Summary
The trade tensions between the United States and China reached a critical juncture in 2025 with high-level negotiations held in Geneva, Switzerland, aimed at resolving ongoing disputes stemming from tariffs and trade barriers imposed during the Trump administration. These talks involved key officials including U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, resulting in a tentative agreement to suspend certain tariffs for 90 days and commit to further negotiations designed to reduce the bilateral trade deficit and ease economic frictions. Despite this progress, the agreement fell short of fully resolving core issues such as tariff reductions and export restrictions, leaving underlying tensions largely intact.
Following the Geneva talks, the Trump administration accused China of violating the terms of the trade truce by maintaining export controls on critical materials like rare earth minerals and by retaliating through measures such as visa revocations for Chinese students and restrictions on semiconductor technologies. The United States responded with stricter export controls and targeted sanctions, actions which Beijing condemned as unilateral steps that “seriously undermine” the agreement and bilateral trust. China firmly denied any breach of the accord, emphasizing its commitment to the consensus and warning of potential countermeasures should the U.S. continue what it called “erroneous practices.”
These conflicting claims underscored a broader impasse in U.S.-China trade relations, highlighting the fragility of the Geneva agreement amid deep-seated disagreements over intellectual property, technology transfer, and economic security. The dispute has had significant ramifications, disrupting global supply chains, contributing to manufacturing slowdowns in China, and increasing volatility in financial markets worldwide. Efforts to manage these tensions through established consultation mechanisms have been complicated by divergent diplomatic approaches and ongoing geopolitical rivalries.
Despite the contentious environment, both sides have expressed willingness to continue dialogue, recognizing the importance of their economic relationship for global stability. However, the unresolved issues and mutual accusations of noncompliance suggest that the Geneva trade agreement, while a temporary de-escalation, did not mark a definitive turning point in the protracted U.S.-China trade war. The episode illustrates the complexities of negotiating trade policy amid broader strategic competition between the two economic superpowers.
Background
Tensions between the United States and China over trade have been longstanding, with significant escalation during the Trump administration. After a period of intense tariff impositions and retaliatory measures, the two countries engaged in high-stakes trade talks in Geneva, Switzerland, aimed at reducing trade barriers and resolving ongoing disputes. The talks, involving key figures such as Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng and U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent alongside Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, concluded on a positive note, with officials describing “substantial progress” and the formation of a “deal” intended to help reduce the U.S. global goods trade deficit.
Despite these advancements, no immediate agreement was reached to remove the high tariffs—145% on Chinese goods by the U.S. and 125% on U.S. goods by China—though both sides committed to further negotiations and actions by May 14, 2025. The discussions reflected a mutual recognition of the importance of their bilateral economic relationship to both nations and the global economy, emphasizing continued communication, cooperation, and respect.
However, the progress made in Geneva has been overshadowed by accusations from the Trump administration alleging that China violated the trade truce, provoking renewed economic and trade frictions. China strongly denied these claims, asserting that it had “strictly implemented and actively upheld” the agreements reached and accusing the U.S. of taking unilateral steps that “seriously undermine” the deal, including export restrictions on sensitive technologies and visa revocations for Chinese students. These actions have further complicated the fragile consultation mechanisms established to manage the wide-ranging trade disagreements, with both sides increasingly wary amid broader geopolitical and economic security concerns.
This backdrop of strained relations and conflicting narratives set the stage for President Trump’s public claims accusing the U.S. of being undermined in the Geneva trade agreement, fueling further diplomatic tension between the two economic superpowers.
US Accusations of Undermining the Geneva Trade Agreement
Following a period of relative calm after high-level trade discussions in Geneva, the United States under President Donald J. Trump escalated tensions by accusing China of failing to uphold its commitments under the Geneva trade agreement. This agreement, reached in May 2025 during talks between U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, involved suspending most tariffs for 90 days to facilitate further negotiations.
The Trump administration specifically pointed to China’s alleged reluctance to ease export restrictions on rare earth minerals, which are crucial for various technological and military applications. President Trump suggested that China continued to limit access to these essential materials, thereby violating the spirit of the deal and prompting a more confrontational stance on trade. In addition, the U.S. imposed stricter export controls on semiconductor design software and chemicals, and announced visa revocations for Chinese students, actions viewed by Washington as necessary measures against unfair Chinese trade practices and intellectual property theft.
