Trump, in a major concession, says the tariff on China should be 80% — but will leave it up to Bessent

CNN - May 9th, 2025

President Donald Trump has outlined new negotiating terms ahead of upcoming trade talks with China, set to take place in Geneva. In a series of posts on Truth Social, Trump demanded that China increase its importation of US goods. In exchange, he suggested that the US should reduce its 145% tariff on Chinese goods to 80%. This proposal marks a significant shift from the current trade policy, which has resulted in a 60% decrease in shipments from China to the US. However, economists warn that even an 80% tariff may not be sufficient to reinvigorate US businesses' interest in Chinese imports. The talks will feature US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, along with their Chinese counterparts.

The trade tensions have already begun to impact the economy, with price hikes looming and Goldman Sachs predicting a doubling of inflation to 4% by the end of the year due to the ongoing trade war. Despite Trump's assertion that reduced Chinese shipments signify the US is no longer losing money, economists argue this misrepresents the trade imbalance's implications. The Chinese government reported a 21% drop in exports to the US last month, preceding tariff effects. This developing situation remains fluid, with potential global economic ramifications hinging on the outcomes of the Geneva discussions.

Donald Trump Inflation Economy Tariffs Scott Bessent Trade War Jamieson Greer Us China Trade Talks

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant overview of U.S.-China trade negotiations, focusing on President Trump's statements and the economic implications of tariffs. While it presents clear and accessible information, the story's accuracy is hindered by a lack of detailed sourcing and verification for key claims. The article's balance could be improved by including a wider range of perspectives, particularly from Chinese officials and independent economists. Despite these limitations, the article addresses a topic of significant public interest, with the potential to influence discussions on trade policy. However, its impact may be constrained by the absence of in-depth analysis and diverse viewpoints. Overall, the story is a useful starting point for understanding the current state of U.S.-China trade relations, but it requires further context and verification for a comprehensive assessment.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims that require verification, such as President Trump's statements on tariffs and the specifics of the trade negotiations. The article claims a 60% decrease in shipments from China to the U.S., which needs confirmation from reliable trade data. Additionally, the economic projections about inflation and the threshold for normal business relations between the U.S. and China are presented without clear sourcing. The story accurately reflects Trump's social media presence and his general stance on trade, but the lack of precise source attribution for key statistics and economic predictions affects the overall accuracy.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on President Trump's perspective and statements, offering limited insight into the views of other stakeholders, such as Chinese officials or independent economists. While it mentions economists' opinions on the tariff threshold, these are not explored in depth or attributed to specific individuals or studies. The story could benefit from a more balanced presentation by including a broader range of perspectives, such as those from Chinese negotiators or U.S. businesses affected by the tariffs.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, making it accessible to readers. It presents information in a logical sequence, starting with Trump's statements and following with potential economic impacts. However, some technical terms, such as 'trade imbalance' and 'tariff threshold,' are not explained in detail, which might confuse readers unfamiliar with trade economics. Overall, the tone is neutral, but the lack of detailed explanations could hinder full comprehension.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on President Trump's social media posts as primary sources, which are inherently biased and lack external validation. There is a notable absence of direct quotes or statements from other key figures involved in the trade negotiations, such as U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent or U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The reliance on a single CEO's statement about shipment decreases without additional corroboration also raises questions about source reliability and diversity.

Transparency

The article does not provide sufficient context or methodology for the claims made, particularly regarding economic projections and trade statistics. It lacks transparency in explaining how the figures were derived or the basis for economists' predictions. The story would benefit from clearer attribution of data and an explanation of the methodologies used to arrive at the reported figures. Without this transparency, readers are left questioning the credibility of the information presented.