News
U.S. and China Dig In on Trade War, With No Plans for Formal Talks
As trade tensions flared between the world’s largest economies, communication between the United States and China has been so shaky that the two superpowers cannot even agree on whether they are talking at all.
At a White House economic briefing this week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent demurred multiple times when pressed about President Trump’s recent claim that President Xi Jinping of China had called him. Although top economic officials might usually be aware of such high-level talks, Mr. Bessent insisted that he was not logging the president’s calls.
“I have a lot of jobs around the White House; running the switchboard isn’t one of them,” Mr. Bessent joked.
But the apparent silence between the United States and China is a serious matter for the global economy.
Markets are fixated on the mystery of whether back-channel discussions are taking place. Although the two countries have not severed all ties, it does seem that they have gone dark when it comes to conversations about tariffs.
“China and the U.S. have not held consultations or negotiations on the issue of tariffs,” Guo Jiakun, a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry, said at a news conference last Friday. “The United States should not confuse the public.”
However, China’s Commerce Ministry said this Friday that it was now considering holding talks with the Trump administration after repeated attempts by senior U.S. officials to start negotiations. White House and Treasury Department officials did not respond to requests for comment about whether such outreach had occurred.
The standoff over when and whether Washington and Beijing will hold economic talks comes as the Trump administration is scrambling to reach trade deals with dozens of countries that could soon face high tariffs. On April 2, Mr. Trump imposed what he calls “reciprocal” tariffs on countries that he believes have unfair trade and other economic barriers. Those levies, which sent global financial markets plunging, were paused for 90 days to give countries time to reach agreements with the United States.
China, which reached a largely unfulfilled trade pact with Mr. Trump during his first term, has indicated that it has little interest in talking about a new agreement until the United States rolls back what it views as a barrage of aggressive and unfair trade measures.
Mr. Trump increased tariffs on Chinese imports to a minimum of 145 percent last month, in a bid to force China into trade negotiations. Chinese officials responded by issuing their own tariffs on American products and clamping down on exports to the United States of minerals and magnets that are necessary for many industries.
The economic toll of the tit for tat is starting to become clear. The International Monetary Fund last month lowered its growth outlook for both countries and the world, warning that the tariffs had made a downturn more likely. Government data released this week showed Chinese factory activity slowing in April and first-quarter growth in the United States weakening.
During a cabinet meeting on Wednesday at the White House, Mr. Trump acknowledged that children in the United States may wind up with fewer dolls that cost more. But he insisted that he would continue to push for a “fair deal” with China, which he described as the “leading candidate for the chief ripper-offer.”
The Trump administration is focused on trade deals with about 18 of America’s most important trading partners that are subject to the reciprocal tariffs. Mr. Bessent indicated that talks with China would operate on a separate track from the other negotiations.
The Treasury secretary is expected to take the lead on the China negotiations while Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, oversees most of the other talks. However, Mr. Trump has not formally appointed or authorized a U.S. official to negotiate on his behalf with China, leaving Chinese officials to believe that the Trump administration is not ready or serious about trade talks.
Mr. Bessent, who had an introductory call with his Chinese counterpart in February, said that he held informal talks with Chinese officials over issues such as financial stability during the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank last week. He said that they spoke about more “traditional things” but did not say that trade was discussed. The Treasury Department did not issue a summary of any meetings with Chinese officials.
In an interview with Fox News this week, Jamieson Greer, the United States trade representative, said that he met virtually for over an hour with his Chinese counterpart before April 2 but that there had been no talks since Mr. Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Mr. Trump has suggested that Mr. Xi should call him to begin the talks personally, noting their strong personal relationship. But that is not how China typically handles important economic matters. The United States and China traditionally work out their economic differences through a structured dialogue with formal meetings and working groups led by a top economic official from each country.
“This very personalistic approach by President Trump, who wants to negotiate directly with President Xi, doesn’t match with the Chinese system at all,” said Craig Allen, a fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis. “In the Chinese system, these things are carefully negotiated in advance, they go up multiple channels and it is highly controlled and scripted, and when it gets to the leader stage it is highly choreographed.”
Mr. Allen, who until recently was the president of the U.S.-China Business Council, suggested that China was most likely mindful of the acrimonious meeting that Mr. Trump had with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in February and that Mr. Xi would be wary of a situation that could lead to a public confrontation with Mr. Trump.
During the Biden administration, Treasury Department officials worked with China to create economic and financial working groups of midlevel staff members that were intended to prevent tensions over tariffs and export controls from spiraling out of control. Those lines of communication do not appear to be in use in the Trump administration, which tends to view them as a waste of time.
