Trump Presses for 'Fair' Trade Deal with China Amid Tariff Deadlock and Global Uncertainty

China–U.S. Trade War

Summary:

President Donald Trump reaffirmed his administration's push for a fair trade deal with China, despite escalating tariff policies and a cooling in direct diplomatic engagement with President Xi Jinping....

No Talks with Xi, But Dialogue Continues Behind the Scenes

Speaking aboard Air Force One on May 4, U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters that while he has no current plans to speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping, American officials are actively engaged in discussions with their Chinese counterparts. He emphasized that securing a fair trade deal with China remains a top priority for his administration.

Although vague on specifics, Trump hinted that announcements related to new trade agreements could emerge within the week, suggesting that some deals are being negotiated in parallel with the administration’s broader tariff strategy. However, it remains unclear whether this includes any concrete breakthrough with China.

Tariff Strategy: Pressure Tactics Still in Motion

Since April 2, President Trump has implemented a sweeping 10% tariff on most countries, layered with 25% duties on key sectors like autos, steel, and aluminum, as well as 25% tariffs targeting Canada and Mexico. Notably, Chinese goods now face a staggering 145% tariff—an aggressive escalation aimed at pushing Beijing back to the negotiation table.

These tariffs are currently paused for 90 days and are scheduled to take effect on July 8. Trump suggested that for some countries, an agreement may not be possible, and instead, “a certain tariff” will be imposed in the coming weeks. This language points to a tactical use of trade barriers as leverage rather than as immediate economic tools—designed to shift the balance of power in ongoing negotiations.

Rhetoric and Strategy: From Isolation to Conditional Engagement

Trump reiterated his belief that the U.S. has been unfairly treated by China for decades, citing President Richard Nixon’s diplomatic outreach as a critical turning point that he views as historically damaging. This narrative aligns with Trump’s long-standing view that the U.S. must decouple from unfair trading relationships to restore economic balance.

Yet, in a pre-recorded NBC News interview aired Sunday, Trump struck a slightly more optimistic tone. He acknowledged that he had effectively frozen trade between the U.S. and China, declaring that this approach had halted an annual loss of “a trillion dollars.” His phrasing—“we’ve gone cold turkey”—underscores the deliberate nature of this cutoff, which he frames not as a failure, but as a pressure tactic.

Importantly, Trump claimed that China “wants to make a deal very badly,” suggesting that the administration believes the current economic pain imposed on Beijing is sufficient to force concessions. However, he emphasized that any future agreement must meet U.S. standards of fairness—leaving open the question of what specific benchmarks define such a deal.

Understanding the Current Trade Dynamics

The evolving U.S.-China trade relationship reflects a complex dynamic in which open hostility is coupled with guarded optimism. While the current administration uses high tariffs to punish and pressure, it simultaneously leaves the door ajar for negotiated resolution.

This behavior does not suggest a return to pre-2018 trade norms, but rather the potential for a new framework—one based less on mutual liberalization and more on strategic reciprocity. Trump’s insistence on fairness indicates that tariff withdrawal is conditional, not a given, and is likely tied to measurable changes in China’s trade practices or domestic economic policy.

Conditional Diplomacy and Tactical Trade Leverage

President Trump’s comments reflect a high-risk, high-leverage strategy: isolate, impose cost, and wait for the other side to fold. While China has not yet made public concessions, Trump's claim that Beijing is eager to deal suggests a belief that the current approach is working.

Yet, as the July 8 tariff implementation deadline approaches, the true test will be whether this mix of economic coercion and conditional diplomacy yields lasting structural changes—or simply another short-term pause in an ongoing trade standoff.

Source: Reuters

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Patricia Franklin

Economic

China–U.S. Trade War

U.S. President Donald Trump declared a 100% tariff on films produced outside the United States on Sunday. He revealed the change on his social media site, Truth Social.

Trump argued that the President’s job was to defend the United States against foreign and domestic threats and that the issue involved messaging and propaganda, among other concerns.

Trump said the tariff would take effect immediately and that the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative would soon start taking all necessary and appropriate action under Section 301, a trade sense law, to halt what he said were unfair trade practices. Yet he did not detail when or how the policy would take effect.

