logo
U.S.-China tariff truce offers temporary relief — and plenty of uncertainty

U.S.-China tariff truce offers temporary relief — and plenty of uncertainty

CBS News13-05-2025

A tariff truce between the U.S. and China announced on Monday will offer companies some relief, but also prolong the kind of economic uncertainty that makes it hard for businesses to plan for the future.
Beginning May 14, the U.S. will lower its maximum tariff rate on Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, including a 10% baseline levy plus a fentanyl-specific 20% levy. China will reduce its 125% tariff on American goods to 10%.
But clinching a long-term trade deal is likely to prove challenging, while the reduced 30% tariff rate could still lead to price hikes for consumers, experts told CBS MoneyWatch.
"It remains to be seen whether the U.S. and China can agree to a trade deal that keeps tariffs from rebounding in 90 days," analysts with Gavekal, an investment research firm, said in a report. "So far, only the U.K. has reached an agreement with the U.S., and that doesn't tell us much."
Is the 30% tariff permanent?
No. Absent a formal trade deal, there's no guarantee that President Trump won't again raise tariffs on China once the truce expires after 90 days and that Beijing won't also retaliate. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called the new baseline tariff a "floor" in an interview with Bloomberg Surveillance.
"This is just a 90-day pause that allows the two countries to work toward a deal," supply-chain expert Sina Golara, an assistant professor at Georgia State University's Robinson College of Business, told CBS MoneyWatch.
Is a 30% tariff on Chinese imports still high?
Under the agreement, the U.S. will lower tariffs on Chinese goods from as much as 145% to 30%. Still, that represents a steep hike on the level of U.S. levies on China before Mr. Trump took office.
"If you look at where we were pre-'Liberation Day' or when Trump took office, this 'agreement' is just a baseline tariff increase to 30% across the board," said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a left-leaning public policy think tank, referring to the phrase President Trump used in announcing a barrage of tariffs on April 2. "While it's a walk-back from the prohibitive 145% tariffs, it still leaves us no closer to any concessions or renegotiations vis-à-vis China than we were."
Tariff rates aren't the only potential sticking points as the countries continue to negotiate.
"The two countries have a lot of grievances in many dimensions, so it's not just tariff rates," Golara noted. "It's where they strand on other trade barriers, the trade imbalance, and the U.S. accusing China of currency manipulation, so there's a lot to discuss. It makes sense for them to want to take more time."
What does the U.S-China truce mean for economic growth?
There's good news here: If both countries' reduced tariffs remain in place, consumer confidence is likely to improve and boost spending. That should help contain U.S. inflation and help support the job market, according to Oxford Economics associate economist Grace Zwemmer.
The announcement also reduces the odds of the U.S. economy entering a recession this year, according to experts. Oxford Economics chief U.S. economist Ryan Sweet lowered his forecast for a recession to 35% from more than 50%.
Will shipments from China start flowing again?
Large and small businesses alike in the U.S. have warned that higher tariffs will raise consumer prices, while some companies have canceled orders from Chinese factories because of the high levies.
"It's very clear that Trump was staring down the barrel of a huge drop in imports from China across the busiest shipping season, as companies build inventory for Christmas and the holiday season," Groundwork Collaborative's Jacquez told CBS MoneyWatch. "There were more announcements from companies about burning through their inventory and having to pass costs to customers, or having to cease importing from China."
Freight shipments from China are expected to surge during the 90-day tariff pause, as companies bulk up their inventories to guard against the trade talks foundering and levies rising. As a result, shipping rates will rise, and squeeze smaller businesses, whose margins are already thin.
"Right now, you'll see a huge rush in trying to get imports in from China in this 90-day period. That will strain shipping logistics just as it did in Covid, when everything opened back up," Jacquez said.
Will consumer prices still rise?
Businesses still face added costs with 30% tariffs in place, and they are likely to pass some of those expense onto consumers. But the price hikes could be less substantial depending on how companies handle tariffs, according to Georgia State University's Golara.
"If we have a mix of some companies handling tariffs well, we won't see broad-based inflation rise to a painful level. We might see pocketed effects in different and specific products and sectors," he said.
Other experts agree the pause is good news for companies and consumers.
"The tariffs were so punishing that it was creating this incentive not to import anything from China," Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University told CBS MoneyWatch. "The announcement is also good news because it means supply is not going to be as restrained as it was."
It doesn't mean the U.S. it completely out of the woods, though. "It's still a significant increase in taxes for American consumers. We are still in a worse position than we were," de Rugy said.
How are companies reacting?
Businesses are still grappling with significant economic uncertainty, making it hard to plan for the future.
"If you're a small business and don't know what your inputs will cost next week or in 90 days, it's going to be extremely difficult to do business in this uncertain environment," Jacquez said.
Kim Vaccarella, founder and CEO of Bogg, a U.S-based beach bag and accessories company that makes its products in China, has been scrambling to shift at least some of its manufacturing to Vietnam and Sri Lanka because of the Trump administration's stepped-up tariffs.
"We were looking at alternatives and set up viable sources in both countries, and we were working toward manufacturing there," she told CBS MoneyWatch.
Then came The White House's announcement on Monday. With the U.S. earlier this year having raised its country-based tariffs on Vietnam and Sri Lanka to o46% and 44%, respectively, China may again be Vaccarella's best option.
"Now we are back to square one, because at 30% it's less expensive to manufacture in China," she said. "If tariffs stay at 30% or go lower, it just looks like we spent a lot of money quickly trying to ramp up production somewhere else, because that would have been more acceptable under this current nightmare."
Vaccarella had warned customers that the price of Bogg bags could jump as early as July. "But 30% we can work with," she said. "There might have to be a small increase, but it won't be what it would have been at 145%."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign

