U.S. suspends nuclear equipment supplier licenses to China amid trade war
The impact of a recent phone call between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping on these suspensions remains unclear.
On May 12, the U.S. and China had agreed to roll back triple-digit, tit-for-tat tariffs for 90 days. However, the truce between the world's two biggest economies quickly deteriorated. The U.S. claimed that China reneged on terms related to rare earth elements, while China accused the U.S. of "abusing export control measures" by stating that using Huawei Ascend AI chips anywhere in the world violated U.S. export controls.
Despite the current tensions, further talks on key issues were expected after the call between the two presidents.
Related articles
U.S. suspends nuclear equipment supplier licenses to China amid trade war
Trump discusses Ukraine war, Iran with Putin
Musk calls Trump's big beautiful bill "pork-filled"
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
a minute ago
- Boston Globe
Russia kills 21 civilians in Ukraine as the Kremlin remains defiant over Trump threats
Trump said Monday he is giving Russian President Vladimir Putin 10 to 12 days to stop the killing in Ukraine after three years of war, moving up a 50-day deadline he had given the Russian leader two weeks ago. The move meant Trump wants peace efforts to make progress by Aug. 7-9. Advertisement Trump has repeatedly rebuked Putin for talking about ending the war but continuing to bombard Ukrainian civilians. But the Kremlin hasn't changed its tactics. 'I'm disappointed in President Putin,' Trump said during a visit to Scotland. The Kremlin pushed back, however, with a top Putin lieutenant warned Trump against 'playing the ultimatum game with Russia.' 'Russia isn't Israel or even Iran,' former president Dmitry Medvedev, who is deputy head of the country's Security Council, wrote on social platform X. 'Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country,' Medvedev said. Since Russia's full-scale invasion of its neighbor, the Kremlin has warned Kyiv's Western backers that their involvement could end up broadening the war to NATO countries. Advertisement 'Kremlin officials continue to frame Russia as in direct geopolitical confrontation with the West in order to generate domestic support for the war in Ukraine and future Russian aggression against NATO,' the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank, said late Monday. The Ukrainian air force said Russia launched two Iskander-M ballistic missiles along with 37 Shahed-type strike drones and decoys at Ukraine overnight. They say 32 Shahed drones were intercepted or neutralized by Ukrainian air defenses. The Russian attack close to midnight Monday hit the Bilenkivska Correctional Facility with four guided aerial bombs, according to the State Criminal Executive Service of Ukraine. At least 42 inmates were hospitalized with serious injuries, while another 40 people, including one staff member, sustained various injuries. The strike destroyed the prison's dining hall, damaged administrative and quarantine buildings, but the perimeter fence held and no escapes were reported, authorities said. Ukrainian officials condemned the attack, saying that targeting civilian infrastructure, such as prisons, is a war crime under international conventions. In Dnipro, missiles hit the city of Kamianske, partially destroying a three-story building and damaging nearby medical facilities including a maternity hospital and a city hospital ward. Two people were killed and five were wounded, including a pregnant woman who is now in a serious condition, according to regional head Serhii Lysak. Further Russian attacks hit communities in Synelnykivskyi district with FPV drones and aerial bombs, killing at least one person and injuring two others. According to Lysak, Russian forces also targeted the community of Velykomykhailivska, killing a 75-year-old woman and injuring a 68-year-old man.
NBC News
2 minutes ago
- NBC News
'Worst-case scenario of famine' unfolding in Gaza under Israel's offensive, IPC says
The "worst-case scenario of famine" is unfolding in the Gaza Strip under Israel's deadly offensive, the world's leading body on hunger said Tuesday. "Mounting evidence shows that widespread starvation, malnutrition, and disease are driving a rise in hunger-related deaths," the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, or IPC, said in an alert. The alert comes as deaths from starvation in the enclave continue to rise amid a spiraling hunger crisis spurred by Israel's military offensive and crippling aid restrictions. President Donald Trump on Monday echoed mounting global alarm at the situation, which he said amounted to 'real starvation' — a break with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 'Immediate action must be taken to end the hostilities and allow for unimpeded, large-scale, life-saving humanitarian response,' the IPC said. 'This is the only path to stopping further deaths and catastrophic human suffering.' The IPC emphasized that its warning constituted an alert and was not a "famine classification." While the IPC considers itself the 'primary mechanism' used by the international community to conclude whether a famine is happening or projected, it typically doesn't make such a designation itself. But it said on Tuesday that with new information made available, a new IPC analysis had to be conducted 'without delay.' The report marked the most dire warning yet from the IPC on the hunger crisis unfolding in Gaza. Its findings come after weeks of warnings from humanitarian groups and health workers on the ground of starvation spreading in the enclave, with NBC News' crew witnessing parents grieving over the bodies of their malnourished babies, and frail children clinging to life as they receive hospital care. Global outrage has reached a crescendo over the spiraling humanitarian situation, with Israel accused of causing a manmade crisis after allowing only a basic amount of aid into the enclave for weeks since lifting a crippling blockade in May that barred the entry of food and other vital supplies into the territory. The World Food Programme warned Monday that a third of the population in the enclave was 'not eating for days,' with some 470,000 people enduring 'famine-like conditions' and around 90,000 women and children in need of 'urgent nutrition treatment.' Meanwhile, more than 1,000 people have been killed in recent weeks by Israeli forces during desperate attempts to reach what limited aid is being distributed in Gaza, according to the Palestinian health ministry in the enclave, largely under a widely condemned new distribution system led by the U.S. and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. In the face of mounting condemnation, the Israeli military began limited pauses in fighting over the weekend in three populated areas of Gaza for 10 hours a day to allow the entry and distribution of aid in the enclave by humanitarian groups — but aid organizations have warned the trickle of aid allowed in so far was not enough to stave off famine in the enclave. The health ministry in Gaza said Monday that nearly 150 people in Gaza had died from malnutrition since the war began, including at least 88 children. The total number of people been killed in Gaza since the war began has almost reached 60,000, including thousands of children, according to the health ministry. Israel launched its offensive in Gaza following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attacks in which some 1,200 people were killed and around 250 taken hostage, marking a major escalation in a decadeslong conflict. Since then, Israel has faced mounting allegations of genocide over its assault on Gaza, including in an ongoing case brought by South Africa before the International Court of Justice. On Monday, two prominent Israeli rights groups, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, echoed the allegation, concluding that their country was committing genocide.
