GENEVA: The United States and China announced Monday an agreement to drastically reduce tit-for-tat tariffs for 90 days, de-escalating a trade war that has roiled financial markets and raised fears of a global economic downturn.
After their first talks since US President Donald Trump launched his trade war, the world’s two biggest economies agreed in a joint statement to bring their triple-digit tariffs down to two figures and continue negotiations.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described the weekend talks with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng and international trade representative Li Chenggang as “productive” and “robust.”
“Both sides showed a great respect,” Bessent told reporters.
US President Donald Trump had imposed duties of 145 percent on imports for China last month — compared to 10 percent for other countries in the global tariff blitz he launched last month.
Beijing hit back with duties of 125 percent on US goods.
Bessent said the two sides agreed to reduce those tariffs by 115 percentage points, taking US tariffs to 30 percent and those by China to 10 percent.
In their statement, the two sides agreed to “establish a mechanism to continue discussions about economic and trade relations.”
China hailed the “substantial progress” made at the talks.
“This move... is in the interest of the two countries and the common interest of the world,” the Chinese commerce ministry said, adding that it hoped Washington would keep working with China “to correct the wrong practice of unilateral tariff rises.”
The dollar, which tumbled after Trump launched his tariff blitz in April, rallied on the news while US stock futures soared. European and Asian markets also rallied.
The trade dispute between Washington and Beijing has rocked financial markets, raising fears the tariffs would rekindle inflation and cause a global economic downturn.
The head of the World Trade Organization, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, praised the talks on Sunday as a “significant step forward” that “bode well for the future.”
“Amid current global tensions, this progress is important not only for the US and China but also for the rest of the world, including the most vulnerable economies,” she added.
Ahead of the meeting at the discreet villa residence of Switzerland’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Trump had signalled he might lower the tariffs, suggesting on social media that an “80 percent Tariff on China seems right!“
However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later clarified that the United States would not lower tariffs unilaterally, saying China would also need to make concessions.
The Geneva meeting came days after Trump unveiled a trade agreement with Britain, the first with any country since he unleashed his blitz of global tariffs.
The five-page, nonbinding deal confirmed to nervous investors that Washington was willing to negotiate sector-specific relief from recent duties.
But Trump maintained a 10 percent levy on most British goods, and threatened to keep it in place as a baseline rate for most other countries.
US, China agree to slash tariffs in trade war de-escalation
https://arab.news/zbqq8
US, China agree to slash tariffs in trade war de-escalation
- The United States and China announced Monday an agreement to drastically reduce tit-for-tat tariffs for 90 days
US warns UK to stop arresting Palestine Action supporters
- Undersecretary of state for diplomacy: Arrests doing ‘more harm than good’ and ‘censoring’ free speech
- Group was banned in July 2025 after series of break-ins
LONDON: UK authorities should stop arresting protesters showing support for banned group Palestine Action, the White House has warned.
The US undersecretary of state for diplomacy said arrests are doing “more harm than good” and are “censoring” free speech.
Sarah Rogers told news site Semafor: “I would have to look at each individual person and each proscribed organization. I think if you support an organization like Hamas, then depending upon whether you’re coordinating, there are all these standards that get applied.
“This Palestine Action group, I’ve seen it written about. I don’t know what it did. I think if you just merely stand up and say, ‘I support Palestine Action’, then unless you are really coordinating with some violent foreign terrorist, I think that censoring that speech does more harm than good.”
So far, more than 2,000 people have been arrested in the UK for showing support for the group.
It was banned in July 2025 after a series of break-ins nationwide, including at a facility owned by a defense manufacturer and a Royal Air Force base, during which military aircraft were damaged.
Last year, Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg was among those arrested while protesting for Palestine Action.
The group is challenging its ban, saying it should not be compared to terrorist organizations such as the Irish Republican Army, Daesh or Al-Qaeda.
The ban has been criticized by numerous bodies, with Amnesty International calling it a case of “problematic, overly broad and draconian restrictions on free speech.”
In Scotland, prosecutors have been offering to drop charges against some protesters in return for accepting a fine of £100 ($134.30).
Adam McGibbon, who was arrested at a demonstration in Edinburgh last year, refused the offer, saying: “The fact that the authorities are offering fines equivalent to a parking ticket for a ‘terrorism offence’ shows just how ridiculous these charges are. Do supporters of (Daesh) get the same deal?
“I refuse to pay this fine, as has everyone else I know who has been offered one. Just try and put all 3,000 of us who have defied this ban so far in jail.”
Rogers said the UK is also wrong to arrest people using the phrase “globalize the intifada” while demonstrating in support of Palestine, after police in Manchester said in December that it would detain people chanting it.
“I’m from New York City where thousands of people were murdered by jihadists,” she said. referring to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “I don’t want an intifada in New York City, and I think anyone who does is disgusting, but should it be legal to say in most contexts? Yes.”
