Trump accuses China of violating trade tariffs agreement

US President Donald Trump has accused China of breaching the terms of the preliminary trade agreement signed between the two countries, hinting at potential additional measures.

On May 12, the United States and China agreed to a 90-day suspension of most tariffs on each other’s imports. The deal came after Trump imposed substantial tariffs on Chinese goods, which prompted retaliatory tariffs from Beijing, Caliber.Az reports.

In a statement posted on his social media platform Truth Social on May 30, Trump claimed that the high tariffs had severely impacted China’s economy, making it "virtually impossible" for Chinese goods to enter the US market — which he described as the world’s largest. He said the abrupt halt in trade led to factory closures and "civil unrest" in China.

“I made a fast deal with China in order to save them from what I thought was going to be a very bad situation, and I didn't want to see that happen,” Trump wrote, emphasising that the agreement helped stabilise the situation and allowed China to resume normal business activities.

“Because of this deal, everything quickly stabilised and China got back to business as usual. Everybody was happy! That is the good news!!! The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, has totally violated its agreement with US. So much for being Mr. Nice Guy!” he wrote.

Under the agreement the Trump administration hashed out with China earlier this month, the US lowered its tariff rate on Chinese imports from 145 per cent to 30 per cent and Beijing, in turn, lowered its rate on US goods from 125 per cent to 10 per cent.

On May 28, a federal court ruled that an emergency law does not grant Trump unilateral authority to impose tariffs on trade partners. The ruling also blocked the president’s tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, which were aimed at reducing the flow of fentanyl into the US. Although an appeals court later lifted the block on those tariffs, many remain suspended due to a separate ruling issued on May 29 by a federal judge in Washington, D.C.

By Sabina Mammadli