U.S. to apply increased pressure on trade deals, warns higher tariffs could roll out Aug. 1
The Trump administration is expected to send dozens of letters to countries that have not made a trade deal, warning them that higher tariffs could kick in Aug. 1, White House National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday.
"Our smaller trading partners could become much bigger trading partners," Hassett said on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." "And that's, I think, one of the reasons why countries are racing to set deals up with us ahead of the deadline."
As many as 15 letters will be going out beginning Monday, President Trump confirmed to reporters before heading back to the White House from his New Jersey club on Sunday. Some will go out on Tuesday and Wednesday, he said, adding that "some deals have been made."
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick also told reporters Sunday that higher tariffs could kick in Aug. 1 for countries that don't make a deal by Wednesday.
Questions remain about which countries will be notified, whether anything will change in the days ahead and whether Mr. Trump will once more push off imposing the rates.
In an interview with CNN on Sunday, Bessent said about 100 letters will be sent to small countries "where we don't have very much trade" and where tariffs are already at the baseline of 10%. The treasury secretary also said that the administration is primarily focused on nations with the largest trade deficit with the U.S.
"There are 18 important trading relationships that account for 95% of our deficit, and those are the ones we're concentrating on," Bessent said.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent rejected the idea that Aug. 1 was a new deadline and declined to say what might happen Wednesday.
"We'll see," Bessent said on CNN's State of the Union. "I'm not going to give away the playbook."
Mr. Trump and his top trade advisers say he could extend the time for dealmaking but they insist the administration is applying maximum pressure on other nations. Hassett said that Trump would decide when it was time to give up on negotiations.
Stephen Miran, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, likewise said countries negotiating in good faith and making concessions could "sort of, get the date rolled."
The steeper tariffs that Trump announced April 2 threatened to overhaul the global economy and lead to broader trade wars. A week later, after the financial markets had panicked, his administration suspended for 90 days most of the higher taxes on imports just as they were to take effect, but he kept the 10% baseline in place while raising the tariff rate on goods imported from China. Chinese goods are now subject to 30% across-the-board tariffs.
With the freeze on sweeping U.S. tariffs set to expire Wednesday, July 9, the White House
has touted new trade agreements with countries in recent weeks, like China, the U.K. and Vietnam. But there are still questions heading into the week with other deals yet to be announced.
Bessent said the U.S. was "close to several deals," and predicted several big announcements over the next few days. He gave no details.
"I think we're going to see a lot of deals very quickly," Bessent said.
Given the complexity of trade deals, some experts think the U.S. is likely to extend the tariff pause for some nations.
"It can take a lot more time [than 90 days] to truly iron these things out," Clark Packard, a trade policy expert and research fellow at the Cato Institute, a nonpartisan public policy think tank, told CBS News' MoneyWatch.
Mr. Trump last week announced a deal with Vietnam. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Trump said the U.S. would levy 20% tariffs on goods imported to the U.S. from Vietnam, and a 40% tariff on "any transshipping." The president said Vietnam would "'OPEN THEIR MARKET TO THE UNITED STATES,' meaning that, we will be able to sell our product into Vietnam at ZERO Tariff."
That was a decline from the 46% tax on Vietnamese imports he proposed in April — one of his so-called "reciprocal tariffs" targeting dozens of countries with which the U.S. runs a trade deficit.
Asked if he expected to reach deals with the European Union or India, Trump said Friday that "letters are better for us" because there are so many countries involved.
"We have India coming up and with Vietnam, we did it, but much easier to send a letter saying, 'Listen, we know we have a certain deficit, or in some cases a surplus, but not too many. And this is what you're going to have to pay if you want to do business in the United States."
Canada, however, will not be one of the countries receiving letters, Trump's ambassador, Pete Hoekstra, said Friday after trade talks between the two countries recently resumed.
"Canada is one of our biggest trading partners," Hoekstra told CTV News in an interview in Ottawa. "We're going to have a deal that's articulated."
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has said he wants a new deal in place by July 21 or Canada will increase trade countermeasures.
Hoekstra would not commit to a date for a trade agreement and said even with a deal, Canada could still face some tariffs. But "we're not going to send Canada just a letter," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
Tips And Overtime Deductions In Big Beautiful Bill Create Odd Marriage Incentives
TOPSHOT - US President Donald Trump (C) shows his signature on the "Big Beautiful Bill Act" at the ... More White House in Washington, DC, on July 4, 2025. US President Donald Trump signed his flagship tax and spending bill on July 4 in a pomp-laden Independence Day ceremony featuring fireworks and a flypast by the type of stealth bomber that bombed Iran. Trump pushed Republican lawmakers to get his unpopular "One Big Beautiful Bill" through a reluctant Congress in time for him to sign it into law on the US national holiday — and they did so with a day to spare Thursday. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / POOL / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)When President Trump came out for "No tax on tips" during the election campaign, I analyzed two legislative proposals towards that end that were in Congress. So when it came time for me to read the tax provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that is where I focused a lot of attention. You can find it on page 247 at the head of Chapter 2 (Delivering On Presidential Priorities To Provide New Middle-Class Tax Relief) - Bill Section 70201 - No Tax On Tips, if you want to follow along. In general, I find the provision very well thought out, except for one very odd thing. There appears to be a marriage penalty for well tipped servers tying the knot with one another and a marriage bonus for well tipped servers marrying industrious blue collar workers. It Is A Deduction The provision adds Section 224 to the Internal Revenue Code which allows a deduction for "qualified tips". The deduction is limited to $25,000. The deduction is phased out starting at $150,000 of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), $300,000 in the case of joint returns. The phase-out rate is $100 per $1,000 of MAGI. The "modifications" that are added are for income excluded because it was earned by working abroad, in US possessions or Puerto Rico. The deduction is not an itemized deduction. You will be able to claim the standard deduction on top of it. If married you have to file a joint return to claim the deduction. Section 225 adds a deduction for qualified overtime compensation. That deduction is $12,500 or $25,000 in the case of a joint return. The phase-out is the same as for the tip deduction. As with the tip deduction married people have to file jointly in order to claim it. Why is the tip deduction limit $25,000 while the overtime deduction limit is either $12,500 or $25,000 depending on whether it is a joint return? I don't know and as a planner I follow Reilly's First Law of Tax Planning - It is what it is. Deal with it. A Get Together There are five high school friends who get together. They are not married but are thinking about it. They each make about $100,000 per year, Robin and Terry are servers in a pricey restaurant. Most of their income is from tips. Blynn and Ashley are electricians who work a lot of overtime, well above the average. Jesse is an enrolled agent. They get together to celebrate the Big Beautiful Bill. Robin and Terry want to know how much no tax on tips is going to save them and Blynn and Ashley are of course interested in the effect of no tax on overtime. It is up to Jesse to explain to them that that is not how it worked out in the Senate. It was converted to a deduction and there is a limitation. Remember they are all single. Jesse makes a big point of that, because Jesse is a bit on the pedantic side. Robin and Terry will each get a $25,000 deduction. Blynn and Ashley will each get a $12,500 deduction. Jesse, of course, gets nothing other than a lot of aggravation. Not that anybody would care about this, but the whole crew will be getting $75,000 in deductions. Since Jesse made such a big deal about them being single, the question of what happens if they get married comes up. And this is where it gets weird. If Robin and Terry get married their deduction drops to $25,000. If Blynn and Ashley marry they get $25,000 on their joint return. So the whole crew now gets $50,000 in deductions - a marriage penalty. But what if Robin marries Blynn and Terry marries Ashley. Now both couples get $50,000 in deductions or $100,000 for the whole crew - a marriage bonus. There Is More A lot of thought seems to have gone into the tips deduction and I think the details of that are worthy of a separate post. For now I will refer you to Reilly's Third Law of Tax Planning - Any clever idea that pops into your probably has (or will have) a corresponding rule that makes it not work. The statute seems to address many of the ways people might try to game the system. The difference in the limit on tips and overtime for single people, but not married people strikes me as possibly unintentional particularly since the phase-our language is identical. The original House bill did not include any limit at all, so that language was dropped in by the Senate. It reminds me a bit of the "grain glitch" in the Tax Cuts And Jobs Act of 2017. You probably need to be a real tax nerd or a grain farmer to remember that. That was fixed, but this, if it is not what was intended, may be harder to fix. By the way, there was a reason that I have waited to read the Big Beautiful Bill. Starting in 1984, I deeply studied the proposals which ultimately resulted in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. That one was really big, which is why we still call it the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. TRA 1986 made my career. There was, however, a downside to all that study. In the years after enactment, I would often have ideas pop into my head based on provisions that were not enacted. So now I don't read them till they are signed.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Illinois Senate President Don Harmon appeals potential $9.8 million fine for improperly accepting campaign cash
