China

Economists echo Dimon’s concerns as US credit downgrade and tariff-driven uncertainty continue.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has warned that he can’t rule out the possibility that the United States will fall into what is called stagflation— an economic term that refers to a period when inflation and unemployment are high as economic growth is slow.

In an interview with Bloomberg Television on Thursday, Dimon said, “I don’t agree that we’re in a sweet spot” in response to a question about some US Federal Reserve officials saying that the US economy was in a sweet spot.

Dimon made his comments while at JPMorgan’s Global China Summit in Shanghai. His comments come against the backdrop of the US facing increasing geopolitical tensions, rising deficits and pressure on consumer prices from changing government policies on tariffs that have led retailers to announce a need to raise prices and left businesses in a wait-and-watch mode over all the economic uncertainties.

Economists like Stuart Mackintosh, executive director of the financial think tank Group of Thirty, echoed Dimon’s concerns to Al Jazeera.

“Stagflation is a real risk we cannot rule out. We’re in a circumstance where we have uncertainty on tariffs, uncertainty on many policies that increase the downward pressure on growth in America.”

Last week Moody’s Ratings downgraded the US economy’s credit rating. The firm lowered its gold-standard Aaa to an Aa1 credit rating for the US, citing its growing national debt.

Dimon’s Thursday comments were underscored by his remarks at the company’s investor day on Monday.

“Credit today is a bad risk,” Dimon said.

While at the summit, Dimon also offered comments on US President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill”, the tax and spending bill passed by the US House of Representatives that includes key parts of the Trump administration agenda including tax cuts, slashes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), increased funding for immigration enforcement, and new taxes on colleges and universities.

“I think they should do the tax bill. I do think it’ll stabilise things a little bit, but it’ll probably add to the deficit,” Dimon said in a record first obtained by the Reuters news agency.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that the tax bill would add $3.8 trillion to the national debt.

‘Inflation going up’

In the Bloomberg interview, Dimon added that the US Federal Reserve is doing the right thing to wait and see before it decides on monetary policy. The central bank opted to hold rates steady at its last policy meeting, which was largely in line with economists’ expectations.

Policymakers weighed a stable labour market at the time, even as they acknowledged that could be short-lived.

“This is unsustainable. We might get into a much worse economic picture almost immediately,” Mackintosh said.

More information on the state of the US labour market is expected in the next couple of weeks as both the US Department of Labor and the payroll and human resources firm ADP are slated to release their monthly report on the rate of job growth.

Dimon has also long warned that inflation and stagflation will continue to increase.

“I think the chance of inflation going up and stagflation is a little bit higher than other people think,” he noted.

On Wall Street, JPMorgan Chase’s stock has trended up following Dimon’s remarks. As of noon in New York (16:00 GMT), it was 0.2 percent higher than yesterday’s market close after opening lower this morning.

A Chinese coast guard vessel collided with a Philippines government ship near a disputed reef in the South China Sea. The Philippines accused China of “aggressive interference,” while China said the other vessel was “illegally intruding.”

TAIPEI, Taiwan  — Liu Jia-yen had been living in Taiwan for more than two decades when she received notice that she was suddenly at risk of being deported.

In April, the National Immigration Agency told Liu, a 51-year-old Chinese immigrant, she had three months to provide evidence that she gave up her household registration — an official record of residence that grants benefits such as healthcare and education — in Guangxi, China. If she couldn’t find the right documents, she’d have to leave.

Liu thought she’d submitted the files long ago and called her 26-year-old daughter, Ariel Ko, in tears.

Ko, who was born and raised in Taiwan, called the immigration agency dozens of times over the next few days, unable to reach an operator. Meanwhile in China, Liu’s 80-year-old grandfather began visiting his local police station in search of old records, and her brother scoured his government contacts for anyone who could help.

Taiwanese military cadets holding Taiwan flags pose for selfies after attending the New Year’s Day flag-raising ceremony outside the Presidential Palace in Taipei, Taiwan, on Jan. 1. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has warned that no one can prevent China’s reunification with Taiwan.

(Daniel Ceng / Anadolu via Getty Images)

There are tens of thousands of Chinese-born people in Taiwan, which has been increasing scrutiny of them over the past year, citing concerns about infiltration and espionage. The immigration agency says the vast majority of Chinese living in Taiwan have filed the appropriate paperwork showing that they have canceled household registration in China, but about 12,000 people are facing a scramble — similar to Liu’s — for documents.

“I understand that the government has its policies, and we can respect that,” Ko said. “But what makes us upset is that we’re just ordinary citizens. If you’re going to ask us to do something this difficult, have you considered things from our perspective?”

China considers Taiwan to be part of its territory and has threatened to take it by force, stepping up simulated attacks in recent years. Beijing has taken a particularly harsh stance against President Lai Ching-te, whom Chinese officials have called a “dangerous separatist” because he has promoted Taiwanese independence.

Concerns about spying in Taiwan and China date back to the Chinese civil war, after which the defeated Chinese Nationalist Party, or the Kuomintang, fled to Taiwan in 1949. Eventually, tensions began to ease as the two governments slowly resumed dialogue and cooperation over the next several decades. But in recent years, both China and Taiwan have been taking unprecedented actions in the name of national security.

Last year, China said it would ratchet up the punishment for advocates of Taiwanese independence, including imposing the death penalty. Lai, who took office a year ago and has called China a “foreign hostile force,” has proposed reinstating military trials for some espionage cases, criminalizing expressions of loyalty to China within the armed forces and tightening oversight of people traveling between China and Taiwan.

In March, three members of the Taiwanese presidential security team were convicted of spying for China. Taiwan also deported three Chinese immigrants for voicing their support online for unification through military action. Taiwan’s National Immigration Agency said this is the first time that spouses of Taiwanese citizens have had their residency revoked for such reasons. More than 140,000 Chinese immigrants hold residency in Taiwan because they are married to Taiwanese citizens.

Chinese influencer YAYA (Liu Zhenya) with a white hat and members of a NGO assisting her case hold a news conference, as she complies with Taiwan’s order to leave Taiwan after her residency was revoked for posting videos advocating “One China” and “Unification with China by Force” at Songshan Airport in Taipei, Taiwan, on March 25, 2025.

(Daniel Ceng / Anadolu via Getty Images)

Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council said the records requirement has existed since 2004, and the recent notices were sent to ensure that those who want to stay in Taiwan can do so. But critics say that the sudden enforcement is unfair.

“It’s like our government has been asleep, like Sleeping Beauty, for 21 years. And now, all of a sudden, it wakes up and demands that Chinese spouses who’ve been living in Taiwan for so many years provide an important document from two decades ago,” said Chang Chi-kai, an opposition party legislator who is urging the administration to give Chinese spouses and their children more time.

After the public backlash, Taiwan announced additional exemptions for individuals with extenuating circumstances such as financial hardship, medical needs or safety concerns about traveling to China to search for records.

In Taiwan, people born in China are subject to different immigration laws than other nationalities. Milo Hsieh, founder of the consulting firm Safe Spaces in Taipei, says that distinction makes them more susceptible to discriminatory legal treatment, particularly in times of extreme political polarization.

“It resembles what I’m observing in the U.S. right now in Trump’s immigration crackdown, particularly on international students,” said Hsieh, referring to the hundreds of student protesters who have had their visas revoked. “They are deliberately targeting this class of individuals that are associated with a national security threat.”

Some frustrated residents say the bureaucratic bind is emblematic of long-standing discrimination.

Ko, who was born and raised in Taiwan, still remembers how her classmates used to tease her for having a mother from China, and would tell her to go back to the mainland. On social media, some were sympathetic to her mother’s struggle, while others told her to “save your fake tears,” or “if you want to be Taiwanese then follow our rules.”

Taiwan’s government has said that, according to its own polls conducted in March, more than 70% of respondents in Taiwan want officials to more thoroughly investigate whether Chinese immigrants here still hold residency or household registration in China, especially those who work in the military or public sector.

In this photo released by the Taiwan Presidential Office in July 2022, Tsai Ing-wen, president at the time, is seen through glass on board a ship during military exercises.

(Shioro Lee / Associated Press)

“If China decides to start a war, then Taiwan needs to determine what to do in that situation,” said Fan Hsin-yu, an associate professor at National Taiwan University who specializes in immigration law. “First, it has to clarify who belongs to which side, who is the enemy, and who is one of us. That’s why this process is something they feel must be finalized soon.”

Fan said legal experts are divided on whether the government is justified in its recent documentation demands. She added that the measures may even be counterproductive, since China could simply issue certification to its spies or collaborators, while those who support Taiwanese sovereignty could put themselves at risk by going to China, or otherwise be forced to leave.

“The issue is not about legality, it’s about whether this is a smart move,” she said.