The post was one in a series Trump has touched on tariffs since he began the tariff wars, indicating that no industry may remain untouched. He cast the move in patriotic terms to preserve American jobs and values.

China plans to cut American movie quota

China had already begun to act just weeks before Trump’s announcement. On April 10, China’s Film Administration announced it would cut the number of American movies permitted into the market. The action is believed to be in retaliation to previous U.S. talks of increasing tariffs on imported entertainment.

The administration said in a public statement that the U.S. government’s abuse of tariffs to interfere with and suppress legitimate industries had reshaped domestic audiences’ attitudes toward American films. It added that China would follow market rules and respect audience preferences by reducing the number of U.S. films allowed into the country.

China is the world’s second-largest film market, and Hollywood increasingly depends on it. But it has become more protective of its homegrown entertainment industry. For the last few years, Chinese films have been kicking the backsides of Hollywood imports at the local box office.

In 2024, U.S. movies accounted for about 14% of China’s box office. This is a significant decrease from 36% in 2018. That partly has to do with the fact that Chinese audiences are increasingly weary of sequels and reboots and what they view as formulaic storytelling from Hollywood, experts say.

The Chinese government is now backing more local productions and encouraging audiences to watch homegrown content. The most recent attempt to reduce the United States imports of films threatens to hit Hollywood where it hurts.

Hollywood studios struggle under trade tensions

Hollywood studios are looking at these developments with increasing alarm. The President’s new 100% tariff, though, would increase the cost for foreign films to play in the largest movie market in the world, the United States. This could wane competition for American films and escalate tensions among the nation’s major trade partners: China, France, South Korea, and India.

Meanwhile, China’s reduction of U.S. film imports is already having an impact. For studios like Disney, Warner Bros., and Paramount, which use international markets to help cover production costs, the dependence is even greater for costly blockbusters.

Companies that have long wielded great power are now on the brink of ruin because of the pandemic. Dwindling ticket sales in China — once a top early revenue market for Hollywood — has left major studios scrambling for new sources of revenue.

Film critics also caution that moviegoers could be denied various stories worldwide. If the move entails increased tariffs worldwide, international films could become a thing of the past in American theaters.

Source: CryptoSlate

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Commodity

OPEC+ Ups Production Despite Demand Weakness

Oil markets opened the week with sharp losses as OPEC+—a coalition led by Saudi Arabia—agreed to increase crude output by 411,000 barrels per day in June. This follows a similar increase in May, bringing total additional supply to over 800,000 barrels per day in just two months. The announcement significantly exceeded market expectations, including Goldman Sachs’ earlier projection of a modest 140,000 bpd hike.

As a result, U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude fell by $2.49 or 4.27%, settling at $55.80 per barrel. Global benchmark Brent also dropped by $2.39 or 3.9% to $58.90. These moves continue a broader downward trend, with oil prices having declined more than 20% since the start of the year.

A Supply-Demand Imbalance Takes Shape

The synchronized surge in OPEC+ supply comes at a moment when global oil demand faces serious headwinds. Chief among them are fears of a global recession, amplified by U.S. President Donald Trump’s April 2 tariff package targeting multiple trading partners. The tariffs, which include a sweeping 145% duty on Chinese goods and 25% on steel, aluminum, and autos, have shaken market confidence and raised concerns about slowing industrial activity and consumer spending—both of which directly impact oil consumption.

The current combination of rising supply and weakening demand is pushing the oil market toward a structural imbalance. This shift is particularly significant given that April marked the steepest monthly price drop since 2021. Should OPEC+ maintain this production trajectory into the second half of the year, prices may fall below levels sustainable for many producers, especially those with high breakeven costs.

Investment Caution Spreads Across the Oil Sector

The repercussions are already rippling through the energy sector. Oilfield service firms like Baker Hughes and SLB (formerly Schlumberger) have expressed concern about declining capital expenditure, particularly in upstream exploration and drilling. Baker Hughes CEO Lorenzo Simonelli attributed the drop in international upstream spending to a mix of oversupply fears, rising tariffs, and regional uncertainties in Mexico and Saudi Arabia.

