Tariff deals could be wrapped up by Labor Day, Bessent says as talks pick up
June 27 (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Friday the Trump administration's various trade deals with other countries could be done by the Sept. 1 Labor Day holiday, citing talks with 18 main U.S. trading partners and new revisions to a deal with China aimed at expediting rare earths shipments.
After a week where tariffs took a back seat to the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and the massive tax and spending bill in Congress, the Trump administration's trade negotiations have picked up. The United States sent a new proposal to the European Union on Thursday and India sent a delegation to Washington for more talks.
"So we have countries approaching us with very good deals," Bessent said on Fox Business Network.
"We have 18 important trading partners. ... If we can ink 10 or 12 of the important 18, there are another important 20 relationships, then I think we could have trade wrapped up by Labor Day," Bessent said.
He did not mention any changes to a July 9 deadline for countries to reach deals with the United States or see tariffs spike higher, but has previously said that countries negotiating in good faith could get deals.
But President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House that he could extend the tariff deadline or "make it shorter," adding that within the next week and a half, he would notify countries of their tariff rates.
"I'd like to just send letters out to everybody: Congratulations. You're paying 25%" tariffs.
Bessent said the United States and China had resolved issues surrounding shipments of Chinese rare earth minerals and magnets to the U.S., further modifying a deal reached in May in Geneva.
As part of its retaliation against new U.S. tariffs, China suspended exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets, upending supply chains central to automakers, aerospace manufacturers, semiconductor companies and military contractors around the world.
During U.S.-China talks in May in Geneva, Beijing committed to removing the measures imposed since April 2, but those critical materials were not moving as fast as agreed, Bessent said, so the U.S. put countermeasures in place.
"I am confident now that we -- as agreed, the magnets will flow," Bessent said, adding that these materials would go to U.S. firms that had received them previously on a regular basis. He did not disclose details of the latest agreement, which Trump administration officials said was reached earlier this week.
Efforts to resolve the dispute included a phone call between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping which led to teams from both sides meeting again in London, as negotiators try to end a trade war between the world's biggest economies.
China's commerce ministry said on Friday the two countries have confirmed details on the framework of implementing the Geneva trade talks consensus. It said China will approve export applications of controlled items in accordance with the law. It did not mention rare earths.
China has dual-use restrictions in place on rare earths which it takes "very seriously" and has been vetting buyers to ensure that materials are not diverted for U.S. military uses, according to an industry source. This has slowed down the licensing process.
The Geneva deal faltered over China's curbs on critical minerals exports, prompting the Trump administration to respond with export controls of its own preventing shipments of semiconductor design software, ethane, engines for Chinese-made aircraft and other goods to China.
The U.S.-China negotiations have yet to delve into the Trump administration's core complaints about China's state-led, export-driven economic model with just over six weeks to go before the Geneva tariff truce expires on Aug. 10.
News of the latest revision to the China deal comes as Trump has a meeting scheduled Friday with the foreign ministers of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, two African nations that are rich in critical minerals.
Indian government sources told Reuters that a trade delegation from New Delhi was back in Washington on Friday aiming to sew up a limited U.S. trade deal ahead of the July 9 deadline.
Trump administration officials frequently count India among countries with which trade talks are at an advanced stage, along with Japan. But early optimism about a simple deal to reduce India's high tariffs has hit roadblocks over disagreements on U.S. import duties for auto parts steel and farm goods, Indian officials with direct knowledge said.
The U.S. Trade Representative's office did not immediately respond to queries on talks with India or the European Union.
Trump said that his administration was looking to get a "full trade barrier dropping" deal with India.
"I'm not sure that that's going to happen, but as of this moment, we've agreed to that -- go into India and trade," Trump said.
The latest negotiating activity comes amid signs on Friday that uncertainty over Trump's tariffs is starting to take a toll on the economy. U.S. consumer spending unexpectedly fell in May as the boost from the pre-emptive buying of goods like motor vehicles ahead of Trump's tariffs faded, while monthly inflation maintained a moderate pace of increase.
But Wall Street investors took the consumer spending data as another sign that the Federal Reserve may resume rate cuts in July, sending stock indexes back to record highs.
Bessent's more optimistic tone on trade also helped shares, and an influential Wall Street economist who had been a skeptic of Trump's tariffs appeared to reverse course.
Torsten Slok, chief economist at Apollo Global Management, asked in a blog, opens new tab: "Has Trump outsmarted everyone on tariffs?"
