Schumer jabs Trump for falling short of '90 deals in 90 days'
'Ninety days ago Donald Trump promised the world that his tariffs would lead to 90 deals in 90 days,' Schumer said on the Senate floor. 'He makes these promises left and right. He doesn't care whether he executes them or not, but the American people do.
'By my count, he's about 88 trade deals short,' Schumer said.
Trump announced a trade deal with Vietnam on July 2 and reached an agreement with the United Kingdom to cut tariffs on British cars, steel and aluminum in exchange for reduced British tariffs on U.S. imports.
Trump announced on Monday that sanctions would snap back to between 25 percent and 40 percent on 14 countries, including Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia, if deals aren't reached by Aug. 1.
'What has Donald Trump done? He kicks the can down the road again and again. He talks a big game, but shows little follow-through of strategic understanding of how to secure America's interest,' Schumer said on Wednesday.
Republican senators say they would like to see the Trump administration make faster progress on trade deals but they caution that trade agreements are complicated and require a lot of time to get done.
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee who has kept in touch with the U.S. Trade Representative and Treasury Department, said he thinks more deals will be announced in the next few weeks.
'There are multiple others that are in process that I know firsthand are in process. So there's work that's going on,' he said.
Lankford, however, acknowledged that many deals won't get wrapped up by August and said there would need to be a 'resolution' to accommodate longer-term talks.
'There has to be a resolution to try to figure out how long the rest of them are going to take,' he said of trade deals that don't get put together this month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Amex earnings: What credit card cos. reveal about the US consumer
American Express (AXP) posted second quarter results that topped Wall Street estimates on both the top and bottom lines. Yahoo Finance Executive Editor Brian Sozzi speaks with Washington Crossing Advisors senior portfolio manager Chad Morganlander and Yahoo Finance Senior Reporters Allie Canal and Ines Ferré about the results, what they reveal about the consumers, and how things like stablecoins could be an opportunity for credit card companies. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Opening Bid here. AmEx smash second-quarter earnings estimates by 21 cents this morning. Sales and earnings excluding one-time items rose a healthy 9% and 17%, respectively. Company said it saw record card member spending in the quarter. AmEx made no change to its full-year sales and profit outlooks despite the second-quarter upside. American Express CEO Stephen Squeri told me by phone, quote, I think people just want to live their lives, and that's what they're doing. I mean, you're seeing a little less air travel, obviously, but people are still spending and they are still traveling. Chad, yes, people are still living their lives. So what's the, what's the playoff that? Because I, I still think the American Express growth story has not been appreciated by the market. If you want to go elsewhere and you believe in the consumer, where else can you go? Well, you can go towards Visa as well, although there's concern and a little bit of overhang concerns about stablecoin, we believe that Visa is another direct play on the consumer. Uh, we believe that over the long run, you could see growth rates of 8 to 12% on the top line for American Express and for Visa. The consumer is being, has been very resilient. Our expectation is that when you get into two, 2026, uh, after you get through this tariff concern, that you'll see strong labor market, you'll see GDP growth led by productivity as well as business investment that will elevate GDP growth and earnings per share for Visa and American Express. Ali, uh, the, I'm living my best life trade, it includes Netflix. Because the reality is I'm going to go home on Friday, I'm watching Netflix, I'm not going anywhere, and all that makes me very happy. Oh yeah, I can't wait to do that later today, Brian. But throughout this whole week of earnings, it's been very interesting to look at two different camps of the consumers. We heard from American Express, a lot of these big banks, that the consumer is resilient, that they're doing fine. But there's a juxtaposition there. There's the high-income earners, the stock market investors, and then there's those that are still struggling with inflation. And you can see that in some of these earnings reports. We saw Pepsi in the middle of its turnaround plan. They have seen and lowered guidance for consumers pulling back on some of that spending. If you look at on a sector basis, consumer discretionary is one of the worst performing sectors in the S&P 500. And even a company like Netflix performed very well, but their ads business is really the growth driver here, one of the cheapest plans on the market. So what does that tell you? Is that has been a theme that has been emerging and percolating in my brain. So we'll see what we continue to hear from these companies as earning season levels out. But, but that's a focus of mine, the high-income consumer versus the low-income consumer, and at what point do the two need to start to merge before we start to see some cracks there in the economy. Good point is uh, I think you would dig this one. Uh, Squeri telling me that he is open to more stablecoin stuff. Now they recently signed a deal, I believe with Coinbase, but it's not just AmEx having interest in a stablecoin, you have what uh, I think Visa is also in the space, too, in some capacity. Visa, you have uh, Shopify also, look, you've got so many now, uh, companies that are in this stablecoin space, and it'll be interesting to see how this shapes out. As far as payments are concerned, if there will be mass adoption across a payment space, uh, cross-border remittances, that will be, that will be something that is very bullish for the industry as well, that analysts are looking at as far as, uh, the market's concerned with stablecoins. Um, the fact that you have though this genius act that passed, this is significant overall, uh, and this also gives, uh, short-term treasury bills a big buyer here. And these stablecoin issuers, which are buyers of these short-term treasury bills, this is why the street is so bullish on this as well, because they're saying the government will want to play nicely with the stablecoin industry. It's their buyer. Related Videos Why the AI stock bubble may be just getting started Charles Schwab Q2 beat, Union Pacific & Norfolk reports, Sarepta The odds of Trump firing Powell are 'quite low,' perhaps 'zero' Netflix stock slips despite Q2 beat: How valuation factors in Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why it's so challenging for Trump to fire Powell