These U.S. moves were criticized by Chinese officials, who argued that Washington’s additional duties and export controls “seriously undermine” the Geneva agreement. A spokesperson from China’s commerce department condemned the U.S. for introducing “discriminatory restrictive measures,” accusing it of breaching the deal’s terms and undermining bilateral trust. Beijing insisted that it had continued to honor its commitments responsibly and vowed to take appropriate measures to safeguard its rights and interests if the United States persisted in what it called erroneous practices.
The accusations and counteraccusations between the two economic superpowers marked a deterioration in trade relations, with China rejecting U.S. claims of noncompliance and instead accusing Washington of repeatedly provoking new trade frictions that increased uncertainty and instability in their bilateral relationship. This impasse underscored the fragility of the Geneva agreement and highlighted ongoing challenges in resolving the broader trade disputes between the United States and China.
China’s Official Response to US Accusations
China officially rejected the United States’ claims that it had violated the Geneva trade agreement, describing the accusations as “seriously contrary to the facts”. The Chinese Commerce Ministry stated that Beijing had “strictly implemented and actively upheld” the consensus reached during the trade talks, highlighting its actions to cancel and suspend certain tariff and non-tariff measures announced in April as a reciprocal response to U.S. tariffs. The ministry emphasized that China was “strictly implementing” the terms of the agreement while accusing the U.S. of taking steps that “seriously undermine” the deal.
In response to Washington’s allegations, China pointed to specific American measures that it claimed violated the spirit and letter of the agreement. These included the U.S. issuing export control guidelines for artificial intelligence (AI) chips, halting the sale of chip design software (EDA) to China, and revoking visas for Chinese students. A Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesperson warned that if the U.S. “insists on its own way and continues to damage China’s interests,” Beijing would take “resolute and forceful measures” to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests, though without providing detailed specifics on potential retaliatory actions.
Furthermore, China accused the U.S. of unilaterally escalating economic and trade tensions by imposing additional duties and export restrictions outside the framework of the agreement. Beijing argued that these actions seriously undermined the progress made during the Geneva talks and contradicted the mutual commitments to suspend or remove trade barriers. The Commerce Ministry’s stance underscored a broader narrative that the U.S. had not fully complied with the spirit of the agreement, while China had endeavored to implement its obligations in good faith.
Despite the escalating rhetoric, China expressed a willingness to continue dialogue and cooperation, as reflected in the initial agreement to pause tariffs for 90 days and suspend certain countermeasures. However, Chinese officials and experts noted significant differences in diplomatic approaches, with China traditionally preferring leader-level meetings only after substantial lower-level agreements are finalized, contrasting with the U.S. administration’s eagerness for direct presidential engagement to resolve stalled talks. This divergence contributed to the complex dynamics surrounding the implementation and interpretation of the Geneva trade agreement amid broader U.S.-China trade tensions.
Analysis of Trade Policy Measures and Compliance
Following the high-level trade discussions in Geneva, both China and the United States undertook a series of measures aimed at addressing the ongoing trade tensions. The United States agreed to suspend 24 percentage points of its additional tariffs on Chinese goods for an initial 90-day period while maintaining a remaining 10 percent ad valorem rate on those articles. Concurrently, China committed to modifying its application of additional ad valorem duties on U.S. goods and removing non-tariff countermeasures imposed since April 2, 2025. This mutual adjustment was intended to foster an environment conducive to continued dialogue and cooperation on economic and trade relations.
Despite these efforts, disputes regarding compliance and interpretation of the agreements have persisted. The U.S. administration accused China of withholding certain agreed-upon releases of products, raising concerns about Beijing’s full adherence to the Geneva consensus. In response, Chinese officials firmly denied any violations, stating that China had “strictly implemented and actively upheld” the agreements and called U.S. accusations “seriously contrary to the facts”. China also criticized ongoing U.S. export controls and urged Washington to cease what it characterized as discriminatory restrictions that undermine the spirit of the trade talks.
