Trump extends China tariff deadline for the second time. What does it mean?
With the extension, the imposition of higher tariffs on China will be suspended until November 10, with all other elements of an existing truce – which was set to expire on Tuesday – to remain in place.
'The United States continues to have discussions with the PRC to address the lack of trade reciprocity in our economic relationship and our resulting national and economic security concerns,' Trump's executive order stated, using the acronym for the People's Republic of China.
China's Ministry of Commerce issued a parallel pause on extra tariffs early on Tuesday, with the state media reporting that 'a measure to further implement the important consensus reached by the two heads of state' would provide stability for the global economy.
So, how significant is the second extension of the tariff truce, and will the two countries sign a trade agreement to prevent a trade war?
What are the terms of the pause?
Beyond the date extension, a fact sheet posted by the White House on Monday didn't detail any modifications to the trade truce agreed in May. China, in a similar statement, said it would also extend its tariff suspension for 90 days.
On May 11, the two sides agreed to a 90-day tariff pause. From early April until then, US import levies on Chinese goods stood at 145 percent, while Chinese tariffs on US exports were 125 percent – rates that resulted in a virtual trade embargo between the two countries.
But the tariff truce agreed to in Geneva, Switzerland, lowered the temperature by temporarily slashing US tariffs on Chinese imports to 30 percent, while Chinese levies on US exports fell to 10 percent.
Beijing also agreed to resume some rare earth exports critical for the US manufacturing sector, including electronics, aerospace and cars.
Following talks in Geneva, US and Chinese representatives met in London in June and then again in Stockholm, Sweden, last month. After the Stockholm meetings, US negotiators returned to Washington with a proposal that Trump extend the Geneva deadline past August 12.
In the run-up to this latest pause, it's understood that Trump pushed for additional concessions on Sunday, urging China to quadruple its US soya bean purchases. But analysts questioned the feasibility of his deal, and Trump did not repeat his demand on Monday.
How have stock markets responded?
Financial markets rallied on Tuesday, with Japanese and Australian equities hitting record highs following the trade truce announcement. Japan's Topix benchmark rose 1.6 percent, as Australia's S&P/ASX 200 climbed 0.2 percent.
In the US, futures tracking the S&P 500 and Nasdaq indexes edged up 0.1 percent. Meanwhile, oil prices increased. Brent crude futures jumped 0.4 percent to $66.9 a barrel, while US West Texas Intermediate crude futures were up 0.4 percent to $64.2.
Why has Trump been flexible with China on trade?
In recent weeks, US-China negotiations have been on a parallel track to other talks Washington has held with trade partners, as it moved to implement sweeping 'reciprocal' tariffs – as well as industry-specific levies – on August 7.
Trump struck agreements to lower tariffs with some trading partners, including the EU and Japan, but hit others like Brazil and Switzerland with swingeing levies. In the case of India, Trump doubled tariffs to 50 percent after New Delhi refused to curb purchases of Russian oil and lower tariffs on US goods.
For Thomas Sampson, a professor of economics at the London School of Economics, trade negotiations between the US and China have 'been running on their own track … because the US sees China as a long-term economic rival.'
Sampson told Al Jazeera that 'I don't think it [Washington] sees the EU or other countries in the same way.' He also noted that the 'incipient military rivalry between the US and China' means that bilateral negotiations are sensitive.
What makes the trade relationship special?
Trump has consistently criticised Beijing for what he deems to be unfair trade practices – namely import quotas, tax breaks and subsidies. He has even argued that the US's trade deficit with China, which reached $295.4bn last year, amounts to a national emergency.
China is the US's third-largest trade partner, after Mexico and Canada. It is heavily reliant on China for manufactured goods – from washing machines and TV sets to clothing.
The US Department of Commerce calculated that mechanical appliances (mainly low to mid-range technology products) made up 46.4 percent of all US imports from China in 2022.
And while US imports from China surged to beat Trump's tariff bite following his 'liberation day' announcement in April, they then dropped in June.
Indeed, the US trade deficit with China fell by roughly a third to $9.5 billion in June – its narrowest level since 2004, according to US Census Bureau data.
The US trade gap with China fell by $22.2bn from March to August. That amounts to a 70 percent drop from one year earlier.
More generally, US Treasury Department data shows that the US generated $124bn from January to July this year from tariffs. This is 131 percent more than the same time last year.
At the same time, the two countries trade goods of vital strategic interest whose importance trumps crude deficit figures. And both sides have been taking steps to reduce flashpoints recently.
For its part, the US has eased some export restrictions on advanced semiconductors – a key demand from China.
On Monday, the Financial Times newspaper revealed that Trump had permitted Nvidia and AMD to export advanced US chips to China. But the tech giants would pay 15 percent of their China sales to the federal government.
