Business
US and China Meet for First Time Since Trump Imposed Tariffs
Top economic officials from the United States and China are meeting in Geneva on Saturday for high-stakes negotiations that could determine the fate of a global economy that has been jolted by President Trump’s trade war.
The meetings, scheduled to continue on Sunday, are the first since Mr. Trump ratcheted up tariffs on Chinese imports to 145 percent and China retaliated with its own levies of 125 percent on U.S. goods. The tit-for-tat effectively cut off trade between the world’s largest economies while raising the possibility of a global economic downturn.
While the stakes for the meetings are high, expectations for a breakthrough that results in a meaningful reduction in tariffs are low. It has taken weeks for China and the United States to even agree to talk, and many analysts expect this weekend’s discussions to revolve around determining what each side wants and how negotiations could move forward.
Still, the fact that Beijing and Washington are finally talking has raised hopes that the tension between them could be defused and that the tariffs could ultimately be lowered. The impact of the levies is already rippling across the global economy, reorienting supply chains and causing businesses to pass additional costs onto consumers.
The negotiations will be watched closely by economists and investors, who fear that a U.S.-Chinese economic war will lead to slower growth and higher prices around the world. Businesses, particularly those that rely on Chinese imports, are also on high alert about the talks as they grapple with how to cope with the new taxes and the uncertainty about whether they will remain in place.
“Both the U.S. and China have strong economic and financial interests in de-escalating their trade hostilities, but a durable détente is hardly in the offing,” said Eswar Prasad, a former director of the International Monetary Fund’s China division.
“Nevertheless,” he added, “it represents significant progress that the two sides are at least initiating high-level negotiations, offering the hope that they will temper their rhetoric and pull back from further overt hostilities on trade and other aspects of their economic relationship.”
The Trump administration’s negotiators are being led by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a former hedge fund manager who has said the current tariff levels are unsustainable. He will be joined by Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, who helped design Mr. Trump’s first-term trade agenda, which included a “Phase 1” deal with China. Mr. Trump’s hawkish trade adviser, Peter Navarro, was not scheduled to participate in the talks.
He Lifeng, China’s vice premier for economic policy, is leading the talks on behalf of Beijing. The Chinese government has not confirmed who else will be with Mr. He at the meetings or if Wang Xiaohong, China’s minister of public security, who directs its narcotics control commission, will attend. Mr. Wang’s participation would be a sign that the two sides might discuss Mr. Trump’s concerns about China’s role in helping fentanyl flow into the United States.
The trade fight has started to take a toll on the world’s largest economies. On Friday, China reported that its exports to the United States in April dropped 21 percent from a year earlier. Some of the largest U.S. companies have said they will have to raise prices to deal with the tariffs, cutting against Mr. Trump’s promise to “end” inflation.
On Friday, Mr. Trump signaled that he was prepared to begin lowering tariffs, suggesting that an 80 percent rate on Chinese imports seemed appropriate. Later in the day, referring to the China trade talks, Mr. Trump said, “We have to make a great deal for America.” He added that he would not be disappointed if a deal was not reached right away, arguing that not doing business is also a good deal for the United States.
The president also reiterated that he had suggested lowering the China tariffs to 80 percent, adding, “We’ll see how that works out.”
The Trump administration has accused China of unfairly subsidizing key sectors of its economy and flooding the world with cheap goods. The United States has also been pressuring China to take more aggressive steps to curb exports of precursors for fentanyl, a drug that has killed millions of Americans.
China has been steadfast in saying it does not intend to make trade concessions in response to Mr. Trump’s tariffs. Officials have insisted that the nation agreed to engage in talks at the request of the United States.
“This tariff war was launched by the U.S. side,” Liu Pengyu, the spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said this week. “If the U.S. genuinely wants a negotiated solution, it should stop making threats and exerting pressure, and engage in talks with China on the basis of equality, mutual respect and mutual benefit.”
An 80 percent tariff, while a big drop from the current 145 percent, would still most likely shut off most trade between the countries.
China and the United States could take other concrete gestures to help pave the way for future negotiations, other experts said.
One option would be to scale back tariffs to about 20 percent, where they were in early April before Mr. Trump announced 34 percent levies on goods from China and mutual retaliation ensued, said Wu Xinbo, the dean of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai.
“If we can scale back to that stage, then I think it will be a major progress in leading towards more constructive negotiations,” Mr. Wu said.
