Why did the US and China slash tariffs – and what’s next?

The United States and China reached a deal on Monday to suspend heavy tariffs against each other’s imports for 90 days.

The recent breakthrough marked a detente in the tariff war launched by US President Donald Trump since he returned to office in January. While Trump initially unveiled tariffs against most countries, he then paused most of them – except against China, the US’s biggest economic rival.

Tit-for-tat tariffs that the US and China imposed on each other had snowballed into heavy duties, as high as 145 percent on Chinese goods looking to enter the US, and 125 percent on US products looking to access the Chinese market.

On Monday, Trump said he could speak with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping by the end of the week, adding that the economic negotiations had led to a “reset” between the two countries.

What did China and the US say?

The US and China released a joint statement on Monday announcing the suspension of tariffs.

The suspension came after two days of trade talks in Geneva, Switzerland. In recent weeks,  Trump had repeatedly said tariff talks with China were under way, but officials in Beijing had denied any ongoing negotiations before the meetings in Geneva.

In the statement on Monday, the two countries said they recognise 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 statement said both nations would take steps to suspend most tariffs by Wednesday.

What are the specific terms of the tariff reductions?

The US brought down the tariff on Chinese goods from 145 percent to 30 percent, while China brought down the tariff on the US from 125 percent to 10 percent.

On April 2, the US had imposed a “reciprocal tariff” of 34 percent on Chinese goods, on top of 20 percent tariffs that Trump had previously imposed on Chinese products since starting his current term. Those earlier tariffs were driven by Trump’s accusation that China was to blame for the fentanyl crisis that has ravaged thousands of American lives and led to several deaths in the US.

In effect, on April 2, Chinese goods were tariffed at 54 percent.

Beijing hit back with a 34 percent tariff on imports from the US. What followed was a tit-for-tat escalation, where the US and China kept hiking tariffs against each other. At the end, the US had imposed a 145 percent tariff on China while China had imposed a 125 percent tariff on the US.

On May 12, they both agreed to slash all tariffs imposed on April 2 and subsequently to 10 percent. But if pre-April 2 tariffs are accounted for, Chinese goods still face a 30 percent tariff. Additionally, specific products from China, such as electric vehicles, steel and aluminium, are subject to even higher, separate tariffs imposed in recent years.

All the tariff suspensions are only for 90 days as of now – subject to review based on broader trade negotiations between the US and China.

What is the main goal of this 90-day suspension?

The US and China agreed, per their joint statement, to establish a mechanism to continue talking about their trade relations.

“This move is significant primarily because it reflects a strategic retreat by the US, rather than a genuine shift in the broader trajectory of US-China relations,” Carlos Lopes, a Chatham House associate fellow for the Africa Programme, told Al Jazeera.

Lopes, whose areas of expertise include international trade and China, explained that the rolling back of tariffs underscores that China held its ground, compelling the US to revise its approach. “In that sense, the rollback signals the limits of grandstanding and unilateralism in a deeply interconnected global economy. It’s a tactical pause, not a strategic realignment.”

Why did Trump revise his tariff approach?

“The reversal is a recognition of domestic economic pressures,” Lopes said.

He added that the tariffs were raising prices for American consumers and undermining key manufacturing sectors, particularly those reliant on Chinese intermediate goods.

“The US economy, despite its scale, cannot isolate itself from global supply chains without serious collateral damage. Moreover, President Trump thrives on projecting strength through negotiation – but bargaining without structure or a clear endgame eventually reveals weakness. The rollback reflects this internal contradiction,” he said.

Fentanyl – and China’s role in the supply chain of the deadly synthetic opioid – was never the major factor behind Trump’s tariffs against Beijing, Lopes said.

“Fentanyl was part of the public discourse but not a fundamental driver of the tariff decision. It served more as a symbolic issue for political messaging, particularly to domestic audiences. The core dynamics at play here are structural – supply chain interdependence, inflationary concerns, and electoral calculations – not drug policy,” the Chatham House analyst said.

What mechanisms have been established to ensure this works?

In the statement, both countries named representatives for negotiations.