Trump had previously barred those deals. Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, had also imposed restrictions on US chip exports, as well as banned a range of US high-tech investments in China.
On the flipside, Chinese exports of rare earth magnets have started to recover in recent weeks after it blocked sales to the US in April.
Flows of rare earth magnets – used in everything from clean energy technology to military hardware – from China to the US rose to 353 tonnes in June, up from just 46 tonnes in May.
Still, total shipments were still substantially lower than before Beijing launched its export controls in early April.
Washington has also been pressing Beijing to stop buying Russian oil to pressure Moscow over its war in Ukraine, with Trump even threatening to impose secondary tariffs on China.
US Vice President JD Vance said on Sunday that President Trump has been thinking of imposing tariffs on Beijing.
'Obviously, the China issue is a little bit more complicated because our relationship with China, it affects a lot of other things that have nothing to do with the Russian situation,' Vance told Fox News in an interview.
What will happen next?
This week's tariff pause may clear the path for Trump to meet President Xi Jinping in late October, when the president is expected to travel to South Korea for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.
Until then, the partial tariff moratorium will give both sides time to work through longstanding trade concerns in advance of the potential meeting.
In the US, economists widely agree that the impact of tariffs on Chinese goods has not been fully felt, as many firms have built up their stockpiles of inventories to mitigate the higher duties.
Looking ahead, however, BBVA Research published an analysis last month estimating that US tariffs on China would raise US inflation and slow economic growth later this year.
For Thomas Sampson, 'the tariff pause allows them [the US and China] to maintain the status quo, and it wouldn't be surprising if, after 90 days, they extend it further.'
More broadly, however, he believes that 'there is a bipartisan consensus in Washington to push for a de-linking with trade from China.'
'Big picture,' he said, 'even under a different president, I think you'd still see tensions in the US-China relationship.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
What's next for oil as OPEC+ and Trump shake the market?
OPEC+ is opening the oil taps again, while Donald Trump's tariffs target Russian crude buyers. OPEC+, which includes Saudi Arabia and Russia, has agreed to another large production hike in September. That's despite a warning by the International Energy Agency, the extra barrels could tip the market into oversupply later this year. US President Donald Trump's tariffs have targeted Russian crude buyers. But whether those tariffs are imposed depends on the outcome of trade negotiations with India and China. And even more so on talks over a peace deal in Ukraine between Washington and Moscow. Can the US and Europe break China's grip on rare earths? Plus, why is China's Labubu toy so popular?
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Clinton to Trump: How Putin has met, courted and frustrated US presidents
As Russian President Vladimir Putin prepares for a summit in Alaska with his United States counterpart Donald Trump, he can draw on his experiences from 48 previous meetings with American presidents. Over 25 years as Russia's leader, Putin has met and worked with five US presidents: Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama, Trump and Joe Biden. While some of the earlier meetings were relatively warm, reflecting the hopes of US-Russia friendship between the end of the Cold War and the early 2000s, most of Putin's more recent interactions — especially with Obama and Biden — have been frostier, as bilateral ties have worsened. Here's a recap of some of the key moments from those past meetings, and how jazz concerts and fishing trips gave way to threats. June 2000: Putin-Clinton Less than three months after he formally became president of Russia, Putin hosted US President Clinton in Moscow. The Russian leader took Clinton on a tour of the Kremlin, after which a Russian jazz group performed for them. Clinton congratulated Putin on Russia's decision to ratify two arms control treaties. 'President Yeltsin led Russia to freedom. Under President Putin, Russia has the chance to build prosperity and strength, while safeguarding that freedom and the rule of law,' Clinton said, referring to Boris Yeltsin, Putin's predecessor as president. Putin, on his part, described the US as 'one of our main partners'. Moscow, he said, would never again seek confrontation with Washington. 'Never. We are for cooperation. We are for coming to agreement on problems that might arise,' he said. But Clinton acknowledged their differences over Chechnya, where Russian forces had launched a major war the previous year, after a series of apartment blasts in Russia killed more than 300 people. Moscow blamed Chechen separatists for the explosions. The Moscow meeting was the first of four between Putin and Clinton in 2000, the others on the margins of multilateral events, before the US president left office in January the following year. November 2001: Putin-Bush After the September 11 attacks, Putin was the first world leader to call then-US President Bush and offer support. Two months later, Bush hosted Putin at his Crawford, Texas ranch, optimism about ties dripping from his words. 