Chang and his family in China

(Courtesy of Chang Chih-yuan)

Chang Chih-yuan moved to Taichung, a city in central Taiwan, at age 4 and served in Taiwan’s military. He needs to secure documents to remain here but said he feels uneasy about providing all of his personal information — including his household registration history, physical ID card and travel permit — to the police station in Guangdong, China, where his family once lived.

Ultimately, he decided that he didn’t have much choice. His Chinese mother had received the immigration notice in April, and after many sleepless nights, she decided to take a month off from her cleaning job to obtain the certificate. When Chang, 34, inquired about his own paperwork, the immigration agency told him he would probably get a similar notice later this year.

“It just made me feel like I’m still not considered a real Taiwanese person,” he said.

A man walks past a hoisted Taiwanese flag at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall in Taipei on Oct. 15, 2024. The day before, China insisted it would never renounce the “use of force” to take control of Taiwan, after ending a day of military drills around the island.

(I-Hwa Cheng / AFP via Getty Images)

Another resident who immigrated from China as a child said he has been considering emigrating to Singapore since he received his notice. His father traveled to China’s Fujian province to seek household documentation on his behalf, but he still worries that his mainland roots could put his status at risk again in the future.

“The situation now feels like they assume if you were born in China, you’re an ally of the Chinese Communist Party and you have to prove your innocence,” the 33-year-old said, requesting anonymity for fear that speaking publicly could affect his case. “I feel like I’ve been completely betrayed by my country.”

Times staff writer Yang and special correspondent Wu reported from Taipei, Taiwan.

The United States and China are locked in a standoff with no resolution in sight. The U.S. wants to reshore manufacturing, and China wants to sell its manufactured products into the American market. It will take a creative solution to overcome this impasse, but it’s very possible.

President Trump himself has already previewed what a winning formula could look like. During his 2024 campaign, he repeatedly pledged to lure other countries’ factories to the United States. At a rally in Michigan, he said: “China has to build plants here and hire our workers. When I’m back in the White House, the way they will sell their product in America is to build it in America. They have to build it in America, and they have to use you people to build it.”

When China began embracing a market economy in the 1970s, its leaders made a similar demand to American companies. In order to get access to the Chinese market, American firms would have to manufacture in China, hire Chinese workers and teach the Chinese the underlying technology. But times have changed. China is no longer America’s pupil. When it comes to automobile and battery manufacturing, Chinese companies are years ahead of their American competition. It’s time for us to learn from them.

Gotion Inc., an advanced Chinese battery manufacturer, is currently building two plants in the United States. The Gotion plants in Michigan and Illinois together will employ 5,000 American workers and also train American engineers in the latest lithium battery technology. CATL, another Chinese battery company, is looking to build factories in partnership with American automakers. Their proposed factory in Michigan, a joint venture with Ford, would employ 2,500 Americans.

These companies are attempting to build here because they want access to the U.S. market. By building in the U.S., they can avoid tariffs and more easily sell their batteries to American companies. In return, the U.S. gets good-paying jobs, the best batteries in the world and a more advanced manufacturing sector.

But instead of embracing this as a victory, Republicans have brutally attacked both Gotion and CATL because they’re Chinese. For them, every company from China is a national security threat, even if there’s no specific evidence against them. According to the hawks, merely being Chinese-owned means the company is part of a covert operation directed by the Chinese government. Evidence to the contrary is simply ignored.

In Gotion’s case, they’re a global company whose largest shareholder is Volkswagen; the U.S. operations are run by American executives; and the U.S. plants will be staffed by American workers. In CATL’s case, it won’t own the U.S. plant it helps build, but instead will be licensing technology to Ford, which will own the plant. But when it comes to China, such inconvenient facts are thrown out the window because politicians need to score political points.

The China bashing has become so prevalent that Trump has had to clarify his position. At a recent Cabinet meeting, Trump said that he welcomes Chinese investment in the United States, and that he doesn’t understand why some people have the impression that he doesn’t. Of course, people have that impression because his underlings have been working overtime to prevent Chinese companies from investing here. Not only has Trump not slapped them down, but also he contradicted his own position by signing an executive order that makes it harder for the U.S. and China to invest in each other.

If this current trajectory continues, there won’t be more Gotions or CATLs announcing investments in America. Trump needs to make it clear that victory in the trade war includes Chinese manufacturers setting up shop here. If he doesn’t, his staff may continue to sabotage what could be openings to defuse tensions with China.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has wisely called for an economic rebalancing with China. That will require adopting a rational approach, not one based on paranoia. It’s time to turn this standoff into a victory.

James Bacon was a special assistant to the president during the first Trump administration.

Power is the ability to get others to do what you want. That can be accomplished by coercion (“sticks”), payment (“carrots”) or attraction (“honey”). The first two methods are forms of hard power; attraction is soft power. Soft power grows out of a country’s culture, its political values and its foreign policies. In the short term, hard power usually trumps soft power. But over the long term, soft power often prevails. Joseph Stalin once mockingly asked, “How many divisions does the pope have?” But the papacy continues today, while Stalin’s Soviet Union is long gone.

When a nation is attractive, it can economize on carrots and sticks. If allies see the United States as benign and trustworthy, they are more likely to be open to persuasion and to following our lead. If they see us as an unreliable bully, they are more likely to drag their feet and reduce their interdependence when they can. Cold War Europe is a good example. A Norwegian historian described Europe as divided into a Soviet and an American empire. But there was a crucial difference: The American side was “an empire by invitation” rather than coercion. The Soviets had to deploy troops to Budapest in 1956, and to Prague in 1968. In contrast, NATO has voluntarily increased its membership.

Nations need both hard and soft power. Machiavelli said it was better for a prince to be feared than to be loved. But it is best to be both.

Because soft power is rarely sufficient by itself, and because its effects take longer to realize, political leaders are often tempted to resort to the hard power of coercion or payment. When wielded alone, however, hard power is an unnecessarily high-cost proposition. The Berlin Wall did not succumb to an artillery barrage; it was felled by hammers and bulldozers wielded by people who had lost faith in communism and were drawn to Western values.

After World War II, the United States was by far the most powerful country because of its hard and soft power. It attempted to enshrine its values in what became known as the liberal international order — a soft power framework made up of the United Nations, economic and trade institutions, and other multilateral bodies. Of course, the U.S. did not always live up to its liberal values, and Cold War bipolarity limited the order it led to only half the world’s people.

Donald Trump is the first American president to reject the idea that soft power has any value in foreign policy. Among his first actions upon returning to office were withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization, despite the obvious threats that global warming and pandemics pose.

The effects of the Trump administration’s surrendering soft power are all too predictable. Trying to coerce democratic allies such as Denmark or Canada weakens trust in the U.S. among all our alliances. Threatening Panama reawakens fears of imperialism throughout Latin America. Crippling the U.S. Agency for International Development — created by President Kennedy in 1961 — undercuts our reputation for benevolence. Silencing Voice of America is a gift to authoritarian rivals. Slapping tariffs on friends makes us appear unreliable. Trying to chill free speech at home undermines our credibility. This list could go on.

China, which Trump defines as America’s great challenge, itself has been investing in soft power since 2007, when then-Chinese President Hu Jintao told the Chinese Communist Party that the country needed to make itself more attractive to others. But China has long faced two major obstacles in this respect. First, it maintains territorial disputes with multiple neighbors. Second, the communists insist on maintaining tight control over civil society. When public opinion polls ask people around the world which countries they find attractive, China doesn’t shine. But one can only wonder what these surveys will show in future years if Trump keeps undercutting American soft power.

Of course American soft power has had its ups and downs. The U.S. was unpopular in many countries during the Vietnam and Iraq wars. But soft power derives from a country’s society and culture as well as from government actions. When crowds marched through streets around the world in freedom protests, they sang the American civil rights anthem “We Shall Overcome.” An open society that allows protest can be a soft-power asset.

But will America’s cultural soft power survive a downturn in the government’s soft power over the next four years?

American democracy is likely to survive the next four years of Trump. The country has a resilient political culture and the Constitution encourages checks and balances, whatever their weaknesses. In 2026, there is a reasonable chance that Democrats will regain control of the House of Representatives. Moreover, American civil society remains strong, and the courts independent. Many organizations have launched lawsuits to challenge Trump’s actions, and markets have signaled dissatisfaction with his economic policies.

American soft power recovered after low points during the Vietnam and Iraq wars, as well as during Trump’s first term. But once trust is lost, it is not easily restored. After the invasion of Ukraine, Russia lost most of what soft power it had. Right now, China is striving to fill any soft power gaps that Trump creates. The way Chinese President Xi Jinping tells it, the East is rising over the West.

If Trump thinks he can compete with China while weakening trust among American allies, asserting imperial aspirations, destroying USAID, silencing Voice of America, challenging laws at home and withdrawing from U.N. agencies, he is likely to fail. Restoring what he has destroyed will not be impossible, but it will be costly.