Vice Premier of the State Council He Lifeng has been named to represent China. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer have been named to represent the US.

How have global markets responded to this agreement?

The Monday announcement caused stocks and the dollar to see a surge. On Tuesday, the S&P 500 gained 184.28 points, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 1,161 points and the Nasdaq composite gained 779.43 points.

The euro went down by 1.5 percent at $1.1078. The yen weakened and the US currency shot up 2.1 percent at 148.49.

In the wake of Trump’s tariff threats, global markets had seen a considerable fall.

US-China trade: Deeper challenges

The world’s two largest economies, the US and China, have both long competed for economic preeminence and relied on each other as major trading partners.

The US is China’s largest export market, constituting 12.9 percent of Chinese exports in 2023, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC).

China is the US’s third-largest export market, behind Canada and Mexico. Chinese goods made up 14.8 percent of the US’s total imports in 2023.

That trade provides US consumers with affordable products and allows US companies to earn billions of dollars annually from sales in China.

China gains billions of dollars in exports and millions of jobs from this trade relationship. Analysts at the US financial services company Goldman Sachs estimated that if the US continued its trade war with China, up to 16 million jobs in China could be at risk.

But, in the US, there have also been growing calls for a reevaluation of that economic relationship. During his first term, Trump waged a “trade war” on China, seeking to balance the trade deficit the US had with the country. In 2024, the US had a $295.4bn trade deficit with China – the largest trade deficit than any trading partner.

While the Chinese leadership has consistently argued that the trade war does not benefit anyone, former US President Joe Biden continued several of Trump’s tariffs and added to them.

Other concerns about the trade relationship flagged by analysts, including at the Council on Foreign Relations, include worries of manufacturing job losses in the US and fears of Chinese espionage and intellectual property theft.

As a result, successive US administrations have increased the scrutiny of exports to China to prevent sensitive US technology from reaching the Chinese military.

Argentina’s top court finds Nazi files ‘of global significance’ in basement

More than 80 boxes filled with documents from Nazi Germany have been discovered in the basement of Argentina’s Supreme Court, decades after the crates were stashed in 1941.

The “discovery of global significance” came as workers were clearing out the area in preparation for transferring the archives to a newly-established museum, the court said in a statement on Monday.

The 83 boxes were sent by the German embassy in Japan’s capital Tokyo to Argentina in June 1941 on board the Japanese steamship “Nan-a-Maru”, the court statement said.

At the time, German diplomats in Argentina claimed they contained personal effects, but the shipment was held up by customs and became the subject of a probe by a special commission on “anti-Argentine activities”. A judge later ordered the seizure of the materials, and the matter ended up before the Supreme Court, which took possession of the crates.

About 84 years later, upon opening one of the boxes, the court identified material “intended to consolidate and propagate Adolf Hitler’s ideology in Argentina during the Second World War”.

The rest of the boxes were opened last Friday in the presence of the chief rabbi of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) and officials of the Buenos Aires Holocaust Museum.

“Given the historical relevance of the find and the potential crucial information it could contain to clarify events related to the Holocaust, the president of the Supreme Court, Horacio Rosatti, ordered an exhaustive survey of all the material found,” the court said.

“The main objective is to … determine if the material contains crucial information about the Holocaust and if any clues found can shed light on aspects still unknown, such as the route of Nazi money at a global level,” it added.

Documents associated with the Nazi regime sit in boxes [Argentina Supreme Court via AP]

Holocaust Museum in Argentina joins the investigation

The court has transferred the boxes to a room equipped with extra security measures and invited the Holocaust Museum in Buenos Aires to participate in their preservation and inventory.

Experts will examine them for any clues about still-unknown aspects of the Holocaust, such as international financing networks used by the Nazis.

Argentina remained neutral in World War II until 1944. The South American country declared war on Germany and Japan the following year. From 1933 to 1954, according to the Holocaust Museum, 40,000 Jews entered Argentina as they fled Nazi persecution in Europe.

But after World War II, Argentina, led by President Juan Peron, became a haven for several high-ranking Nazi officials.