He said China was prepared to talk about fentanyl as a separate issue, adding that China had offered to sit down with the Trump administration in February after Mr. Trump first announced plans to impose tariffs on Chinese goods, citing the flow of illegal fentanyl into the United States.
The United States and China are meeting in proximity to the headquarters of the World Trade Organization, which has sharply criticized Mr. Trump’s tariff wars. The group has forecast that the continued division of the global economy into “rival blocs” could cut global gross domestic product by nearly 7 percent over the long run, particularly harming the world’s poorest countries. A spokesman for the W.T.O. said it welcomed the talks as a step toward de-escalation.
The alternative — a world in which the United States and China no longer engage in trade — could be economically painful and destabilizing. American consumers, who have come to rely on cheap goods from China, could soon confront thinly stocked store shelves and high prices for the products that remain.
The National Retail Federation said on Friday that import cargo traffic in the United States is expected to decline this year for the first time since 2023, when supply chain problems were persistent, and attributed the decline to Mr. Trump’s tariffs.
“We are starting to see the true impact of President Trump’s tariffs on the supply chain,” said Jonathan Gold, the retail federation’s vice president for supply chain and customs policy. “In the end, these tariffs will affect consumers in the form of higher prices and less availability on store shelves.”
The Trump administration has been racing to make trade deals with 17 other major trading partners after the president’s decision to pause the reciprocal tariffs he announced in April. On Friday, he hailed a preliminary agreement with Britain as evidence that his tariff strategy was working.
Economists have been heartened by signs that the White House appears ready to scale back tariffs.
“This rush to demonstrate progress on ‘deals’ reveals a rising desperation within the administration to roll back tariffs before they hit G.D.P. growth and inflation,” Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist for Capital Economics, wrote in a note to clients. “With the slump in incoming container ships from China raising fears of imminent shortages in the U.S., the pressure is building on the Trump administration to de-escalate that tariff buildup.”
Capital Economics estimates that if the United States lowered its tariffs on China to 54 percent, the overall effective tariff rate on imports for the United States would fall to 15 percent from 23 percent. That would put its growth and inflation forecasts back in line with its estimates from earlier this year that were based on Mr. Trump’s campaign pledges.
It remains unclear whether Mr. Trump would accept a 54 percent tariff rate.
On Friday, he suggested that he was prepared to lower tariffs to 80 percent as he gave Mr. Bessent the authority to make a deal.
“80% Tariff on China seems right! Up to Scott B.,” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social, his social media platform.
Later in the day, his press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said that 80 percent figure was not an official offer and was instead “a number that the president threw out there.” She added that Mr. Trump would not lower tariffs on China unless Beijing also reduced its levies.
Business
Anthropic and Wall Street Giants Join Forces to Create New A.I. Firm
Anthropic is teaming up with several large investment firms to create a venture that will help companies integrate artificial intelligence tools into their systems, the latest example of the deepening ties between Wall Street and the A.I. industry.
The private equity firms Blackstone and Hellman & Friedman and the investment bank Goldman Sachs through its investment funds are among the financial backers in the new firm, which will work with companies to deploy Anthropic’s A.I. model Claude.
In announcing the creation of the firm on Monday, Anthropic and the investment firms said the technology around A.I. was changing so rapidly that many companies were finding it challenging to integrate Claude.
The backers of the new firm said it would work with Anthropic’s engineers to help companies deploy Claude, which has abilities that “change on a monthly or even weekly basis.”
The creation of a firm combining Wall Street and Anthropic comes as the A.I. industry is locked in a fierce competition to become the go-to A.I. model in the private and public sector. It is also happening as A.I. companies, including Anthropic and its rival OpenAI, are expected to soon go public in what could be the largest series of public stock offerings ever, creating a boon for Wall Street.
The decision by Blackstone, Goldman and the other investment firms to partner with Anthropic is a notable endorsement of an A.I. company that the Trump administration has criticized for refusing to allow the Pentagon to deploy its models without meeting the company’s ethical limits.
Anthropic and the Pentagon are in federal litigation over the Defense Department’s decision to label the company a supply chain risk, an unusual use of the government’s power to raise concerns about how corporations build their products.
Many of the details of Anthropic’s venture with Wall Street have not yet been announced, including its name and chief executive. But one area that the venture said it would start working on is integrating Claude at portfolio companies of the private equity firms that backed this deal, including Blackstone and Hellman & Friedman.
Anthropic, Blackstone and Hellman & Friedman said they would each put $300 million into the new company, and Goldman Sachs would contribute roughly $150 million, according to two people familiar with the deal terms. General Atlantic, Leonard Green, Apollo Global Management, GIC and Sequoia Capital are among the other firms that are taking part and investing in the venture.