Joseph S. Nye Jr. was dean of the Harvard Kennedy School and a U.S. assistant secretary of Defense. His memoir “A Life in the American Century” was published last year. Nye died earlier this month.

The intricate and multifaceted matters of normative relations among the nations of the Northeast Asian countries, even though they are entangled in specific issues stemming from territorial disputes, challenge a well-established norm and order of diplomatic relations. One of the problems is the matter of Dokdo Island’s ownership, which was disputed by the authorities of South Korea and Japan. With its significant historical and geopolitical implications, this dispute is a key factor in the region’s diplomatic landscape. On the other hand, with another matter of dispute, China and South Korea still have an issue with the overlapping territory of the exclusive economic zone. The problem is currently exacerbated by China’s installation of aquaculture facilities in the Provisional Measures Zone (PMZ), a move that has significantly heightened the tension in the region and underscores the need for resolution. This territory is located off the west coast of the Korean Peninsula, making it a complex challenge to maintain Korea-China’s diplomatic relations.

At the same time, China and Japan confronted another issue similar to the South Korean dispute. Both of them claim the Diaoyu or Senkaku Islands. The controversy also concerns the island’s ownership and reflects each country’s historical and cultural perspectives. Japan’s government called the island the Senkaku Islands, while China’s authority named the islands the Diaoyu Islands.

Amid the tariff oppression, which refers to the imposition of high tariffs on Chinese goods by the Trump administration, China has to face two different challenges. In one position, China has to stand against the high-handed Donald Trump’s ruling, which is seen as aggressive and unfair, but in the other position, China also struggles to bring a solution with its nearest neighbor countries in Northeast Asia, where the territorial disputes add a layer of complexity to the already well-established relations.

China’s authority realizes the crucial role of Japan and South Korea, which act as part of the US’s allies in Asia. Their relationship is strategic for the US and makes sense for China, as their connections become part of the US’s long history. This is in stark contrast to China’s past, when it was the US’s opponent during the Korean War. However, China might be letting Japan and Korea connect to the US as allies because they were China’s nearest neighbors in Northeast Asia, which could share and maintain a partnership without causing overwhelming disruptions. The mutual respect and relationship between China, Japan, and South Korea is a beacon of hope, offering a promising and positive outlook for the region’s future.

China and the US, as two economic powerhouses, often find themselves at odds. However, it’s important to note that their relationship is not solely defined by geopolitical tensions. The two countries are deeply intertwined economically, with significant trade and investment ties. This economic interdependence, which is further underscored by their influence in the G20 forum and their status as major trading partners with Korea and Japan, is a complex web that cannot be easily untangled. Despite China’s efforts to diversify its economic relationships, it continues to value the US’ political, legal, and justice systems and its socio-economic structure. The significance of these financial ties cannot be overstated, as they play a crucial role in shaping the geopolitical landscape of Northeast Asia.

Despite the unfortunate geopolitical situation, the Chinese government’s steadfast commitment to resolving the interrelations crisis is unwavering. China’s Foreign Minister Spokesperson, Guo Jiakun, clarified that the construction of the aquaculture facilities, a point of contention, did not violate any previous agreements. The Chinese government’s decision to send its delegation, led by Hong Liang, Director-General of the Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for in-person dialogue with a South Korean representative is a clear demonstration of this commitment. The recent meeting between Hong Liang and Kang Young-Shin, Director-General for Northeast and Central Asian Affairs at the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on 23 April 2025, is a promising step towards potential progress. This progress in the dialogue instills optimism for the future and underscores the potential for a peaceful resolution, providing a ray of hope in an otherwise complex situation.

The dialogue of top government officials presents a pivotal platform for resolving the prolonged standoff initiated by both countries in 2019. The potential for a mutually accepted agreement in the Yellow Sea dispute dialogue is not just a beacon of hope but a realistic possibility that should inspire optimism. However, it’s essential to acknowledge that the outcome of this dialogue may not necessarily mirror the outcome of the Dokdo or Takeshima Island dispute. The Yellow Sea dispute dialogue, which encompasses territorial claims and maritime rights, remains crucial in Northeast Asian geopolitics.

Nevertheless, the Yellow Sea dialogue’s resolution couldn’t significantly affect how the Japan-South Korean government resolves the entire Dokdo or Takeshima Island dispute. Beyond territorial claims, this dispute symbolizes the intricate historical and cultural relations between Japan and South Korea. Diplomatically, South Korea and Japan have made substantial progress in finding a solution, presenting various evidence and approaches to ensure a fair judgment for both. However, as of the end of 2024, the problem remains in a stalemate without a final resolution. This situation underscores the critical need for a nuanced approach in international relations, where tact and understanding can pave the way for resolution, highlighting the importance of understanding the complexities.

The past geopolitical landscape in Northeast Asia is deeply entrenched in a long and complex history, notably Japan’s occupation of Chinese territory, South Korea, and some Southeast Asian countries. This historical context, with its layers of complexity and depth, is an undeniable part of the current geopolitical landscape. The Chinese can never forget this dark period, even though Japan and China have officially tightened diplomatic relations to construct a prospective and reliable Asia. Similarly, South Korea may never forget what Japan did in the past. Indeed, Koreans have not entirely forgiven what Japan did. This historical backdrop underscores the depth of the issues and the need for a nuanced approach to diplomatic relations in Northeast Asia. It’s not a matter of simple solutions but of understanding the intricate web of history, culture, and politics that shapes these relations. This complexity and depth of the problems in the region necessitate a nuanced approach, making the audience feel the weight of the issues at hand and the importance of understanding the historical and cultural context. Only by understanding this context can we hope to navigate the complexities of Northeast Asian geopolitics.

South Korea is also determined not to be left behind in economic and diplomatic relations with others. Therefore, today, Korea actively seeks intense cooperation with China and Japan regarding global security, trade, and cultural exchange, and fosters candid cultural and financial enhancement. This intense cooperation includes regular high-level diplomatic dialogues, joint security exercises, and collaborative economic initiatives. South Korea recognizes it cannot stand alone without China and Japan, as they are pivotal neighbors in Northeast Asia.

The governments of Northeast Asian countries are acutely aware that the US-China trade war significantly impacts the global economic landscape. This trade war, which has led to economic uncertainties and geopolitical tensions, has also influenced the diplomatic relations and security strategies of countries in the region. Despite the region’s bleak history, it is becoming increasingly clear that the countries in Northeast Asia are not isolated entities but deeply interconnected and interdependent. South Korea’s sustainable diplomatic relations with China and Japan are crucial for its global standing and security. By collaborating with these countries, South Korea can strengthen its position in the international community and ensure its protection in the face of global challenges, including those arising from the US-China trade war. The trade war has forced countries in the region to reassess their economic and security strategies, leading to a more interconnected and interdependent Northeast Asia. This reassessment includes a shift towards diversifying trade partners and strengthening regional security alliances, highlighting the region’s adaptability and resilience in the face of global challenges.

Northeast Asian interdependence underscores the need for peaceful and constructive relations among these countries and their collective influence on the worldwide community. The economic and diplomatic ties between South Korea, China, and Japan are not just about mutual benefits and shared security and prosperity in the region but also about the potential for increased economic growth and enhanced security. This collaboration offers reassurance about the potential benefits of these ties and the collective strength they can bring, reassuring the audience about the future and the positive outcomes that can be achieved through such cooperation.

Disclaimer: The Author wishes to reiterate that this article reflects his views and does not represent any institution. He also wants to emphasize that he takes personal responsibility for the content and accuracy of the information in this article, and any decision made based on this information is the reader’s responsibility.

Naomi Girma was called up to the women’s national soccer team Tuesday for the first time this year, joining 23 others for friendlies with China and Jamaica.

Girma, who was named to FIFA’s global Best XI last year, has been sidelined with calf injuries but recently returned to fitness, going 90 minutes in two of Chelsea’s last three games in the Women’s Super League. Her last appearance for the U.S. came in the gold medal final of the Paris Olympics in August.

Sisters Alyssa and Gisele Thompson, who started their second senior national team match together last month, were also called up but this time with Gisele, a defender, making the roster as a winger. Alyssa has four goals and two assists this season for Angel City, for whom her sister also plays.

“Everyone always earns their call-ups but there are some much-deserved call-ups in this camp for players who have shown consistency in league play,” USWNT coach Emma Hayes said in a statement. “We have two different types of opponents ahead of us so we’ll have to be creative in breaking down those teams in different ways.”

In addition to Girma, seven other players from the Olympic championship team were called up. But Hayes also summoned three uncapped players in Orlando Pride defender Kerry Abello, Kansas City Current midfielder Lo’eau LaBonta and Seattle Reign goalkeeper Claudia Dickey. Canyon Country teenager Olivia Moultrie, who hasn’t played for the U.S. since Hayes took over last May, is also on the roster.

“This camp and the following camp are going to be two amazing opportunities to develop squad depth,” Hayes said.

