Geneva Confirmed It: The UK Deal Was About China, and We Just Got Proof

When we wrote that the UK trade deal wasn’t really about the UK, we weren’t speculating— we were following the signal. And today, the results out of Geneva confirm that signal was real.

The sudden U.S.-China tariff truce—a dramatic reduction from 145% to 30% on Chinese imports and 125% to 10% on U.S. goods—isn’t some standalone gesture. It’s the culmination of a decisions, one that began when Washington sent Scott Bessent, not a hawk like Lutnick, to lead talks.

You don’t send Bessent to deliver ultimatums. You send Bessent when you want a deal.

The UK agreement that preceded it told us everything we needed to know. It wasn’t a trade triumph—it was a quiet concession. It preserved the 10% U.S. tariff and offered only limited automotive leniency to the Brits. But more importantly, it did nothing to isolate China. There were no clauses on tech sourcing, steel origin tracing, or pharmaceutical exclusivity. Nothing that would have signaled London was joining a broader China containment effort.

That was the moment you knew: the administration wasn’t trying to encircle China with economic fences—it was clearing the way for negotiation.

And now, with Geneva’s 90-day tariff reset, it’s clear that’s exactly what happened.

For those of us in the business of navigating global trade friction, this is more than just a tariff holiday. It’s a shift in posture—and an opportunity to reposition supply routes, capitalize on cost dips, and anticipate where the next realignment happens.