“That is exactly the kind of thing that these groups can help do — help make sure that the policy you deploy is well tailored to achieve the objective and communicates to the other side what you’re trying to achieve before it’s too late and you instead have to react to potentially unintended consequences or a message that was not intended to be transmitted,” said Brent Neiman, a University of Chicago professor who was the Treasury’s deputy under secretary for international finance during the Biden administration.
During Mr. Trump’s first term, the president initially assigned the Treasury secretary at the time, Steven T. Mnuchin, to lead trade delegations to China. He later appointed Robert E. Lighthizer, his trade representative, who was viewed as more hawkish, to oversee the talks.
Veterans of that trade war believe the current deadlock could be more protracted because the tariffs are higher and both sides believe they are winning. If U.S. growth continues to slow while prices start to rise, it could add to the urgency for Mr. Trump to get real talks with China going.
“I think at some point we have to give them a graceful off ramp,” said Wilbur Ross, who served as Mr. Trump’s commerce secretary during his first term. “Whether that is somebody from our side calling them first or whether it’s simply appointing who will be our main representative — it may be at some point we need to make a symbolic gesture.
Michael Pillsbury, a top China adviser to Mr. Trump during his first term, said Beijing was most likely waiting to see what the deals that the Trump administration reaches with other nations such as India and Japan look like before engaging directly.
“They don’t want to start the formal talks because they want to know the bottom line from others first,” said Mr. Pillsbury, who speaks to U.S. and Chinese officials.
He noted that the trade fight has become a major point of national pride for China and that it believes that Mr. Trump’s demands — which Beijing does not fully grasp — will soften as American markets gyrate and midterm elections in the United States draw closer.
“Delay is very much in their interest, and a speedy deal is very much in Trump’s interest,” Mr. Pillsbury said.
News
US planning to seize Iran-linked ships in coming days, WSJ says | The Jerusalem Post
The US is planning to board and seize Iran-linked oil tankers and commercial ships in the coming days, according to a Saturday report by The Wall Street Journal.
The report noted that these actions would take place in international waters, potentially outside of the Middle East.
The US “will actively pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran,” US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said. “This includes dark fleet vessels carrying Iranian oil.”
“As most of you know, dark fleet vessels are those illicit or illegal ships evading international regulations, sanctions, or insurance requirements,” Caine continued.
Caine was further quoted as saying that the new campaign, which would be operated in part by the US Indo-Pacific Command, would be part of a broader US President Donald Trump-led campaign against Iran, known as “Economic Fury.”
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told the WSJ that Trump was “optimistic” that the new measures would lead to a peace deal.
The potential US military action comes as Iran tightens its grip on the Strait of Hormuz, including attacking several ships earlier on Saturday, the WSJ reported.
The report cited CENTCOM as saying that the US has already turned back 23 ships trying to leave Iranian ports since the start of its blockade on the Strait.
The expansion of naval action beyond the Middle East will provide the US with further leverage against Iran by allowing it to take control of a greater number of ships loaded with oil or weapons bound for Iran, the report noted.
“It’s a maximalist approach,” said associate professor of law at Emory University Law School Mark Nevitt. “If you want to put the screws down on Iran, you want to use every single legal authority you have to do that.”
Iran claimed earlier on Saturday that it had regained military control over the Strait, intending to hold it until the US guarantees full freedom of movement for ships traveling to and from Iran.
“As long as the United States does not ensure full freedom of navigation for vessels traveling to and from Iran, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will remain tightly controlled,” the Iranian military stated.
In addition, Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei declared on Saturday in an apparent message on his Telegram channel that the Iranian navy is prepared to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.
News
Video: The Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket
new video loaded: The Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

By Jodi Kantor, Alexandra Ostasiewicz, June Kim and Luke Piotrowski
April 18, 2026
News
What’s it like to negotiate with Iran? We asked people who have done it
A Pakistani Ranger walks past a billboard for the U.S.-Iran peace talks in Islamabad on April 12, 2026. The talks, led by Vice President JD Vance, produced no concrete movement toward a peace deal.
Farooq Naeem/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Farooq Naeem/AFP via Getty Images
Despite stalled talks with Iran and a fragile ceasefire nearing its end, President Trump expressed optimism this week that a permanent deal is within reach — one that may include Iran relinquishing its enriched uranium. However, experts who spent months negotiating a nuclear agreement during the Obama administration say mutual mistrust, starkly different negotiating styles make a quick truce unlikely.

Referring to Vice President Vance’s whirlwind negotiations in Islamabad last week that appear to have produced little beyond dashed expectations, Wendy Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal finalized in 2015, says the administration’s approach was all wrong.
“You cannot do a negotiation with Iran in one day,” she told NPR’s Here & Now earlier this week. “You can’t even do it in a week.” To get agreement on the JCPOA, she said, it took “a good 18 months.”
The talks leading to that deal highlighted Iran’s meticulous style of negotiation, says Rob Malley, who was also part of the JCPOA negotiating team and later served as a special envoy to Iran under President Joe Biden.