'When I was in high school, Russia was an enemy. Now the high school students can know Russia as a friend; that we're working together to break the old ties, to establish a new spirit of cooperation and trust so that we can work together to make the world more peaceful,' Bush said. Bush drove Putin in a pick-up truck to a waterfall on the ranch. But by the time they met in Russia in November 2002, US-led efforts for NATO expansion had injected unease into the relationship. July 2007: Putin-Bush By this point, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 had amplified tensions between the two countries. But despite differences, Bush continued to maintain a warm personal relationship with Putin, whom he hosted at his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine. Both acknowledged areas where their views diverged, but they each credited the other with transparency. Bush took Putin fishing. The Russian president was the only one who caught a fish on that trip – it was set free, Putin said. April 2008: Putin-Bush The final meeting between Bush and Putin as presidents took place in Sochi, Russia, and was focused on US plans to expand a missile defence system in Europe that Russia was opposing. There was no breakthrough – the two leaders agreed to disagree. But their personal rapport appeared intact. Bush met Putin 28 times in total. He only met British Prime Minister Tony Blair more. July 2009: Putin-Obama Putin was now prime minister, with ally Dmitry Medvedev the Russian president. US President Obama met Putin during a visit to Moscow. By now, differences had grown over Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008, which the US had opposed. 'We may not end up agreeing on everything, but I think that we can have a tone of mutual respect and consultation that will serve both the American people and the Russian people well,' Obama told Putin. June 2013: Putin-Obama As Obama met Putin on the margins of the G8 summit in Northern Ireland — Russia had been added to the grouping in 1998 and was expelled in 2014 after its annexation of Crimea — their frustration with each other was visible in an awkward photo that made headlines. The US and its allies wanted then-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to quit amid the civil war in that country, but Russia was backing him. 'With respect to Syria, we do have differing perspectives on the problem, but we share an interest in reducing the violence; securing chemical weapons and ensuring that they're neither used nor are they subject to proliferation,' Obama said. November 2016: Putin-Obama By the time Obama and Putin met for the ninth and final time at the APEC Summit in Peru, there was no pretence of bonhomie. Russia had accused the US of engineering a coup against its ally and former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. The US and its allies had imposed sanctions against Russia over its annexation of Crimea. Putin and Obama spoke for barely four minutes on the sidelines of the summit, with the US president asking his Russian counterpart to stick to his commitments under the Minsk agreements that were meant to bring peace to Ukraine. July 2018: Putin-Trump A year and a half into his first presidency, Trump's victory in the 2016 US presidential election was still clouded by accusations that Russia had interfered in the election on his behalf when he met Putin in Helsinki. The two met alone, with only interpreters. In a media interaction after that, Putin tried to recast the relationship in optimistic hues. 'The Cold War is a thing of past,' he said, before listing a series of modern challenges facing the world — from an environmental crisis to terrorism. 'We can only cope with these challenges if we join the ranks and work together. Hopefully, we will reach this understanding with our American partners.' But it was Trump who made headlines. After he acknowledged that he had discussed the allegations of election interference with Putin, Trump was asked whether he believed US intelligence agencies that had concluded that Moscow had intervened in the vote. 'I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,' Trump said. 'He just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be.' Trump met Putin six times in all in his first term. June 2021: Putin-Biden US President Joe Biden flew to Geneva for his only face-to-face meeting with Putin. After years of steady deterioration, relations had reached their nadir after Biden had described Putin as a killer in March, prompting Russia to withdraw its ambassador from Washington. The US had followed. The Geneva meeting helped reset ties – a bit. Both countries agreed to reappoint ambassadors. But Biden was also blunt with Putin about US concerns over Russian election interference and cyberattacks, and said he had, in effect, threatened Moscow that Washington could launch tit-for-tat cyberstrikes. Russia by then was building up its troop presence along the border with Ukraine, a key source of stress in ties with the US that came up during the Putin-Biden meeting. Eight months later, Russia would launch a fully fledged invasion of Ukraine, marking the start of Europe's largest war since World War II — a war Trump says he wants to end through the summit in Alaska on August 15.
