
Analysis: Beijing sees a ‘victory' with the US tariffs truce. What's it aiming for next?
A surprise truce in a spiraling tariff war between the US and China last week was hailed by Chinese pundits as a success for the country. But Beijing is gearing up for a rocky path in relations, and negotiations, ahead.
Already, in the days immediately following the May 12 agreement between American and Chinese negotiators in Geneva, Beijing has been lashing out at Washington.
On Monday, China's Commerce Ministry accused the US of 'undermining' the Geneva talks after the Trump administration warned companies against using AI chips made by national tech champion Huawei. Two days later, it said Washington was 'abusing export controls to suppress and contain China' referring again to Trump guidelines on AI chips.
Beijing has also stuck to its stance on fentanyl, calling the drug scourge the 'US's problem, not China's' — even as further collaboration with Washington on curbing the production of chemicals that can be used to make the drug could help Beijing whittle down remaining US tariffs on its goods.
China's tough talk sends a clear signal ahead of expected negotiations: That even as Beijing stands to face major economic pain from trade frictions, it's in no mood for quick concessions at the expense of its own image or interests.
It's also a reminder that despite the temporary dial down, an entrenched US-China strategic rivalry will cast a heavy shadow over those talks. Washington now views an increasingly assertive China as a threat and has moved to tighten controls on Chinese access to American tech and investment, while shoring up its Asian alliances — acts Beijing view as 'containment.'
The clock is already ticking on trade negotiations, as the truce agreed by American and Chinese officials earlier this month lasts only 90 days. Under that deal, the two sides agreed to reduce by 115 percentage point tariffs that had amounted to a de facto trade embargo between two highly integrated economies — leaving assembly lines stalled, ports quieted and companies on both sides reeling with how to cope.
There has been no announcement of further trade talks between the US and China, though US trade representative Jamieson Greer and Chinese trade envoy Li Chenggang met on the sidelines of a gathering of APEC trade ministers in South Korea last week, Reuters reported. On Friday, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Vice Minister Ma Zhaoxu spoke with US State Department Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources Richard Verma on China-US relations.
'The revival of US-China trade ties benefits both sides and the global economy,' China's state broadcaster CCTV said amicably on May 14 when the reductions went into effect, taking a more modest tone than pundits like Hu Xijin, the former editor of a state-linked nationalist tabloid, who had called the outcome a 'huge victory' for China.
But, CCTV added, the US must 'completely correct' its 'wrongdoing of making excuses to recklessly impose tariffs. Dialogue can begin, but hegemony must end.'
When Trump announced so-called reciprocal duties on trade partners around the world last month, China took a different approach to most countries, swiftly retaliating with its own measures.
And it didn't back down even when the US president then paused most duties on other countries but raised them on China, with Beijing projecting itself as a global leader standing up to a bully as their tit-for-tat tariffs spiraled higher.
Now, Chinese leaders likely feel 'reassured that their US strategy is on the right track,' according to geopolitical strategist Brian Wong, an assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong.
But the question for Beijing is how to spin that into a lasting victory for its economy — and its narrative, despite a deep mutual mistrust and mounting US-China competition in tech, military prowess and global influence, not to mention a president known for his brash policymaking.
'There is absolutely no delusion on the part of (China's) senior decision makers concerning … an easing of Sino-American tensions,' said Wong.
The stakes are high for China to make sure tariffs are reduced for its single largest export market - and don't ratchet back up. If the current reduced duties remain in place, US-China trade could be cut by half, reducing China's growth by 1.6% and leading to four to six million job losses, according to chief Asia-Pacific economist Alicia Garcia Herrero at Natixis, an investment bank.
The Trump administration has yet to lay out a clear set of demands for negotiations with China, but the president has long railed against the US's roughly $300 billion trade deficit with China and blamed the country for the offshoring of American jobs and decline of US manufacturing.
Despite its tough talk, observers say Beijing is likely prepared to make some concessions. That could include returning to or expanding on a trade agreement to buy more US goods reached during Trump's first trade war, which was never fully implemented. Law enforcement collaboration or tighter controls on the production of precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl could be another.
'The Chinese are willing to make deals, in order to weather the storm called Trump,' said Yun Sun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center think tank in Washington. 'If there is a way they can minimize the cost and stabilize bilateral relations … that is preferred. But they want US to be practical and reasonable.'
There are clear friction points. Beijing would likely want to work toward closing the trade gap by buying high end American technology, much of which is now banned for sale there.
Chinese officials may also be wary of negotiating too broadly with Trump's team and giving concessions connected to opening its economic system, which Western countries have long been calling for.
But Beijing also has its own leverage, as it appears to continue to keep tight control over its rare earth exports that are critical to automobile, aerospace and military industries.