Slok said that extending the deadline by a year would give countries and U.S. domestic businesses time to adjust to the new world with permanently higher tariffs while reducing uncertainty, which would help markets.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
18 minutes ago
- ITV News
'Very wealthy group of people' poised to buy TikTok, Trump says
US President Donald Trump has said a "very wealthy group of people" have agreed to buy social media app TikTok from its Chinese owners. Hinting at a deal which could safeguard the future of the app, Trump said specific details on the buyer will be revealed in two weeks and offered little further detail. He said: 'We have a buyer for TikTok, by the way. I think I'll need, probably, China approval, and I think President Xi will probably do it.' Earlier in June, Trump signed an executive order to keep TikTok running in the US for a further 90 days, while his administration worked to make a deal to bring the app under American ownership. It marked the third deadline extension, and came after the Supreme Court upheld a law banning TikTok in January - causing the platform to breifly go dark. TikTok is owned by Bytedance, and boasts around 170 million users in the US. The Supreme Court said the ban was necessary to deal with the "well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok's data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary'. The US is concerned vast swathes of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits could be obtained by the Chinese government. Officials have also warned the algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that's difficult to detect. TikTok, which sued the government last year over the law, has long denied it could be used as a tool of Beijing.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Lisa Murkowski's new book details centrist senator's clash with Trump, dismay at supreme court
Lisa Murkowski is Alaska's four-term senator, first appointed in 2002 by Frank Murkowski, her father and the state's governor. An avowed moderate Republican, she entertains the possibility of caucusing with the Democrats if the Senate emerges deadlocked from next year's midterms. Her relationship with Donald Trump is fraught. In 2016, she voted for the former Ohio governor John Kasich. In Far From Home, her first book, she writes: 'One of my simple rules … has been to withhold my vote from any candidate of bad character, regardless of the politics.' Trump … failed the test. In office, Murkowski clashed with him over the attempted repeal of the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare, and the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court. Trump trashed her (to Don Young, then Alaska's congressman) as 'that bitch Murkowski'. Young and Murkowski were allies. It made no difference to the president. At Trump's second impeachment trial, Murkowski voted to convict. Out of office, he attempted to doom her 2022 re-election – and failed. Still, of the seven Republican senators who voted to convict, only Murkowski, Susan Collins of Maine and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana remain in Congress. Subtitled An Alaskan Senator Faces the Extreme Climate of Washington, Murkowski's memoir sheds light on her life, family and career, brimming with anecdotes and grudges. Well-paced and informative, with an assist from Charles Wohlforth, a seasoned Alaska writer and politico, the book offers a window into Murkowski's mind. 'I call myself a Republican because of the values I hold, such as personal responsibility, small government, a strong national defense, and the individual's right to make her own choices,' she writes. Along with Collins, she is the last of that tribe. The geographic and ideological centers of the GOP reside in the Rust belt and the south, not in New England and Alaska. Murkowski is wary of populism and shows little respect for Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who was the Republican nominee for vice-president in 2008. Two consecutive sentences sum up her take. 'Sarah Palin didn't know she was helping start a movement – she was just being Sarah Palin – but she became the prototype for Donald Trump, the showman without principle,' Murkowski observes, acidly. 'And he took populism much further, partly because he didn't need a script.' Murkowski viewed Palin as both lazy and a dim bulb, unfit for higher office. 'I would have warned John McCain about selecting her as his vice-presidential running mate if I had given any credence to the rumors that he was considering Palin,' Murkowski writes. 'I did not, because I thought the idea was preposterous.' Palin failed to complete her term as governor, resigning in summer 2009, as she faced ethics investigations and growing legal bills. More recently, she has lost in two attempts to sue the New York Times for defamation. In 2010, Murkowski lost the Republican primary but won in November as a write-in. After the initial loss, Joe Biden, then vice-president, called to console her. 'Goddamn it, what were those people thinking?' he said. Murkowski devotes considerable space to the Kavanaugh confirmation, the #MeToo movement and sexual assault. She discloses for the first time how as a second-grader, walking alone in a forest, she was abused by a relative of a neighbor. 'I was terrified,' she writes. 'He said if I ever told anyone what happened, I would get in horrible trouble for being bad. I believed him. I never told anyone, not even my sisters. I was ashamed as well as afraid.' Murkowski is pro-choice. Kavanaugh signed the majority opinion and wrote a concurrence in Dobbs, the decision that overturned Roe v Wade and gutted the federal right to abortion. She accuses him of bad faith. 'Kavanaugh had emphasized the strength of precedent over and over, in formal and colloquial language, in a way that could hardly be interpreted any other way than as saying Roe should not be overturned,' Murkowski says. 'More than being angry, I was discouraged. I had believed that the court would keep Americans' trust as an institution, as we needed it to do.' Only 44% of the US views the supreme court favorably. Only one-fifth agree that the court is politically neutral – 58% disagree. Murkowski also dives into religion. A Georgetown University graduate and a practicing Catholic, she addresses the role of faith in public life, particularly given her support for Roe. It wasn't simple. 'In my own life, harsh voices declared I was not a good enough version of who I am – a Catholic unworthy of Communion, a Republican in name only … not even a real Alaskan,' Murkowski writes. At church, a parishioner handed out anti-abortion leaflets critical of Murkowski. Her family, including her son Nic, then 13, were offended. Church leaders offered reassurance but tension took its toll. 