CNN

time36 minutes ago

  • CNN

How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign

As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.

2 Reasons AMC Stock Is Soaring in June
2 Reasons AMC Stock Is Soaring in June

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

2 Reasons AMC Stock Is Soaring in June

Memorial Day weekend set moviegoing records, and a lot of the sales went to AMC as the largest theater chain. With many expected hit movies slated for release, management thinks it's turned a corner. AMC stock is still down year to date and the company has a lot to prove. 10 stocks we like better than AMC Entertainment › AMC (NYSE: AMC) is the largest movie theater operator in the world, but being the leader in a troubled industry hasn't done much for the company over the past few years. With the advent of streaming and residual fears from the pandemic, moviegoing just isn't what it once was and AMC continues to struggle. However, Memorial Day weekend was a boon for the company and AMC stock has been climbing. Let's see why and what it means for the future. Streaming from home has taken a toll on the box office, but there is still life left in theaters. Four of the top 10 highest-grossing films ever were released since the pandemic started, including Avatar: The Way of Water in the No. 3 spot and last year's Inside Out 2. People are still going to the movies. That fact was reinforced with a record Memorial Day weekend in May. Disney's live-action remake of Lilo & Stitch had the highest-ever four-day Memorial Day opening, and it was buttressed by a strong showing for Paramount's Mission: Impossible -- The Final Reckoning. Altogether, these two topped a blowout weekend with $326.7 million in domestic ticket sales, and Lilo & Stitch is already the second-highest-grossing domestic film of the year. Of course, that success trickled down to generate incredible financial results for AMC. Management said it set an all-time record for admissions revenue, food and beverage revenue, and total revenue for a weekend Memorial Day opening, and that the five-day stretch was the third-highest revenue for any five-day slot in more than 10 years. As for attendance, this was the highest-attended weekend and highest-attended five-day period of the year, both domestically and globally. Management didn't provide specific financial metrics for the weekend, so investors aren't likely to hear the nitty-gritty details until the second-quarter earnings release sometime in July or August. But management's update and optimism are boosting investor confidence. It's nice for the company to have a solid, record-breaking opening, but can it last? Management thinks so, and the market may be pricing that in. CEO Adam Aron said that after this weekend, AMC has turned a corner. "With many more potentially huge movies coming in June all the way through the end of 2025, and beyond that deeply into 2026 as well," he said, "we firmly expect to be enjoying a robust theatrical box office as we look ahead." Here's what to be excited about. Disney has a full slate of films coming out over the next few years, including the third film in the Avatar series. The first two are the highest-grossing and third-highest-grossing films ever, and the next film is slated for release this coming December. It also has the next Frozen film and other top franchises coming out soon. Warner Bros. has its own expected hits coming out, including a new Superman, and Comcast's Universal Studios has the next installment of Wicked and a new Shrek. Sequels to popular franchises can be big business. But the company is still reporting revenue declines and losses as of the 2025 first quarter. It will take some time to see if AMC has indeed turned a corner. As the price has increased in June, so has the short interest in AMC, hitting almost 15% of all outstanding shares. These investors are betting on this being a short-term boost and that the price will fall from this surge. Even though AMC stock is up 29% over the past month, it's still down 15% year-to-date. Unless the company releases incredibly strong earnings for the second quarter and keeps up its performance, the price jump may not last. Part of what's frustrating about that for investors is that many variables are beyond the company's control. It's up to film producers to create hit movies that bring viewers into theaters and to make the decision to keep them there long enough before they hit streaming services. That can be quite lumpy. You need to have real confidence in the future of the film industry and the resilience of theaters as a beckoning call for die-hard fans to want to invest in AMC's future, and for most investors, that time isn't now. Before you buy stock in AMC Entertainment, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and AMC Entertainment wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $674,395!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $858,011!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 997% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Jennifer Saibil has positions in Walt Disney. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Walt Disney. The Motley Fool recommends Comcast. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 2 Reasons AMC Stock Is Soaring in June was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store