And observers see China as more able to withstand economic pain than the US. That's partly because Chinese leader Xi Jinping, a strongman atop a tightly controlled Communist Party system, isn't vulnerable in the same way as Trump to public backlash over economic pain and tanking stock prices.
'Although the effects of the tariffs on China's economy will become sharper, Beijing believes that it can endure the trade war longer than the United States can,' former Chinese diplomat Zhou Xiaoming wrote in an online analysis earlier this month ahead of the Geneva talks.
Where negotiations land by August 12, when the 90-day window closes, will have a major impact on the broader trajectory of relations between the rival global powers. But in the meantime, Beijing is continuing to prepare for a long-term rupture with the US.
Trade tensions have added urgency to China's twin drives to boost domestic consumption and expand other export markets as the government looks for ways to offset the potential loss of American customers.
Xi and his officials have launched a flurry of diplomacy targeting partners from Latin America to Europe and Southeast Asia projecting China as a responsible partner – and offering to bolster cooperation or expand free trade.
Beijing has done 'brilliantly' in this regard, according to Suisheng Zhao, director of the Center for China-US Cooperation at Josef Korbel School of International Studies in Denver. 'If Trump continues this (global) tariff war, that will give a lot of strategic advantage to China.'
And that's important for Beijing, he added, because regardless of what happens in the next 90 days, the broader US-China rivalry means both hope to become less reliant on the other.
'It doesn't matter what they talk about (in negotiations) … they'd (each) rather reduce their trade with the other – that's the trend,' he said.
CNN's Joyce Jiang contributed to this report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
5 minutes ago
- Forbes
What To Know About The IRS's $4 Billion Tax Assessment On Yum! Brands
KFC Taco Bell (Photo by Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images) The IRS has assessed $4 billion in taxes, penalties, and interest on Yum! Brands. The issue stems from a tax-deferred reorganization in 2014. Yum! Brands is now suing to prevent the IRS from collecting these funds. M&A is often among the most complicated tax issues large corporations face, which can often lead to uncertainty and scrutiny from the IRS. In this article, I discuss the Yum! Brand corporation, what happened in 2014, and why they are facing such a steep tax penalty now over a decade later. Yum! Brands is the parent company of KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and Habit Burger & Grill. As noted by The Washington Post, this corporation spun off from PepsiCo in 1997 to become among the largest set of restaurant chains in the United States and the world. While it currently features those three staples, the corporation has also previously held other chains, such as A&W and Long John Silvers. Yum! Brands has been known to be innovative by having combination restaurants. In these situations, customers can order from a KFC or Taco Bell (or both) at the same location. What makes Yum! Brands particularly impactful is their international appeal. As stated on the Yum! Brands website, the brands total over 61,000 locations and can be seen in 155 countries. According to CNN, KFC has blossomed to become an international staple in countries like Japan, where people often have KFC as their Christmas dinner. Yum! Brands is also no stranger to tax-related news. In early 2025, the company announced a different restructuring. While the company is famously headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky (hence, Kentucky Fried Chicken), Fortune reported that it will be relocating to Plano, TX, due to, among other things, taxes. Kentucky is a state that levies a corporate income tax (5% in 2025). Meanwhile, Texas famously has a 0% tax rate on corporate profits. Individual income tax is also not levied in Texas. Newsweek suggests that Texas has become a bit of a tax haven for new corporate headquarters such as Tesla, Toyota, Charles Schwab, Chevron, and now Yum! Brands. Prior to 2014, Yum! Brands was made up of separate legal entities based on brand and region. For example, there were separate legal entities for KFC Asia and KFC Europe. According to court filings, On November 30, 2013, Yum! Brands publicly announced a corporate reorganization. In this reorganization, the company would no longer be broken out into segments based on geography. Instead, it would focus its organization based on brands (i.e., KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut). It would also have separate divisions for China and India. The goal of this reorganization was to drive growth. To help facilitate the reorganization, the new subsidiaries issued stock in exchange for stock in the previous subsidiary. This stock for stock reorganization often falls under the Internal Revenue Code Section 368(a)(1)(B), which allows for the acquisition of a corporation solely in exchange for all or part of its voting stock. As long as all of the conditions are met, the Yum! Brand legal entities can exchange the stock without recognizing a gain on the appreciated value of the stock. The conditions for this type of reorganization are as follows: Reorganizations under Section 368 are valuable for a company like Yum! Brands because it wishes to restructure the company's organization to enhance future profits. In a normal transaction where Yum! Brands were selling its stock to another company, Yum! Brands would have a gain (or loss) on the appreciated (depreciated) value of the stock. However, Section 368 allows companies to meet certain conditions to defer the gain to a future period. Importantly, companies still have to recognize a gain on the stock's appreciated value, but this gain will not typically happen until the company ultimately disposes of it. In this case, Yum! Brands thought that the conditions under Section 368(a)(1)(B) were met, which would defer the gain, allowing the reorganization to make more sense from a financial perspective. In Yum! Brand's 2024 10-K financial statements, the company notes the following: As reported by Bloomberg Tax, this disagreement comprises over $4 billion dollars in damages: the $2.1 billion in taxes that the IRS believes Yum! Brands should have paid during their reorganization in 2014, $418 million in underpayment penalties and over $1.5 billion in interest on the money that has not yet been paid to the taxing authority. $4 billion is a large assessment for any firm. However, to put it into context, Yum! Brands in 2024 had a pre-tax income of $1.9 billion and paid income taxes of $414 million on that income. Thus, a tax bill of over $4 billion is astronomical for even a company of this size. NRN reports that the disagreement stems from Yum! Brands believe to have met all of the requirements under Section 368 for the reorganization to be tax-deferred, whereas the taxing authority believes that these matters were not all addressed and initiates billions of dollars of income by way of a sale of appreciated value of stock. NRN also reports that Yum! Brands has taken this matter to court and appeals court but was unsuccessful. In turn, Law360 reports that Yum! Brands have taken the IRS to court to sue them over the collections of this $4 billion. While the matter is still uncertain, many in the M&A tax space continue to watch this saga unfold since it represents a significant assessment being levied against some of the U.S.'s most recognizable restaurant brands.