This investment hesitation is mirrored by the financial performance of oil majors. Both Chevron and ExxonMobil reported lower first-quarter earnings compared to Q1 2024, largely due to declining oil prices. While these companies remain profitable, prolonged price weakness could force them to revise their capex plans or delay key projects.

Market Expectations and Forecasts

Goldman Sachs, in response to the evolving dynamics, now forecasts that U.S. crude will average $59 per barrel in 2025, while Brent is expected to average $63. These figures suggest that while some recovery may be possible later in the year, the broader price environment will remain subdued relative to previous years.

The divergence between OPEC+ production policy and global economic signals is increasingly apparent. While the group may be attempting to defend market share or preempt supply gaps, the strategy risks oversaturating a market already on edge due to macroeconomic fragility.

Strategic Overproduction Meets Structural Uncertainty

OPEC+’s decision to ramp up production amid weak demand and escalating trade tensions has injected volatility into an already fragile oil market. The resulting price drop reflects not only the immediate fear of oversupply but also growing anxiety that global economic conditions are deteriorating faster than expected.

As upstream investment slows and producers brace for leaner quarters, the energy market appears to be caught between aggressive supply strategies and increasingly cautious demand forecasts. Whether this leads to another pricing collapse or a coordinated policy reversal remains contingent on how geopolitical and trade dynamics evolve over the coming months.

Source: CNBC

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Michelle Reid

Economic

Key Takeaways:

● Buffett criticized weaponizing trade at Berkshire Hathaway's annual meeting.

● Significant market volatility noted.

● U.S. economy saw a contraction in Q1 due to tariffs.

Billionaire Warren Buffett Criticizes Trade as a Weapon

Buffett's remarks hold weight, reflecting potential shifts in global trade dynamics amidst recent U.S. trade policies.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett cautioned against treating trade as an act of war, referencing recent U.S. policies imposing tariffs. He noted how these actions could lead to significant consequences globally for economic relationships, particularly affecting market stability.

Trade should not be a weapon. And the United States… we've won. I mean, we have become an incredibly important country, starting from nothing 250 years ago. — Warren Buffett, Chairman and CEO, Berkshire Hathaway.

Berkshire Hathaway's CEO highlighted risks associated with using economic measures as leverage for political gain, a position he has consistently held. He argued that creating antagonism in international trade could result in unwanted long-term effects for the U.S. and global esteem.

Immediate effects of these tariffs have been observed, such as U.S. economic contraction for the first time in three years. These policies, witnessed during Trump's tenure, aim to negotiate better trade deals but have also introduced uncertainty in global markets.

Financial markets experienced volatility, with shifts in trade policy directly influencing investor confidence and economic predictability. Companies with significant international dealings are facing augmented strategic challenges due to these tariffs, seeking to navigate through economic landscapes with new trade barriers.

Economic experts and historians cite Buffett’s perspective on the cruciality of maintaining harmonious trade relationships. Data indicates that collaboration fosters mutual economic growth, whereas divisive policies may erode decades of established trust, potentially affecting future negotiations and technological partnerships.

Source: CryptoSlate

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Grace Montgomery

Cryptocurrency

Key Takeaways:

● Analysts predict a bullish breakout for Bitcoin by Q2 2025.

● Bitcoin currently trades at $96,500, just below resistance.

● Indicators reflect strong buying pressure in the market.

Bitcoin Primed for Major Breakout to New Highs

Bitcoin is reportedly nearing a significant breakout, driven by strong technical indicators and analyst predictions, showing potential for surpassing the $100,000 threshold as of May 2025.

The event holds potential significance for investors aiming for new highs, as Bitcoin trends towards breaking longstanding resistance levels, signifying possible substantial gains.

Bitcoin, currently trading at $96,500, is exhibiting promising signs of a major bullish breakout, backed by significant technical and on-chain data. Technical indicators such as the RSI and MACD are supporting analyst expectations of Bitcoin surpassing $100,000.

