Taiwan pledges to buy more American goods as a 32% tariff looms
By purchasing more U.S. products that also include weapons and agricultural goods, Taiwan would not only create 'more balanced bilateral trade' with the U.S. but also boost its energy autonomy and resilience, said Lai Ching-te, the island's leader, while hosting a U.S. congressional delegation.
Lai also said the island would be willing to participate in U.S. efforts to reindustrialize and to lead the world in artificial intelligence.
Rep. Bruce Westerman, chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, told Lai that the U.S. produces a lot of food and fiber and is 'always looking for more friends to share that with.'
Trade and economic ties between Taiwan and the U.S. have grown closer in recent years. The island faces rising pressure from China, which sees the island as part of Chinese territory and vows to annex it, by force if necessary.
Washington is bound by its own laws to provide Taipei with the means to defend itself, and politicians — both Republicans and Democrats — have come to believe it is in the U.S. interest to deter Beijing from attacking Taiwan.
Many policymakers and analysts have argued that arming Taiwan includes not only weapons sales but closer economic and trade ties so the island is less vulnerable to economic coercion from the mainland.
The U.S. is now the top destination for Taiwan's foreign investments, including $165 billion by Taiwan's semiconductor giant TSMC to build factories in Arizona to make advanced chips. The island also is the 7th largest market for U.S. agricultural exports, Lai said.
However, the U.S. buys far more from Taiwan and had a trade deficit of $116.3 billion in 2024, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
The 32% tariff, as proposed by President Donald Trump as part of his sweeping tariff plan, is on hold except a 10% baseline duty. Earlier this month, Lai downplayed the trade tensions between the U.S. and Taiwan as 'frictions between friends.'
The congressional delegation stopped in Taipei as part of the group's larger visit to the Indo-Pacific region through Thursday, according to American Institute in Taiwan, the de facto U.S. diplomatic mission on the island.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
As America Backslides On Clean Energy, States Will Fill The Leadership Void
The federal government has ceded its leadership on climate and clean energy, but America doesn't have to. And in statehouses across the country, it isn't. A slew of federal legislation and executive action, including President Trump's big tax bill, signed into law on the Fourth of July, is dismantling the policy and economic foundation that in recent years unleashed hundreds of billions of dollars in private investment into clean technology across the U.S. It's not just a loss for the climate – it's also a blow to U.S. competitiveness in a changing global economy. It means less new power at a time of growing electricity demand, fewer manufacturing jobs on U.S. soil, and weaker footing in key strategic industries that will command the 21st century. But as much as this backsliding in Washington is regrettable, it presents an opportunity in states across the country. Having seen federal clean energy policy drive unprecedented clean energy investment nationwide, state policymakers know full well what's at stake – for the climate, yes, but also for jobs, energy affordability, and innovation. If the administration won't deliver for the nation, governors and state lawmakers should seize the opportunity for their communities, businesses, and economies. Here's how. Grid modernization America's aging electric grid is in serious need of modernization to efficiently and affordably deliver power across the economy. It's especially urgent as energy demand spikes with the growth of artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, and vehicle electrification. Even states that are building new clean energy at a record pace – such as Texas, New Mexico, and Kansas – will face challenges in powering their economies without new capacity in the transmission lines that carry power over long distances. States can meet this challenge by both improving existing transmission infrastructure and making it easier to build new transmission lines. Some already have, with action in red, blue, and purple states alike – from South Carolina to Ohio to Colorado to Oregon. Policymakers should encourage utilities and other transmission line owners to modernize existing infrastructure, while also responsibly reform their permitting processes to make it easier to build new transmission lines so we can adequately meet our growing electricity needs without sending utility rates skyrocketing. Affordable clean cars The federal government hasn't merely targeted federal policies designed to support electric vehicle adoption. It has also taken aim at state policies, with Congress acting to revoke federal approval for vehicle standards adopted by California and several others under the Clean Air Act – even though these standards had wide support from businesses because they provided a clear, predictable timeline to increase clean vehicle sales and adoption. Despite the federal overreach, states still have a significant opportunity to support electric vehicle growth in the U.S. In June, 11 governors announced the launch of the Affordable Clean Cars coalition, which will collaborate across state lines on policies and investments that make it easier to own and operate electric vehicles. With their work just beginning, more states ought to join the coalition to help businesses and consumers access the cost-saving vehicles they want while bolstering a technology that will be critical to U.S. competitiveness in the coming years. California reauthorization California lawmakers face an urgent and crucial task in the coming weeks. For more than a decade, the Golden State has operated one of the nation's most important climate policies – its cap-and-trade program. It's exactly the kind of market-based policy approach that economists have long cited as the most efficient and affordable way to reduce carbon pollution, by putting a price on the vast risks of climate change, encouraging the private sector to act accordingly to reduce pollution while using the funds to invest in solutions that better serve the economy. And in California, the fourth largest economy in the world, it has worked. But with the program due to expire in 2030, uncertainty about its long-term future is making it less effective and reducing revenue by billions of dollars that could be used to invest in communities, including by taking action to protect against climate-driven threats and rising energy bills. Lawmakers must reauthorize the cap-and-trade program through 2045 before the current legislative session ends in September. Providing a clear, predictable, and market-based policy foundation will position California to continue leading the nation in climate and clean energy policy at a time when that leadership is so strongly needed.
Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
From Power Of The Purse To Power Of The President
During the first six months of the Trump presidency, an assertive executive branch has wrested some budgetary power from Congress. Whether this trend continues is an open question, but it is unfolding against a backdrop of now-standard disagreement and dysfunction over how to fund the government for the coming fiscal year. The White House has capitalized on procedural ambiguities and executive tools to assert greater control over spending decisions—raising legal and constitutional questions and the stakes of future budget showdowns. To be sure, the administration has achieved notable success in advancing its fiscal agenda, including: While the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, this authority does not constitute a legislative monopoly over fiscal matters. The executive branch plays a vital role in administering appropriated funds. As I have written previously, the Trump administration appears determined to expand that role—at times in ways that raise legal concerns. They have used tactics to delay, cancel, and otherwise not spend funds provided by law. The full impact of those actions may not be clear until the current fiscal year ends and agency chief financial officers issue financial statements. Still, the persistent risk of unilateral funding decisions—and the use of arguably unlawful 'pocket rescissions'—may prompt Congress to reassert its budgetary powers as the scope of such practices becomes more apparent. Sharing Budgetary Power Through Impoundment Controls Like other legislation, appropriations bills—whether standalone measures, omnibus packages, or continuing resolutions—are considered and passed by Congress and then sent to the president for approval or veto. Once enacted, the president assumes the constitutional duty to ensure that the law is faithfully executed. The process of obligating and disbursing funds is referred to as budget execution. Much of the framework governing budget execution is rooted in the power of the purse statutes: the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the Antideficiency Act. I've written previously about the 1974 Act's impoundment controls, which outline a lawful process for the president to delay or withhold spending of appropriated funds. Despite President Trump's views that impoundment controls represent an unconstitutional constraint on executive authority, those statutory procedures were followed earlier this year when the White House proposed and the Republican-led Congress enacted a rescission package aimed at reducing funding for USAID and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Whether the executive branch will formally submit additional rescissions or resort to pocket rescissions in the final weeks of FY 2025 remains to be seen. The Other Power Of The Purse Statute Budget execution is guided by the Antideficiency Act, prohibiting federal agencies and employees from incurring financial obligations without explicit legal authorization. Dating back to 1870, the law is designed to enforce constitutional separation of powers, ensuring that Congress—not the executive branch—controls how taxpayer dollars are spent. It has been amended and reinterpreted over time. For example, at the end of the Carter administration, then–Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a pair of legal memos from the Department of Justice (DOJ) offering a narrow definition of the types of government activities that could continue during a lapse in appropriations. Along with subsequent DOJ guidance issued in 1995 clarifying the scope of emergency exceptions, the memos have served as the foundational legal framework for shutdowns. Since 1981, agencies have generally been barred from obligating funds beyond what has been appropriated or from entering into contracts before appropriations are enacted. Agencies are also prohibited from accepting voluntary services or employing staff, except for activities involving emergencies related to the safety of human life or the protection of property. Unlike the impoundment control features of the 1974 act, the Antideficiency Act includes significant administrative and criminal penalties for willful violations, ensuring a high degree of compliance. Nevertheless, as discussed in a 2024 paper by Eloise Pasachoff, different administrations have taken inconsistent and sometimes legally questionable approaches to keep parts of the government open during funding lapses. And there is no reliable way for courts, Congress, or the public to assess the legality