Taiwan government says US tariff rate temporary, will negotiate lower one
"Once a final agreement is reached, the tariff rate is expected to be reduced further," according to a Facebook post from Lai Ching-te, reiterated in a cabinet statement.
The comments follow U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order on Thursday imposing tariffs ranging from 10% to 41% on U.S. imports from dozens of trading partners and foreign locations.
Taiwan's presidential office will hold a press briefing at 11:30 a.m. (0330 GMT) on the tariffs.
Taiwan has been seeking to strengthen its trade ties with major partners, particularly the U.S., Taiwan's second-largest trading partner after China, amid growing geopolitical and economic challenges.
Taiwan had the sixth-largest trade deficit with the U.S. last year, exporting $73.92 billion more to the U.S. than it took in, according to data from the U.S. and Taiwan governments.
The outcome of the discussions could play a key role in shaping the island's future trade strategy and its position in the global supply chain, and is crucial to Taiwan's export-driven economy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
India will continue to buy Russian oil despite Trump tariffs
India still plans to buy Russian oil despite the threat of sanctions from Donald Trump, officials have said. The US president announced earlier this week that he planned to impose an unspecified penalty on India if it did not cut off imports of Russian crude oil, in addition to a general 25pc tariff. Mr Trump suggested on Friday that India had reduced the amount of oil it had purchased from Russia. He told reporters: 'I understand that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia. That's what I heard. I don't know if that's right or not. That is a good step. We will see what happens.' However, two senior Indian officials told the New York Times that there had been no change in policy, adding that New Delhi had 'not given any direction to oil companies' to cut back on imports. India has dramatically increased its purchases of Russian oil since Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. It now sources over a third of its oil from Moscow — up from less than one per cent before the war. Ukraine's allies have called on the US to impose hefty secondary tariffs against Russia's main trading partners, including India and China, in a bid to force Putin to end the war. But Mr Trump suggested earlier this week that he was not sure the tariffs would work. 'I don't know if it's going to affect Russia, because he [Putin] wants to, obviously, probably keep the war going,' he said. 'But we're going to put tariffs and the various things you put on. It may or may not affect them. But it could.' The report came as at least two vessels loaded with Russian oil bound for refiners in India were diverted to other destinations after Mr Trump's sanctions. Sanctions were imposed on more than 115-Iran linked individuals, entities, and ships, some of which transport Russian oil. According to trade sources, three ships – the Aframaxes Tagor and Guanyin, and the Suezmax Tassos – were scheduled to deliver Russian oil to Indian ports this month. All three are under US sanctions. Tagor was bound for Chennai on India's east coast, while Guanyin and Tassos were headed to ports in western India, according to Russian ports data. Tagor is now heading to Dalian in China, while Tassos is diverting to Port Said in Egypt, the data shows. Guanyin remains on course to Sikka in the western Indian state of Gujarat. An initial plan for imposing sanctions on Russia came from Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator, who threatened to put 500 per cent tariffs on Moscow and its trading partners. But Mr Trump appears to have watered down those threats, suggesting last month the tariff level would sit at around 100 per cent. A recent report found that China and India have already found ways to disregard or even evade Western sanctions, including by using front companies. Both nations have been found to be directly contributing to Russia's war effort, which includes a $1.4m explosive compound sales agreement between a private Indian company and two Russian companies. India was also the world's largest arms importer in 2024 behind Ukraine and Russia was its largest supplier, according to the defence think tank Sipri.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
How the courts became the biggest roadblock to Trump's plans
A federal judge's ruling last week to maintain a sweeping nationwide ban on Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order highlights the dizzying legal battle that has defined the administration's opening months, with courts issuing dozens of such sweeping orders to systematically halt abrasive elements of the president's agenda. US district judge Leo Sorokin in Boston rejected Trump administration arguments to narrow his nationwide injunction, a court order that prohibits the federal government from enforcing a law or policy against anyone across the nation, and not just the people who filed the legal challenge. His decision represents just one case in a broader pattern of judicial resistance to Trump administration actions. Courts have issued an estimated 35 nationwide injunctions against various Trump executive orders and policy changes from his inauguration until the supreme court intervened on 27 June, according to a Guardian analysis of court records and Congressional Research Service data. There's no standard legal definition for a nationwide injunction, so it is not possible to provide a single definitive count, but the roughly 35 orders during Trump's second term have halted a broad range of policies, from the president's attempt to end birthright citizenship to restrictions on federal funding for diversity programs and changes to refugee resettlement. In June, the supreme court significantly limited courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, which fundamentally reshaped how opponents can challenge executive overreach and dismantled what some legal experts viewed as the most potent weapon against sweeping presidential policies. Without nationwide injunctions, challengers largely have to now pursue slower class-action lawsuits or file multiple suits across jurisdictions to achieve the same blocking effect, although the supreme court left the possibility for exceptions in some cases like Sorokin's ruling, which found that nationwide relief was necessary to protect Americans from harm. 