An attorney for Illinois Senate President Don Harmon's political operation says state election authorities reached an 'absurd' conclusion earlier this year in issuing nearly $10 million in penalties against Harmon's campaign fund after determining he violated campaign fundraising limits. In an 11-page appeal filed late last week with the Illinois State Board of Elections, attorney Michael Kasper also laid out what amounted to a legal justification for Harmon's unsuccessful attempt in the closing hours of this spring's legislative session to pass a measure that could have negated the case and the $9.8 million potential penalty. At issue is whether Harmon, a Democrat from Oak Park, improperly accepted $4 million more in campaign contributions after the March 2024 primary than permitted under limits established in a state law he co-sponsored. The elections board leveled the charges this spring after a Chicago Tribune inquiry about the fundraising activities of his Friends of Don Harmon for State Senate campaign fund. Using a frequently used loophole in a law purportedly designed to help candidates compete with wealthy opponents, Harmon contributed $100,001 to his own campaign in January 2023. It was precisely one dollar over the contribution limit threshold that allowed him or anyone else running for his Senate seat to accept unlimited funds for that race. In campaign paperwork, Harmon indicated he thought the move allowed him to collect unlimited cash through the November 2024 election cycle. But board officials informed him that the loophole would only be open through the March 2024 primary, meaning they viewed the campaign cash Harmon collected above campaign restrictions between the March primary and the end of the year was not allowed. Responding to a June 5 letter in which elections board staff notified Harmon's campaign of the impending fine, his attorney argued that the January 2023 contribution should have lifted the contribution limits at least through the end of 2024, if not through the March 2026 primary, when Harmon's seat will next appear on the ballot. 'The staff's analysis would create an absurd system that unfairly benefits self-funding candidates and also turns campaign finance compliance into simple accounting gimmicks,' Kasper wrote. The state elections board had no comment on Harmon's appeal, spokesperson Matt Dietrich said Monday. Harmon campaign spokespersonTom Bowen said the appeal 'speaks for itself.' The next step is for a hearing officer to hold a hearing with both sides and make a recommendation to be reviewed by the board's general counsel before the board issues a final ruling, possibly as soon as its August meeting. In the filing, Harmon's campaign argued the elections board's interpretation would allow a candidate in his position to accept unlimited contributions during a period well before an election when no opponent has entered the race and then have limits put back in place closer to when voting begins. Conversely, a candidate in Harmon's position could also simply lift the limits again by refunding his own cap-busting contribution the day after a primary and depositing it back into the campaign fund 'on the same day — the same hour — the same minute,' the campaign said in its appeal. 'Does the money even have to move accounts, or can it just be an accounting entry?' Kasper wrote. 'According to the Board's staff, (due to) the fact that Mr. Harmon did not go through this, frankly, silly exercise, he now faces almost $10,000,000 in fines and penalties. 'The General Assembly did not enact the thorough and time-tested campaign finance regime that we have today by requiring candidates to jump through accounting hoops simply for the purpose of jumping through the hoop.' In arguing that the contribution cap should have been off through at least the end of 2024, Harmon's filing also calls attention to how the board's determination treated his situation differently than it would a member of the Illinois House, where each seat is up for election every two years. Senate seats, by contrast, have two four-year terms and one two-year term each decade. This issue was at the heart of Harmon's controversial attempt to add language into elections legislation on the final day of the spring session that would have declared it 'existing law' that senators halfway through a four-year term 'shall be deemed to have been nominated at the next general primary election, regardless of whether the candidate's name appeared on the general primary election ballot.' Defending the move to the Tribune days after backlash to the provision tanked the broader elections bill, Harmon said: 'A fundamental notion of campaign finance law is that House candidates and Senate candidates be treated the same. The state board staff's interpretation treats House candidates and Senate candidates fundamentally differently.' In the recent filing, Harmon's attorney points out that a section on contribution limits in the board's own campaign disclosure guide notes, 'Candidates seeking office in the General Assembly have their election cycle reset every general election regardless of participation.' 'It makes little sense that the Board would treat Senate and House candidates the same for purposes of applying contribution limitations, but differently for removing contribution limitations after a primary election,' Kasper wrote. 'Instead, the General Assembly structured election cycles so that all legislative candidates are treated the same.' Calling the board's penalty — a payment to the state's general fund equal to the more than $4 million it says Harmon raised in excess of the limits, plus a nearly $5.8 million fine calculated based on 150% of that same amount — 'excessive' and 'unconstitutional,' Harmon's campaign asked for the matter to be dismissed.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Armed ICE officers shut down kids' camp at LA's MacArthur Park. City leaders: 'Here's the truth'
