Connect with us

News

Trump’s China deal leaves world exposed to trade policy lottery

Published

on

Trump’s China deal leaves world exposed to trade policy lottery

This article is an on-site version of our Trade Secrets newsletter. Premium subscribers can sign up here to get the newsletter delivered every Monday. Standard subscribers can upgrade to Premium here, or explore all FT newsletters

Well, that didn’t take long. And there was me thinking that China’s resistance to being bounced into a deal — including the insistence that it was the US that had asked for talks — meant it had settled in for a long haul of negotiations. To be clear: the pact, agreed in suitably neutral Switzerland over the weekend, leaves US tariffs on China ludicrously high and asymmetrically so. But that the US was prepared to make a deal so quickly and reduce duties so much suggests more is to come.

Today’s main piece looks at the deals Trump has agreed so far with China and the UK. I also look at the sorry state of overseas aid and development following the news that Bill Gates will wind down his foundation. And now the first reader question for a while: quite simply, were China and the UK right to accept the deals? Answers please to alan.beattie@ft.com.

Get in touch. Email me at alan.beattie@ft.com

Taking the offer or paying the Dane

Trump’s deals with China and the UK have one thing in common, which is — and please sit down if you’re prone to fainting — they’re not binding and they leave a huge amount of negotiation down the line. I know, right? In fact, it’s not 100 per cent clear what they mean now, especially the China deal. As of this newsletter’s “hit send” time, the world’s trade nerds were still pondering over the announcement, trying to work out exactly what had been agreed. The first stab at overall tariffs, including an average for non-China emerging markets and advanced economies, is here, from the consultancy Oxford Economics.

Advertisement

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

And, of course, they’re subject to crossfire from Trump’s other loose cannons. The other news yesterday was Trump declaring that the US pharmaceutical industry could charge no more in the US than in any other country. Is that on top of the sectoral pharma tariffs he wants? What does it mean for the extensive pharmaceutical trade between the US and both the UK and China? Nobody knows.

Even before that, literally the day after the UK deal was announced, the Trump administration launched yet another so-called Section 232 national security investigation, this time on aircraft, which could end in tariffs. Is the UK pre-exempted from those duties because of the deal? Nobody knows.

In theory the US has left itself quite a lot of leverage. The question is, especially with the threat of financial market turmoil an ever-present, whether it is willing to use it. The UK deal, which explicitly states it is not legally binding, leaves Britain vulnerable to being blackmailed into joint action against China if Washington decrees it. Simon Lester of the International Economic Law and Policy Blog has a great rundown here of the many uncertainties around the pact.

General terms for the US-UK trade deal
“Both the United States and the United Kingdom recognise that this document does not constitute a legally binding agreement”, the deal reads

With China, the US’s non-reciprocal “fentanyl tariffs” are still high and asymmetrically so. Beijing has an incentive to come back to the negotiating table and agree a further package of liberalisation — or indeed, as Treasury secretary Scott Bessent said on Sunday, agree to purchase more US exports.

This puts us straight back into the territory of the “phase 1” deal of Trump’s first presidency, in which China supposedly agreed a bunch of liberalising measures. The then US trade representative Robert Lighthizer made a big deal out of these, but they haven’t exactly stopped the US moaning about Chinese state capitalism. Beijing also agreed to buy a load of US soyabeans and other products, which it did not.

Advertisement

Still, if there’s one thing we apparently know, it’s that the US is heading towards negotiating the tariffs down (though it seems to regard the 10 per cent baseline as inviolable). This will set it up for a nice old confrontation with perhaps Trump’s foremost target of ire, the EU, which has continued to insist the 10 per cent minimum is unacceptable.

Partly what happens now will depend on which of Trump’s team has the president’s ear on any given day, given their wildly contrasting views. In the endless game of Trade Official Tombola, you never know who’s going to be rattling round the Oval Office leading policy when decisions come to be made.

If it’s China warrior supreme Peter Navarro, the UK might find itself being led into a trade war and Beijing being denied more tariff cuts. If it’s commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, whose job seems to be to find out what Trump wants that day and cheerlead it, probably less so. Navarro clearly didn’t have much to do with the UK deal, since he was subsequently talking about the UK accepting beef and chicken produced to US hygiene standards, something Sir Keir Starmer’s government wisely refused to accept.