The implementation of these measures took place against a backdrop of complex underlying issues, including U.S. concerns about China’s policies on technology transfer, intellectual property rights, and industrial controls, particularly in emerging sectors such as advanced semiconductors and artificial intelligence. The U.S. Section 301 tariffs, imposed initially to counter perceived unfair practices, remain largely in place despite the temporary suspension of some duties in 2025. Similarly, China maintained certain tariffs on U.S. goods predating April 2, 2025, highlighting the limited scope of tariff rollbacks.
Moreover, trade frictions have exerted notable economic pressure on both sides. China experienced consecutive monthly contractions in manufacturing activity amid ongoing tariffs and trade uncertainties, while U.S. concerns about supply chain security and strategic resource access, including rare earth metals, intensified scrutiny of Chinese export controls. Both parties established consultation mechanisms intended to address broad trade disagreements, but fundamental divergences over economic security and industrial policy have complicated efforts toward full compliance and sustained rapprochement.
Public and Media Narratives
The aftermath of the Geneva trade talks between the United States and China saw a surge of public statements and media coverage reflecting escalating tensions and conflicting narratives. Chinese officials strongly rejected U.S. accusations that Beijing had violated the consensus reached in the talks, characterizing such claims as “groundless” and “seriously contrary to the facts.” A spokesperson from China’s Commerce Ministry emphasized that China had “strictly implemented and actively upheld” the agreements, including measures such as cancelling and suspending certain tariffs in response to U.S. reciprocal tariffs, and asserted that the United States had unilaterally provoked new economic and trade frictions that undermined stability in bilateral relations.
Conversely, the U.S. administration, under President Donald Trump’s direction, maintained a firm stance on protecting its economic interests by “aggressively moving to onshore critical supply chains,” particularly in sectors like magnet production, and actively monitoring China’s compliance with the Geneva agreement. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt highlighted these measures as part of a broader strategy, while Trump himself indicated plans to speak directly with President Xi Jinping to address ongoing issues. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer described the Geneva meetings as productive and noted “substantial progress” had been made, with Greer stating the deal could help reduce the $1.2 trillion U.S. global goods trade deficit.
However, reports of renewed frictions soon followed the talks, as the U.S. imposed export restrictions on semiconductor design software and chemicals to China and announced visa revocations for Chinese students, actions Beijing viewed as violations that “seriously undermine” the Geneva agreement. Chinese media highlighted efforts to regulate critical mineral exports and combat illicit mining, underscoring Beijing’s resolve to safeguard its interests amid what it framed as unjustified U.S. measures.
Media coverage portrayed the Geneva talks as a tentative thaw in a bitter trade war that had disrupted global supply chains and unsettled financial markets, while also signaling that the differences between the two sides might not be as vast as previously thought. Despite this, analysts and former officials noted that progress remained fragile, with calls for direct leader-to-leader dialogue to overcome stalled negotiations and coordination issues within the U.S. government.
Timeline of Key Events and Statements
In early May 2025, senior U.S. and Chinese economic officials held their first face-to-face meeting since President Trump took office, marking the beginning of renewed trade dialogues aimed at resolving longstanding disputes. The talks, held in Geneva, were described by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer as “very constructive,” with both sides reportedly reaching agreement quickly, suggesting that differences were smaller than initially perceived. Following the discussions, a joint statement was anticipated to be released by Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng and Vice Commerce Minister Li Chenggang, who promised “good news for the world”.
By mid-May 2025, Beijing and Washington had agreed to pause triple-digit tariffs for 90 days, while China committed to lifting trade countermeasures that restricted exports of critical metals vital to U.S. industries. The U.S. also agreed to modify certain tariff applications by May 14, 2025, and both parties pledged to establish a mechanism for ongoing economic and trade discussions. Despite these advances, neither side confirmed any agreement to reduce the highest tariffs, which at the time stood at 145% for U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods and 125% for Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods.
