Wall Street rallied Monday on news that the United States and China had reached a 90-day trade truce, easing tensions between the two largest economies. But behind the market gains, economists and analysts were quick to question what the American side actually gained.
As part of the agreement, the U.S. will reduce its recently imposed 145% tariff on Chinese goods to 30%. In return, China will lower its tariff on U.S. imports from 125% to 10%. Both sides described the deal not as a resolution, but as a temporary pause to allow negotiations to continue.
Speaking at a press conference in Geneva, where talks took place over the weekend, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the two nations agreed on one thing: “Neither side wanted a decoupling.”
President Donald Trump also appeared to soften his stance, telling reporters Monday, “We’re not looking to hurt China.”
That marked a shift from his more aggressive tone just last month, when he unveiled the 145% tariff during an April 2 “Liberation Day” event. At the time, Trump claimed the steep import tax would restore American manufacturing and reduce dependency on Chinese goods.
Some former Trump administration officials defended the move. Kelly Ann Shaw, who previously served as a White House economic adviser, told Reuters the president was staying true to his stated goals. “He is doing what he said he would,” Shaw said. “This is absolutely about resolving disparities in the trading relationship.”
But critics were quick to highlight the lack of concrete gains in the agreement.
“China has agreed to nothing,” economist Peter Schiff wrote on X. “If 145% tariffs were just a bargaining chip, China already called Trump’s bluff and won.”
Others emphasized the absence of new commitments from Beijing.
“I guess all those manufacturing jobs aren’t coming here now,” wrote former federal prosecutor Ron Filipkowski. “So much for Liberation Day.”
According to economist Justin Wolfers, the administration’s aggressive trade stance may have caused more harm than good. Speaking with MSNBC, Wolfers suggested that the optimal solution would be to reverse course entirely.
“The single best thing that could happen is if we went back to the trade policy we had on January 20,” he said, referring to the start of Trump’s second term. Wolfers added that global trends over the past several decades have moved away from tariffs, with average rates in developed countries now hovering around just 1–2%.
Peter Berezin, chief strategist at BCA Research, echoed that sentiment. He noted that China effectively received the same terms as other nations that had previously resisted Trump’s trade demands — without offering anything in exchange.
“I don’t see how that strengthens Trump’s hand in future negotiations,” Berezin wrote.
Meanwhile, Democratic strategist Matt McDermott pointed to the lack of progress on one of Trump’s core promises: bringing factory jobs back to the United States.
“The White House still hasn’t delivered,” McDermott said. “Americans are left with a 30% import tax that gets passed on to consumers. Trump caved and got zero in return.”
Even some conservative voices pointed to market forces as a likely reason for the retreat. Fox Business reporter Charles Gasparino argued that financial pressure may have forced the administration to back down.
“What we have seen is a little lesson on how markets exert their power,” Gasparino wrote. “You can’t go to trade war with the world without bad stuff happening.”
For now, the 90-day truce offers temporary relief for markets, but the lack of clear concessions raises doubts about whether the administration can deliver a lasting or meaningful trade solution.