of these decisions due to the short duration of shutdowns and a lack of transparency. Could Government Shutdown Rules Be Revisited? Before the DOJ memos, agencies generally operated under the assumption that they could remain open during temporary funding gaps, based on the belief that Congress did not intend for a government shutdown to result from routine delays in appropriations. While nonessential activities—such as hiring or discretionary travel—were curtailed, core operations typically continued. Then–Comptroller General Elmer Staats supported that approach, arguing that the Antideficiency Act was meant to prevent overspending and unauthorized commitments, not to bring government functions to a halt. In his view, congressional intent did not support a complete cessation of agency activity during short-term funding lapses. The DOJ memos effectively created the modern concept of a government shutdown by requiring agencies to halt all non-excepted operations and furlough employees during a funding hiatus, under threat of legal penalties. Notwithstanding the plain language of the Antideficiency Act, another administration could conceivably revisit the memos to reinterpret the scope of executive branch authority to guide shutdown operations and keep favored programs and policy priorities operational while shuttering activities deemed less important. Congress has made some progress on FY 2026 appropriations, but the risk of a full or partial shutdown remains. Lawmakers engaged in high-stakes budget negotiations should recognize the potential consequences of ceding discretion over government operations to President Trump—particularly given his demonstrated willingness push the boundaries of emergency powers and other executive tools. A failure to complete on-time appropriations could once again see the balance of budgetary powers swing toward the executive branch. A future shutdown might not only be a fiscal standoff but a test case for reimagining the structure—and constitutional boundaries—of shutdown governance itself.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
AM Best Assigns Issue Credit Ratings to Chubb INA Holdings LLC's Senior Unsecured Bonds
OLDWICK, N.J., July 31, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--AM Best has assigned Long-Term Issue Credit Ratings of "a+" (Excellent) to Chubb INA Holdings LLC (Chubb) (Delaware) recently announced CNY 4.5 billion (approximately USD 626 million) issuance of senior unsecured bonds in the Hong Kong market in three tranches, which are guaranteed by Chubb Limited: CNY 1 billion 2.5% senior unsecured bonds due 2030; CNY 1.5 billion 2.75% senior unsecured bonds due 2035; and CNY 2 billion 3.05% senior unsecured bonds due 2055. The outlook assigned to these Credit Ratings (rating) is stable. Chubb intends to use the net proceeds from these offerings for general corporate purposes, which may include the redemption, repurchase or repayment of outstanding indebtedness. Chubb Limited is the Swiss-incorporated holding company of the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies. At June 30, 2025, Chubb had total assets of USD 261.6 billion and shareholders' equity (excluding noncontrolling interests) of USD 69.4 billion. This press release relates to Credit Ratings that have been published on AM Best's website. For all rating information relating to the release and pertinent disclosures, including details of the office responsible for issuing each of the individual ratings referenced in this release, please see AM Best's Recent Rating Activity web page. For additional information regarding the use and limitations of Credit Rating opinions, please view Guide to Best's Credit Ratings. For information on the proper use of Best's Credit Ratings, Best's Performance Assessments, Best's Preliminary Credit Assessments and AM Best press releases, please view Guide to Proper Use of Best's Ratings & Assessments. AM Best is a global credit rating agency, news publisher and data analytics provider specializing in the insurance industry. Headquartered in the United States, the company does business in over 100 countries with regional offices in London, Amsterdam, Dubai, Hong Kong, Singapore and Mexico City. For more information, visit Copyright © 2025 by A.M. Best Rating Services, Inc. and/or its affiliates. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. View source version on Contacts Alan Murray Director +1 908 882 2195 Carlos Wong-Fupuy Senior Director +1 908 882 2438 Christopher Sharkey Associate Director, Public Relations +1 908 882 2310 Al Slavin Senior Public Relations Specialist +1 908 882 2318