A firing of Jerome Powell by President Trump would likely open up a legal war never before seen in the US, without any guarantee of a courtroom victory for the White House. That may be why Trump hasn't done so. Yet. Powell has made his intentions clear. He said earlier this year that he wouldn't leave if Trump tried to fire him and that his removal is 'not permitted by law.' Fed officials privately have been preparing for a legal battle as far back as Trump's first term, when the president also toyed with removing the chair, according to the Wall Street Journal. The strength of Powell's case is based on some protections of Fed autonomy already embedded in US statute. The Federal Reserve Act, which created the central bank in 1913 and was amended in 1935, states that each member of the Fed board shall hold office for 14 years "unless sooner removed for cause by the President." The intention of the "for cause" condition was to enhance the Fed's independence by making it more difficult for a president to fire its board members, who are appointed by the president. There are also signs that the Supreme Court would step in if Trump were to act, although the high court's views on the topic are unclear. In an ambiguous ruling earlier this year, Supreme Court justices allowed Trump to temporarily proceed with the firings of board members at two other independent agencies. In granting the administration's request, the court said that in its judgment, the government "is likely to show" that the fired board members exercised "considerable executive power," a view that suggests the president possesses broader power to remove the officials at will. Read more: How much control does the president have over the Fed and interest rates? Legal challenges from those board members are still playing out at an appeals court. But Powell got a good sign Thursday when a Washington, D.C., district court judge ruled that another Trump firing of FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter was illegal and that she should be reappointed. The judge cited a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent that limits the power of the president to dismiss independent agency board members except in cases of neglect or malfeasance. That precedent offers Powell a layer of protection. It was set in a 1935 case titled Humphrey's Executor v. US that challenged President Franklin Roosevelt's termination of the US Federal Trade Commissioner. The court held that the president's authority to terminate agency officials at will was limited to purely executive officers, and not those leading independent agencies that engage in regulation and adjudication. Congress, the court said, had power to limit the president's removal power over those officials "for cause" — then described that term to mean inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. Trump is challenging whether that precedent applies across various independent agencies, but the Supreme Court has not yet made a definitive ruling on whether it should stand. If the precedent falls and leaves no explicit protection for the central bank, a Powell firing could certainly be a lot easier to pull off. 'For cause' Powell does have one major vulnerability, however. That 'for cause' language embedded in the Federal Reserve Act hasn't really been defined or tested in court. The statute also doesn't have any language that specifically addresses the chair of the Board of Governors. And the White House has been using a new line of attack against Powell that could offer a path to a 'for cause' dismissal, as the president and his allies raise concerns about a $2.5 billion renovation of the central bank's headquarters. "I mean it's possible there's fraud involved with the $2.5 billion renovation," Trump told reporters on Wednesday, after saying earlier that the project "sort of is" a fireable offense. He said he wasn't planning to fire Powell but also left the door open, saying, "I don't rule out anything, but I think it's highly unlikely, unless he has to leave for fraud.' National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett — one of Powell's potential successors — said last Sunday on ABC News's "This Week" that whether the president has the legal authority to fire Powell before his term is up next May "is being looked into" and that "certainly, if there's cause, he does." But he also acknowledged it was a 'highly uncertain legal matter.' Politico reported that outside lawyers told the White House counsel's office it would likely lose a legal fight with Powell if Trump removed Powell solely over accusations that he mishandled renovations and that White House officials were also unsure whether it would work. Politico quoted one official who said, 'Whether or not it's illegal, I don't know. But is it a good thing to point out to damage this guy's image? Yeah.' The White House is certainly showing no signs of letting up on its pressure. They are seeking a site visit to see the Fed's renovations in person. Powell has asked the Fed's inspector general to review the costs involved. He also sent White House budget director Russ Vought a letter Thursday offering a point-by-point rebuttal of questions raised about the project and denying reports of a VIP elevator and VIP dining rooms. "We take seriously the responsibility to be good stewards of public resources," he said, and "we have taken great care to ensure the project is carefully overseen.' Case Western Reserve University business law professor Eric Chaffee said he thinks Powell would win any legal battle with the White House on the 'for cause' clause, but he doesn't think such a confrontation will come to pass given that Powell only has 10 months left as chair. "We're just so close to the end of the term that I think the Trump administration is very likely just to wait things out,' he said. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's 50-day Ukraine ultimatum is doomed to fail