Wall Street banks have been among A.I.’s enthusiastic corporate users. During the first quarter earnings reports from the largest banks, some executives discussed with unusual candor how A.I. had automated certain jobs, which in turn led to job cuts and higher profits.
Elon Musk recently demanded that banks, law firms, auditors and other advisers working on the I.P.O. of his company, SpaceX, to buy subscriptions to his A.I. chatbot, Grok.
Business
Regulators may seek to suspend State Farm’s license, citing widespread mishandling of L.A. wildfire claims
California regulators may seek to suspend State Farm’s license for up to a year and levy millions in penalties against the insurer, alleging it mishandled January 2025 wildfire claims in Los Angeles County.
In an extraordinary step, the Department of Insurance announced Monday that it filed an administrative action against the state’s largest home insurer after an investigation into 220 sample claims found 398 violations of state law in about half of them.
“Our investigation found that State Farm delayed, underpaid, and buried policyholders in red tape at the worst moment of their lives,” Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said in a statement. “That is unacceptable, and we are taking decisive action to hold them accountable.”
The department is seeking a cease-and-desist order to stop the insurer from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices — and to possibly suspend State Farm’s “certificate of authority” for up to a year, meaning it could not write policies during that period, department spokesperson Michael Soller said.
While the terms of the proposed suspension aren’t clear, the move could prevent the insurer — which covers more than 1 million homes — from issuing new policies at a time when the state is facing an insurance crisis.
The case will be heard by a state administrative law judge, who will provide a recommendation to Lara on a possible monetary penalty and whether to carry out the license suspension. State regulators declined to comment on the action or how it might affect policyholders.
State Farm on Monday rejected the department’s claims that it engaged in a “general practice of mishandling or intentionally underpaying wildfire claims” and said it will further respond through the legal process.
“California’s homeowners insurance market is the most dysfunctional in the country,” State Farm said in a statement. “The California Department of Insurance should take responsibility for regulatory delays and uncertainty that have contributed to fewer choices and higher costs for consumers.”
State Farm said it has paid more than $5.7 billion and handled more than 11,700 residential and auto claims. That is nearly one-third of those filed after the Jan. 7, 2025, fires that damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.
The department in June 2025 launched a “market conduct exam” into State Farm General — the subsidiary of the giant Bloomington, Ill., insurer that handles California home insurance — after complaints by victims of the fires in Pacific Palisades, Altadena and nearby communities.
The Times reported that within two months of the fires homeowners were getting frustrated with the insurer over its handling of smoke damage claims. They contended that State Farm was resisting hygienic testing for toxic chemicals and was trying to minimize cleanup costs, which the company denied.
Later, anger was directed at Lara, with fire victims saying he wasn’t cracking down on State Farm. More than a dozen homeowners told The Times this year that the department did little to resolve a wide range of complaints they filed against State Farm.
Los Angeles County also has an ongoing investigation into the insurer.
Nevertheless, the threat to suspend State Farm’s license because of the alleged violations was met with skepticism. The company has a roughly 20% market share. It’s unclear where its policyholders could find coverage.
State Farm’s decision to not renew some 72,000 residential policies in March 2024 because of its losses after a series of wildfires sparked fears that California’s home insurance market could be on the brink of collapse.
“Given how the department has bent over backward to prevent State Farm from carrying out its threats to leave the state due to its alleged financial problems, it’s hard to believe,” said Carmen Balber, executive director of Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog.
Soller said the terms of a possible suspension — including whether it would apply only to new policies or existing policyholders — would be set after the hearing.
“Any order must define the terms of a suspension based on the evidence at a hearing. We cannot predict what an order after a hearing on the evidence will be,” he said.
The results of the market conduct exam were released Monday in support of the legal action.
It found that the company failed in numerous cases to pursue a “thorough, fair and objective investigation” into claims, failed to come to “prompt, fair, and equitable settlements” and made settlement offers that were “unreasonably low.”
Other alleged violations included a failure to give timely responses to claims, provide a factual or legal basis for claim denials and give victims a primary point of contact after assigning three or more adjusters in a six-month period.
The legal filing also faults the company’s handling of smoke damage claims, including denials of payments for hygienic testing.
The company denied it was at fault in some cases and admitted it was at fault in others, often saying that the problem was due to issues with specific adjusters, and that it held meetings with adjusters after hearing about the alleged violations.
