently holds world records for fidelity, a key benchmark of quantum operation accuracy, and is known for integrating high-performance quantum operations with scalable chip-based manufacturing. "IonQ's vision has always been to drive real-world impact in every era and year of quantum computing's growth," said IonQ CEO Niccolo de Masi. "Today's announcement of our intention to acquire Oxford Ionics accelerates our mission to full fault-tolerant quantum computers with 2 million physical qubits and 80,000 logical qubits by 2030." The combined company anticipates developing systems with 256 physical qubits at 99.99 per cent accuracy by 2026, scaling to over 10,000 qubits with logical accuracy of 99.99999 per cent the following year. By leveraging both firms' core capabilities, IonQ aims to set a new benchmark in computational power, while advancing the commercial viability of quantum systems. Oxford Ionics' leadership and technical teams are set to remain with IonQ post-acquisition. Founders Dr. Chris Ballance and Dr. Tom Harty will continue leading development efforts in the UK. "We're tremendously excited to work alongside the world-class quantum computing and networking teams at IonQ," said Ballance. "We have not only pioneered the most accurate quantum platform on the market – we have also engineered a quantum chip capable of being manufactured in standard semiconductor fabs." IonQ emphasized that existing partnerships in both the U.S. and UK will remain intact. The company also plans to deepen its involvement with the UK's National Quantum Computing Centre and government-led quantum programs supporting defense, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing sectors. The deal follows IonQ's earlier acquisitions of Lightsynq and the pending purchase of Capella, marking a clear strategy to consolidate core technologies and talent as the company seeks to lead a market that, according to Boston Consulting Group, could generate up to $850 billion in global economic value by 2040.
Atlantic
27 minutes ago
- Atlantic
‘We're Just Becoming a Weapon of the State'
Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. Bhattacharya, the NIH, and the Department of Health and Human Services did not respond immediately to a request for comment. The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants —originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, ' the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled
