After 20 hours of intense negotiations in London – and a late-night delivery from a well-known restaurant – the US and China have emerged with a framework trade agreement that offers a pause in escalating tensions but falls short of a full breakthrough.
US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick described the outcome with cautious optimism. “We finally have meat on the bone,” he told reporters in London. “This is progress – not just atmospherics – and it reflects meaningful give on both sides.”
Three pillars of the London framework
- Tariffs stopped until August 10: Both nations have agreed to a temporary halt in tariff escalation to allow space for continued dialogue.
- Concessions from China have been agreed on to ease export controls on rare earth elements and industrial magnets, critical for the US defence and automotive sectors. This move is seen as a strategic opening, particularly given China’s grip on global rare earth supplies.
- US concessions include a rollback on selected semiconductor restrictions, a signal that Washington is open to de-escalation in the sensitive tech space.
Implementation or illusion?
The agreement is now in the so-called “implementation phase”, awaiting ratification by Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump. But the reaction from financial markets is one of cautious recalibration.
“Markets have seen the movie of a US-China deal falling apart, so too have markets seen the patch-up movie many times,” said veteran analyst Terry Haines at Pangaea Policy.
Equities, bonds and foreign exchange markets registered only marginal moves. The hesitation is rooted in scepticism, given the long history of similar efforts unravelling.
“China’s not interested in geopolitical moderation,” Mr Haines said. “Today’s geopolitical situation argues against China wanting to do any broad deals – especially with China’s client states, Russia and Iran, both becoming more belligerent and difficult over the past week.”
Cynicism or realism?
The broader concern among analysts is that China may be engaging in what’s been called “extend and pretend” – offering incremental concessions to avoid conflict while avoiding deeper structural change.
What happens next?
Markets and risk takers have a simplistic take on “fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me”.
The framework agreed to in London represents a moment of stability in a volatile relationship, but few are mistaking it for a turning point. Markets, policymakers and analysts alike are watching closely – not for more words, but for tangible implementation and long-term change.