Remember the rules?

Finally, what does this mean for the rules-based world trading system? It’s not great that the US is agreeing bilateral deals all over the place. As I wrote last week, the UK pact is more directly damaging, since it involves violating the “most-favoured nation” principle by granting market access to the US it will not give to other countries.

The metaphor that immediately came to mind was Dane-geld, the protection money that Anglo-Saxon kings paid to Vikings in return for easing off the pillaging for a while.

Advertisement

Rudyard Kipling famously had a downer on this tactic, contending that “we’ve proved it again and again, that if once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane”. (My favourite feedback to my piece on this came from an actual mediaevalist historian, who argues that paying Dane-geld was an entirely sensible thing to do.)

The UK will need to keep scanning the horizon for signs of the striped Viking sails appearing again. It might turn out to be worth the gamble and the violation of MFN, or it might not. China might have hit on a better strategy (admittedly in a very different position), or might have not. Nobody knows anything.

Musk’s barbarians at the Gates

Bill Gates has revealed that he’s going to be accelerating spending and then closing the Gates Foundation, albeit not for 20 years. It’s a poignant moment. Trump’s (and specifically Elon Musk’s) savaging of US development assistance, including the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US programme for HIV-Aids relief, has left the sector gasping for air. Gates (correctly) last week said that Musk was killing children. By running down his fund, Gates hopes to ameliorate the impact of official aid cuts.

The traditional aid donors are turning away. The UK, which has already made a mockery of its aid budget by spending a chunk of the money on housing asylum seekers in Britain, has announced it will cut its spending yet further from 0.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent of gross national income. Former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who used to fall over each other competing to announce more aid, seem to have been silent on seeing their work undone, even though Brown had picked a public fight with Musk over the US’s aid cuts just weeks earlier. Not for the first time, Brown’s commitment to courage is stronger in theory than practice.

There’s no doubt the Gates Foundation did a tonne of good. (Disclosure: the FT has received money from Gates in the past.) In particular, being able to work with a longer time horizon than donor governments — which were under pressure to show results within a few years — enabled it to fund programmes such as the elimination of polio, which is slow and unspectacular work.

Advertisement

But it took strong policy and ideological stances, a tactic that sat oddly with its philanthropic mission. The foundation publicly opposed the granting of a waiver on Covid-19 vaccines during the pandemic before reversing course, a highly contentious public policy issue to weigh in on.

More generally, the idea of private giving saving the world — remember the “philanthrocapitalism” of two decades ago? — now looks seriously naive. The new generation of tech crypto billionaires were seduced by the quasi-scientific approach of effective altruism, which has come under heavy and deserved criticism. The development sector is full of fear. There are stories of NGOs and think-tanks pulling controversial-sounding research papers or cutting the word “equity” from the title. It turns out it is a lot less independent of the state and governments than it thought.

Charted waters

Customs revenue is rising at US ports, but by nowhere near enough to replace a significant portion of receipts from the federal income tax as Trump wishes.

Line chart of Revenue collected at US customs ($bn) showing Lots of chips and dolls

Trade links

  • Chinese companies are purging their supply chains of foreign components, in case Trump’s trade war turns into a full-scale decoupling of its economy from the US’s.

  • Chinese exports jumped in April as its shipping companies pushed goods through ahead of trade talks and tariffs being imposed.

  • Speaking of which, Wired magazine looks at whether consumers should buy now to beat the tariffs or wait.

  • Treasury secretary Scott Bessent has been sent out to try to calm nervy investors. However, they are unlikely to have been reassured that the administration is on top of things by Stephen Miran, the chair of Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, echoing Trump (before the deal with China) that the US doesn’t need a trade deal with China.

  • My FT colleague Martin Sandbu reminds us that a tax on imports is a tax on exports and will hit US companies selling abroad.