The Brief A large federal immigration operation with armored vehicles and mounted officers took place in MacArthur Park, but resulted in no arrests. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass intervened directly on scene, demanding federal agents leave the park immediately. The reason for the significant show of force with no arrests remains officially unknown, with federal authorities declining to comment. LOS ANGELES - A large federal enforcement sweep stalled a children's summer camp at MacArthur Park without any arrests. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and city council members say this display of force has raised urgent questions about how immigration enforcement affects communities—and they're calling on cities nationwide to wake up, wise up, and stand up without panic. LA leaders warn this moment could ripple across America unless we respond with accountability, not fear. Officials say the show of force disrupted daily life, shuttered children's programming, and caused widespread confusion — despite no reported criminal activity or public disorder. What we know On July 7, a large contingent of federal agents arrived at MacArthur Park in what appeared to be an ICE enforcement sweep. SkyFOX was overhead during the operation and did not observe anyone being taken into custody. FOX 11 has confirmed that no arrests were made. Midway through the activity, Mayor Karen Bass arrived on scene and questioned the agents directly. A conversation with a representative identified on the scene as the "Head of Customs" led to a phone call in which Bass asked, "So they've stopped that? They've completed their mission here? What's the timeframe before they leave?" Soon after, the agents began pulling out. The show of force quickly dissipated, with federal vehicles departing the area and no visible enforcement action taken. What they're saying Mayor Bass made her position clear in a statement to FOX 11: "They need to leave — and they need to leave right now. This is unacceptable." She also shared her reaction on social media, tweeting: "This is footage from today in MacArthur Park. Minutes before, there were more than 20 kids playing — then, the MILITARY comes through. The SECOND I heard about this, I went to the park to speak to the person in charge to tell them it needed to end NOW. Absolutely outrageous." When FOX 11 reached out to federal officials, a senior DHS official said: "We don't comment on ongoing enforcement operations." Local perspective While en route to a press conference with Gov. Gavin Newsom to mark six months since the Palisades and Eaton fires, Bass said she was alerted to what appeared to be a large-scale federal operation underway at MacArthur Park. "I turned around, we went to the park," Bass said. "I could see a helicopter in the air — I think it was a Black Hawk helicopter. And I saw military tanks. It was the Customs and Border Patrol, and it might have been military on the periphery." Bass said the scene resembled a military intervention, calling it "another example of the administration ratcheting up chaos by deploying what looked like a military operation in an American city." She described the deployment as "outrageous and un-American," particularly pointing to the presence of "federal armed vehicles in our parks when nothing is going on," the "seizure" of California's National Guard, and "U.S. Marines who are trained to kill foreign soldiers overseas" being "deployed in our American city." "There is no plan other than fear, chaos, and politics," she said, calling the incident part of a broader pattern of intimidation: "Home Depot one day, a car wash the next, armed vehicles and what looked like mounted military units in a park the next day." Bass emphasized that there was no threat at the park — only children attending summer camp. "What happened to the criminals, the drug dealers, the violent individuals?" she asked. "Who were in the park today were children. It was their summer day camp. Those kids now have no activities. They were ushered inside so that they didn't get exposed to the troops that were walking in formation across their playground area." She recounted speaking with an eight-year-old boy who, without being told what was happening, expressed fear of ICE. "Did this eight-year-old tell me that he was afraid of ICE taking his parents, and he didn't think it was good to take people away? So understand that that eight-year-old knows enough of what's going on that he's already traumatized in anticipation." "What I saw in the park today looked like a city under siege, under armed occupation," Bass said. "Spending many years traveling into conflict areas — you know, it's the way a city looks before a coup." Calling it a "military assault on our city," she accused Customs and Border Protection of "randomly driving through the streets, snatching people," often without identification. "There were no protests. There was no disorder that required that," Bass said. "I just think it's important that we continue to tell the truth to the American people." Marqueece Harris-Dawson, President of the Los Angeles City Council, criticized the federal operation, saying, "This morning looked like a staging for a TikTok video. And what we say to Border Patrol is: if you want to film in L.A., you should apply for a film permit like everybody else — and stop trying to scare the bejesus out of everybody who lives in this great city." Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez condemned the federal operation at MacArthur Park as "the latest escalation in the Trump administration's depraved campaign against our city." She described how "the National Guard descended onto MacArthur Park, bringing troops, military weapons and equipment, and armored vehicles to a community park, a community hub, a place where families gather." Hernandez emphasized that the operation took place "while summer camp was in session," forcing "young children... to be ushered into the lower part of one of our buildings" amid "terror taking place in our community." She called MacArthur Park "the Ellis Island of the West Coast," saying it was "chosen as this administration's latest target precisely because of who lives there and what it represents: resilience, diversity, and the American dream." Hernandez warned, "When we invade and surveil our own neighborhoods, when we scapegoat and demonize immigrants, when we disregard due process, we are no longer living under the rule of democracy. We are living under occupation and authoritarianism." Hernandez criticized the federal tactics: "Sending United States soldiers to intimidate children at camp and seeing others at the bus stop is not making anyone safer. Raiding Home Depots is not stopping crime. Tearing families away from children is not upholding family values." She called the cruelty "the point," and vowed that Los Angeles "will continue to resist... demand the immediate withdrawal of federal troops and ICE in our city." She issued a warning beyond Los Angeles: "We are the canary in the coal mine. What you see happening in MacArthur Park is coming to you. A $140 billion new budget for ICE — what do you think that's going to do? That's going to transport what's happening here in our neighborhoods to your front doorstep." She concluded with a call to action saying, "Please support Los Angeles, please support California, but also we need to work together to make sure that authoritarianism doesn't take over our country." During outreach at MacArthur Park, federal agents pointed guns at the team and shouted profanities, forcing them to leave, Maria Soria of the Saint John's Community Health Street Medicine team said. "They pointed a gun at us. They surrounded our van... I thought they were going to actually target us." She added that the situation has made it unsafe to provide medical care to the homeless and immigrant communities. More than 2,300 Angelenos have been "disappeared and uprooted from their homes and communities" since the federal government began its operation nearly a month ago, according to Jeanette Zani Patton, director of policy and advocacy at True LA. The other side According to Fox News, the CBP official Bass spoke with on the phone was Chief Gregory Bovino of the agency's El Centro Sector. Bovino told Fox News, "I don't work for Karen Bass. Better get used to us now, cause this is going to be normal very soon. We will go anywhere, anytime we want in Los Angeles." What we don't know At this time, there was no official explanation as to why such a large presence was deployed if no arrests were made. Federal authorities have not released further details on the nature or scope of the operation. Why you should care The operation brought heavily armed federal agents into a public park with no prior public notice — and ended with no reported enforcement. It drew attention not only because of its scale, but because of where it happened: a dense, residential area with families and children present. The mayor's immediate response raised questions about communication between local and federal agencies, and what protocols are followed in situations like this. It also underscored the scrutiny that large-scale federal operations now face when carried out in public spaces. Big picture view Federal officials have not clarified the purpose or outcome of the MacArthur Park operation. Without arrests, the reasoning behind the show of force remains unclear. The incident has led city leaders and residents to question how immigration enforcement is conducted in Los Angeles, what oversight is in place, and whether community safety protocols are being followed. As federal activity continues in urban areas, moments like this are drawing increased attention — and calls for transparency. Mayor Bass's rapid response underscored the growing tensions between federal immigration authorities and city leaders who have pushed for transparency and community safety over displays of force. What's next FOX 11 is continuing to seek clarity from federal officials on the nature of the operation and whether similar deployments are planned. Mayor Bass has called for further review of the event and its impact on the surrounding community. The Source Information for this story was gathered through direct observation by SkyFOX and includes on-the-record statements from Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, as well as an unnamed senior DHS official.