CNN
2 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Supreme Court shows unflinching regard for Trump
Supreme Court Donald Trump Supreme Court justicesFacebookTweetLink Follow Ever since Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Donald Trump at the US Capitol January 20 – with the eight other Supreme Court justices looking on – the question has been whether they would restrain a president who vowed to upend the constitutional order. The answer, a half-year later, is no. That was underscored this month by the court's decisions allowing Trump to fire another set of independent regulators, to dismantle the Department of Education and to deport migrants to dangerous countries where they have no citizenship or connection. Meanwhile, the fissures among the nine have deepened. They have condemned each other in written opinions and revealed the personal strains in public appearances. The conservative majority that controls the court has repeatedly undercut the US district court judges on the front lines who've held hearings, discerned the facts, and issued orders to check Trump actions. In the most significant case so far related to Trump's second term, touching on birthright citizenship, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointedly addressed the role of lower court judges, saying they have a limited ability to block arguably unconstitutional moves. '(F)ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,' Barrett wrote for the conservative majority as it reversed a series of lower court decisions. 'When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' Dissenting in that late June case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the majority had essentially 'shoved lower court judges out of the way.' More recently, last Wednesday, the conservative majority overrode US district and appellate court judges to let Trump fire Biden-appointed members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission who'd been confirmed by the Senate and were still serving their terms. To justify the action, the conservative majority referred to an earlier action in May letting Trump remove members of two independent entities that protect private employees and federal workers, respectively, the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board. Neither in the earlier case nor the new one centered on the commission that shields consumers from hazardous products did the majority acknowledge that a 1935 precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, had protected such independent board members from being fired without legitimate reason such as misconduct. As lower court judges have noted, the justices have never reversed Humphrey's Executor, leaving it as a precedent that judges – at least those below the nine justices – must follow. Without formally taking up the issue, calling for briefing and holding arguments, the high court is nonetheless signaling a new course – obliquely. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the Supreme Court said in its unsigned order on July 23. 'The stay we issued in (the May case) reflected 'our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.'' The message: They did it before, they can do it again. Referring to the consequences, dissenting Justice Elena Kagan wrote, 'By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another.' The high court similarly brushed aside lower court determinations when it ruled on July 14 against states and labor unions that had sued the Department of Education for its actions to dissolve the agency. The majority declined to offer any hint of its rationale. However, the dissenting liberal justices in a 19-page opinion picked up lower court judges' emphasis on the history of the agency created by Congress nearly a half-century ago: '(T)he Department plays a vital role in this Nation's education system, safeguarding equal access to learning and channeling billions of dollars to schools and students across the country each year. Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department.' Referring to Education Secretary Linda McMahon's directives removing half the staff and aiming for an eventual shutdown of the department, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, added, 'When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.' The six Republican-appointed conservatives have expressed no dread, offered no warnings that Trump's actions might ever go too far, unlike the Democratic-appointed liberal dissenters. The conservatives, in fact, took pains to avoid any disapproval of Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship – that is, the constitutional guarantee that children born in the US become citizens even if their parents are not – as they clipped lower courts' power to impose nationwide injunctions. That June 27 decision's effect on his proposed lifting of birthright citizenship is still working its way through lower courts. Sotomayor and Jackson have routinely protested in provocative terms. When Sotomayor dissented in a high-profile deportation case earlier this month, she warned that migrants flown out of the US to South Sudan could face torture or death. The two liberals have also referred to the personal costs. Sotomayor said in a May speech that she sometimes returns to her office after a decision is issued, closes her door and weeps. Jackson, who seems most isolated from the rest of the justices, told an audience earlier this month she is kept up at night by 'the state of our democracy.' The conservatives who dominate have directed any angst or anger not toward the executive branch but toward their judicial colleagues. In the birthright citizenship case, Barrett (in the majority) and Jackson (dissenting) traded insults that suggested a lack of mutual respect. 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument,' Barrett wrote, even as she criticized her for choosing 'a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. … Rhetoric aside, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down.' Jackson wrote that the Barrett majority had reduced the case to 'a mind-numbingly technical query.' And Jackson, writing alone, asserted, 'the majority sees a power grab—but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are … (wait for it) … the district courts.' Roberts signed onto all of Barrett's opinion in that late June case. If he and fellow conservatives engage in any special regard or deference, it's not for their lower court colleagues or the liberals with whom they sit. It's for Donald Trump.