They included Adolf Eichmann, who was considered a key architect of Hitler’s plan to exterminate Europe’s Jews. He was captured in Buenos Aires in 1960 and taken to Israel, where he was tried and executed.

Knicks vs Celtics: Tatum injured in Boston’s Game 4 loss in NBA playoffs

Jalen Brunson scored 26 of his 39 points in the second half, and the New York Knicks became the first home team to win in the series by defeating the Boston Celtics 121-113 to take a 3-1 series lead in their Eastern Conference second-round matchup.

Karl-Anthony Towns added 23 points and 11 rebounds, and Mikal Bridges also scored 23 for the Knicks, who recovered from a 14-point third-quarter deficit on Monday night. OG Anunoby made some key plays late while contributing 20 points.

“They hit us early, and obviously we got into a hole,” Knicks coach Tom Thibodeau said. “I love the way we fought back, and we showed a lot of toughness and more discipline in the second half and timely plays. Everybody worked together on both ends of the floor.”

Boston star Jayson Tatum sustained a possible serious right ankle injury late in the contest. Tatum had 42 points, eight rebounds, four assists and four steals. He knocked down seven 3-pointers for the second-seeded Celtics, who squandered 20-point leads while dropping the first two games in the series.

Tatum was helped off the floor with his right foot kept in the air and was later seen being pushed to the locker room while sitting in a rolling chair.

“I got back there, talked to the medical staff, and they told me it’s a lower-body injury for Jayson Tatum and we’ll get an MRI in the morning,” Celtics coach Joe Mazzulla said.

Derrick White made six 3-pointers and scored 23 points, and Jaylen Brown added 20 points and seven rebounds for Boston. Payton Pritchard added 12 points off the bench.

The Knicks can clinch the best-of-seven series with a win in Game 5 at Boston on Wednesday night.

“It’s not like we planned to be in this situation,” White said. “But we are where we are. We have to find a way to win Game 5.”

New York Knicks’ guard Jalen Brunson (#11) scored 39 points and had 12 assists against the Boston Celtics in Game 4 on May 12, 2025 at Madison Square Garden in New York City, US [Brian Babineau/Getty Images via AFP]

Third-quarter explosion lifts Wolves over Warriors

In the other playoff game on Monday, Anthony Edwards poured 11 of his 30 points into a 17-0 third-quarter flurry as the Minnesota Timberwolves moved within one win of a second consecutive berth in the Western Conference finals with a 117-110 road win over the Golden State Warriors in Game 4 in San Francisco.

Julius Randle led the way with 31 points and Jaden McDaniels contributed 10 points and 13 rebounds for the sixth-seeded Timberwolves, who have rallied from a series-opening loss to win three straight from the Stephen Curry-less Warriors.

Minnesota could clinch the best-of-seven series in Game 5 on Wednesday in Minneapolis.

Jonathan Kuminga had a team-high 23 points for seventh-seeded Golden State, which lost Curry to a hamstring injury during its Game 1 win.

The Warriors previously announced that their standout point guard would be re-evaluated before Game 5, with the possibility of Curry returning at that point.

Golden State held a 60-58 halftime lead, and the game was tied 68-all in the fourth minute of the third period before Edwards turned a floater into a three-point play to ignite the decisive run.

Edwards also buried a pair of 3-pointers and a short jumper among his 11 points, while Mike Conley and Donte DiVincenzo drilled shots from deep as part of a burst that lasted more than four minutes.

Edwards finished 6-for-11 on 3-point attempts and Randle 4-for-8, helping the Timberwolves outscore the Warriors 48-24 from beyond the arc. Minnesota shot 16-for-34 (47.1 percent) from beyond the arc, while the Warriors were 8-for-27 (29.6 percent).

“The big third quarter was huge,” Timberwolves coach Chris Finch said. “I thought we came out at halftime with the type of focus and intensity and purpose on offence and attention to detail on defence is what we needed from the start. But for the most part, I thought we were lucky to be just down a bucket at halftime.

“[Edwards] was one of the guys that was most vocal at half time and realised what was going on out there and we needed to be better. It started with him, really, and setting the tone.”

