Trump Declares "Total Reset" in US-China Trade Relations After Talks in Switzerland

Hadisur Rahman, JadeTimes Staff

H. Rahman is a Jadetimes news reporter covering Business

---

Image Source: Getty Image

In a significant development in international trade relations, President Donald Trump announced a "total reset" in US-China trade dynamics following the first day of talks between American and Chinese officials in Switzerland. In a post on social media platform Truth Social, Trump described the discussions as "very good," highlighting that the negotiations were conducted in a "friendly, but constructive, manner."

The backdrop to these talks is a protracted trade war that has seen the United States impose tariffs of up to 145% on Chinese imports, while China has retaliated with levies of 125% on certain US goods. This weekend's meetings in Geneva mark the first direct engagement between the two nations since the imposition of tariffs earlier this year.

Details from the negotiations remain sparse, but they are set to continue on Sunday, involving key figures such as China's Vice-Premier He Lifeng and US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Trump expressed optimism about the outcome, stating, "We want to see, for the good of both China and the U.S., an opening up of China to American business. GREAT PROGRESS MADE!!!"

However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that the US would not lower tariffs unilaterally, insisting that China must also make concessions. Both sides have issued warnings ahead of the meeting, with Beijing calling for the easing of tariffs, while Bessent reiterated that the focus of the talks was on "de-escalation" rather than a comprehensive trade agreement.

Chinese state media reported that Beijing's decision to engage with the US followed careful consideration of global expectations, national interests, and appeals from American businesses. The urgency of these discussions is underscored by recent findings from the BBC, which revealed that Chinese exporters are struggling under the weight of US tariffs. One company, Sorbo Technology, reported that half of its products, typically sold to the US, are now languishing in warehouses in China.

The economic implications of the trade war are becoming increasingly evident, with the US economy contracting at an annual rate of 0.3% in the first quarter of the year as businesses rushed to import goods before tariffs took effect.

The trade conflict escalated further last month when Trump announced a universal baseline tariff on all imports to the US, labeling it "Liberation Day." Approximately 60 trading partners, including China and the European Union, were identified as "worst offenders" and subjected to higher tariffs. Additionally, Trump implemented a 25% import tax on all steel and aluminum entering the US, along with a similar tariff on cars and car parts.

In a related development, the US and UK recently reached an agreement to reduce the 25% tariff on UK cars to 10% for a maximum of 100,000 vehicles, aligning with the number of cars the UK exported to the US last year. Cars represent the UK's largest export to the US, valued at approximately £9 billion in the previous year.

As the US and China continue their negotiations, the global economic landscape remains on edge, with stakeholders closely monitoring the potential outcomes of these critical discussions.

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba Advocates for Zero Tariffs in U.S. Trade Negotiations

Hadisur Rahman, JadeTimes Staff

H. Rahman is a Jadetimes news reporter covering Asia

---

Image Source:  Reuters/Lisa Marie David

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba reaffirmed his commitment to pursuing the elimination of all tariffs in ongoing trade negotiations with the United States during a television interview on Sunday, May 11. Speaking on a Fuji Television morning program, Ishiba expressed optimism about the progress of discussions, noting that Japan's relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump is "surprisingly good."

Ishiba's comments come in the wake of a recent trade agreement between the U.S. and the United Kingdom, which was announced on Thursday. This agreement lowers tariffs on British car exports while maintaining a baseline 10 percent tariff. Ishiba acknowledged this arrangement as "one model" for trade deals but emphasized Japan's goal of achieving zero percent tariffs.

Highlighting the potential benefits of reduced tariffs, Ishiba argued that high import levies on automobiles ultimately lead to increased prices for American consumers. "For the sake of the American economy as well, shouldn't those tariffs be lowered?" he questioned, advocating for a more favorable trading environment.

Currently, Japan faces a significant 25 percent tariff on its auto exports to the United States, alongside a reciprocal 24 percent tariff on other Japanese goods. The high tariffs have raised concerns about their impact on both Japanese exporters and American consumers.

In addition to trade discussions, Ishiba addressed domestic economic policies, particularly the proposed reduction of the consumption tax in Japan. He cautioned that a sudden decrease in the consumption tax could have adverse effects on the country's finances. "If we suddenly lower the consumption tax, what happens to the country's finances?" he asked, stressing the need for careful consideration of alternative measures to support those in need.

As Japan navigates its trade relationship with the U.S., Ishiba's push for tariff elimination reflects a broader strategy to enhance economic cooperation and bolster both nations' economies. The outcome of these negotiations will be closely watched, as they hold significant implications for international trade dynamics and economic stability in the region.

Supreme Court Set to Address Universal Injunctions Amid Trump’s Controversial Citizenship Policy

Hadisur Rahman, JadeTimes Staff   

H. Rahman is a Jadetimes news reporter covering the USA

---

Image Source: Maureen Groppe

As President Donald Trump faces significant legal challenges to his administration's policies, the Supreme Court is poised to hear a pivotal case on May 15 that could reshape the landscape of federal injunctions. The case centers on Trump’s executive order aimed at ending automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents, a move that has been met with widespread criticism and legal opposition.

Judges across the nation have blocked several of Trump’s key policy initiatives, which he has labeled as “toxic and unprecedented.” The president is now looking to the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of multiple court orders that have kept his citizenship policy on hold, arguing that the injunctions should only apply to the specific litigants involved in the lawsuits rather than imposing a nationwide pause.

The Justice Department contends that allowing judges to issue broad injunctions undermines the executive branch's ability to function effectively. “Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere,” the department stated in a filing to the Supreme Court.

Opponents of Trump’s policy, including New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, argue that the citizenship of the more than 150,000 children born annually in the U.S. should not be contingent upon the state of birth or the involvement of specific litigants. “That’s not what the Constitution says,” Platkin asserted, emphasizing the need for uniformity in citizenship rights across the nation.

The issue of nationwide injunctions has gained prominence in recent years, with both Democratic and Republican administrations facing similar legal challenges. Legal scholars note that the trend began in 2015 when Texas sued the Obama administration over immigration policies, leading to a surge in nationwide injunctions against presidential actions. Trump’s administration faced 64 such injunctions during his first term, a number that has continued to grow.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case signals a potential shift in how federal courts handle universal injunctions. Some justices, including Neil Gorsuch, have previously criticized the practice, calling it “unworkable” and urging the court to address the issue. Justice Elena Kagan has also expressed concerns about the ability of a single district judge to halt nationwide policies.

As the court prepares to deliberate, legal experts are divided on the potential outcomes. Some believe the justices may reaffirm the use of universal injunctions, while others predict a ruling that could restrict or eliminate them altogether. Regardless of the outcome, the case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify the role of federal courts in relation to executive power and the scope of judicial relief.

With the stakes high for both the Trump administration and the future of citizenship rights in the U.S., the Supreme Court’s ruling could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the branches of government and the rights of individuals under the Constitution.