Forbes
7 minutes ago
- Forbes
The AI Paradox: When More AI Means Less Impact
Young business man with his face passing through the screen of a laptop on binary code background AI is in the news every day. On the one hand, this highlights the vertiginous speed at which the field is developing. On the other, it creates a sense saturation and angst that makes business organizations either drop the subject altogether or go at it full throttle without much discernment. Both approaches will lead to major misses in the inevitable AI-fication of business. In this article, I'll explore what happens when a business goes down the AI rabbit hole without a clear business objective and a solid grasp of the available alternatives. If you have attended any AI conference lately, chances are that, by the end, you thought your business was dangerously behind. Many of these events, even if not on purpose, can leave you with the feeling that you need to deploy AI everywhere and automate everything to catch up. If you've succumbed to this temptation, you most likely found out that is not the right move. Two years into the generative AI revolution, a counterintuitive truth is emerging from boardrooms to factory floors. Companies pursuing 100% AI automation are often seeing diminished returns, while those treating AI as one element in a broader, human-centered workflow are capturing both cost savings and competitive advantages. The obvious truth is already revealing itself: AI is just one more technology at our disposal, and just like every other new technology, everyone is trying to gain first-move advantage, which inevitably creates chaos. Those who see through and beyond said chaos are building the foundations of a successful AI-assisted business. The numbers tell a story that contradicts the automation evangelists. Three in four workers say AI tools have decreased their productivity and added to their workload, according to a recent UpWork survey of 2,500 respondents across four countries. Workers report spending more time reviewing AI-generated content and learning tool complexities than the time these tools supposedly save. Even more revealing: while 85% of company leaders are pushing workers to use AI, nearly half of employees using AI admitted they have no idea how to achieve the productivity gains their employers expect. This disconnect isn't just corporate misalignment—it's a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI creates value. The companies winning the AI game aren't those deploying the most algorithms. They're the ones who understand that intelligent automation shouldn't rely on AI alone. Instead, successful organizations are orchestrating AI within broader process frameworks where human expertise guides strategic decisions while AI handles specific, well-defined tasks. A good AI strategy always revolves around domain experts, not the other way around. Consider how The New York Times approached AI integration. Rather than replacing journalists with AI, the newspaper introduced AI tools for editing copy, summarizing information, and generating promotional content, while maintaining strict guidelines that AI cannot draft full articles or significantly alter journalism. This measured approach preserves editorial integrity while amplifying human capabilities. AI should be integrated strategically and operationally into entire processes, not deployed as isolated solutions to be indiscriminately exploited hoping for magic. Research shows that 60% of business and IT leaders use over 26 systems in their automation efforts, and 42% cite lack of integration as a major digital transformation hurdle. The most effective AI implementations focus on task-specific applications rather than general automation. Task-specific models offer highly specialized solutions for targeted problems, making them more efficient and cost-effective than general-purpose alternatives. Harvard Business School research involving 750 Boston Consulting Group consultants revealed this precision matters enormously. While consultants using AI completed certain tasks 40% faster with higher quality, they were 19 percentage points less likely to produce correct answers on complex tasks requiring nuanced judgment. This 'jagged technological frontier' demands that organizations implement methodical test-and-learn approaches rather than wholesale AI adoption. Harvard Business Review research confirms that AI notoriously fails at capturing intangible human factors essential for real-world decision-making—ethical considerations, moral judgments, and contextual nuances that guide business success. The companies thriving in 2025 aren't choosing between humans and machines. They're building hybrid systems where AI automation is balanced with human interaction to maintain stakeholder trust and capture value that neither could achieve alone. The mantra, 'AI will replace your job,' seems to consistently reveal a timeless truth: everything that should be automated will be automated, not everything than can be automated will. The Path Forward The AI paradox isn't a failure of technology—it's a lesson in implementation strategy. Organizations that resist the allure of complete automation and instead focus on thoughtful integration, task-specific deployment, and human-AI collaboration aren't just avoiding the productivity trap. They're building sustainable competitive advantages that compound over time. The question isn't whether your organization should use AI. It's whether you'll fall into the 'more AI' trap or master the art of 'smarter AI'—where less automation actually delivers more impact.


Washington Post
7 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Points of Light, founded by the Bush family, aims to double American volunteerism by 2035
NEW ORLEANS — The Bush family's nonprofit Points of Light will lead an effort to double the number of people who volunteer with U.S. charitable organizations from 75 million annually to 150 million in 10 years. The ambitious goal, announced in New Orleans at the foundation's annual conference, which concluded Friday, would represent a major change in the way Americans spend their time and interact with nonprofits. It aspires to mobilize people to volunteer with nonprofits in the U.S. at a scale that only federal programs like AmeriCorps have in the past. It also coincides with deep federal funding cuts that threaten the financial stability of many nonprofits and with an effort to gut AmeriCorps programs, which sent 200,000 volunteers all over the country. A judge on Wednesday paused those cuts in some states , which had sued the Trump administration. Jennifer Sirangelo, president and CEO of Points of Light, said that while the campaign has been in development well before the federal cuts, the nonprofit's board members recently met and decided to move forward. 'What our board said was, 'We have to do it now. We have to put the stake in the ground now. It's more important than it was before the disruption of AmeriCorps,'' she said in an interview with The Associated Press. She said the nonprofit aims to raise and spend $100 million over the next three years to support the goal. Points of Light, which is based in Atlanta, was founded by President George H.W. Bush to champion his vision of volunteerism. It has carried on his tradition of giving out a daily award to a volunteer around the country, built a global network of volunteer organizations and cultivated corporate volunteer programs. Speaking Wednesday in New Orleans, Points of Light's board chair Neil Bush told the organization's annual conference that the capacity volunteers add to nonprofits will have a huge impact on communities. 'Our mission is to make volunteering and service easier, more impactful, more sustained,' Bush said. 'Because, let's be honest, the problems in our communities aren't going to fix themselves.' According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and AmeriCorps, the rate of participation has plateaued since 2002 , with a noticeable dip during the pandemic . Susan M. Chambré, professor emerita at Baruch College who studied volunteering for decades , said Points of Light's goal of doubling the number of volunteers was admirable but unrealistic, given that volunteer rates have not varied significantly over time. But she said more research is needed into what motivates volunteers, which would give insight into how to recruit people. She also said volunteering has become more transactional over time, directed by staff as opposed to organized by volunteers themselves. In making its case for increasing volunteer participation in a recent report , Points of Light drew on research from nonprofits like Independent Sector, the National Alliance for Volunteer Engagement and the Do Good Institute at the University of Maryland. Sirangelo said they want to better measure the impact volunteers make, not just the hours they put in, for example. They also see a major role for technology to better connect potential volunteers to opportunities, though they acknowledge that many have tried to do that through apps and online platforms . Reaching young people will also be a major part of accomplishing this increase in volunteer participation. Sirangelo said she's observed that many young people who do want to participate are founding their own nonprofits rather than joining an existing one. 'We're not welcoming them to our institutions, so they have to go found something,' she said. 'That dynamic has to change.' As the board was considering this new goal, they reached out for advice to Alex Edgar, who is now the youth engagement manager at Made By Us. They ultimately invited him to join the board as a full voting member and agreed to bring on a second young person as well. 'I think for volunteering and the incredible work that Points of Light is leading to really have a deeper connection with my generation, it needs to be done in a way that isn't just talking to or at young people, but really co-created across generations,' said Edgar, who is 21. Karmit Bulman, who has researched and supported volunteer engagement for many years, said she was very pleased to see Points of Light make this commitment. 'They are probably the most well known volunteerism organization in the country and I really appreciate their leadership,' said Bulman, who is currently the executive director of East Side Learning Center, a nonprofit in St. Paul. Bulman said there are many people willing to help out in their communities but who are not willing to jump through hoops to volunteer with a nonprofit. 'We also need to recognize that it's a pretty darn stressful time in people's lives right now,' she said. 'There's a lot of uncertainty personally and professionally and financially for a lot of people. So we need to be really, really flexible in how we engage volunteers.' ___ Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP's philanthropy coverage, visit .