Jimmy Butler III took just nine shots and totalled 14 points with a team-high-tying three assists for the Warriors. Draymond Green also had 14 points to go with seven rebounds, while Buddy Hield scored 13 and Brandin Podziemski had 11 to complement four steals.

“[The Timberwolves] played a great game and obviously took it to us, and we’ve got to bounce back,” Warriors coach Steve Kerr said. “We’ve got a flight to Minneapolis tomorrow and a chance to extend the series, and that’s the plan.”

Anthony Edwards in action.
Minnesota Timberwolves’ Anthony Edwards (#5) scored 30 points in a Game 4 win against the Golden State Warriors at Chase Center on May 12, 2025 in San Francisco, California, US [Ezra Shaw/Getty Images via AFP]

Russia must assume responsibility for MH17 downing: UN aviation agency

The United Nations aviation agency has said Russia was responsible for the downing of a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine in 2014 that killed all 298 passengers and crew.

With 38 Australian citizens and 196 Dutch citizens on board the aircraft when it was downed, the two governments called on Russia to take responsibility for the incident and pay damages. However, Russia has consistently denied any involvement in the downing of the plane.

Late on Monday, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) said Australia and the Netherlands’ claims over the shooting down of flight MH17 were “well-founded in fact and in law”.

“The Russian Federation failed to uphold its obligations under international air law in the 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17,” the agency said in a statement.

According to international air law, a distinction must be made between military aircraft and commercial or other aircraft during warfare.

While the ICAO has no regulatory powers, it holds moral suasion and sets global aviation standards adopted by its 193-member states.

‘Important step’

Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp said in a statement that the ICAO’s ruling in the case launched in 2022 was an “important step towards establishing the truth and achieving justice”.

“This decision also sends a clear message to the international community: States cannot violate international law with impunity,” he said.

Moreover, Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong said her government welcomed the decision and urged ICAO to swiftly determine reparations.

“We call upon Russia to finally face up to its responsibility for this horrific act of violence and make reparations for its egregious conduct, as required under international law,” Wong said in a statement.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha also welcomed the ruling and said the decision was another step towards “restoring justice for this crime”.

“No matter how much money and effort Russia put into lying to conceal its crimes, the truth wins out, and justice prevails,” Sybiha wrote on X.

On July 17, 2014, the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777, travelling from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, was hit by a Russian-made BUK surface-to-air missile over eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk region, where pro-Russian separatists were fighting Ukrainian forces.

At the time, separatists in the area claimed the airliner was shot down by a Ukrainian military jet, with Russian President Vladimir Putin accusing Ukraine of bearing “responsibility” for the deaths of the passengers.

In 2022, a Dutch court sentenced three men to life sentences over the downing of the plane, including two Russians that Moscow refused to extradite.

Campaigners take UK to court over export of F-35 components to Israel

The United Kingdom’s government faces a High Court challenge over the export of F-35 jet components used by Israel.

Co-claimants Al-Haq, a Palestinian rights organisation, and the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) are behind the case.

“We’re going to court to try to force the government to stop supplying F-35 components to Israel,” Jennine Walker, a lawyer with GLAN and the legal firm Bindmans, representing Al-Haq, told Al Jazeera.

The four-day case is set to begin on Tuesday, as Israel’s onslaught in Gaza continues with the aid of F-35 jets, having already killed more than 61,700 people.

Here’s what you need to know:

What’s happening?

In September 2024, the UK suspended about 30 out of 350 arms export licences to Israel following a review that found there was “a clear risk certain military exports to Israel might be used in violations of international humanitarian law”, according to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

But it carved out an exception for F-35 jet components, citing the F-35 global programme’s importance to international security. The parts, however, would not be sent directly to Israel, the government said.

Al-Haq and GLAN argue that the government is breaking domestic and international law through a loophole by allowing the parts to be supplied to Israel via the global spares pool and F-35 partner countries, “despite the [International Court of Justice] finding that there is plausible risk of genocide being committed against Palestinians in Gaza”.

The UK reportedly provides about 15 percent of the components in the F-35 fighter jets used by Israel.

