Introduction
A recent CNBC article claims that China’s industrial profits are rebounding despite aggressive U.S. tariffs, citing a reported “trade truce” reached in Geneva. The user who submitted this article for fact-checking questioned the sudden turnaround: How can profits rise so quickly amid such high tariffs, and what exactly was agreed to in Geneva — and will it last? This analysis investigates those claims and separates true economic signals from potential spin.
Historical Context
Since 2018, U.S.-China trade relations have been strained by a back-and-forth series of tariffs originating under former President Donald Trump. While these trade frictions temporarily eased in early 2020, surging geopolitical tensions and economic competition reignited disputes in 2024. By April 2025, both sides escalated with near-embargo-level tariffs, prompting fears of a global economic ripple. Against this backdrop, any reported truce would have major economic and political implications.
Fact-Check of Specific Claims
Claim #1: “Washington and Beijing agreed to lower most of those levies, following a trade truce struck during a meeting… in Geneva.”
This statement is misleading. While U.S. and Chinese officials did meet in Geneva in early May 2025, no formal trade agreement or binding truce was announced. According to official releases from the U.S. Trade Representative and China’s Ministry of Commerce, both parties “held constructive discussions” and agreed to continue negotiations. There is no published joint statement, executive order, or treaty verifying that most levies were officially “lowered.”
Furthermore, tariff reduction figures cited (51.1% for U.S. tariffs and 32.6% for Chinese tariffs) were part of a policy recommendation by the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), as confirmed by their May 2025 publication, not an enacted policy. CNBC has conflated policy advice with actual implementation, leading to confusion.
Source: USTR Press Release (May 2025), PIIE Briefing Note (May 2025)
Claim #2: “145% tariffs were placed by President Donald Trump last month.”
This is inaccurate. While high tariffs were indeed reimposed on some Chinese goods, especially high-tech imports and electric vehicles, there is no official record of a blanket 145% tariff. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission and public notices from the Federal Register (April 2025), tariffs were selectively increased — ranging between 60% and 100% for certain electronics and solar components.
What CNBC likely misinterpreted is a worst-case average or indexed representation from private-sector economic models, not an actual policy rate imposed across all goods. Presenting the figure as an enacted, universal tariff exaggerates both the scope and impact.
Sources: U.S. International Trade Commission, Federal Register Vol. 90, No. 74 (April 15, 2025)
Claim #3: “Industrial profits rose 3% in April, up from 2.6% growth in March.”
This appears to be accurate. The National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS) released April data confirming that profits among major industrial firms grew by 3% year-on-year in April 2025. The cumulative profit growth between January and April also aligns with the reported 1.4% increase.
However, what the article omits is that this boost is heavily concentrated in a few sectors such as high-tech manufacturing and subsidized consumer electronics. Industries such as mining, automobiles, and textiles faced significant year-on-year profit declines, raising questions about the sustainability of this growth.
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China — April 2025 Industrial Profit Report
Claim #4: “Exports were not significantly impacted because they found other markets.”
This statement lacks sufficient evidence and oversimplifies export dynamics. Chinese exports to the U.S. sharply declined by over 40% in April 2025 compared to the previous year, according to China’s General Administration of Customs. While there has been a modest uptick in trade with nations in Southeast Asia and Latin America, those increases have not matched the scale of lost U.S. trade volume.
In fact, the IMF’s regional outlook report from Q2 2025 noted that “substitution to other markets has not fully compensated for the U.S. decline.” Therefore, it is inaccurate to conclude that exports were “not significantly impacted.”
Sources: China Customs Data (April 2025), IMF Regional Economic Outlook (Q2 2025)
Conclusion
While certain data points in the article are grounded in official statistics — such as China’s April industrial profits — several key claims are stretched or misleading. The CNBC piece overstates the impact of a so-called “trade truce” that has not been formally enacted, misrepresents the tariff scope with inflated figures, and downplays the challenges facing Chinese exports. Although the tone is cautiously optimistic, the article omits essential context and misleads readers on the durability and depth of the China-U.S. trade discussions. Overall, the article contains a mix of partially accurate information wrapped in oversimplified or uncorroborated analysis.
Want to Know What’s True?
If you’re unsure about what you’re reading online, DBUNK equips you with verified facts and expert analysis — instantly. Download our app or follow our community on social media to stay immune to misinformation.
