U.S., China hold Paris talks

Trade policy is back in its most old-fashioned form — people in rooms, haggling over lists. The latest U.S.-China talks in Paris were not a breakthrough, but they were a signal. Washington and Beijing are still fighting over tariffs, market access, and industrial policy. But instead of trying to settle everything through one giant legal weapon, they are moving toward narrower, negotiated bargains. ### Who actually met in Paris? The meeting brought together Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on the American side, and Vice Premier He Lifeng plus China’s trade negotiator Li Chenggang on the Chinese side. Chinese state media described the exchange as candid, in-depth, and constructive. U.S. messaging was also notably calm. That matters because the tone itself is part of the news here — both governments wanted to show the channel is still working. ### Why Paris, and why now? Paris has turned into a staging ground for this year’s U.S.-China economic contacts. The March 15-16 talks there were set up as a preparatory round for a Trump-Xi meeting, and later contacts kept building on that track. By late April, Bessent and He were still on the phone, still trading complaints, and still preparing for a leaders’ summit. So this was not a random stopover — it was another checkpoint in a managed process. ### What are they actually bargaining over? Turns out the menu is pretty specific. The March Paris talks touched tariff arrangements, bilateral trade and investment, and maintaining prior consultation understandings. Reuters-based follow-up reporting also pointed to agriculture, critical minerals, and managed-trade style commitments — basically, targeted Chinese purchases and selective easing to “solve the trade war.” But narrower is the point. ### What does “managed trade” mean here? It means less faith in free-flowing market access and more reliance on negotiated volumes, carve-outs, and sector deals. Think soybeans, minerals, and tariff swaps rather than a grand bargain on the whole economic relationship. That is the practical shape of these talks now. Each side is looking for deliverables a president can announce, not a philosophical reset. ### Why does the tariff court fight matter? Because the legal backdrop changed the leverage. Reporting tied to this week’s story says the Supreme Court had already rejected Trump’s global tariff regime under IEEPA earlier in 2026. If that broad route is constrained, the administration has more reason to fall back on older trade tools and one-off negotiations. So the center of gravity shifts from sweeping tariff shock to episodic trade management. ### Does this mean tensions are easing? Not really. The late-April call between Bessent and He still involved both sides raising complaints about the other’s trade policies. China has also been building rules that could punish companies that move sourcing away from China in sensitive sectors. So the conflict is still there. What changed is the format — less open escalation, more structured bargaining. ### What should we watch next? Watch for anything concrete tied to a Trump-Xi meeting — especially farm purchases, rare-earths arrangements, or tariff suspensions with dates attached. If those appear, the Paris talks will look like groundwork rather than symbolism. If they do not, “constructive” will read as diplomatic placeholder language. ### Bottom line The real story is not that the U.S. and China suddenly trust each other again. They do not. It is that both sides seem to prefer a controlled, transactional trade fight over an all-fronts one. Paris was another step in that direction — smaller deals, narrower asks, and constant negotiation instead of one big reset.