'My relationship to the church has suffered,' she writes. Murkowski counts former centrist senators – Joe Manchin, Mitt Romney and Kyrsten Sinema – as friends. Manchin and Romney (and Christine Todd Whitman, a former Republican New Jersey governor) provide blurbs for her book jacket. As senators, Manchin, Sinema and Romney voted to convict Trump and bar him from office. Manchin and Sinema later left the Democratic party, to become independents. Might Murkowski follow their path? She laments the stridency exacted by hyper-partisanship. 'The parties demand conformity, and their loudest voices are also their most extreme and uncompromising,' she complains. 'As holdouts for bipartisanship, those of us building consensus brought abuse on ourselves. Now all three of these smart, honorable, productive colleagues have retired from the Senate.' Trump is back in the White House. Murkowski remains in the Senate. She has criticized him over Ukraine and expressed doubts about Medicaid cuts in the 'big, beautiful bill'. Both their terms expire in 2028. Trump is constitutionally barred from seeking re-election. Murkowski is not. Far From Home is published in the US by Penguin Random House
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
To fight Trump's funding freezes, states propose a new gambit: Withholding federal payments
Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against President Donald Trump's efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine. The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure. These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections. 'Trump is illegally withholding funds that have been previously approved,' said David Moon, the Democratic majority leader in Maryland's House of Delegates. 'Without these funds, we are going to see Maryland residents severely harmed — we needed more options on the table for how Maryland could respond and protect its residents.' Moon said the two bills are in response to various Trump actions that have withheld federal funding for programs that pay to assist with children's mental health and flood wall protections. He compared the bills he's introduced to traditional 'collections' actions that one would take against a 'deadbeat debtor.' Even if they were not to move forward, Moon said the bills would help to bring about an audit and accounting of federal money to the state. Early in his second term, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency unilaterally froze billions of dollars in funding for programs that states rely on. He's also threatened to withhold federal funding from states that implement policies he politically disagrees with, including 'sanctuary' policies for undocumented immigrants, though some such freezes have been halted by courts. A Trump White House spokesperson didn't respond to questions for this story. Wisconsin state Rep. Renuka Mayadev, a Democrat, introduced two near-identical bills that she said would seek to compel the federal government to release money it has withheld that had previously been paying for Department of Agriculture programs that help farmers, and for child care centers that mostly serve low-income families. 'We've seen the Trump administration is willfully breaking the law by holding back federal funds to which Wisconsinites are legally entitled. So these bills are really about providing for a legal remedy and protecting Wisconsinites,' she said. In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress. Payments available for withholding include the federal taxes collected from the paychecks of state employees, as well as grant payments owed back to the federal government. In Wisconsin, the bills are unlikely to move forward because Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature. But the trajectory of the bills in Maryland, New York and Connecticut — where Democrats control the legislatures and governorships — is an open question. The same is true in Washington, where Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce similar bills next session. 'It's a novel concept,' said Washington state Sen. Manka Dhingra. 'I don't think states have ever been in this position before … where there's someone making arbitrary decisions on what to provide funding for and what not to provide funding for, contrary to current rules and laws and congressional allocation of funds.' Legal experts have raised substantial questions about the hurdles such bills would face if they were enacted. For one, they said, the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause clearly gives the federal government precedence over states, which could complicate legal arguments defending such laws — even though it remains an open legal question whether the executive branch has the power to single-handedly control funding. More immediate practical obstacles, they explained, stem from the fact that there's vastly more money flowing from the federal government to the states than the other way around. 'So withholding state payments to the federal government, even if there were no other obstacles, isn't likely to change very much,' said David Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in administrative and constitutional law. Super added that states withholding money could potentially further worsen the status of programs affected by federal cuts. 'There's also the potential that some of the money going to the federal government has to be paid as a condition for the state receiving one or another kind of benefit for itself or for its people,' he said. 'The federal government could say, 'You didn't make this payment, therefore you're out of this program completely.'' But that doesn't mean states, working in the current hostile political environment, shouldn't try, said Jon Michaels, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in the separation of powers and presidential power. 'Where can you try to claw back money in different ways? Not because it's going to make a huge material difference for the state treasury or for the people of the state, but just to essentially show the federal government like, 'Hey, we know what you're doing and we don't like it,'' he said. 'States need to be enterprising and creative and somewhat feisty in figuring out their own scope of authority and the ways in which they can challenge the law.' But another potential drawback is one foreseen by the Democratic lawmakers themselves: further retribution from Trump. 'We would all be foolish to not acknowledge that the feds hold more cards than states do with respect to the budget,' said Moon, the Maryland legislator. 'There's certainly a risk of retaliation by the White House.'