Still missing from the team are forwards Sophia Wilson (née Smith), Trinity Rodman and Mallory Swanson. Smith and Swanson are on maternity leave while Rodman is injured. The trio combined for 10 of the 12 U.S. goals in last summer’s Olympics.

The U.S. will play China at Allianz Field in St. Paul, Minn., on May 31 and Jamaica on June 3 at Energizer Park in St. Louis. Here’s the roster:

Goalkeepers: Claudia Dickey (Seattle Reign FC), Mandy McGlynn (Utah Royals), Phallon Tullis-Joyce (Manchester United).

Defenders: Kerry Abello (Orlando Pride), Crystal Dunn (Paris Saint-Germain), Emily Fox (Arsenal FC), Naomi Girma (Chelsea FC), Tara McKeown (Washington Spirit), Avery Patterson (Houston Dash), Emily Sams (Orlando Pride), Emily Sonnett (Gotham FC).

Midfielders: Sam Coffey (Portland Thorns FC), Lindsey Heaps (OL Lyonnes), Claire Hutton (Kansas City Current), Lo’eau LaBonta (Kansas City Current), Olivia Moultrie (Portland Thorns FC), Lily Yohannes (Ajax).

Forwards: Lynn Biyendolo (Seattle Reign FC), Michelle Cooper (Kansas City Current), Catarina Macario (Chelsea FC), Emma Sears (Racing Louisville), Ally Sentnor (Utah Royals), Alyssa Thompson (Angel City FC), Gisele Thompson (Angel City FC).

Zhajiangmian was one of the first dishes my mother taught me how to make. I’d stand beside her in the kitchen, watching her stir fermented soybean paste into sizzling ground pork, the smell sharp, earthy and instantly familiar. A pot of noodles boiled nearby as I carefully julienned cucumbers, proud to contribute to one of my favorite comfort meals. When the ingredients were ready, we’d build our bowls with noodles, sauce and a handful of crisp veggies. Then came the best part — mixing it together until every noodle was slick with sauce. It wasn’t fancy, but it was fast, filling and always hit the spot.

According to Tian Yong, head chef of Bistro Na in Temple City, humble zhajiangmian may date back to the Qing Dynasty, when minced meat noodles became popular in Beijing for its affordability and ease of storage. Another origin story tells of an empress dowager who, fleeing an invasion, encountered a zhajiangmian-like dish in Xi’an.

However it came to be, zhajiangmian, or “fried sauce noodles,” is everyday comfort food in China and a staple of northern Chinese cuisine. “It carries cultural nostalgia and a sense of regional identity, particularly for Beijing natives,” says chef and cookbook author Katie Chin, founder of Wok Star Catering in Los Angeles. At its core, the dish is built on a simple foundation of wheat noodles (often thick, chewy and hand-pulled or knife-cut), ground pork and a deeply savory sauce made from doubanjiang, fermented soybean paste.

Like many regional Chinese dishes, zhajiangmian is fluid, shaped by geography, ingredients and personal taste. “It doesn’t just vary between regions of China — it even varies between households in different parts of Beijing,” Yong explains.

Chin uses several types of soybean paste in her zhajiangmian, each bringing its own personality to the bowl. Traditional Beijing-style relies on pungent yellow soybean paste for its salty, umami-rich depth. Tianjin-style leans on sweet bean sauce for a milder, more balanced flavor, while some versions use broad bean paste to add heat and complexity.

Then there’s the Korean-Chinese adaptation, jjajangmyeon, introduced to Korea by Chinese immigrants in the early 20th century. It swaps fermented soybean paste for chunjang, a Korean black bean paste that’s sweeter and less salty. “The dish is served over softer noodles and typically mixed together before eating, unlike the Chinese version where toppings are placed separately,” Chin says.

The vegetable toppings are essential to the dish’s character. “They can vary according to Beijing’s four seasons and traditional agricultural calendar,” says Yong. In spring, you might see spinach shoots, mung bean sprouts or radish greens; summer brings julienned cucumber, lotus root and edamame; fall offers carrots, garlic chives and bok choy; winter, Napa cabbage and wood ear mushrooms. While zhajiangmian is one of China’s most beloved noodle dishes, in the U.S., the spotlight tends to shine on familiar favorites like chow mein, lo mein or dan dan mian. But zhajiangmian has a deserved place alongside those staples in the canon of Chinese noodles.

I set out to find the best versions in Los Angeles and discovered dozens of interpretations. Some stayed true to tradition, others took creative liberties. But each bowl shared the same sense of comfort I remembered from my childhood — that salty, savory, soul-satisfying mix of noodles and sauce. Here are 11 of the best places to try zhajiangmian and jjajangmyeon in L.A.

Despite slowdown, data points to reliance of Chinese economy in the face of Donald Trump’s tariffs.

China’s industrial output and retail sales growth have slowed amid trade tensions with the United States.

Factory output grew 6.1 percent year-on-year in April, down from a 7.7 percent rise in March, data released by China’s National Bureau of Statistics showed on Monday.

While down compared with the previous month, the figure beat analysts’ expectations.

Analysts polled by the Reuters and Bloomberg news agencies had respectively forecast growth of 5.5 percent and 5.7 percent.

Retail sales grew 5.1 percent year-on-year, slower than the 5.9 percent growth recorded in March and below analysts’ forecasts.

Fixed-asset investment, which includes property and infrastructure investment, rose 4 percent.

Unemployment fell slightly, from 5.2 percent to 5.1 percent.

The latest data is likely to bolster hopes of China’s economy remaining resilient in the face of US President Donald Trump’s tariffs, after gross domestic product expanded a better-than-expected 5.4 percent in the January-March period.

The National Bureau of Statistics said the economy maintained “new and positive development momentum” due to Beijing’s economic policies, despite the “increasing impact of external shocks”.

“However, we should be aware that there are still many unstable and uncertain factors in external environment, and the foundation for sustained economic recovery needs to be further consolidated,” the statistics agency said in a statement.

The economic figures are the first to be released since Washington and Beijing last week agreed to dramatically reduce tariffs on each other’s goods for 90 days.

Under the deal reached in Geneva, the US lowered its tariff on Chinese goods from 145 percent to 30 percent, while China slashed its rate from 125 percent to 10 percent.

“The risk is that tariffs remain in place for a long time, and eventually, we see production offshored,” Lynn Song, chief economist for Greater China at ING, said in a note on Monday.

“But amid tariff unpredictability, not just for China but across the world, few companies will be rushing to commit resources to set up offshore manufacturing facilities. This could mean that a decent portion of China’s manufacturing and exports will be less impacted than originally feared.”

On May 12, the United States and China announced that they are putting reciprocal tariffs on pause for 90 days. Some tariffs will be retained while trade negotiations continue, a joint statement said.

This is yet another reversal of the sweeping tariffs US President Donald Trump imposed in early April that destabilised the global economy and sent stock markets into freefall.

Although he claimed that his measures would make the US economy “boom”, it was clear from the start that they would not work. A trade war cannot improve the lot of American workers, nor bring back manufacturing into the country.

Now spooked by corporations slashing profit targets and reports of the US gross domestic product (GDP) shrinking, the Trump administration appears to be walking back on its strategy. But going back to economic liberalism under the guise of “stability” is not the right course of action.

The current global economic system, distorted by policies favouring the rich sustained over decades, has proven itself to be unsustainable. That is why we need a new world economic order that promotes inclusive and sustainable development across both the Global North and South and addresses global socioeconomic challenges.

The crisis of liberal globalisation

The troubles that economies around the world currently face are the result of policies the elites of the Global North imposed over the past 80 years.

In its original Keynesian vision, the economic order put forward by the Allied Powers after World War II aimed to combine trade, labour, and development best practices to foster inclusive growth. However, over the following few decades, corporate opposition in the US and Britain derailed this order, replacing it with a skewed system centred around the Global North’s chief economic instruments, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, both created in 1944.

In the 1970s, economic elites blamed rising inflation and stagnation not on temporary shocks like the oil crisis but on what they saw as excessive concessions to organised labour: government overspending, strong unions, and heavy regulation. Subsequently, they launched an institutional counter-revolution against the Keynesian model of power sharing and social compromise.

This counter-revolution took shape in the 1980s under US President Ronald Reagan and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who aggressively pursued policies to restore corporate profitability. They slashed taxes on the wealthy, liberalised international capital flows that made it easier to relocate production to low-cost economies, deregulated the financial sector, weakened labour unions, and privatised public services. As a result, outsourcing of labour, tax evasion, real estate speculation, financialisation, and credit-fuelled bubbles became US corporations’ dominant ways of making profit.

In developing countries, the IMF, the World Bank and regional development banks pushed governments to cut public spending, privatise state-owned enterprises, remove trade barriers, and deregulate markets rapidly and with little regard for social consequences.

As a result, the 1980s and 90s became lost decades for many countries embracing globalisation through radical liberalisation. These policies triggered massive employment shocks, rising inequalities, skyrocketing debt and persistent financial turbulence from Mexico to Russia.

East Asian economies were the exceptions, as they learned to circumvent the straitjacket of liberal globalisation and joined the global economy on their own terms.

The biggest beneficiaries of this system were Western economic elites, as corporations profited from low-cost production abroad and domestic deregulation at home. The same cannot be said for Western workers, who faced stagnating real wages, eroded labour protections, and increasing economic insecurity under the pressure of competitiveness, relocation, and automation.

Illiberal economic policy is doomed to fail

For those of us who studied the post-war economic order, it was apparent that without correcting the pitfalls of liberal globalism, a nationalist, illiberal counter-revolution was coming. We saw its signs early on in Europe, where illiberal populists rose to prominence, gaining a foothold first in the periphery and then gradually scaling up to become Europe’s most disruptive force.

In the countries where they gained power, they pursued policies superficially resembling developmentalism. Yet, instead of achieving genuine structural transformation, they fostered oligarchies dominated by politically connected elites. Instead of development, they delivered rent-seeking and resource extraction without boosting productivity or innovation.

Trump’s economic policies follow a similar path of economic populism and nationalistic rhetoric. Just like illiberal economic policies failed in Europe, his tariffs were never going to magically reindustrialise the US or end working-class suffering.

If anything, tariffs – or now the threat of imposing them – will accelerate China’s competitive edge by pushing it to deepen domestic supply chains, foster regional cooperation, and reduce reliance on Western markets. In the US, the illiberal response will drag labour standards down, eroding real wages through inflation and propping up elites with artificial protections.

Furthermore, Trump has no real industrial policy, which renders his reactive trade measures completely ineffective. A genuine industrial policy would coordinate public investment, support targeted sectors, enforce labour standards, and channel technological change towards good jobs.

His predecessor, President Joe Biden, laid the foundations of such an industrial policy agenda in the Inflation Reduction and CHIPS acts. However, these programmes are now under attack from the Trump administration, and their remaining vestiges will not have a meaningful effect.

Without these pillars, workers are left exposed to economic shocks and excluded from the gains of growth, while the rhetoric of reindustrialisation becomes little more than a political performance.

The way forward

While Trump’s economic policies are unlikely to work, returning to economic liberalism will not resolve socioeconomic grievances either. Let us remember that past efforts to maintain this deeply flawed system at any cost backfired.

Following the 2008 global financial crisis, Western governments rescued big banks and allowed financial markets to return to business as usual. Meaningful reforms of the global economic architecture never materialised. Meanwhile, the living standards of working- and middle-class families from Germany to the US stagnated or declined as wages flatlined, housing prices soared, and economic insecurity deepened.

We cannot return to this dysfunction again. We need a new global economic order focused on multilateral governance, ecological sustainability, and human-centric development. Such progressive global multilateralism would mean governments coordinating not only on taxing multinational corporations and curbing tax havens but also on regulating capital flows, setting minimum labour and environmental standards, sharing green technologies, and jointly financing global public goods.

In this new economic order, the institutions of global economic governance would make space for developing and emerging countries to implement industrial policies and build stronger ties with public finance bodies to mobilise patient, sustainable capital. This cooperative approach would offer a practical alternative to liberal globalism by promoting accountable public investment and development-focused financial collaboration.

Parallel to the eco-social developmentalism in emerging economies, wealthy nations need to embrace a post-growth model gradually. This strategy prioritises wellbeing, ecological stability, and social equity over endless GDP expansion.

This means investing in care work, green infrastructure, and public services rather than chasing short-term profits or extractive growth. For mature economies, the goal should be shifting from growing more to distributing better and living within planetary limits. This would also allow more space for low- and middle-income countries to improve their living standards without overexploiting our limited shared natural resources.

With stronger cooperation between national and multilateral public finance institutions and better tools to tax and regulate corporations, governments could regain the capacity to create stable, well-paying jobs, strengthen organised labour, and tackle inequalities. This is the only way for American workers to regain the quality of life they aspire to.

Such progressive multilateralism would be a powerful long-term antidote against illiberal populism. Achieving this shift, however, requires building robust global and regional political coalitions to challenge entrenched corporate interests and counterbalance the existing liberal, capital-driven global framework.

The challenge is clear: not only to critique Trump’s destructive policies but to present a bold, coherent vision of industrial renewal, ecological sustainability, and global justice. The coming months will show whether anyone is prepared to lead that transformation.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

In the context of emerging new world, key global powers are thumbing up their strategic agendas, seriously evaluating their approaches in taking positions on diverse issues including security, trade and economics with implications for and impact on developing countries. Notwithstanding, Africa has seemingly become the center of the geopolitics, and the United States tariffs China’s trade while Russia attempts to assert its control over Ukraine’s ambitions to join North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO].

In early May 2025, MD Africa editor Kester Kenn Klomegah had the chance to talk with Professor Arnold Boateng over a number questions connecting evolutionary geopolitical process and its implications and likely impact on shaping world’s landscape. Professor Arnold Boateng is an Entrepreneur, Consultant, Speaker and Author. [Books: Dreams of Our Youth: The African Youth Question: Ananse Verses: Foundations for Life…Available from Amazon & Kindle Store].  Here are the interview excerpts:

Which global power is emerging and could, in the near future, be recognized as the super power?

Professor Arnold Boateng: In terms of Security Russia is already a superpower. It has a much [official records] ICBMs and nuclear weapons as the United States. On the economic front, China is more likely to take over. It has the ambition and intent. By purchasing power parity, it surpassed the United States a year ago or two ago.

Russia on the other seems to be more interested in dethroning the United States to put an end to America’s unilateralism, exceptionalism and the chaos in Eastern Europe, the Pacific and Latin America. Recently, Robert Gates was quoted as saying; “The United States is  the most destabilizing force on earth.”

China has a long way though. The final chip for a really superpower is to have your currency as “reserve currency.” China is a long way from that but within reach in a couple of years.

Would China want to be a superpower having seen what unchecked power has altered American foreign policy and excesses?

AB: Global majority is seriously betting on China. And my bet is on China too. But this does not rule out Russia if it could have the ambition. China should learn from the errors of the United States. It should acknowledge that one leader may sit on the throne but he does not rule alone. If Beijing is willing to have a multipolar world, then as they say;” China would have the Mandate of Heaven to lead and NOT rule.

Does it mean power is steadily moving from the northern hemisphere to South-South coalition?

AB: Power has already shifted. It did when Russia and China won Eurasia. We are merely waiting to see the reality play out in the open. Europe is deindustrialising. Their manufacturing sector has slowed due to high energy cost among other factors.

On security front, its benefactor has been the United States through NATO. With Trump’s policy of America first Europe has seen the writing on the wall. Resources for Europe’s industrial drive have largely come from the south. Nigerien uranium power 70% of France’s energy needs. Cobalt, gold, and other minerals driving their tech and general industrial push have come from the south.

The South-South coalition is on the rose. First, they have the raw materials and energy resources. They have a Highly educated and skill workforce in STEM. They have a youthful population and fast moving economies.

Apparently is it rather West vs. East?

AB: It should be the East. The world, especially Africa, has seen the enough to choose the East over the West. The West’s colonial project set Africa back for more than a century. We have endured their economic hitmen, wars and falsification of African history. Everywhere they have been, had been destabilized. In India, during the colonial project, opium wars in China; Libya, Iraq and regime change in Latin America and all over the world.

In a context of this inevitable evolutionary process, how can describe Africa’s position in the shifting power dynamics?

AB: For now Africa is divided. Africa looks either confuse or has failed to read the shifting power centres.

Africa is central to China’s rise and maintaining their position. Without DRC cobalt, the electronic industry and new tech economies could  not be sustained.

Africa is the King who does not know who he is. 

Can we conclude that China is the leading economic power? What makes Africa’s economic position uncertain in sharing global power?

AB: China controls more 85% of global supply chain. It is in the lead but it cannot get to the top alone. It lacked historical prestige. Much of its 5,000 year history it has been a closed system especially after the Ming took over from the Yuan Dynasty. It opened up under British Imperial project and closed again until President Nixon opened it up. Then Tiananmen happened.

The world is not seeking for another Superpower again considering the excesses of the United States around the globe when the Soviet Union declined in the 1990s. We are looking for a round table leadership. Africa is divided. We lack a coherent continent wide vision. Clearly, without sounding disrespectful, it looks like Africa does not know what is going on. We are oblivious to the shifting centres of power. African must stand together. We must have a common BRICS policy. A common China policy and assert good governance; regional industrial policy; common resource extraction and contracts policy. Common intelligence and security infrastructure among other critical systems necessary for being part of the shapers of the emerging global order.

May 17 (UPI) — A recent Walmart earnings report citing tariffs aa a potential reason for raising prices promoted President Donald Trump to tell the world’s largest retailer to “eat the tariffs.”

“Walmart should stop trying to blame tariffs as the reason for rising prices throughout the chain,” Trump said Saturday morning in a Truth Social post.

“Walmart made billions of dollars last year,” Trump said, adding that its earnings were “far more than expected.”

“Between Walmart and China, they should, as is said, ‘eat the tariffs,’ and not charge valued customers anything,” he said.

The president said he will be “watching, and so will your customers!!!”

Narrow retail margins that are less than those of other business sectors might make it impossible for Walmart to simply eat the cost of tariffs.

“We have always worked to keep our prices as low as possible, and we won’t stop,” Walmart said in a statement to CNBC. “We’ll keep prices as low as we can for as long as we can given the reality of small retail margins.”

Trump made his social media comment two days after Walmart President and Chief Executive Officer Doug McMillon told investors Trump’s tariff policies might require the retailer to raise prices on affected goods.

“We will do our best to keep our prices as low as possible, but given the magnitude of tariffs, even at the reduced levels announced this week, we aren’t able to absorb all the pressure,” Doug McMillon, Walmart president and chief executive officer, said during an earnings call on Thursday.

Walmart’s latest guidance and forward-looking statements affirm tariffs are among factors that could significantly impact its earnings throughout the rest of the year and possibly beyond.

“The company’s results may be materially affected by many factors, such as fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates, changes in global economic and geopolitical conditions, tariff and trade policies, customer demand and spending, inflation, interest rates, world events and various other factors,” Walmart’s earnings report says.

Rapidly changing costs are making it difficult for the retailer gauge the near-future of Walmart Chief Financial Officer John Rainey told CNBC on Thursday.

“We have not seen price increases at this magnitude in the speed in which they’re coming at us before,” Rainey said. “It makes for a challenging environment.”

The electronics and toys that Walmart sells mostly come from China, which so far is subject to a 30% tariff.

The retailer also sells goods from Central and South America, such as bananas, coffee and avocados, which also are subject to at least a 10% tariff.

Rainey told CNBC the retailer wants to keep its prices below its competitors’ prices for similar goods, which would require absorbing cost increases due to tariffs.

The United States and China have surprisingly agreed to a dramatic de-escalation in their trade war.

Under the agreement, the world’s two largest economies have paused their respective tariffs for 90 days.

That breaks an impasse which has brought much of the commerce between the two nations to a halt.

Critics say the talks in Geneva did not appear to yield any meaningful concessions. The two sides aim to reach a broader deal, but this takes too long to negotiate.

Also in this episode, we examine whether the US-UK trade pact will deliver real benefits, or is it symbolism over substance?

Also, Senegal is capitalising on its energy wealth to change its fortunes.

BEIJING — The new U.S. ambassador to China, former senator and business executive David Perdue, arrived in Beijing on Thursday, just days after China and the U.S. agreed to a temporary break in their damaging tariff war.

Perdue said on X that it is an honor to represent President Trump as ambassador.

“I am ready to get to work here and make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous,” he wrote.

Perdue, 75, had a long career as an executive in firms from clothing to retail. He was based in Hong Kong as head of the Asia operations for Sara Lee Corp. and later was president of the Reebok athletic brand and chairman and CEO of Dollar General stores.

A Republican, he was a senator from Georgia from 2015 to 2021 and ran for governor of the state as a Trump-backed candidate in 2022 but lost in the Republican primary.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said China was ready to “provide convenience” for Perdue to perform his duties.

“We have always viewed and handled China-U.S. relations based on the principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation. We hope the U.S. side will work with China in the same direction,” Lin said at a daily news briefing.

The U.S. reached a weekend deal with China to reduce sky-high tariffs on each other’s goods, an agreement Trump has referred to as a victory.

The U.S. agreed to cut the 145% tax Trump imposed last month to 30%. China agreed to lower its tariff on U.S. goods to 10% from 125%. The lower tariff rates came into effect on Wednesday.

Worldwide, markets have responded to the agreement with gusto, rebounding to the levels before Trump’s tariffs, but many business owners remain wary.

Along with tariffs and China’s massive trade surplus with the U.S., the two have tangled over security in the South China Sea, which China claims virtually in its entirety.

The U.S. has also been a harsh critic of China’s crackdown on human rights in ethnic areas such as Tibet and Xinjiang and in Hong Kong, and is a strong supporter of Taiwan, the self-governing island democracy that China says is its own territory and threatens to invade.

With the 90-day tariff suspension being a notable exception, relations have hit lows not seen in decades. A reminder of that was Perdue’s predecessor Nicholas Burns’ order this year banning American government personnel in China, as well as family members and contractors with security clearances, from any romantic or sexual relationships with Chinese citizens, a throwback to the Cold War.

Perdue was confirmed by the Senate on April 29. While in the Senate, he served on the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Banking, Budget, and Agriculture committees. He also chaired the Subcommittees on Sea Power and State Department Oversight and “traveled extensively to strengthen U.S. partnerships across Asia, the Middle East, and Europe,” according to his official biography.

He was born in Warner Robins, Ga., and grew up on his family’s farm. He and his wife have two sons and three grandsons.

BEIJING — China will allow visa-free entry for nationals of five Latin American countries for one year to boost closer connections with the region.

Starting June 1, citizens of Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru and Uruguay will be allowed to enter China for up to 30 days without a visa, China’s Foreign Ministry announced Thursday. The trial program will be in effect for one year.

“We welcome more foreign friends to visit China, to experience the colorful and vibrant China,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said at a daily briefing.

Beijing hosted the China-CELAC, or Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Forum earlier this week, aiming at strengthening its alliances in the region as a counterweight to U.S. influence.

China has been opening up to dozens of countries including most of the European nations, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia to boost the economy after strict pandemic travel measures. China and Uzbekistan will also begin mutual visa-free entry for up to 30 days starting June 1, according to China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

WASHINGTON — Markets rejoiced this week over news that the Trump administration, after six weeks of maximalist rhetoric, had struck a preliminary deal with China to lower tariff rates between the two countries. Tech stocks led the rally, with investors hopeful that President Trump had finally retreated from plans for a protracted trade war with a vital trading partner.

But the celebration may be premature, industry insiders, foreign diplomats and market experts said, telling The Times that Silicon Valley will face strong headwinds in the months ahead — the makings of a perfect storm of uncertainty that could still tip the U.S. economy into recession.

Investigation at Commerce

Wall Street reacted with similar exuberance last month on word that tech products, such as smartphones and computers, would be exempt from Trump’s 145% tariffs on China — a figure that was reduced in the deal struck on Monday to 30%, marking a significant reduction, but still far higher than tariffs have ever been on Chinese imports.

And yet the April 12 White House announcement outlining exemptions was widely misunderstood as a walk-back. In fact, those tech products, including the iPhone, are exempted from existing tariff rates only temporarily, because the Commerce Department is conducting an ongoing review of whether to impose separate import duties on the sector over specific national security concerns.

The investigation, under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, is progressing, with the Commerce Department recently ending its acceptance of public comments. The department, led by Secretary Howard Lutnick, could issue findings anytime in the coming months, alongside a tariff rate of unknown size that may severely affect Silicon Valley companies.

The review is causing uncertainty in its own right. But Lutnick has indicated that action is forthcoming. He has repeatedly advocated for the iPhone to be manufactured in the United States — a process that would require a large, skilled workforce in high-tech manufacturing produced by the very universities being targeted by the Trump administration, and would substantially increase the price of computing products for American households.

Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary who has earned greater confidence than Lutnick from the business community, is the one leading trade negotiations with China, where many of those products are made. That has Silicon Valley executives questioning which one of them is in charge, and whom they should be speaking with, according to one tech executive, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly.

“The core issue for Silicon Valley lies in the uncertainty and potential cost disruption these bring to critical technology components, especially semiconductors,” said Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay, a professor of information systems and operations management at the University of Florida.

“While ostensibly about national security, the application of these investigations can introduce significant volatility into supply chain planning and investment decisions. Companies might hesitate to commit to certain sourcing strategies if there’s a persistent threat,” he added. “All of which is to say that there will be quite a bit of turbulence ahead for strategic planners of Silicon Valley firms.”

Looming battle with Europe

Announcing the reduction in trade tensions with China on Monday, Trump turned his attention to the European Union, another major trading partner, and levied a threat.

“The European Union is in many ways nastier than China,” the president said. “They’ll come down a lot. You watch. We have all the cards. They treat us very unfairly.”

But the Europeans believe they have some cards, as well.

Trump’s focus on trade with Europe has been on tangible goods, such as agricultural products, manufactured items, pharmaceuticals and cars — a grouping of products that on their own would show a significant U.S. trade deficit with the continent. But European officials use different math. They want to account for European use of U.S. digital services to level the playing field.

One European official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said that the taxation of digital services — such as online advertising, social media platforms and streaming services — is expected to be a “significant” component of the upcoming negotiations.

“Silicon Valley should be very concerned,” said Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. “The U.S. really stands to lose if there are certain tariffs that are brought to services, and I think people in the U.S. understand that, and would try to prevent it from happening.”

Targeting the U.S. digital sector offers Europe potent leverage in negotiations with the Trump administration, not only because it represents such a large portion of the American economy, but also because it applies acute pressure on Trump’s political allies in Silicon Valley — a tactic that could ultimately persuade him to cave.

“Trump blinked on the China tariffs at least in part because China aggressively retaliated,” Strain said. “That will be interesting to watch if other trading partners modify their strategy: learning that punching the bully in the nose is the right thing to do.”

Rates remain high on China

One of Trump’s first calls on Monday morning after announcing his temporary truce with China was to Apple’s chief executive, Tim Cook. “He’s going to be building a lot of plants in the United States for Apple,” Trump said. “We look forward to that.”

Apple can’t build them fast enough. Although it committed $500 billion in investments over the next four years in U.S. production, including new plants and a manufacturing academy, uncertainty in the interim will force the company to make hard decisions on its product lines.

Despite some protection from the exemptions in place as the Commerce investigation proceeds, the California tech giant still faces hurdles from the tariffs that remain high across supply chains — not just in China, where rates remain at 30%, but also elsewhere in Asia, including India and Vietnam, which face 10% import duties. In the most recent earnings call, before the China deal was announced, Cook estimated that Apple could incur a $900-million hit from tariffs.

“For companies like Apple, and indeed much of Silicon Valley, this overall environment isn’t just about weathering a storm; it’s about fundamentally rethinking global operations,” Bandyopadhyay said. “We’re already witnessing the strategic pivots.”

To offset the costs of tariffs, Apple could increase the prices of iPhones in the fall. But the company also has to walk a fine line both politically and financially. The Trump administration has been critical of companies such as Amazon that have considered showing consumers the impact of tariffs.

“This is all sort of a game of poker, and also remember, Tim Cook is 10% politician, 90% CEO,” said Dan Ives, a Wedbush Securities analyst who covers the technology sector.

Ives said the upcoming iPhone 17 could cost $100 more than the current model, but his firm estimates that could reduce demand by 5%, delaying consumers’ purchases of new devices. Other analysts said it is tough to say if prices will increase, with the smartphone maker keeping prices relatively stable in recent years.

The debate over Apple’s fate has proved to be a sensitive point in U.S. negotiations with Beijing. Last month, the Chinese Foreign Ministry recirculated a video from a visit Cook made to China in 2017, in which he explained why Silicon Valley companies find themselves so reliant on the Chinese supply chain.

“The popular conception is that companies come to China because of low labor costs. I am not sure what part of China they go to, but the truth is China stopped being a low-labor-cost country many years ago,” Cook said at the time. “The reason is because of the skill, the quantity of skill in one location, and the type of skill it is.”

“The products we do require really advanced tooling and the precision that you have to have in tooling and working with materials that we do are state-of-the-art,” he added. “If you look at the U.S., you could have a meeting of tooling engineers and I’m not sure we could fill a room. In China, you could fill multiple football fields.”

Times staff writer Queenie Wong in San Francisco contributed to this report.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California to ask federal judge for sweeping pause to Trump’s tariffs
The deep dive: Trade truce with China is hailed, but it may not be enough to stop shortages
The L.A. Times Special: Newsom claims Trump’s tariffs will reduce California revenues by $16 billion

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

On Monday, the United States and China reached an agreement to slash sky-high tariffs for 90 days. Though both sides claimed they could withstand a long trade war, they reached a truce quicker than many analysts expected.

The breakthrough marked a dramatic ratcheting down of trade tensions following the tariff war launched by US President Donald Trump during his “liberation day” announcement on April 2.

Trump initially unveiled so-called reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries before pausing them just one week later. China, however, did not get off the hook and Beijing soon retaliated with tariffs of its own.

Tit-for-tat exchanges quickly snowballed into eye-watering sums. By April 11, tariffs on Chinese goods entering the US had reached 145 percent and levies on US products going to China had swelled to 125 percent.

Tensions were already at boiling point last weekend when US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and He Lifeng, China’s vice-premier, agreed a ceasefire that would slash respective tariffs by 115 percentage points for three months.

US duties on Chinese products will now fall to 30 percent, while China’s tariffs on US goods will drop to 10 percent. Stock Markets rallied on the news, with the Nasdaq Composite climbing 4.3 percent on Monday and gaining 20 percent over its April low.

But one key question has significant implications for trade talks to come: Did Washington or Beijing flinch first?

What did the two countries say?

The tariff suspension, which was sharper than analysts expected, came after two days of trade talks in Geneva, Switzerland. On Monday, the US and China released a joint statement announcing the deal.

The two countries acknowledged the importance of their “bilateral economic and trade relationship” as well as the importance of a “sustainable, long-term, and mutually beneficial economic and trade relationship”.

The US and China agreed to establish a mechanism to continue discussing trade relations. China also agreed to “suspend or cancel” non-tariff measures against the US, but did not provide any details.

Speaking to reporters in Geneva last weekend, China’s Vice Premier He described the talks as “candid, in-depth and constructive”.

For his part, US Treasury Secretary Bessent told Bloomberg Television on Monday that “both sides agree we do not want a generalised decoupling.”

“The US is going to do a strategic decoupling in terms of the items that we discovered during COVID were of national security interests – whether it’s semiconductors, medicine, steel,” Bessent said.

After the talks concluded, Trump praised negotiations as a “great trade deal”, adding “we’re not looking to hurt China.” He then claimed a personal win, saying he had engineered a “total reset” with Beijing.

Elsewhere, Hu Xijin, former editor of the Chinese state-run Global Times publication, said on social media that the deal was “a great victory for China”.

What are the terms of the pause?

After the tariff pause had been announced, Bessent said it’s “implausible” that reciprocal tariffs on China will fall below 10 percent. However, he said the April 2 level – set by President Trump at 34 percent – “would be a ceiling”.

He also said “we could see some amount of the fentanyl tariffs… come off.” Earlier this year, Trump put a 20 percent tariff on China, accusing it of not doing enough to stop the flow of fentanyl, a highly addictive and deadly opioid, into the US.

For now, Chinese goods will continue face a 30 percent tariff. In addition, specific products from China, such as electric vehicles, steel and aluminium, are subject to even higher, separate tariffs imposed in recent years.

On Monday, the White House also issued an executive order lowering duties on low-value packages – items costing up to $800 – from China from 120 to 54 percent.

And while a minimum $100 fee on packages from e-commerce sites Temu and Shein will remain in place, the increase to $200 planned for June 1 was dropped.

On the flip side, Beijing pledged to suspend non-tariff forms of retaliation imposed since April 2, such as export restrictions on critical minerals that US manufacturers use in high-tech equipment and clean energy technology.

Notably, the deal does not include concessions from Beijing on several US sticking points, like its huge trade surplus with the US or its exchange rate policy, China is accused of keeping its renminbi artificially low in order to boost export sales.

Tariff suspensions will be in place for 90 days. They will be subject to reviews based on broad negotiations in the coming weeks and months.

Who conceded more ground?

The speed with which the US and China unwound their tariffs, taking many analysts by surprise, suggests the trade war was inflicting pain on both sides.

The tariffs were threatening job losses for Chinese factory workers and higher inflation and empty shelves for American consumers.

But for Piergiuseppe Fortunato, an adjunct professor of economics at the University of Neuchatel in Switzerland, it is clear who wanted the deal more badly.

“First of all, America made more concessions than China. Second, America’s economy, which is unsteady at the moment, is more reliant on China’s than the other way around.”

In April, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that the US economy was facing an increased risk of recession as Trump’s trade war – and the accompanying increase in consumer prices – could unleash a “significant slowdown”.

Fortunato told Al Jazeera that “Beijing is not in such a precarious position. Take, for example, its latest export figures.”

China’s exports grew sharply in April. The strong performance, an 8.2 percent increase from the year before, came as Chinese firms diverted trade flows to Southeast Asia, Europe and other destinations.

“I think that Washington overplayed its hand with Beijing,” says Fortunato.

“The White House overestimated the importance of the US market, and underestimated China’s success in diversifying its exports away from the US since the first Trump trade war” in 2018.

What will happen next?

“It could take a long time to reach a detailed agreement, if one is even possible,” notes Fortunato.

In 2018, the US backed away from a potential trade deal following talks with Beijing. The next 18 months saw tariff exchanges before a Phase One deal was signed in January 2020.

However, China did not meet all the terms of that purchase agreement. It fell some 43 percent short of the $200bn worth of goods it agreed to buy from the US by 2021.

Then, the US trade deficit with China jumped up during the COVID-19 pandemic, setting the stage for the current trade war.

Earlier this week, Bessent once again hinted that Washington might be looking for the type of “purchase agreements” that characterised the Phase One deal.

“The US has made noises that it may be going for more purchase agreements. But the American economy took a hit last time from similar arrangements,” says Fortunato.

During Trump’s first trade war with China, the US-China Business Council estimated that 245,000 US jobs were lost.

As the scope of tariffs is greater today, even after last weekend’s announcement, it’s fair to assume that even more jobs will be shed.

In the future, Fortunato suspects the US will “land at an average tariff rate of 15-20 percent, and even higher for China. That’s five times greater than what it was in January… a massive change.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Speaking after the trade talks, US President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday: “China will also suspend and remove all of its non-monetary barriers. They’ve agreed to do that,” he said. “It’s going to take a while to paper it. You know, that’s not the easiest thing to paper,” he added.

In early April, China imposed rare earth export restrictions on the US as a major non-tariff countermeasure in response to Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. The export controls affected seven critical minerals, on which the US heavily relies. These minerals are essential components in the manufacture of electric vehicles and electronic devices.

Trump’s remarks suggest that whether China will suspend or remove its export controls on these key minerals will be a central term in the negotiations. The removal or suspension of the controls could further bolster optimism surrounding a de-escalation of trade tensions.

On Monday, the world’s two largest economies reached an agreement to pause tariffs for 90 days. The US will reduce tariffs on China to 30% from 145%, while China will lower import levies on US goods to 10% from 125%.

Stock market rally loses steam

The broad-based market rally showed signs of retreat during Tuesday’s Asian session, indicating investor caution over the progress of US-China negotiations. Although both sides agreed to establish a mechanism for further discussions following the weekend’s talks, no specific dates have yet been set for future meetings.

US stock futures declined, pointing to a lower open. As of 4:50 am CEST, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 0.25%, the S&P 500 dropped 0.38%, and the Nasdaq Composite slid 0.47%. By contrast, European major index futures were more resilient, with the Euro Stoxx 600 slipping 0.17%, the DAX flat, and the FTSE 100 falling 0.23%.

Markets are awaiting further details of the agreement, particularly regarding China’s non-tariff countermeasures. Investors are also concerned about whether a comprehensive trade deal can be secured between the two nations after the 90-day pause.

“The critical issue from here is solidifying trade deals and ensuring the reduced tariffs don’t lapse after 90 days,” wrote Kyle Rodda, a senior market analyst at Capital.com, Australia, in an email. He added that markets would also look to see whether the US can achieve trade deals with other partners. “The markets will also want to see the US maintain this momentum and nut out deals with its other trading partners. Should that happen, the recovery in equities and the dollar ought to continue,” he said.

Euro rebounds from month-low

The US dollar weakened slightly against other major G10 currencies during the early Asian session. The EUR/USD pair rebounded to above 1.11 after falling to as low as 1.1065 on Monday – its lowest since 10 April.

The euro was seen as a major haven asset in April as the trade war heightened fears of a global economic recession. The common currency surged against the greenback last month to its highest level since November 2021. However, the euro’s rally could reverse course if future US-China negotiations lead to further de-escalation of trade tensions.

Investors appear to be seeking bargains in US assets amid an easing of risk-off sentiment. Despite the trade war, the impact on the US economy is expected to remain limited thus far. The market sell-off has been driven more by deteriorating sentiment than by any materialised downturn.

Markets will also turn their attention to the US Consumer Price Index (CPI) for April, due for release on Wednesday. Sticky inflation may further drive up the dollar, thereby putting pressure on the euro. Markets expect the Federal Reserve to reduce interest rates twice this year in response to tariff-driven inflationary risks. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank is also expected to continue its rate-cutting cycle on economic grounds, albeit on a meeting-by-meeting basis.

NEW YORK — American businesses that rely on Chinese goods reacted with muted relief Monday after the U.S. and China agreed to pause their exorbitant tariffs on each other’s products for 90 days.

Importers still face relatively high tariffs, however, as well as uncertainty over what will happen in the coming weeks and months. Many businesses delayed or canceled orders after President Trump last month put a 145% tariff on items made in China.

Now, they’re concerned a mad scramble to get goods onto ships will lead to bottlenecks and increased shipping costs. The temporary truce was announced as retailers and their suppliers are looking to finalize their plans and orders for the holiday shopping season.

“The timing couldn’t have been any worse with regard to placing orders, so turning on a dime to pick back up with customers and our factories will put us severely behind schedule,” said WS Game Company owner Jonathan Silva, whose Massachusetts business creates deluxe versions of Monopoly, Scrabble and other Hasbro board games.

Silva said the 30% tariff on Chinese imports still is a step in the right direction. He has nine containers of products waiting at factories in China and said he would work to get them exported at the lower rate.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the U.S. agreed to lower its 145% tariff rate on Chinese goods by 115 percentage points, while China agreed to lower its retaliatory 125% rate on U.S. goods by the same amount. The two sides plan to continue negotiations on a longer-term trade deal.

National Retail Federation President and CEO Matthew Shay said the move was a “critical first step to provide some short-term relief for retailers and other businesses that are in the midst of ordering merchandise for the winter holiday season.”

The news sent the stock market and the value of the dollar soaring, a lift that eluded business owners confronting another dizzying shift.

Marc Rosenberg, founder and CEO of Edge Desk in Deerfield, Ill., invested millions of dollars to develop a line of $1,000 ergonomic chairs but delayed production in China that was set to begin this month, hoping for a tariff reprieve.

Rosenberg said it was good U.S.-China trade talks were ongoing but that he thinks the 90-day window is “beyond dangerous” since shipping delays could result in his chairs still being en route when the temporary deal ends.

“There needs to be a plan in place that lasts a year or two so people can plan against it,” he said.

Jeremy Rice, the co-owner of a Lexington, Kentucky, home-décor shop that specializes in artificial flower arrangements, said the limited pause makes him unsure how to approach pricing. About 90% of the flowers House uses are made in China. He stocked up on inventory and then paused shipments in April.

“Our vendors are still kind of running around juggling, not knowing what they’re gonna do,” Rice said. “We ordered in what we could pre-tariff and so there’s stock here, but we’re getting to the point now where there’s things that are gone and we’re going to have to figure out how we’re gonna approach it.”

“There’s no relief,” he added. “It’s just kind of like you’re just waiting for the next shoe to drop.”

Before Trump started the latest U.S. tariff battle with China, Miami-based game company All Things Equal was preparing to launch its first electronic board game. Founder Eric Poses said he spent two years developing “And the Good News Is,” a fill-in-the-blank game covering topics like politics and sports. He plowed $120,000 into research and development.

When the president in February added a 20% tariff on products made in China, Poses started removing unessential features such as embossed packaging. When the rate went up to 145%, he faced two options: leave the goods in China or send them to bonded warehouses, a storage method which allow importers to defer duty payments for up to five years.

Poses contacted his factories in China on Monday to arrange the deferred shipments, but with his games still subject to a 30% tariff, he said he would have to cut back on marketing to keep the electronic game priced at $29.99. With other businesses also in a rush to get their products, he said he is worried he won’t be able to his into shipping containers and that if he does, the cost will be much more expensive.

“It’s very hard to plan because if you want to go back to production in a couple of months, then you’re worried about what will the tariff rate be when it hits the U.S. ports after that 90-day period,” Poses said.

Jim Umlauf’s business, 4Knines, based in Oklahoma City, makes vehicle seat covers and cargo liners for dog owners and others. He imports raw materials such as fabric, coatings and components from China.

Umlauf said that even with a lower general tariff rate, it’s hard for small businesses to make a profit. He thinks the U.S. government should offer small business exclusions from the tariffs.

“I appreciate any progress being made on the tariff front, but unfortunately, we’re still far from a real solution — especially for small businesses like mine,” Umlauf said. “When tariffs exceed 50%, there’s virtually no profit left unless we dramatically raise prices — an option that risks alienating customers.”

Zou Guoqing, a Chinese exporter who supplies molds and parts to a snow-bike factory in Nebraska as well as fishing and hunting goods to a U.S. retailer in Texas, also thinks the remaining 30% tariff is too high to take comfort in.

With the possibility Washington and Beijing will negotiate over the 20% tariff Trump imposed due to what he described as China’s failure to stem the flow of fentanyl, Zou said he would wait until the end of May to decide when to resume shipments to the U.S.

Silva, of WS Game Company, said he planned to begin placing his holiday season orders this week but won’t be as bold as he might have been if the ultra-high tariff had been suspended for more than 90 day.

“We will order enough to get by and satisfy the demand we know will be there at the increased pricing needed, but until we get a solid foundation of a long-term agreement, the risks are still too high to be aggressive.”

Anderson and D’Innocenzio write for the Associated Press.