Trump signals possible China visit amid trade, security tensions
U.S. President Donald Trump said Tuesday he may soon travel to China for a high-stakes meeting with President Xi Jinping, aiming to ease escalating trade and security tensions between Washington and Beijing.
'President Xi has invited me to China, and we'll probably be doing that in the not-too-distant future,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'A little bit out, but not too distant.'
While no date has been set, officials on both sides are exploring the possibility of Trump visiting Asia later this year, with a potential meeting taking place around the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea or during its sidelines between Oct. 30 and Nov. 1, according to people familiar with the discussions.
Another possible trip could include a Sept. 3 ceremony in Beijing commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, which Russian President Vladimir Putin also plans to attend.
Meetings between Trump and Xi or Putin would mark the first face-to-face encounters between the leaders since Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20 for his second term in office. The White House and the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry declined to comment on the Reuters report.
Global rivals Trump made the comment about meeting Xi during talks with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., a key Pacific ally whom Trump said he had nudged away from China.
'The country was maybe tilting toward China for a period of time, but we un-tilted it very, very quickly,' Trump said. He added, 'I don't mind if he gets along with China because we're getting along with China very well.'
Marcos, who took office in 2022, has sought U.S. support as his country's maritime disputes with China intensify. Manila has tried to avoid direct confrontation with its larger neighbor, which claims most of the South China Sea as its own territory.
The United States and the Philippines have a seven-decade-old mutual defense treaty, potentially implicating Washington in a clash between China and the Philippines.
Washington views Beijing as its primary strategic rival. Upon taking office, Trump launched a tit-for-tat tariff war with China that disrupted global trade and supply chains.
Other points of friction between the two countries include China's support for Russia, the illicit opioid trade, growing pressure on Taiwan, and exit bans imposed on some American residents.
In recent weeks, Trump has sought to reduce tensions, describing his personal relationship with Xi as healthy.
He has also pushed to impose tariffs on virtually all foreign goodsincluding imports from China and U.S. allies such as the Philippines – arguing it will stimulate domestic manufacturing. Critics say the result will be higher prices for consumers.
Trump has proposed a universal base tariff rate of 10% on all imported goods, with higher rates for certain countries. Imports from China currently face the highest rate at 55%.
He has set a deadline of Aug. 12 for the U.S. and China to reach a durable tariff
agreement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Qatar Tribune
an hour ago
- Qatar Tribune
Clash between European Union and China over green technology escalates
Agencies Brussels As the world races toward a low-carbon future, the geopolitical undercurrents of climate action are becoming increasingly turbulent. Nowhere is this more evident than in the escalating tensions between the European Union and China, where green technology has become both a symbol of cooperation and a flashpoint of conflict. The recent Financial Times article, 'EU and China stand-off over climate action before Xi and von der Leyen meet,' captures this friction, highlighting how the EU's anti-subsidy probe into Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) has provoked a sharp rebuke from Beijing. But beneath the surface of trade disputes lies a deeper story, one that reveals the strategic ambitions of Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to dominate the global green economy while resisting external scrutiny. The EU's investigation into Chinese EV subsidies is not merely a bureaucratic exercise; it is a direct challenge to China's state-led industrial model. For years, Beijing has poured vast subsidies into its clean tech sector, enabling Chinese firms to flood global markets with low-cost solar panels, batteries, and EVs. While this has accelerated the global green transition, it has also raised alarms in Brussels and Washington about unfair competition and strategic dependency. Xi Jinping's government has responded with characteristic defiance. Framing the EU's actions as protectionist and politically motivated, Beijing has warned of retaliatory measures, signalling that it views climate-linked trade disputes as part of a broader Western effort to contain China's rise. This narrative fits neatly into the CCP's domestic messaging, which portrays China as a victim of Western double standards while asserting its right to industrial self-determination. Under Xi, China's green industrial policy is not just about environmental stewardship; it is a pillar of national strategy. The CCP has identified clean technology as a domain where China can leapfrog traditional powers and assert global leadership. This ambition is backed by a sprawling network of state-owned enterprises, subsidies, and regulatory protections that have enabled Chinese firms to dominate key segments of the green supply chain. Rare earths, solar panels, and EV batteries are not just commodities; they are instruments of geopolitical leverage. The EU's dependence on Chinese inputs for its green transition places it in a precarious position. Brussels faces a dilemma: how to enforce fair competition without jeopardizing its own climate goals. Xi's government is acutely aware of this dependency and has not hesitated to exploit it, using export controls and diplomatic pressure to remind Europe of the costs of confrontation. While China has made impressive strides in renewable energy deployment, its climate governance remains tightly controlled by the CCP. Xi's top-down approach to environmental policy, often described as 'authoritarian environmentalism,' prioritizes state control over