Trade Secrets is edited by Harvey Nriapia

Recommended newsletters for you

Chris Giles on Central Banks — Vital news and views on what central banks are thinking, inflation, interest rates and money. Sign up here

Advertisement

FT Swamp Notes — Expert insight on the intersection of money and power in US politics. Sign up here

News

Cuba says 32 Cuban fighters killed in US raids on Venezuela

Published

on

Cuba says 32 Cuban fighters killed in US raids on Venezuela

Havana declares two days of mourning for the Cubans killed in US operation to abduct Nicolas Maduro.

Cuba has announced the death of 32 ⁠of its ​citizens during the United States military operation to abduct and detain Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in Caracas.

Havana said on Sunday that there would be two days of mourning on ‌January 5 and ‌6 in ⁠honour of those killed and that ‌funeral arrangements would be announced.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The state-run Prensa Latina agency said the Cuban “fighters” were killed while “carrying out missions” on behalf of the country’s military, at the request of the Venezuelan government.

The agency said the slain Cubans “fell in direct combat against the attackers or as a result of the bombing of the facilities” after offering “fierce resistance”.

Advertisement

Cuba is a close ally of Venezuela’s government, and has sent military and police forces to assist in operations in the Latin American country for years.

Maduro and his wife have been flown to New York following the US operation to face prosecution on drug-related charges. The 63-year-old Venezuelan leader is due to appear in court on Monday.

He has previously denied criminal involvement.

Images of Maduro blindfolded and handcuffed by US forces have stunned Venezuelans.

Venezuelan Minister of Defence General Vladimir Padrino said on state television that the US attack killed soldiers, civilians and a “large part” of Maduro’s security detail “in cold blood”.

Advertisement

Venezuela’s armed forces have been activated to guarantee sovereignty, he said.

‘A lot of Cubans’ killed

US President Donald Trump, speaking to reporters on board Air Force One on Sunday, said that “there was a lot of death on the other side” during the raids.

He said that “a lot of Cubans” were killed and that there was “no death on our side”.

Trump went on to threaten Colombian President Gustavo Petro, saying that a US military operation in the country sounded “good” to him.

But he suggested that a US military intervention in Cuba is unlikely, because the island appears to be ready to fall on its own.

Advertisement

“Cuba is ready to fall. Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall. I don’t know how they, if they can, hold that, but Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil,” Trump said.

“They’re not getting any of it. Cuba literally is ready to fall. And you have a lot of great Cuban Americans that are going to be very happy about this.”

The US attack on Venezuela marked the most controversial intervention in Latin America since the invasion of Panama 37 years ago.

The Trump administration has described Maduro’s abduction as a law-enforcement mission to force him to face US criminal charges filed in 2020, including “narco-terrorism” conspiracy.

But Trump also said that US oil companies needed “total access” to the country’s vast reserves and suggested that an influx of Venezuelan immigrants to the US also factored into the decision to abduct Maduro.

Advertisement

While many Western nations oppose Maduro, there were many calls for the US to respect international law, and questions arose over the legality of abducting a foreign head of state.

Left-leaning regional leaders, including those of Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Mexico, have largely denounced Maduro’s removal, while countries with right-wing governments, from Argentina to Ecuador, have largely welcomed it.

The United Nations Security Council plans to meet on Monday to discuss the attack. Russia and China, both major backers of Venezuela, have criticised the US.

Beijing on Sunday insisted that the safety of Maduro and his wife be a priority, and called on the US to “stop toppling the government of Venezuela”, calling the attack a “clear violation of international law“.

Moscow also said it was “extremely concerned” about the abduction of Maduro and his wife, and condemned what it called an “act of armed aggression” against Venezuela by the US.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Here’s a partial list of U.S. elected officials opposing Trump’s invasion of Venezuela

Published

on

Here’s a partial list of U.S. elected officials opposing Trump’s invasion of Venezuela

Protesters rally outside the White House Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, in Washington, after the U.S. captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in a military operation.

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP

President Trump’s move to depose Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has drawn praise inside the United States, especially from Republican leaders. But the invasion also faces significant skepticism, questions about legality, and full-throated opposition from some elected officials across the political spectrum.

Here’s a survey.

Some Republicans condemn, or question, Trump’s invasion

While most conservative lawmakers voiced support for Trump’s action, a small group of Republican House members and GOP Senators described the move as unlawful or misguided.