President Trump campaigned on a promise to end the Ukraine war within 2 4 hours of returning to the White House. Now back in the White House, he finds himself hemmed in by the realities of great-power politics. Trump's self-confidence has collided with the entrenched dynamics of a grinding conflict. Frustrated, he has turned to familiar tools of coercion: threats, pressure tactics and a new flow of advanced weapons to Kyiv. Trump's latest initiative gives Moscow a 50-day deadline to end its war in Ukraine. He has threatened secondary sanctions on Russia's key trading partners and opened a fresh weapons pipeline to Kyiv, hoping this twin-pronged approach will force Russian President Vladimir Putin's hand. But like Trump's earlier attempts to employ brute pressure as a substitute for diplomacy, this initiative reflects impatience more than strategic clarity. Trump once believed that his personal rapport with Putin, coupled with a dealmaker's instinct, could bring about a ceasefire. But six months into his new term, his peace push lies in tatters. Russia continues to press its territorial ambitions, while Ukraine, bolstered by Western military support, shows little interest in making major concessions. Instead of a breakthrough, Trump faces a deepening quagmire. The irony is unmistakable — the president who pledged to end America's entanglements in ' forever wars ' is now escalating U.S. involvement in one that is deflecting American attention away from more-pressing strategic challenges, including from China, which is seeking to supplant the U.S. as the world's foremost power. Trump's new Ukraine strategy bears an eerie resemblance to his Iran policy, when he tried to bomb Tehran into submission, only to end up entrenching animosities further and weakening U.S. leverage. There is no doubt that ending the war in Ukraine is in America's strategic interest. The conflict has absorbed vast U.S. resources, diverted diplomatic bandwidth and strained transatlantic cohesion. More importantly, the war has delayed Washington's ability to focus on the key Indo-Pacific region — the world's emerging economic and geopolitical nerve center. The pivot to the Indo-Pacific is not merely aspirational. A leaked memorandum titled 'Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance,' signed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, identifies China as the Pentagon's 'sole pacing threat.' The Trump administration is seeking to reorient the U.S. military posture to prepare for a potential showdown in Asia over Chinese aggression against democratic Taiwan. The war in Ukraine, by draining American attention, resources and capabilities, undermines this rebalancing. Seen from this angle, Trump is right to seek an end to the conflict. But his approach — escalating arms transfers while threatening punitive sanctions on countries that do business with Russia — is unlikely to yield peace. If anything, it risks prolonging the war by reinforcing the belief in Kyiv that Washington remains committed to a military solution. In fact, Trump's threat to impose harsh penalties on Russia's trading partners lacks credibility. Such sanctions would trigger a U.S. showdown with China, which trades nearly $250 billion annually with Russia, including major oil and gas imports. Sanctioning India could upend America's Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at maintaining a stable balance of power. History offers little support for the notion that coercion alone can deliver durable peace. Military pressure may bring parties to the table, but diplomacy is what cements outcomes. The Dayton Accords, which ended the Bosnian war, and the Camp David Accords, which brought peace between Egypt and Israel, were both products of tough negotiations rather than deadlines and threats. Trump's maximalist tactics risk backfiring on multiple fronts. Sanctioning Russia's trading partners could alienate crucial 'swing' nations in the global contest with China. These states are already wary of U.S. unilateralism, and some of them could be pushed into Beijing's orbit. Moreover, punitive economic measures often fail to change state behavior, especially when national security interests are at stake, as is the case for Russia in Ukraine. Meanwhile, a flood of advanced new U.S. weapons to Ukraine may boost short-term battlefield performance but will do little to bridge the wider diplomatic impasse. Putin, faced with increased Western backing for Kyiv, is unlikely to scale back his goals. Instead, he may double down, calculating that time and attrition are on his side. The real path to peace in Ukraine lies not in deadlines or ultimatums, but in a forward-looking diplomatic initiative that recognizes the legitimate interests of all parties while seeking to uphold Ukraine's sovereignty. The Biden administration made limited overtures in this direction, but Trump, who claims to be a great dealmaker, has an opportunity to go further. Instead of trying to impose peace through pressure alone, he must find ways to bring both sides to the table — with credible inducements and face-saving compromises. This will require working with international partners — not just NATO allies, but also influential neutral states like India and the United Arab Emirates that can serve as mediators. It will also require a nuanced understanding of Russia's domestic political constraints and Ukraine's security concerns. None of this is easy, but it is more likely to succeed than a strategy built on coercion and deadlines. Despite promising to end the war quickly, Trump now finds himself caught in the same bind as his predecessor. His failure to secure a ceasefire has deepened America's involvement in the war — the very entanglement he vowed to end. Unless he pivots toward a more diplomatic course, his 50-day ultimatum to Moscow will go the way of his 24-hour pledge: unmet and quietly shelved. Deadlines don't make peace. Diplomacy does.