State Farm said Monday that the “additional payments tied to the issues identified in the Market Conduct Examination were about $40,000 in the context of more than $5.7 billion paid.”
The alleged violations each carry a fine of up to $5,000 in general and up to $10,000 if they are found to be willful.
The department said the alleged violations could bring penalties of $2 million or more. Soller said regulators also want State Farm to make policyholders whole, but does not have authority to order restitution
Soller noted that is why the department is sponsoring a bill by state Senate Insurance Committee Chair Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista) that would require insurers to pay restitution directly to policyholders.
State Farm released a statement April 22 that outlined five “commitments” to policyholders.
They included providing single points of contact and improved communication so there are “fewer handoffs, fewer repeated explanations, and seamless support.”
Fire victims have long called for a crackdown on the insurer and to bar a rate increase State Farm was seeking until it resolved their complaints. They also called for Lara’s resignation, claiming he was not enforcing the law, while he contended the market conduct exam needed to take its course.
The company was ultimately granted a 17% rate hike in March after a three-way agreement that also involved Consumer Watchdog, which had intervened in the matter as allowed under state law.
Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group that led the calls to stop the rate hike and for Lara’s resignation, said the insurer must make harmed policyholders whole.
“We call on the department to act on every outstanding complaint, and report transparently on outcomes. State Farm’s parent sits on $240 billion in assets. They have the money to fulfill their obligations to L.A. fire survivors,” Chen said.
Possible sanctions against State Farm are a “positive development” but mean little in practice for Pacific Palisades property owner John Hurley, who continues to fight the insurer to mediate asbestos and heavy metal contamination from the fire nearly 16 months ago.
He said State Farm stopped reimbursing him for lost rent on the unrepaired house. Hurley has filed at least half a dozen complaints with the state insurance department, to little avail.
“I unfortunately feel the insurance companies and the state are somewhat allies,” Hurley said. Even if the state agency were to prevail in sanctions against State Farm, “who gets the money? The state … or the insured?”
Times staff writer Paige St. John contributed to this report.
Business
The Return for These Investors Isn’t Money, It’s More Affordable Housing
A few months ago, Matt Bedsole got a call from two real estate developers asking for his help. Their plan to build a four-story apartment complex in Chattanooga, Tenn., had a financial hole that no backer seemed eager to fill. The developers needed $8 million. Would Mr. Bedsole be interested in stepping in?
Mr. Bedsole is not a normal investor. He is the chief executive of Invest Chattanooga, a fund set up by the city of 200,000 to invest in local apartment projects. Unlike private equity firms — the main backers of new construction — he judges deals not solely on their financial return, but on how much housing they can deliver the city.
The apartment complex cleared that hurdle. It called for 170 new units that would replace a self-storage center ringed by barbed wire, in a gentrifying part of the city. But Mr. Bedsole had terms. In exchange for the $8 million investment, he got a 51 percent stake in the building and an agreement that 30 percent of its units be priced below market rate. The developers said yes. They closed the deal over pastrami sandwiches.
“Money is tight and developers don’t have a ton of options for capital right now,” Mr. Bedsole said in an interview. “We have it, but we want affordable units in the deal.”
Invest Chattanooga is part of a new class of government-backed funds that invest directly in new housing. The aim is to speed up construction and create housing that is permanently affordable and controlled locally. In the process they are rewriting how local housing programs have traditionally operated.
Each effort is a little different, but the guiding principle is to get developers to build more housing, with lower rents, in exchange for public investment. Instead of asking a high rate of return, as a private investor would, these funds require less money back from developers but stipulate that a portion of the units carry below market-rate rents.
They come at a time when a mix of higher interest rates and rising costs for insurance and materials like lumber have caused investors to run from new construction. Economists estimate the nation needs about 2 million new housing units, yet the pace of home building slowed last year.
Some states, like Hawaii, have created funds that lend money to developers on more favorable terms than Wall Street or a bank would, while others, including New York, have created funds to accelerate stalled projects. Atlanta aims to use public land to stimulate new home building: The city’s Urban Development Corporation contributes city-owned land to private development projects and keeps a stake after the building is completed.
Then there are public investment funds like the one in Chattanooga.
There are about two dozen of these funds in the United States, said Shaun Donovan, the chief executive of Enterprise Community Partners, which recently created a team to help them and is trying to set up its own fund to augment their efforts. The funds provide “capital, but capital at this moment of maximum impact, which is getting the building out of the ground,” said Mr. Donovan, who served as the housing secretary in the Obama administration.