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Superman's new job at ICE is the perfect American plot twist
Last week, actor Dean Cain, known for portraying Superman in the 1990s TV show Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, announced that he was going to be sworn in as a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent. Cain said he was joining the agency because ICE agents, whom he described as the 'real true heroes', were being vilified. He also posted an ICE recruitment video on Instagram with the Superman theme song playing in the background, and promoted the generous pay and benefits that come with being an ICE agent. Cain is not the only one. Some pro-Trump celebrities have also defended or praised ICE. And Dr Phil tagged along on ICE raids in Chicago and quizzed apprehended migrants on camera. But setting aside the irony that the Man of Steel himself was in fact also an undocumented alien, why would Superman be so keen to join ICE's draconian raids targeting immigrants? For one thing, we need to understand the allure of these ICE operations. The visuals of masked federal agents, hopping out of armoured vehicles, in military-style gear and swiftly descending on what ICE enthusiasts would claim are terrorists, rapists, paedophiles, murderers, drug traffickers and gang members, are deeply comforting for many in the US. This is a consequence of a long history where militarised policing gained a semblance of sacrosanctity in the country. It is well documented that contemporary policing in the US has its origins in slave patrols. This means that the development of the US criminal justice system has its roots not only in slavery, but also in the belief that slave revolts or any effort to upend the racial hierarchy in American society are an existential threat to the established social order. Over the years, the gradual militarisation of the police has drawn its rationale from periods of perceived existential crises in American society. Whether it was the rise of organised crime during the Prohibition era of the 1920s, uprisings during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, or when President Richard Nixon declared drug addiction 'public enemy no 1' requiring an 'all-out offensive', these have served as the pretext for strong, military-style policing on American streets. This militarisation of the police has been supported by Section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, which President Bill Clinton signed into law, allowing local law enforcement agencies to access excess military equipment from the Department of Defense (DOD). The 1033 programme has allowed the DOD to 'sell or transfer', among other things, mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, grenade launchers, aeroplanes and helicopters. This love affair with ICE is also a cultural phenomenon. The hard-edged, violent and brash cop, willing to stray outside the bounds of the law to protect innocent civilians from evil (the Muslim terrorist, the Soviets, the Germans) is a popular Hollywood and American TV show staple. This has normalised the perception that to keep America safe from such existential threats, it is sometimes necessary to use deadly force or extrajudicial actions, no matter how cruel or excessive they may seem. Of course, in all of this, we cannot ignore the deep, anti-immigrant sentiments that drive the support for ICE. In my adult life, this xenophobia has taken many forms. As an 18-year-old college student in upstate New York in the early 2000s, I was the physical epitome of all things evil and anti-American as the country waged its 'Global War on Terror'. At the time, I remember a fellow student justifying the extra security checks I had to suffer through at airports, saying, 'You cannot ignore the fact that you look like the people who hate us.' In my late 20s as a PhD student in Copenhagen, I had to hear a senior colleague say, 'You're Indian. I guess your skill is raping women.' He was referring to the 2012 Delhi bus gang rape and murder that received global attention. Globally, we have also seen a proliferation of reality TV shows like Border Security: Australia's Front Line and Nothing to Declare UK that claim to show the reality of the multiple threats that Western countries encounter at their borders. It is now all but commonplace to imagine the figure of the migrant as a vessel for all things we fear and hate. When Syrian refugees arrived in Europe in 2015, they were portrayed as a security threat, a burden on public services, and a threat to European values. Last year, the United Kingdom saw a wave of far-right anti-immigrant riots after a mass stabbing of girls in Southport. The riots followed false claims that the attacker was a Muslim migrant. Rioters attacked minority-owned businesses, the homes of immigrants and hotels housing asylum seekers. This year, Ireland has seen anti-immigrant attacks on South Asians, including a six-year-old girl who was punched in the face and hit in the genital area. Reportedly, these attacks have been fuelled by anger over the affordability and housing crisis. Such anti-immigrant sentiments have been endemic to American politics. While the discourse during the Obama years was not as antagonistic, the removal of undocumented migrants was still a political priority. President Obama was called 'deporter-in-chief', and in 2012, deportations peaked at 409,849. That said, in the same year, he also signed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, allowing undocumented migrants who were brought into the country as minors to apply for 'renewable two-year periods of deferred action from deportation, allowing them to remain in the country'. DACA also made them eligible for work permits. Deportations were also a priority during the Biden years. In fiscal year 2023, US immigration authorities deported or returned 468,000 migrants, surpassing any single year during Trump's first term. That said, during Trump's tenure in the White House, the anti-immigrant rhetoric has been vicious, and the Republican leader does not shy away from portraying migrants as synonymous with criminality and an existential threat to the demographic, moral and cultural fabric of the United States. This framing of immigrants as a problematic presence in American society served as a pretext for Trump's plan to build a wall across the US-Mexico border to stop the movement of undocumented migrants, the travel ban on citizens from several Muslim countries, and a suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Program. Trump's second term has only been a continuation of such policies. With the genocide ongoing in Gaza and the concurrent visibility of the Palestine solidarity movement, the anti-immigration movement has merged with anti-Palestinian racism, with ICE also targeting pro-Palestine activists whom the Trump administration claims hold views that are antithetical to American values. With all of this in the background, it then makes sense that an actor who once played an undocumented alien on TV and who himself has Japanese heritage would join ICE. In the era of Trump, targeting the tired and poor huddled masses who yearn to breathe free seems to be the American way. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