Summing up the two sides’ differing styles, Malley said: “Trump is impulsive and temperamental; Iran’s leadership [is] stubborn and tenacious.”
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a news conference on the Iran nuclear talks deal at the Austria International Centre in Vienna, Austria on July 14, 2015.
Pool/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Pool/AFP via Getty Images
In 2015, patience led to a deal
The talks in 2015, led by Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, culminated with a marathon 19-day session in Vienna to finish the deal, says Jon Finer, a former U.S. deputy national security adviser in the Biden administration. Finer was involved in the negotiations as Kerry’s chief of staff. He said his boss’s patience “was a huge asset” in getting the deal to the finish line, he said.
Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister during the negotiations for the Obama-era nuclear deal, speaks on April 22, 2016 in New York.
AFP/via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
AFP/via Getty Images
“He would endure lectures … ‘let me tell you about 5,000 years of Iranian civilization’… and just keep plowing ahead,” Finer said, adding that a tactic of Iranian negotiators seemed to be “to say no to everything and see what actually matters” to the U.S.
“They’re just maddeningly difficult,” he said. “You need to go back at the same issue 10 or 12 times over weeks or months to make any progress.”
Even so, Finer called the Iranian negotiators “extremely capable” — noting that, unlike the U.S., they often lacked expert advisers “just outside the room,” yet still mastered the details of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials and U.S. sanctions.
“They were also negotiating not in their first language,” Finer added. “The documents were all negotiated in English, and they were hundreds of pages long with detailed annexes.”
Vance’s trip to Islamabad suggests that the U.S. doesn’t have the patience for a negotiation to end the conflict that could be at least as complex and time-consuming. “The Trump administration came in with maximalist demands and actually just wanted Iran to capitulate,” Sherman, who served as deputy secretary of state during the Biden administration, told Here & Now. “No nation – even one as odious as the Iran regime – is going to capitulate.”
Distrust but verify
Iran was attacked twice in the past year. First in June of last year, as nuclear negotiations were ongoing, Israel and the U.S. struck the country’s nuclear facilities. Months later, at the end of February, Iran was attacked again at the start of the latest conflict. This time around, “the level of trust is probably almost at an all-time low,” Malley said.
“It’s hard for them to take at their word what they’re hearing from U.S. officials,” Malley said. The Iranians, he said, have to be wondering how long any commitment will last and “will be very hesitant to give up something that’s tangible” – such as their enriched uranium – in exchange for anything that isn’t ironclad or subject to suddenly be discarded by Trump or some future president.
“Once they give up their stockpile … they can’t recapture it the next day,” Malley said.
Even during the 2013-2015 nuclear deal talks, the decades of mistrust between Tehran and Washington were impossible to ignore, Finer said. “Our theory was not trust but verify — it was distrust but verify,” he said, adding: “I think that was their theory too.”
Malley cautions about relying on the JCPOA as a guide to how peace talks to end the current war might go. The leadership in Tehran that agreed to the deal is now gone — killed in Israeli airstrikes, he says. The regime’s military capabilities are also greatly diminished and “whatever lessons were learned in the past … have to be viewed with a lot of caution, because so much has changed,” he said.
Negotiations have a leveling effect
Mark Freeman, executive director of the Institute for Integrated Transitions, a peace and security think tank based in Spain that advises on conflict negotiations, says several factors shape the U.S.-Iran relationship. Going into talks, one side always has the upper hand, he says, but negotiations have a leveling effect. “The weaker party gains just by virtue of entering into a negotiation process,” he said.
Each side is looking for leverage, he adds.
In Iran’s case, it has used its closure of the Strait of Hormuz to exert such leverage, while the White House has shown an eagerness to resolve the conflict quickly. “If one side perceives the other needs an agreement more … that shapes the entire negotiation,” he said.
-
Louisiana2 minutes ago‘Growth pays for growth’: Entergy’s Fair Share Plus model to save Louisiana customers $2.8 billion
-
Maine8 minutes ago18 jaw-dropping views from Katahdin to help you plan for warmer weather
-
Maryland14 minutes agoMaryland Lottery Powerball, Pick 3 results for April 18, 2026
-
Michigan20 minutes agoQ&A: Jocelyn Benson on her tenure as Michigan’s secretary of state
-
Massachusetts26 minutes agoPolice shoot and kill man armed with knife in Lexington, DA says
-
Minnesota32 minutes agoBoldy, Eriksson Ek help Wild cruise past Stars in Game 1 of Western 1st Round | NHL.com
-
Mississippi38 minutes agoGeorge County High School senior killed in Highway 26 crash, MHP says
-
Missouri44 minutes ago
Missouri Lottery Powerball, Pick 3 winning numbers for April 18, 2026