Advertisement

“If the President believes military action against Venezuela is needed, he should make the case and Congress should vote before American lives and treasure are spent on regime change in South America,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, speaking on the House floor. “Do we truly believe that Nicolás Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out in Cuba, Libya, Iraq or Syria?”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., posting on social media, voiced skepticism that the true goal of Trump’s invasion was to stop the flow of drugs into the United States. She also described the military action as a violation of conservative “America First” principles.

“Americans disgust with our own government’s never ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going,” Greene posted on X. “This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier General, generally praised the military operation, but he also said the precedent of U.S. military intervention could embolden more aggressive action by authoritarian regimes in China and Russia.

Advertisement

“Freedom and rule of law were defended last night,” Bacon said on X, referring to the invasion of Venezuela, “but dictators will try to exploit this to rationalize their selfish objectives.”

At least three Republican Senators also voiced concern or skepticism about the invasion and its legal justification, while also celebrating the fall of Maduro.

“In this case, a leader who monopolized central power is removed in an action that monopolizes central power,” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul wrote on the platform X. “Best though, not to forget, that our founders limited the executive’s power to go to war without Congressional authorization for a reason—to limit the horror of war and limit war to acts of defense.”

GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, both of Alaska, said Maduro’s ouster would make the United States and the world safer, but suggested the operation could turn into a quagmire for U.S. troops.

“Late last year, I voted to proceed to debate on two resolutions that would have terminated the escalation of U.S. military operations against Venezuela absent explicit authorization from Congress,” Murkowski wrote on the platform X. She added that she expects further briefings from Trump officials on the “legal basis for these operations.”

Advertisement

“The lessons learned from what took place after the United States deposed another Latin American indicted drug lord—Panama’s Manuel Noriega in 1989—could prove useful, as could the painful and difficult lessons learned after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003,” Sullivan wrote on X.

Most Democrats condemn the invasion

Most Democratic lawmakers and elected officials also described Maduro as a dictator, but they generally condemned Trump’s action. At a press conference Saturday, New York City’s new Mayor Zohran Mamdani told reporters he phoned Trump and voiced opposition to the invasion.

“I called the President and spoke with him directly to register my opposition to this act and to make clear that it was an opposition based on being opposed to a pursuit of regime change, to the violation of federal and international law,” Mamdani said.

Democratic minority leader Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York accused Trump of acting in bad faith and violating the U.S. Constitution. “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” Schumer said in a post on X. “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”

According to Schumer, the Trump administration assured him “three separate times that it was not pursuing regime change or or military action without congressional authorization.”

Advertisement

California’s Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff, a frequent Trump critic, posted a series of comments on X describing Saturday’s military action and Trump’s proposed U.S. occupation of Venezuela as potentially disastrous.

“Acting without Congressional approval or the buy-in of the public, Trump risks plunging a hemisphere into chaos and has broken his promise to end wars instead of starting them,” Schiff wrote.

“Donald Trump has once again shown his contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Vermont’s Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, in a video posted on social media, where he described the U.S. invasion as “imperialism.”

“This is the horrific logic of force that Putin used to justify his brutal attack on Ukraine,” Sanders said.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, also spoke harshly of the military strike, describing it as an effort by Trump to distract attention from domestic troubles in the United States.

“It’s not about drugs. If it was, Trump wouldn’t have pardoned one of the largest narco traffickers in the world last month,” Ocasio-Cortez said, referring to Trump’s decision to free former Honduran President Orlando Hernandez, who had been convicted in the U.S. of helping smuggle more than 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S.

Advertisement

“It’s about oil and regime change. And they need a trial now to pretend that it isn’t. Especially to distract from Epstein + skyrocketing healthcare costs,” Ocasio-Cortez added on X.

Continue Reading

News

Who is Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s leader after Maduro’s capture? | CNN

Published

on

Who is Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s leader after Maduro’s capture? | CNN

Following the capture of President Nicolás Maduro during a US military operation in Venezuela, the command of the South American country has fallen into the hands of Executive Vice President Delcy Rodríguez.