Tensions resurfaced later in May when President Trump publicly accused China of failing to uphold its end of the trade deal, particularly criticizing Beijing’s actions during the agreed tariff rollback period. In response, the Chinese commerce ministry vehemently denied these claims, labeling them “seriously contrary to the facts” and emphasizing that China had “strictly implemented and actively upheld” the agreement by cancelling and suspending certain tariff and non-tariff measures. The ministry also accused the U.S. of introducing “discriminatory restrictive measures,” including restrictions on the sale of chip design software and limitations on American companies’ dealings with Huawei, a major Chinese technology firm.
Throughout May 2025, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer acknowledged some progress but admitted that talks were “a bit stalled,” highlighting the necessity for direct communication between the two countries’ leaders to advance negotiations. Meanwhile, the broader economic impact of the trade tensions became evident as China’s manufacturing activity contracted for the second consecutive month in May, reflecting the strain of ongoing trade frictions and tariffs, which stood at 30% for Chinese goods entering the U.S. at that time.
Impact on Bilateral and Global Trade Relations
The trade tensions between the United States and China, which culminated in the Geneva talks of May 2025, have significantly impacted both bilateral relations and the broader global economy. Although the two nations reached a temporary agreement to pause certain tariffs for 90 days and initiated steps toward tariff reductions, the underlying disputes continue to strain economic ties and disrupt global supply chains.
Bilateral relations have been marked by persistent mistrust, with China accusing the U.S. of provoking new economic frictions and undermining the Geneva trade truce by implementing export restrictions and visa revocations targeting Chinese students. Conversely, the U.S. has maintained a firm stance on addressing China’s state-dominated economic model and trade imbalances, particularly focusing on issues such as China’s control over rare earth exports critical to American semiconductor and defense industries. This mutual
Subsequent Developments and Current Status
Following the initial disputes and accusations between China and the United States over trade practices and tariffs, both parties have engaged in ongoing dialogues aimed at addressing their economic and trade concerns. Reflecting on their recent discussions, the parties expressed belief that continued talks could potentially resolve outstanding issues. They committed to several actions by May 14, 2025, including the United States’ agreement to modify its additional ad valorem duties on Chinese goods by suspending 24 percentage points of the tariff rate for an initial period of 90 days, while retaining a remaining 10 percent duty on those articles.
Despite these efforts, tensions have persisted. The U.S. administration, represented by officials such as Stephen Miller, emphasized a preference for cooperation but maintained a firm stance by warning that China’s behavior could provoke a broad range of responses from the United States. Legal challenges have also complicated the situation, with a federal trade court declaring several of the president’s tariffs on China illegal, including those imposed under emergency grounds, which has undermined Washington’s leverage in trade negotiations.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has played a significant role in adjudicating aspects of the dispute. The dispute panel noted that, up to that time, the United States had not initiated formal action under the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) regarding China’s retaliatory measures. The panel emphasized its commitment to fulfilling its adjudicatory responsibilities under the DSU framework. The U.S. tariffs themselves originated from a Section 301 investigation into China’s alleged unfair practices concerning technology transfer and intellectual property, resulting in additional duties on products valued at approximately USD 34 billion as of June 2018.
China, on its part, strongly denied U.S. accusations, labeling them as “seriously contrary to the facts” and asserting that it had strictly implemented and actively upheld relevant agreements. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce highlighted steps taken to cancel and suspend certain tariff and non-tariff measures as a response to the U.S. reciprocal tariffs. Nevertheless, bilateral trade talks experienced periods of stagnation, prompting calls for direct engagement between the leaders of both countries to advance dialogue.
Although these diplomatic exchanges have provided a platform to voice grievances, they have achieved limited progress toward the U.S. goal of transforming China’s state-dominated, export-driven economic model into one more reliant on consumer spending. The WTO has ruled against several of the U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods; however, the effectiveness of these rulings has been constrained by the paralysis of the WTO’s appellate body, largely attributed to U.S. actions.
The trade dispute has had broader global implications, disrupting supply chains, unsettling financial markets, and fueling concerns of a global economic downturn. Notably, some of the trade talks occurred discreetly in Geneva’s diplomatic circles, underscoring the sensitive nature of these negotiations. Despite ongoing challenges, both sides remain engaged in efforts to manage and potentially resolve the protracted trade tensions.
The content is provided by Harper Eastwood, Fact-Nest