Most of these efforts were inspired by Montgomery County, Md., whose Housing Opportunity Commission has for decades been a kind of national laboratory for affordable housing innovation. Mr. Bedsole has been something of a human catalyst in this process: He helped create Atlanta’s system based on the Montgomery County model, then took these ideas to Chattanooga last year.
“The cavalry isn’t coming, so we have to figure this out on our own,” said Tim Kelly, Chattanooga’s mayor.
From Public Housing to Patchwork
Figuring out how to produce low-cost housing for people who cannot afford market rents is a riddle that has vexed cities throughout the modern era. Governments have spent much of the past century veering between public and private sector solutions. Today most new affordable housing is delivered by a hybrid system, in which public subsidies finance private development.
That system is a product of shifting politics more than considered policy design. Starting in the 1970s, the federal government essentially stopped building public housing as part of a broader shift away from welfare benefits. What replaced it was a patchwork of rental vouchers and tax benefits — the biggest of which, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), was created in 1986 — for companies that provide affordable housing. Local governments now depend on that credit to build everything from low-cost apartments for teachers to supportive housing for people leaving homeless shelters.
One of the problems with low-income tax credits is that they are complicated to use and expire over time, often between 15 and 30 years, at which point the building’s owner can start charging market rents. It’s a galling turn for cities, since they often give millions in grants to finance affordable projects. To prevent building owners from evicting low-income tenants after the affordability restrictions lapse, many governments end up buying buildings back.
“So now the state has paid for the building twice — initially with subsidies, and then by giving a wad of cash to the developer,” said Stanley Chang, a state senator in Hawaii. “That is obscene.”
A Small Chip at a Growing Problem
Mr. Kelly, the mayor of Chattanooga, said he created Invest Chattanooga to prevent that obscenity. A businessman who ran car dealerships and co-founded the local soccer club, he was elected in 2021 (and re-elected last year) on an affordable housing platform.
At first, Chattanooga responded to its housing crisis by overhauling its zoning laws to allow more density, and legalizing backyard units on residential lots. This was the formula followed by many state and local governments over the past decade as rent and house prices have ballooned. But, as in many cities, the construction that followed leaned heavily toward higher-end buildings, where rents are too expensive for large swaths of the work force.
According to a city report, over the past five years Chattanooga has lost about half of its apartments that rent for less than $1,000 a month. The new apartments rent for too much, while federal programs do not produce enough units to meet the need.
But there are two ingredients in construction: land and money. So Chattanooga decided to focus on the second of these and became an investor, putting up $20 million to create Invest Chattanooga and hiring Mr. Bedsole from Atlanta to run it.
Invest Chattanooga is run like a business that makes money, then turns profits into cheaper housing. It puts up the initial cash, usually a mix of equity and debt financing, that developers need to get a bank loan. In exchange for the money, projects built with the fund must have at least 30 percent of their units reserved for families making below the median income in the area.
The city gets a return but it’s low — about 8 percent on the recent deal to replace the storage center, versus private equity firms that in many cases ask for double that amount. That difference can mean a developer saves several million dollars on a multiunit building, making it possible to lower the rent. And unlike units built with federal tax credits, Invest Chattanooga owns the building so can capture the upside of higher land values down the line.
Mr. Bedsole said Invest Chattanooga has a relatively modest goal of producing 100 affordable units a year by 2030, and to raise an additional $20 million for more projects. It is one little chip in a problem that gets bigger every day. Unlike the public housing agencies of old, his agency is not replacing developers in the process of building housing. Rather, it is trying to replace the financiers who decide what does and does not get built.
“I’m not competing with developers,” Mr. Bedsole said. “I’m competing with private equity.”
-
Georgia3 minutes ago
Trump extends red snapper fishing in 4 states, including GA. How long?
-
Hawaii9 minutes agoAccesSurf to host 18th annual Hawaii Adaptive Surfing Championships
-
Idaho15 minutes ago
Clavijo joins U of I to advance Idaho fruit production | University of Idaho
-
Illinois21 minutes agoIllinois Product Farmers Market returns May 7 with food and fun
-
Indiana27 minutes ago
‘A symbol’: Central Indiana Catholics back the pope in feud with Trump
-
Iowa33 minutes agoIowa’s Senate Democratic primary is getting messy
-
Kansas39 minutes agoChild killed after being struck by Amazon delivery vehicle in Kansas City
-
Kentucky45 minutes ago
Here’s where, when you can vote early in Kentucky’s primary election