The case has taken on new significance after a report last week by the Palestinian Youth Movement, Progressives International and Workers for a Free Palestine suggested F-35 parts are still being sent directly to Israel as of March 2025.

“Despite the September 2024 suspension of direct shipments of F-35 components from the UK to Israel, the data suggest such shipments are ongoing as of March 2025”, the report said, citing Israeli tax authority data.

From Tuesday until Friday, High Court judges will examine whether the government’s decision to suspend some but not all arms licences for export to Israel was legally correct.

Al Jazeera understands the judicial review will focus on the carve-out for F-35 jet parts. The campaigners have said they aim to ensure the UK government “urgently suspends all arms exports to Israel”, while accusing the UK of “complicity” in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians.

What will the campaigners argue?

Co-claimants Al-Haq and GLAN applied for a judicial review into arms export licences to Israel in December 2023, citing violations carried out by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

They say F-35 jets have plausibly been involved in war crimes.

“We know Israel is using the F-35 jets to bomb civilians. For example [in] the attack on March 18 which broke the ceasefire, and this wouldn’t be possible without the UK’s help,” Walker said.

“Hundreds of civilians died,” Walker said, referring to one of the deadliest days across Gaza when Israeli assaults killed more than 400 people. “We know every F-35 jet has some British parts.”

What’s the UK’s position?

In a statement sent to Al Jazeera, a spokesperson with the UK’s Foreign Office said, “This government has suspended relevant licences for the [Israeli army] that might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.”

The spokesperson added that of the remaining licences for Israel, the “vast majority” are not for the Israeli army but for “civilian purposes or re-export, and therefore are not used in the war in Gaza”.

The spokesperson reiterated the government’s position that the F-35 programme exemption was “due to its strategic role in NATO and wider implications for international peace and security”, adding that “any suggestion that the UK is licensing other weapons for use by Israel in the war in Gaza is misleading”.

Which other groups are involved in the case?

Oxfam, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are assisting the court by submitting written evidence.

Oxfam’s intervention is based on its documentation of the destruction caused by Israeli fire on water sanitation and health facilities.

Akshaya Kumar, the director of crisis advocacy at Human Rights Watch, raised the idea of criminal responsibility, referencing the Yugoslavia war crimes tribunal.

“If you are a supplier, you are aiding and abetting the continued assault, the continued air strikes. You are part of that criminal responsibility,” she said.

Elizabeth Rghebi, the MENA advocacy director at Amnesty International USA, argued that several states have either been unwilling to observe international legal obligations or have claimed that the structure of the F-35 programme makes it impossible to apply arms controls to the end-user, “which would make the entire programme incompatible with international law”.

What is the scale of damage from Israeli air strikes in Gaza?

Israel’s latest military assault on Gaza began shortly after October 7, 2023, when Hamas, the group that governs the Strip, led an incursion into southern Israel, during which 1,139 people were killed and more than 200 were taken captive.

Israel has failed to achieve its stated aim of crushing Hamas, while its aerial bombardment from jets, including the F-35, has decimated civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, universities, libraries, mosques and churches.

Emeritus professor Paul Rogers from the University of Bradford said, “In terms of tonnage dropped, most modern wars have had very high levels of tonnage used. Gaza is probably one of the worst. If you go back to the Second World War – [there was] the carpet bombing of German cities, the firebombing of Japanese cities, for that matter, and, on a smaller scale, the bombing Britain experienced during the second and third years of the war.”

He added: “So, it’s not exceptional in that sense, but the concentration of so much firepower in a very small area is very unusual. It bears comparison with some of the worst examples of modern warfare and their impact on civilians.”

Palestinians inspect the damage at a school sheltering displaced people after an Israeli attack, in the Jabalia refugee camp, in the northern Gaza Strip, on May 12, 2025 [Mahmoud Issa/Reuters]

The World Health Organization (WHO) has documented the woes inflicted on Gaza’s healthcare sector, including the systematic destruction of hospitals, withholding of medical supplies and the detention of doctors.

“Airstrikes and a lack of medical supplies, food, water and fuel have virtually depleted an already under-resourced health system,” the WHO said.