'President Trump's illegal abuses of power have created widespread harm for Americans across the country including farmers, students, working families and retirees that demanded a national response,' said Donald Sherman, deputy director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. 'The supreme court's decision has certainly made it more complex to challenge President Trump's lawless executive actions and put an unnecessary strain on judicial resources, but legal advocates and concerned citizens will not be deterred from holding the administration accountable in court.' During Trump's first presidency, federal courts issued at least 64 nationwide injunctions against his administration, compared with 12 under Barack Obama's eight-year presidency and just six under George W Bush's two terms. The White House has praised the supreme court's June order, saying 'low-level activist judges have been exploiting their positions' to deliberately cut down Trump's policy agenda. Those injunctions were issued by courts in mostly Democratic-leaning states and jurisdictions, including Washington DC, California, Rhode Island, Maryland, Texas, Massachusetts, New York and others, according to a Guardian analysis. Harvard Law Review research from Trump's first term found that 92.2% of nationwide injunctions came from Democratic-appointed judges, while 100% of similar injunctions against Biden came from Republican-appointed judges. The Guardian analysis of the 35 nationwide injunctions issued during the first six months of the Trump administration demonstrates the types of policies that had been blocked by courts using this tool. Immigration enforcement and citizenship changes have prompted at least eight major nationwide injunctions, including in the landmark birthright citizenship case, cases targeting refugee program defunding and deportation accelerations. Federal funding policies have generated a wave of litigation, with at least six injunctions stopping various funding freezes and restrictions, stemming from suits filed by groups including the National Council of Nonprofits targeting funding freezes, and on targeting National Institutes of Health grants by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Policies on diversity, equity and inclusion and civil rights face numerous legal challenges and have resulted in nationwide injunctions in at least five cases, including a suit by the National Association of Diversity Officers fighting restrictions under Trump's executive orders. At least two cases stemming from military service requirements stopped by nationwide injunctions fall into the same category, while federal agency restructuring has prompted suits from multiple state governments and federal employee unions and ended with nationwide injunctions. Some injunctions focused on executive overreach and legal targeting, while additional injunctions stopped emergency tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and restrictions on law firms that previously opposed Trump policies. 'Since the moment President Trump took office, low-level activist judges have been exploiting their positions to kneecap the agenda on which he was overwhelmingly elected,' the White House said in a statement after the supreme court's ruling in June. 'In fact, of the 40 nationwide injunctions filed against President Trump's executive actions in his second term, 35 of them came from just five far-left jurisdictions: California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, and the District of Columbia.' The Guardian has not been able to identify 40 nationwide injunctions independently. The White House and the Department of Justice have not responded to requests for comment on which injunctions they have on their list. The justice department has reportedly faced difficulties defending the volume of Trump's executive orders, with lawyers struggling to answer judicial questions and correct the record in court, prompting the justice department to seek rapid transfers of attorneys to the division handling Trump policy defenses. The administration is also believed to be testing traditional presidential deference, the longstanding practice where courts generally defer to executive authority for national security and foreign affairs as it defends aggressive immigration, trade and economic policies, while taking the unprecedented step of suing federal judges who issue blocking orders. Legal challenges have also targeted more specific policies, prompting nationwide injunctions in cases targeting restrictions on gender-affirming care in federal prisons, changes to passport gender markers and federal employment terminations affecting thousands of workers. Following the supreme court decision in Trump v Casa in June, courts are now prohibited from issuing nationwide injunctions against presidential policies. But there is an exception, which comes when a judge decides it is the only way to fully protect the people bringing the lawsuit, like in the case of the birthright citizenship challenge. The White House said: 'Now, the Trump Administration can promptly proceed with critical action to save the country – like ending birthright citizenship, ceasing sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping taxpayers from funding transgender surgeries, and much more.' But some legal experts aren't so sure on the long-term impact of the supreme court's restrictions on nationwide injunctions just yet. 'I think it remains to be seen how the practical consequences of the supreme court's decision shake out,' said Barbara McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor and former Obama-appointed US attorney. 'Several of the justices suggested that class actions would provide a mechanism to block lawless executive orders and prevent irreparable harm, but, of course, class actions can be cumbersome and slower than a simple temporary restraining order. 'We will need to see how lower courts address the supreme court's exception where necessary,' McQuade said. For those in the crosshairs of Trump's policies – like undocumented immigrants facing deportation and non-profits losing federal funding – the harm could be measured in weeks or months. The supreme court's decision hasn't eliminated legal challenges to presidential power, but it has fundamentally altered their speed and scope.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Reopen Alcatraz? Indigenous people say it's more than madness – it's historical erasure