Pillows, Crypto Analyst - "The breakout has already begun and expects a new all-time high to be set in Q2 2025," potentially surpassing the $100,000 resistance.

Notable analysts, including Pillows and Willy Woo, On-Chain Analyst, have expressed optimism, expecting Bitcoin to reach and perhaps exceed historical highs by mid-2025. This is set against a backdrop of increasing trading volume and strengthened technical signals.

Immediate effects on the crypto market include heightened trading activities and investor anticipation of Bitcoin's next movement. Such developments could influence other cryptocurrencies, potentially affecting altcoins and specific sectors like DeFi.

Financial implications involve potential gains for investors, as rising Bitcoin prices could recalibrate asset valuations. The broader market looks to align with Bitcoin's uptrend, forecasted to stimulate market-wide sentiment.

The anticipated breakout might pave the way for regulatory evaluations, as a notable surge in Bitcoin could influence discussions on crypto policies. Technological advancements may accelerate, driven by newfound interest and capital inflow, reinforcing the crypto ecosystem's infrastructure.

Source: CryptoSlate

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

A Quiet Warning: Businesses Enter 'Wait-and-See' Mode

As the United States navigates the fallout from President Donald Trump’s proposed tariff escalation, many of the country’s largest corporations are retreating from a crucial element of corporate transparency: earnings guidance. A growing number of firms have stopped issuing short-term forecasts, citing economic ambiguity driven by tariff uncertainty.

The 90-day freeze on new retaliatory tariffs, which began in April 2025, has created a liminal policy space. Companies are unclear whether to plan for a reversal, a moderation, or full implementation of sweeping duties. In this environment, withholding earnings projections has become a strategic choice, mirroring the cautious behavior seen during the height of the COVID-19 lockdowns.

This corporate silence complicates the work of analysts and investors, who rely on forward-looking statements to assess both individual firm outlooks and broader economic trends. Without guidance, market participants are forced to navigate an increasingly opaque business landscape.

Key Industries Caught in Forecast Fog

The impact is particularly visible in sectors closely tied to global trade. Stellantis, the automaker behind Jeep and Dodge, announced on May 1 that it could not provide profit growth forecasts for 2025, citing the volatility of tariff policy. General Motors made a similar announcement just one day prior, while luxury carmaker Mercedes-Benz also pulled its forward-looking projections.

In the tech sector, Snap saw its shares drop by 14% on April 29 after it chose not to issue guidance for Q2 2025. The company cited macroeconomic uncertainty and the unpredictable nature of the digital advertising market—areas historically sensitive to shifts in consumer sentiment and discretionary spending.

Airlines are also backing away from forecasts. American Airlines, Delta, Southwest, and Alaska Air have all withdrawn full-year guidance, pointing to intensifying economic pressure. Delta CEO Ed Bastian warned of a potential U.S. recession, noting that the company’s growth had effectively stalled.

Even firms maintaining their outlooks are hedging their confidence. UPS, while not revising its forecasts yet, acknowledged the risk of doing so. CEO Carol Tomé noted that the second half of the year carries significant uncertainty, particularly as tariff burdens may soon be passed down to American consumers. While consumer sentiment remains relatively stable, she admitted it has already weakened compared to early 2025.

Suspended Guidance as a Broader Market Signal

According to Paul Beland, Global Research Director at CFRA, the suspension of earnings forecasts should not be seen as an isolated phenomenon. Speaking with CNN, he warned that this marks a serious increase in corporate uncertainty, with ripple effects already showing in consumer sentiment indices.

While equity values in the S&P 500 remain high, the six-month outlook for corporate earnings has eroded. Beland drew parallels to the early stages of the pandemic when firms faced extreme supply chain disruptions. The crucial difference today is the absence of large-scale federal stimulus or aggressive Federal Reserve support—two stabilizing forces that were present in 2020 but are largely missing now.

Understanding the Underlying Relationship

The retreat from forecasting is not merely a reaction to economic data; it reflects a deeper correlation between policy volatility and operational decision-making. Companies are not halting projections due to immediate financial damage but because of a strategic recognition that evolving trade policy could rapidly invalidate existing models. In other words, the unpredictability of tariffs is not directly destroying profits yet—it is undermining the assumptions that allow for profit estimation in the first place.

This suggests a relationship where market confidence is decoupled from present performance and tied more closely to policy visibility. The greater the perceived risk of erratic regulatory shifts, the less willing companies are to commit publicly to growth trajectories.

The decision by major U.S. companies to pause earnings guidance serves as a canary in the coal mine. While not a guarantee of recession, it reflects an erosion of business confidence in the current policy environment. With key industries—from automotive and airlines to tech—falling silent, investors and policymakers alike must confront a crucial challenge: how to navigate and mitigate the rising fog of economic uncertainty.

Source: Business Insider

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

From Political Hostility to Constructive Dialogue

Just days after describing the U.S.-Canada trade relationship as “terminated,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced plans to meet President Donald Trump in Washington on May 6. The meeting marks Carney’s first foreign diplomatic visit since leading the Liberal Party to victory in Canada’s April 2025 general election.

Carney’s campaign was overshadowed by rising tensions with Washington, driven by a series of tariffs the Trump administration had imposed on key Canadian exports. Despite the hostile backdrop, Carney confirmed a “very constructive” phone call with President Trump on May 2, signaling a renewed willingness to engage in direct dialogue.

“Our focus will be the immediate trade pressures, as well as the broader economic and security partnership between two sovereign nations,” Carney stated, emphasizing the strategic depth of U.S.-Canada ties beyond current frictions.

Election Undercurrents: Trump, Tariffs, and National Resilience

Carney’s victory over Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre was significantly influenced by voter concerns about Canada's deteriorating trade relationship with its southern neighbor. Much of the political discourse during the campaign centered on President Trump’s rhetoric and trade actions, which included sharply worded comments suggesting Canada could become America’s “51st state.”

While provocative, these statements reflected the seriousness of the trade rift, exacerbated by Trump’s recent tariff hikes on Canadian steel, aluminum, and automobiles—sectors central to Canada's export economy. Carney responded with a strong nationalist message, affirming Canada’s refusal to succumb to external pressure and pledging to expand trade ties with Europe and other regions to reduce reliance on the U.S. market.

Toward a Reset: Strategic Framing of the Upcoming White House Meeting

Carney is expected to raise the “complex tariffs” imposed by the U.S. on Canadian auto, steel, and aluminum industries. Although these sectors are historically integrated across North America under the USMCA framework—negotiated with Trump during his first term—recent tariff moves have disrupted longstanding supply chains and inflamed political tensions.

By framing the upcoming negotiations as “difficult but constructive,” Carney signals both realism and resolve. His focus is not only on defending specific sectors but also on reasserting Canada’s role as a key economic partner with independent strategic interests.

The Canadian Prime Minister’s approach contrasts with Trump’s more transactional posture, suggesting an effort to restore stability through multilateralism and predictability rather than through bilateral confrontation. Nonetheless, the meeting will test both leaders’ ability to balance domestic political imperatives with international economic cooperation.

Implications for the Future of North American Trade

The renewed dialogue comes at a time of rising protectionism and geopolitical fragmentation. While the USMCA remains legally binding, the spirit of cooperation that underpinned its negotiation is under strain. If the May 6 meeting results in tariff adjustments or at least a framework for gradual de-escalation, it could restore investor confidence and reinvigorate cross-border commerce.

However, if talks break down or are overshadowed by political theatrics, the trade relationship risks entering a new phase of uncertainty. The economic implications would be significant, especially for industries that rely on stable regulatory alignment across borders.

A Fragile Opportunity to Rebuild Trust

Carney’s visit to Washington represents a chance to re-anchor one of the most vital trade relationships in the Western Hemisphere. While past months were marked by division and unilateralism, the new tone of cautious engagement opens the door for reestablishing mutual trust.

Yet, the success of this diplomatic reset depends not only on formal agreements, but on whether both sides are willing to treat each other as equal partners rather than adversarial counterparts. With Canada seeking market diversification and the U.S. tightening its protectionist stance, the upcoming summit may well shape the trajectory of North American trade for years to come.