Q&A: Expert shares insights on China-U.S. economic and trade talks in London

China and the United States have agreed in principle the framework for implementing consensus between the two heads of state during their phone talks on June 5, and those reached at Geneva talks, following the first meeting of the China-U.S. economic and trade consultation mechanism in London. 

What are the focuses of the London negotiation? Will these talks help steer bilateral relations back on track? What happens next? CGTN talked to Sun Taiyi, an associate professor of political science at Christopher Newport University in the United States, for his insights. The conversations have been lightly edited for clarity and conciseness. 

CGTN: How would you evaluate the London talks? Why do you think both sides chose this particular time and place for the meeting?

Sun Taiyi: The London talks were a continuation of the recent phone call between the two leaders, which helped stabilize China-U.S. relations following the Geneva discussions. While the Geneva talks were a significant success – even exceeding many expectations – some key implementation details remained unresolved. This led to growing frustration within the Trump administration, particularly over delays in rare earth export permits, prompting new sanctions and warnings from Secretary of State Rubio regarding potential restrictions on Chinese student visas.

The leaders' call and the London talks present an opportunity to clarify these outstanding issues and steer bilateral relations back on track. There is a sense of urgency on both sides, though particularly in Washington. Rising inflationary pressures from prolonged trade tensions, coupled with critical U.S. manufacturing needs – such as rare earth supplies for automobiles, aerospace, electronics, and medical equipment – have heightened the stakes.

Additionally, the U.S. appears to have underestimated both the resilience of China's economy and the resolve of its leadership, leading to a reassessment of its trade and economic strategies toward Beijing. This has also prompted a recalibration of U.S. trade and economic strategies toward China.

CGTN: What do you believe was the focus of this round of China-U.S. negotiations? Are there any areas that could evolve into "deep-water zones" in future discussions?

Sun: The focus of this round of negotiations has shifted from tariffs to export controls. For China, the priority is easing U.S. restrictions on high-tech exports, while the U.S. seeks greater access to Chinese rare earth materials. Although some post-Geneva measures could be rolled back, fully lifting existing restrictions may prove more difficult. 

While the Trump administration is unlikely to agree to substantial further tariff reductions – given the President's preference for using tariffs as a broad policy tool – targeted waivers and exemptions for specific industries remain a feasible compromise.

CGTN: This round of talks saw the U.S. delegation include Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Notably, Lutnick, responsible for export controls, was added. How do you interpret this personnel change?

Sun: While the U.S. delegation may have preferred to keep Treasury Secretary Bessent as lead negotiator – given his Wall Street-aligned, moderate trade stance – export controls fall under Commerce Department jurisdiction. This suggests the change reflects a shift in negotiation priorities rather than personnel strategy.

Secretary Bessent's early departure was necessitated by a scheduled House subcommittee hearing, making Commerce Secretary Lutnick's temporary assumption of duties a practical accommodation. Ultimately, any agreements reached will require President Trump's final approval before implementation.

CGTN: China's international trade representative Li Chenggang has described the talks as "professional, rational, in-depth, and candid." From your perspective, does this suggest that strategic communication between China and the U.S. is returning to a more regular or normalized pattern?

Sun: Indeed. Both sides have demonstrated their respective strategic capabilities and capacity to withstand escalation, establishing a clear understanding of each other's positions. This has led to a mutual recognition that cooperation – and pursuing mutually beneficial outcomes – serves their interests better than prolonged confrontation, which would ultimately prove detrimental to both.

That said, as conventional measures are exhausted, there is a risk that either side may resort to less predictable tools, potentially extending beyond trade into other domains. Secretary Rubio's recent warnings regarding Chinese student visas exemplify this concerning possibility.

For now, however, negotiations appear to be stabilizing, with both sides returning to a more structured and measured approach.

CGTN: Li said that Chinese and U.S. teams have "agreed in principle on the framework for implementing the consensus reached by the two heads of state during their phone talks on June 5 and at Geneva talks" last month. How do you interpret this wording of the framework agreement? 

Sun: The London talks have yielded a constructive procedural framework. Previously, President Donald Trump demonstrated a clear preference for direct personal negotiations, often limiting bureaucratic involvement in the process. Meanwhile, China – consistent with standard diplomatic practice – favored having technical teams establish concrete details before leaders finalized agreements.

The current approach strikes an effective balance: It begins with a leaders' call to set strategic direction, followed by working-level negotiations to develop an implementation framework, and concludes with final approval by both heads of state. This structured process not only builds on the foundation of the Geneva talks but also helps resolve prior ambiguities that required clarification.