When Donald Trump pledged to reopen the notorious Alcatraz prison as a detention center for immigrants and violent offenders, the idea was met with contempt and mockery. San Francisco leaders have called it Trump's 'stupidest idea yet' and threatened to cut off the island's sewage and garbage services if the president acts on his carceral ambitions. But for the Indigenous people of the San Francisco Bay Area, the idea was more than just laughable. It was an affront to their identity, and an attempt to erase the island's history as a site of Indigenous resistance. After the federal prison shut down in 1963, the island took on a second life as the scene of one of the most important acts of Native American resistance in modern history. Between November 1969 and June 1971, Indigenous activists occupied Alcatraz for 19 months, demanding rights and resources for Native people. Now, as Trump appears set on pushing ahead despite the extraordinary costs and logistical hurdles, tribal members are fighting to preserve a history that is still little-known beyond Indigenous circles. Alcatraz has always loomed large for April McGill. Growing up in Mishewal Wappo territory in California's Sonoma county, McGill, who is a member of the Yuki and Wappo tribes, frequently heard stories from the veterans of the occupation who lived in her community. Her aunt even babysat the children of Richard and Annie Oakes, who led the movement. When she moved to San Francisco as a teenager, the island's shadow grew – especially as McGill, who is now executive director of the city's American Indian cultural center, became increasingly involved in activism herself, and learned about the pivotal role the occupation played in maintaining Native sovereignty in California and nationwide. 'It holds a really personal, deep place to me,' McGill said. 'It symbolizes so much of our history.' McGill and other Indigenous leaders from the San Francisco Bay Area were appalled when the Trump administration confirmed its plans to reopen the island, even sending a delegation out to tour the shuttered facilities in July. Beyond erasing the historical significance the island holds for Native peoples, McGill says that the notion of using the site to pursue the president's anti-immigrant agenda hearkens back to the state's history of violence against Indigenous groups – and that any actions the administration takes will be met with pushback from the community. '[They want to use it as a] place to commit inhumane violence against people who are here trying to escape violence,' McGill said. 'It's very retraumatizing. It wasn't that long ago that we were violently displaced and put in camps. We see this as a repeat of that history.' Most of these criticisms of Trump's plan focuses on the cost of refurbishing the site, which was shuttered more than 60 years ago – instead becoming a historical landmark and tourist destination run by the National Parks Service since 1972 – precisely because the infrastructure had become too expensive to maintain. Estimates put the cost of modernizing the facility at as much as $2bn, to which San Francisco's Mayor Daniel Lurie responded that the city 'could use that funding to keep our streets safe and clean'. But for Indigenous leaders, the proposal's audacity goes beyond its hefty price tag. According to Virginia Hedrick, executive director of the California Consortium for Urban Indian Health, Trump's aims undermine Alcatraz's status as a 'beacon of resistance' for Indigenous people in California and nationwide. That's because the 1969 occupation was more than a symbolic act of defiance – it spurred meaningful changes in federal policy with regards to Native sovereignty and support for tribal nations. 'What came out of the occupation were tangible things,' Hedrick said, pointing to the development of California's Indian health delivery system, which she says was floundering before protesters on Alcatraz demanded better healthcare. 'This movement was about honoring the treaties, making the federal government make good on its promises.' It was in response to the occupation that President Richard Nixon shifted the federal policy on Native treaties from 'termination' to one of 'self-determination' for Native peoples, echoed the writer and film-maker Julian Brave NoiseCat, who grew up in the Bay Area and descends from British Columbia's Tsq'escen and Lil'Wat First Nations. As a teenager, NoiseCat spent Thursday evenings at East Oakland's Intertribal Friendship House practicing powwow drum and dance. At the end of the night, he said, participants would gather and sing the American Indian Movement song. 'We would sing that song to carry forward the movement that had begun at Alcatraz and that endures to this day,' he said. To NoiseCat and others, the lack of acknowledgment of these histories in current discussions about Alcatraz's future illuminates broader issues of Indigenous erasure. 'For me, Alcatraz represents the starting point of the Native rights movement,' he said, calling the occupation the 'Montgomery bus boycott of Indigenous rights', in reference to the seminal civil rights protest. That erasure extends to discussions of how federal dollars could be better spent. Core goals of the Alcatraz occupation included establishing an Indigenous cultural center and college, explained McGill. Today, the cultural center she runs can't afford a brick-and-mortar homebase in San Francisco, forcing it to operate virtually. 'Give that money to American Indian people so that we can have a cultural center, so we can create housing,' she said, adding that Indigenous people have among the highest rates of homelessness, health disparities, and incarceration in San Francisco. 'And yet, we're always the last at the table,' she said. For Hedrick, a member of California's Yurok tribe, that repeated dismissal is 'par for the course' considering the Ohlone people – the tribe indigenous to the lands of the Bay Area, including the island of Alcatraz – remain federally unrecognized. 'The federal government is proposing rebuilding, resurrecting a prison, estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars, while continuing to overlook the Ohlone people,' Hedrick said. 'That is complete Indigenous erasure right there.' Hedrick is committed to ensuring that the Indigenous ties to Alcatraz are central to the island's public perception. She makes a point of visiting the island at least a few times every year to teach about the American Indian Movement. And she emphasizes that the island is home to important cultural events, including a sunrise gathering that takes place every October for Indigenous Peoples Day. She says that if the administration moves forward with reopening the island as a prison, the community is prepared to fight back. 'We'll see communities gather again,' she said. 'We have attorneys, we movement-building organizations in California who will organize and work in lockstep. 'We've come a long way.'