That is what Venezuela’s constitution outlines in its different scenarios anticipating a president’s absence. Under Articles 233 and 234, whether the absence is temporary or absolute, the vice president takes over the presidential duties.

Rodríguez – also minister for both finance and oil – stepped into the role on Saturday afternoon. Hours after the capture of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, she chaired a National Defense Council session, surrounded by other ministers and senior officials, and demanded the couple’s “immediate release” while condemning the US military operation.

Standing before the Venezuelan flag, Rodríguez said the early-morning operation represents a blatant violation of international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty. She added that the action must be rejected by Venezuelans and condemned by governments across Latin America.

“We call on the peoples of the great homeland to remain united, because what was done to Venezuela can be done to anyone. That brutal use of force to bend the will of the people can be carried out against any country,” she told the council in an address broadcast by state television channel VTV.

Advertisement

Rodríguez, 56, is from Caracas and studied law at the Central University of Venezuela.

She has spent more than two decades as one of the leading figures of chavismo, the political movement founded by President Hugo Chávez and led by Maduro since Chávez’s death in 2013.

Alongside her brother Jorge Rodríguez, the current president of the National Assembly, she has held various positions of power since the Chávez era. She served as minister of communication and information from 2013 to 2014 and later became foreign minister from 2014 to 2017. In that role, she defended Maduro’s government against international criticism, including allegations of democratic backsliding and human rights abuses in the country.

As foreign minister, Rodríguez represented Venezuela at forums such as the United Nations, where she accused other governments of seeking to undermine her country.

In 2017, Rodríguez became president of the Constituent National Assembly that expanded the government’s powers after the opposition won the 2015 legislative elections. In 2018, Maduro appointed her vice president for his second term. She retained the post during his third presidential term, which began on January 10, 2025, following the controversial July 28, 2024, elections. Until the president’s capture, she served as Venezuela’s chief economic authority and minister of petroleum.

Advertisement

Venezuela’s opposition maintains that the 2024 elections were fraudulent and that Maduro is not a legitimately elected president. They insist that the true winner was former ambassador Edmundo González Urrutia, a position supported by some governments in the region.

José Manuel Romano, a constitutional lawyer and political analyst, told CNN that the positions Rodríguez has held show she is a “very prominent” figure within the Venezuelan government and someone who enjoys the president’s “full trust.”

“The executive vice president of the republic is a highly effective operator, a woman with strong leadership skills for managing teams,” Romano said.

“She is very results-oriented and has significant influence over the entire government apparatus, including the Ministry of Defense. That is very important to note in the current circumstances,” he added.

On the path to an understanding with the US?

Hours after Maduro’s capture, and before Rodríguez addressed the National Defense Council, US President Donald Trump said at a press conference that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken with the vice president. According to Trump, she appeared willing to work with Washington on a new phase for Venezuela.

Advertisement

“She had a conversation with Marco. She said, ‘We’re going to do whatever you need.’ I think she was quite courteous. We’re going to do this right,” Trump said.

Trump’s remarks, however, surprised some analysts, who believe Rodríguez is unlikely to make concessions to the United States.

“She is not a moderate alternative to Maduro. She has been one of the most powerful and hard-line figures in the entire system,” Imdat Oner, a policy analyst at the Jack D. Gordon Institute and a former Turkish diplomat based in Venezuela, told CNN.

“Her rise to power appears to be the result of some kind of understanding between the United States and key actors preparing for a post-Maduro scenario. In that context, she would essentially serve as a caretaker until a democratically elected leader takes office,” the analyst added.

In her first messages following Maduro’s capture, Rodríguez showed no signs of backing down and, without referencing Trump’s statements, closed the door to any potential cooperation with the United States.

Advertisement

Earlier in the morning, during a phone interview with VTV, Rodríguez said the whereabouts of Maduro and Flores were unknown and demanded proof that they were alive. Later in the afternoon, during the National Defense Council session, she escalated her rhetoric, condemned the US operation and, despite the circumstances, insisted that Maduro remains in charge of Venezuela.

“There is only one president in this country, and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros,” said Rodríguez — now, by force of events, the most visible face of the government.

Reuters news agency contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending