President Donald Trump described the opening round of U.S.-China trade negotiations in Geneva in May 2025 as a “total reset†in relations between the world’s two largest economies, as senior officials met to explore a way out of a rapidly escalating tariff conflict.
Trump said on Truth Social that the talks had been conducted in a “friendly, but constructive†manner and argued that progress had been made toward giving U.S. companies greater access to the Chinese market. At that stage, however, neither government had announced specific tariff reductions or a comprehensive trade agreement.
Why the Geneva Talks Mattered
The Geneva negotiations brought together Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Their meetings on May 10 and 11 were the first major face-to-face economic negotiations after the tariff confrontation intensified sharply in April 2025.
By the time the officials arrived in Switzerland, the United States had imposed a combination of tariffs that resulted in an additional 145% rate on many Chinese imports: a 125% reciprocal tariff layered on top of a separate 20% tariff imposed earlier in connection with fentanyl-related measures. Existing duties, including some Section 301 tariffs, could push the effective rate on particular products higher.
The White House said at the time that some Chinese products could face total U.S. tariffs of as much as 245% when different tariff programs were combined. That figure did not represent a blanket tariff applied to every Chinese product.
China had responded to the escalating U.S. reciprocal tariffs by raising its additional tariff on U.S. goods to 125%. The unusually high rates sharply increased the cost of bilateral trade and created uncertainty for importers, manufacturers and retailers dependent on supply chains linking the two countries.
Trade Imbalances Were a Central U.S. Concern
One of Washington’s longstanding concerns was the size of the U.S. goods trade deficit with China. According to U.S. Census Bureau trade data, the United States imported about $440.3 billion in goods from China during 2024 while exporting about $143.3 billion, producing a goods deficit of roughly $297.0 billion.
The Trump administration argued that tariffs could help address trade imbalances and pressure Beijing to change policies affecting market access, manufacturing and investment. Chinese officials, meanwhile, opposed the U.S. tariff increases and called for Washington to remove what Beijing described as unilateral trade restrictions.
The dispute therefore extended beyond the headline tariff percentages. It involved competing views over industrial policy, market access, supply chains and the structure of the bilateral economic relationship.
What Happened During the Geneva Negotiations
The first day of talks lasted for roughly eight hours. Officials initially disclosed few details about the substance of the negotiations, leaving businesses and markets to assess whether the meeting represented the beginning of a durable de-escalation or simply the start of a longer negotiating process.
After the second day, Bessent said the two sides had made “substantial progress,†while Greer indicated that their differences had proved less extensive than might have been assumed from the scale of the tariff escalation.
The talks were held in Switzerland after weeks of increasingly restrictive measures by both governments. Their immediate significance was therefore not the announcement of a final trade settlement, but the reopening of direct senior-level negotiations at a time when bilateral commerce was facing exceptionally high tariff barriers.
The Concrete Outcome Announced After the Talks
The clearest evidence of what the Geneva meeting accomplished came on May 12, one day after the negotiations concluded, when Washington and Beijing released a joint statement on the U.S.-China economic and trade meeting.
Under that agreement, the United States agreed to remove the additional tariff increases imposed on April 8 and April 9 and suspend 24 percentage points of its April 2 reciprocal tariff for an initial 90-day period. A 10% additional reciprocal tariff would remain during the suspension.
China agreed to make a corresponding reduction. It would remove the later retaliatory tariff increases, suspend 24 percentage points of its original 34% additional tariff for 90 days and retain a 10% additional tariff. Beijing also agreed to suspend or remove certain non-tariff countermeasures introduced after April 2.
The Chinese government published the same commitments in its English-language version of the Geneva joint statement.
A Tariff Truce, Not a Return to Tariff-Free Trade
The agreement represented a significant reduction from the extreme tariff levels reached during the April escalation, but it did not eliminate the broader array of U.S. duties on Chinese imports.
The United States retained earlier measures, including the separate tariffs imposed in connection with fentanyl, Section 301 tariffs covering various Chinese products and other applicable duties. As a result, the 10% reciprocal rate announced after Geneva was only one component of the total tariff burden faced by many imports.
That distinction is important because descriptions of the Geneva agreement as reducing U.S. tariffs simply from 145% to 10% can be misleading. The negotiations substantially reduced the newly escalated reciprocal tariffs, while several pre-existing tariff programs remained in force.
Both Sides Established a Framework for Further Negotiations
The Geneva statement also created a mechanism for continuing economic and trade discussions. He Lifeng was designated as China’s representative, while Bessent and Greer represented the United States.
The agreement allowed future meetings to take place in China, the United States or a mutually agreed third country, with working-level consultations available when necessary.
This meant the Geneva meeting was better understood as the beginning of a negotiating framework rather than a comprehensive resolution of U.S.-China trade disputes. Questions involving market access, industrial policy, supply chains and other economic disagreements remained unresolved.
What the Geneva Deal Meant for Businesses
For companies importing goods between the United States and China, the temporary reduction lowered an immediate cost shock that had threatened to make some shipments commercially impractical. Businesses still had to account for other applicable duties, however, and the initial 90-day structure meant long-term tariff policy remained uncertain.
Manufacturers were particularly exposed because U.S.-China commerce includes not only finished consumer products but also components, machinery and industrial inputs used elsewhere in global supply chains.
Retailers and importers also faced difficult decisions over whether to absorb tariff costs, negotiate lower supplier prices, shift sourcing to other countries or pass higher costs to customers.
What Remained Uncertain
Trump’s description of the negotiations as a “total reset†reflected his assessment of the tone and direction of the discussions. The agreements announced immediately afterward did produce a substantial short-term de-escalation, but they did not settle the broader economic disputes between Washington and Beijing.
The central question after Geneva was whether the temporary tariff reductions could be converted into a more durable arrangement. That depended on subsequent negotiations over trade barriers, market access and other economic issues on which the two governments continued to hold different positions.
For businesses and investors, the most important development was therefore not simply the rhetoric surrounding the meeting, but the shift from rapidly escalating tariffs toward a formal negotiating process backed by temporary reductions in some of the most recently imposed duties.
0 Comments