market mechanisms or civil society engagement. This model allows for rapid mobilization of resources but lacks transparency, accountability, and public participation. Critics argue that this approach enables greenwashing and data manipulation, undermining global trust in China's climate commitments. Moreover, the CCP's suppression of environmental NGOs and independent researchers has stifled domestic scrutiny, making it difficult to assess the true environmental impact of China's industrial policies. In this context, the EU's push for fair competition and regulatory transparency is not just an economic issue; it is a challenge to the CCP's governance model. The EU's decision to launch an anti-subsidy probe marks a turning point in its relationship with China. For years, Brussels pursued a policy of engagement, hoping that economic integration would encourage political convergence. That illusion has faded. The green tech standoff reflects a broader strategic awakening in Europe, where concerns about dependency, coercion, and systemic rivalry are reshaping policy. Yet Europe's position remains constrained by its reliance on Chinese supply chains. The EU's climate ambitions are entangled with its economic vulnerabilities. This interdependence complicates efforts to decouple or diversify, especially in the short term. Xi Jinping understands this dynamic and is likely to use it as a bargaining chip in upcoming negotiations with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Xi's leadership style is defined by calculated brinkmanship, pushing boundaries while avoiding outright rupture. In the climate domain, this means presenting China as an indispensable partner while resisting external pressure for reform. The CCP's strategy is to shape global norms from within, leveraging its market size and technological prowess to dilute Western influence. However, this approach carries risks. If China is perceived as weaponizing green trade or undermining fair competition, it could trigger a backlash that accelerates efforts to diversify supply chains and tighten trade rules. Already, the U.S. and EU are exploring new alliances and regulatory frameworks to counter China's dominance. Xi's challenge is to maintain China's centrality in the green economy without provoking a coalition of resistance. The upcoming meeting between Xi and von der Leyen will be more than a diplomatic formality; it will be a test of whether two interdependent yet adversarial powers can find common ground in the face of mounting tensions. For Xi Jinping and the CCP, the stakes are high. Their vision of green leadership is inseparable from their broader quest for global influence and domestic legitimacy. But if that vision relies on coercion, opacity, and strategic dependency, it may ultimately undermine the very cooperation needed to address the climate crisis. The EU, for its part, must navigate a delicate balance—asserting its values and interests without derailing the green transition. In this high-stakes standoff, the path forward will require not just diplomacy, but a rethinking of how power, policy, and the planet intersect.
Qatar Tribune
an hour ago
- Qatar Tribune
From Laos to Brazil, Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers, but even the winners will pay a price
Agencies President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers – from small, poor countries like Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners like Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty taxes – tariffs – on the products they export to the United States starting Aug. 7. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that caved to Trump's demands — and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run — even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies.'In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. 'The biggest winner is Trump,' said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. 'He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeededdramatically.''Everything goes back to what Trump calls 'Liberation Day'' – April 2 – when the president announced 'reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% 'baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs — all of which is now being challenged in retreated temporarily after his Liberation Day announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually, some of them did, caving to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs for the privilege of continuing to sell into the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States — up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the UK for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low single-digit rates they paid last year — but lower than the tariffs he was threatening (30% on the EU and 25% on Japan). Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt. '20% from the beginning has not been our goal, we hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate,' Taiwan's president Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done that didn't knuckle under — and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath — got hit harder. Even some poorer countries were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 — versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for trying to lose his electoral defeat in 2022. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on longstanding U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax — even higher than the 31% Trump originally announced on April 2. 'The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington'' to make a deal, said Wolff, now senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his Liberation Day tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wend its way through the legal system, and may likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. 'If (the tariffs) get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who try to pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits — or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker, have all hiked prices due to U.S. tariffs 'This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,'' Appleton said. 'Sneakers, knapsacks ... your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934.
Qatar Tribune
an hour ago
- Qatar Tribune
Trump's global tariffs take shape, but consumer impact remains unclear
Agencies American businesses and consumers woke up Friday to find the contours of President Donald Trump's foreign trade agenda taking shape but without much more clarity on how import taxes on goods from dozens of countries would affect them. Late Thursday, Trump ordered new tariff rates for 66 countries, the European Union, Taiwan and the Falkland Islands. Among them: a 40% tariff on imports from Laos, a 39% tariff on goods from Switzerland and a 30% tariff on South African products. Other trade partners, such as Cambodia, had the tax rates on their exports to the U.S. reduced from levels the president had threatened to impose. Trump postponed the start date for all of the tariffs from Friday until Aug. 7. Wendong Zhang, an associate professor in the Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University, said U.S. consumers may be feeling some relief with the tariff rates announced, since many were lower than Trump initially threatened. Indonesia's rate was 19%, for example, down from the 32% Trump announced last spring. But tariffs are a tax, and U.S. consumers are likely to foot at least part of that bill. 'Prices are still going up, they just won't go up as much as in the worst-case scenario,' Zhang said. Companies are dealing with tariffs in various ways. Many automakers appear to be swallowing tariff costs for now. But the world's largest eyewear maker, EssilorLuxottica, said it raised U.S. prices due to tariffs. The maker of Ray-Bans grinds lenses and sunglasses in Mexico, Thailand and China and exports premium frames from Italy. Here's what we know about the tariffs and what their impact will be on U.S. consumers: President Donald Trump unveiled sweeping import taxes on goods coming into the U.S. from nearly every country in April. He said the tariffs were meant to boost domestic manufacturing and restore fairness to global trade. A week later, Trump announced a 90-day pause on the tariffs but did leave in place a 10% tax on most imports. In early July, Trump began sending letters to dozens of countries saying higher tariffs would go into effect Aug. 1 unless they reached trade deals. The administration announced new rates for dozens of countries on Thursday but delayed their implementation until Aug. 7. In the meantime, Trump announced a 35% tariff on imports from Canada would take effect Friday. But Trump delayed action on Mexico and China while negotiations continue. Other duties not specific to countries also remained in place Friday, like a 50% tariff on imported aluminum and steel announced in June. The Trump administration has reached deals with the European Union, Japan and South Korea that put 15% tariffs in place. A deal with the Philippines puts 19% tariffs in place while a deal with Vietnam imposes a 20% levy. On Wednesday, Trump announced a 25% tariff on goods from India and a 50% tariff on goods from Brazil. The U.S. Commerce Department said Thursday that prices rose 2.6% in June, up from an annual pace of 2.4% in May and higher than the Federal Reserve's goal of 2%. Many goods that are heavily imported saw price increases, including furniture, appliances and computers. Zhang, the Cornell economist, said U.S. consumers could see higher prices in the coming months for appliances and other products that contain a large amount of steel and aluminum. Toys, kitchenware, electronics and home goods could also see price spikes. But Zhang said a 15% tariff doesn't mean prices will immediately rise by 15%. Companies were aware of the tariff deadlines and have been trying to stockpile goods and take other measures to mitigate the impacts. Zhang noted that Trump's trade deals often contain specific provisions designed to boost U.S. exports. The agreement with the European Union, for example, calls for European companies to purchase $750 billion worth of natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel from the U.S. over three years. Zhang said semiconductor firms and military contractors could also see bumps in trade. Some U.S. farmers could also see a potential upside, Zhang said. As part of its trade deal, Vietnam agreed to purchase $2 billion in U.S. agricultural products over three years, including corn, wheat and soybeans, according to the International Trade Council. But Zhang cautioned that agricultural agreements tend to be short-lived. Over the longer term, the uncertainty over tariffs could cause countries like China to back away from U.S. agricultural markets and look for other partners, Zhang said. The tariffs will almost certainly result in higher food prices, according to an analysis released this week by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The U.S. simply doesn't make enough of some products, like bananas or coffee, to satisfy demand. Fish, beer and liquor are also likely to see price hikes, the foundation said. Conagra Brands, the maker of Hunt's canned tomatoes, Reddi-wip and other brands, said in July that tariffs – particularly the 50% tax on imported aluminum and steel -- will add $200 million annually to its costs. The company said it's shifting some of its suppliers but also expects to raise prices. Ben Aneff, managing partner at Tribeca Wine Merchants and president of the U.S. Wine Trade Alliance, said that beginning Friday shoppers will see prices rise 20% to 25% at his store and others because of tariffs and the declining value of the dollar. 'Nobody can afford to eat the tariff. It gets passed on,' Aneff said. Aneff said shoppers haven't felt the impact from higher duties until now because distributors and retailers accelerated shipments from France and other European countries earlier in the year. But with the tariff rate bumping to 15%, Aneff expects European wine prices to jump 30% in September. Ninety-seven percent of clothing and shoes sold in the U.S. are imported, primarily from Asia, according to the American Apparel & Footwear Association said. China leads the pack, but companies have been shifting more of their sourcing to Vietnam, Indonesia and India. And prices are already on the rise. Steve Lamar, president and CEO of of the trade group, declined to estimate price increases because he said the situation continues to be in flux. He also said shoppers will see higher costs from tariffs play out in other ways starting this fall. Companies may drop products because they're too expensive or reduce promotions, he said. Matt Priest, president and CEO of the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, estimates prices for shoes are starting to go up for the back-to-school shopping season. He estimates price increases in the 5% to 10% range. Lululemon said in June that price increases will be modest and apply to a small portion of its assortment, while Ralph Lauren said it would be hiking prices for this fall and next spring to offset tariffs. Bjorn Gulden, CEO of Germany-based Athletic wear giant Adidas, told investors Wednesday that the company is reviewing different price increases for products for the U.S. but no decision has been made. 'Tariffs (are) nothing else than a cost,' he said. 'And regardless of what people are saying, you can't just throw a cost away. It's there.'
